Reply To: Goenka´s Vipassana – Part 2


There’s absolutely no doubt about what Buddha Dhamma is. I’ve never been more sure about anything. I hope that’s clear from my very first post. I quit practicing this technique for that very reason. I started writing why this technique can’t be Buddha Dhamma and what is Buddha Dhamma (tilakkhana, anapana, paticca samupadda, etc.), because I wanted to share this with the people who I knew/know who also practice(d) this  (very popular) technique. After all, I can relate since I came from the same background and it’s easier for me to explain certain things.

My writing is partly based on the conversations I’ve had with these people. These topics popped up. My intention is simple: I want to show those people what is true Buddha Dhamma and help them on their way. In fact, I see it as my responsibility. 
This is not about explaining that technique itself (those people know it already anyway) but only by knowing it can problems be pointed out. If I haven’t been successful in pointing that out, then that’s all right. I’m not sure how else to put it.

It was just that one single point I mentioned and it’s talked about only at the very end of the essay. No need to discuss it further but thank you for trying to understand.🙏🙏🙏

My writing would surely clear things up further but I understand that may not be possible since it’s quite a lot.