Esoteric Dixie Dharma

00:13:55 “This is perhaps for better or worse a more fundamentalist view: this is the truth, handed down, revealed by the Buddha, shared by the Buddha for us and it’s a truth that stands outside of culture and context and it applies to everybody.

Other people will say: this is an attempt from a certain time perhaps that even evolved doctrinally, for a certain time and a certain place describing certain kind of territory for various reasons … but in that kind of a more relativist view this doctrine may not be the ultimate beyond culture etc but it is an attempt and there are other attempts even within Buddhism to map that territory.”

Systems are formed within particular contexts and conditions and are geared towards assisting with particular contexts and conditions – this is something I cannot help but see as being the case and which by nature turns me off to fundamentalism.

Models are simply models and systems are simply systems – and then there is enlightenment itself.

Models/systems are conventional means to attain the ultimate. By nature of being conventional they are subject to flux and their ability to point us at the ultimate is relative.

I appreciate the value of models and systems in terms of their function to facilitate enlightenment but to the degree that they became a hindrance to this function I no longer appreciate them.

It seems clear that their efficacy varies from person to person and that, like anything else, all models are not equal meaning that they do not equally perform that function of facilitating enlightenment for everyone across the board. This is of course because not only are the models not equal but also people are not equal.

People need different things and what they need is relative to their unique conditions and circumstances and it is my opinion that it is impossible for one model to cover all possible conditions and circumstances - yet this is what the fundamentalist asserts.

Believing one’s system itself is absolute and applies to all contexts and conditions is a trap and it has to do with attachments to views (which the Buddha spoke on).

This is why it is ironic to dogmatize the Dharma especially but really any truly mystical science (which I would argue IS Dharma if it is true in that function of bringing us towards realization of the ultimate).

The essence of Dharma is beyond systems and models and yet we need those systems and models to access it - in the video Guru Viking mentions that Nagarjuna said that the Absolute can only be taught by relying on the conventional and this makes perfect sense.

So the point of emphasizing this is to encourage us to go beyond systems as the system itself isn’t enlightenment and because any one system can not possibly be the sole explainer of all things - but the point is not by any means to negate the utility of systems or to harm faith in them.

www.group-telegram.com/jp/occontent.com/6567

1.1K viewsJan 28 at 21:37

00:13:55 “This is perhaps for better or worse a more fundamentalist view: this is the truth, handed down, revealed by the Buddha, shared by the Buddha for us and it’s a truth that stands outside of culture and context and it applies to everybody.

Other people will say: this is an attempt from a certain time perhaps that even evolved doctrinally, for a certain time and a certain place describing certain kind of territory for various reasons … but in that kind of a more relativist view this doctrine may not be the ultimate beyond culture etc but it is an attempt and there are other attempts even within Buddhism to map that territory.”

Systems are formed within particular contexts and conditions and are geared towards assisting with particular contexts and conditions – this is something I cannot help but see as being the case and which by nature turns me off to fundamentalism.

Models are simply models and systems are simply systems – and then there is enlightenment itself.

Models/systems are conventional means to attain the ultimate. By nature of being conventional they are subject to flux and their ability to point us at the ultimate is relative.

I appreciate the value of models and systems in terms of their function to facilitate enlightenment but to the degree that they became a hindrance to this function I no longer appreciate them.

It seems clear that their efficacy varies from person to person and that, like anything else, all models are not equal meaning that they do not equally perform that function of facilitating enlightenment for everyone across the board. This is of course because not only are the models not equal but also people are not equal.

People need different things and what they need is relative to their unique conditions and circumstances and it is my opinion that it is impossible for one model to cover all possible conditions and circumstances - yet this is what the fundamentalist asserts.

Believing one’s system itself is absolute and applies to all contexts and conditions is a trap and it has to do with attachments to views (which the Buddha spoke on).

This is why it is ironic to dogmatize the Dharma especially but really any truly mystical science (which I would argue IS Dharma if it is true in that function of bringing us towards realization of the ultimate).

The essence of Dharma is beyond systems and models and yet we need those systems and models to access it - in the video Guru Viking mentions that Nagarjuna said that the Absolute can only be taught by relying on the conventional and this makes perfect sense.

So the point of emphasizing this is to encourage us to go beyond systems as the system itself isn’t enlightenment and because any one system can not possibly be the sole explainer of all things - but the point is not by any means to negate the utility of systems or to harm faith in them.

BY Esoteric Dixie Dharma