daverupa wrote:I am referring to the fact that early materials primarily define samatha-vipassana as paired qualities, not different paths of practice, and was sort of wondering about the issue of the 'cherry-pick' that such a Theravada interpretation of these qualities represents. But it's been discussed elsewhere at length, and might easily derail this thread...
This does assume there's a reliable method for determining what the early material is - but yes, that's another discussion.
mettafuture wrote:Master Gautama detailed 40 meditation objects over the course of a 45-year teaching career. So why is it that Western Buddhists focus on just 1 or 2 of these objects (eg. anapanasati and metta)? Is it because our dhamma teachers don't feel that contemplating the elements or recalling the qualities of the Buddha could be compatible with our cultural sensibilities? Perhaps they aren't. But if that's the case, maybe we need to change something about ourselves rather than continue to selectively disregard large portions of the dhamma.
I also feel that it may be a mistake to introduce breath meditation to every new Buddhist as their first meditation object. I've heard people try to make the point that anapanasati can fulfill all four satipatthanas, therefore special attention doesn't need to be given to the individual satipatthanas. But does it really make sense to skip developing at least a rudimentary understanding of the body, feelings, consciousness, and mental objects before jumping ahead to the breath?
I would love to have a set of lessons to follow and practice, but i find so much information everywhere it's hard to compile it into my own situation.
