View Single Post
Old 05-17-2012, 11:44 AM   #7
phenterminediett

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
500
Senior Member
Default
You've got your terms mixed up, bhavana means cultivation so I'm sure there is nothing called cultivatic cultivation.

I assume you are comparing samatha/jhana bhavana with vipassana bhavana. I'm not sure why having more than one form of meditation creates a "patchwork quilt of Dhamma" in your view but if so all forms of Buddhism have more than one form of bhavana I'd have thought.

Samatha/jhana bhavana is clearly outlines in the Suttas, it is the right concentration factor of the eigtfold path. I don't really think Vipassana bhavana is outlined in the suttas in the same way as a meditation technique but the principles that it's based on (mindfulness, awareness, clear comprehension, changing phenomena) etc are all throughout the suttas.

I believe it's the Visuddhimagga where Vipassana bhavana becomes a medition technique however the Satapatthana Sutta is usually what is held up as the primary source.

Some teachers emphasise one over the other, the primary advantage of the latter over the former is that you don't need to be a monastic or on intensive retreat to do it successfully, but really they are two sides of the same coin and teachers like Ajahn Chah emphasise this.

Kasina meditation is mentioned as one of the 40 samatha meditation objects in the Visuddhimagga, i'm not sure if there is any source in the suttas.

So your point is?
My point is that Theravada teachings seem to be at odds with the Nikayas.

I want to understand IF vipassana is an actual meditation practice taught by the Buddha or not and if the Kasinas are or not, etc.

The Theravada position is not very popular in the U.S. in my immediate experience.

Clarification is the point Goofaholix,
Thank you......Stefos
phenterminediett is offline


 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:57 PM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity