Will I say the same things again?

[sky]

Originally Posted by Gem

I don't regard it as according to Buddha's teachings but according to something universally true of the heart. The notion of enlightenment is universal in the sense that truth of nature is true of all beings, making refuge deeply connected to life abiding in its presence. In the definition of 'Buddha' to mean the quality of enlightenment, taking refuge, accepting whatever's true in the universal sense because it is true of you - (and equally true of everyone else).

' I don't regard it as according to Buddha's teachings '


Yes I know you wouldn't Gem but as this is a BUDDHIST section I thought I would use his title.

[sky]

Originally Posted by sky123

' I don't regard it as according to Buddha's teachings '


Yes I know you wouldn't Gem but as this is a BUDDHIST section I thought I would use his title.

I should have said BUDDHISM section rather than Buddhist.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by sky123

' I don't regard it as according to Buddha's teachings '


Yes I know you wouldn't Gem but as this is a BUDDHIST section I thought I would use his title.

I think all people have a sense of goodness that is beyond themselves personally. As an analogy, someone runs into the fire to save an infant even though they get serious burns. Or Mother Theresa worked to the benefit of others without expectation of reward. Everyone sees the value in that 'greater good' because of its virtuous nature.



In near enough every post I have raised refuge, sila, metta and virtue - Buddhist teachings - and spoken of my personal history in meditation retreat. No one has responded to discuss any aspect thereof, but rather, replied to call it 'fabrication', make accusation, abnormalised it as strange, and expressed disdain in speaking with me particularly. What has any of that got to with Buddha's teachings? (That's rhetorical).

The nature of this thread is practice, to mean what you say and walk the talk, and even though there are teachings external to us, the essence of this is within. There is difference between being true to yourself and being true to the teachings, because sincerity, compassion, metta, love and kindness etc. are real and lived, and words to that effect have to be truthfully meant in the sense that it is actually true of you.

And were back to how Gem is misunderstood, attacked and his words twisted.
You've chosen the title of this thread very well.
Also your memory is very short. You've had many long-ish debates about what you said, how it was to be understood and why it is Buddhism in action.


People have taken the time to ask. to question and to formulate very insightful answers and observations.


I fear the fact you keep regurgitating the same old message who some just don't agree with on your terms is a message to you. But you don't have to take my word for it..


I think there are some nuns out there that have a different understanding of the goodness of mother Theresa.


With Love ( True of me, even if you don't belief me)
Eelco

[sky]

Originally Posted by Eelco

And were back to how Gem is misunderstood, attacked and his words twisted.
You've chosen the title of this thread very well.
Also your memory is very short. You've had many long-ish debates about what you said, how it was to be understood and why it is Buddhism in action.


People have taken the time to ask. to question and to formulate very insightful answers and observations.


I fear the fact you keep regurgitating the same old message who some just don't agree with on your terms is a message to you. But you don't have to take my word for it..


I think there are some nuns out there that have a different understanding of the goodness of mother Theresa.


With Love ( True of me, even if you don't belief me)
Eelco

I think there are some nuns out there that have a different understanding of the goodness of mother Theresa.



A prime example of the difference between instructions and practise

[Gem]

Originally Posted by sky123

I think there are some nuns out there that have a different understanding of the goodness of mother Theresa.

How would you describe that view?

A prime example of the difference between instructions and practise

[sky]

Originally Posted by Gem

How would you describe that view?

Best to ask the person who wrote it Gem.

[Samana]

Originally Posted by Gem

I will say what I always say: that this thread is not about Buddhist practice; it is the practice itself. I can't possibly frame the subject in any other way, because if it isn't in practice then it can't be called 'Buddhism'.This then only begs the question: what is the practice?

There are a couple of formalities: 'taking refuge' and some simple moral vows (sila). For the purposes of this thread, refuge should be thought of taking refuge or resting in the enlightenment within yourself, whatever it means to you... a secondary aspect of refuge is refuge in eachother, as we should be as trustful as we can that we wish for mutual happiness and greater benefit and well-being. If this remains our true wish, that makes us trustworthy. It's also the basic principle of 'metta', or loving-kindness.

The moral vows are pretty simple: not killing, stealing etc. or otherwise harming, which are a basic byproduct of taking refuge, and hence, metta. It is taught that these two together are the foundation of practice. So with refuge in enlightenment and conduct of kind, mutual respect, we're well founded for the intricacies of practice.

I get the impression the moral vows you speak of are probably "The Five Precepts" which many Buddhists usually take formally after having taken Refuge.

Here are the Five Precepts:


1. I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.

2. I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given.

3. I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct.

4. I undertake the precept to refrain from incorrect speech.

5. I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ati/...pancasila.html


Here also is a transcript of an excellent talk about Buddhist Refuge which was given by Ven. Ajahn Sumedho, a senior teacher with the Theravada Thai Forest Tradition:

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/bds.html


May all sentient beings have peace and happiness _/|\_


.

Originally Posted by sky123

Best to ask the person who wrote it Gem.

Here's a link pertaining a view.
Ex-nun writes of life under Mother Teresa

With Love
Eelco

[Gem]

My usual approach is to open the page, and I know its a temple place which is worthy of respect, and I'm also grateful for the conditions making the place most conducive to spiritual inclinations. As that action of kicking the shoes off in reminder of the sanctity here. I know I'm breathing. The attention leaves the fragments of the day behind and comes home to me. I feel a deep still pool calm at the centre.



And the air just goes...



I hope the things I said first about refuge, morality and so forth made some impression of it's real life application, because it doesn't mean anything other than how it is true to our own lives.



Consider for a moment here how meaning and truth relate. As in the example 'love' is only meaningful if the word is truthful. We should see then what is said in speech is pertinent to the precept to be truthful. In extension, the same applies to all that is said as sila morality incorporates into right speech. The truth involved in our meaningful words fosters the trusting conditions appropriate for taking refuge, and as the aspects refuge and sila and metta begin to form something unified and consistent, and I suddenly know what it means through the clarity of it.