Hello again friends and sorry for flooding this topic for the time being
tiltbillings wrote:Of course the commentary to the Satipatthanasutta points to the laity being included in serious meditation practice.
Of course - and this is why pluralism is so important. The Pali Canon is an enormous beast and just like all Theravadins through the ages, many of us are likely to come to equally meaningful but different interpretations. So, while it's my view, for example, that the emphasis for laity should not be meditation, I respect differing views in others.
Of course, though my question of what would robertk think was primarily in response to your comment: What these practices are, are serious, committed, faithful, loving attempts to understand and realise the Buddhadhamma. And so in that sense they are exactly what the Buddha taught.
That's a fair question, tiltbillings. I think it's evident that there's at least a strong possibility that robertk wouldn't agree with my view of vipassana practices that you've referred to. But it's a lot harder to be the bigger person when your views are clearly marginal. Robertk evidently had or has a bit of a complex about his Theravada being marginalised in these fora. As his position is clearly a minority position, I don't think it behooves us to pretend that his language may not have been confrontational, but it is fair for us to remember that in dealing with minority positions, those in the majority are speaking from positions of privilege, power, and dominance. It's also important to remember, I think, that views like robertk's are, historically speaking, on the decline, and I think it's reasonable to understand that people speaking from those places of increasing marginalisation may feel that they are on a sinking dhamma ship and everyone around them is too busy doing vipassana* to notice the corruption of the Buddhadhamma. * - an attempt at humour, please laugh along with me, it is not a shot at the vipassanists
Probably no more than robertk’s own snarling tone; also, there is a history here from the Gray Forum that has gotten carried over.
Well, I've avoided the gray forum, so I guess I don't understand the history. It would be an added bonus for folks like me, without any history on that forum and its myriad dramas, if we were here to see a clean slate for the participants. What happens on the gray forum stays on the gray forum? Without the benefit of history, I read robertk's tone as desperate and clingy, rather than snarling. I don't think we have to take a pollyanna attitude here, indeed on an internet forum attempts at such are usually nonsensical, but we all snarl sometimes, and I think one of the ways that we can indeed stretch the breadth and depth of our discussions is to find productive ways to deal with snarling. What happens if we get a troupe of trolls and snarks?
Maybe, but the history here is a problem. Even at best he has been less than expansive in the whys of his criticism of what he feels that goes against the grain of he hold to be so.
I think this is a great point. Maybe this is a lesson for us all, when to disagree, to single out exactly what it is that is bothersome, and then use that in the discussion. Maybe an invitation - and a palpable sense of receptive audience - for robertk to expand upon his views - an invitation to start a thread around some of his core issues - etc etc. I don't know. I'm new here, I don't know the history, I'm liable from positions of ignorance to tend towards the pollyannaism that I don't think really works
. . . I think that starts with a basic assumption of pluralism in our Theravada communities.
I would agree with that. Not a problem, but I kind of think that robertk might sort of in a way have a bit of difficulty with that.
Well I guess we could just try and set an example? Thanks for responding to my thoughts, tiltbillings, I really appreciate it.
edit to fix quotes.