You are understating things a bit, I would dare say.Ñāṇa wrote: (with a modicum of study included).
Your textual knowledge is, indeed, impressive, but in terms of the scholar/practitioner - and not just the one in favor over the other.
You are understating things a bit, I would dare say.Ñāṇa wrote: (with a modicum of study included).
Do you mean that your doubt will bear fruit in the future, or that you are trying to instil doubt in others?BlackBird wrote:I had actually become convinced that the traditional method was barking up the wrong tree some time before I departed. My time over there helped solidify my conviction. In any case, a further discussion here would seem to serve little purpose. My only hope is that the seeds of doubt have been sowed that may bear fruit in critical thought and evaluation.alan wrote: BlackBird: first time you've let loose since heading home. Did the Sri Lanka experience influence your opinion?
Hi Peter.PeterB wrote:It would be interesting if you were to expand a little Jack...
- http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p117933" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Blackbird wrote:The somewhat paradoxical view of the average Theravadin: The insistence that Ariyans do exist - that it is achievable, coupled with the persistent denial that any claims to such states should be taken seriously.
It's very much worth noting that during the Buddha's time Ariyans and those possessing supernormal powers often declared themselves as such. When this became problematic, the Buddha instated a rule that prohibited the declaration of attainments by bhikkhus to lay people. The rule is a dukkhata offense. A dukkhata is a 'wrong doing' and entails a slap over the wrist (figuratively).
As the centuries have gone by there is a virtual prohibition of anyone making any claims what so ever, and if anyone should indeed make a claim to attainment it generates a rather large scandal - Impossible, they say. The person must be deluded!
Non disclosure of one's experiences is widely seen as a badge of honor and I would warrant there was a motive behind such a social imposition. As long as the realities of peoples attainments at large are not disclosed, the hope in the efficacy of the system is very much kept alive. People can continue to 'suspect' that their teacher is an Ariyan and treat them as such. This inspires faith and ultimately helps keep the system afloat.
- http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 16#p117634" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Blackbird wrote: ...Part of the reason I was induced to abandon the commentarial tradition was because I felt it was a scholastic attempt by puthujjanas to explain something they didn't understand. From my perspective I actually believe almost all meditation teachers in the world are puthujjanas teaching something they don't really understand. A file of blind men, to borrow a simile from the Buddha...
...The traditional method with it's stages of insight knowledge and all that stuff (none of which the Buddha in the suttas speaks of) is a functional system laid out in a distinct and organized manner as a way to make sense and understand something that nobody understood...
Most certainly I hope to inspire doubt in others, but only in regard to the efficacy of the commentarial tradition. I don't know that I'm right. But the more I think, ponder, consider and meditate upon the alternative approach, the more it feels right. In essence it just makes a lot more sense to me and I hope to inspire others to take up the challenge of figuring it all out.mikenz66 wrote:Hi BlackBird,
Do you mean that your doubt will bear fruit in the future, or that you are trying to instil doubt in others?
Mike
Since you don't know that you are right, your aspiration seems rather strange.BlackBird wrote: Most certainly I hope to inspire doubt in others, but only in regard to the efficacy of the commentarial tradition. I don't know that I'm right. But the more I think, ponder, consider and meditate upon the alternative approach, the more it feels right. In essence it just makes a lot more sense to me and I hope to inspire others to take up the challenge of figuring it all out.
Well, I have read a lot of Suttas. I have also explained in some detail why I find your assertions odd, by comparing my experiences with different teachers, some of whom you like, and some of whom you appear to be dismissing with no particular logic. I have read a lot of suttas, and I haven't noticed any contradictions in how I'm practising and how Ajahn Tiradhammo instructs, as I explained above. I find it odd that you seem to think that if the instructions are from Ajahn T then they are good, if they are from someone else they are bad.BlackBird wrote: At the risk of beating a dead horse, if you're curious about what I believe is the correct approach then you only need to have a giz at 'the book.'
Ñāṇa wrote:I'd add that there is no possibility of understanding the Canon without understanding (to some degree at least) the layers of commentarial development which have arisen subsequently. In my case, I accepted the modern treatises of Ven. Mahāsi Sayādaw and the Visuddhimagga as authoritative for over ten years. Then I became interested in the suttas and began to recognize some of the differences in terminology and path structure, etc., between what the suttas were presenting and what the Visuddhimagga and modern Burmese teachers were presenting. Then over the course of the past decade I've been mainly interested in the suttas and the developments found in the Abhidhammapiṭaka and the Paṭisambhidāmagga, and so on. Thus, it's been a 20+ year process of slowly peeling back layers of doctrinal development.
I'm not saying your teachers are out of line with the suttas, nor am I saying you are. I am saying there is a different way to read the suttas, and I have a conviction that it is the right way.mikenz66 wrote:Hi Blackbird,
Well, I have read a lot of Suttas. I have also explained in some detail why I find your assertions odd, by comparing my experiences with different teachers, some of whom you like
I haven't dismissed anyone in the above post. I have dismissed tradition, there's a difference.mikenz66 wrote: and some of whom you appear to be dismissing with no particular logic.
I never said there was a contradiction.mikenz66 wrote: I have read a lot of suttas, and I haven't noticed any contradictions in how I'm practising and how Ajahn Tiradhammo instructs, as I explained above.
I don't know what gave you that impression. Reviewing my post I don't believe I gave Ajahn T the slightest favoritism, which leads me to believe you're simply reading what you like into my post.mikenz66 wrote: I find it odd that you seem to think that if the instructions are from Ajahn T then they are good, if they are from someone else they are bad.
Practical difference between teachers? I'm not making distinctions between individual teachers. Simply that I don't believe they are ariyans. If you're refering to that little Ajahn Brahm comment in brackets I was simply saying that he tends to espouse a style that isn't too far out of line with the Visuddhimagga. I happen to like Ajahn Brahms practical instructions, and I too have found his instructions useful.mikenz66 wrote: Perhaps you can explain where the practical difference is.
I'm not trying to be condescending. Sorry if that's the way it comes across.mikenz66 wrote: I'm afraid at my level I just can't see it. Perhaps in another ten years...
I will argue that it's a late addition to the Sutta Pitaka and I will question it's validity on that ground. I am quite happy to open this can of worms because I don't really mind if the Satipatthana has been embellished. I don't read as much into it as many do. I think the instructions are quite simple and have been vastly overemphasized and analysed down to minutiae. In my opinion Right Mindfulness is only one of eight factors.Furthermore, as Geoff/Nana has pointed out repeatedly, the Vipassana-nanas are to be found in the Paṭisambhidāmagga:
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 60#p118052" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Now, of course, you could argue (probably correctly) that this is a late addition to the Sutta Pitaka, but then you're opening a huge can of worms. Many Suttas, such as the Satipatthana Sutta, can be argued, from textual analysis and comparison with other canons, to have been embellished over the centuries, so it's not simple to know what is "original" (if anything).
Personally, I think there are various ways of reading and studying the Suttas, as I've tried to explain on various thread, such as: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=7464" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;BlackBird wrote: I'm not saying your teachers are out of line with the suttas, nor am I saying you are. I am saying there is a different way to read the suttas, and I have a conviction that it is the right way.
This statement is a little meaningless. You mean all the individuals are good but the "tradition" is wrong?BlackBird wrote: I haven't dismissed anyone in the above post. I have dismissed tradition, there's a difference.
I mean the individuals have wisdom, compassion and lots of practical advice. I don't imagine that the Visuddhimagga is the cause of their wisdom, compassion and practical advice either.mikenz66 wrote:Hi Blackbird,Personally, I think there are various ways of reading and studying the Suttas, as I've tried to explain on various thread, such as: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=7464" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;BlackBird wrote: I'm not saying your teachers are out of line with the suttas, nor am I saying you are. I am saying there is a different way to read the suttas, and I have a conviction that it is the right way.
This statement is a little meaningless. You mean all the individuals are good but the "tradition" is wrong?BlackBird wrote: I haven't dismissed anyone in the above post. I have dismissed tradition, there's a difference.
The Theravadin orthodoxy has a lot of things to give, I simply believe stream-entry is not one of those things.So Ajahn Tiradhammo OK, and my teachers are OK, even though they mostly learned meditation from a Burmese school, so they are in the wrong tradition?
If you give http://pathpress.wordpress.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; a thorough geez then you'll understand my point of view - Mostly the writings by Ven. Nyanavira, but also of late the writings of Ven. H Nyanamoli. I'm not trying to offer a debate of positive things, for then we could be here for years bogged down, throwing verbal daggers.I'm sorry if I sound condescending, but my problem with this discussion is that you have offered no content. You have given me absolutely no indication of what those who are reading the Suttas wrongly would be doing differently if they were reading the Suttas the right way.
But you really do not know that, and if they tell you otherwise, they are wrong?BlackBird wrote:I mean the individuals have wisdom, compassion and lots of practical advice. I don't imagine that the Visuddhimagga is the cause of their wisdom, compassion and practical advice either.
Again, you do not know that.The Theravadin orthodoxy has a lot of things to give, I simply believe stream-entry is not one of those things.So Ajahn Tiradhammo OK, and my teachers are OK, even though they mostly learned meditation from a Burmese school, so they are in the wrong tradition?
I really do not know whether the Visuddhimagga was the cause of their wisdom, compassion and practical advice. Call it an educated guess.tiltbillings wrote:But you really do not know that, and if they tell you otherwise, they are wrong?BlackBird wrote:I mean the individuals have wisdom, compassion and lots of practical advice. I don't imagine that the Visuddhimagga is the cause of their wisdom, compassion and practical advice either.
Again, you do not know that.The Theravadin orthodoxy has a lot of things to give, I simply believe stream-entry is not one of those things.So Ajahn Tiradhammo OK, and my teachers are OK, even though they mostly learned meditation from a Burmese school, so they are in the wrong tradition?
I quess I'll go with those who have more education in things Dhamma. While the VM may not be perfect, while the VM is certainly open to criticism, there is Dhamma in it and it certainly has been a vehicle for those who have put it into practice.BlackBird wrote:I really do not know whether the Visuddhimagga was the cause of their wisdom, compassion and practical advice. Call it an educated guess.tiltbillings wrote:But you really do not know that, and if they tell you otherwise, they are wrong?BlackBird wrote:I mean the individuals have wisdom, compassion and lots of practical advice. I don't imagine that the Visuddhimagga is the cause of their wisdom, compassion and practical advice either.
That is fair enough, you believe, but I have to see in your statements of belief anything that is terribly convincing that you must sow doubt among those who don't quite see things your way.Again, you do not know that.The Theravadin orthodoxy has a lot of things to give, I simply believe stream-entry is not one of those things.
Which is why I said 'I believe. But by all means, continue to emphasis and highlight the fact that I do not know that, I thought I had expressed that fairly thoroughly, obviously not thoroughly enough.
I don't understand this sentence. Are you saying that you are unable to give any examples at all of how I might be approaching my practise differently if I subscribed to your (or Ven Nanavira's) point of view?BlackBird wrote: I'm not trying to offer a debate of positive things, for then we could be here for years bogged down, throwing verbal daggers.