Well I don't know - I don't recall anyone else saying it, but then, I've not explored what everyone teaches... hence the question.mikenz66 wrote:Well, yes, but of course that's what everyone teaches, isn't it?
Thanks.
Metta,
Retro.
Well I don't know - I don't recall anyone else saying it, but then, I've not explored what everyone teaches... hence the question.mikenz66 wrote:Well, yes, but of course that's what everyone teaches, isn't it?
I've no idea which teachers you have talked to, read, or listened to who don't spend time discussing the development of right view, so I'm rather puzzled what you might be referring to.retrofuturist wrote:Well I don't know - I don't recall anyone else saying it, but then, I've not explored what everyone teaches... hence the question.mikenz66 wrote:Well, yes, but of course that's what everyone teaches, isn't it?
I'm not talking so much about whether they promote right view or not... I was asking whether they teach this particular dynamic (or technique if you prefer)...I've no idea which teachers you have talked to, read, or listened to who don't spend time discussing the development of right view, so I'm rather puzzled what you might be referring to.
Metta,"One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right view." (MN 117)
That is characteristic of all the vipassana teachers I have worked with."One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right view." (MN 117)
To me it seems obvious that anyone worth listening teaches that. So I can't understand why the question would arise in the first place. Of course, I can't guarantee that every teacher would say those exact words, but in my experience it's a common theme.tiltbillings wrote:That is characteristic of all the vipassana teachers I have worked with."One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right view." (MN 117)
Hi Mike, I don't think it is my position to advocate a specific technique or path of practice and to some extent I don't think a specific technique is needed. We can adjust our practice to suit the situation and to what we are trying to achieve (I don't mean pick and choose or do what we like). I think the power of our practice should not be in a specific technique but more in a mindset or foundation, which we build.mikenz66 wrote:Sorry, I thought this was a "criticism":Mr Man wrote:Hi Mike
Well I was puzzled because I couldn't find any criticisms of Goenka in the thread. I certainly have questions - It seems that discussion is taboo though. That doesn't seem to be the case with other teachers/schools or not to the same degree anyway.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 91#p220129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;I think it's quite valid to ask such questions, but you'd have to explain what is different between what Goenka is teaching and what you would advise otherwise for me to take them seriously.Mr Man wrote:It is presented within the context of what the Buddha taught but the "technique" and format? The Goenka practice is not main stream Theravada.tiltbillings wrote: the Goenka practice is certainly inline with what the Buddha taught.
As I said to Retro, there are a range of ways to structure practice (some not particularly structured), all of which, as far as I can understand, are equally compatible with the Suttas. If you think that certain teachers are teaching approaches incompatible with the suttas you'd have to be specific about the details.
Mike
Sounds like Goenka.Mr Man wrote: He is not saying or implying that the technique is acting as an agent. He is just using it in a skillful way.
From the OP "proof that Anapanna was doing its work and bringing the gross level impurities to the surface".tiltbillings wrote:Sounds like Goenka.Mr Man wrote: He is not saying or implying that the technique is acting as an agent. He is just using it in a skillful way.
And what does that mean?Mr Man wrote:From the OP "proof that Anapanna was doing its work and bringing the gross level impurities to the surface".tiltbillings wrote:Sounds like Goenka.Mr Man wrote: He is not saying or implying that the technique is acting as an agent. He is just using it in a skillful way.
Mr Man wrote:Tilt another difference with the way that Goenka teaches is to implement it you need to comfit to the whole Goenka package.
I'm off out now so I will come back to you but what does it mean to you?tiltbillings wrote:And what does that mean?Mr Man wrote:From the OP "proof that Anapanna was doing its work and bringing the gross level impurities to the surface".
I'll wait till you get back.Mr Man wrote:I'm off out now so I will come back to you but what does it mean to you?tiltbillings wrote:And what does that mean?Mr Man wrote:From the OP "proof that Anapanna was doing its work and bringing the gross level impurities to the surface".
While you are on retreat, that certainly makes sense, but I have known committed students of Goenka who have worked with other teachers and methods. What is your complaint here? You seem to want to find something wrong with the Goenka practice.Mr Man wrote:Tilt another difference with the way that Goenka teaches is to implement it you need to comfit to the whole Goenka package.