BuddhaSoup wrote:I noted that he's most engaged when the Thai laity in at the temple, and he literally sat on the floor with them speaking Thai and organizing a calendar that was being put together. I get the sense that while he's somewhat reserved with the US public that just drops in at the Wat, he's very connected with the Thai people at the temple, reflecting his deep roots in Thailand. I really respected this about him. He's not a schmoozer looking for donations, or a 'businessman' as I've seen in Thailand with some Abbots...he's a brilliant man with a brilliant mind and an excellent writer, who seems happiest sitting with the Thai people working on a calendar, or with the younger monks reading that day's foreign press. And, with every book he writes, he gives them away for free, as the Buddha expressed.
Maybe, but he does not quote Goldstein, so it becomes hard to take what he says seriously as criticism of Goldstein, or any one else. It reads as a bit of a straw man argument. If one is going to argue against a postion, then put that position out there as accurately and fully as possible, then one should do one's best to beat it up, if it needs beating up. I do not see that as what has happened in this book.danieLion wrote:When he's criticizing the "whatever comes up" method it's directed towards Joseph Goldstein et al.
tiltbillings wrote:Maybe, but he does not quote Goldstein, so it becomes hard to take what he says seriously as criticism of Goldstein, or any one else. It reads as a bit of a straw man argument. If one is going to argue against a postion, then put that position out there as accurately and fully as possible, then one should do one's best to beat it up, if it needs beating up. I do not see that as what has happened in this book.danieLion wrote:When he's criticizing the "whatever comes up" method it's directed towards Joseph Goldstein et al.
Sometimes it’s argued that a person in jh›na is “incapable of speech” or cannot hear sounds, but neither of these assertions is supported by the Cannon.
b]XV1118 Of Hearing in Jhana[/b]
From the commentary [by Buddhaghosa] Controverted point - That one who has attained jhana hears sound."The opinion is held by some - the Pubbaseilyans , for instance- that because the Exalted one called sound a thorn to first jhana, and if sound if not heard cannot be thorn in the flesh of one who had attained that state, it was inferable that such a one was able to hear.
robertk wrote:The actual Katthavathu makes the point that sound can't be heard in jhana. Buddhaghosa elaborates in the commentray to it.
robertk wrote:Perhaps the venerable doesn't include the Abhidhamma pitaka in the Tipitika?
robertk wrote:Page 169:Sometimes it’s argued that a person in jh›na is “incapable of speech” or cannot hear sounds, but neither of these assertions is supported by the Cannon
robertk wrote:Page 169:Sometimes it’s argued that a person in jh›na is “incapable of speech” or cannot hear sounds, but neither of these assertions is supported by the Cannon.
The problem is, however, while Joseph Goldstein may say that meditation is about "whatever comes up," what is very seriously missing in Ven Thanissaro's exposition is the full context of Goldstein's teaching where Goldstein says that meditation is whatever comes up. Without that, if this is a criticism of Goldstein, the criticism is of a straw man. In reading though the chapter on "bare attention,' I cannot take Ven Thanissaro seriously.danieLion wrote:tiltbillings wrote:Maybe, but he does not quote Goldstein, so it becomes hard to take what he says seriously as criticism of Goldstein, or any one else. It reads as a bit of a straw man argument. If one is going to argue against a postion, then put that position out there as accurately and fully as possible, then one should do one's best to beat it up, if it needs beating up. I do not see that as what has happened in this book.danieLion wrote:When he's criticizing the "whatever comes up" method it's directed towards Joseph Goldstein et al.
Perhaps,
I'm probably ignorant.
It's just that the only teacher I've ever heard say, "The meditation is about whatever comes up," is Joe G, and the only criticism I've ever heard using that exact phrase was from the good Rev.
So, does he cite Goldstein in these earlier works?In the good Rev's earlier works, he cited sources more
Return to Theravada Meditation
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests