The Myth of Meditation Techniques by Bhikkhu Anīgha

The Watercooler
21

Modern Buddhist practice revolves around attentional exercises like staying with the breath, scanning bodily sensations, visualization, noting mental events. Even when these approaches are given a narrative that sounds faithful to early Buddhist ideals—as “means to restrain the mind and purify it from defilements”—closer scrutiny than they usually receive shows that they cannot achieve those aims.

At first blush, this read to me as a rather strong statement. On closer scrutiny, perhaps what he’s commenting on is the “modern Buddhist practice” of so many of the mindfulness movements where staying with the breath, body scanning and noting goes no further than only mindfulness and does not progress into the imperative instructions the Buddha laid out in the suttas. On this, I can agree.

What Bhikkhu Anigha is talking about may be that, unaware of how to observe and move attention from “disturbances”, these meditation practitioners use unwise action in an attempt to get relief from dukkha. I can also see some sense in this with most of the mindfulness movements and teachers that are rampant.

But I notice that he always seems to say that all “Modern Buddhist practice” that everyone else is “peddling” is wrong and he has the real teachings.

5 Likes
22

First, I think there is a lot of room for Right Speech than one would normally think. While AN 5.198 gives us certain criteria, it is possible for those criteria to be present in a form that we would otherwise not expect. For instance,

“Is it really true, Ariṭṭha, that you have such a harmful misconception: ‘As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, the acts that he says are obstructions are not really obstructions for the one who performs them’?”

“Absolutely, sir. As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, the acts that he says are obstructions are not really obstructions for the one who performs them.”

“Futile man, who on earth have you ever known me to teach in that way? Haven’t I said in many ways that obstructive acts are obstructive, and that they really do obstruct the one who performs them? I’ve said that sensual pleasures give little gratification and much suffering and distress, and they are all the more full of drawbacks. With the similes of a skeleton … a scrap of meat … a grass torch … a pit of glowing coals … a dream … borrowed goods … fruit on a tree … a butcher’s knife and chopping board … swords and spears … a snake’s head, I’ve said that sensual pleasures give little gratification and much suffering and distress, and they are all the more full of drawbacks. But still you misrepresent me by your wrong grasp, harm yourself, and brim with much wickedness. This will be for your lasting harm and suffering.”

Then the Buddha said to the mendicants, “What do you think, mendicants? Has this mendicant Ariṭṭha kindled even a spark of ardor in this teaching and training?”

“How could that be, sir? No, sir.” When this was said, Ariṭṭha sat silent, dismayed, shoulders drooping, downcast, depressed, with nothing to say.

Knowing this, the Buddha said, “Futile man, you will be known by your own harmful misconception. I’ll question the mendicants about this.”

— MN 22

Here we have the Buddha, publicly, in-person humiliating a monk. Ever after Ariṭṭha was dismayed and depressed, the Buddha continued and again called him a futile man in front of all of his peers. Not only was the Buddha lambasting the view that he held, he was targeting the person himself by calling him a futile man (other translations render it as foolish man or inept man).

Now, I think we would all agree that the Buddha has perfected Right Speech, so what he has said above cannot be Wrong Speech. Therefore, even though it might seem as though something is not spoken affectionally or with compassion, it might very well be - there is a wide range here, which is what I wanted to showcase.

Moving on to my second point,

So far, with my experience in Hillside Hermitage communiques, it seems they make %65 good points with %35 questionable declarations that sometimes directly challenge the suttas or stretch the meaning so far in a certain direction, presented in an unpleasant tone that it’s hard to reconcile how it fits into either the teaching on Right Speech, or instructions on how to teach Dharma

I do not think unpleasant tone, in and of itself, is necessarily tied to Right Speech. Also to keep in mind, often what feels like unpleasant tone to us is because what is being said is displeasing. For example,

So I have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying near Rājagaha, in the Bamboo Grove, the squirrels’ feeding ground. Now at that time Venerable Pilindavaccha addressed the mendicants as “lowlifes”. Then several mendicants went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and said to him, “Sir, Venerable Pilindavaccha addresses the mendicants as ‘lowlifes’.”

So the Buddha addressed one of the monks, “Please, monk, in my name tell the mendicant Pilindavaccha that the Teacher summons him.” “Yes, sir,” that monk replied. He went to Pilindavaccha and said to him, “Reverend Pilindavaccha, the teacher summons you.”

“Yes, reverend,” Pilindavaccha replied. He went to the Buddha, bowed, and sat down to one side. The Buddha said to him: “Is it really true, Vaccha, that you addressed the mendicants as ‘lowlifes’?” “Yes, sir,” he replied.

Then, having applied his mind to Pilindavaccha’s past lives, the Buddha said to the mendicants, “Mendicants, don’t complain about the mendicant Vaccha. He doesn’t address the mendicants as ‘lowlifes’ out of hate. For five hundred lives without interruption he was reborn in a brahmin family. For a long time, he has addressed people as ‘lowlife’. That’s why he addresses the mendicants as ‘lowlifes’.”

Then, understanding this matter, on that occasion the Buddha expressed this heartfelt sentiment:

“In whom dwells no deceit or conceit,rid of greed, unselfish, with no need for hope,with anger cast aside, quenched: they are a brahmin, an ascetic, a mendicant.”

— UD 3.6

But, maybe one does not take the Udāna or this particular sutta as EBT, which is fine.

Third, in regard to SN 56.9, I do not think it is as simple as not engaging in debate, or not telling people they are wrong, or not rebuking wrong views - because we have many examples of the Buddha debating people, as well as monks being questioned by other monks.

“Suppose, Aggivessana, there was a person in need of heartwood. Wandering in search of heartwood, they’d take a sharp axe and enter a forest. There they’d see a big banana trunk, straight and young and grown unskewed. They’d cut it down at the base, cut off the top, and unroll the coiled sheaths. But they wouldn’t even find sapwood, much less heartwood.

In the same way, when pursued, pressed, and grilled by me on your own doctrine, you turn out to be vacuous, hollow, and mistaken. But it was you who stated before the assembly of Vesālī: ‘I don’t see any ascetic or brahmin who would not shake and rock and tremble, sweating from the armpits, were I to take them on in debate—not a leader of an order or a community, or the tutor of a community, and not even one who claims to be a perfected one, a fully awakened Buddha. Even an insentient post would shake and rock and tremble were I to take it on in debate. How much more then a human being!’ But sweat is pouring from your forehead; it’s soaked through your robe and drips on the ground. While I now have no sweat on my body.” So the Buddha revealed his golden body to the assembly. When this was said, Saccaka sat silent, dismayed, shoulders drooping, downcast, depressed, with nothing to say.

— MN 35

23

Definitely I think so😊

But do notice that we are in kind of catch 22. Any argent follower of HH can say:

“Look, there is Sutta which says:

51 (1) The Fingernail

Then the Blessed One took up a little bit of soil in his fingernail and addressed the bhikkhus thus:
“Bhikkhus, what do you think which is more: the little bit of soil that I have taken up in my fingernail or this great earth?”
“Venerable sir, the great earth is more. The little bit of soil that the Blessed One has taken up in his fingernail is trifling. Compared to the great earth, that little bit of soil is not calculable, does not bear comparison, does not amount even to a fraction.”

“So too, bhikkhus, for a noble disciple, a person accomplished in view who has made the breakthrough, the suffering that has been destroyed and eliminated is more, while that which remains is trifling. Compared to the former mass of suffering that has been destroyed and eliminated, the latter is not calculable, does not bear comparison, does not amount even to a fraction, as there is a maximum of seven more lives. He is one who understands as it really is: ‘This is suffering’ … ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’
“Therefore, bhikkhus, an exertion should be made to understand: ‘This is suffering.’… An exertion should be made to understand: ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’”

SN 56: 51

And all this orthodox Buddhists naively think that Sutta compares infinite bondage in samsara with merely at most seven more existences of sotapanna. But obviously, as our great teachers say, that is wrong interpretation. It obviously deals with qualitative difference between puthujjanas and sotapanna, who as we all know - thanks to our great teachers - is on the same level as arahat, and even tortured by the best torture master for many hours, will remain mentally unmoved.”

Now, I see you are quite sceptical, but how to explain such certainty about things that aren’t certain at all? It all looks as if friend Mara is involved here.

Very strange :thinking:

24

In the end one has to let go of the vessel used to cross over, and maybe that final letting go is the hardest delusion to see because it’s «too close» to «see»

And when it’s done, what remains is what is, «the»is that never comes into existence

It’s like this :lotus:

25

Modern Buddhist practice revolves around attentional exercises like staying with the breath, scanning bodily sensations, visualization, noting mental events. Even when these approaches are given a narrative that sounds faithful to early Buddhist ideals—as “means to restrain the mind and purify it from defilements”—closer scrutiny than they usually receive shows that they cannot achieve those aims.

I read the Venerable’s article, and the Venerable appears to me to be all but absolutely correct in his point. The only discrepancy I would take issue with is the qualification of “modern”: I don’t think modernity has much to do with it.

But, all in all, I see nothing controversial in stating that meditational techniques—Buddhist or otherwise—don’t “get the job done,” so to speak. The authors of the Aṭṭhakavagga said as much, did they not? And just as, if not more, emphatically. (And disparagingly, I would say.) The Venerable just appears to me to fall short in stopping at the gradual path, for, again, no path will “get the job done.”

If his intent was to lord renunciation over the unordained (which seems to be how some on the thread are reading it), then, no, it’s a falsehood. However, if what he is referencing is the commitment, the faith, the unflagging resolve, etc. that should drive the quest for awakening—the expression of which through renunciation was specifically advocated by the Buddha—then, indeed, he would be correct. I couldn’t say what his intention was, nor do I care to speculate.

But I see no “myth” in meditation techniques, only perhaps in expectations. Being a householder, as per the suttas, I recognize that I am decidedly not striving for full exhaustion of the āsavas this life: it will not happen unless I renounce or have an earth-shattering personal experience (which would then cause me to immediately renounce). However, the awakening of a sotāpanna is very much within a householder’s reach (as are higher attainments, but they are more complicated). For, a perusal of relevant suttas seems to support the idea of sotāpannaphala for householders sans any of what are traditionally recognized as “meditation practices” at all.

Does sotāpannaphala not in and of itself immediately reduce an incalculably large portion of one’s dukkha? Would not that suffice as a satisfactory attainment? Was this not advocated by the Buddha? Add to that the Buddha’s instruction to Anāthapiṇḍika that he should engage in jhāna from time to time, and it seems like a meditational path of practice at the non-renunciate level was not only advocated, but stated to as per its capacity reduce dukkha and to guarantee future awakening.

(I also would like to include, again, as per the Buddha’s instructions to Anāthapiṇḍika, my declaration of sotāpannaphala and express my pīti and sukha [as they are conducive to maintenance of samādhi] at being assured of awakening in no more than seven lifetimes. )

Has the Venerable maybe not considered these discourses?

1 Like
26

Perhaps things are little bit more complicated. Higher attainments in the most cases depend on understanding of Dhamma. Now, from sotapatti to arahathood distance is the seven lives at most, while the bondage of ignorance has infinite regression. It looks like it is much more difficult to become sotapanna, than from the state of sotapanna arrive at arahathood.

Apart from absolutely neccesry condition: Dhamma is for wise, not for unwise, it is very important with whom one associates.

Technique of not having techniques - apart that it sounds like Krishnamurti-like idea, is just one of techniques. Any technique can be tasted, and if it leads to increasing wholesome states, and diminishing of unwholesome states, why one should not use it?

The most dangerous thing is not having this or that technique, but self-deception in using them or rejecting them. Before going beyond attavada, one has to go beyond self-deception.

27

Sorry about that. Thanks for clarifying. I went back and re-read the article and noticed several things that I had not noticed the first time. For one, the author states “The core problem the Dhamma is meant to resolve, of needing to act in order to escape discomfort, has not changed.” I won’t really get into the others but IMO the author is conflating path and result. If the above is the core of the dhamma then the Buddha failed miserably considering he was known to lie down when experiencing back pain.

The core problem that had to be solved is ignorance - the root cause. The importance of being able to sit through pain is recognized by all traditions that I know of but that is in support of quieting the mind. If he thinks that body-scanning is a way to avoid pain I would like to invite him to a Goenka retreat (bring some cushions).

One thing regarding pain within a modern context of practice is that I think modern people - especially in the west - bring with them sources of pain that the Buddha did not have to deal with much: poor posture, lack of flexibility, lack of core strength, crappy diet, not growing up in a culture where you learn to sit on the floor as an infant for example.

Much of this pain is avoidable if meditation teachers first focused on correcting some to these issues. Teaching progressive relaxation and also practices like chi gong or yoga to help people learn to feel below the neck would help a boat load. And if they really want to get carried away maybe teach people how to become aware of Brahms Beautiful Breath, Than. Geoffs Breath Energy, Taoist Chi, Holy Spirit/Spiritual Wind (depending on ones tradition of course).

Anyway, it’s not worth arguing about. I think in time this fellow will change views - they (views) always seem to do that.

3 Likes
28

The Myth of Meditation Techniques by Bhikkhu Anīgha

Modern Buddhist practice revolves around attentional exercises like staying with the breath, scanning bodily sensations, visualization, noting mental events. Even when these approaches are given a narrative that sounds faithful to early Buddhist ideals—as “means to restrain the mind and purify it from defilements”—closer scrutiny than they usually receive shows that they cannot achieve those aims.

The common thread behind these exercises is revealed by what happens when you stop them: the attitude that disturbance requires action, which is what craving is, remains intact. When sooner or later an issue arises and you cannot rely on a technique, you will feel the pull to act
—whether by indulging defilements or reaching for relief through distraction. Meditation techniques are one more response, just an arbitrarily permissible one, within the same pattern that makes indulgence necessary to abandon: circumventing immediate suffering while guaranteeing its eventual return.

Most excellent poking of the bear, wandering-thoughts! Thanks for the sutta material, as well.

I think Bhikkhu Anīgha is right in that the destruction of the cravings, of the asavas, is dependent on “intuitive wisdom”, and the means of acquiring that wisdom is not straightforward. MN 70 makes clear it’s not the automatic result of concentration, even though in many sermons (e.g. DN 2) we have Gautama utilizing the pliability of his mind in the fourth concentration to attain insight that was synonymous with the destruction of the cankers in him.

Satipatthana (MN 10) and MahaSatipatthana (DN 22) promise such wisdom at the end of seven days and nights of mindfulness, either such wisdom or “not returning”.

Satipatthana makes only passing mention of concentration, while MahaSatipatthana includes a description of the four numbered concentrations, after which the section on “mindfulness of states of mind” is concluded with:

… with the consciousness ‘There are (the states of mind), mindfulness thereof is thereby established, far enough for the purposes of knowledge and of self-possession. And (a person) abides independent, grasping after nothing in the world whatever.

(DN 22, © Pali Text Society vol ii pp 345-346, parentheticals paraphrase original)

MahaSatipatthana would therefore say that mindfulness is incomplete without the four concentrations.

That’s where it gets tricky, because as Gautama said:

… a good (person) reflects thus: “Lack of desire even for the attainment of the first (concentration) has been spoken of by (the Gautamid); for whatever (one) imagines it to be, it is otherwise” [Similarly for the second, third, and fourth concentrations]…

(MN 113, © Pali Text Society vol III pp 92-94; parentheticals paraphrase original)

Zen teacher Shunryu Suzuki put it this way:

Of course, to have good shikantaza, we have preparatory zazen. You know, from old, old time, you know, we have that technical term, konpunjo. Konpunjo means “to enter,” you know. That is started from Theravada practice, you know. To prepare for the first stage or second stage or third stage, they practice some special practice. Those practice is not the practice of the first stage or second stage or third stage, but to prepare for those stages.

(“The Background of Shikantaza”, Shunryu Suzuki; San Francisco, February 22, 1970)

When it came to the fourth concentration, Suzuki was remarkably in agreement with Gautama, even though Suzuki’s emphasis was on “just sitting”, or “shikantaza”:

So most teacher may say shikantaza is not so easy, you know. It is not possible to continue more than one hour, because it is intense practice to take hold of all our mind and body by the practice which include everything. So in shikantaza, our mind should pervade every parts of our physical being. That is not so easy.

(“I have nothing in my mind”, Shunryu Suzuki, July 15, 1969; emphasis added)

… seated, (one) suffuses (one’s) body with purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind so that there is not one particle of the body that is not pervaded with purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind.

(AN 5.28, tr. PTS vol. III pp 18-19, parentheticals paraphrase original)

The “purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind” I believe to be the pureness of the mind without any will or intent with regard to the activity of the body. That doesn’t say there is no intent with regard to the activity of the mind.

How is it that the fourth concentration should be the same as shikantaza, or “just sitting”? The answer is that both are concerned with the cessation of volition (“determinate thought”, AN 6.63, tr. Pali Text Society vol III p 294) in the activity of body, with arriving at the cessation of volition in the activity of the body in inhalation and exhalation, the hallmark of the fourth concentration.

Volition in the mind ceases with the concentration marked by “the cessation of (volition in) feeling and perceiving”, yet there is a contact of freedom in the cessation of volition with regard to the body as well. In Gautama’s parlance:

And what… is the ceasing of action? That ceasing of action by body, speech, and mind, by which one contacts freedom,–that is called ‘the ceasing of action’.

(SN 35.146, tr. Pali Text Society vol IV p 85)

In Suzuki’s terminology:

What will be the difference? You have freedom, you know, from everything. That is, you know, the main point.

(Sesshin Lecture, Shunryu Suzuki; Day 5 Wednesday, June 9, 1971 San Francisco)

All this is not the complete destruction of the cankers, the concern of Bhikkhu Anigha. As I wrote elsewhere (by way of definition):

The three “cankers” were said to be three cravings: “craving for the life of sense”, “craving for becoming”, and “craving for not-becoming” (DN 22; PTS vol. ii p 340). When the cankers are “destroyed”, the roots of the craving for sense-pleasures, the roots of the craving “to continue, to survive, to be” (tr. “bhava”, Bhikkyu Sujato), and the roots of the craving not “to be” (the craving for the ignorance of being) are destroyed.

(One Way or Another)

Gautama made clear that attainments of concentration alone are not sufficient to completely destroy the cankers (MN 70). Nevertheless, I feel that the fifteenth element of Gautama’s mindfulness in Anapanasati Sutra (MN 118) concerns a relinquishment of volition that yields the conscious experience of reflex activity in inhalation and exhalation:

Contemplating cessation I shall breathe in. Contemplating cessation I shall breathe out.

(SN 54.1, tr. Pali Text Society vol V pp 275-276)

Lasting conscious experience of reflex activity in inhalation and exhalation is only possible when consciousness persists without any will or intent with regard to the activity of the body. That happens in the fourth concentration, and can happen in the recall of the fourth concentration by means of the “survey-sign” (taken after the fourth concentration–AN 5.28, PTS AN III p 19).

In SN 54, Gautama described the mindfulness that was his way of living, both before enlightenment (“while I was as yet the Bodhisattva” SN 54.8) and afterward (“the Tathagatha’s way of living” SN 54.11). That’s the same mindfulness that appears in Anapanasati (MN 118).

Clearly, the mindfulness that was Gautama’s way of living (SN 54) is not dependent on the complete destruction of the cankers, since it was Gautama’s way of living before his cankers were completely destroyed. Does seem that such mindfulness, in all probability, requires the fourth concentration and the “survey-sign”.

Are there techniques in the induction of the first four concentrations? Clearly there are, in the descriptions Gautama gave (AN 5.28, tr. Pali Text Society vol. III pp 18-19).

Are they the techniques currently in vogue among teachers of mindfulness? I would agree with Bhikkyu Anigha that they are not, but I think Bhikkyu Anigha has thrown the bath-ball (ibid) out with the water.

1 Like
29

(post deleted by author)

1 Like
30

I flagged your post since you’re talking in a defamatory manner about very dedicated monks. After following, reading and watching for 2 years their content I can confidently say you are wrong on almost all counts. I do agree the titles of a few videos are verging on clickbaiting but the content always reflect their utmost dedication to the teachings of the Buddha as it is literally explained in the suttas. They are literalists, that’s for sure.

The problem is that what they’re saying implies most practitioners are getting it wrong and this is rubbing people the wrong way. If you want to say they’re wrong you absolutely can and even should but you should back it up with the suttas. They don’t shy away from debate or opposing view.

What is very interesting to me is that in the same way the suttas lend themselves to different interpretations about jhana (bodily/non bodily) they also clearly allow for HH competing interpretation of an unabsorbed nature.

It’d be super cool if we could have some kinda giant chart with the three main interpretation of what constitutes jhana with references to sutta and the way those are interpreted by the people from each side. Instead we have scattered bits of conversation spread everywhere about thorn, pain, bliss and so forth.

4 Likes
31

If you mean that they blindly adhere to verbal definitions, ignoring existential context in which these defined terms appear, I would agree with you.

But while syllogism:

Sutta says ariyasavaka remains unmoved when contacted by the painful bodily feeling

Sotāpanna is ariyasavaka

Therefore sotapanna remains unmoved when contacted by the painful bodily feeling

is no doubt logical in abstraction, when existential context is introduced it is obvious absurd. I don’t think majority are very upset when informed that they are mistaken and simile with one arrow applies as much to sotapanna as to arahat. I believe some ironical smile is the only reaction for such teaching.

Perhaps majority would not be able to deal directly with such syllogism and create the proper one

Sutta says ariyasavaka remains unmoved when contacted by the painful bodily feeling

Sotāpanna is not free from desire and ill will

Therefore in the context of the Sutta definition of ariya savaka most certainly does not include sotapanna.

But majority with common sense reasoning, knowing from Suttas that sotāpanna is able to get angry when hearing unpleasant words, see absurdity of claiming that the very same sotapanna after several hours of torture will not experience any lowering of mood, (to say at least).

But calling them “literalists” you made some overstatement, since for example here venerable teacher doesn’t accept literal meaning of Sutta:

What’s more, since the comparison with the Himalayas was never substituted, SN 13.10 ends up containing a technical flaw

https://www.reddit.com/r/HillsideHermitage/comments/1jjnv1u/seven_grains_of_sand_the_suffering_of_a_sotāpanna/

Strangely enough this “technical flow” does not fit to their interpretation, majority don’t see there any technical flow. That’s true that majority in more subtle points is likely to be mistaken, still the meaning of the Sutta is so obvious that majority has no any problems with the right interpretation.

Also, I do believe that it is very likely not the only Sutta in which term ariya savaka applies only to arahat Because such logic should be applied to all cases. Any time term “ariya savaka” appears it gives - according to HH - reliable information about sotāpanna. So it is likely we should learn another extraordinary things about sotāpanna, if such Suttas are found.

32

Did I miss something? “The three main interpretation of what constitutes jhana”–can you elaborate on that for me?

About the “scattered bits”:

… not only are the texts themselves composed in a clipped laconic style that mocks our thirst for conceptual completeness, but their meaning often seems to rest upon a deep underlying groundwork of interconnected ideas that is nowhere stated baldly in a way that might guide interpretation … the nikāyas (EBT sermons) embed the basic principles of doctrine in a multitude of short, often elusive discourses that draw upon and allude to the underlying system without explicitly spelling it out. To determine the principles one has to extract them piecemeal, by considering in juxtaposition a wide assortment of texts.

(Bhikkyu Bodhi, “Musīla and Nārada revisited: seeking the key to interpretation,” in (edd) Blackburn & Samuels, Approaching the Dhamma, Buddhist Texts and Practice in South and Southeast Asia, Pariyatti, 2003; parenthetical added)

Maybe not going to get much better, even with a giant chart… :wink:

33

Yes, there’s a certain “combativeness” to Hillside Hermitage postings and videos and whatnot. I recall one in which the abbot (I believe) said that most, if not all, jhana teachers and practitioners didn’t understand and therefore weren’t practicing jhana. I found it while searching about jhana practice on YT, and I found the message very discouraging. I interpreted it as meaning that one must be far more virtuous in mind and action than most laypeople can achieve, and therefore only monastics can achieve true jhana.

2 Likes
34

There is few things which has to be clearified. Let’s start with the term “true jhana”. If we limit ourselves to the definitions of the four jhanas, they have very precise definitions in Suttas, more narrow than samadhi or in English meditation.

So jhanas are what they are. But practicing by the puthujjana as such they have no liberating qualities per se, and ignorance can survive all eight meditative attainments.

Regarding HH not sure what is meant by “far more virtuous” but jhanas are to be attained when mind is at least temporarily liberated from the five hindrances. Unfortunately I don’t know either what the other modern teachers teach, but celibacy is rather neccesry to attain jhanas. Whether one is layman or monk isn’t decisive factor. Apart that solitude and peaceful environment are very supportive factors. Layman who can afford this factors is in much more favourable situation than monk living in very small area in company of several dogs.

Generally, it seems to me, monks from HH teaching on morality and samadhi comes from rather distorted understanding of the Sutta

—What, lord, is the benefit, what is the advantage, of skilful virtue?
—Non-remorse, Ananda, is the benefit, is the advantage, of skilful virtue.
Gladness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . of non-remorse.
Joy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . of gladness.
Calm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . of joy .
Pleasure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . of calm.
Concentration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . of pleasure.
Knowing-and-seeing in accordance with reality . . . . . . . . of concentration.
Disgust and dispassion . . . . . . . . of knowing-and-seeing in accordance with reality Knowing-and-seeing of release. . . of disgust and dispassion.
Thus it is, Ananda, that skilful virtue gradually leads to the summit. (A. X,1: v,1-2)

They teach it to general public, overlooking Nanavira’s comment:

Strictly speaking, this Sutta refers only to the sekha and not to the puthujjana, since the latter needs more than just good sila to take him to release. It is the sekha who has the ariyakanta sila that leads to (sammà-)samàdhi. But, samàdhi becomes sammàsamàdhi when one gains the magga. Of course even the puthujjana needs to have good sila and be free from remorse if he hopes to make progress in his non-ariya samàdhi.

Dhamma is for wise, not unwise and this is the most fundamental requirement regarding the arising of the right view. So it is simply not true, when they claim that celibacy is necessary condition for sotapatti.

But if they claim that celibacy is necessary for jhana, such claim has support in Suttas. The very fact that mind is attracted to sensuality and finds pleasure in such painful activity as sex shows that it hasn’t yet recognised pleasure void of sensual gratification.

35

These days, people tend to focus on meditation techniques. They set aside all the other teachings and talk only about meditation. Yes, that criticism is valid. However, to say that there is no meditation at all seems to go too far in the other direction. For example, Patikulamanasikara
, Metta meditation, and concentration on light are clearly remedies for specific mental tendencies.