retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Coyote,
Correct, nor is it the way it's presented Classically. As for whether it's a "useful attitude to cultivate or not" you're effectively asking it about the efficacy of a teaching from outside its domain, making it tough to answer. Your best bet may be to investigate what "bhava" (i.e. becoming, existence) means in the Theravada tradition and decide for yourself whether there is compatibility or otherwise.suttametta wrote:I don't think this is the way Buddha presented the practice.Coyote wrote:Some teachers, especially those of the Thai Forest Traditions, emphasise an attitude that is characterised by "being nobody, going nowhere" over getting to this or that stage or attainment. While I recognise, with the teaching of Anatta and Anicca in mind, that this is ultimately true, I wonder how "traditional" or "classical" this method of teaching of practice is. My understanding is that it is somewhat of a peculiarity to Thai Forest Buddhism, and as a practice may have been influenced by similar attitudes in Mahayana schools such as Zen (not to say that it is not useful or authentic). So, from a Classical POV, is this a useful attitude to cultivate or not?
With metta,
Coyote
Metta,
Retro.
Do you mean that Classical position is that "Be someone, get somewhere" ? Am I understanding you correct? Hopefully I am misinterpreting what you mean.
As long as there is Self View, Awakening cannot occur. Maggaphala should not be seen as some good self-attainment that is personally attained.