General discussion of issues related to Theravada Meditation, e.g. meditation postures, developing a regular sitting practice, skillfully relating to difficulties and hindrances, etc.
legolas wrote:
Ahh! The Paṭisambhidāmagga, I thought it was something the Buddha elucidated.
No. Just some guy named Sariputta.
And a bunch of other guys (and gals), who, over the past 2500 years state that they verified it.
Are they all mistaken?
Presumably you have done a comprehensive analysis to ascertain exactly which parts of which Suttas properly explain the Dhamma, and which parts were added at the first, second, and third councils, or beyond?
legolas wrote:
Ahh! The Paṭisambhidāmagga, I thought it was something the Buddha elucidated.
No. Just some guy named Sariputta.
And a bunch of other guys (and gals), who, over the past 2500 years state that they verified it.
Are they all mistaken?
Presumably you have done a comprehensive analysis to ascertain exactly which parts of which Suttas properly explain the Dhamma, and which parts were added at the first, second, and third councils, or beyond?
Mike
Yep.
No only kidding. However as far as I am aware it is the suttas that take precedence and since even in the suttas these teachings are not mentioned in the 1st council - I was drawing a glaringly obvious conclusion - the Paṭisambhidāmagga was added at a later time. You say a bunch of guys and gals have "verified" it over 2500 years. Has it not been merely recited, written down and venerated - much like the bible. Are we to say biblical scholars have verified the bible merely because it has been venerated for over 2000years (at least as old as the Paṭisambhidāmagga). The suttas are the teachings that are to be verified and they are the teaching of the Buddha - if the suttas don't do it for people - thats fine - but to add teachings and declare them as the Buddha's word (or Sariputta's) is I think sad.
legolas wrote:You say a bunch of guys and gals have "verified" it over 2500 years. Has it not been merely recited, written down and venerated - much like the bible. ...
Not at all. They claim to have verified it through personal experience.
You seem to be implying that thousands of ancient and modern Bhikkhus were mistaken in (or lied about) their experiences.
And that one or two modern Bhikkhus figured out the truth all by themselves...
tiltbillings wrote:No anger, but I wonder if there is any real substance to your continual sniping at the Burmese vipassana practices.
If there is any substance or no substance to my argument that should be determined on the basis of my postings, not a personal attack on me. Obviously you would argue that there is no substance - in which case please make that argument.
tiltbillings wrote:No anger, but I wonder if there is any real substance to your continual sniping at the Burmese vipassana practices.
If there is any substance or no substance to my argument that should be determined on the basis of my postings, not a personal attack on me. Obviously you would argue that there is no substance - in which case please make that argument.
Actually, I am waiting for you to make an argument for your position.
>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
legolas wrote:You say a bunch of guys and gals have "verified" it over 2500 years. Has it not been merely recited, written down and venerated - much like the bible. ...
Not at all. They claim to have verified it through personal experience.
You seem to be implying that thousands of ancient and modern Bhikkhus were mistaken in (or lied about) their experiences.
And that one or two modern Bhikkhus figured out the truth all by themselves...
Mike
I would certainly argue a degeneration of Dhamma since the Buddha's time and a systematic turning away from the words of the Buddha towards mere poetry (Mahayana) or extreme scholasticism (Theravada). If a few modern Bhikkhus are prepared to stand up against millenia old institutions, then I think all the more of them for it. I don't believe these modern Bhikkhu's are saying anything new, merely highlighting original teachings that have existed and been practiced since the Buddha'a time but which have been overshadowed by scholastic tradition & ritual.
tiltbillings wrote:No anger, but I wonder if there is any real substance to your continual sniping at the Burmese vipassana practices.
If there is any substance or no substance to my argument that should be determined on the basis of my postings, not a personal attack on me. Obviously you would argue that there is no substance - in which case please make that argument.
Actually, I am waiting for you to make an argument for your position.
Please comment on my posts and where you think I am mistaken.
legolas wrote:
Please comment on my posts and where you think I am mistaken.
legolas wrote:. However the nanas explicitly state that pain is a fundamental base or stepping stone to nibbana,
Pain is an experience one will have as one practices. The question is, what does one do with it?
Please note - pain CAN arise during meditation, and it is the duty of the meditator to try and calm the the body and mind - not think of that pain as an actual attainment towards realising nibbana. We might as well stick a pin in our eye and observe the painful sensations, if we think that pain is a neccessary stage.
While pain is not necessarily a necessary experience in one's awakening, it is likely to be an inevitable experience. There is much that can be learned from pain. Also, there is no need to go looking for pain. Having a mind/body, one will have pain.
>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
legolas wrote:
Please comment on my posts and where you think I am mistaken.
legolas wrote:. However the nanas explicitly state that pain is a fundamental base or stepping stone to nibbana,
Pain is an experience one will have as one practices. The question is, what does one do with it?
Please note - pain CAN arise during meditation, and it is the duty of the meditator to try and calm the the body and mind - not think of that pain as an actual attainment towards realising nibbana. We might as well stick a pin in our eye and observe the painful sensations, if we think that pain is a neccessary stage.
While pain is not necessarily a necessary experience in one's awakening, it is likely to be an inevitable experience. There is much that can be learned from pain. Also, there is no need to go looking for pain. Having a mind/body, one will have pain.
I think I can agree with some of what you say except "the more practical way" this seems to involve dragging one's attention away from the internal process. As far as pain goes, facing pain down is certainly one way of dealing with it - personally I find the practice of releasing the pain and trying to intentionally direct the mind to calming the body/mind, a practice that fits with sutta instructions on meditation. This leaves one in a better position (through having a calm mind and tranquil body) to see arising and passing.
My main point was that the nanas explicitly state that pain is a neccessary part in awakening. It is a stage in the awakening process that I cannot find any evidence of within the suttas.
legolas wrote: I think I can agree with some of what you say except "the more practical way" this seems to involve dragging one's attention away from the internal process.
It is simply a matter of paying attention without comment to what is happening in the mind/body process: In the seen, the seen . . . .
As far as pain goes, facing pain down is certainly one way of dealing with it - personally I find the practice of releasing the pain and trying to intentionally direct the mind to calming the body/mind, a practice that fits with sutta instructions on meditation. This leaves one in a better position (through having a calm mind and tranquil body) to see arising and passing.
It is not a matter of "facing down pain." Not by a long shot. It is a matter of paying attention to the pain one is experiencing. "Releasing the pain" means what? What is possible, as one's mindfulness and concentration develop, is paying attention to one's pain.
My main point was that the nanas explicitly state that pain is a neccessary part in awakening. It is a stage in the awakening process that I cannot find any evidence of within the suttas.
Using the OP link and the Mahasi Sayadaw link I gave, show us what you are saying is so.
>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
As far as the above linked text is concerned, it probably deserves to be read a little more carefully.
Since we have bodies and they are part of the vehicle of practice, pain is part of the practice.
I am not big on over regulation but I do wonder whether sniping and poking at Vipassana should not be considered a cause of disruption under the TOS. After all if every time there was a mention of Samatha or The Brahma Viharas it resulted in sniping and poking I think it would cause questions to be asked.
For some reason Vipassana seems to be fair game.
Usually this comes from those who attended one Vipassana retreat and didnt like it or have basic ideological problems with something they have no direct knowledge of.
