Vipassana movement

[danieLion]

Well put, dear Tilt. And thanks for posting the Goldstein talk. It lead me to his talks on pain at Dharmaseed. He really is an excellent Dharma teacher (and I find his voice and delivery very soothing).

I think I'm turning towards sharing your "rat's ass" perspective on it all (awakening "stages", jhana, etc...).

Best,
Daniel

[Ytrog]

Although Tiltbillings explained that the following quote is not (entirely) true I want you to pretend it is for the sake of argument:

It appears to me that their object was to bring Mindfulness Meditation, Insight Meditation/Vipassna
to the US in a secular manner, so as to avoid the religious connotations, and thus avoid the "religious" Buddhist
teachings and such aspects that would alienate a large portion of the population who would thus be deprived
of the benefits of what appears to be, if one would stop at the beginners stage, "mindfulness meditation lite."

I think the above example goes against Buddhism in an important way for the following reason: As I understand it the Buddha didn't care much for the number of followers he had (I remember a story where he told a man to think it through before becoming a follower, though I can't find it at the moment). He taught one Dhamma in the full as there is one truth and no other.
To thin the teaching out by presenting it as a "light" version will help none to reach the goal with it and damages the teaching of the Dhamma. One can not teach the Dhamma only partially and expect anyone to reap the full benefits. Even more so it can cultivate a perception that you don't need a lot of the non-secular "baggage" in the Dhamma and that it can be ignored without consequence while in reality the Dhamma exists in that form for a good reason. If people are, for example, only taught a single technique of watching the mind they can miss valuable parts that may seem very religious like prostration which in reality is a very good way to cultivate humility. The whole path is designed so that all parts reinforce each other.

In short I think that the Buddha would never have altered his teaching to appeal to a larger group of people. He recognized that it was not for everyone although anyone was welcome. I personally hope that a "light" version never becomes the norm for the reason I mentioned above. Let's put quality above quantity.

I realize I express some things strongly, however the above should be interpreted as a big IMHO. What do you think?

[tiltbillings]

Although Tiltbillings explained that the following quote is not (entirely) true I want you to pretend it is for the sake of argument:

It appears to me that their object was to bring Mindfulness Meditation, Insight Meditation/Vipassna
to the US in a secular manner, so as to avoid the religious connotations, and thus avoid the "religious" Buddhist
teachings and such aspects that would alienate a large portion of the population who would thus be deprived
of the benefits of what appears to be, if one would stop at the beginners stage, "mindfulness meditation lite."

I think the above example goes against Buddhism in an important way for the following reason: As I understand it the Buddha didn't care much for the number of followers he had (I remember a story where he told a man to think it through before becoming a follower, though I can't find it at the moment). He taught one Dhamma in the full as there is one truth and no other.
To thin the teaching out by presenting it as a "light" version will help none to reach the goal with it and damages the teaching of the Dhamma. One can not teach the Dhamma only partially and expect anyone to reap the full benefits. Even more so it can cultivate a perception that you don't need a lot of the non-secular "baggage" in the Dhamma and that it can be ignored without consequence while in reality the Dhamma exists in that form for a good reason. If people are, for example, only taught a single technique of watching the mind they can miss valuable parts that may seem very religious like prostration which in reality is a very good way to cultivate humility. The whole path is designed so that all parts reinforce each other.

In short I think that the Buddha would never have altered his teaching to appeal to a larger group of people. He recognized that it was not for everyone although anyone was welcome. I personally hope that a "light" version never becomes the norm for the reason I mentioned above. Let's put quality above quantity.

I realize I express some things strongly, however the above should be interpreted as a big IMHO. What do you think?

I understand you point, but do understand mine: It would be quite wrong to assume that all American teachers of vipassana teach a "light" version of the Dhamma.

[tiltbillings]

Well put, dear Tilt. And thanks for posting the Goldstein talk. It lead me to his talks on pain at Dharmaseed. He really is an excellent Dharma teacher (and I find his voice and delivery very soothing).

He is also excellent in a one-to-one teaching situation.

I think I'm turning towards sharing your "rat's ass" perspective on it all (awakening "stages", jhana, etc...).

Best,
Daniel

I would want to make a point here about that. I am not perforce criticizing others who feel a need for careful, detailed study and practice in those terms.

[Ytrog]

It would be quite wrong to assume that all American teachers of vipassana teach a "light" version of the Dhamma.

It was meant by me as a what-if scenario for the sake of argument as I explain in the first sentence. I surely hope that it is not really the case.

[tiltbillings]

It would be quite wrong to assume that all American teachers of vipassana teach a "light" version of the Dhamma.

It was meant by me as a what-if scenario for the sake of argument as I explain in the first sentence. I surely hope that it is not really the case.

It may be the case among some, but I am just responding I terms of those, not you, who have been critical of American vipassana teachers as a whole for what a few happen to do. I share your concerns.

[danieLion]

Well put, dear Tilt. And thanks for posting the Goldstein talk. It lead me to his talks on pain at Dharmaseed. He really is an excellent Dharma teacher (and I find his voice and delivery very soothing).

He is also excellent in a one-to-one teaching situation.

I think I'm turning towards sharing your "rat's ass" perspective on it all (awakening "stages", jhana, etc...).

Best,
Daniel

I would want to make a point here about that. I am not perforce criticizing others who feel a need for careful, detailed study and practice in those terms.

Granted. I still have hope some coherence and uniformity might emerge from it.