Deep dive on 4 Noble Truth philosphy

[Phaelyn]

Originally Posted by sky123

I don't suppose Buddha would disagree, I know through His Teachings and through my own personal experiences....

Buddha would not agree or disagree about mental phenomena, unless you are of the belief Buddha was an ego or was identified with an ego.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Phaelyn

Buddha would not agree or disagree about mental phenomena, unless you are of the belief Buddha was an ego or was identified with an ego.

If you read Buddha's Teachings you will get the answers you need regarding the above.

[Phaelyn]

To need or want or desire answers is to be imprisoned in mind. Seek and desire nothing that is not already present. Look to nothing from the past, nor anything from the future, only look within and without in the now, the present, from emptiness and stillness and peace.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Phaelyn

To need or want or desire answers is to be imprisoned in mind.

They want to be right, so they leap from agreement to disagreement, but it merely amounts to a variety of views, some of which are incompatible, however, all we ultimately have to cling to is the known, so people will take their answers to-be-true. Few understand that it's a philosophy, and philosophy has no answers; it just has finer nuances.

The nuances reflect the reality which when examined more closely reveals deeper sublty. If you look at a tree you 'know it' in the way you experience it. The statement 'that's a tree' is the knowledge based on accumulation. I'm sure you see the distinction there.

The discussion here is about following the narrative and checking it withing yourself. If I talk about 1NT, then you know it's true because you are intimately familiar with suffering. If I talk about 2NT as the reactive pshchology and incited volition, I'm not saying what is true as an answer. It isn't knowledge you can accumulate and think you are now right. It's supposed to be checked against yourself to examine, is that what I do? Let me see...

Checking against 'what Buddha said' doesn't get to the point. You are the Buddha to check it against, and when you do you will realise that I am not answering, and you can reply with your own elaboration on what discovery you make.

This is not detracting from the teaching, but understanding what it's about in a more nuanced way, because when you think it has answers, your mind has come to a conclusion in knowledge. The mind which watches or investigates observantly isn't coming up with answers, but it is transformed through insights, so the learning we do in our school is not an accumulation of knowledge, but a positive change through awakenings within consciousness. Hence I question, read teachings and do as it says? Well, that doesn't touch the surface... but as you see, it requires whole paragraphs to unpack the underlying nuances of what we call 'the teaching'.

The ontology is classified into 3 categories: The text or discursive teaching; the intellectual understanding and; the insight itself. The discursive category shouldn't be taken as answers. We merely assume the speaker is wise and at least give what he says the benefit of the doubt. The intellectual understanding is when find it is consistent or congruent rather contradictory or nonsensical and seems to add up or make sense. The insight is gained with in immediate awareness. You can't learn that or figure it out. It happens unexpectedly and can't be preempted, but it occurs to the attentive stable mind which is free of reactivity. Hence, meditation is defined as ardent awareness free of aversion and desire in the world.

[Phaelyn]

Originally Posted by Gem

3 categories: The text or discursive teaching; the intellectual understanding and; the insight itself. The discursive category shouldn't be taken as answers. We merely assume the speaker is wise and at least give what he says the benefit of the doubt. The intellectual understanding is when find it is consistent or congruent rather contradictory or nonsensical and seems to add up or make sense. The insight is gained with in immediate awareness. You can't learn that or figure it out. It happens unexpectedly and can't be preempted, but it occurs to the attentive stable mind which is free of reactivity. Hence, meditation is defined as ardent awareness free of aversion and desire in the world.

Yes true it has to be lived, actualized. (true insights present and doing their magic!) I have been amazed several times on these forums as someone will post some teacher I have never heard of.... and I read the "discursive teaching; the intellectual understanding" and wow such good speakers and writers.... then I google the teacher and kaboom lol Like what the heck!

But then while they are not living the teachings, at least they have an interest there in spirituality, so maybe in future lives this will benefit them in some way.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Phaelyn

Yes true it has to be lived, actualized. (true insights present and doing their magic!) I have been amazed several times on these forums as someone will post some teacher I have never heard of.... and I read the "discursive teaching; the intellectual understanding" and wow such good speakers and writers.... then I google the teacher and kaboom lol Like what the heck!

But then while they are not living the teachings, at least they have an interest there in spirituality, so maybe in future lives this will benefit them in some way.

Everyone knows that I assess teachers on the basis of their conduct. I make no secret of it. If a supposed teacher can't walk the talk, I have no reason to listen to their lip service. My background is in a school where moral conduct is the foundation of everything else, and for good reasons which I have previously elaborated on. It is plain to see that where 'right conduct' is lax, degeneracy is bound to arise.

It really comes back to the law of kamma which states: volition creates potentials which manifest as experience. Simplistically, good will brings about benefit and ill-will brings about harm. That's obvious and goes without saying. The Buddhist philosophy goes into the deeper nuances of it, and if one undertakes 'right meditation' they come to understand the relevance of it and the responsibility it implies. Obviously there are some called teacher who are infantile in sila, so they have no foundation, are unworthy of refuge, and harm everyone who trusts them, but sure, they know how to say all the right spiritual things to groom docile devotees and become rich from their kind donations.

To recognise a good school, make sure that sila is foundational, and ensure the teachers and trustees are established in moral conviction. If a teacher is a drunk, promiscuous or takes wealth from ashram coffers... that's certainly to be avoided.

If the place is clear that their higher ups are not remunerated, that sexual misconduct is frowned upon, that intoxication has no place in any meditation school, that's a good sign. A good school will insist on celibacy within the ashram, all intoxicants will be banned, and they will have a strictly regulated code of conduct that establishes the boundaries that form proper protections which are essential to spiritual development.

The process of purification makes people extraordinarily vulnerable, so a teacher would never be drunk or seek pleasures from those who come and stay, and the donations people make are for the benefit of those who come after them; not for lining the pockets of teachers and trustees. They are only there to benefit others and want nothing in return.

[Shaunc]

I honestly believe that to live without desire is the secret to happiness. The downside to this of course is that if everyone in the world felt this way we'd all still be living in caves.
So once more, the middle way is the answer.

[JustBe]

Originally Posted by Gem

Everyone knows that I assess teachers on the basis of their conduct. I make no secret of it. If a supposed teacher can't walk the talk, I have no reason to listen to their lip service. My background is in a school where moral conduct is the foundation of everything else, and for good reasons which I have previously elaborated on. It is plain to see that where 'right conduct' is lax, degeneracy is bound to arise.

It really comes back to the law of kamma which states: volition creates potentials which manifest as experience. Simplistically, good will brings about benefit and ill-will brings about harm. That's obvious and goes without saying. The Buddhist philosophy goes into the deeper nuances of it, and if one undertakes 'right meditation' they come to understand the relevance of it and the responsibility it implies. Obviously there are some called teacher who are infantile in sila, so they have no foundation, are unworthy of refuge, and harm everyone who trusts them, but sure, they know how to say all the right spiritual things to groom docile devotees and become rich from their kind donations.

To recognise a good school, make sure that sila is foundational, and ensure the teachers and trustees are established in moral conviction. If a teacher is a drunk, promiscuous or takes wealth from ashram coffers... that's certainly to be avoided.

If the place is clear that their higher ups are not remunerated, that sexual misconduct is frowned upon, that intoxication has no place in any meditation school, that's a good sign. A good school will insist on celibacy within the ashram, all intoxicants will be banned, and they will have a strictly regulated code of conduct that establishes the boundaries that form proper protections which are essential to spiritual development.

The process of purification makes people extraordinarily vulnerable, so a teacher would never be drunk or seek pleasures from those who come and stay, and the donations people make are for the benefit of those who come after them; not for lining the pockets of teachers and trustees. They are only there to benefit others and want nothing in return.

Even as a mindful aware human, who understands those finer nuances in themselves, your feelers naturally and immediately are activated to know how to move and trust or move and discern according to that recognition you feel in others. This takes one who isn’t reliant on others to build this awareness, but as we know people don’t arrive at centres and ashrams in their earliest stages to know and trust themselves under the helm of others. They are naturally looking up to, putting leaders on pedestals. Associating teachings as the be all. So yes it can be a very unsettling trap of entangled messiness.

If those stricter guidelines are not in place, it would be so easy for leaders to take advantage of others, entangle in others. Even without knowing peoples issues, it can cause problems. So in my view strict guidelines and rules, would be imperative for any environment to prevent those kind of unnecessary issues creating more drama than there might already be in the self realisation process.

In fact it sometimes makes me squirmish when I see how gullible people can be.
Even more squirmish when both parties blend in that field of co dependence, entanglements, ignorant of how damaging it can be. Or aware and manipulating taking advantage of others. In either case it’s not good.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Shaunc

I honestly believe that to live without desire is the secret to happiness. The downside to this of course is that if everyone in the world felt this way we'd all still be living in caves.
So once more, the middle way is the answer.

Just as Buddha taught and easy to see and experience in life.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by JustBe

Even as a mindful aware human, who understands those finer nuances in themselves, your feelers naturally and immediately are activated to know how to move and trust or move and discern according to that recognition you feel in others. This takes one who isn’t reliant on others to build this awareness, but as we know people don’t arrive at centres and ashrams in their earliest stages to know and trust themselves under the helm of others. They are naturally looking up to, putting leaders on pedestals. Associating teachings as the be all. So yes it can be a very unsettling trap of entangled messiness.

When I first went to meditation school I didn't trust them, but after a time I saw they were at least trustworthy, but they had to earn my trust. Now I know they are good and just want to help people with meditation.

If those stricter guidelines are not in place, it would be so easy for leaders to take advantage of others, entangle in others. Even without knowing peoples issues, it can cause problems. So in my view strict guidelines and rules, would be imperative for any environment to prevent those kind of unnecessary issues creating more drama than there might already be in the self realisation process.

In fact it sometimes makes me squirmish when I see how gullible people can be.
Even more squirmish when both parties blend in that field of co dependence, entanglements, ignorant of how damaging it can be. Or aware and manipulating taking advantage of others. In either case it’s not good.

A school need to have a ethical framework to build the organisation on, and have a clear defined mission like : to teach dhamma to as many people as possible. We run a tight ship because we are single minded about the mission and everything we do, and all of the rules, are there to accomplish it. If it doesn't help achieve the mission, it isn't there.


Then there are the rules... but rules are not followed in obedience. They explain that the rules are in place to make the best conditions for meditation, which benefits the meditators. In essence, morality makes the place safe and the rules are defined boundaries for protections.... It's more involved that that of course, it's more complex over all. It's pretty skillful to really create a refuge where people are safe to be vulnerable, and not too many people actually have that skill.