Bhante,

> This is, if i'm not mistaken, a digital version of the famous

debate

> carried on originally in Sri Lanka, then printed in Burma. I have
> read it carefully many years ago. It was, for me, one of the
> defining moments that convinced me i could not rely on the views

of

> Theravadin orthodoxy.

This seems an odd conclusion to draw... I think you mean that even
though it is quite clear from all of the commentarial texts that the
mundane samatha jhanas described in the commentaries are not
necessary to reach nibbaana, that's just a good reason to take your
views elsewhere.

My own book, A Swift Pair of Messengers, was

> written because i wanted to seek a different way of approaching

the

> question, one that would avoid the unnecessary detours and dubious
> assumptions underlying that debate.

Ouch... what unnecessary detours and dubious assumptions are those?
I think it was brilliantly carried out, especially all the times
Sayadaw Nyanuttaro points to the millions of meditators who have
indeed gained cittavisuddhi through the method of dry-vipassana.

Despite my obvious lack of

> qualification to undertake such a task, i did it because i wanted

to

> make the issues as clear and unambiguous as possible for myself.
> Since then, I have grown rather weary of the subject, having been
> over and around all the arguments and sources, etc., so many

times...

But it is so clear and unambiguous already... I've encountered many
people who refuse to believe that one need not enter into absorbed
concentration on a conceptual object before developing understanding
about ultimate realities, but in general they, like you sir, don't
seem to accept the commentaries anyway, so it seems like a silly
stance to take. These two practices are only clearly spelled out in
the commentaries anyway, are they not? Unless one calls the
Patisambhidaamagga canonical, which of course as a Theravada
Buddhist monk I do.

I understand that many meditators feel, rightly so, that one cannot
easily seperate the two if one wishes to reach nibbaana. But
samatha kammatthana means "meditation for the purpose of
tranquilising the mind". Vipassana kammatthana means "meditation
for the purpose of seeing clearly (i.e. seeing nibbaana)",
not "meditation that is devoid of tranquility". Surely one needs
cittavisuddhi first, for ~naa.na-dassana visuddhi to arise. I see a
hint at the Dhammapada verse used to make the point that one needs
jhaana for wisdom. I agree. But certainly not mundane samatha
jhaana as described in the Theravada commentaries.

Respectfully,

Yuttadhammo

>
> >
> > > Well, we do have to share a planet together...
> >
> > You do? That's too bad...
> >
> > Not me... if I have a say in it, I'm out of here...
> >
> ahh, yes, but in the meantime? And what happens if you become an
> anagami, get reborn in the Pure Abodes.....and they're full of
> Mahayanists!

Ouch, there's a heresy if ever I heard one...

The Mahayana Pure Realm is a place where supposedly the Lord Buddha
lives and teaches, just like Jesus. And all the bell-ringing
buddhists walk in lines singing (off-key I'm sure) "namo
amitaaaaaaafa, namo amitaaaaaafa" If that's where anagamis go, what
punishment is in store for an arahant?

In the meantime, attain magga-phala-nibbana, then enter
phalasamapatti as often as possible, because "andhaabhuto aya.m
loko".

Respectfully,

Yuttadhammo