I wonder if one could teach himself (herself) why do we need the Sangha at all? Why did people like Ajahns Sumedho and Amaro go to Thailand, train for so many years, endured mosquitoes and tropical diseases when they could've just stayed home?
I mean yes, sure, one can make some progress on one's own, but can we really pull ourselves out by the bootstraps? Can a blind person in a dark labyrinth find his way out even with the most accurate map?
Dan74 wrote:I wonder if one could teach himself (herself) why do we need the Sangha at all?
The monastic sangha, when done properly, offers the most efficacious environment for practice. In addition, there was once no distinction between monastic sangha and the teachings, since the oral tradition meant that the two could not be differentiated.
Writing ultimately changed the second part, but not the first.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
Dan74 wrote:I wonder if one could teach himself (herself) why do we need the Sangha at all? Why did people like Ajahns Sumedho and Amaro go to Thailand, train for so many years, endured mosquitoes and tropical diseases when they could've just stayed home?
I mean yes, sure, one can make some progress on one's own, but can we really pull ourselves out by the bootstraps? Can a blind person in a dark labyrinth find his way out even with the most accurate map?
In the past there were no Dhamma books. Thus you needed ordained sangha who would dedicate their life to to remember and recite the Pali Canon .
Today you don't have to climb mountains and travel far to learn some subtle doctrines.
mikenz66 wrote:but is realization straightforward?
I'm not sure about actual realization but I think the conceptualization is certainly fairly straightforward and not overly technical.
mikenz66 wrote:The Forest tradition (in it's broad context, not just the Ajahn Chah group) is very diverse
In my opinion it is not really that broad and diverse. The key uniting element was practicing within the vinaya and following a certain style of practice.
mikenz66 wrote:but is realization straightforward?
I'm not sure about actual realization but I think the conceptualization is certainly fairly straightforward and not overly technical.
But the conceptualization is still just the "finger pointing at the moon", isn't it? And which conceptual map are you referring to, the commentarial progress of insight, or some other map?
Mr Man wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:The Forest tradition (in it's broad context, not just the Ajahn Chah group) is very diverse
In my opinion it is not really that broad and diverse. The key uniting element was practicing within the vinaya and following a certain style of practice.
But which style of practice is that? I see a huge diversity, even in the Western Ajahn Chah students. Ajahn Brahm and some others teach a Visuddhimagga-strength jhana approach. Many others, such as Ajahn Tiradhammo, teach a vipassana-oriented style that is quite compatible with what many Mahasi teachers teach. (On one retreat I did with Ajahn Tiradhammo he mentioned Ven Nyanaponika's book Heart of Buddhist Meditation as a key reference in his early development).
As laypeople we could make and keep our practice fairly straight forward, We could base it on the advice to Dhammika http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .irel.html.
I think that possibly we have become rather to materilistic in our practice with the focus of attainments and the like, or intellectual sophistication: 'Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves'
Truth is found in a person and a way of life. Truth transforms. If I've found truth, I'll be living in a different way. If this transformation has not happened then I have not connected with this truth.
The Noble Truths are described as things we do.
Realising the Noble Truths has to do with awakening to dukkha ('This Origin of Suffering as a noble truth should be eradicated') and the possibility of a way out ('This Path leading to the cessation of suffering, as a noble truth, should be developed')
mikenz66 wrote:but is realization straightforward?
I'm not sure about actual realization but I think the conceptualization is certainly fairly straightforward and not overly technical.
But the conceptualization is still just the "finger pointing at the moon", isn't it? And which conceptual map are you referring to, the commentarial progress of insight, or some other map?
Mr Man wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:The Forest tradition (in it's broad context, not just the Ajahn Chah group) is very diverse
In my opinion it is not really that broad and diverse. The key uniting element was practicing within the vinaya and following a certain style of practice.
But which style of practice is that? I see a huge diversity, even in the Western Ajahn Chah students. Ajahn Brahm and some others teach a Visuddhimagga-strength jhana approach. Many others, such as Ajahn Tiradhammo, teach a vipassana-oriented style that is quite compatible with what many Mahasi teachers teach. (On one retreat I did with Ajahn Tiradhammo he mentioned Ven Nyanaponika's book Heart of Buddhist Meditation as a key reference in his early development).
Hi Mike, I wasn't referring to a particular conceptual map and I was thinking more of the Thai forest tradition as it was. The style of practice was keeping vinaya, pindapat, sweeping paths, dying robes, chanting, tudong, perseverance, kammaṭṭhāna