Insights from my 21 years of practising Goenka style

[justpractice]

Agreed! And the fact that there are so many conflicting opinions should be extremely concerning for the one determined to establish right practice. Thanks for the discussion, Mike.

Thanks! I actually take a more positive view of it - that there are a variety ways to approach practice (that meet some fundamental conditions). The Buddha himself tailored his exposition to his audience, so I don't expect any narrowly-defined approach to be suitable to everyone.

To note: the critical part of what I wrote was that there are so many conflicting approaches, which should be deeply concerning for someone seeking the path (they can't all be right, after all, if they contradict each other). The issue seems to be what we consider conflicting, with my tolerance being a lot lower than yours. For me, the room for error is simply too great considering what is at stake. Tailoring instructions that all lead to a narrowly-defined freedom is a lot different than upholding a value for and laxness in regard to variety.

[mikenz66]

Agreed! And the fact that there are so many conflicting opinions should be extremely concerning for the one determined to establish right practice. Thanks for the discussion, Mike.

Thanks! I actually take a more positive view of it - that there are a variety ways to approach practice (that meet some fundamental conditions). The Buddha himself tailored his exposition to his audience, so I don't expect any narrowly-defined approach to be suitable to everyone.

To note: the critical part of what I wrote was that there are so many conflicting approaches, which should be deeply concerning for someone seeking the path (they can't all be right, after all, if they contradict each other). The issue seems to be what we consider conflicting, with my tolerance being a lot lower than yours. For me, the room for error is simply too great considering what is at stake. Tailoring instructions that all lead to a narrowly-defined freedom is a lot different than upholding a value for and laxness in regard to variety.

Well, as you may have gathered, I'm actually quite intolerant of certain views. Particularly the all too common claims that some particular interpretation is the only possible one. Forums like this are great for learning about possible interpretations. But to criticise an approach one needs to actually investigate it in detail. See DN16 https://suttacentral.net/dn16/

Here, monks, a monk might speak like this: ‘In a certain dwelling place lives one elder, very learned, who has learned the traditions, a bearer of the Teaching, a bearer of the Discipline, a bearer of the Tabulation, I have heard this directly from that elder, directly I learned it: “This is the Teaching, this is the Discipline, this is the Teacher’s Dispensation.”’ That monk’s speech, monks, is not to be rejoiced over, not to be scorned at. Without having rejoiced over it, without having scorned it, after learning those words and syllables well, they should be laid alongside the Discourses, they should be compared with the Discipline.

I've not investigated Ven N Nanamoli's approach, for example, in that sort of detail, just listened to a few talks, so I wouldn't presume to say his approach is incorrect. Unfortunately, much of the criticism on this forum (and from some teachers) about different approaches appears to be done from a position of superficial knowledge, not from the deep investigation advised by the Buddha.


Mike

[BrokenBones]

I 'investigated' the 'technique' for many many years and undertook numerous courses (the more courses you do the more 'secrets' you learn)... all I learnt was that I must've been a bit of a dumb masochist.

[justpractice]

But to criticise an approach one needs to actually investigate it in detail.

The details of an approach don't matter when the framework of that approach is already compromised. The particulars of a practice don't matter when the context of that practice already contradicts the nature of suffering. I think you would agree with this, otherwise you would find yourself practicing some wildly incongruent and harmful practices in order to be able to discriminate against, or be critical of, doing them. It's just a matter of refining that ability to discriminate to the degree necessary to uproot suffering. And that's what understanding the Dhamma provides, a safeguard against seeing possibilities for maintaining suffering - such as the need to investigate details in order to determine overall value - as viable opportunities.

[BrokenBones]

But to criticise an approach one needs to actually investigate it in detail.

The details of an approach don't matter when the framework of that approach is already compromised. The particulars of a practice don't matter when the context of that practice already contradicts the nature of suffering. I think you would agree with this, otherwise you would find yourself practicing some wildly incongruent and harmful practices in order to be able to discriminate against, or be critical of, doing them. It's just a matter of refining that ability to discriminate to the degree necessary to uproot suffering. And that's what understanding the Dhamma provides, a safeguard against seeing possibilities for maintaining suffering - such as the need to investigate details in order to determine overall value - as viable opportunities.

too true.

It's like a very thin veneer of Dhamma has been spread over some very dodgy ideas. Ideas that at first glance are Dhamma but on closer investigation have their roots in another religion altogether.