Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer!
- Hi Sukin.
--- In email@example.com, Sukinder <sukinder@...> wrote:
> I wish this recurrent presumption would not be stated as a
> > general rule, as if there is no doubt about it, and all meditators are
> > deluded indulgers in self-view. This is not the case, and is a wrong
> > view about meditation and meditators.
> You consider my idea dogmatic does not make it so.
It also does not make it not so.
> From where I stand,
> its a matter of you not able to see that you are wrong and that I'm
Well that is extremely self-righteous to think that you are right and everyone who meditates is wrong - esp. as you say that you do have some doubt as your understanding is intellectual. In other words, that to me is indeed a definition of dogmatic. It is possible to state your understanding without being so disparaging and to admit of your doubt, but instead you choose to state it as a general case that applies without doubt and to all meditators. Why state it that way? Why not look into it and wait to see if you are right?
> Do I have doubt? Yes, in the sense of having only intellectual
> understanding and far from realization. But when it comes to assessing
> the position held by meditators and recognizing the wrong view
> expressed, whatever little understanding that occasionally arises, has
> been reason for confidence rather than any wavering.
It has never been shown, nor have I ever gotten a substantive quote from anyone in authority in traditional Theravada, that meditation is the expression of self-view. Almost all of the scriptures say the opposite, that one should, could or does follow the breath, cultivate mindfulness and samatha, etc., so you must understand that your view is not only unproven, but goes against the word of most of the teachings. So where have you gotten this view? Can you identify the source? What writings tell you explicitly that meditation is bad for you? There are none.
> I say that *all* those who meditate in the name of Dhamma practice do so
> as a result of wrong view! It is not possible that Right View will agree
> with the idea of formal meditation.
> You say that this position itself is wrong view. Please tell me how this
> is so, and I will explain to you why I think as I do.
> In the meantime I will continue to state that all formal meditation is
> the result of wrong view.
Well you may continue to state it but there is no evidence for it other than your own logical construction, which I believe is skewed in that direction. No one has ever explained why meditation *must* be the product of self-view, rather than just doing something that Buddha spoke of and in my view recommended almost constantly. It is always said [around here] that the act of sitting is itself an effort to control what dhammas arise, even though Buddhist meditation is explicitly aimed at merely observing whatever dhammas arise in the way that is possible at the present time, not "trying to make something happen" in any way. It is no more inherently controlling than simply observing what arises in daily life, as is constantly recommended on dsg, so I don't frankly see the difference. Surely, if one *does* want to control what arises then at the moment that this is the case, that is a moment of attempting to control dhammas, but this is not the case at every moment, and it is not more the case just because someone is meditating. It is just a spurious argument.
In addition, if meditation is unrelated to the path and has no effect on anything, then there is nothing wrong with it, as it will not change what dhammas arise or how they are regarded. Something that has no path relevance cannot make the path "worse," so either way I don't see the problem, or why those who are against meditation appear to be obsessed by it and filled with negative intention towards it. Aversion, anyone?
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hi Rob ERE: Hi Jon.
> RE: I will get into the next part about the Satipatthana sutta later, as I need to look at it to continue the discussion.
> J: Glad to hear you'll be checking out the text of the sutta for a change!! :-))
:-) I appreciate what I desperately hope is your humor here, and if so, is very funny.
I will get back to you with the usual sutta quotes as soon as I can. :-)
Very very funny, Jon. ; - /
- - - - - - - - - -
J: You may have forgotten in the confusion over the new format that you have already come back with a quote from the Satipatthana Sutta. My reply to your message can be found here: