Some Guy:
Morality and all the challenges of worldly life become much more manageable with insight.
Everybody says that, and I find in my own experience that it's true to some extent. But shouldn't we ask why and how this process actually works and how we can actively support it?
MCTB suggests to distinguish between relative and absolute truth and to not expect any changes in "daily life" due to ones insight. That's one extreme position - which has its value because it takes the pressure of and allows one to practice for the fun of it. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who seem to think of enlightenment (e.g. in the context of the ten fetter model) as something that can be attained by (hardcore) meditation alone, without morality and off-the-cushion practice etc. Many advanced practicioners talk about changes in their life that seem to stem from their practice, but in all honesty I don't see how practical skill can be instilled in the mind by hitting it with fruition often and hard enough. I'm not saying it doesn't happen - I just think it's very worthwhile to ask how exactly the connection of practice and life works (and how it can be strengthened). Up until now, the connection of insight and skillful living seems to be a blind spot.
Fitter Stoke:
Also, it's interesting and totally worthwhile to look at what Buddhisms other than Theravada have to say about these issues. Theravada is a path of renunciation: renunciation is both the goal and the means of the path. [...]
The situation is very different in other branches of Buddhism.
I don't know much about other Buddhist schools, but this seems to be a century-old debate. Alan Watts cites an old tantric text in one of his talks that touches upon this issue:
Saraha's Treasury of SongsSome excerpts:
10
Then there are the novices and bhikshus with the teaching of the Old School,
Who renounce the world to be monks.
Some are seen sitting and reading the scriptures,
Some wither away in their concentration on thought.
11
Others have recourse to the Great Vehicle.
This is the doctrine which expounds the original texts, (they say).
Others just meditate on mandala-circles.
Others strive to define the fourth stage of bliss.
12
With such investigating they fall from the Way;
Some would envisage it as space,
Others endow it with the nature of voidness,
And thus they are generally in disagreement.
13
Whoever deprived of the Innate, seeks nirvana,
Can in no wise acquire the absolute truth.
14
Whoever is intent on anything else, how may he gain release?
Will one gain release, abiding in meditation?
What's the use of lamps? What's the use of offerings?
What's to be done by reliance on mantras?
15
What is the use of austerities?
What is the use of going on pilgrimage?
Is release achieved by bathing in water?
16
Abandon such false attachments and renounce such illusion!
Than knowledge of This there is nothing else.
Other than This no one can know.
17
It is This that's read and This that's meditated,
It's This that's discussed in treatises and old legends.
There is no school of thought that does not have This as its aim,
But one sees it only at the feet of one's master.
18
If the world of one's master but enter the heart,
It seems like a treasure in the palm of one's hand.
The world is enslaved by falsehood, says Saraha,
And the fool does not perceive his true nature.
19
Without meditating, without renouncing the world,
One may stay at home in the company of one's wife.
Can that be called perfect knowledge, Saraha says,
If one is not released while enjoying the pleasures of sense?
20
If it's already manifest, what's the use of meditation?
And if it is hidden, one is just measuring darkness.
Saraha cries: The nature of the Innate is neither existent nor non-existent.