tiltbillings wrote:There is plenty of criticism of some of these things from Theravada teachers - all Theravadin teachers?
I'm not sure where you are trying to go with this.
Even Wallace qualified his over the top statement with the word "many." For you, it is an unqualified Theravadin teachers
. Does that mean all
You were complaining about Wallace being unspecific. I gave a reference to an article by Patrick Kearney, who has spent time as a monk with U Pandita and teaches Mahasi-style meditation (Chris has done retreats with him - I have only listened to recordings and read his articles).
And I am now complaining about you being "unspecific."
That's one example of a Theravada teacher pointing out shortcomings in some modern approaches with specific examples. Since I don't have the time to research exactly how many articles there are on the net on this issue, perhaps I should rephrase my statement to:
"There is some criticism of modern developments from some Theravada teachers."
Obviously that would help; however, who are these people distorting the Dhamma?
The problem with Wallace is that many modern Vipassana teachers
could be read to include any of the following:
Ledi Sayadaw (1846 - 1943)
Sayagyi U Ba Khin (1899 - 1971)
Mahasi Sayadaw (1904 - 1982)
Ajahn Chah Subhatto (1918 - 1992)
Luangpor Teean Jittasubho (1911 - 1988)
Mogok Sayadaw PayarGyi
Sunlun Sayadaw (1878 - 1952)
Sayadaw U Silananda
Ajahn Buddhadasa (1906 - 1993)
Ajahn Naeb (1897 - 1983)
Taungpulu Sayadaw (1897 - 1986)
Mohnyin Sayadaw (1873 - 1964)
Ajahn Dhammadharo (1913 - 2005)
Ajahn Sobin S. Namto
S. N. Goenka
Sayadaw U Pandita
Sayadaw U Kundala
Sayadaw U Rajinda
Sayadaw U Pandita , Junior
Sayadaw U Lakkhana
Sayadaw U Janaka
Sayadaw U Jatila
So, who is he referring to? Essentially he has tarred the whole bunch of them as teaching a distorted Dhamma. And nowhere does Wallace point to anyone who he thinks has got it right, which would have mitigated the criticism, giving us some balance and some idea of what he thinks is correct within the Theravadin vipassana tradition; rather, everyone above remains suspect of distorting the Dhamma.
I have no problem with technical discussions of what bare attention
means, what word might translate it, or how it is a function of sati
. That is not the issue. The issue is that it claimed that there are many modern Vipassana teachers
who are distorting the Dhamma, equating what they teach to: A sniper hiding in the grass, waiting to shoot his enemy. . . .
This is really ugly. First of all, having discussed with a friend of mine who was a sniper in Vietnam the extensive training a sniper receives, it is clearly not bare attention, but a highly concentrated state of mind that is constantly calculating and evaluating his situation. Secondly, this bozo just tied what he claims many modern Vipassana teachers
teach to what he thinks is a sniper's practice of killing other human beings.
This is an irresponsible set of statements by Wallace. It is the sort of thing that reads like a sectarian polemic. There is no balance in it.
The Patrick Kearney article
, while harsh, gives us much with which to work.