Thanks for your continued interest in this discussion. I guess what I’m hovering around is, if a person is perfectly restrained on the cushion, but totally unbridled during the regular day to day, it would seem the sittings aren’t doing much for them. But I don’t think it would be totally accurate to say that the sitting practice is ineffective as much as it is that they aren’t making any effort to change their lifestyle. Because it really is those day to day acts that are the true comfort, the true bind to sensuality, and what you can withstand during a sitting session may not apply to what you are doing everyday to maintain greed, hate and delusion.skandha wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 1:24 pm Just as how it's described in the suttas, the sitting practice is just one mode of practice. Sure there are a lot more scenarios to deal with outside of the sitting but the same attitude of restrain is maintained. Sila is an essential part of the training, the basic 8 or 5 precepts are followed. Sila, samadhi, panna, the whole 8 fold path, all are emphasised in Goenka's discourses, pretty standard Buddhist methodology. Even faith is emphasised in the Goenka method just like standard Buddhism, taking the triple refugee is part of the practice. Effort on the cushion is supposed to help in the practice outside the cushion, and vice versa.
Again, this is not necessarily a gripe with Goenka but with the “formal sitting” proponents in general. I think it does people a great disservice to be put under the impression that sitting efforts will automatically translate into their day to lives, as the opposite seems to be the case. Faith and effort are one’s reasons for saying no and bringing their behavior and mind together away from what is wholesome, which is to say that the only thing that will prevent the pressure from provoking you to act is to become skilled at enduring it without acting out. What the formal sitting proponents have done is constantly reinforcing the idea that meditation undermines the tendency to act unwholesomely, and that seems to be a bypass of the responsibility. The suttas are quite clear on the matter.
What I think has happened over the last few decades of public discourse about meditation is the curse of “it goes without saying” that one must be virtuous first, but it is now at the point where it is simply not even discussed. Bearing in mind:
…there is no meditation without a virtuous lifestyle where that non-regret can accumulate. That can only be done be repeated avoidance of unwholesome conduct.AN 11.1 wrote: Iti kho, ānanda, kusalāni sīlāni avippaṭisāratthāni avippaṭisārānisaṁsāni, avippaṭisāro pāmojjattho pāmojjānisaṁso, pāmojjaṁ pītatthaṁ pītānisaṁsaṁ, pīti passaddhatthā passaddhānisaṁsā, passaddhi sukhatthā sukhānisaṁsā, sukhaṁ samādhatthaṁ samādhānisaṁsaṁ
“Thus, Ānanda, the purpose and benefit of wholesome virtuous behavior is non-regret; the purpose and benefit of non-regret is joy; the purpose and benefit of joy is rapture; the purpose and benefit of rapture is tranquility; the purpose and benefit of tranquility is pleasure; the purpose and benefit of pleasure is concentration…”