mikenz66 wrote:H Dhamma Follower,dhamma follower wrote:... When there's more and more understanding in different aspects, it can condition the moment of direct experience of realities, by way of upanissaya paccaya. This would not be possible without a clear understanding of what is the object of satipatthana and what is not, and a strong emphasis on the realities NOW. ...
So, this is just as much a "method" as anything else. And certainly seems be a "method" that your are convinced will "work". Of course, that "strong emphasis" arises from conditions, just as in any other "method".
I have no argument with your "method". It seems perfectly reasonable to me, since it's actually the same as what the rest of us think we are doing.
The disagreement, to me, is mostly over the insistence of KS students that they are "just letting conditions work", in contrast to "meditators". I think you (the students) would be much more convincing if you simply explained your approach, and discussed commonalities with other Dhamma students, rather than putting so much effort into arguing about differences. In my experience, that is never fruitful.
So, this is just as much a "method" as anything else
This is the reason I wrote this:
This description might lead one to think that there is in fact an exercise that one must try to do. But in reality, it is totally an empty process, causes and effects, causes and effects. If there is trying to make it, it can not happen, because then it is done by the idea of someone who can, and by the desire to get something. The entire process is ignated actually by a clear understanding that it is an empty proccess, which is conditioned by right understanding now. This is a subtle point that we have a great difficulty getting across
And that is also the reason why have to stress again and again on the differences, at the risk of sounding antagonist.
I don't think we should a avoid talking about differences, because it's there that lies any potential for growth. All AS' students are exposed to having their questions/arguments/sharings subjected to cristism under the light of right understanding, either by her or by others. I think that's is also the way it was in many sutta among the Buddha's disciples.
Now back to that line. To some, it seems to be a method, but that is not so. As soon as there's idea of a method, it is the idea of someone who can (attend to the realities as they arise). Actually, when there's emphasis on now, it doesn't mean that one should try to attend to what appears now, because then, it is a citta accompanied by wrong understanding and wanting that tries. Realities arise and pass away so rapidly, it can not be approached by a citta which wants to approach it. Actually, when we say " we try to be aware of what appears", we actually only think of what have arisen and fallen away, there's no actual approaching to that reality with right awareness. Only by the power of right understanding, when it is conditioned to arise, which can have vitaka leading the citta directly to the object, which is an extremely feeling dhamma which now can appear clearly. But hearing again and again that what is talked about is only the dhammas which appear now, and knowing clearly the difference between what is only thinking about a fallen away dhamma, and what is a dhamma, all that can condition the moment of direct understanding. But most important of all, it's the understanding that is is not a technique that one can do, but something that happens by conditions. This is an extremly subtle point.
Sayadaw U Tejanyia that you mentioned sometimes also says that there's no method for vipassana. When people come to him for instructions he usually says: now you are sitting, do you need to make an effort to know that you are sitting? Do you need to make an effort to know there's seeing, touching, hearing, thinking?
Once someone asked him "what is the secret meaning of the schedule "1 hour sitting, 1 hour walking"?", he laughed and said: "just because it is a meditation center and we have to have a schedule so people are not at loss as how to spend their time, otherwise they would just sit and chat."
Being one of his old students and having had many conversations with him, I personally think that he would agree with most, if not all, the points raised by AS. He also says: let's wisdom do its own work. However, the very idea that there should be a method, a technique, there's a person who has to strive, be it in a meditation center or in daily life, is very deeply anchored. So I think what I have found extremly helpful in AS's way of explaining the Dhamma, is that she places the utmost importance on explaining that the Path is an impersonal process, and on what are the right causes for the right effects. She also pointed out what is not sati that is usually taken to be sati, and that is a very important step too.
There are many people, who read or listen to AS's discussions, and say that they agree with everything, but usually, when it comes to this point, they either can't agree or see it at a breakthrough. That is the reason why we pick out that point again and again, because it is the corner stone. Fruitful or not, I don't know, because it depends rather on the accumulations of each person.