The reason why, up to here, almost only letters in support for my inquiry and little critique is included: I only received critiques in which I generally get accused, for example, of wanting to split the Sangha - or that I wrote this page only because of my own deluded and defiled mind - and without giving my a chance to understand in which of my words this was seen, or by giving any Sutta references. Some don't want to be published even anonymous.
I added such conversations below. I always got the impression that their aim is to dissuade me from making my concerns public - otherwise, why they never became concise? It is certainly not because I am without faults (by adding Pali-references I could discover and correct many mistakes myself). But by all means - I don't consider these conversations particularly helpful to become more wholesome about it - and therefore put them at the very end of this page.
In the meantime I put up 'discussion Forum' - to create a place where disciples of Goenka could exchange their experiences and opinions without fears. - And a few posts in other forums too, where I ask for help to improve this page. For example:
'How to criticize constructively'
'Dhamma for disciples of Goenkaji'
(uffh.., still such a long way to go..)
3
Sun, 26 Mar 2006
... after all it's 43 pages and I won't read it in the nearer future ... With the title I don't understand how you mean 'inquiry'. 'Inquiry' means acquisition request or assay in the sense of questioning witnesses or experts? But what exactly you want to know of us - to whom you send these pages?
... And by that I am already at its content: Purely formal, your pages contain many questions - but for its bigger part they are only rhetoric questions which more or less directly aim at the discrediting of Goenkaji and his motivation. I don't consider Goenkaji or the structure of the organization he founded, unimpeachable or above every critique. That they should not be. But the manner of your critique is in many parts not objective and appears strongly carried by your deeply perceived hurt of your 'kick-out'.
I consider it wrong to refuse your participation at courses and group-sittings, but I also see other possible motivations for this decision as merely the demand for blind obedience. Don't you consider it slightly possible that this decision fell out of compassion and could be for your very best? - I do.
Metta by all means is not a pure willing-act and particularly not a 'foremost pleasant sensation'. The causality 'Metta despite cut-off limbs, therefore volition', is as well a fallacy as the assumption: 'If a minimal fraction of A is the precondition for B, than B is mainly A'. Even if Goenkaji would claim that a minimal portion of pleasant sensations would be necessary to give Metta - as far as I know he doesn't - your conclusions would still be wrong. Your errors base, as I believe, on fundamental misunderstandings and/or inaccuracies in your thinking. With that I don't want to offend you, I believe such thinking errors happen very easily.
Also a bid illogical appears to me: Since 10 years you visit courses - apparently quite often - despite your big mistrust in the organization. What are you seeking in an organization you don't have trust in and if you are mainly occupied with the method? You could use the technique without this organization too!
Accordingly I find your demand contradicting: That Goenkaji has to answer you personally. On one side you adjudge him the utmost authority and give him the power to speak the last word in your concerns - on the other side you feed doubt in his authority and write a long pamphlet to undermine it.
When Goenkaji - as an old human with a fairly filled appointment calendar - decides: Not to answer you as one of x-thousands of disciples - than this is his very right. He maybe trusts in the existing structures, as the seed he sowed - whereas you postulate the concern about the future of our organization after his death. Maybe already now he isn't anymore the integrative-figure as you would like to see him. And the structures you are wishing, are already there.
... I hope in any case that it will be possible for you, to keep your daily practice and develop equanimity further. If you ever come to ... you are welcome and we could sit together. With much Metta
4
Tue, 28 Mar 2006
...'Inquiry' is not meant in the sense of questioning experts or witnesses, but as an investigation and exploration with old students of Goenkaji - those who came to know our organization. And of such co-meditators I would like to know how they perceive our organization. For me there is also a connection to the awakening-factor: 'Investigation of Phenomena'.
And the urgent creation of a possibility where one can exchange one's experiences and opinions - without becoming sanctioned or disparaged because of ones distinct opinions or views about a more wholesome Sasana. If that becomes possible - despite the differences - than one is again working in the one together: To want the very best for all.
Because such a prohibition of one's own opinions lead to the effect, that many serious disciples don't speak out openly and only think their own parts - to be able to participate with this beneficial meditation further on. And only very few bother to tell the truth to the teachers anymore (after my kick-out there will be even less).
Brought to the point: I ask these questions to lift pressure on both sides - the disciples and the teachers. One outcome of this could be that the teacher gives guidance where the disciples are at - and not where they should be, according to the prescribed creed.
About the manner of my text (which you call the content): Here I agree with you, already since months I chaffer around with it, but I find it almost impossible to make someone think about his Sila unless I ask, for example:
'Is this behavior not what slander is about?'
That such a question does not become perceived to the discredit of Goenkaji and his motivation, for that I desperately still seek a better language. That's why I also ask: How to write - as you say - factual, and without wiping it under the carpet?
For example: That since years in Goenkaji's discourses untruths about Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw's Vipassana are taught. If you can give me - as an example - a better formulation for only that one situation - then I agree with you. But if you also cannot, and can not point it out concisely which parts of my text appear not objective to you - as long this remains an unfounded accusations on your side - something I at least wanted to avoid by trying to voice it as questions, and by sticking as much as possible to a description of it.
Your second assumption: I would only write out of hurt feelings. - Here I assume on your side the view that 'hurt feelings' are not factual for you. If I saw it that way: I would not have left any yardstick for right speech.
That I consider it not only slightly possible that the decision of the Achariya - to exclude me - was taken out of compassion, and not to the good for myself only - I already answered in the last sentence of the 13 pages of my main text.
Referring to Metta: Volition versus Sensation. I believe here we have both inaccuracies in out thinking and I don't feel offended at all. I asked my questions - although you have perceived it differently - not rhetorically or because I wanted to expose others. But to what I wanted to get at: If I make Metta dependent on a teacher, and not on what spontaneously springs forth - do I support with that teaching someone really on the path to liberation - or do I uphold dependence?
So this is not at all a question of either/or - but what is effected with a particular representation. The Buddha said it this way: 'Who, under the strongest pain of a torture, does not react with loving kindness toward his torturers, is not worth to be called a disciple of the Buddha.' (please differentiate: here he talks about his monks and not about us lay people) Can you really call it loving kindness - if there are no good intentions? I believe, here you really think too theoretical.
You call it illogical that I remained for 10 years with an organization which I criticize. I criticize our organization as much as I criticize myself - with myself I also can't just walk away. And I would be only too willing to forgive, as I also repeatedly have to forgive myself. But for such forgiving the other would have to be ready for an exchange.
Further, with this text I asked Goenkaji for the 3rd time to elucidate on these misunderstandings. That's the way we Dhammists to such things - already at the time of the Buddha - before we stop questioning. That out of my plea - in your opinion - suddenly became a demand? That I precisely wanted to receive a word of his authority - you write - I wanted to undermine it? How such associations on your side came about - I leave that to you.
According to your opinion: Goenkaji would already not be the integrative-figure. But sadly the Dhamma of the Buddha neither. And I request the subsequent structures to reveal themselves clear cut - without going to peddle around with the Buddha, the Sangha, S.N. Goenka, or an allegedly non-sectarian truth - if they no more aspire to live up to it.
... thanks for your invitation and again thanks for your well-founded remarks about my grammars. Through your carefulness in grammars I would have wished - honestly said - a bit more substance in respect to its content. Nevertheless, wishing you all the best, in Dhamma
22
Thu, 30 Mar 2006
My man, Wolfgang, listen, I will try to hmmm... well to be as honest as possible and to let you into my thoughts and emotions on the subject you have brought up. English is not my native tongue as well, so I might not be that articulate in expressing myself.
First of all, I had not read all your document, but it seems that you have put a lot of effort into the contemplation and designing of this article. Although it might be superficial of me, I still feel that the exact ins-and-outs of what you have wrote in that article are not that important. What struck me was the mental state, which I felt, would lead someone to such a deed.
I have been practicing Vipassana for almost 4 years now and have taken some courses and Satipatthana courses as well. I have been through many doubts and hesitations concerning this path in general, and Goenkaji's method of expounding that path, in particular.
I am an ... guy, having born to the ... religion, having a very non-eastern background. My first doubts were concerning .... why was it that I was born ..., I asked myself. If I was meant to be a Buddha follower, why was I not born with at least a religion which in some manner is proximate to the Buddha's background.
For a while I got closer to my native religion but continued taking courses, although I was not practicing regularly. This was the time of pot/hash smoking for me. During that period which lasted for about 6 months (on and off) the doubts that I had concerning Dhamma radiated directly unto my practice and influenced it greatly.
I had many doubts concerning Goenkaji as a person, and I literally threw my mental and personality defects unto him, and actually believed that he was - what later on turned to have been - my own reflection, with all its imperfections.
After a long and unexplainable process of mental forces, and eventually, Vipassana won over ..., since gradually I came to realize that it is more rational, more practical, completely non-sectarian, universal, and absolutely and almost mathematically precise and scientific, to the best of my intuition, intellect and cognitive abilities.
About a year later, I decided to give up smoking and to take Dhamma much more seriously. ...too much seriously. I was so keen on attaining results, and as fast as possible, that I became completely unbalanced to the point of becoming destructive towards myself.
Of course, at that time, during all that time, I was totally unaware of that. Teachers advises passed through me without me giving any attention to them. I sat in Satipatthana courses, simultaneously manipulating Goenkaji's words (recited directly from the Buddha's discourses) to my own satisfaction.
I actually remember sitting at the Dhamma hall during the discourses hearing Goenkaji saying something in a very clear manner, and having a bargaining and debating with him inside my mind - actually fighting with him to prove him wrong. Eventually I always won theses arguments and felt relaxed, having the point of view I wanted to hold on to, and that I was having so much attachment towards, remaining intact. Let me emphasize that what Goenkaji had said could be interpreted wrongly only by a tremendous effort, fueled by a very deep Sankhara of doubt (or any other, for that matter).
Anyhow, that same period of my life was the period of doubts concerning the path of Indian shamanism. I used to read a lot of Castaneda's books ('the teachings of Don Juan', etc.). At that point my story starts a bit more to resemble yours. My great and unbalanced (to say the least) enthusiasm to attain quick and profound results, led me almost without realizing it, to start mixing another technique of meditation into Vipassana. That technique was mentioned in one of Castaneda's books and this also was interpreted to my own liking of what I wanted it to be.
I started practicing Anapana in a different manner, just slightly different - just actively pushing thoughts away and only then returning to the observation of breath - instead of immediately returning to the observation of breath, having it wandered away to thinking. A very slight difference of interpretation, but a huge difference in the mind's attitude, and a much more enormous difference in the results to come...
And indeed, in no time, I had encountered great depths of mind, enormous depths of mind... enormous to the extent of life hazard. The place I had reached was the total absence of light, devoid of sense-doors and their objects, and condensed with and composed of primal fear. Without any more elaboration of these experiences (which will most certainly lead me to lying more that I already probably have), I will note that it was much too big for me.
But me, being me, I felt so unique and so much of a spiritual chosen-one, and my ego inflated so much that I actually tried to endure that 'place', that in the beginning was not right to go to, and not conductive to proper meditation. Having tried that I came to the stage of loosing myself, and loosing Dhamma.
At that point I was desperate and afraid for my life, and started asking teachers what to do, having described to them my situation. But even so, I was still so much attached to that egocentric feeling that I am the only one, or at least one amongst so many, that is so capable to have reached that 'stage', that again.
I was not able to listen to advises from them. I remember that almost, if not all, the times that I turned to teachers for advise, I omitted the most crucial fact: I was mixing another method of meditation, and a very aggressive one, as well. I did not say that.
You wanna know why? Because I did not want to be saved. I did not want to give up my only uniqueness, the only uniqueness I had managed to achieve in my entire life. This was my only way of proving to myself that I am actually worth something. I was not ripened to have given that up, yet.
Nevertheless, at that time I did not know that, and so out of my great fear and mental dismay and confusion, I turned to Goenkaji for advise. My letter to him was demanding, crude, impolite, aggressive, condescending, and confused. In this manner I did explain my entire situation over that very long and elaborate letter, and also gave references from the Sayagyi U Ba Khin journal, the Maha Satipatthana Sutta, and from discourses by Ven. Webu Sayadaw, that allegedly proved that I was right in my point of view (whatever exactly that was), and that his teaching was wrong - literally so.
I actually questioned his authority in the same letter which I sent to him in order to seek his advise. How low can you get, man... anyway, again I omitted the fact that I was mixing techniques. Today I know that at that time, I did not realize to the fullest that I was doing that.
Again, my ego was so strong, that it managed to convince me in a very natural way, by the very actuality of having been myself, that there is no point of doubting myself, no point of doubting the source of the doubt that has arisen concerning my practice, and that there is no possibility that these doubts about myself or about what I am doing, are correct.
Anyhow, Goenkaji returned to me with a very simple answer, saying to me that what I am practicing is not Vipassana. That there are no black voids in Vipassana, that I am probably just very rapidly multiplying Sankharas of Ignorance, and that I should contact my closest teacher or my regional teacher for further advise. He cc'd that reply to the teacher in charge of ... and to the teacher in charge of ...
Again I was stubborn and stiff and debated with my girlfriend and told her that he is stupidly wrong. I said to her: "How can he say that there are no black voids in Vipassana if I ACTUALLY FELT THEM AND SAW THEM WITH MY DIVINE EYE!?!?!?"... even for myself I could not realize that I was wrong. And later on, even after having realized that I was wrong, even to myself it took time to admit that fact. My ego was so strong, so powerful.
The day after I got Goenkaji's answer by email, I sat for morning meditation and felt Goenkaji's superb Metta overwhelming me with unconditional love. This Metta was stamped by Goenkaji's presence and so I knew that it was him. Goenkaji loved me like no one have ever loved me before or after. Despite my abusiveness, despite my ego, despite me rebelling his authority to his face, despite me challenging him to a dual - despite me, he loved me so much.
Even so, it took some time, but that Metta softened me a bit, and I started coming to senses and realizing, that I should seek help. I contacted ..., which was the teacher in charge of ..., and that I felt the closest to. And she discussed my problem with Bill Hart (the author of 'the art of living'), and he in turn, gave me the advise to sit a 10-days course like a new student, meaning to really try to hear all the instructions for the first time.
That was 3 years ago, and I am still recovering from the damages I had caused myself by those experiences. But let me tell you something: They were right, they were all right, all along. I was wrong, I had made a mistake and was too dumb to listen for their advise.
Did you try to contact Goenkaji again? Did you try to find out if perhaps your letter/email had not reached him, by any reason? Did you try to contact another teacher in person, to whom you feel closer, and have tried to discuss that problem? Have you continued practicing since that incident?
Have you realized fully, that no one, and I mean NO ONE can take Dhamma away from you? Do you understand that, brother? You have Dhamma, it is yours, and can not be taken away from you! Incoming breaths are yours, outgoing breaths are yours, sensations are yours, the ability to observe objectively is yours. All these are yours, they are within you, they are your own self - anywhere, everywhere, anytime, anyhow - always. :-)
Sometimes we have to learn the hard way. If you can actually avoid making mistakes - good. But many times we can not. Make mistakes. That's ok. Anyhow, concerning some of the 'technical' issues that you have brought up in your file:
1. As to the 'punishment' that you had received. Man... I doubt that, I really do, that someone will not be allowed to sit anymore 10-days courses for believing or not believing in some theoretical part or whole of the god damn theory, for that matter. I would have understood that kind of decision concerning long courses, because for them you really have to be strong and consolidated in mind, in all terms of your faith and confidence in the path, the technique, the teacher, the tradition, and so forth.
But 10-days courses are for those who are not yet sure, who are not yet matured, who are inquiring, asking, wondering and pondering. Talk to a teacher, talk to ... He became a senior A.T. already at 1996, so who knows where he is now. And he's German (although perhaps he's residing in France now), so it should be easier for you to talk to him.
Whatever you do, my advise to you is to stop immediately that Internet-debate that you are trying to initiate, because it feels to me dangerously close to the commitment of one of the 5 unforgivable sins: matricide, parricide, killing a Buddha, wounding a Buddha, and causing a schism in the Sangha. Don't do that - be very careful and aware of your motives - you are the only judge of your true intentions.
2. The Buddha did teach other techniques besides Anapana and Vipassana but only to people who where too gross-minded to start with the observation of reality, as it is. Being a Buddha he had the ability to see their mental backgrounds, their mind capacity and inclination, and to determine instantly the proper meditation object to suit them, and that will eventually lead them to be able to practice Anapana and Vipassana.
See, it is very clearly stated in the Maha Satipatthana Sutta that the only way to purify the mind is by observing sensations objectively, by the means of Sampajanno. Please discuss this with a teacher, who can elaborate on that subject without making any errors, as I probably will. You can even read the commented Maha Satipatthana Sutta booklet. You can also read the book "Buddha and His Teaching" by Narada.
That book is also authorized by the V.R.I. as proper reading material. That book, in general, is very inspiring and very informative, and also very readable. That which concerns that issue in particular can be found on pages 519 and onwards. These pages deal with different mental types, and all the 40 different meditation techniques taught by the Buddha, to fit those mental types.
That's all I have for now. You can email me back if you have any comments, questions, or if you just wanna say something, regardless. My little Metta
23
Sat, 1 Apr 2006
Dear ..., dear brother, thanks for writing such an extensive response to my letter. You are right in assuming me to have put much effort in writing this text. But contrary to your opinion - this happened on account of my stuporous try to reconnect Goenkaji's organization with our ancient and foresighted tradition of the Buddha. If you try to reconstruct any bad intentions on my side, well, as Goenkaji says, that is your present to me - but one that I will not accept - and which will remain with you.
You write, the actual points of my text are not so important - so, that means to me that you don't start to worry if your teacher - Goenkaji - would break, for example, his Sila? - The very foundation of all of us on this path?
I feel grateful for your sharing with openness your detailed account of your path, struggling and conquests, in meditation. But I don't see a way in which your path of meditation would be the same to mine. Especially when it comes to mixing techniques or imposing personal views. Of course, I guess you went to such lengths in your report to eventually help me to be able to see similarities to my own.
I'm sorry to say - but this is not the case, as I never wanted to prove how I am right and Goenkaji wrong. Nor did I mix methods. I just want to be allowed to speak of my experiences and understandings deriving from my practice exactly as Goenkaji teaches, and in the context of how the Buddha understood it, as far as I am able to follow.
Of course, I already send my letter to Dhananjay in July 2005 (the secretary of Goenkaji), then again in September, and simultaneously to the email address of Goenkaji, given to me by the secretary. Dhananjay did read it and passed it on, but without being able to promise me Goenkaji finding his time to read, let alone, answer my letter.
You mention secondary literature. Do you give contemporary books really more importance than the Pali scriptures? So you can not know that the Buddha gives the advise to compare anyone claiming to teach the Dhamma with his, the Buddha's word - and not at all with the words of the V.R.I. - Alike, you cannot assume me having done that for my own good in a very conscientious manner? Why you advise me to read commentaries before you even have read the originals in different available translations yourself?
I take refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha each day - for which I will remain for ever indebted to beloved Goenkaji with never-ending gratitude. So why you say with such emphasis, that Dhamma could never be taken away? I never took refuge to Goenka, the V.R.I. or any worldly organization.
I believe you, not to believe me to be prohibited (not punished, as you write) to attend group-sittings, not to talk about 10-day-, or even long-courses. In this point, at least I really feel empathy from your side for my situation. Now, maybe you can believe me, that only such a grave breach - not acting what our organization is teaching - could move me in deciding - if given continued silent consent - to publish such a critical inquiry on the world-wide-web.
In this point I can not ask anyone for correction of these misunderstandings than Goenkaji himself. Because the teacher who gave me this unbelievable prohibition is John Luxford - as far as I know, the most senior teacher in Europe. (and with whom I sat a 30-day course 2 years before this incident)
You accuse me of wanting to split the Sangha? But you know that a real Sangha would never send anyone off without serious wrong-doings or merely differing opinions - unless this Sangha is guilty of the very act of splitting? I am sure you will not be willing to differentiate in this point - and it is not at all my intention to destroy your faith in Goenkaji's organization, as it seems so essential to your wholesome practice and where you have taken refuge.
But I ask you to accept that I have the same right of taking refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. And that I see no other way to improve mutual understanding in our organization than to publish what kind of splitting in reality is already going on. Only an open discussion will stop such unhealthiness within our organization!
Finally I want to ask you if you would agree to eventually use your response as one of its initial contribution to such a healthy and balanced discussion. I guess your experience - of adapting the instruction of Goenkaji only slightly - is very interesting for such meditators, who don't want to end up in pitch blackness as you did. If you don't want that, or only in parts, that's fine with me too. Just let me know.
Wishing you all the best for the furthering on your path, in Dhamma
24
Sun, 2 Apr 2006
Hey there Wolfgang. I read your email, and I got the sense that you by some reason felt attacked by me. I need to defuse that, as long as my side of it is concerned. I did not, in any conscious way, criticize you or the situation that you are in.
I cannot say that some amount of pride and condescending attitude did not arise in me, as by being in the "Winners" side, so to speak. But it not go to the extent of patronizing you. However, it is important to me, to apologize if my words or the way I said them caused you to be in some way offended.
Anyhow, after reading that email, I have decided to read you memo in better care and see... what I feel about it. As for now, at least, before I am done reading your memo, and having some solid opinion concerning the issues brought up there, I would not want you to use what I wrote to you as part of that web discussion. Right now, it still feels to me wrong to do that. Again I apologize, but that is not intended to you in person. I'll keep in touch
25
Sun, 2 Apr 2006
thanks for your fast reply. In reality I didn't felt offended - I just felt told to have such and such state of mind, have to read this and stop that, and by your long account of how you went wrong - I assumed you went so far in telling me, to show me that I also changed the technique or wanted to prove others wrong.
So I wanted to clarify my side to it - in my last answer to your response. Despite that - I am glad, that you think it so important to assure me of your goodwill. One reason it would be difficult to be offended by you is - you are really openhearted, showing at every turn what kind of emotion went along with your words - and that makes it very easy to understand your way. That's very skillful.
Also, I'm easily falling in the role of having to defend myself, because some responses to my text are accusing me of bad intentions - without giving it a try to consider any of my questions. In my search to clarity I seem to be - till now - the only one who finds mistakes and adulterations in my text - as I'm in the progress to write footnotes and cross references to it. It is almost as one could write anything. - There seem to be very very few who give it a serious thought.
Still have not given up my hope here. With kind regards
26
Thu, 13 Apr 2006
I read your detailed paper thoroughly. In the beginning and for a few days I was working intensively writing back to you, and eventually came up with a paper almost as long as yours, covering in specific almost each and every issue that you have brought up in your paper.
But there was this internal debate going on inside of me, and eventually I realized that my intentions are not good. I was trying to prove you wrong just so that I will come out right. I was even thinking of CC'ing the answer to John Luxford, so that he will see what a wise and devout student I am. This thought alone filled me with exhortation.
But although realizing that, it was still hard to give up that ripened opportunity to earn a few credit points with the "powers that be" (and that's my defiled mind that has these schemes, so don't make a conspiracy theory out of this as well... :-)) Conning mind, crooked mind...
Anyhow yesterday I decided to discard that which I wrote and be as brief as possible without missing the point, and without loosing that little compassion which I have towards you.
The chief point that I want to convey is that, if you give it a closer thought, you will realize that there is no possible way on earth, that either of us is wiser, more matured, more spiritually developed, and more literate in the scriptures, the commentaries, the Suttas, the Abhidhamma and the history of the Buddha's teachings then our teacher, Goenkaji.
Once you realize that, really, you will also realize that there is no way possible that any of your accusations, insinuations, insights or improvements suggestions have any substantial and realistic base to stand upon, and that therefore they derive exclusively from your own deluding Ego. Please try to understand that I am not trying to condescend you now. I have been in that situation as well, and I might just be in it again in the future... you can never know.
Accusing and criticizing is fairly easy. All you need is ill-will and that we all have in abundance. Actually making a change is more than difficult. Goenkaji took upon himself a monumental task of spreading the Dhamma all over the world. He is doing that successfully, wisely, equanimously, patiently, persistently, bravely, efficiently, and undoubtedly, in the best way and as good-willed as possible.
However he is a human being and humans make mistake and as long as they are not Arahats. So perhaps he made some mistakes, perhaps not. Consider that suggesting merely the ultimate is not contributive to anything. You also have to have substantial means of realizing your improvement suggestions. Therefore (for example), training all the A.T.s to become social workers or psychologists is not realistic in any given aspect of the issue, and so forth.
Again, the points to bear in mind are Goenkaji's undoubtedly and superhuman good will and his unfathomable maturity and wisdom. We are nothing compared to him - there is nothing for us to teach him, there is nothing that we see that he doesn't - Period.
The only advice I have to you (also contaminated with ego, of course), is to stop that "inquiry" at once. Your innate intentions cannot hold good will – it is clearly evident by the words, phrasings and tone of speech you have chosen to articulate yourself, and in any way, this will not lead you anywhere.
The most you will have is a bunch of immature and deluded people looking up to you, and saying: "Yes he does have a point" - And then what? If you really want to ‘correct the organization of Goenkaji', start with yourself. I have already told you, that in my opinion, this is dangerously close to causing a schism in the Sangha.
I hope that you will realize the wisdom in John Luxford's decision, and the even greater wisdom of he who provided you with the Dhamma that changed your life for the better. I hope that you will evolve from this ordeal and grow as you can grow. I hope that one day, not far ahead, you will remember smilingly how sure you were of your mistake. Good luck, my friend
27
Apr, 2006
here my responses to your considerations:
> The chief point that I want to convey is that, if you give it a closer thought, you will realize that there is no possible way on earth, that either of us is wiser, more matured, more spiritually developed, and more literate in the scriptures, the commentaries, the Suttas, the Abhidhamma and the history of the Buddha's Teachings then our Teacher, Goenkaji. <
I asked Goenkaji trice, and only: If he agrees with John prohibiting me to attend any group-sittings and 10-day courses. All the other points are my own opinions, which I added to make everybody understand what kind of differing opinions led to my prohibition. Although it would make me very happy - to get answers to my questions to be able to correct possible misunderstandings (as I already could do myself, by adding cross references) - I did not demand any answer from my teacher to these theoretical points, also because of the preciousness of his time.
But if my teacher - be it John or Goenka - refuses to answer my request to give understanding merely about my kick-out, then he makes it very clear that he intentionally quits to be my teacher. As wise as he may be, he does not want to share his wisdom with me any more. But in reality it is much more plausible that he has no reasonable answers to my kick out - unless he would have to admit that he expects his experienced students to belief him blindly!
> … there is no way possible that any of your accusations, insinuations, insights or improvements suggestions have any substantial and realistic base to stand upon, and that therefore they derive exclusively from your own deluding Ego. <
I am kicked out because my opinions differ in some theoretical points (based on the Pali Suttas related to my meditative experiences). That is a fact. Although you try to distort this reality - I can accommodate your distortions as such, as they seem to be an essential protection for you to keep faith. Explicitly: I never claimed any holiness for myself, nor does Goenkaji claim Arahata (i.e. in the Satipatthana Course Discourses). And I tried my best to clarify possible misunderstandings with my teacher by unremitting questioning.
> training all the A.T.s to become social workers or psychologists is not realistic <
From my own experience as a care-assistant I can testify to you that it takes about two 3-days seminars to learn - for example - 'Focusing'-assistance, a client-oriented counseling approach, with which one starts to understand the state of mind of the person with whom one is conversing (and that by friendliness in observation of body sensations coupled with investigation!). Of course, then one has to keep exercising to become proficient at it.
> - there is nothing for us to teach him, there is nothing that we see that he doesn't - Period. <
If he talks continuously about Vipassana as having nothing to do with blind faith - then after 10 years - blind faith is suddenly and without further explanation expected from me? - In this way he exactly does not live what he teaches and has badly deceived everyone concerning his true intention by continuous talk about non-sectarianism!
Although you do not agree with me - if our organization keeps intentionally deceiving new-students about its true agenda - I consider it very wholesome to warn about this aspect of our organization. Beside that: I will continue to recommend our 10-day courses. - Just be wary about telling your true opinions after years of practice in our organization! - In this way: Everyone after me will be able to avoid being split!
> Accusing and criticizing is fairly easy. ... Actually making a change is more than difficult. <
Your answers to my letter still does not seriously comment on even one point of my questions. That shows to me that you yourself where not able to word even one constructive criticism to my points (I assume: your not believing me to be kicked out, is a sign you agree with me - at least - that this would be sectarian) - because you fear to be accused in the same line of unreasonable reasoning as you are accusing me...
> …derive exclusively from your own deluding Ego. <
You are blindly accusing me without explaining in which actual words, or which lines of reasoning you see the actual deed done on which you superimpose Ego. In this way you give me no change to learn anything than through what kind of glasses you perceive me, but nothing in which I could improve. At least - in my paper - it was possible to avoid this mistake. As you say: It's always easier to criticize - you make it even easier than that - by criticizing generally without giving account which word and for which reason you actually criticize.
I, like you, am appalled by the (in parts) senseless talk on the Internet. And I will take precaution that such will not happen - I can promise you. Interestingly, I saw two postings opening in Internet Groups, both on 6. April in a distance of only 10 minutes in between. Their names: 'Vipassana Discussion' and 'Satipatthana Discussion'. It seems someone tries to take over this discussion - since their sole text is not to the point: Our organization is deceiving new-comers about its alleged non-sectarianism!
What you have not understood yet: I am not in an ordeal at all. All I want to do is to create a place, where everyone can express his opinions or experiences without any fear of being kicked out. Only in this way is it possible to enhance mutual understanding and compassion with each another within our organization - and between students and teachers. Only such could solve all the problems.
I see this as my opportunity to give real Dana to pay back a tiny bit of my gratefulness. And no reason for you to worry about my practice - beside my 1 year of Goenka-courses I have done another 2 1/2 years of self-retreats - and there is nothing that can destroy my confidence in this 'noble 8fold path'; what belongs to it - and what does not.
As I already wrote in my last sentences of my paper, I do indeed feel gratefulness for the wisdom of John's decision - in that no one ever could start such a vital and essential discussion still depending on our organization, but depending sufficiently on the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha alone. All the best in Dhamma
P.S.: Some A.T.s have send the warning, that to participate in such a discussion would become detrimental to one's own development in Dhamma. Observing you, being quite in a process of becoming more and more aware of mental states in yourself - in your attempt to add something wholesome to such a discussion -just the opposite is the case:
"How is this Dhamma visible here and now? - By knowing that craving, aversion or delusion being present in oneself, or not! (The Buddha)"
51
Mon, 24 April 2006
comment on Achariya S.N. Goenka Meditation: It seems that you have not tried to practice and learn Vipassana with an open mind. You have mentioned only negative examples, there are hundreds and thousands who have been benefited including me. Repeated entries to the caps is solid example to this. This type of malice is against true path of Dhamma. Regards
52
Wed, April 26 2006
thanks for your reply. You write: I have mentioned only negative examples. Didn't you read also my last words? (just before the notes section): "If I wrote about the benefits of Vipassana-practice - in its relation to the Dhamma - it would have become much a larger page. But I see no need to - as this is not suppressed in the same imbalanced way. The same applies to my gratefulness and respect to anyone teaching the Dhamma as good as he can!"
You write: 'Repeated entries to the caps ...' Sorry - but what is the meaning of the word 'caps'? In my dictionary it is explained as 'a cover of ones head'. I don't understand this sentence.
I have been excluded to practice Vipassana with our organization for the simple reason that I do not believe in some theories of Goenkaji. In Goenkaji's own word: this is sectarian. But I received so many benefits from the Vipassana-practice itself - I will try as much as I can to warn our organization from becoming sectarian. You really believe - I have done 1 year of Vipassana-courses within 10 years and kept a daily practice - out of malice?!
Beside that, I really can not believe that Goenkaji does agree with my exclusion. I also told some of my opinions to Indian Achariyas - and because of this, they didn't exclude me from meditation. I think - what is really happening - our Vipassana organization is already splitting in a very sectarian western and - a less so - eastern part. Already since years the recommendations for long-courses signed by Indian Achariyas - here in the west - are not the paper worth they are written on.
So I consider it of utmost importance that Goenkaji - once and for all - makes it clear, that to practice Vipassana is not a question of 'believing'. He has not much time left, if he wants to avoid his Sassana to become a sect and become spitted after his death. If Goenkaji fails to make this clear, at least all other old students can avoid - from now onward - to become excluded. Because it has been made public - that contrary to Goenkaji's assurance - to practice Vipassana in our organization:
"One has to believe in theories blindly!" - Just don't tell your private opinions and you will not be excluded! - It is as simple as that, but one should know beforehand. Otherwise one would have been deceived. Wishing you all the best on the furthering of your path. In Dhamma
53
Thu, 27 April 2006
Caps should be read as VIPASSANA CAMPS. If you call Rev Goenkaji sectarian it seems you have not understood him and Vipassana properly, attending even 100 camps is not a milestone for a true Vipassana student. Unfortunately spiritualism has been hacked by religion and saints all over the world and Rev Guruji is a brightest example of the exception. He is against mixing of Vipassana with any other techniques of meditation, as this may not loose its pristine purity. Regards
54
Sat, 29 April 2006
I really do understand your serious concern for our Vipassana meditation - not to loose its pure and original intentions of our Lord - the Buddha. This is also my concern - we only seem to disagree in what we perceive as pure.
I did not write: Goenkaji is sectarian - but that he calls it sectarian if one has to believe in theories blindly. And I am convinced: Goenkaji would agree with me - in this point - at any time. Goenkaji derives the purity of his method by saying - it dates back to the historical Buddha, while other methods would not. But if already Sayagyi U By Khin taught such other methods - than such a historical exclusive purity deriving from the Buddha has never been there.
I disagree with your opinion that spiritualism can ever be hacked: Either a pure mind is worked for - or one mixes ones impure intentions with it. Like striving for power, by disparaging others, earning a living in exchange for Dhamma, etc... Which would be - at the most - spiritual egoism, and not pure yet.
Nevertheless, this is a process of purification and time given - to Vipassana - I am convinced even the biggest spiritual ego can become purified. Your are right in that - attending even a 100 camps - is nothing compared to a pure mind. And for this purity of mind we all attend camps, some take more of them - some less.
But we should not only refrain from judging another person by the number, or lack, of his courses - furthermore it is the proclaimed sign of a really pure mind, that he is never conceiving himself: Better, equal or worse than any other! - I can not claim such purity for myself. Nor do you, as your judgments about me show again. But hopefully we will never stop working for such purity.
In your first letter you say: >... who have been benefited including me. Repeated entries to the camps is solid example to this ...<
And in your second letter you contradict yourself by saying: >... attending even a 100 camps is not a milestone ...< ?
In the same way - you did not make it clear what 'purity' actually means to you. From what you write, you conceive it to be a historical purity? - and not of ones own mind?
69
Wed, 10 May 2006
Why must you see the banning as a negative thing? - It is because you cling to the desire to attend. Relinquish the desire to attend, and seek your own path to salvation! The Buddha banned *himself* from groups that he found were not helping him to achieve enlightenment. See this banning as a gift of good karma.
As for criticizing, there are two times when one criticizes (I didn't say, when one *should* criticize):
The first is when one is not asked for his opinion. If you see someone mistreating an animal, you might intervene and stop that person from further inflicting pain. Your actions comprise *criticism*. When one offers criticism under these circumstances - uninvited criticism - it is bound to cause offense, and cannot be offered *constructively*.
The second time when one offers criticism is when one is asked for his opinions. Then, one can couch the criticism in a way that respects the other person's feelings (say unto others as you would have others say unto yourself).
In your group discussions, were you asked to offer criticism, or did you intervene to save harm to another? If you intervened without being asked, there was no way to offer your comments without causing offense.
If you were asked for you comments and these subsequently caused offense, offer your sincerest apologies. Either way, do not cling to the desire to return to the group. Respectfully
70
Sat, 13 May 2006
thanks for your suggestions. I see the banning for having my own opinions as a thing, which is in opposition to what I've been told for 10 years: 'Nobody has to believe anything blindly'. In my opinion: I have been deceived for that long. My clinging does not change anything about that. It will last as long as everyone's until one becomes an Arahat. And if one would have become an Arahat, that deception would yield even worse results for the deceiver. Not the Arahat.
Of course - about my case practicing there - I could only - and did let it go.
I just consider it a service to all after me to become warned - so none will be deceived anymore or become kicked-out.
... I really would be interested from where you got this idea of 2 kinds of criticism. I am a very practical person. If I make a mistake, I expect my Dhamma-friends to warn me - asked for or not. One - who would not do that - is just not interested in my welfare and I don't consider him a real friend. So please explain why unasked criticism is always bound to offend - is that your personal experience?
And you don't confuse shame and conscience with offense? In my case whenever I've got criticized in my life - even if greatly exaggerated or with my ego hurt - I always could learn something out of it about myself. And if the critique wasn't true at all, I didn't feel offended but could learn something about the realities of the criticizer.
So I indeed hope my deed of unasked constructive criticism will lead to the kamma-vipaka: That whenever I would come into the position to teach - in long distant future lifes - to become criticized equally, if I would not live what I teach. I see it as a kind of more-than-one-life-insurance never to get lost on such wrong paths!
So I do say unto others as I would like others say unto myself - with my criticism. That is constructive, because: Even if I will feel offended because I have been conceiving myself - that means nothing compared to the results of adhering to wrong paths. I am just speaking for myself.
Also, I try to intervene to spare others from becoming deceived - or to deceive. And there is no way to avoid offense - breaking Sila always hurts - both the doer and the receiver of such actions. In my eyes it is encouraging others to continue - if I would not criticize. I don't add hurt - I make it visible.
To apologize sincerely, if I have not done any wrong but only made visible - I would not be honest - it would merely be a mind-clouding gesture. But I can assure you, that I am willing to forgive very readily - if I would only be asked to. And I ask forgiveness - if anyone feels hurt.
Now - I didn't oppose to your suggestions - merely because I felt right and you must be wrong. But to encourage you - to give me your real reasons for your assumption - like:
- don't criticize because it is never constructive (- which, in my life, never was true)
- if not asked for, criticism always hurts (shame and conscience hurt, bud did help me to increase wholesomeness, which - in the long run - always was more beneficial)
- if your not an Arahat, even so: Just don't cling (if you've been hurt, just pretend you're an Arahat?)
When the Buddha said: This Dhamma is visible here and now - by knowing when there is clinging, ill-will or delusion present in one's mind - or when they are absent. You would like to have it: Only if these defilements are invisible is the Dhamma visible?
I can see no scriptural evidence for such assumptions - that's why I ask. Is this your experience or you are writing from a standpoint not based on the Pali Suttas? Or are you talking from an Asian cultural-background? The Buddha did discuss with all kind of followers of all kind of sects - he did not ban himself to speak with them very wisely - he even discussed and criticized well-reasoned.
Still, if you hold just the opposite views - I readily accept. I just would like to understand your standpoint. Maybe I misunderstood and you only wanted me to take a course of action with the least resistance, easy going and trying to avoid me becoming hurt? In this case, thanks for your kind gesture. But momentary hurt I willingly take, compared to the multiplied in future lifes (which very unlikely would even be 'my own'). Wishing you all you want on your path
71
Sat, 13 May 2006
Yes, we all cling, otherwise we would be Arahats. But we each cling to different things. Some cling to alcohol, others cling to cigarettes, others cling to retreats? I cling to television broadcasts! What am I doing about it? It takes time to develop an indifference to clinging to this or that.
It is in the Dhammapada that the Buddha said: do not offer advice without first being asked. Unfortunately, I cannot give you a direct quote with verse. I believe you might fruitfully search for it in Google.
Definitely, it has been my experience that offering uninvited advice leads to agitation. Why don't you set up an experiment to see if this suggestion is useful? For sometime, offer advice to everyone you meet. Then gauge the reactions. For some other time, only offer advice when asked. Then gauge the reactions. After that, choose for yourself which path makes sense.
Not everyone is high-minded as someone earnestly seeking enlightenment. If you do not feel offended by criticism that you think is unfair, that is not how many other people react. In fact, other people probably feel MORE offended by unfair criticism. They say, can you imagine, he didn't even know what he was talking about, and yet he could criticize me!
Truly, if your intention was to warn others from falling into the trap of misdirection as you had suffered, then it is perfectly OK to withdraw from the group and give your parting reasons why. However, you cannot say, You have misdirected me all this while, but I would like to come back for more instructions!
What does that mean? Which teacher would accept a student who feels he is not being taught properly? Surely the best thing for the student would be to find another teacher in whom he felt more confidence? This is not a punishment, it is only trying to make things more comfortable for the students and the teacher.
It is the duty of the Buddhist to seek out words he uses that are relativistic. Constructive is such a word. What is constructive is that which leads to peace and moves away from ego. If your words led to peace and moved away from ego, then you were constructive.
If you say. I have done this for them, and they do respect ME for what I was doing for them, so I will stay away from them because they are beneath ME and what I offered through MY constructive intervention I believe we can see ego strewn all over the place here. Furthermore, that you asked your question originally, we see that peace does not reign supreme in your heart from your actions.
Karma is not always a thing of future lifetimes. Sometimes, it is returned instantly, and I would say, if you are unhappy right now with the situation arising from your actions, then the karma has already resulted.
'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you', sounds nice but doesn't work in practice. If you ran into a servant of the Crocodile God of Lower Egypt, who wanted to be fed to crocodiles of Nile, you wouldn't want him to do to you as he would have you do to him? I don't think that the Buddha ever said anything like this.
The Buddhist wants to do unto others as provided by the noble eightfold path. In the case of this discussion, that would include Right Speech. Here is what the Buddha said about Right Speech:
- to abstain from false speech, especially not to tell deliberate lies and not to speak deceitfully
- to abstain from slanderous speech and not to use words maliciously against others
- to abstain from harsh words that offend or hurt others
- to abstain from idle chatter that lacks purpose or depth.
Let us specifically ask whether No. 3 above was adhered to when you were speaking to the group?
It is an error to try save those who have not been asked to be saved. Just look at the result of the intervention in Iraq! Without being an Arahat, I don't know that you can successfully find out who should be allowed to fall into the trap of that group to amend past bad karma, and who should be prevented from joining. But those with good karma wouldn't join; those with good sense might accidentally join, and then quickly come out again. Why not trust the law of Karma to sort it out? Why intervene in this way? If you spend all your time striving to become an Arahat, then you teach us what you know, would that not be a thousand times more effective and beneficial?
- don't criticize because it is never constructive. I meant, don't criticize unless you have been asked to.
- if not asked for, criticism always hurts. I have always found this to be true. I invite you to experiment and observe for yourself.
- just don't cling. This is the heart of Vipassana practice. Initially, we need to pretend that we are watching our breath, or whatever, even though we are strongly distracted. Then, over time, what we used to pretend was true, becomes true. Likewise, to notice hurt, and then to discard it, to pretend it doesn't hurt any longer, will eventually become true (sabbe dukkha anatta).
The Buddha, speaking to his followers, who were there to accept his teachings, could not have given offense. It would have been a proud thing to be guided by this wise one! I cannot see in any of the discourses where the Buddha ever said: YOU are like this, and this is YOUR error. Always he said: It is like ONE who does this, and this is what such a person will see. By abstracting in this way, the Buddha did not give offense.
Of course I want you take the easy way, the path of least resistance. Ultimately, the Buddhist way is the easy way, because any other way leads to temporary happiness and eternal unhappiness. Is it not easier to be eternally content rather than eternally discontent? What is wrong with taking an easy way, if it is also the Right Way?
Well, I think this has been a very long message, and I hope we have both benefited from the exchange. Peace of the Buddha be upon you always
72
Sun, 14 May 2006
> It takes time to develop an indifference to clinging to this or that. <
I've been patient with my clinging. You seemed not to be with mine.
> It is in the Dhammapada that the Buddha said: do not offer advice without first being asked. Unfortunately, I cannot give you a direct quote with verse. I believe you might fruitfully search for it in Google. <
Sorry, but if you want to support a point you made, you have to give the reference. Meanwhile, I found an article to this point written by a monk - and attach it for you to read.
> it has been my experience that offering uninvited advice leads to agitation ... For sometime, offer advice to everyone you meet. <
Although I respect your experience to be valid for you - I never talked about 'everyone'! I only talked about my spiritual friend and my concerns of his harming himself - if I'm right and he broke his Sila - which only he really can know. In my page I am only asking.
> You have misdirected me all this while, but I would like to come back for more instructions <
Sorry again, but you seem not to know that in long-courses every meditator is completely self-dependent, the instructions are already given in the very first 10-day course. In long courses nobody asks for instructions since a long time ago, but puts them into practice. If you really read my website you would know that I followed exactly and with much benefit the meditation instructions given since I started to meditate Vipassana 10 years ago.
> This is not a punishment <
As before and after - these are your words.
I said: 'that it was not lived afterwards - what was taught at first.'
I don't make myself feel like a victim. I warn from becoming victimized by the breaking of Sila.
> If you say. I have done this for them, and they do respect ME for what I was doing for them, so I will stay away from them because they are beneath ME and what I offered through MY constructive intervention. I believe we can see ego strewn all over the place here. <
I already don't understand the meaning of your first sentence in exclamation marks. Nor can I relate it to anything even far to what I said. The last sentence becomes even more so a blind accusation and polemical, without giving one reason - or one example I really said - or in which of my writings you see this.
This is a paramount example of a kind of a general condemnation without giving the criticized the slightest chance to improve his behavior, because no concrete behavior is mentioned. I am glad I could avoid such useless criticism on my site. Again you would give me this silly fault of not being an Arahat?
> Furthermore, that you asked your question originally, we see that peace does not reign supreme in your heart from your act <
Unless you could read my mind this remains a fruitless accusation and your private opinion. Please read more Pali Suttas. You just repeat your assumptions. I doesn't become more true by repeating unfounded claims.
> I would say, if you are unhappy right now with the situation arising from your actions, then the karma has already resulted. <
I'm glad to report that I am very happy right now. Sorry - but how boastful can one get if you feel 'right' and put the other down by suggesting he became unhappy through - what you consider: a bad deed?
> 'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you', sounds nice ... I don't think that the Buddha ever said anything like this. <
This was your argument in your first reply! And I just stated that I could agree with your argument - which you brought up to suggest, that I allegedly could not. But if you don't remember your arguments a few days later - how much sense does this discussion with you make? - If you would have read more Pali Suttas you could even find out for yourself that your line of argument can be found in the Sutta.
Much of what follows - except the paragraph about right speech - seems to be a sign to me that you are just in the mood to argue without contributing anything useful. You don't even answer one question - like: Are you confusing hurt with shame and conscience? By not giving an answer you really seem to confuse them. You just repeat unfounded arguments all over again.
To your last sentence: I really prefer to end this useless conversation if you don't have the same kindness and:
- don't give answers to my questions (of my first reply)
- give not even one reference to the Suttas
- but only attack me personally without giving me any idea, in which sentences of mine you see the deeds done you accuse me of.
I already had enough of such conversations where I took the work and wrote back very concise and conscientiously - and only get back blind attacks. "No, thanks!" - to such one-sided and boring conversations. As Goenkaji says: These gift of abuse you wanted to give me - I do not accept - it will remain with you.
Sorry dude. I'm just honest. Nevertheless, my good wishes remain with you. :-)
73
Mon, 15 May 2006
Dear Wolfgang, I was only trying to help. I am sorry if you feel offended. Please forgive me.
I see no point in carrying this conversation further. Peace of the Buddha be with you
74
Mon, 15 May 2006
Dear ... don't worry. I did not feel offended. I just wanted to tell you what would have been helpful for me (like criticizing in particular and not in general, giving Sutta references, answering questions). And I very readily believe you that you were writing out of good intentions. So really nothing there to forgive you.
It was my mistake that I somehow had overseen your name - which would have given me the certain hint of speaking with someone out of the Asian-cultural background. With much Metta, Wolfgang
86
Send by an Israeli teacher to forty meditators:
Sun, 21 May 2006
Erase my address!
Mr. Wolfgang, I have no idea who you are and am not interested to get any of your emails. You are requested hereby to erase my address and never use it again.
It was brought to my attention that you got my address as well as so many others by misusing your Israeli friend's email message which by mistake contained our names as CC, and now you keep using our addresses despite his request to respect his privacy.
May you be happy
87
Mon, 22 May 2006
Sorry Eilona, I really apologize. I used these addresses because it was indeed cc'd by an Israeli friend, who wanted to bring to attention the suffering people of Sudan with that particular email to his friends. Because I recognized so many Vipassana-meditators in these addresses - I used them with the understanding: I would instantly be informed if my mail hasn't been welcome, and as others have done. In those cases I never have send any email again.
That's why I would be really interested: Who requested his privacy? And I, against his wishes, allegedly didn't comply? - I can only explain it to my self with an error of the email-program. Otherwise, if you don't want to write anything to my anymore - I of course respect that too. I would not have been so obsessed to send any more emails about my concerns anyway.
... using this opportunity: thanks for your beautiful movie!
88
Answered by another A.T:
Mon, 29 May 2006
Hello Wolfgang, my name is ..., and I'm ... brother. I was the one who recognized that you were using his addresses, and told Eilona I would write to you and ask you to stop using these addresses (since he is sitting in Myanmar, have no access to email, and cannot write to you).
Unfortunately I have forgotten to send you the mail, and you already used these addresses again. You see, in this list there are family members, and family friends, some of whom have only heard of Vipassana through us, never taking a course yet - and your mail might have put a barrier in their way. In any case, I feel that using other people's address lists without their permission, is something that should never be done. So please stop using these addresses, all of them.
Hope you will manage to find more constructive ways to deliver your concerns to the organization, without taking on yourself the risk (and Karma) of creating doubts in student's (and non-students) minds, which may create serious barriers on their path. With Metta
89
Mon, 29 May 2006
thanks for clarifying this mistake. I already get copies of Eilona's mail of these addressees, I mailed to. That's why I asked Eilona to put it straight again, after she had it send to everyone: I wouldn't respect someone's privacy. Because she apparently hasn't done so - I ask you to do, please.
Being accused of spreading doubt by making it public - that I have been prohibited meditation only for not believing blindly - is already enough. And I really think our organization is doing incredible harm to itself - with such exclusions. I just don't know any better to avoid it in the future - than to make it public.
With my good intentions I don't have to fear anything. You know.
As I already wrote to Eilona, after having it announced - first for getting criticized to improve my style - than for having it put up as a web-page - so there isn't any further reason for me to send any mails again. - So much spam all the time - but I did respect it, if someone asked me never to send anything again!
After all, my concern is about fencing others out from practicing. Though it might have changed a bid, meanwhile: even 85 percent who never come back and badmouth it afterwards - should be enough reason to really look deep what is going wrong. - Than I know so many, who - after I have told them the positives as well as the negative sides - right on wanted to give it a try.
I am happy to hear ... is still in Myanmar practicing. Wishing you the very best, in Dhamma
90
Mon, 19 June 2006
It took me some time to reply.
Actually I was quite amazed from your request that I send a clarification mail to all of ... addresses, which you have used without permission, to tell them that before the second time you have used their mails you haven't received any request to stop using it. Does it make sense to you? These people don't know you anyway, you have used their mails wrongly even the first time, and you want me to disturb them again with a mail that is irrelevant to them?
Hope things are settling down for you, wishing you happiness and growth in Dhamma, with Metta
91
Wed, 21 June 2006
I asked Ailona, and after that, you - a second time - for a clarification of the following wrongly made accusation:
> ...now you keep using our addresses despite his request to respect his privacy.<
Actually, I received such replies, which I did respect:
> Please take me off your list. Thanks, <
Because I made the experience that now some of Goenkaji's disciples simply brush aside my serious concerns, by accusing me of things wrongly. As also accidentally Ailona did - because you forgot to ask me for your privacy. It would have been different if Ailona would have send it as a private request to me, but she spread this wrong accusation also to all the other addressees; also to those I already have taken off my list after their personal request.
I understand if you think me having done wrong in the first place. However, as I already told, I get so many spam-mail without having the possibility to be put of the lists. - I simply do not see it as such a wrongdoing - as to pay it back by doing more wrong - as Ailona, and you now do - by not apologizing for accusing me publicly of something wrongly. - So I request you a further time to straighten this accusation out, which happened by your negligence.
> ..and you want me to disturb them again with a mail that is irrelevant to them? <
Everyone would have been able to ask with a short note to be put of my list. Ailona did not ask either if her wrong accusation was welcome or not.
Thanks in advance. You know that things settled down the moment I found words for what has happened. - The all-pervading fear of exclusion gone. Kind regard