General discussion of issues related to Theravada Meditation, e.g. meditation postures, developing a regular sitting practice, skillfully relating to difficulties and hindrances, etc.
This is why we always have to be open to whatever comes up in the course of the meditation - whatever insights, whatever realizations, whatever issues arise - because a lot of times the things that come up are more valuable than what you thought you were looking for.
You focus on the basic technique of keeping with the breath, and eventually you stumble over some really important veins in the mind. They may be veins of gold, veins of diamond, or an old layer of garbage that got laid down sometime in the past. But the basic technique is just being here, being observant, watching what happens,...
Even those two passages taken out of context are still completely in line with what he is trying to convey in the book. Both passages acknowledge that there are useful thoughts or "garbage" that might come up during meditation. The goal of the meditator is to use discernment when watching these thoughts arise. Not to let them pass by without acknowledging them.
I disagree.... in these passages there is no use of discernment... Neither passage says to make any discernment, just to watch and notice... He gives some examples on what might arise during meditation... and then says to just watch (no discernment) .. this is the same principle he ridicules in the "whatever comes up" approach.
the quote above literally says:
But the basic technique is just being here, being observant, watching what happens
How can that be in line with what he says in the book?
may all be well
"whatever one frequently thinks and ponders upon will be the inclination of one's mind"
I feel saddened when I see such division here, caused by slightly differing views as to the interpretation of the Dhamma. We can all agree on the four Noble Truths, but when it comes to the Path, particularly with regard to the last two angas (samma-sati, and samma-samadhi) why do we bicker so much?
To the Buddha-refuge i go; to the Dhamma-refuge i go; to the Sangha-refuge i go.
manas wrote:with regard to the last two angas (samma-sati, and samma-samadhi) why do we bicker so much?
This is a good question.
Probably, (Western) Buddhist people sink a lot of their hope for the future in sammasatisamadhi, and to feel that one's samma is maybe a little miccha can be frightening and worrisome.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Keep in mind that there is no Buddhist Theology, and never is it suggested that you must believe a certain way.
The Buddha taught to his listeners, and gave them appropriate responses. I think Thanissaro is dong his best to get through to the people he is teaching. That's his job, right?
manas wrote:with regard to the last two angas (samma-sati, and samma-samadhi) why do we bicker so much?
This is a good question.
Probably, (Western) Buddhist people sink a lot of their hope for the future in sammasatisamadhi, and to feel that one's samma is maybe a little miccha can be frightening and worrisome.
It can also be stimulating and inspiring. The first time I heard a Rev T. talk I thought, "What a f*cking asshole!" I'm not embellishing. About three months later, I'm mucking around in thte "mindfulness practice" methods, feeling stale and full of doubt. I recollected my strong aversion to the Rev. T. and thought, "maybe he's just the slap in the face I need."
alan wrote:Keep in mind that there is no Buddhist Theology, and never is it suggested that you must believe a certain way.
The Buddha taught to his listeners, and gave them appropriate responses. I think Thanissaro is dong his best to get through to the people he is teaching. That's his job, right?
Yes, especially as a teacher of teachers. Andrea Fella, e.g., teaches "mindfulness practice" (Mahasi style) but still calls Rev. T one of her teachers. I seriously doubt she's not aware of his critiques in RM.
alan wrote:Keep in mind that there is no Buddhist Theology, and never is it suggested that you must believe a certain way.
The Buddha taught to his listeners, and gave them appropriate responses. I think Thanissaro is dong his best to get through to the people he is teaching. That's his job, right?
Yes, especially as a teacher of teachers. Andrea Fella, e.g., teaches "mindfulness practice" (Mahasi style) but still calls Rev. T one of her teachers. I seriously doubt she's not aware of his critiques in RM.
Having been to one of her retreats, she mainly teaches using the style of Sayadaw U Tejaniya lately.
alan wrote:Keep in mind that there is no Buddhist Theology, and never is it suggested that you must believe a certain way.
The Buddha taught to his listeners, and gave them appropriate responses. I think Thanissaro is dong his best to get through to the people he is teaching. That's his job, right?
Yes, especially as a teacher of teachers. Andrea Fella, e.g., teaches "mindfulness practice" (Mahasi style) but still calls Rev. T one of her teachers. I seriously doubt she's not aware of his critiques in RM.
Having been to one of her retreats, she mainly teaches using the style of Sayadaw U Tejaniya lately.
No she doesn't. She consistently teaches, as she says over and over, a combination of methods from all her teachers. Plus, Reverend Tejaniya is likely very influenced by Mahasi.
danieLion wrote:No she doesn't. She consistently teaches, as she says over and over, a combination of methods from all her teachers. Plus, Reverend Tejaniya is likely very influenced by Mahasi.
Out of curiosity, what similarities do you see with Mahasi Sayadaw and Sayadaw U Tejaniya? I know that they both are grounded in the Abhidharma, but that seems to be where the similarities end. U Tejaniya seems to believe that if you are noting things constantly then your awareness is not relaxed.