dhamma follower wrote:Dear Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:
Sometimes, DF, one's practice fails, for whatever reason. It happens, and you should probably ask yourself why you stayed with it for ten years if it was not doing anything of any significance for you. Vipassana practice may have not been for; you may not have had the temperament for it. It kind of sounds like you were being a bit too rigid with your sleepless nights. But the point is that you cannot meaningful say that your experience is applicable to me or anyone else. For me, my vipassana practice has transformed my life and opened up the Buddha's teachings.
The problem is: i was being told that I was having valid insights.
And you weren't having valid insights? If you weren't why would stay with it for ten years? The problem here is not the vipassana practice.
I was happy with that "vipassana practice" enough to keep having retreats for several months a year in ten years. And I do feel my life has been transformed tremendously. However, looking back, does this transformation came from those slowing movements, those sleepless nights? I don't think so. I think my life has changed because of the Buddha's wisdom that I could hear, read, and reflecting upon throughout all those years. It confirms to me that the Buddha Path is that of understanding and detachment. Only understanding can let go.
You obviously weren't getting anything from it, and likely you are not suited for this sort of practice, which happens. Time to move on.
But the point was not about my own experience. I was addressing the ground ideas of the practice, not my own experience of it.
But you are talking about your own experience, given that you are generalizing from your failed experience to everyone else's experience by characterizing the slowing down practice as being characterized by lobha/greed. That may have been true for you, but it certainly was not true for me, and there is no reason to think that your experience was universal. And if was true for you, that is a good indicator that you were missing something rather vital about yourself in your practice.
An apple in English is called pomme in French, but they taste the same. Similarly, what is discussed in the Abhidhamma is also the same truth that the Buddha has become enlightened to under the Boddhi tree and taught in the Sutta. If the truth were different between the sutta and the Abhidhamma, it would be no longer truth. And the Buddha taught the Truth, didn't he?
One would think; however, there is a problem here. You are claiming based upon your experience and the system have subsequently adopted that Burmese vipassana practice is essentially delusional. I have no reason to believe you, and I have no reason to accept the point of view you are advocating, given its sectarian style of us-vesus-them approach that is at serious odds with what is found i the suttas and the Abhidhamma.
Can lobha condition sati to arise? If there is no understanding of what sati is and what are the conditions for it to arise, how can there be real sati which arises to be aware of dhammas as just dhammas (and not "I" am aware of this or that)? So real arising and passing away is still too far, truly....
You are so intent on trying to show that what I do is wrong. I wonder what negative dhamma that is.
It was not directed at you at all. We are simply discussing dhammic points. Let's put aside your or my experiences and back to the original topic: causes for wisdom.
On the other hand this talk about personal experience highlights the glaring difference between what you are proposing and what others see as being essential to practice. And what others see as essential to practice you are dismissing as delusional, but you are unable to actually given solid reason why that is.
