The tacit nature of Buddhist living

[Rain95]

contemplating this

[Gem]

My previous 'submit reply' dind't register my whole post, so here's the coplete one.

Originally Posted by happy soul

Gem,

Do you agree that, although living life in a Buddhist way, or also in the way Krishnamurti taught, is simple and doesn't require a complicated or intricate perspective, it can be very difficult to get to the point where one would choose to do that?

The philosophical side is complicated and takes a lot of learning, and life is pretty complex, but the knowledge is more tacit because it deals with the nuances of culture, relationships and other delicate things. I think no matter how you cut it, life is complex, but Buddhist philosophy or teachings aren't important in the overall scale of things.

Suppose I said, 'Just be aware of what's going on in each moment, accept yourself as you are, and don't analyze things or try to figure them out. Just let everything be what it is, without reacting mentally.'

Very simple in principle, but not as easy as it sounds in practice, however, since we can only do the best we can, that's as much as is possible. This implies higher virtue, though, because it has to be honestly and sincerely the best we can...

Now, whether or not that's a good example of Buddhist teachings, it seems rather simple to do, BUT, I've found it difficult to acquire the impetus to do so. I'm not quite sure that I AGREE with that teaching.

Good point. To me, agree and disagree is fine on a fairly superficial level, but this acceptance and rejection only apples to principles and not to the actuality of living. If you notice what your pointer finger feels like, you don't agree or disagree, you are just aware of what it is like. That finger feeling isn't trying to make a point, so there's nothing like information to agree with, yet 'what it's like' is immediately known.

In other words, getting to the point where you're ready and willing to apply the teaching can be a large part of the battle/journey.

Or is FEAR what holds us back? Is the threat of loss of self/ego what makes us unwilling to practice the teaching?

I think most of us are habitualised during our lifespan to have erratic minds motivated by strong aversions and desires which are unconscious because they are 'normal'. It's like your finger always has a sensation but you don't notice it unless an unusual, uncommon or abnormal sensation, like pain, piques one's attention.


It's strange then that the malady of misery, which is pain, is so common that it doesn't warrant any attention. If the finger is in pain, we pay attention, examine it for signs, try to find out the cause, and if we do find a cause, we take care of it - pull out the splinter or what have you.


Often in our personal lives we seem to apathetically accept the pain of misery, maybe find some banal pleasure to distract ourselves from it, and rarely investigate it deeply enough to ascertain its cause, at least in so far as we generate it for ourselves through our over-reactive aversions and desires. In the world, these aversions and desires are expressed to feed each other, like when I am overtly agitated I might swear at you, which impels your adverse reaction, and as this goes unchecked those reactions very quickly escalate into extremes of hatred and greed.


Indeed it has to be considered how these generate so much misery in ourselves and impel us to make others miserable also, and how at the center of the hateful, greedy psyche is an ego who becomes increasingly self-serving, self-justifying, and self preserving to increasing levels of disregard for others and the environment at large. I think it is more than fair to say that this 'ego character' is fundamentally scared, and becomes panicky when you actually find it out.

[happy soul]

Thanks for sharing the link, Sky.

You're okay, Rain. Be gentle with yourself.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Gem. I think I agree with you that the living of our lives matters more than philosophy or theology. Certainly one could have a lot of theoretical knowledge but simultaneously be an unkind person. Such an individual misses the point. Better would be to be kind and not have knowledge. Perhaps best would be to have both, but even that depends on the person. Kindness is important for everyone, whereas concepts may or may not be desirable.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Rain95

That could be I am aware my life is stressful, I should have more money, my life sucks, why are people so bad and dumb? I am aware of all this stuff.

Those are all thoughts going on in my head and I am aware of them. So I could actually say, I need to NOT BE AWARE of these things. All these judgements and interpretations that fill my mind.

In the above narrative there are recognitions. 1) I am aware of my stressful state and; 2) This is caused by judgmental interpretations.

Why is my attention on them? Is there a better thing my attention could be on?

I don't like how I am. I am out of shape, kinda overweight, my nose is not symmetrical. I noticed a new wrinkle on my face today. Yea I can't accept how i am and why should I? I don't like myself.

'Accept' has two aspects. 1) it's a fact which cannot be denied and; 2) The apathetic resignation to the deplorable way it is. Equanimity isn't an excuse to become apathetic. It's to see things as they are without the melodrama of reactivity. Then you have clarity in regards to how it is and what needs to be done. and act fully with awareness rather than erratic mindlessness.

But then time never stops moving does it? How much longer will I be in this body? How much longer will it "be" me? I could get hit by a car tomorrow. I might get sick and die. Who knows. But then I do know I will die. Everybody does. So yea this body I am in, I'm going to be rid of it soon enough.



I want to figure out everything. I won;t resist this as it is what is. What is, is me wanting to figure everything out.



I didn't agree with that teaching either. I am trying to not be aware of what I am aware of, I don't accept myself as I am and look forward to not being what I am anymore when I'm outta here, and I like analyzing and trying to figure out everything, and I never stop reacting mentally to things....that I am aware of. But then should I react to this observation as well?



Everybody is ready and able to knock a spider climbing up their leg off, the only reason we would not knock the spider off would be we don't see it or are unaware it is there.



I'd say it is laziness or being too busy with other more pressing things. It's one thing after the other in life.....it's like dodging falling boulders sometimes and half of them hit you. But that's life, find peace in the chaos. Go with the flow. Make yourself a huge dam and block the flow and enjoy looking at the lake you made.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by JustBe

If one can do this it works. If your balance within cannot do this and your seeking it, you will naturally find ways to build that internal balance to become this. A trained mind or open mind can do this. Where you cant it often shows where you still haven't attained balance within that issue creating a reaction.

True.

We are all in different streams together journeying through life. I wonder in your questioning, whether it is because many are tapping into Buddhism through their seeking but not really undertaking the practice as a practicing Buddhist, following the complete guidelines of practice. So naturally you have people diving into the knowledge, taking out what suits them as part of their awakening process exactly where they are and opening too in themselves. You will always find yourself in everything you tap into, if you look. People who fill their mind with knowledge, (often predominate thinker types) do sometimes take in a bigger picture before diving into the experience to integrate those teachings or knowledge. In my experience of others around me, it isn't always fear, but more 'safe' once they have saturated all sources to dive into their own source.

Yes, to learn what teachings say can have meanings that a person can integrate into their actual living, but if it's just obedience to religious conformity, then it lacks the proper discernment. If it is discerned so that the meaning reveals something actual in life, then it is acted in self-determination according one's own best wisdom... rather than in docile conformity...

Fear is part of the greater picture for some. As is staying in one space for a long time. People like to build a longer deeper focus in one area at times. Their movements beyond that point is often timing and their own process unfolding as it needs. Lots of these moments of showing yourself in ways you haven't before is character building. Many seekers are recreating themselves, so its a delicate and often subtle sensitive unfoldment. If you know yourself through many streams of your own unfolding, that becomes your own awareness aware of not only yourself but others as one.

In my age, I start to know less and have deeper feeling, so I appreciate the texts, but because I studied these in a school of meditation, I received dogmatic learning and tacit learning together, to understand the meanings directly relevant to my real-lived experience. Hence I can say the teachings say this and the teachings say that, but I don't say how that is made sensible within the actuality of another person's real-life.

[Gem]

I will continue this discourse about intent, discourse and power in light of recent events where what appears to be Buddhist discussion because it has Buddhist quotes and uses Buddhist terminology, isn't actually Buddhist in a real lived sense.


As I always say, practice and philosophy go together. What we find, however, is while the philosophy is so high spiritual the practice is such that threads are often closed down. This is philosophy without practice.



I usually start threads to provide an opportunity for people to practice all the notions we call 'right' (sama) in Buddhism. It's not a rule of discipline that requires docile obedience, but rather, something that elicits a deeper sense of honest self awareness.



Sometimes I make commentary on using the teachings in ways that are paradoxical to Buddhist practice. Practice in this context isn't a special thing one does on their meditation cushion, nor is it wonderful spiritual experiences. In this context, practice is everyday living with conscious self-awareness.



'Wrong speech' is things such as accusation, misrepresentation, insinuation, gossip etc, and let us not be in denial that these negativities often characterise the conversations, but please understand, this is not my pretense of perfection casting defilement out into the community. I very rarely cast projected assertions because I recognise it as 'in me' rather than caused by 'them'. It is my self-awareness of imperfection speaking on the subject as one who experiences these facets of ill-will, and is fully aware of them arising. Hence, I can only encourage self-awareness as far as I can walk the talk.


Talk without the walk is just philosophy without practice.

[JustBe]

Originally Posted by Gem

I will continue this discourse about intent, discourse and power in light of recent events where what appears to be Buddhist discussion because it has Buddhist quotes and uses Buddhist terminology, isn't actually Buddhist in a real lived sense.


As I always say, practice and philosophy go together. What we find, however, is while the philosophy is so high spiritual the practice is such that threads are often closed down. This is philosophy without practice.



I usually start threads to provide an opportunity for people to practice all the notions we call 'right' (sama) in Buddhism. It's not a rule of discipline that requires docile obedience, but rather, something that elicits a deeper sense of honest self awareness.



Sometimes I make commentary on using the teachings in ways that are paradoxical to Buddhist practice. Practice in this context isn't a special thing one does on their meditation cushion, nor is it wonderful spiritual experiences. In this context, practice is everyday living with conscious self-awareness.



'Wrong speech' is things such as accusation, misrepresentation, insinuation, gossip etc, and let us not be in denial that these negativities often characterise the conversations, but please understand, this is not my pretense of perfection casting defilement out into the community. I very rarely cast projected assertions because I recognise it as 'in me' rather than caused by 'them'. It is my self-awareness of imperfection speaking on the subject as one who experiences these facets of ill-will, and is fully aware of them arising. Hence, I can only encourage self-awareness as far as I can walk the talk.





Talk without the walk is just philosophy without practice.

As we see most often in a lot of discussions, people like to walk the talk of philosophy, which is fine. It has its place. When people relate to another's words of wisdom, ultimately, you can become the wisdom/wise self and share your own creation as the self aware, integrated being you can become through that source.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by JustBe

As we see most often in a lot of discussions, people like to walk the talk of philosophy, which is fine. It has its place. When people relate to another's words of wisdom, ultimately, you can become the wisdom/wise self and share your own creation as the self aware, integrated being you can become through that source.

Well, I'm just a regular average person so I'm not sure how well I can be 'true to the ideal', being plagued by the stressors of life that go right to the central nervous system, but my message is 'best I can'.

[Alice_1]

Thank you for your post. Very informative.

[blackraven]

Originally Posted by happy soul

Certainly one could have a lot of theoretical knowledge but simultaneously be an unkind person. Such an individual misses the point. Better would be to be kind and not have knowledge. Perhaps best would be to have both, but even that depends on the person. Kindness is important for everyone, whereas concepts may or may not be desirable.

Spot on happy soul and I know very little about Buddhism, but know or least have lived a lot of life experiences.