[Mambattedge]

thank you, Stefos

my reply: the mode of reasoning above seems rather problematic, because, as characterised by the content, it fragments

i have sensed criticism of the Theravada school and i have myself have criticised the Theravada school on the same grounds

the Theravada school has created "techniques" due to not understanding natural manifestation

but the "natural awareness" schools can equally be criticised because they have not taken natural awareness far enough

let us face the facts. KM largely taught a form of introspection for individuals to learn to be aware of "themselves"; to be free of social conditioning & to cultivate internal emotional intelligence. thus, KM recommended choiceless awareness so an individual does not suppress, condemn or indulge but, instead, learns. but what is beyond this level of inquiry, KM rare spoken in detail about

when the mind is naturally silent, with no thoughts, for the whole of the meditation, a natural manifestation occurs. what else is jhana but the internal manifestation of letting go & Anapanasati.

Anapanasati and jhana are not things fragmented from the body of the Buddha's teachings, in the way some & the Theravada often explain. instead, Anapanasati is the direct natural result of abandoning craving & attachment, as prescribed in the Four Noble Truths

the Dhamma states:



to end, there is little benefit in dismissing a road not travelled

warm regards

Thank you Element for clarifying.

My thoughts sir:

There is really only One Buddhadhamma not many and not developments upon developments of Buddhist sects.
You see, I don't put the Nikayas on a pedastal and say "THIS is it" because other Buddhist schools existed whose Nikayas are not around any longer. Nor do I say the Pali Nikayas are the "final word" but I believe that they contain elements of the "final word" of the Buddha.

For example:
The Buddha was said to have been all knowing. He must have known about prana and its' flow in the body, the chakras and their functions, and the nadis and their purpose. Only Vajrayana even mentions this and I see no issue with it.

Regarding what "X,Y, Z" (Buddhist term/concept actually means):
Many people have "put what X,Y, Z means back in the Buddha's mouth" and I don't necessarily believe that that was right, What do I mean?
This: We have no reliable proof outside of the Vinaya and certain Nikayas as to what Pre "18 school" Buddhism looked like.
Many Theravadas and Mahayanists and Vajrayanists take their works and say "THIS is what the Buddha meant by X, Y, Z"

To my thinking mind, this makes no sense.

Therefore, even after "reverse engineering" the current understanding of Anapanasati/4 Jhanas/4 Brahmaviharas, etc. and tracing HOW/WHY so many different schools came about would show the student what the Buddha really taught only to a certain degree and not to a definitive point.

Having said ALL that, what you say is correct. Dismissing things without looking into them is just as insensitive as Embracing things without looking into them. I have done much research Element and I've also experienced some "interesting" things happen to me as a result of putting what the Buddha and K.M. and what Dzogchen teach into practice (not "work" )

THAT I assure you of sir.

Incidentally, I own the PTS Samyutta/Digha/Majjhima/Anguttara Nikayas along with the Dhammasangani & Vibhanga, Udana, Itivuttaka, Suttanipata and Dhammapada. I will probably buy the entire Vinaya Pitaka next as well! Wowie!

May you always be well,
Stefos