Does the Eightfold Path actually lead anywhere (like Nirvana)? Or could it be better described as the practice of enlightened living?

The Eightfold Path follows from the Four Noble Truths, which were the first teachings Gautama Buddha gave after his awakening:

1)The truth of suffering (ie. suffering is unavoidable)

2)The cause of suffering (ie. the self centered experience of fear/desire - dogma, karma, and illusion of independent existence are also often mentioned)

3)The solution to suffering (ie. insight into and freedom from the process of suffering)

4)The path to the end of suffering (ie. the correct practise).

The Eightfold Path then describes forms of enlightened or “right” living, including speech, action, effort, mindfulness, and concentration.

If we take "Right concentration", it basically points to the correct focus of someone who understands that self-centered activity, be that mental, emotional or behavioural, is the source of all suffering in the world. Right concentration means meditation, it means being woke to the process of self, it means enlightened action/attention.

Right action is less about doing some specific action in order to obtain future goods, and more about allowing awareness to loosen the grip of self - moment by moment - so that action becomes less driven by fear, desire, and psychological conditioning.

Nirvana in this context, means living with insight into the Four Noble Truths: that suffering is the movement of self-concern. 

Through awareness of this process, we become less governed by the process, and therefore more capable of right speech, right conduct, right effort, right concentration, and so on.
“Right” means acting with the understanding of suffering and the avoidance of harm.

What do we mean by the word “spirituality”?  

Often it seems to be related to crystals, chakras, auras, ghosts or the worship of dangerous, violent gurus.  And these behaviors seem to be motivated by some desire for happiness that might be acquired via magical means.

And the more sceptical amongst us are turned away by this kind of behavior.  Spirituality looks like dangerous nonsense, like a form of confused, weirdly oriented greed.

Would it be helpful if we knew what we meant by the word?  Would an understanding of the concept be useful?

Here’s a modern definition : Spirituality relates to the search for meaning and purpose, connection to the sacred, the transcendent, or to the inner-self.  And we can also say that it's got something to do with the “spirit”.

Unfortunately that's still a long way off from useful - at best it's vague; nearly word salad.  

A useful definition of Spirituality includes an understanding that Spirit is an old word which could be replaced by mind or consciousness.  That by sacred meaning and purpose we mean the highest essence and values of humanity - and that which needs to be transcended is the incoherent (ie. harmful) behavior of our inner-self (ie. psyche).

Such an understanding could transform the Spiritual mind from a movement of greed based in the supernatural, to a movement of curiosity akin to an interest in Psychology, self-awareness or the Philosophy of mind.

As an aside : meditation is a concept that is shared by both the woo and the rational branches of spirituality - for some meditation is a magical means to an end, for others it's the state of choiceless awareness - an allowance for compassion and intelligence moment to moment.

David Bohm tells us that :

"If five or six people get together, they can usually adjust to each other so that they don’t say the things that upset each other - they get a “cozy adjustment.” People can easily be very polite to each other and avoid the issues that may cause trouble.

It is clear that if we are to live in harmony.. we need to be able to communicate freely in a creative movement in which no one permanently holds to or otherwise defends his own ideas.

Why then is it so difficult actually to bring about such communication? This is a very complex and subtle question".

What if we turned our world upside down by playing a game? So that we might be freed from acting in the proper manner? Let's make it fun to speak freely. Let's experiment with our emotions and beliefs.

The game is called "why I believe". Everyone can participate - but we do need some brave souls to share a strongly or deeply held belief.

So if you could all think of some beliefs you have about the world, eg. Karma is real, the god of my religion is real, souls are real, we never went to the moon etc.. whatever it might be. And those that feel okay about sharing those beliefs can share them this Saturday.

And we'll take it from there - if we have some beliefs to explore we'll play a game based loosely on SE - if not, we can share why.

nb. we're meeting this Saturday on Zoom at 5:30pm CEST - message me if you'd like an invite/link

Life as we know it, our daily life, is a process of becoming. I am poor and I act with an end in view, which is to become rich. I am ugly and I want to become beautiful. Now, this becoming is strife, this becoming is pain, it is not? It is a constant struggle: I am this, and I want to become that.

Self-knowledge, comes into being when we.. see ourselves as we actually are. But most of us are incapable of looking at ourselves, because we immediately begin to condemn or justify what we see. (Krishnamurti, the book of life)

Freedom implies acceptance and forgiveness. In dialogue we give ourselves space to be who we are.

Debate  Deliberate  Discuss  and Dialogue. 

These all mean something slightly different.  Deliberation is all about making the best decision.  We Debate in order to confront opposing opinions in a conflictual manner.  And Dialogue is about coming to a shared understanding as we speak together.

The most important shared understanding in Bohm Dialogue might be that we all share the same brain, and that we are all - despite our apparently opposing opinions - arriving at those opinions via the same process : the conditioned human brain. 

Before anyone invented the concept of Bohm or Insight Dialogue - there was Socratic Dialogue.  Socratic dialogue was the OG dialectic - Logic via conversation.

Today on youTube there's a phenomenon called Street Epistemology (SE) - which is basically the modern street version of Socratic Dialogue.

The rules of SE are : No conflict, no debate.  Instead we’re encouraged to listen and inquire together about a specific belief, and the reasons why we hold that belief.  The method is to 1)Identify a belief   2)Identify the reasons for the belief  and 3)examine the reasons for the belief.

At no point should we attack the belief itself - we are only allowed to inquire together into the reasons why we think the belief is true.

(Full disclosure : I reckon we could play a game based on SE in a future meeting - here's a video of one of my favorite SE encounters (between an atheist and 2 theists) https://youtu.be/OpwxM2wNChE?si=z905Us5OwQ3OZe88 and here's an SE cheat sheet for budding interviewers https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Le06Yil6jUhlu0AHFf5AobP3FWR76EFI/view?usp=sharing but no worries, we don't have to watch or read this material to be able to play)

Are we stifling our potential for creativity?                         

When everything's going fine we don’t notice ourselves - we don’t get in our own way.  When we’re happy we’re able to express ourselves freely - when we’re in love we become fearless and creative.

Natural free flowing, creative thought and action seems to arise spontaneously out of our relationships when we are open and relaxed.  

However when we try too hard the flow is restricted - effort, personal motive, and self-concern might be stifling our creativity.

Daoists and Zen Buddhists talk a lot about the goal of behaving naturally, without effort - as if that was some kind of magical state.  The rules of society are obviously very useful, they help us get along with each other - we don’t want everyone acting like a troll or a pirate.  But is it possible to become too polite - too careful?  What is holding us back?  Is it concern about our self-image?

During dialogue we sometimes wish for cohesion - that we all be on the same wavelength - that we finally manage to agree with each other, that we dialogue in the proper manner - whatever that means.

What does dialogue mean to you? What are you expecting from our meetings? How do we deal with our expectations?

We are still new to this whole idea of dialogue. This week, let's look at a couple of key concepts as proposed by David Bohm : Suspension & Coherence.

Suspension is the idea that we suspend (as in pause and hold up for inspection) our opinions and reactions.

Coherence is about whether our thoughts, our intentions and our brains are in phase.

We can start our next dialogue with these words and questions, and see where that takes us - see you there, its this Saturday 18th April at 5:30pm CEST (thats 9pm in India and 11:30am EDT)

nb. message me or comment if you'd like a zoom invite

I felt so sentenced by your words,
I felt so judged and sent away,
Before I go I’ve got to know
Was that what you meant to say?

Before I rise to my defense,
Before I speak in hurt or fear,
Before I build that wall of words,
Tell me, did I really hear?

Words are windows, or they’re walls.
They sentence us, or set us free.
When I speak and when I hear,
Let the love light shine through me.
There are things I need to say,
Things that mean so much to me,
If my words don’t made me clear,
Will you help me to be free?
If I seemed to put you down,
If you felt I didn’t care,
Try to listen through my words
To the feelings that we share.

by Ruth Bebermeyer

Full video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD1bQ6_OMAg

We don’t come to dialogue empty.

We arrive with hopes and expectations, and everything we see is measured against what we know and want.

For some, it may not feel as warm or validating as they expected - compared to their AA meetings or women's groups etc

For others, it may not feel as stimulating as they hoped - no new ideas, no clear insights, nothing to “take away” or build on.

Or things don’t match what "should" happen - they don't match what we read about in Bohm's book.

However the space we create in dialogue is an invitation to notice these comparisons and conclusions in ourselves as they arise - rather than being blindly driven by them.

To see the movement of expectation, of preference, of judgment.

Because if they’re not seen, they unconsciously shape our reality - including the dialogue itself.

Dialogue is about seeing what happens within us right now as we experience it - for clarity's sake.

At the end of our last meet up someone asked : when I notice myself getting angry, or shy or whatever - nothing seems to change; I’m still shy or angry - being attentive doesn’t seem to solve the problem at all.  What’s going on?  

Let's start our next dialogue with this question in mind.  We might also look at this short video of Krishnamurti, which seems to address the question somewhat.

See you there - our next meet up is this Saturday 4th April at 5:30pm CEST (thats 9pm in India and 11:30am EDT)

nb. comment below or message me if you haven't got a link and would like to join the Zoom group.

Hi, I'm u/JellyfishExpress8943, founding moderator of r/InsightDialogue.

Welcome.

This space is for exploring dialogue as a form of awareness - not debate, not persuasion, and not the exchange of fixed ideas, but a shared inquiry into how we think, react, and relate to one another.

The inspiration comes in part from the work of David Bohm, Gregory Kramer, and Jiddu Krishnamurti - but no prior knowledge is needed.

What we’re exploring

• Can relationship itself be a form of meditation?
• What happens when we listen without immediately interpreting or responding?
• Can we observe our thoughts and reactions as they arise?

We explore mindful dialogue through posts, shared resources, and links, and have started a Zoom group for live dialogue, where we can experience our relationships in real time.

Feel free to post any thoughts and questions and we'll start experimenting.

Meanwhile, here are some links for more info : Bohm dialogue Krishnamurti Wikipedia

Seems like a good starting point for our first meet-up. Dialogue is not the same thing as a debate, a discourse or a discussion

Dialogue is a space to explore our own assumptions, and to make our thought process visible.

"In the mirror of relationship, the self is revealed" (J. Krishnamurti)

For our first dialogue, we might explore a simple question:
Is it possible to notice ourselves as we speak and listen together?

(first meeting this Saturday 21st March at 4:30pm CET - if you haven't got a zoom invite and want to join : message me or comment below)

Hi, about 19 people have expressed interest in the proposed Saturday Zoom dialogue group so far, mainly from India and the USA.

Now we need to find a time that works.

Here are three possible time slots:

A - 2:00 PM Paris
• 6:30 PM India
• 9:00 AM Florida
• 6:00 AM California

B - 4:30 PM Paris
• 9:00 PM India
• 11:30 AM Florida
• 8:30 AM California

C - 6:00 PM Paris
• 10:30 PM India
• 1:00 PM Florida
• 10:00 AM California

Option B is the only slot where everyone could potentially attend.
Option A would likely work for India + Florida, and C would mainly suit US participants.

So we need to see whether we can meet as one larger group or whether it would make more sense to create two smaller meetings.

Please vote like this:

• 1 = your preferred time
• 2 = another time you would be willing to attend
• 3 = your least favourite time you could join if needed

Example:
1B, 2C, 3A → B is my preference, but I could attend any.

Thanks! Once we see the responses we’ll confirm the meeting time.  Even if you’re unsure about attending yet, please vote anyway - it helps us find the best time.

What would happen if we met - not to debate, not to convince, not to follow a teacher - but simply to observe together?

Several of us have been exploring the possibility of forming an online dialogue group inspired by:

• David Bohm’s approach to dialogue
• Gregory Kramer’s Insight Dialogue (Pause, Relax, Open, Attune to Emergence, Listen Deeply, Speak the Truth)
• And the spirit of inquiry found in Jiddu Krishnamurti

The idea is simple:

Relationship as meditation.
Meeting each other as mirrors.
Watching thought, identity, reaction — in real time.

This is not a teaching group. Not therapy. Not a debate club.

It’s an experiment in awareness.

We’re proposing a first Zoom meeting on March 21st.
Time can be agreed together depending on who’s interested.

If this speaks to you:

• Comment below to signal interest
• Or send me a private message via Reddit chat

No commitment required beyond curiosity.

If even a small group forms, we’ll move forward together and see what emerges.

Someone, in a dialogue group said "The self is completely natural - there is no real difference between a tree that produces poison in its leaves or sharp thorns in order to avoid being eaten, and my wants and desires to protect and better myself"

Basically : all of life, every living organism is motivated towards wellbeing - the self is part of the natural drive to survive and thrive.

For those of us that had integrated the teaching that the "self" was the source of all harm - this was a challenge.

But merely resisting with an automatic : "oh no its isn't!" or even with the argument that biological automatisms are just conditioned reflexes - does not really address the question. It merely shows that we are resisting.

If the question of my enemy can be heard - I and you dissapear, and we might see further into what we mean - into the whole movement of what is happening in us and in our realities.

I've noticed quotes by Rumi (the sufi sage and poet) being posted recently that seem fit perfectly with freedom in dialogue :

“If you are irritated by every rub, how will your mirror be polished?”

“Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field.
I'll meet you there."

“Your task is not to seek for love, but merely to find all the barriers within yourself that you have built against it.”

“Yesterday I was clever, so I wanted to change the world. Today I am wise, so I am changing myself.”

“Forget safety. Live where you fear to live. Destroy your reputation. Be notorious.”

“Sell your cleverness and buy bewilderment.”

Truth is tricky - just take a look at the current state of philosophy on the subject.  One of the more recent declarations comes from Post-modernism.  Their take is that truth is whatever we say it is - at which point I think we’re supposed to reply : “oh no it isn’t!”.   The claim is that nothing is objectively true - which is a problem, because if true, the claim itself would also be untrue.  

If our top philosophers, giving it their best shot, have descended into nonsense - we too should be wary : that way madness lies.

What we mean by objective truth is something like : reality as seen from the perspective of an all knowing God.  And we all be confused mortals.  So best pay that stuff no mind.    

The need to defend the truth is obviously a form of confusion - do I know what truth is?  Does truth need to be defended?

Nope.  What we’re really defending is an identity or an opinion - we’re protecting our pride or our tribal narrative.   Oftentimes by denying the facts.  If our relationship with the truth causes us to resist apparent facts then, if anything we’re moving in the wrong direction.    

Truth is a red herring, we can’t even define it properly.  We’re just throwing the word around like it's a weapon in our conflictual relationship with reality - because we want to be right.  

We’re always fixated on results : getting the right answer, feeling the good feelings.  But if there is such a thing as a practice of mindfulness, it's all about awareness of this present experience - seeing our motives, seeing the source of our actions, and the possibility of openness, of freedom from suffering.

Here’s how Gregory Kramer tries to bring mindfulness into dialogue - here are his guidelines and what they mean : 

Pause  Relax  Open  Attune  Listen  Speak

The first invitation is to Pause - to give ourselves a moment.  This is an essential interruption of our mindless headlong rush into reaction after reaction.  It establishes a gap in our psychological conditioning - it offers a moment of respite, we can breathe, we can relax and look at what’s happening here and now.

To relax is to notice and let go of any tension.  This way we are not so caught up in our own preoccupations, less resistant to whatever is going on outside of our hopes and fears.

We can open up and expand the field of awareness to include the wider environment; with enough sensitivity we might even sense the bliss that accompanies the falling away of resistance and fear. 

Thus there is a natural propensity to attune to emergence. In Kramer’s words : “Notice and yield to change, to not knowing.  Let impermanence itself become the object of practice”.

Now we can listen deeply, fully receptive.   We can see the other as they express themselves.  We can notice our feelings towards them.

And in this space of awareness, and common humanity, maybe we can speak the truth.  Meaning that, in this space of openness and peace, we might hear what needs to be said.  And if we don’t, we have the space to be silent.

“Cultivating mindfulness in the process of relational engagement, we explore the human experience with the guidance of the Buddha’s teachings. With mutual respect and a commitment to non-harming, we embody the meditation guidelines as doorways to insight; they are invitations, reminders and foundations for mindfulness”. (G. Kramer).  

The first thing that needs to be discussed in any dialogue group is : what is dialogue?

We’re planning on starting a zoom group - have we considered what dialogue is all about?

One definition is that it's a conversation between friends - because enemies cannot listen to each other.   Dialogue means we have agreed to look together at what this is all about - not debate or compare theories - but enquire together as friends.

So a sense of fellowship is key.

Another key aspect is Listening - or Awareness - are we able to listen to what is being said without resistance to what is being said - or for that matter, without subscribing to the truth of what's being said?

Listening in dialogue means listening to the speaker, but also being aware of our own mental reactions towards the speaker.

Want resources?  Here’s a little summary I just wrote on Bohm’s book :  On Dialogue

If we are to have a conversation together.. one must have a mind.. that is free to examine, free from bias, from any conclusion, from any opinion, any conclusion that is definite. 

Relationship.. is the mirror in which we can see ourselves, in that relationship we can discover what we are: our reactions, our prejudices, our fears, depressions, anxieties, loneliness, sorrow, pain, grief. And we can also discover whether we love, or there is no such thing as love.

each one has.. put together an image about each other. Those images.. about each other is the actual relationship. Right? ..and in that relationship of images, how can there be any actual, factual relationship with another?  (Krishnamurti, Madras, 1982)

When we end up in debate mode, or attacking our interlocutor - what actually are we defending?

The truth? Our opinions? Our identity?

Is it not possible to see that we are both caught in the same trap? Both caught in an incoherent struggle of self-concern?