Mi'sen

As an outsider to Theravada-derived practice, it’s questionable for me to express doubts about it. However, I’ve had serious reservations for a decade or more, as I’ve occasionally written. Due to both ignorance and wanting to avoid sectarianism, I’ve avoided being too explicit.

Given that caveat, please express them in a tentative form so that we can use them as food for further thought.

I’m not sure I can add to what @evantthompson has said. But to recapitulate some points: - Concepts about meditation significantly affect the experience - The concepts derive from doctrines that are mostly obviously wrong and probably often harmful

- I don’t believe in meditative maps as representations a reality independent of the ideology that generates it. Which is not to say that they can’t be valuable, nor that they are entirely arbitrary or artificial

- 20th C vipassana was invented by guys who were into extreme renunciative asceticism, and the simplified contemporary versions seem to retain significant renunciative elements that may be inappropriate for people whose own aims are not renunciative

- The aims of the practice seem nihilistic to me. It is unsurprising that it can result in severe depression. I’d like to see a more prominent warning label, and more open discussion of whether aiming for death-in-life is what anyone should want.

Yes, I've seen this happen with a good number of people, esp. teachers or others who engage with sutrayana teachings (as opposed to practice) over decades. It really is a life-hating, transcend-your-ass-outta-this-shithole philosophy at its core.