robertk wrote:I was reading something Sujin Boriharnwanaket says that makes a lot of sense to me.
She said that one can have subtle craving for kusala and that shifts one away from the present:
"If one thinks that one should rather have objects other than the present one, since these appear to be more wholesome, one will never study the object which appears now. And how can one know their true nature when there is no study, no awareness of them? So it must be the present object, only what appears now. This is more difficult because it is not the object of desire. If desire can move one away to another object, that object satisfies one's desire. Desire is there all the time. If there is no understanding of lobha as lobha, how can it be eradicated? One has to understand different degrees of realities, also lobha which is more subtle, otherwise one does not know when there is lobha. Seeing things as they are. Lobha is lobha. Usually one does not see the subtle lobha which moves one away from developing right understanding of the present object."
And, of course, no teacher I know of would disagree with that.
But what I have never understood is why the KS followers appear think that they are the only ones who have thought deeply about these issues, that they are the only ones whose choice of approach is less susceptible to these problems, and that the rest of the Theravada community has lost it's way.