tiltbillings wrote:Of course, this is a non-answer.Virgo wrote:One needs to understand magga-paccaya to really understand it.tiltbillings wrote: Don't be stingy with your words. What is the right path and what is the wrong path?
Kevin
It clearly was an answer. Rather than burdening those who don't want to read it with a long explanation of exactly what magga-paccaya is, I simply stated "one needs to understand magga-paccaya to really understand it". People can then google it and read about it, or read about it in books. Perhaps it is a "non-answer" to you because it used "abhidhamma-speak", a term you seem to have coined.
I linked to the talk simply because I thought it was relevant to the conversation.tiltbillings wrote: The traditional metta practice as we see in the suttas and the Visuddhimagga was utterly dismissed. discounted as being wrong path was interesting, but expected in light of what as been said above, and the rather triumphalist responses of the questioners of Sujin in regards to the traditionalist to metta practice approach was very interesting. So, the question is: why did you link this talk? For what purpose?
What was dismissed was not samatha bhavana, but the development of wrong concentration.
Kevin