The "rules and ritual" business was brought by robertk as a defense of his wholesale rejection of sitting meditation practice.Dan74 wrote:retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Dan,Dan74 wrote:In a sense what you term rites and rituals can serve as a bridge between meditation and "everyday life" in that it is easier to bring a spacious clarity of meditation into a well-rehearsed activity like that than to face the "darts and arrows" in the same spirit.
Of course there are many other good reasons for performing them too. But since we are on the subject of meditation...
Well actually, the topic is about "the causes for wisdom".
Paul, I am probably not in the mood for your sense of humour but people were discussing rites and ritual - so why the seemingly smartarse comment?
Also, as has been mentioned above in response to robertk's comments, even if someone starts out the sitting practice with the hindrance of "rules and rituals," that does not mean they are going to be forever stuck there. Insight into what binds is part of the natural unfolding of practice. It is why one does sitting meditation practice.retrofuturist wrote:Since "attachment to rites and rituals" (as compared to say, "absence of meditation") is one of the three fetters that binds us to avijja (ignorance) and prevents stream-entry, possibly it's a more important (and less beaten to death) subject of discussion on a topic addressing "the causes for wisdom".
And here you go!
If someone is performing a ritual, does it mean (s)he is attached? And if so, could it still be useful before stream-entry?
Dan wrote:retro wrote:The topic, and forum in general, needn't always be framed as a relentless defense of sitting meditation and people's chosen practices (as it has been for much of the last 18 pages of discussion).
A long time ago I was debating with Tilt, unable to understand his seemingly vehement attack on Mahayana sectarianism and particularly the term "Hinayana". Then he shared that due to this sectarian propaganda, to effectively slander, the avenue of exploring Theravada remained closed to him for some time. In essence he was denied an opportunity to explore this amazing tradition. A travesty, wouldn't you agree?
I think all ill-informed attacks on a tradition, a lineage or practice, do precisely that - misinform and deny people an opportunity to explore through slander. I am not defensive about my chosen practice - you are reading me entirely wrong. After 10 years I am completely at home with it. Any inadequacies are my own. But I think it is a good idea to correct misinformation and sectarianism when we see it. I try to do the same within my chosen tradition too.