The difference is one is the teaching of the Buddha (that listening to the right Dhamma and wise consideration condition the arising of sati-panna) and the other (that intending to have sati by formal practice) is not, it is the contrary to the Buddha's teaching on anattaness and dependent originations.SamKR wrote:
My questions is: How is this intention to do "formal" practice necessarily different from intention to listen and consider right dhamma? How only this so called "formal" practice is based on wrong view of self? Can't the so called "formal" practice be practiced without wrong view of self? Can't there be conditions for the intention to practice formally (other than wrong view of self) just like there are conditions for the intention to listen and consider dhamma (as Kevin stated above)?
No one would deny that hearing the Dhamma and wise-consideration is necessary. I think the "formal" practices are rightly done only after hearing the right Dhamma and having wise consideration. If not, then they will of course become blind rituals -- just as listening to the "right dhamma" is also suceptible to become a ritual.
Edit: corrected a sentence
Furthermore, even listening to the right Dhamma and wise consideration are also conditioned. If this is not understood, then it would also become a ritual. So it all depends on understanding, not on the doing. Without hearing the right words and wise consideration of it, however, there will not be conditions for panna to arise. Should we dispute with the Buddha about it?
You maintained that "formal" practice can be done rightly after listening to the right Dhamma and wise consideration. However, AS suggests that if one thinks of "formal practice", it simply means that there's not been right understanding of what had been heard, because a self-view is still there.