Dan74 wrote:Paul, I am probably not in the mood for your sense of humour but people were discussing rites and ritual - so why the seemingly smartarse comment?
Nice to see the word "seemingly" there as it demonstrates that what you said reflects your own perception. There was no humour or smart-arsery intended - merely a statement of fact. This topic is titled "The causes for wisdom" and that is what it is about.
Dan74 wrote:A long time ago I was debating with Tilt, unable to understand his seemingly vehement attack on Mahayana sectarianism and particularly the term "Hinayana". Then he shared that due to this sectarian propaganda, to effectively slander, the avenue of exploring Theravada remained closed to him for some time. In essence he was denied an opportunity to explore this amazing tradition. A travesty, wouldn't you agree?
Not all people are like Tilt.
Dan74 wrote:If someone is performing a ritual, does it mean (s)he is attached? And if so, could it still be useful before stream-entry?
A good question, pertinent to the topic... perhaps someone will take it up?
Dan74 wrote:I think all ill-informed attacks on a tradition, a lineage or practice, do precisely that - misinform and deny people an opportunity to explore through slander.
That's all fine, but that's not how I've interpreted the words from Robert and likeminded individuals in this topic. From what I recall of their postings throughout the topic, they have been very careful to clarify that it's the view underlying what is done
that is the significant factor underlying the efficacy of action, and not the corresponding movements and configurations of rupa. In other words, it's "sitting-neutral".