Vipassana as taught by S.N.Goenka, Zen, Eckhart Tolle teachings and other similar teachings.

radiantnrg

Hi, I have attended 3 x 10day vipassana courses as taught by S.N. Goenka. Meditating for an hour twice a day, trying to keep perfect precepts, and limiting a person to not practising things such as energetic healing has really created confusion in me to trying to practise this type of meditation and pursue enlightenment. While practising vipassana I also read 'The Power of Now' by Eckhart Tolle which seemed to be quite helpful with observing the mind. Goenka says not to mix meditation techniques, therefore after doing the 3rd vipassana course I realised and questioned myself: "Am I mixing techniques by applying strategies by Eckhart Tolle in my vipassana meditation sessions"? After this time I started looking more into zen meditation (as Eckhart Tolles teachings seem to be very close to the teachings of zen), and can see that there is some similarities between vipassana and zen. They both observe the breath (but in different ways) and they both develop awarness of the body (but in different ways). I think that in zen, however, one can learn how to observe the mind more directly, where as in vipassana - sensations or breath must always be observed. Also, Goenka seems to state that the buddha taught vipassana as he himself does - through observing the breath around the area of the nostrils, and scanning the body sistematically to observe bodily sensations. In zen they say that the buddha practised as they do. So how did the buddha truly practise and teach? This can be quite confusing in trying to determine what is the true teaching.

Also, Goenka describes enlightenment as a long path which takes many years of practise and dedication in order to reach, that sought of sounds to me like something that is difficult to attain and is a long way in the future. My understanding in the zen teaching is that everything is already enlightened and nothing is perfect/or is perfect just as it is - enlightenment is here and now - in just hearing that there is already a sense of liberation.

I believe that both the vipassana approach as taught by S.N.Goenka and zen are very good. I would like to know of any other people who have had experiences with vipassana as taught S.N.Goenka and zen and possibly Eckhart Tolle or similar teachings and how they feel about these different approaches. Also if anybody has had any experiences in integrating these approaches. Or if anybody may know of a good or well known teacher that integrates these approaches. Any comments in regard to these two main approaches are welcome.

patbb

i have no doubts you will find great answers here but i strongly suggest you ask this same question here
http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards

which is populated by Vipassana experts.

You will also find extremely valuable ressources for you there.

you will thank me after skimming through there even just a bit, so i give you a preamtive "you're welcome"

radiantnrg

thanks patbb

DhammaDhatu

Also, Goenka seems to state that the buddha taught vipassana as he himself does. So how did the buddha truly practise and teach? My understanding in the zen teaching is that everything is already enlightened and nothing is perfect/or is perfect just as it is - enlightenment is here and now - in just hearing that there is already a sense of liberation.

hi

the Buddha did not teach as Goenka taught. You have practised Goenka enough & are obviously dissatisfied with the outcome. You are answering your own questions in your post. Best to drop Goenka and try something new. Experimentation is the key to finding the right method.

Best wishes

DhammaDhatu

...which is populated by Vipassana experts.

Big call. Imo, only an "expert" knows an expert.

:buck:

DhammaDhatu

So how did the buddha truly practise and teach?

The Buddha taught the way of practise is to abandon craving & clinging and to maintain the mind in that state of non-clinging. Being able to maintain the mind is such as state is called mindfulness. The Buddha taught most closely to what Zen tries to teach. However, Zen generally teaches "just sitting", so this description is not as accurate as what the Buddha taught because "just sitting" does not imply "abandoning craving". \

When following what the Buddha taught, one naturally watches the mind directly, but without craving. In fact, one does not even have to "watch" because the mind itself has the nature of conscioiusness or watchfulness.

A practitioner need only 'guard' the mind, to ensure it is free from craving, free from clinging, free from judging, free from 'positiveness' & 'negativeness'. Then everything else simply falls into place (such as awareness of breathing, body, feelings, impermanence, etc).

Best wishes

Cloud

@DD, "Just sitting" is something they say, but delving deeper into what Zen is shows it to be misleading as a general statement of what the practice entails. I agree it's not a good saying out of the context of practice, as it doesn't imply the abandonment of craving.

DhammaDhatu

I agree. What I wrote or intended to write conforms with what you wrote.

Cloud

Ah okay. So we're saying the same thing hahaha.

buddhajunkie

My impression is that "just sitting" is more passive than theravada vipassana. Is this correct?

DhammaDhatu

"Vipassana" means naturally arising insight into the three characteristics.

However, if by "vipassana" you are referring to the Goenka or Mahasi techniques, it is the very rigidity of those techniques that often prevent insight.

For profound insight to occur, it is best the mind be clear, spacious, open & fluid.

If a technique is rigid, the mind may not developed ideal clarity & fluidity.

Kind regards

For a person whose mind is concentrated, there is no need for an act of will, 'May I know & see things as they actually are.' It is in the nature of things that a person whose mind is concentrated knows & sees things as they actually are.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.002.than.html

patbb

...which is populated by Vipassana experts.

Big call. Imo, only an "expert" knows an expert.

:buck:

ha!

i disagree. A well initiated can recognize experts in most fields.

patbb

"Vipassana" means naturally arising insight into the three characteristics.

However, if by "vipassana" you are referring to the Goenka or Mahasi techniques, it is the very rigidity of those techniques that often prevent insight.

For profound insight to occur, it is best the mind be clear, spacious, open & fluid.

If a technique is rigid, the mind may not developed ideal clarity & fluidity.

Kind regards

First of all what make you think that these techniques are so rigid?

also, it's fairly easy to monitor weather you are making progress or not in Vipassana.
You either get the insights or you don't.

So preventing a practice that would be too rigid to prevent insights is easily done by monitoring your progress.

DhammaDhatu

are you declaring your enlightenment to us, such as "I am enlightened"?

:bowdown:

patbb

how can you confuse "being well initiated" with "having mastered"?

Let me rephrase what i meant to say.

You do not need to be an expert in a field in order to have a pretty good idea who is one.

example: You do not need to be a formula one driver to recognize who is a good driver and who is full of it.
If you are initiated to racing and have a decent experience and passion for the field (anywhere from driving go-karts to driving formula 1), you will have no problem recognizing the authorities of the field.

hope this clarify things for you.

DhammaDhatu

First of all what make you think that these techniques are so rigid?

also, it's fairly easy to monitor weather you are making progress or not in Vipassana.

You either get the insights or you don't.

So preventing a practice that would be too rigid to prevent insights is easily done by monitoring your progress.

i already explained what is 'fluid'. it appears you did not have empathy with my explanation.

As for the Mahasi checklist, this has been dismissed by many Buddhists, such as Bhante Vimalaramsi

Further, the Mahasi checklist does not conform with the Buddha's checklist in the Anapanasati Sutta

Recently, a young Mahasi monk named Yuttadhammo attempted to negate Ajahn Brahm's views on meditation on his blog. Yuttadhammo was in turn demolished by his folly that he closed down the debate he initiated & deleted most of the posts where the suttas were quoted supporting Ajahn Brahm's position. Here, we have a supposed Buddhist monk, deleting the words of the Buddha

These days in Buddhism, Mahasi seems to be a relic from the past

What did Bhikkhu Buddhadasa have to say on systems such as the Mahasi system:

Now we shall deal with the organized systems of insight training, which were not taught by the Buddha but were developed by later teachers. This kind of practice is suitable for people at a fairly undeveloped stage, who still cannot perceive the unsatisfactoriness of worldly existence with their own eyes, naturally. This doesn't mean, however, that the results obtained by these systems have any special qualities not obtainable by the nature method, because when we examine the Tipitaka closely, we find the nature method is the only one mentioned. Some people consider, however, that natural insight can be developed only by someone who has become so remarkably virtuous, or has such a suitable disposition, that for him to come to a full understanding of things is just child's play. What is a person to do who lacks transcendent virtues and the appropriate disposition? For such people, teachers laid down ordered systems of practice, concise courses which start from scratch and have to be followed through thoroughly and systematically.

http://www.buddhanet.net/budasa11.htm

Cloud

It's all becoming clear. Thank you DD, very insightful material.

patbb

As for the Mahasi checklist, this has been dismissed by many Buddhists, such as Bhante Vimalaramsi

where?

Vimalaramsi simply teach a relaxation step that can be added to Mahasi/Goenka style very well.

Further, the Mahasi checklist does not conform with the Buddha's checklist in the Anapanasati Sutta

i'll take your words for it.

But the words in a Sutta does not render moot the direct experience of hundred of thousands of mediators over the years.
This "checklist" is simply the usual order by which the meditator will experience the insights; naturally.

Recently, a young Mahasi monk named Yuttadhammo attempted to negate Ajahn Brahm's..

lets focus on mahasi shall we?

These days in Buddhism, Mahasi seems to be a relic from the past

Gratuitous comment out of nowhere; millions of people practice Mahasi/Goenka style today and benefit greatly. They are perfectly fine techniques and are very well suited for many.

What did Bhikkhu Buddhadasa have to say on systems such as the Mahasi system:

Now we shall deal with the organized systems of insight training, which were not taught by the Buddha but were developed by later teachers. This kind of practice is suitable for people at a fairly undeveloped stage, who still cannot perceive the unsatisfactoriness of worldly existence with their own eyes, naturally. This doesn't mean, however, that the results obtained by these systems have any special qualities not obtainable by the nature method, because when we examine the Tipitaka closely, we find the nature method is the only one mentioned. Some people consider, however, that natural insight can be developed only by someone who has become so remarkably virtuous, or has such a suitable disposition, that for him to come to a full understanding of things is just child's play. What is a person to do who lacks transcendent virtues and the appropriate disposition? For such people, teachers laid down ordered systems of practice, concise courses which start from scratch and have to be followed through thoroughly and systematically.

http://www.buddhanet.net/budasa11.htm

He's not saying anything bad about the organized method???
you are not helping your own point.

Anyway there is no organized method that you speak of, simply the progress of insight is a description of what happen to the meditators in general while using a "natural" method.

If semantics is the name of the game; the Vimalaramsi method seems to me to be even less natural since it adds a step to the process.


Here is what Kenneth Folk had to say about Vimalaramsi's view:

it sounds like U Vimalaramsi has a lot in common with some of us at DhO. Noticing that so many yogis are "doing it and not getting it done," as Hokai would say, U Vima is tweaking the instructions and defining the terms in ways that make sense to him, based on the traditional teachings and on his own experience. He wants to help people get over the hump.

There's no one right way to talk about this vast and complex topic, and at this point we can only speculate about what the Buddha actually said or meant. We do our best in an effort to help others find out for themselves what on Earth is going on here.

One of U Vima's interpretations did surprise me, though:

"Remember, he [the Buddha] rejected every form of 'concentration meditation' as not being the correct way."

Although the Buddha rejected the extreme ascetic life he had experimented with prior to his awakening, he continued to teach the jhanas throughout his life, according to the Pali suttas. "One by one, as they occur," for example, is a great description of what the Mahasi school calls samatha jhanas.

In any case, I think we're looking at fairly minor semantic issues rather than any fundamental restructuring of basic Theravada dharma.

you may be interested to read this thread in the dharmaoverground which discuss Vimalaramsi
http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/99620?_19_redirect=/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/search?_19_redirect=%2Fweb%2Fguest%2Fdiscussion&_19_breadcrumbsCategoryId=0&_19_searchCategoryIds=0&_19_keywords=Vimalaramsi

federica

I trust this is not going to turn into yet another one of those interminable two-person threads about who's more right than the other? :rolleyes:

No?

Good.

Carry on....

revkusala

It is worthwhile to hear what Bhante Vimilaramsi is saying on the topic. If you contemplate what hes is saying and read the suttas, it will highlight some subtle differences and possible advantage that can be inculcated into your practice. Please don't hear this as meaning 'right and wrong" but insightful. Thanks for mentioning Bhante V.

DhammaDhatu

"Clear". I wou

But the words in a Sutta does not render moot the direct experience of hundred of thousands of mediators over the years.

hundred of thousands of possibly deluded mediators?

that why there are 1,000's of religious schools, each reflective of subjective often defiled "insight"

:dunce:

radiantnrg

@DD, "Just sitting" is something they say, but delving deeper into what Zen is shows it to be misleading as a general statement of what the practice entails. I agree it's not a good saying out of the context of practice, as it doesn't imply the abandonment of craving.

Going back to just sitting in Zen. I think that it maybe does have the strength to abandon craving. Why not? I think that just sitting is the state of equanimity as Goenka describes. You are not craving for anything, you are not averting anything. You just experience what ever arises and passes away, but not systematically observing only sensations like the Goenka method.

radiantnrg

Also, Goenka seems to state that the buddha taught vipassana as he himself does. So how did the buddha truly practise and teach? My understanding in the zen teaching is that everything is already enlightened and nothing is perfect/or is perfect just as it is - enlightenment is here and now - in just hearing that there is already a sense of liberation.

hi

the Buddha did not teach as Goenka taught. You have practised Goenka enough & are obviously dissatisfied with the outcome. You are answering your own questions in your post. Best to drop Goenka and try something new. Experimentation is the key to finding the right method.

Best wishes

Is there any particular method that you could suggest?

DairyLama

"Vipassana" means naturally arising insight into the three characteristics.

However, if by "vipassana" you are referring to the Goenka or Mahasi techniques, it is the very rigidity of those techniques that often prevent insight.

What experience have you had of the Goenka and Mahasi techniques?

P

radiantnrg

What experience have you had of the Goenka and Mahasi techniques?

P


I've done 3 x 10 day Goenka vipassana courses and meditated in this way for a while. I meditated for at least an hour a day for almost two years after my third course. But the Goenka assistant teachers always say that a person should meditate for an hour twice per day. Realistically, I think that this is a difficult practise to maintain for a person who still wants to lead a normal life, meditating two hours a day is a lot. Maybe an hour in the morning I could handle, but I might not be able to do that everyday. Then if I know I have to meditate in the evening again it feels like a burdon, like a right and ritual, which is against what Goenka says. Other things also contradict to everyday living in trying to follow the Goenka teachings properly, I won't type them all out now, otherwise this post will be too long. Anyhow, even though observing the breath in and around the nostrils and observing sensations systematically is good, my mind would still chater and wander like crazy. Therefore I looked more into Eckhart Tolle teachings and zen which seem to observe and target the mind more directly, and it is easier to quiten it down. But the advantage of the Goenka method compared to zen I would say is that no part of the body is neglected to be observed as it is systematical.

In regards to Mahasi vipassana, I have no experience. I have read a manual on how the Mahasi approach is taught and it seems to be constant labeling of every experience that occurs. I think that this would make my mind even more crazy, as I would have to constantly keep labeling and thinking how to label experiences which would feel like a burdon. Therefore if this is the Mahasi approach, then I am not very interested in trying it.

patbb

hundred of thousands of possibly deluded mediators?
:dunce:

People meditating for decades, sitting for hours and hours everyday.
Progressing through great efforts.
To disregard their meditation and progress by suggesting that they are deluded is insane Dhamma Dhatu, wouldn't you say so yourself?

Don't forget that many of these peoples are extremely knowledgeable meditators, have experienced many different forms of concentration techniques and vipassana techniques. Many must use Vimalaramsi's relaxation technique to complement their Vipassana practice as well.

Same with your wild, unfounded (and possibly irresponsible) claims about Mahasi and Goenka schools.
They are fine techniques and are well suited for many, but not for all. Maybe suited for now or may become suited for later.
Everyone is different.
Just like a "natural" technique maybe suited for some but not all.
In the end a combination of techniques will probably be used anyway.
A nice balance of concentration and Vipassana etc...

DairyLama

In regards to Mahasi vipassana, I have no experience. I have read a manual on how the Mahasi approach is taught and it seems to be constant labeling of every experience that occurs. I think that this would make my mind even more crazy, as I would have to constantly keep labeling and thinking how to label experiences which would feel like a burdon. Therefore if this is the Mahasi approach, then I am not very interested in trying it.

I've found labelling a useful aid for maintaining mindfulness, and helpful in recognising the arising of hindrances.

P

DhammaDhatu

Is there any particular method that you could suggest?

Yes. The alternative methods mentioned in your opening post that you have been looking into. Be open to experimenting with the methods you are drawn to.

Kind regards

DhammaDhatu

What experience have you had of the Goenka and Mahasi techniques?

These techniques do not conform to the Buddha's technique. The Buddha only taught one essential practise, which is the abandoning of craving & attachment. In SN 48.9, right concentration is described as having "letting go" as its sole object.

Simply by letting go, the satipatthana, jhanas, vipassana (insight), etc, will manifest on their own accord.

If we read the meditation instruction of Ajahn Brahm, it is based in letting go from the very beginning and throughout the practise.

Imo, any "technique" which forces the mind to a paricular place, whether counting, following, nose tip, abdomen rising & falling (Mahasi), watching body sensations (Goenka) is based in craving & attachment. It is a form of bhava tanha or craving-to-be.

This is why I called them "rigid techniques".

Just my opinion.

Kind regards.

As for samadhi, an empty mind is the supreme samadhi, the supremely focused firmness of mind. The straining and striving sort of samadhi isn't the real thing and the samadhi which aims at anything other than non-clinging to the five khandas is micchasamadhi (wrong or perverted samadhi). You should be aware that there is both micchasamadhi and sammasamadhi (right or correct samadhi). Only the mind that is empty of grasping at and clinging to 'I' and 'mine' can have the true and perfect stability of sammasamadhi. One who has an empty mind has correct samadhi.

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_Heart_Wood_from_the_Bo_Tree.htm

DhammaDhatu

This is why I called them "rigid techniques".

In my experience, these techniques do not progress very far. I tried them all in my first eight weeks of meditation, where I practised for at least six to eight hours per day. My mind did not have any significant distracting thoughts & hindrances from the outset but the concentration, tranquility & awareness of sensations got bogged down & stagnant. Often, the mind lost awareness of the meditation object or the meditation lost it clarity.

I believe these techniques do not progress very far because they do not allow the space & flexibly for the mind to let go & flow.

For example, often, when one focuses strongly on the breathing at a specific place, the breathing will calm & then disappear. It disappears from awareness because the breathing becomes subtle but the mind remains gross. Our breathing adjusts but our mind does not adjust because we are trying to keep the mind at the same specific place.

Imo, the mind must be allowed to "flow" & become subtle however not lose its clarity. In fact, the mind must become clearer & sharper rather than sleepily over-tranquilised. As the breathing & body sensations calm, the mind or consciousness must be allowed to flow into those places that have purified.

The flow of the mind in letting go is "backwards" rather than "forwards". By "backwards", I am refering to the mind or stream of consciousness flowing from the front of the head, over the top of the head,then down the back of the head, into the body.

It is like when someone tells an exaggerated story and we respond: "Sure thing", and we roll our eyes backwards, like this: :rolleyes: This is letting go.

Where as in mundane concentration, say when focusing the mind to watch the abdomen, nose tip or body sensations, the flow of the mind is forwards, from the front of the head or brain into the front of the body.

The letting go technique allows the mind to remain lucid of the meditation object at all times, despite the changes in subtlety of the object because the mind changes equally in subtlety with the changing subtlety of the body formations.

Anyway. Just my opinion

Kind regards