mikenz66 wrote:Naturally, I beg to differ. My approach is based very solidly on the Satipatthana and other Suttas. (As Tilt has often pointed out by reference to various Suttas).
That's good to hear, I wasn't suggesting otherwise.
mikenz66 wrote:Are you saying that no-one I mentioned above teaches according to the Suttas?
No, I wasn't suggesting that either.
To quote something I've said previously in relation to the suttanta approach, "The Sutta Pitaka becomes the basis for instruction and other sources (e.g. teachers, commentaries) have value to the extent that they illuminate rather than obfuscate what is contained in the Sutta Pitaka. The results may end up being similar to that of Mahavihara Theravada (as one would hope) but it's a different process of getting there."
So, in other words, someone follows the sutta as their primary instruction
, rather than following a teacher's method, derived from the suttas.
To quote again, this time from thereductor, "I was thinking that we often lose sight of how the canon and the Theravada are related. That is, the Theravada is a supplement to the canon, and not the other way around. So where a mode of practice can be effectively defended with canonical material it should be considered as valid. To insist that such a position is invalid because it runs counter to the tradition is, to me, the making of inappropriate strife. And while I do concur that the canon is not the most detailed manual, I hold that the details within its pages are sufficient for completion of the goal. Whether or not a particular practitioner can ferret out the information and act on it to the degree necessary to accomplish the goal is a matter of personal conditioning."
Anyway, to tie this back to discussion on the Goenka technique, as I said earlier, I do not see it as being inconsistent with the suttas.