Rereading
this msg the following passage quoted by robertk caught my attention. It is worth commenting on a bit if it, given that it addresses much of what has been discussed in this overly long thread.
As for the dhamma theory, it's all laid out in the Tipitaka. Google 'paramattha dhamma' and read and re-read everything you can find about it. Find a teacher and ask them about paramattha dhamma and listen to what they say. Or find somewhat like Khun Sujin who can actually take you on a dialectic tour through your own citta. A few sessions will give you enough to wrestle with for a very long time,
Meditation is a great laboratory and a great calmative. I still practise formal meditation and I still attend the occasional retreat. But it can be a bit like taking psychedelic drugs, ie disappointing when you 'come down.' It can be terrifying when insight actually arises and you realise your ego was behind the intention to meditate in the first place, not kusala citta. On the other hand f practised under the right conditions and perhaps with a very good teacher, nibbana is possible.
- “ As for the dhamma theory, it's all laid out in the Tipitaka. Google 'paramattha dhamma' and read and re-read everything you can find about it.”
The problem with this statement is that “dhamma theory” in terms of 'paramattha dhammā ' is not part of the whole of the Tipitaka. It is part of the Abhidhamma, which evolved considerably after the death of the Buddha, and continued to evolve for quite some time. See this
THE DHAMMA THEORY Philosophical Cornerstone of the Abhidhamma Prof. Dr. Y. Karunadasa for a carefully done, non-sectarian look at the development of “dhamma theory” and its relation to the Nikayas.
Much of what is presently presented as “dhamma theory” comes from the 11/12th Century CE Abhidhammattha-sangaha, A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, a work that pushes far beyond the original Abhidhamma Pitaka texts in how it presents the “dhamma theory.” The Abhidhammattha-sangaha “dhamma theory/'paramattha dhammā” notions are not something one will find in the suttas or the Vinaya.
An example of the sort thing that comes from the later Abhidhamma "dhamma theory" such as the Abhidhammattha-sangaha can be seen
here and
here.
And the second paragraph:
- Meditation is a great laboratory and a great calmative. I still practise formal meditation and I still attend the occasional retreat. But it can be a bit like taking psychedelic drugs, ie disappointing when you 'come down.' It can be terrifying when insight actually arises and you realise your ego was behind the intention to meditate in the first place, not kusala citta. On the other hand f practised under the right conditions and perhaps with a very good teacher, nibbana is possible.
If it is “disappointing when you 'come down’” after a retreat, that is not a problem with meditation. It has to do with the individual's lack of experience and with a grasping after the pleasant aspects of a retreat.
And now for the really interesting bit:
- “ It can be terrifying when insight actually arises and you realise your ego was behind the intention to meditate in the first place, not kusala citta.”
I wonder what the intention is for someone to go to see Sujin: “
Find a teacher and ask them about paramattha dhamma and listen to what they say. Or find somewhat like Khun Sujin who can actually take you on a dialectic tour through your own citta.” Going to Sujin as a Dhamma teacher is motivated by a kusala/wholesome state of mind and meditating is motivated by an unwholesome state of mind? In terms of motivation and all the stuff we have to deal with, why would seeing Sujin be any different in terms of motivation than doing meditation and working with a meditation teacher other than she apparently says it is different?
The author of the bit
linked by robertk seems to have a very immature understanding of meditation practice. I wonder why he does something motivated by an unwholesome state of mind.