This bit summarises most of the arguments I see from Khun Sujin's followers:Jechbi wrote: I don't find anything in that Q&A that necessarily conflicts with sitting practice as it actually occurs, at least for some. As it states in the "Comprehensive Manual of Abdhidhamma," this all manifests in the meditator's experience as "a continuity of processes." Each moment presents with different kamma, and it's not all going to be the same for every "sitting meditator" all the time. This is a highly specialized criticism, imho.
I.e. any attempt to be aware of anything (such as the breath) is creating a "self". [Which is, of course, a pitfall that most meditation teachers will point out...]Bhikkhu Dhammadharo wrote:If you try to concentrate on your feet going around no awareness of anything. It is just a self who is trying to direct awareness, an idea of what you think awareness is, to some place or other of the body, because we want to know this, we want to know that. It is not natural. It is not getting rid of attachment, it is increasing it.
The aspects of the argument that I find puzzling are:
1. They have a fatalistic ring. See, for example, MN101 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I understand (intellectually) that there is no "chooser", but that does not mean there is not "choice"....it is not proper for you to assert that, "Whatever a person experiences — pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain — all is caused by what was done in the past.
2. The approaches advocated also seem to involve choices (to study, to think about not-self, etc). Thus they would be subject to exactly the same criticism of "self making" as "formal meditation".
I would particularly appreciate it if anyone could shed light on the second point.
Metta
Mike