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.
So you are referring specifically to vipassana in the Pali Canon, the earliest of which was written down at least 3 hundred years after Buddha passed. [/qiote]
Yes, as far as I am concerned that is the earliest and most relevant connection to Buddha. But even that is, as you note, very dislocated.
I think a deep understanding of Dharma is possible based on philosophical contemplation and meditation, it just strikes me this view isn't well accepted.
Sorry to be a hair splitter, I'm just a nerd when it comes to this kind of stuff.
Hey not at all . Buddhism probably needs more nerds and less preachers;)
I think a deep understanding of Dharma is possible based on philosophical contemplation and meditation, it just strikes me this view isn't well accepted.
I think philosophical contemplation is not only possible for understanding dharma, but I think it is also essential.
Different traditions put different amounts of emphasis on this. The Tibetan tradition for example places a great deal of emphasis on philosophical analysis and contemplation.
maybe it just depends on what kindof head you've got, if you've got a big philosophy head then that's what you should be eating, but if you're more of a dumbhead, you'll want to just peer into the dharmakaka sideways through transcendental wisdom and eat your grave without baloney sauce.... ha ha ha ha a... ....... i don't know. perhaps vipassana is more popular in the west because we have a strong tradition of using our heads too much, and with a stinky outcome, so we much counterbalance that with nonthinking meditation practice.... because you cannot rely on words too much, no,, never.... because language is a construct, you've got to be very careful... when the buddha was realizing his enlightenment, i don't think he was narrating his experience with words and thoughts, and he wasn't reading the Great Book of the Mind & All Things of the Universe, he was loOKing, rather, seeing directly, which i think maybe might have nothing to do with thoughts or no thoughts or contemplating or no contemplating, words can be too slow when the mind scribbles them out..... ahh i don't know.... no matter anyways, just do what you've got to do!!!!!!!
maybe it just depends on what kindof head you've got, if you've got a big philosophy head then that's what you should be eating, but if you're more of a dumbhead, you'll want to just peer into the dharmakaka sideways through transcendental wisdom and eat your grave without baloney sauce.... ha ha ha ha a... ....... i don't know. perhaps vipassana is more popular in the west because we have a strong tradition of using our heads too much, and with a stinky outcome, so we much counterbalance that with nonthinking meditation practice.... because you cannot rely on words too much, no,, never.... because language is a construct, you've got to be very careful... when the buddha was realizing his enlightenment, i don't think he was narrating his experience with words and thoughts, and he wasn't reading the Great Book of the Mind & All Things of the Universe, he was loOKing, rather, seeing directly, which i think maybe might have nothing to do with thoughts or no thoughts or contemplating or no contemplating, words can be too slow when the mind scribbles them out..... ahh i don't know.... no matter anyways, just do what you've got to do!!!!!!!
Wise words methinks PP, if not said with a kooky slant:P
but if you're more of a dumbhead, you'll want to just peer into the dharmakaka sideways through transcendental wisdom and eat your grave without baloney sauce....
in the west because we have a strong tradition of using our heads too much, and with a stinky outcome
you cannot rely on words too much
ahh i don't know....
Now, this is form in formlessness.....yes, without baloney sauce!
The Buddha was a part of a larger sramana movement in ancient India.
he studied and practiced with many other sramana teachers and students before defining his path, attaining realization, and teaching his own students.
Without the foundation of learning, contemplating, and meditating he would not have attained anything at all.
Everything the Buddha did was based on his previous understanding and investigation of the philosophies of his time.
The Buddha was a diligent student/philosopher/practitioner.
Siddartha seemed to try a few things before the meditation that night that led to his full enlightenment. Call it what you want but it wasn't through through mere philosophical thinking.
We must use upacāra samādhi: Here, we enter calm and then, when the mind is sufficiently calm, we come out and look at outer activity. Looking at the outside with a calm mind gives rise to wisdom. This is hard to understand, because it's almost like ordinary thinking and imagining. When thinking is there, we may think the mind isn't peaceful, but actually that thinking is taking place within the calm. There is contemplation but it doesn't disturb the calm. We may bring thinking up in order to contemplate it. Here we take up the thinking to investigate it, it's not that we are aimlessly thinking or guessing away; it's something that arises from a peaceful mind. This is called 'awareness within calm and calm within awareness'. If it's simply ordinary thinking and imagining, the mind won't be peaceful, it will be disturbed. But I am not talking about ordinary thinking, this is a feeling that arises from the peaceful mind. It's called 'contemplation'. Wisdom is born right here.
Comments
Different traditions put different amounts of emphasis on this. The Tibetan tradition for example places a great deal of emphasis on philosophical analysis and contemplation.
Me too:)
Maybe I base too much of my take on what other "living Buddhists" think upon views I encounter online!
namaste
Wise words methinks PP, if not said with a kooky slant:P
Actually, fi ew mipsell a srting of worsd ew cna raed it qiute wlel aynawy thnaks ot teh hmuan brian.
If I were younger I would be dislexic.
Siddartha seemed to try a few things before the meditation that night that led to his full enlightenment. Call it what you want but it wasn't through through mere philosophical thinking.
We must use upacāra samādhi: Here, we enter calm and then, when the mind is sufficiently calm, we come out and look at outer activity. Looking at the outside with a calm mind gives rise to wisdom. This is hard to understand, because it's almost like ordinary thinking and imagining. When thinking is there, we may think the mind isn't peaceful, but actually that thinking is taking place within the calm. There is contemplation but it doesn't disturb the calm. We may bring thinking up in order to contemplate it. Here we take up the thinking to investigate it, it's not that we are aimlessly thinking or guessing away; it's something that arises from a peaceful mind. This is called 'awareness within calm and calm within awareness'. If it's simply ordinary thinking and imagining, the mind won't be peaceful, it will be disturbed. But I am not talking about ordinary thinking, this is a feeling that arises from the peaceful mind. It's called 'contemplation'. Wisdom is born right here.