Not Everything Is Written In Stone. . .

[Ben]

legolas,

I dont have an answer, open up tilt enjoy life enjoy the Dhamma. you to ben.

This ad hominem stays with you.

[legolas]

And what tradition might those be.

That speaks more of you than anything else.


You feel qualified to make this judgement about me? You know nothing about me and my practice. Shame on you.

I will definitely not be drawn into a discussion on this tradition or that tradition and although I may have raised this subject, I am now being chicken and will decline to answer.

I think what speaks volumes of you is your editing of my post. Where was my tongue in cheek after the "Yes"? Bearing this in mind my call to enjoy life and not to take things to seriously stands firm. Of course "Yes" is no answer but "Yes" does in fact speak volumes of my character and disposition.
As for knowing nothing about you or your practice, this is true I only know you by your posts contents as is the same for me.

[tiltbillings]

And what tradition might those be.

That speaks more of you than anything else.


You feel qualified to make this judgement about me? You know nothing about me and my practice. Shame on you.

I will definitely not be drawn into a discussion on this tradition or that tradition and although I may have raised this subject, I am now being chicken and will decline to answer.

But you seem to think slandering other traditions by innuendo is okay. You are constantly taking pokes at the naughty, grim vipassana traditions. It would far more honest for you to point to whatever tradition you think is missing the boat so there can be an honest discussion. You have made, over time here, a number of negative comments concerning vipassana traditions, yet to be named, but I have yet to see from you a straightforward discussion of what you find so problematic.

I think what speaks volumes of you is your editing of my post. Where was my tongue in cheek after the "Yes"? Bearing this in mind my call to enjoy life and not to take things to seriously stands firm. Of course "Yes" is no answer but "Yes" does in fact speak volumes of my character and disposition.
As for knowing nothing about you or your practice, this is true I only know you by your posts contents as is the same for me.

Your first name calling statement - "ninnies" - had no dumb-assed emoticon, and I suspect it reflects your actual feelings about those who disagree with your point of view. And what exactly do those emoticons mean? They are supposed excuse intemperate language? is not tongue-in-cheek. It is sticking one's tongue out.

[legolas]

I am sorry tilt if you found my "ninnie" intemperate language. I do apologise.

As far as an "honest discussion" goes about this or that tradition or technique, I have observed that they usually become vitriolic rather than honest. So I will decline your offer.

However you are right in that if I refuse to discuss the different vipassana traditions then I should not take shots at them. Having said that, is it not the Buddha's Dhamma that is up for discussion and not any particular sect of the Sangha. I will reserve my comments to how I perceive differing practices and their relevance to the Buddha's words.

BTW Your comment "I suspect it reflects your actual feelings about those who disagree with your point of view" is a little bit like what you chastised me for. You dont know me but you appear to know my feelings. Is this vipassana from afar ( this is an emoticon that signifies that it was a joke)

[tiltbillings]

I am sorry tilt if you found my "ninnie" intemperate language. I do apologise.

As far as an "honest discussion" goes about this or that tradition or technique, I have observed that they usually become vitriolic rather than honest. So I will decline your offer.

However you are right in that if I refuse to discuss the different vipassana traditions then I should not take shots at them. Having said that, is it not the Buddha's Dhamma that is up for discussion and not any particular sect of the Sangha. I will reserve my comments to how I perceive differing practices and their relevance to the Buddha's words.

What is sad about this is you seem very unwilling to learn from the vipassana people. You might actually have it quite wrong about vipassana, be it the U Ba Khin or Mahasi Saydaw traditions.

[tiltbillings]

BTW Your comment "I suspect it reflects your actual feelings about those who disagree with your point of view" is a little bit like what you chastised me for. You dont know me but you appear to know my feelings. Is this vipassana from afar ( this is an emoticon that signifies that it was a joke)

You are the one who put the statement out there. I am not to take what you write as it is written? Makes for difficulty in understanding. As far as a joke is concerned, one can make very biting comments in the guise of a joke.

[legolas]

I am sorry tilt if you found my "ninnie" intemperate language. I do apologise.

As far as an "honest discussion" goes about this or that tradition or technique, I have observed that they usually become vitriolic rather than honest. So I will decline your offer.

However you are right in that if I refuse to discuss the different vipassana traditions then I should not take shots at them. Having said that, is it not the Buddha's Dhamma that is up for discussion and not any particular sect of the Sangha. I will reserve my comments to how I perceive differing practices and their relevance to the Buddha's words.

What is sad about this is you seem very unwilling to learn from the vipassana people. You might actually have it quite wrong about vipassana, be it the U Ba Khin or Mahasi Saydaw traditions.

I respect your concern and am always willing to accept that there are certain elements within the traditions you mentioned as being very beneficial and valid. However I have actually been there and done that, it just did'nt cut the mustard for me personally and I felt that there was something missing. Having now actually read the suttas and listened/learned from other teachers, I am actually happy in my Dhamma practice.

[legolas]

BTW Your comment "I suspect it reflects your actual feelings about those who disagree with your point of view" is a little bit like what you chastised me for. You dont know me but you appear to know my feelings. Is this vipassana from afar ( this is an emoticon that signifies that it was a joke)

You are the one who put the statement out there. I am not to take what you write as it is written? Makes for difficulty in understanding. As far as a joke is concerned, one can make very biting comments in the guise of a joke.

Thats a shame, I thought it was pretty witty joke, with only a little bite.

[tiltbillings]

I respect your concern and am always willing to accept that there are certain elements within the traditions you mentioned as being very beneficial and valid. However I have actually been there and done that, it just did'nt cut the mustard for me personally and I felt that there was something missing.

And for me jhana practice, while interesting, was more of a distraction. Certainly not an absolute necessity for practice or awakening, unless one is talking about something such as the vipassana jhanas, but then we are still within the framework of vipassana.

Having now actually read the suttas and listened/learned from other teachers, I am actually happy in my Dhamma practice.

It is good that you are happy in your practice, but having actually read the suttas and worked with a number of teachers, I find vipassana is a perfectly legitimate way of practice, and it a practice that has lessened my suffering, allowing me to deal with life as it is more effectively, which is a joy in itself.

My only gripe about the jhana-wallahs is that there is a tendency among them to be awfully strident in their advocacy of their point of view over all others. I wonder why that is.

[legolas]

It is good that you are happy in your practice, but having actually read the suttas and worked with a number of teachers, I find vipassana is a perfectly legitimate way of practice, and it a practice that has lessened my suffering, allowing me to deal with life as it is more effectively, which is a joy in itself.

My only gripe about the jhana-wallahs is that there is a tendency among them to be awfully strident in their advocacy of their point of view over all others. I wonder why that is.

I was actually enjoying your post and then you go and ruin it with "jhana-wallahs". surely this would refer to the Buddha who dwelt in Jhana whenever possible. If I am to curtail my swipes at vipassana-wallahs it has to be reciprocated. As far as being "strident in their advocacy" it is just our natural exuberance of wanting to share.

[manas]

My thanks to Vepacitta and IanAnd for their informative replies. (from a bit earlier...it's moving fast in here). I found the sutta references very helpful.

Once again I'm remembering that the Buddha gave teachings with regards to time and place, as well as the capability of the listener. There actually is a sutta where he says "Be yoked to internal pleasantness..." but I just can't find it at present. There must have been a particular reason he said that at that time.

[bodom]

There actually isa sutta where he says "Be yoked to internal pleasantness..." but I just can't find it at present.

Here you go.

Here, the bhikkhu secluded from sense desires and demerit, with thoughts and thought processes and with joy and pleasantness born of seclusion attains to the first jhana. Overcoming thoughts and thought processes, the mind internally settled and brought to a single point and with joy and pleasantness born of concentration, attains to the second jhana.....re.....attains to the third jhana....re.....attains to the fourth jhana. To this is said the non sensual pleasure, the pleasure of seclusion, appeasement and enlightenment. It should be practiced, made much and should not be feared, I say. If it was said, knowing the evaluation of pleasantness, be yoked to internal pleasantness it was said on account of this.

http://www.mahindarama.com/e-tipitaka/M ... mn-139.htm

[Ñāṇa]

I was actually enjoying your post and then you go and ruin it with "jhana-wallahs". surely this would refer to the Buddha who dwelt in Jhana whenever possible.

No worries Legolas, after being called a "jhana-wallah" by Tilt I was forcibly silenced for somehow taking this thread, which was supposed to be about jhana, off topic. Good to see that Tilt deems fit to designate everyone's practice marginal but his own.

All the best,

Geoff

[Vepacitta]

I wish you'd comment more Nana - your posts are always informative.

V.

[Modus.Ponens]

Tilt

In all your posts in this thread I haven't seen one that discusses Ian's (or others' by the way) exposition with substance. You argue with form and no substance is added. Why not quote the suttas to invalidate Ian's experience?

[tiltbillings]

Tilt

In all your posts in this thread I haven't seen one that discusses Ian's (or others' by the way) exposition with substance. You argue with form and no substance is added. Why not quote the suttas to invalidate Ian's experience?

Because what I am talking about here is a "form" issue. As for Ian's experience, how am I supposed to know what he has experienced? I don't know and it is really not the issue, but when someone comes along (who is not the Buddha) and states "I have all this experience, I am going to tell you now (teach) what is what about jhana" and in the process comment somewhat negatively on others teachers and interpreations that is not without is problems - serious problems.

[tiltbillings]

It is good that you are happy in your practice, but having actually read the suttas and worked with a number of teachers, I find vipassana is a perfectly legitimate way of practice, and it a practice that has lessened my suffering, allowing me to deal with life as it is more effectively, which is a joy in itself.

My only gripe about the jhana-wallahs is that there is a tendency among them to be awfully strident in their advocacy of their point of view over all others. I wonder why that is.

I was actually enjoying your post and then you go and ruin it with "jhana-wallahs". surely this would refer to the Buddha who dwelt in Jhana whenever possible. If I am to curtail my swipes at vipassana-wallahs it has to be reciprocated. As far as being "strident in their advocacy" it is just our natural exuberance of wanting to share.

I do not see here vipassana students pushing vipassana with the stridency as some jhana practitioners. You - all by yourself - have exemplified the problem with your unfounded pokes at vipassana as if the practices of vipassana and jhana were at irreconcilable odds with each other and that one must win over the other. And then, of course, there are the internecine battles within the jhana practitioners camps. This debate about jhanas on the internet is a new phenomenon of about the last 5 or so years, maybe a few more. If you want to call vipassana practitioners vipassana-wallahs, particularly if they are stridently pushing it at the expense of other practices, you'll get no argument from me.

Definition of WALLAH:
a person who is associated with a particular work or who performs a specific duty or service —usually used in combination <the book wallah was an itinerant peddler — George Orwell> ]

Jhana-wallah: someone who peddles the idea of jhana. But rather than peddle jhana, discuss it and be allowing of those who do not buy into it in the way you are advocating it. They are not heterodox anti-Buddhists.

[tiltbillings]

I was actually enjoying your post and then you go and ruin it with "jhana-wallahs". surely this would refer to the Buddha who dwelt in Jhana whenever possible.

No worries Legolas, after being called a "jhana-wallah" by Tilt I was forcibly silenced for somehow taking this thread, which was supposed to be about jhana, off topic.

Naughty me. I forced you to act badly. Well, I don't think so, unless you are a milquetoast.

Good to see that Tilt deems fit to designate everyone's practice marginal but his own.

Goodness. Please quote what I said that warrants this comment.

[Sobeh]

Is it a roughly accurate generalization to say that Vipassana folk are generally accepting of the Commentaries and Abhidhamma, while Jhana folk are generally not?

[legolas]

Is it a roughly accurate generalization to say that Vipassana folk are generally accepting of the Commentaries and Abhidhamma, while Jhana folk are generally not?

I think that is a fair comment that applies to me. I have no problem with Commentaries and Abhidhamma if they fit snugly to the Suttas. I think it also could be said in a very general way and only based on my own experience that Jhana folk are more accepting of the Suttas.