The Eightfold Path - The Fourth Noble Truth

[sky]

Originally Posted by ImthatIm

Radiating universal Love toward all living beings is a noble and worthwhile Endeavor.
It is very hard to do when full of attachments and 'self' preserving ego.
But then it can happen easily when flowing and taking refuge in the primordial essence.

Taking refuge requires a commitment, we can but try
The journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step.

[Still_Waters]

QUOTE 567 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by ImthatIm

I believe karma,meditation,morality,cause and effect will ultimately bring us into this Universal Love.
So I think Buddhism is pointing to "it" but I trip up on it's language.

You posted that "I think Buddhism is pointing to 'it' (Universal Love) but I trip up on its language". Perhaps that is because the Buddha explicitly stated that he did NOT teach everything that he had discovered....but instead pointed all to that indescribable "it".

In the Simpapa Sutta, Buddha reportedly said: "Just as the leaves in the trees are more numerous, the things that I know from direct knowledge are far more numerous than what I teach as my Dhamma. The reason I do not teach these other things is that they are not a part of my Dhamma, they are not related to my Dhamma, and they do not support the principles of a life integrated with the Eightfold Path."

https://becoming-buddha.com/simsapa-...ful-of-leaves/

As I posted previously, the Buddha's Metta (Loving Kindness) Sutra seems to point quite well to your "it" (Universal Love).

https://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/s...&postcount=556

Too many people casually regurgitate and start with the conclusion "God is Love" often WITHOUT "Right Understanding". In my opinion, Buddha does not start with such a conclusion but clearly points to "it" as one soon discovers when one actually PRACTICES what the Buddha taught and does more than just talk/quote.

Originally Posted by Maisy

But the house full of love has bodies in it, just like the house full of hate, so what is going on? The house full of love has bodies too. So why are some bodies manifesting our true nature and some are not?

I like your way of thinking, Maisy
Along with your conclusions I would also add the Mind to the equation.
Yes our body can respond driven by survival instinct or fight or flight responses.
I would contend our bodies are pretty neutral but it is in the Mind where these desires and attachments are determined.
We can build an ego based on separation and preservation out of fear.(carnal nature with desires)
Or we can build our ego based in Love and connectedness longing for Unity with a sense of security.(True nature)

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

talk/quote.

I wouldn't put 'talk'/'quote' in the same category. To talk about something you have to understand enough to explain something, elaborate, think it through and articulate. To quote something you just cut and paste . Very different things.

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

Too many people casually regurgitate and start with the conclusion "God is Love" often WITHOUT "Right Understanding". In my opinion, Buddha does not start with such a conclusion but clearly points to "it" as one soon discovers when one actually PRACTICES what the Buddha taught and does more than just talk/quote.

Thanks for the links.
I have not heard The Buddha speak nor seen his practice so I imagine people talk/quote and regurgitate much,
so I will just practice noble silence on that matter.

[Gem]

Might as well elaborate on refuge, because despite popular opinion, it's not exclusively Buddhist. It's just a name of something that is real in life. The scholars say a lot of things about it, and of course I'm familiar with what is said, but I don't talk about refuge in a Buddha which is some sort of person, or refuge in teachings which are in texts, or refuge a sangha which is a select group of monks, because that's all Buddhist sectarianism, not universal. In this sense, a Christian has a different text, different monks, and a different icon. I could talk about their sectarian stuff for all the difference that would make, but since I understand something real, like trust, I talk about refuge comppletely irrespective of sectarianism.

I don't take refuge in any icon, book or religious figureheads, but I still 'take refuge'

If we keep things universal it wouldn't matter which icon is 'Buddha' or Mother Theresa or if an atheist has no icon at all. Hence we look toward 'Buddha' the quality of enlightenment in you - and if that makes sense, then you understand what it is to take 'refuge in the Buddha' regardless of your religion or lack thereof. The words used for it are only semantics.

'Dhamma' similarly is a real thing. It's the way nature works. The word 'dhamma' only refers to teachings because the teachings are about nature's way. Hence you take refuge in the actual thing; not in the books which discuss it. That's not saying discard the text. It just that the text is a description of the thing; not the thing itself.

Not saying these first two are easy. They require trust. But at least they don't involve anyone else. The Sangha part is more complicated because it involves others. You have to give yourself over to the safe hands of other people, and people are not trustworthy. We know because we have been stolen from, attacked, manipulated, used and betrayed before. There is no point trusting people with loose morals, so you have to be discerning about that, and selective. Since there is a lot of corruption among monks we know some number have not matured in moral fiber. Indeed, blindly taking refuge in the priesthood has led to countless atrocities, and some schools are rife with perverse corruption. Hence refuge in 'the sangha' isn't simple, and you have to be sensible about it. 'Fools rush in' so they say.

A lot goes into creating a 'safe space' for good refuge, and you are responsible for other's safety. Hence sila, without which things become unsafe and people get hurt. The right speech, actions, and primarily, the right intent is needed to realistically have a trustworthy community.

That's how I see refuge not involving sectarian specific icons, books and authority figures, but as nuanced facets of trust that have implications in morals, responsibilities, finer qualities of compassion - and everything else.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Gem

The Sangha part is more complicated because it involves others. You have to give yourself over to the safe hands of other people, and people are not trustworthy..

I'm wondering if your confusing a Sangha with an Ashram, there's no ' give yourself over ' to the hands of others, it's about 'Walking together' in friendship. not separately. Obviously as in all walks of life we find ' Bad Apple's ' on the same tree but you can't go through life isolated because some people are not trustworthy... you just have to be aware. I would recommend anyone who has been thinking about joining one to give it a try and see for yourself if it helps you personally, you don't know until you try.
(I am referring to 'Lay Practitioners' Buddhist Sangha).

[sky]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

QUOTE 567 EXCERPT:
Buddha does not start with such a conclusion but clearly points to "it" as one soon discovers when one actually PRACTICES what the Buddha taught

Could this be 'It'

"I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that exists. I am the cause of all that exists. I am the trunk of all that exists. I am the foundation of all that exists. I am the root of existence. I am "the core" because I contain all phenomena. I am "the seed" because I give birth to everything. I am "the cause" because all comes from me. I am "the trunk" because the ramifications of every event sprout from me. I am "the foundation" because all abides in me. I am called "the root" because I am everything."

All creating King Tantra.....

[Maisy]

Originally Posted by ImthatIm

I would contend our bodies are pretty neutral but it is in the Mind where these desires and attachments are determined. We can build an ego based on separation and preservation out of fear.Or we can build our ego based in Love ...

The body includes the mind I think. The brain is part of the body and all of it's thinking and logic and stuff. If we say, "I have a mind" it means something is aware of the mind. The one aware of the mind is not the mind as it is "looking" at the mind, observing it. I think it would be the same with ego. If we say "I have an ego" it means we are observing it, am aware of it, if we are observing something, aware of something, it means we are not the thing we are observing or aware of. So then we are not the mind or the ego or thought too. All things we can observe or be aware of.

Relating it to Buddhism, my true self or true nature already has the aspects of love. I don't have to create them. I just have to be centered in the true self and then that awareness which is present to know myself automatically subdues what is not the true self because in the hierarchy of being, true self is above all delusional selves. "I am" the true self.

But then we mistakenly assume we are things we are not. Like mind or thought or ego. So I think that is what living in delusion means. Living while not knowing what we really are in the mix. In delusion, a thought or idea can come and completely take us over, take control of our experience and actions and feelings and emotions. If not in delusion, thought loses all of it's power over our experience, actions, and feelings. It has no effect. It can go from all powerful and substantial to having no power or influence and insubstantial.

I guess it's a different way to look at things. That we are it. If we are it, it's not a matter of creating it or finding it or seeking it. It could not be closer. It's the one looking. Me. But "looking" is delusion because what looking really means is following an idea or a thought and not just being still and present with what is, before a thought or idea moves us into some type of duality where we are looking for "it" in time or space or through effort or practices etc. We are it. We will never find what we are because we are the one looking and all we see is not us. Discovering what is not us is a type of path. Discovering we've been looking for something that is just us.

[Maisy]

Paraphrasing some Steve Hagen, Buddhism Plain and Simple writing:

The buddha dharma does not invite us to dabble in abstract notions. Instead the task it presents us with is to attend to what we actually are experiencing, right in this moment. You don't have to look "over there." You don't have to find it through time. You don't have to acquire anything. And you don't have to run off to Tibet, or Japan, or anywhere else. You wake up right here. In fact, you can only wake up right here. So you don't have to do the long search, the frantic chase, the painful quest. You're already right where you need to be. Here now. There is just something to see, to know or be aware of.

One way to say it is when you are aware of what's here now, as opposed to just flowing with it and experiencing it, you are liberated from it. The seeing of the actual ends the delusional. The whole experience of now changes.

Looking at the now, the present, the actual and not the word or words for it. What is actually present? Experience what is here now without the mind making up or presenting what it is. Experience what is directly without mind. I think Buddhism calls that an experience of nirvana or emptiness or even discovering our true nature and the true nature of everything.