Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Theravada reinvents meditation
DaltheJigsaw
Mountain View Veteran
Vipassana meditation is the most Buddhist thing in “Consensus Buddhism.” This post starts to ask how Buddhist vipassana is, by tracing its history.
It appears that, in the early 1800s, vipassana had been completely, or almost completely, lost in the Theravada world. Either no one, or only a handful of people, knew how to do it.
Vipassana was reinvented by four people in the late 1800s and early 1900s. They started with descriptions of meditation in scripture. Those were vague and contradictory, so the inventors tried out different things that seemed like they might be what the texts were talking about, to see if they worked. They each came up with different methods.
Since then, extensive innovation in Theravada meditation has continued. Advocates of different methods disagree, often vitriolically, about which is correct. I am not a Theravadin, and don’t practice any of these methods, so I have no opinion about that.
I’m also not trying to prove that modern vipassana is “inauthentic.” Coming from Tibetan Buddhism, this rapid innovation, based on practical experiments, is slightly shocking for me. But as a scientist and engineer, it’s also inspiring. I am happy to regard all of it as terma—the Tibetan term for a valid new religious revelation.
What I want to explore is the context in which modern vipassana developed. Two things stand out:
http://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/theravada-reinvents-meditation/
It appears that, in the early 1800s, vipassana had been completely, or almost completely, lost in the Theravada world. Either no one, or only a handful of people, knew how to do it.
Vipassana was reinvented by four people in the late 1800s and early 1900s. They started with descriptions of meditation in scripture. Those were vague and contradictory, so the inventors tried out different things that seemed like they might be what the texts were talking about, to see if they worked. They each came up with different methods.
Since then, extensive innovation in Theravada meditation has continued. Advocates of different methods disagree, often vitriolically, about which is correct. I am not a Theravadin, and don’t practice any of these methods, so I have no opinion about that.
I’m also not trying to prove that modern vipassana is “inauthentic.” Coming from Tibetan Buddhism, this rapid innovation, based on practical experiments, is slightly shocking for me. But as a scientist and engineer, it’s also inspiring. I am happy to regard all of it as terma—the Tibetan term for a valid new religious revelation.
What I want to explore is the context in which modern vipassana developed. Two things stand out:
http://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/theravada-reinvents-meditation/
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
From the beginning, the mahayana was all about realisation where as the hinayana was all about living comfortably within illusion.
I've always seen the mahayana as true buddhism for the minority who are ready, and the hinayana as something to make life easier for the majority who aren't ready for awakening.
what do you think of devotional buddhism?
I have another controversial view; vipassana isn't useful because it is overanalizing a simple practice (anapanasati)... and ends being useless.
I don't really see devotional buddhism as buddhism. It's more a hindu practice.
For me, the difference between vipassana and anapanasati is that anapanasati is entering samadhi and being with what is, with the possibility that realisation's will arise, where as vipassana looks for and questions specific things once in samadhi.
I think that the approach of specific questioning has its uses both in and out of samadhi.
What's your view on that?
my view is that vipassana tries to be contemplation and samadhi (meditation), but fails at one or both.
samadhi is samadhi, if you want to contemplate about a specific concept of the dharma fine, but don't call it samadhi.
the fourth jhana in itself is good enough for the necessary realizations, without over analyzing.
I concur about devotional buddhism.
You don't think Zen Buddhism/Practice will help with realization?
Why?
What practice specifically?
Care to share links, books or even teachers?
Yeah i see your point.
So in your view, do you see the hinayana as basically useless for realisation, and if so, should it even be classed as buddhism if it doesn't lead to buddhahood?
Zen is mahayana, not hinayana, and is pure practice leading to realisation.
Theravada is hinayana.
Mahayana basically translates as the greater vehicle, and is chan, zen, and son buddhism. Some people also class tibetan buddhism as mahayana but it's heavily influenced by hindu yoga and technically isn't mahayana.
Hinayana translates as the lesser vehicle, but it's practicioners prefer to call it theravada which translates as practice of the elders. This is the type of buddhism practiced in thailand, burma, vietnam etc, and most widely practiced worldwide i believe.
It was my understanding that Mahayana arose as a practice geared for those who couldn't accord to the strict adherence to the Suttas and Vinaya as stressed in Theravada. Not everyone can become a monk or nun, thus Mahayana arose as a more "common (wo)man's Buddhim" - so I don't understand how it's only for a select few. That seems to be contradictory to the history of these different schools.
ANYWAYS, interesting article. No, the Buddha didn't teach a meditation technique called "vipassana". Buddha did encourage satipatthana (foundation or presence of mindfulness) with regards to the four frames of reference: body, feelings, consciousness, and mental qualities. However, vipassana is also one of the four kinds of bhavana (development or cultivation) which are: citta-bhavana (development of mind or cultivation of heart), metta-bhavana (development/cultivation of loving-kindness), samatha-bhavana (cultivation of tranquility) and vipassana-bhavana (development of insight).
Check out the Satipatthana Sutta and its commentary:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html
Mahayana practicioners assert that theirs is the original pure practice towards buddhahood, and the 8 fold path was taught as a pleasant place to abide while still in illusion. (Lotus sutra chapter 7).
Either way, i doubt many would argue against the claim that today, zen is the purest most direct practice towards awakening.
And I see what you mean.
Thank you for clearing this up for me.
Please don't act like christian fundamentalists, who are divided in 12983712987389 sects and accuse each other of heresy.
Emptiness.... Sunyatta.... Sunnata.... All phenomenas are not empty, if we do not perceive them to be.
"It was my understanding that Mahayana arose as a practice geared for those who couldn't accord to the strict adherence to the Suttas and Vinaya as stressed in Theravada. Not everyone can become a monk or nun, thus Mahayana arose as a more "common (wo)man's Buddhim" - so I don't understand how it's only for a select few. That seems to be contradictory to the history of these different schools."
Incorrect. Mahayana arose to liberate the whole of sentient beings instead of the individual via awakened heart (bodhicitta). The mahayana monks keep the vinaya etc The laypeople keep the precepts. Well as many as do in other societies lol.
indeed... in sansrkit it means (among others):
poor, left behind, deficient, mean, deprived of, faulty, inferior to, bad, abandoned, bereft or deprived of. defeated or worsted, lower or weaker than, without (from http://spokensanskrit.de)
Bhikkhus, these two extremes ought not to be cultivated by one gone forth from the house-life. What are the two? There is devotion to indulgence of pleasure in the objects of sensual desire, which is inferior, common, vulgar, ignoble, and leads to no good; and there is devotion to self-torment, which is painful, ignoble and leads to no good.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.nymo.html
This is completely obvious, as demonstrated by the lax Vinaya found in Mahayana today
Mahayana also was concerned about the decline in popularity of Buddhism in India so it incorporated Hindu deities into Buddhism, such as Tara, Yellow Jambala, etc
Mahayana also introduced Hindu Advaita (non-duality) into Buddhism, which is hina.
Mahayana is basically a defunct religion that basically only exists in the West (apart from say in Taiwan)
Mahayana was a quest for political meddling, power and theocracy, which full manifest in Tibet, which is why it is defunct in Japan, China, Tibet, etc. as a form of politics, its policital enemies defunked it
The Tibetan monks literally enslaved the masses. So much for 'saving all beings'
Today, Mahayana leaders such as HHDL have strongly discouraged using the term 'hinayana'.
why?
because they would be heavily censured and demolished in debate, like which happens on these forums, where the Mahayana followers cry like little children when defeated in debate
why?
because in reality, Mahayana is the inferior vehicle
Most of this division is found in the Mahayana
Why stating "Mahayana is inferior" is lame and unhealthy is because the Mahayana devotees start to cry like little children and the Buddha taught we should try to act so to not make others cry :bawl: the buddha encouraged non-harming
Your 1st and 2nd sentences contradict eachother. The 1st states Hinayana vipassana is for realisation and the 2nd states only the Mahayana is realisation. :wtf:
Your 3rd sentence makes no sense because how can what the Buddha taught, recorded in the Pali scriptures, not be "true buddhism"?
If Mahayana is diffferent than what is reported in the Pali then that is fine; its OK. It can be different. But how can it be "Buddhism" if it is different to what the Buddha taught? :dunce:
How can something "Maha", which seeks to save "all beings", be for the minority? And how can the Pali, which is only for the few, be something for the majority? :orange:
That not one single sentence in your post makes logical sense clearly demonstrates the confusion of the Mahayana :wow:
Well said, DD.
.
You don't really see how a religion replete with deities such as Vajrasatva, Green and White Tara, Yellow Jambala, Blue Medicine Buddha, Avalokitesvara, etc, is not devotional? :eek2:
You don't really see how a religion where utter & complete submission & obedience must be given to the guru is not devotional? :wtf:
You don't really see how a religion where adherents spin prayer wheels is not devotional? :buck: Your post above clearly demonstrates your mind is unaware what anapanasati is nor what vipassana is. :-/
"vipassana looks for and questions specific things once in samadhi" :hrm:
What is the history of vipassana in TherB?
The Buddha taught in the Pali very accurate descriptions of how the mind practises for realisation. Zen seeks to simplify this.
The Buddha did not speak the Lotus Sutra
What is the history of vipassana in TherB?