Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Is the Buddha an experimentalist?
Lostie
Veteran
0
Comments
To a certain extent… he said his teachings should “be tested like a goldsmith tests gold in the market, by scratching and burning and weighing.”
Yes.
Additionally everyone has different dispositions and are at different places on the path. Absent a truly wise, qualified teacher to direct us step by step experimentation is the way.
The best medicine is that which is customized to the individual. Trying to strictly follow the written teaching might not be that fruitful.
He was a Trial and Errorist
Buddhism is a teaching of action, of application. Teachings without action are like trying to start a fire by describing the flame. Application, action, is needed to prove the teaching.
1. Does the teaching make sense?
2. Can it be rationally and universally applied - can it be tested?
3. Does the practice (application) render positive results?
One might say,
"As I have been practicing, I have noticed my environment is better, people are
friendlier."
However, as the body bends, so must the shadow follow - As one's environment is a reflection of oneself, (the shadow) it is the practitioner (the body) who has changed. His or her environment reflect that change.
As I am a slow writer and the hours grow late, I must stop (or pause) here.
Peace to all
"Go on - try it yourself!" as Neil Buchanan (Art Attack, UK kid's TV programme) would say.
All learning is experimental.
(power of bodhi-quan yin: me in my me feminine nature in emptyness my afterlife place is Sambodhi changes in salvation: fun stuff) (switch females have the key to salvation in the bodhi nature)
[
(toxic masculinity: love woman and a child of god, queen)
[
(have fun tranforming your bodhi lifestyle:with a handful of leaves your bodhi life bears many fruit,ps i know what my butterfly family is doing, change is a good thing, learn and grow is our family creed)
[
Then again, maybe too much experimentation can go wrong and isn't always for the best and there is much merit in following an established path.
(let our bodhi friend stan bush give us a hope and future:my hope have a blast in your bodhi that the supreme mom earth gives,my victourios friends we will meet in heaven on earth again....Sam.0.holy space,my mom is lady liberty queen of heaven and earth)
[
Gambling on true love.
Well since The Buddha has no established path to follow so to speak, that would make him an experimentalist. I’m glad I am one too.
I think that statement was meant to be an addendum to my first post where I was pro experimentation. Sort of as a caution or a tempering of a level of experimentation where you lose track of the path and genuine spiritual development.
Probably where I come down is to take the established teachings, select which are appropriate for your spot on the path and modify them or experiment to better suit them to your disposition.
Yesterday whilst drinking wine with Amitaba on a very pleasant visit to the hellrealms (kinda the opposite of the PuréeLands) I:
Amitaba says hi and send more fish
The Buddha may be an experimentalist, but what about his followers, do they not now have a path to follow?
Ahhh...Did not the Buddha admonish his followers to be "scientists" testing out the validity of his truths?
Are Buddhist followers on the Buddha's path not continually experimenting with each moment, where best to place their next step on that path?
Is the pilgrim, who no longer understands beginner's mind, working only from rote, attached to the results of some past step upon the path, really being the experimentalist that the Buddha called for?
The Buddha's path itself does not prevent us from being experimentalists.
Being an experimentalist is actually one of its requirements.
Maybe I should add by saying I’m an experimentalist only in my non-spiritual paths.
There is somewhere unspiritual? [lobster faints] Gosh, who would have thought...
He was an experientialist...
How would one know truth, if not through experiential understanding...