alan wrote:I'll just retreat from this so as to avoid any unnecessary bad feelings. That way we can both wrap it up and let others take over if they choose.
In other words, you were trying to blow smoke. So, you cannot name names of these naughty modern Vipassana teachers
, whomever they might be.
Well, that is one example of why this interview by Wallace is rather problematic.
What are some of the pitfalls of viewing meditation simply as a process of bare attention? When mindfulness is equated with bare attention, it can easily lead to the misconception that the cultivation of mindfulness has nothing to do with ethics or with the cultivation of wholesome states of mind and the attenuation of unwholesome states. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the Pali Abhidhamma, where mindfulness is listed as a wholesome mental factor, it is not depicted as bare attention, but as a mental factor that clearly distinguishes wholesome from unwholesome mental states and behavior. And it is used to support wholesome states and counteract unwholesome states
.While such naughty modern Vipassana teachers
may be out there I have never read any or practiced with any modern Vipassana teachers
who have not put bare attention into its much broader Dhamma context.
The question is asked: A frequent claim is that bare awareness will automatically prevent unwholesome thoughts from arising. Is there any basis for this notion in the texts?
Not from what I have been taught or experienced. All we are getting from Wallace is a distortion of the modern vipassana movement on the basis of bad teaching by unnamed modern Vipassana teachers