Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,

tiltbillings wrote:Okay, but then given that I really do not understand you earlier comments and objections about the vipassana practice discussed above.

Which objections?

Metta,
Retro.

Pick one.

Greetings Tilt,

I don't see one, which is why I'm asking.

Metta,
Retro.

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,

I don't see one . . . .

Then we can let it go at that, but it good to see that since you are doing essentially vipassana practice that you have no objection to the Burmese practices used to teach vipassana -- not doing -- to the masses by using carefully crafted techniques to bring to life the Buddha's teachings.

Greetings Tilt,

I only object when the Buddha's teachings as portrayed as not being sufficiently comprehensive in-and-of themselves for stream-entry and subsequent liberation... the notion that they somehow need to be elaborated on, built upon, or extended upon... or that they only show the results of the practice, and not what the practice actually is - as if the Buddha taught with a closed fist and we therefore need separate "techniques" (transmitted outside the scriptures) to achieve those results.



Metta,
Retro.

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,

I only object when the Buddha's teachings as portrayed as not being sufficiently comprehensive in-and-of themselves for stream-entry and subsequent liberation... the notion that they somehow need to be elaborated on, built upon, or extended upon... or that they only show the results of the practice, and not what the practice actually is - as if the Buddha taught with a closed fist and we therefore need separate "techniques" (transmitted outside the scriptures) to achieve those results.

Thank gawd the Burmese vipassana founders did not do any of that.

Hi Retro,

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Mike,

mikenz66 wrote:As I said, if someone (not just yourself, but some others posting on this thread) are unwilling to explain what they actually advocate doing, I see little basis for discussion

I would suggest that Robert, myself, daverupa and possibly others have in fact done this now and in the past. See the paragraph above starting with "Not to be cheeky..." and you'll see one from me.

Sorry, I understand Robert (who talks about no technique) and Dave (who talks about technique). But I really have no idea what you are talking about in the above. I guess I'll just watch for a while...


Mike

mikenz66 wrote:
As I said, if someone (not just yourself, but some others posting on this thread) are unwilling to explain what they actually advocate doing, I see little basis for discussion, and I find it very difficult to take their criticisms of Goenka or others seriously.

Mike I advocate that we keep our "techniques" in perspective and that we see our practice as the entirety of our life.

Mr Man wrote:

mikenz66 wrote:
As I said, if someone (not just yourself, but some others posting on this thread) are unwilling to explain what they actually advocate doing, I see little basis for discussion, and I find it very difficult to take their criticisms of Goenka or others seriously.

Mike I advocate that we keep our "techniques" in perspective and that we see our practice as the entirety of our life.

I certainly wouldn't disagree with that, and of course it's something that teachers like Goenka (actually just about any teacher I know of) also say.


Mike

mikenz66 wrote:

Mr Man wrote:

mikenz66 wrote:
As I said, if someone (not just yourself, but some others posting on this thread) are unwilling to explain what they actually advocate doing, I see little basis for discussion, and I find it very difficult to take their criticisms of Goenka or others seriously.

Mike I advocate that we keep our "techniques" in perspective and that we see our practice as the entirety of our life.

I certainly wouldn't disagree with that, and of course it's something that teachers like Goenka (actually just about any teacher I know of) also say.

Mike, my reply to Monkey Mind shows my thoughts http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 60#p220592" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I also think the exclusivism is somthing worth looking at.

retrofuturist wrote:... possibly... daverupa... do[es] not seem to see such a necessity...

Technique is necessary, insofar as 'technique' means "a way of carrying out a particular task". If the task is "fill the horse trough with water", I can set up a bucket brigade, I can carry the water in buckets on my own, I can haul the trough to the river with a wagon, I can build an irrigation system, and so forth. All these techniques, and more, can accomplish the task - some ideas are bound to be silly or cause extra work and the like, but among the ideas which will render success will be those that are best due to the local environment. As the environment changes, so too will the list of best techniques.

Now, the particular task at hand is bhavana. Given this task, one must use a technique, and the fact is that the usefulness of a technique with respect to the Dhamma is less than ideal prior to the attainment of right view; removal of the hindrance of doubt (that is, doubt over what constitutes wholesome & unwholesome) is one aspect of this, which the suttas I quoted earlier address:

MN 101 wrote:And how is striving fruitful, how is exertion fruitful? There is the case where a monk, when not loaded down, does not load himself down with pain, nor does he reject pleasure that accords with the Dhamma, although he is not fixated on that pleasure. He discerns that 'When I exert a [physical, verbal, or mental] fabrication against this cause of stress, then from the fabrication of exertion there is dispassion. When I look on with equanimity at that cause of stress, then from the development of equanimity there is dispassion.' So he exerts a fabrication against the cause of stress where there comes dispassion from the fabrication of exertion, and develops equanimity with regard to the cause of stress where there comes dispassion from the development of equanimity. Thus the stress coming from the cause of stress for which there is dispassion through the fabrication of exertion is exhausted & the stress resulting from the cause of stress for which there is dispassion through the development of equanimity is exhausted.

For "exert a fabrication", one can read "employ a technique". Disagreement over the details reminds me of one farmer saying "build your irrigation system to the north" where, in that case, there is a river coming down a mountain, whereas another farmer says "but there's a valley to the north where I am - so irrigation systems in the north never work".

We don't disagree on the task, do we? So, judge ones technique accordingly - the techniques of others can be analyzed for problems (the simple case of a technique of prayer to Odin is wrong effort running and circling around wrong view, for example; the case of formless attainments is a knottier issue) but if the task is getting accomplished, who can say anything about the technique?

AN 4.183 wrote:"When, for one who speaks of what has been seen, unskillful mental qualities increase and skillful mental qualities decrease, then that sort of thing should not be spoken about. But when, for one who speaks of what has been seen, unskillful mental qualities decrease and skillful mental qualities increase, then that sort of thing should be spoken about.

"When, for one who speaks of what has been heard... what has been sensed... what has been cognized, unskillful mental qualities increase and skillful mental qualities decrease, then that sort of thing should not be spoken about. But when, for one who speaks of what has been cognized, unskillful mental qualities decrease and skillful mental qualities increase, then that sort of thing should be spoken about."

daverupa wrote:. . .

Very definitely not a

I'm not authorized to download that attachment. From a Buddhist perspective, that is awesome, but it means I only see the word "Image". It's sort of ironic.

daverupa wrote:I'm not authorized to download that attachment. From a Buddhist perspective, that is awesome, but it means I only see the word "Image". It's sort of ironic.

It is a the opposite of the smilely face icon thingie that says "good posting."

So it's not a good post? Alas.

daverupa wrote:So it's not a good post? Alas.

No, no, no, no. It is very definitely not a bad post. What I was trying to do is a Buddhist via negativa way of saying that is very good, very clear, and thanks.