Deconstruction; butcher metaphor etc

[nirodh27]

Hi Again,

However, the problem I see with some teachers is that they start with: "some (unspecified - hard to tell who they are) teachers teach such and such..." and go on to imply that anyone not teaching exactly what they are teaching is also flawed.

As retro pointed out, I think it is acceptable as long as one back-up this with sutta quotes and careful Dhamma analysis and it is respectful of others (well, actually one can be right even if it is not respectful, but since this is the Dhamma and we are not the Buddha...). For example (always imHo) I think that Thanissaro really got Anatta right if we want reference the suttas alone and we make the exercise to not be conditioned by tradition. He also clearly explained the drawbacks of other interpretations. My take, of course, but he certainly did his best to substantiate his case and explain why it is important to raise the discussion on the point.

In this case I'm not sure what you mean by "vipassana". There's a huge difference between lay teachers, Goenka retreats, monastics or former monastics who spent time in Burma with U Pandita, and so on... Are those all "vipassana"?

It is a wild and differentiate place, but you got it. I think that actually the worst are the less famous disciples that teaches vipassana like this:

Awakening to Impermanence In a Nutshell:

Our entire reality is fabricated by an intricate dance of sensations. We need to understand this clearly in order to awaken.

One reliable way this can be achieved is through high-resolution perception of rapidly changing sensations at a rate of 1-10 times per second. Whether a sensation is pleasant, unpleasant or neutral doesn’t matter one little bit in Vipassana practice.

When sensations are perceived this rapidly, the mind eventually flips over to cognizing impermanence directly by default all of the time. While initially requiring effort, once the ‘switch’ is flicked we can relax into this new vastly superior reality.

We see through our own experience that nothing lasts for even a microsecond.

We shatter the illusion of continuity and experience a hyper-present reality

I think that actually is the proliferation of teachings like this one that comes from the root of the Vipassana movement (Goenka, U Ba Khin, Goldstein, Kornfield) that muddled the waters of the Dhamma in many places. Not so much the big names since Goldstein for examples teaches also about detachment and such or also Mahasi is way way more profound and nuanced, but the myriad of less-known teachers.

This example I gave, I think, demonstrably unrelated to what is there in the suttas. No link of impermanence to what is dear or acquired, no references in the suttas about microseconds, better reality are due to detachment and letting go in suttas. If one takes this as impermanence, it is no wonder that the link with Dukkha and detachment is hard to impossible to see. And then people abandon the Dhamma, because Impermanence is linked to an almost esoteric reality to discover, and not to the unreliability of clinging that is so crucial in the 4nt.

[nirodh27]

... This example I gave, I think, demonstrably unrelated to what is there in the suttas.

Thank you for being specific. By all means offer criticism, but when criticusm begins with expressions like "some teachers ..." it deserves to be ignored, in my opinion.


Mike

Thank you for the exchange.

Just for joking...

Furthermore, some teacher with impure knowledge and vision claims: ‘I am pure in knowledge and vision. My knowledge and vision are pure, bright, uncorrupted.’ But their disciples know: ‘This teacher has impure knowledge and vision, but claims to have pure knowledge and vision. They wouldn’t like it if we were to tell the laypeople. And how could we treat them in a way that they don’t like? But they consent to robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicines and supplies for the sick. A person will be recognized by their own deeds.’ The disciples of such a teacher cover up their teacher’s knowledge and vision, and the teacher expects them to do so. These are the five teachers found in the world.

But Moggallāna, I have pure ethical conduct, and I claim: ‘I am pure in ethical conduct. My ethical conduct is pure, bright, uncorrupted.’ My disciples don’t cover up my conduct, and I don’t expect them to. I have pure livelihood, and I claim: ‘I am pure in livelihood. My livelihood is pure, bright, uncorrupted.’ My disciples don’t cover up my livelihood, and I don’t expect them to. I have pure teaching, and I claim: ‘I am pure in teaching. My teaching is pure, bright, uncorrupted.’ My disciples don’t cover up my teaching, and I don’t expect them to. I have pure answers, and I claim: ‘I am pure in how I answer. My answers are pure, bright, uncorrupted.’ My disciples don’t cover up my answers, and I don’t expect them to. I have pure knowledge and vision, and I claim: ‘I am pure in knowledge and vision. My knowledge and vision are pure, bright, uncorrupted.’ My disciples don’t cover up my knowledge and vision, and I don’t expect them to.”

It seems that everyone make that step sooner or later, even "Him"

[Ceisiwr]

I say that it doesn't have much value for others as well for the reason I gave, and ofc I'm open to listen to someone that have benefitted from it and in which way. Ofc we are speaking about direct relationship: if you practice this for 6 months and, while practicing this, you learn about the Dhamma, reflect on it, study it, get insights etc, apply it, you take sense restraint for the months of practice then is indirect relashionship.

The way I see it if someone takes the body, which is usually clung to, and then breaks it down into impermanent elements then they can let go of the body and develop sense restraint too. I see little difference if we replace "element" with rūpa-kalāpas or with modern atoms, unless someone wants to claim that the 4 elements are truly real and so are the only way to break down the body. Is that your position?

The exercise in MN140 which I quoted you is about what is appropriated by the elements. The exercise is "this is not I, mine, myself" which fuels dispassion for the ownership (appropriation) of the body since impermanence means danger of something that changes for the worse/in a way that we don't want.

The Rupa-Kalapas are an imagination (ore even real, who cares) that is not appropriated in the first place and actually are indifferentiated and so there's change, but no change for the better or the worse (which is why impermanence -> Dukkha) so it is useless. Add that is not that you take 5 minutes to see them, but you make the thing the core part of your practice for months.

For the vast majority of people the elements aren't appropriated. It's the body which is clung to. Element meditation then is a way to deconstruct that. You say that rūpa-kalāpas are not real, but the 4 elements aren't really real either. There isn't really 4 elements is there. The body isn't really made up of them. There isn't really a thing called "earth element". Rather, in modern times, there are atoms (of the protons, neutrons and electrons kind). Even those are conceptual too, in the end. That is of course unless you think the elements are real, and so rūpa-kalāpas and modern atomic theory are false concepts?

My critique is not about the existence or not of the rupa-kalapas, but about the fact that we should focus on what is appropriated/hold dear/are averse to etc since the Buddha unquestionably wanted that from us. The elements meditation is about parts of your body (see the earth, but also wind, water and fire are to be felt and are usually felt without problem: like fever) and sensations that the old sages attributed to the elements. But, unless one holds dear the rupa-kalapas or have appropriated it or clings to them, there's no point in breaking down unless an argument is made that it is useful to do so. While the elements meditation, for how is written in MN140, is clearly useful and it is pointed to get dispassion to what you have taken as you (like a kidney, your sensations, etc) and can change for the worse so that you will get afflicted in mind as well.

Based on what you have said, the question of the existence of rūpa-kalāpas is informing your view here.

There's room of a more diverse set of approaches, but at the same time there are diverse set of approaches that doesn't seem to be directed to what the suttas thought one should be directed. Civil talk about our own approaches should be one of the most important thing to discuss. There are also approaches that are suggested from the Buddha, and other that don't. "And why I don't have teached them? Because it doesn't lead to dispassion, to letting go". Ofc there are degrees of deviation, some minor changes are innocuous or even helpful for a time. Others are making you taking the Dhamma from the tail. For the microscopic impermanence, it is the uselessness of it the problem for the reasons I gave. Since the time we have is limited and the practice requires long training, even uselessness is a problem.

To judge if something is in line with the Dhamma it should be something which leads to less greed, hatred and delusion. If someone breaks down the body and so lets go of it, I don't see why it matters if that is by way of the 4 elements or modern atomic theory.

Good. But the important thing is where the Buddha directed our attention, and it directed it about enduring things because that is where our attachment lies. (When we will remove attachment to that, we would attach to the noble silence or the ending of perception and feelings, but even those states are actually enduring states of mind, but let's not digress).

I don't disagree with that, but as I said no one really goes around thinking they are the fire element do they.

I don't know what you intend with "that should give way to emptiness" or "it becomes untenable". Probably something like "There are no things or Everything is constantly changing or There is only change". "It’s all process", but it is you that should explain what you intend.

When you see dependent origination you also see nibbāna. The emptiness of substance in all things. We start with enduring things to which we are attached or averse to, yes, but then we go deeper. This is what distinguishes the Dhamma from something like Psychotherapy, or Stoicism or whatnot.

This is just a rethorical device to distinguish mechanical practices to practices that have an underlying intention of renunciation to what is dear and needs a lifestyle that supports that. If we use technique in the sense "a way of doing something" there's no subtle distinction this sense is lost. For example Jhanas teached by Shaila Catherine or Brasington are a technique that you can reproduce by effort and dedication alone, Jhanas of Nyanamoli must be distinguished from that due to their nature. The best way is open to discussion, but not very interesting I think.

I agree that there needs to be the intention of renunciation and a lifestyle to support the practice. You can do that and still use techniques, as the suttas show.

[mikenz66]

It seems that everyone make that step sooner or later, even "Him"

[BrokenBones]

A major part of the element practice is the comparison between oneself and the outer world... it's how dispassion arises. We can see the mountain, sea etc. we can't see their tiny molecules by which to compare them with ourselves (even if the esoteric practices are actually revealing such things or are a product of a mind driven to hallucination).

I call them esoteric because the Buddha never mentioned them... Buddhavacana is the best bet.

[Ceisiwr]

A major part of the element practice is the comparison between oneself and the outer world... it's how dispassion arises. We can see the mountain, sea etc. we can't see their tiny molecules by which to compare them with ourselves (even if the esoteric practices are actually revealing such things or are a product of a mind driven to hallucination).

I call them esoteric because the Buddha never mentioned them... Buddhavacana is the best bet.

You don't really see the earth element either.

[BrokenBones]

A major part of the element practice is the comparison between oneself and the outer world... it's how dispassion arises. We can see the mountain, sea etc. we can't see their tiny molecules by which to compare them with ourselves (even if the esoteric practices are actually revealing such things or are a product of a mind driven to hallucination).

I call them esoteric because the Buddha never mentioned them... Buddhavacana is the best bet.

You don't really see the earth element either.

Betcha dollar. ... externally

What is felt, seen & discerned... internally.

When having finished baking a cake (body), you know the ingredients that went into it and you can even see some of them and discern others by taste... we don't need a microscope to see the atoms to understand this... that's just silly.

[nirodh27]

The way I see it if someone takes the body, which is usually clung to, and then breaks it down into impermanent elements then they can let go of the body and develop sense restraint too.

Since I have the feeling that we are not understanding each other for some difference of understanding of what is what, please define "clinging" at the best of your ability. Maybe here lies the problem. How do you cling to the body and how do you let go of the clinging?

For the vast majority of people the elements aren't appropriated. It's the body which is clung to. Element meditation then is a way to deconstruct that. You say that rūpa-kalāpas are not real, but the 4 elements aren't really real either. There isn't really 4 elements is there. The body isn't really made up of them. There isn't really a thing called "earth element". Rather, in modern times, there are atoms (of the protons, neutrons and electrons kind). Even those are conceptual too, in the end. That is of course unless you think the elements are real, and so rūpa-kalāpas and modern atomic theory are false concepts?

I disagree here. Please stick to the meditation on the elements of MN140. It is speaking about things and sensations of the body, the perimeter is clear. What is internal and it is appropriated as "mine". So kidneys, breath, fevers, goosebumps, legs, hands, eyes, etc. The Buddha is using the knowledge of the time to concentrate yourself on what you have taken as yours and, by taking something at yours, separation and change (For the worse) will make lament, anguish, displeasure arise at the moment of separation. One is attached to the body and the parts of the body as well, just like it is attached to sensations being in equilibrium. If I threaten you to remove your hand, you will think "oh no, my hand will be no more!". That is a form of despair btw and it is despair because you took it as mine. You will not despair if you remove the clinging, the "mineness" that you have already attribuited to your hand.

You cannot instead use the knowledge of our time (Atoms) or the knowledge of the Abdhidhamma never spoken by the Buddha that is about something even more minute of atoms to point to things you have actually appropriated and you care about (like your hand). You cling to hands, mental states, sensations being in equilibrium, those are the things appropriated and that create Dukkha when they change for the worse, the body is just a way to summarize them.

You say that deconstruction is a way to abandon the clinging? How precisely that works? Because I thought the same, but then I have developed the convinction that it is not deconstruction that brings not-clinging thanks to Thanissaro and the suttas. How seeing that you are rupa-kalapas and you can be deconstructed actually brings dispassion in your experience? To see that the body is made of parts removes clinging? How? I think that deconstrution by himself doesn't change a iota on your level of clinging, explain why it is essential thank you.

My critique is not about the existence or not of the rupa-kalapas, but about the fact that we should focus on what is appropriated/hold dear/are averse to etc since the Buddha unquestionably wanted that from us. The elements meditation is about parts of your body (see the earth, but also wind, water and fire are to be felt and are usually felt without problem: like fever) and sensations that the old sages attributed to the elements. But, unless one holds dear the rupa-kalapas or have appropriated it or clings to them, there's no point in breaking down unless an argument is made that it is useful to do so. While the elements meditation, for how is written in MN140, is clearly useful and it is pointed to get dispassion to what you have taken as you (like a kidney, your sensations, etc) and can change for the worse so that you will get afflicted in mind as well.

Based on what you have said, the question of the existence of rūpa-kalāpas is informing your view here.

No, it is the question of the usefulness of breaking down the body into parts that are not appropriated and we don't feel as "mine" or "I am". But the questions I've made will bring clarity in the disagreement I think.

To judge if something is in line with the Dhamma it should be something which leads to less greed, hatred and delusion. If someone breaks down the body and so lets go of it, I don't see why it matters if that is by way of the 4 elements or modern atomic theory.

How can one break down the body and let go of it? I mean, specifically. Describe your experience of letting go by breaking down the body into parts.

When you see dependent origination you also see nibbāna. The emptiness of substance in all things. We start with enduring things to which we are attached or averse to, yes, but then we go deeper. This is what distinguishes the Dhamma from something like Psychotherapy, or Stoicism or whatnot.

I think that what distinguish the Dhamma is that you uproot and not manage the Dukkha. Btw as long as the points above are not cleared, it is not wise to progress this route.

I agree that there needs to be the intention of renunciation and a lifestyle to support the practice. You can do that and still use techniques, as the suttas show.

Yes, the suttas clearly show that. Some teachings that you find outside the suttas usually put too much emphasis on the techinque alone. Clearly Nyanamoli wants to get our attention on a crucial issue that plagues how the Dhamma is teached in the west and btw this is the mistake I've seen talking to dozens and dozens of practictioners that have mistaken Buddhist practice for "pleasure on demand" techniques or stress-management techniques. It is no wonder that they don't believe in the possibility of Dukkha being uprooted here-and-now (actual conversations) and they abandon the Dhamma to follow poets, disciples and generic spirituality (seen many times as well).

[robertk]

I have developed the convinction that it is not deconstruction that brings not-clinging thanks to Thanissaro and the suttas. How seeing that you are rupa-kalapas and you can be deconstructed actually brings dispassion in your experience? To see that the body is made of parts removes clinging? How? I think that deconstrution by himself doesn't change a iota on your level of clinging, explain why it is essential thank you.

Satipatthana sutta
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... html#modes

"And further, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu reflects on just this body according as it is placed or disposed, by way of the modes of materiality, thinking thus: 'There are in this body the mode of solidity, the mode of cohesion, the mode of caloricity, and the mode of oscillation.'

"O bhikkhus, in whatever manner, a clever cow-butcher or a cow-butcher's apprentice, having slaughtered a cow and divided it by way of portions, should be sitting at the junction of a four-cross-road; in the same manner, a bhikkhu reflects on just this body, according as it is placed or disposed, by way of the modes of materiality, thinking thus: 'There are in this body the mode of solidity, the mode of cohesion, the mode of caloricity, and the mode of oscillation.'

"Thus he lives contemplating the body in the body internally... and clings to naught in the world

[nirodh27]

I have developed the convinction that it is not deconstruction that brings not-clinging thanks to Thanissaro and the suttas. How seeing that you are rupa-kalapas and you can be deconstructed actually brings dispassion in your experience? To see that the body is made of parts removes clinging? How? I think that deconstrution by himself doesn't change a iota on your level of clinging, explain why it is essential thank you.

Satipatthana sutta
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... html#modes

"And further, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu reflects on just this body according as it is placed or disposed, by way of the modes of materiality, thinking thus: 'There are in this body the mode of solidity, the mode of cohesion, the mode of caloricity, and the mode of oscillation.'

"O bhikkhus, in whatever manner, a clever cow-butcher or a cow-butcher's apprentice, having slaughtered a cow and divided it by way of portions, should be sitting at the junction of a four-cross-road; in the same manner, a bhikkhu reflects on just this body, according as it is placed or disposed, by way of the modes of materiality, thinking thus: 'There are in this body the mode of solidity, the mode of cohesion, the mode of caloricity, and the mode of oscillation.'

"Thus he lives contemplating the body in the body internally... and clings to naught in the world

Hi Robertk,

In MN140 I think that the Buddha perfectly explain how clinging is removed and what are the internal elements with many examples. The two most used strategies presented are the "allure, danger, escape" analysis and the "not me, mine, myself" which is again based on the danger. The fact is that internal elements are appropriated from the being that meditates. With those meditation, I think that we all agree that the rationale is clear. In the passage you quoted?

If I use the butcher approach, so the deconstruction per se, how does it brings dispassion and foster non-clinging? In your experience how it happens? Seeing arising and ceasing by itself moves something?

You see impermanence as a very subtle level. How does that helps non-clinging in your words? Imagine that you meditate for 2 months seeing the rupakalapas arise and cease all the time like a good butcher and you see of course the arising and ceasing. When you return to normal experience, what have you actually abandoned? What clinging you have removed? Was the clinging there at that level before?

This is not throwing out question, but I want to know if the rationale behind the butchering and seeing arising and passing away = dispassion is clear to you so to consider it.

[robertk]

Great questions Nirodh27.

If I use the butcher approach, so the deconstruction per se, how does it brings dispassion and foster non-clinging? In your experience how it happens? Seeing arising and ceasing by itself moves something? You see impermanence as a very subtle level. How does that helps non-clinging in your words? Imagine that you meditate for 2 months seeing the rupakalapas arise and cease all the time like a good butcher and you see of course the arising and ceasing. When you return to normal experience, what have you actually abandoned? What clinging you have removed? Was the clinging there at that level before?

This is not throwing out question, but I want to know if the rationale behind the butchering and seeing arising and passing away = dispassion is clear to you so to consider it.

The development of satipatthana/wisdom/vipassana , as I see it, runs along with the perception of anatta. And the theory (pariyatti) and direct experience (pattipati) support each other.
Regarding the butchering here is another sutta I cited recently. I quote half of it below, but it is worthy of reading fully again and again (IMO).
https://suttacentral.net/mn146/en/bodhi ... ight=false
Majjhima Nikāya
146. Advice from Nandaka

the venerable Nandaka told the bhikkhunīs:
.”
“Sisters, what do you think? Is the eye permanent or impermanent?” —“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”—“Suffering, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir.”

“Sisters, what do you think? Is the ear….the nose…the tongue…the body…the mind permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”—“Suffering, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir. Why is that? Because, venerable sir, we have already seen this well as it actually is with proper wisdom thus: ‘These six internal bases are impermanent.’”

“Good, good, sisters! So it is with a noble disciple who sees this as it actually is with proper wisdom.

“Sisters, what do you think? Are forms…sounds…odours… flavours…tangibles…mind-objects permanent or impermanent?” —“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”—“Suffering, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir. Why is that? Because, venerable sir, we have already seen this well as it actually is with proper wisdom thus: ‘These six external bases are impermanent.’”

“Good, good, sisters! So it is with a noble disciple who sees this as it actually is with proper wisdom.

“Sisters, what do you think? Is eye-consciousness… … ear-consciousness…nose-consciousness…tongue-consciousness… body-consciousness…mind-consciousness permanent or impermanent?” —“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”—“Suffering, venerable sir.”— “Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir. Why is that? Because, venerable sir, we have already seen this well as it actually is with proper wisdom thus: ‘These six classes of consciousness are impermanent.’”

“Sisters, suppose a skilled butcher or his apprentice were to kill a cow and carve it up with a sharp butcher’s knife. Without damaging the inner mass of flesh and without damaging the outer hide, he would cut, sever, and carve away the inner tendons, sinews, and ligaments with the sharp butcher’s knife. Then having cut, severed, and carved all this away, he would remove the outer hide and cover the cow again with that same hide. Would he be speaking rightly if he were to say: ‘This cow is joined to this hide just as it was before’?”

“No, venerable sir. Why is that? Because if that skilled butcher or his apprentice were to kill a cow…and cut, sever, and carve all that away, even though he covers the cow again with that same hide and says: ‘This cow is joined to this hide just as it was before,’ that cow would still be disjoined from that hide.”

Notice how some of the elements mentioned are material and some mental. But all are stressed as being impermanent and not self.
The way, as I see it, is breaking down what we took as some THING, into what is really present. And what is present is merely these elements. Without the Dhamma we are always immersed in a world of concepts, things that seem to last.
And the realities the concepts are based on are entirely ephemeral and conditioned- they are insignificant.

So the concepts are unreal and even the realities are almost nothing. This theory gradually sinks in and one can see, occasionally, how life is really exactly that, and only that.

Seeing arising and ceasing by itself moves something? You see impermanence as a very subtle level. How does that helps non-clinging in your words?

For example, some problem arises . Knowing that the 'world' as it were, has already fallen away, gone, how can there be the same level of attachment/aversion.
It can be seen that it is only the thinking about the issue that causes the unpleasant feeling, it becomes hard to take things too seriously.

[mikenz66]

Hi nirodh27,

If I use the butcher approach, so the deconstruction per se, how does it brings dispassion and foster non-clinging? In your experience how it happens? Seeing arising and ceasing by itself moves something?

This comes back to a point I made earlier. The Buddha taught many different appraoches, which have been developed by various students and teachers. Good teachers know this, and suggest different approaches if a student is having difficulty. That a particular teacher, a particular student, or a particular poster on a forum doesn't find a particular approach useful is not a good argument for that approach being worthless. However, it's certainly a good reason for a student to try a different approach.

For example, I spent a pleasent afternoon in Bangkok a few years ago with RobertK and his friends who follow Ajahn Sujin. I don't find their approach particularly helpful to me, but I can definitely appreciate some of their insight into the Dhamma.

As for your question: For some, such an approach can bring a very clear realisation of how unstable and fragile the body, and all of existence, is. And just how much needs to be given up.


Mike

[nirodh27]

Hi nirodh27,

If I use the butcher approach, so the deconstruction per se, how does it brings dispassion and foster non-clinging? In your experience how it happens? Seeing arising and ceasing by itself moves something?

This comes back to a point I made earlier. The Buddha taught many different appraoches, which have been developed by various students and teachers. Good teachers know this, and suggest different approaches if a student is having difficulty. That a particular teacher, a particular student, or a particular poster on a forum doesn't find a particular approach useful is not a good argument for that approach being worthless. However, it's certainly a good reason for a student to try a different approach.

For example, I spent a pleasent afternoon in Bangkok a few years ago with RobertK and his friends who follow Ajahn Sujin. I don't find their approach particularly helpful to me, but I can definitely appreciate some of their insight into the Dhamma.

As for your question: For some, such an approach can bring a very clear realisation of how unstable and fragile the body, and all of existence, is. And just how much needs to be given up.


Mike

Hi Mike,

But what I'm doing, maybe this comment is not needed, is not simply to criticize the approach for unuseful reasons or because I have time to spare, I'm asking Robert and I've asked multiple times to explain the rationale behind the approach (which is not found in the suttas, and so we should, imho, to be way more cautios in his acceptance since the disciples are not the Buddha) since there should be one if one practice that approach instead of another.

Sometimes the rationale is hidden and not totally clear to the practitioner which is fine, but I think that an effort to really understand why we do x and why we do x instead of y can reveal many things. I also think that Robertk seems a dedicated practitioner which made the effort, that I find essential, to go to actually have discussions and direct contact with accomplished teachers or long-time practitioners and so I think that he can really go deep and actually describe his mind process and goals (and he did, making me happy).

To go deep into this reflection about the rationale of the practice is what interests me and people that actually did for a long time and found that useful are the most precious. Going deeper is what Robertk did in his last post, and I'm happy he did because we can discern the differences of mindset and the difference of views (which I think is the source of the difference and Robert helped me to pinpoint that) that makes one practice useful for one or not for another because from that can spring new understanding or at least disagreement in views and goals can be really understood at their roots. This is my goal in this discussion and if it was unclear before I hope that it is clear now.

With Metta

[retrofuturist]

Greetings nirodh27,

Well said and I applaud your inquisitiveness on these matters, and being willing to leverage the diverse perspectives and interests of others. There's no need to be distracted from that noble endeavour by the hang-ups of others.



All the best.

Metta,
Paul.

[mikenz66]

But what I'm doing, maybe this comment is not needed, is not simply to criticize the approach for unuseful reasons or because I have time to spare, I'm asking Robert and I've asked multiple times to explain the rationale behind the approach (which is not found in the suttas, and so we should, imho, to be way more cautios in his acceptance since the disciples are not the Buddha) since there should be one if one practice that approach instead of another.

Ok, it's certainly good to ask questions, and work out motivations. However, the kalapa, etc, approach is a sidetrack from what I was replying to, which was your query about the usefulness looking in detail at elements, feelings, etc, and how we cling to them vs the clinging to a "whole being" that you implied was a more important thing to examne. Obviously, both are worthy of examination, and both are definitely found in the suttas. As I said, many of us have found the detailed examination process very helpful. If other's don't, there are plenty of other approches they can try.

As Paul says:

There's no need to be distracted from that noble endeavour by the hang-ups of others.

Teachers teach what they have found works for them. It's that part of their teachings that I pay attention to. Criticism of other approaches often appears to be based on rather superficial knoweldge, and in my view is much less reliable.

Of course, I'm not talking about pointing out obvious adhammic errors. Those should, indeed, be pointed out.


Mike