Dear Tilt,tiltbillings wrote:Have you ever noticed that you really do not answer questions put to you? These three sentences of yours do not address what I said, and if anything, you are coming across as saying quite directly that the suttas are inadequate to the task of discussing the Buddha's teachings. That is an interesting position to be in, and I certainly would not want to be there.DF wrote:
It is not a matter of language, it is a matter of understanding. How would you describe the mind processes of those who attained enlightenment in the sutta? What lead them to the experience of Nibanna? I would be very surprised if you were to say they have realized the arising and passing away of a cow or of their own legs.
There are three ways to answer a question 1. Give direct answer to it; 2. By asking a question; 3. Remaining silence.
I will have to go for number 3 if the discussion becomes useless.
Tilt, I was a very diligent student of that practice for ten years. I was told to go and do things slowly, because that would increase sati. I spent many sleepless nights making all kinds of resolve as being instructed.... Despite all my personal respect for the teachers I had, since they are really great persons for their kindness, patience and other qualities, I have to say that I don't find those ideas as being supported by my reading into the texts today.Well, the problem with this statement (1.) is that you really do not really seem to understand what that practice is about. So, tell me with the seeing of the rising and falling of what dhammas, other than nibbana, one does not see anicca, dukkha, and anatta, one does not see the conditioned co-produced "nature" of dhammas?There is a big difference between 1.telling someone to constantly be aware of such and such object (like the rising and falling of the abdomen) and 2.explaining about realities now as being conditioned and saying that only what appears now can be understood, that no one is doing it but only right understanding can approach realities now, it can not be forced to arise.
Now at least you seem to admit that only dhammas can arise and pass away, not people, or legs. So there first has to be awareness and understanding of dhammas as dhammas, before the realization of their arising and passing away can occur, right? So it is Abhidhammic or it is simply truth?
When you slow down the movements in order to have sati, what is there? lobha! Can lobha condition sati to arise? If there is no understanding of what sati is and what are the conditions for it to arise, how can there be real sati which arises to be aware of dhammas as just dhammas (and not "I" am aware of this or that)? So real arising and passing away is still too far, truly....