PeterB wrote:My answer to your question was in my question to you Nowheat. But to spell it out, I think Vinasps theory only has meaning in terms of its practical application, not simply as an abstract theory. Therefore his theory and his practice are intimately associated. In fact inseperable. You are of course free to take a different view.
Ah, I see. I have a hard time squaring that with it being an "unloaded question".
When I posed that question Nowheat I had no idea that Vinasp did not practice meditation. I had not read his earlier reference to that fact. So it was a unloaded question. I was expecting to hear that his "theory" somehow refered to his practice. I was interested to see how. If I had known that Vinasp does not have a meditation practice I may well have not engaged in the thread at all. My interest in the Dhamma is entirely pragmatic. Not theoretical
Last edited by PeterB on Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The original Pali is available and well understood by scholars and Bhikkhus in the Theravada Tradition. Many lay people take university subjects in Pali, understand it well, and also teach Pali. It is not a secret esoteric language. The OP has had TWENTY YEARS in which to study the original texts in the original language, but has chosen not to do so.
The Buddha specifically said there were no hidden teachings. Nothing hidden in the closed fist of the teacher.
This is not a 'new interpretation of the Pali Canon' - it is a personal foible of the OP, not Dhamma, and, basically, one would be better setting it aside.
