I am prepared to believe that our interpretation of the dhamma is similar, and I am willing to consider the differences only semantical, and I am open to negotiating those semantics. The key difference in our way of writing might be based upon understanding practice, which is called ‘magga’ in Pali, verses attainment, which is called ‘phala’ in Pali. Some schools conflated practice with attainment by saying ‘magga-phala’ or “practice is the same as attainment;” however, I disagree. I believe there is a subtle but very important distinction to be made between practice and attainment. That is, practice LEADS to attainment, but they are not the same thing.The implication of this subtle detail is there is no practice that specifically leads only to insight ‘vipassana,’ verses another practice that leads only to absorption ‘shamata.’ We believe that by properly following the Noble Eightfold Path one gets both insight ‘vipassana’ and absorption ‘shamata.’
Jhananda,You will find much of use in the book.There is, I think, no difference in our understanding here. I too experience that practice leads to attainment. However I have described that attainment elsewhere as the attainment of letting go and not the attainment of accumulations.It is the letting go and de-constructing of habit that leaves room for the natural flow of energy and the natural way of being to be established in the practitioner.Shamatha and Vipassana are not two separate practices. Shamatha leads to calm abiding which leads to Jhannas which lead to effective insight. It's a road with a beginning, middle and end. Not two distant towns. Shamatha is impossible with no insight and effective insight is impossible without calm abiding.In the Dhamma,Matthew
Well then, Matthew, it sounds like we are on the same page.
Total Members: 181