smokey wrote: So what we have to ask ourselves is what in the Buddha's Teaching has become impure? The answer is rather simple: It is the meditation technique.
Well, if you ask me it is not the meditation technique as such. Rather it is the lack of proper understanding of the meaning of the suttas resulting in wrong attention to the wrong things. In the suttas the Buddha teaches: do this and don't do that. But what does it mean? Say, what does "homelessness" mean? We know that the Buddha "left home (and his newborn son)" and went into "homelessness". He taught about "going into villages for alms". But what does it mean? Most people just assume that it is meant in an everyday sense, that they can just read the suttas and follow the order and practice according to the Buddha's teaching. But at the time of the Buddha the people knew that He taught in a specific language, that the meaning of His words were not obvious but hidden. And they turned around and searched for that hidden meaning in their minds or hoped for someone to interpret.
I have heard that on one occasion Ven. Maha Kaccana was staying in Avanti at Osprey's Haunt, on Sheer-face Peak. Then Haliddakani the householder went to him and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to Ven. Maha Kaccana: "Venerable sir, this was said by the Blessed One in Magandiya's Questions in the Atthaka Vagga:
'Having abandoned home, living free from society, the sage in villages creates no intimacies. Rid of sensual passions, free from yearning, he wouldn't engage with people in quarrelsome debate.'
"How is the detailed meaning of this, the Blessed One's brief statement, to be understood?"
[Ven. Maha Kaccana:] "The property of form, householder, is the home of consciousness. When consciousness is in bondage through passion to the property of form, it is said to be living at home. The property of feeling... perception... fabrication is the home of consciousness. When consciousness is in bondage through passion to the property of fabrication, it is said to be dwelling at home.
"And how does one not live at home? Any desire, passion, delight, craving, any attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions with regard to the property of form: these the Tathagata has abandoned, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Therefore the Tathagata is said to be not dwelling at home.http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
In the suttas home refers to the property of form (and the others), this is the home of consciousness. It is the "householder" who lives at home, the bhikkhu has gone forth into homelessness, freed itself from the bondage. The life of the householder is hard and dusty, that of the bhikkhu is easy and free space - because consciousness is not bonded by form (and the rest). For the rest of the suttas it is just like that, the instructions are not interpreted correctly and thus many practitioners pay attention to the wrong stuff and use up all effort for the wrong goals.
What also I do recollect from the suttas is that the Buddha experienced Jhana when he was a boy and when he was trying to achieve enlightenment he recollected that memory and came to a conclusion: "Jhana is the Way which leads One to Enlighenment".
Yes, because when it arises in the mind during vipassana one can free oneself from all the lokas.