I don't find Robert's posts unpleasant, and I did have a nice afternoon tea with Robert and some of his friends in Bangkok. And I have no problem with them presenting their opinions. However, my impression of their criticisms of other teachers is like Tilt's: that they inaccurate and often evasive. Rather than pointing out something specific that someone is teaching or doing wrong, the discussion (as in this thread) tends to focus on assumptions
about what "meditators" do.
For example, this is the sort of argument I have frequently heard from Robert and his friends: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 00#p228748
dhamma follower wrote:... if one believes that there is a self who can condition dhammas as wished, which is the underlying idea of "formal practice" how can there be detachment from an idea of self?
The highlighted statement simply makes an assumption
about the motivation.
I have given examples of what other teachers say, which I find to be consistent with the statements from the Buddha that anything that arises does so from causes and conditions. I was hoping that by giving such references we we might be able to discuss in detail where exactly particular teachers and Dhamma practitioners are, or are not, making serious errors. This is clearly an important question, but to answer it requires engagement with the specifics.
What you have said here actually points out one of the characteristics of A.S approach. And I think that is worthwhile to discuss a little bit about that. Personally, I've never heard her criticizing any teacher. And it seems that most of her students seem to do the same.
As one of the underlying ideas in her explanation of the Dhamma is that there's no person, only realities arising and falling away. Each moment is different and is conditioned by a different set of conditions. With that idea in mind, it would be inappropriate to say "this person is wrong", or "that person is right", as the same person can have moments of right understanding of certain aspects, and at other moments, wrong understanding again. So that's why there is this "assumption of what a meditator does" which actually steems from a mere attempt to see what conditions what.
With that premise, A.S actually asks: WHY formal meditation? What is the ground motivation for a particular person who wants to commit to formal practice? What does such motivation imply? Is that consistent with the teaching of anattaness?
Another example is her examination of what is sati, what is its characteristics, what are the conditions for its arising? What is the object of satipatthana? Then we can check for our-sevles whether trying to be aware is sati
So her approach is not to point out the fault of another, but to show what is the right development, what is the right understanding, then each person can examine for him or her self whether his previous understanding is right or wrong. Sometime it clicks, and sometime it doesn't. Something clicks and other things don't, by conditions.
In one of her discussions in Kaeng Krachan 2012, she asked back when someone said she liked to do meditation:
AS: You want to meditate with understanding or not with understanding?
X: With understanding of course
AS: Is technique understanding?
X: No, it's not
Then when asked whether she rejected meditation as a whole, she said: "when I hear the word "meditation", I would like to know what it is.
That being said, if you want to discuss certain points of difference in other teachers' teaching who also stress on causes and conditions, we can try to do it in another thread. However,I believe you would agree that we should try to emphasize only on the teaching points, and that saying such or such points does not accord to the Dhamma doesn't necessarily means that the person is disrespected, or that all what he teaches is wrong, because it would be totally untrue.