robertk wrote:I actually have no idea of the difference that you mention above. Vipasssana is insight leading to nibbana and it is thus the highest level of buddhist achievement. I contend that it is not a simple mention exercise and I cited the Buddha's
word that it is difficult and profound. If however I am wrong and vipassana is something other than insight and if it is indeed a mental technique - then this would be news to me.Please cite the evidence.
If you have no idea of the difference that I mention above, it is because you have chosen to ignore posts in this very thread that point you to places where this difference is described, such as here
. It's very difficult for me to understand how you could not be aware that the term "Vipassana Meditation" is commonly used to refer to a technique. I also don't understand how you could not be aware that the term "vipsassana" itself has broader and more varied usages than as a noun synonymous with insight. The evidence is all over the place, and it has been presented to you many times.
robertk wrote:Now one further thing, I have conceded on several threads on esangha that this mediation may have many benefits. It may make all who practice it calm and loving and law abiding. Indeed even transcendental meditation has been proven by science to make its practioners into better beings all around. This I am not disputing. What I am suggesting is that my reading of the texts does not have people doing special techniques and then claiming vipassan insight. Now when people make special claims of high levels of achievement in Buddhism at times someone needs to call them out. This unpleasant task seems to have fallen my way but it has also been suggested by participants on this thread that I am 'obssesed' and carrying out a 'bizarre vendetta' and I was told to 'get a grip" .
'Please moderators do decide whether you want me to continue writing on this thread or not?
Nobody is making special claims of high levels of achivement in Buddhism as a result of practicing what is commonly referred to as Vipassana Meditation. Can you please point to an instance where a Vipassana meditator has done so? I will join you in speaking with that person out of compassion to help them come to grips with any misunderstanding.
With regard to the discussion over at E-Sangha, Robert, I was the one who told you to "get a grip" because you began making bizarre statements such as this one:
robertk2,Apr 18 2009, 11:11 AM wrote:I can't recommend to my daughter not to join the moonies because I was never a moonie, I shouldn't say the Heaven's gate cult were wrong when they killed themselves to get on board Halleys comet. I reject this sort of advice as being idiotic_ one is then open to cults who say "try us out see for yourself", all teh while indoctrinating using cult techniques into their belief system and way of practice. Very very dangerous.
To which my response was:
Jechbi wrote:Comparing Goenka-style meditation retreats with "moonies" and Heaven's Gate cultists is outlandish and uncalled for.
I have been respectful of you and your contributions to discussions related to Abhidhamma, but really, Robert, your behavior now is going overboard. It's obvious that you have some sort of deep personal aversion to Goenka's approach. That's fine, you can have whatever strange opinions you choose. But this bizarre vendetta you are pursuing cannot be regarded as rational.
Get a grip please.
Yes, I spoke harshly to you. Certainly I was hoping that you would not take it personally, and that you would not hold a grudge. If my words were hurtful, then I apologize for my role in bringing that unpleasant experience to fruition in your life. But my underlying intention also was to try to rein in what I saw as irrational criticism out of control.
In that same thread over at E-Sangha, you presented other inaccurate information about the Goenka-taught technique. It appeared to me that your words had caused people to have needless doubts. After all, you are a university instructor with an Abhidhamma Web sight, so you have some authority.
But this is not even the first time you have sought to discredit Goenka. Your bid to discredit him also pops up in completely unrelated threads, such as this one
, where you and I had this exchange (emphasis mine):
robertk wrote: Jechbi wrote:
Can we break the link between vipāka and kamma? Is that the point, that there really is no hard-and-fast link? Or am I missing some important understanding here? It seems like there's some volitional component between those two.
Are you talking about the javana processes arsing shortly after the vipaka citta or the initial kamma - maybe done aeons ago that led to this pleasant or unpleasant result.
In the first case the vipaka and the akusala or kusala (at the moments of javana) are of different jatis.
The vipaka is a supporting condition but not neccessarily a main condition for teh arising of the kusala or akusala. For example one coudl hear Dhamma well explained but have aversion (akusala ) to it. Or listen to false Dhamma and think that that was good(akusala).
The idea we sometimes hear about breaking the chain at the vedana link is mostly motivated by an idea of a self who can control and also by lobha which looks for a quick result.
If there is understanding of any element - including vedana- then at that moment there is a weakening of the chain, but this doesn't imply trying to be equanimous or detached. It rather needs clear pariyatti wisdom that knows all elements are merely that- ephemeral and conditioned, thus anatta.
At the time, I thought you were trying to help me understand Abhidhamma. But later, it became very clear that your underlying message was that the Goenka technique is invalid. I cannot tell you how counterproductive your comments were in that thread. I became literally ill when I tried to apply your subsequent notion that some vipaka is a legitimate object of desire.
Robert, I highly value your insights and knowledge, and I respect you. But in all honesty, I find your repeated efforts to discredit Goenka to be inexplicable and potentially harmful. Can you please try to view my comments without seeing them as a personal attack? And can you please try to examine the effects of your words on others? Thank you.