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.
A Bias towards Vipassana?
thickpaper
Veteran
I just watched the wonderful "What is Nirvana?" video on youtube. It#s truely worth seeing if you haven't.
When he talks about meditation he does so in the contemplative sense it seems ("deep thoughts") rather than the more traditional sense of Insight/Single Pointedness mediation.
I have long suspected that Meditation has a bigger role in todays Buddhism than in the time of the Buddha. My suspicious came from the relative lack of mediation in the narratives about the Buddha's life and enlightenment. This is coupled with the fact that clearly many of the ideas the Buddha gives us are the result of a deep and contemplative philosophical mediation (Yet more similarities with the meditations of Descartes).
Do you think it is possible that deep insight meditation has squeezed out these contemplative meditations?
I look forward to your thoughts and criticisms, but not your opinions. as I have none clear on this issue, so far!:)
namaste
When he talks about meditation he does so in the contemplative sense it seems ("deep thoughts") rather than the more traditional sense of Insight/Single Pointedness mediation.
I have long suspected that Meditation has a bigger role in todays Buddhism than in the time of the Buddha. My suspicious came from the relative lack of mediation in the narratives about the Buddha's life and enlightenment. This is coupled with the fact that clearly many of the ideas the Buddha gives us are the result of a deep and contemplative philosophical mediation (Yet more similarities with the meditations of Descartes).
Do you think it is possible that deep insight meditation has squeezed out these contemplative meditations?
I look forward to your thoughts and criticisms, but not your opinions. as I have none clear on this issue, so far!:)
namaste
0
Comments
It's interesting you mention Descartes, because meditation in the Christian/Western sense actually refers to deep thinking, whereas contemplation refers to what Buddhists call meditation. I have no idea why they are reversed, but that's why he calls his ponderings 'meditations' anyway.
I've often wondered if there wasn't such a distinction in the time of the Buddha, perhaps mindfulness was simply the precursor to contemplative meditation, a way of focusing the mind?
Many would think it is the hardest to teach and practice:)
Maybe, maybe not.
Meditation nowadays in the Buddhist sense seems to mean sitting insight meditation.
I guess we can't really know either way how this realisation of the path was practised.
But surely all kinds of contemplation about Dharma should be practised?
That seems plausible to me. Maybe not a precursor, even.
namaste
The word I meant to use was primer, couldn't think of it at the time.
I am not sure about that. Prior to his enlightenment it is said that the Buddha studied with 2 different teachers and learned their meditation practices. Throughout the teachings it is mentioned that the Buddha continued these practices and near his death he went through the jhana (depths of concentration/absorption) states of meditative absorption both in order and then reversed the order.
Hearing - (a teaching)
Contemplation - (thinking about how it fits in our life)
Meditation - (resting with our mind as it is, neither following thoughts or repressing)
The second phase helps us develope confidence that a teaching makes sense. The meditation phase further developes this trend because of all the thinking that comes up during the meditation. For example doubt comes up and we learn to rest with it.
Sounds like a recipe to brainwash you but actually it is not because you are critically thinking and deciding for yourself.
Sorry... couldn't resist.
Vipassana
I'm just making sure 'Visipanna' is a misspelling.
And if I may say so, a rather careless one.....
I'm editing the title, because it's a silly mistake to make.....
P.S. Federica, you might want to edit the title again, since it's not "vipasaNNa", but "vipaSSana"
and
analyzing in-out breathing can be called Insight meditation
concentration is stilling the mind
insight is knowing the mind
to know the mind, we need to have a concentrated mind
concentrated mind can have several levels, namely Upachara (do not know the english word) samadhi, Apanna samadhi, First Jhana, Second Jhana ets. up to Eight Jhana and Nirodha samapaththi
except Nirodha samapatha all other levels of concentration can be achieved by any one who practise in-out breathing meditation
but
to have a Niroadh samapathi one should be at Anagami or Arahnt level
thinking is not meditation
dhamma viccya bojjanga (analysing dhamma which have heard or read before) is also a sort of practising insight meditation
Maybe so, and I am not for a moment suggesting insight meditation doesn't deserve the place it has in Buddhism.
I am saying I don't really see why the contemplative, philosophical kind of meditation has the apparent lowly status it has:)
namaste
PPS - The notion of a correct spelling for a term the Buddha spoke is kinda funny!
It is my understanding that nobody knows what the Buddha spoke as it never evolved into a written form, but was instead put into written form hundreds of years later in Sanskrit or Pali. Is that incorrect? I guess it's off topic, but I am on a roll with that today it seems.
If I am cynical, I think that many gravitate to a meditation only approach because they feel there is a quick pay-off...they feel nice during/immediately after meditation. Meditation becomes sort of a replacement for having a drink or smoking a joint, or getting a massage. Also they can practice meditation and by-pass all the ritual and mythology of Eastern Buddhism, they might make a western skeptical atheist type uncomfortable, since they may have gravitated to Buddhism as a kind of non-religious religion.
I'm not saying all western Buddhists or Buddhist traditions...and I am not opposed to meditation in Buddhism at all. Despite being I shin I do practice meditation daily...sometimes nembutsu recitation, sometimes shikantaza, usually both.
I am definitely not addressing people who take Buddhism seriously.
In contrast I meet many elderly Japanese people at my Temple, which is Shin and not a meditative tradition at least in the way most people mean. Most are far from being Buddhist scholars, and almost none practice any form of formal meditation, yet they are Buddhist in their bones. They live the teaching in everything that they do.
No, I think that seems to be exactly the case:)
Knowing nothing of Shin I went to the all knowing internet and asked it what sin was. What I got was this:
Shin Buddhismwas initiated by Shinran (1173-1263) in Japan. His teaching was based in the Pure Land tradition as a successor to Honen (1133-1212). Shinran developed the teaching by maintaining that faith, endowed by Amida Buddha, assured enlightenment. All religious practices, particularly the recitation of the name of the Buddha, expressed gratitude rather than achieved purification.
My question then is this: Is Shin basically Buddha worship? This brief description seems to say the practice is recitation of the Buddha's name and having faith the Buddha will enlighten them.
Is my understanding far off?
once one experiences the concentrated mind and how valuable such concentrated mind for oneself one's faith in Buddha will increase
then one wants to know more about Buddha's Teaching not because someone tells it is good to know, but there is first hand experience it is good
so he will know about Four Noble Truth, Dependent Origination, Fourfold mindful practise etc. and he will walk on the path towards liberation
That was just stupid carelessness on my part. As you can see from my post, I spelled it correctly there. :rolleyes:
The stickler stickled.....!!
Thanks - done.
This is where differences in schools seem to play a role. Some schools put more emphasis on rituals and mythology, other pay less attention to those. But if you go back to the "root", to what Buddha taught (as recorded in suttas), you find that blind adherence to rituals (silabbata-paramasa) is regarded as hinderance on the path. As upekka said, reciting and chanting can get you into the right state of mind, achieving same things as breathing meditation, but you will still have to do the hard work of acquiring wisdom and understanding in order to achieve enlightenment.
At the end of the day, all of this seems to revolve around similar themes (concentrating mind, clearing out hindrances etc etc), and there are different ways of doing that - as long as one doesn't simply remove "vital" parts of the practice and replace them with easy but useless shortcuts.
Are rituals vital? I personally don't know enough to make that call, but so far I haven't read anything that says so.
Random thought: Does getting born in Japan increase or decrease one's chances of becoming enlightened as compared to the rest of the world?
In my experience, rituals are not vital and have become a hindrence to me at some times. Overall they are helpful, pleasant and add meaning, structure and pleasure to my experience - they are not the experience ... if that makes sense.
It's all good for you! Are carbohydrates better or is protein better or are vitamins and minerals better? You need them all. Eat up!
That's funny, but you can always look up the Eightfold Path, it is one of the Eight principles espoused by Lord Buddha.
Karma Ripens:P
I am pretty familiar with the aforementioned path:) My point is not about the presence of meditation it, but the types of meditation that is involved.
namaste
Yes:)
This one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odWIPhj-ivo
Is there such a thing as a "wrong" Thich Nhat Hanh video?
You haven't seen the one where he is juggling chainsaws?
Is that the one titled "Cutting through delusion like a true Buddhist badass"?
Bingo!:p
first to Unlikelybdst:
Rituals. I never said mythology or rituals were necessary. I do think ritual is almost inevitable though. It might be a traditional ritual, or it might just be the routines one develops in their own practice. In the West rituals seems to be something of a dirty word which I feel is unfortunate. Ritual I think is a very helpful tool in developing mindfulness.
Otherwise I was just making an observation on how western Buddhism often omits the mythology, and supernatural things described even in the pali cannon, because it is tough to market those ideas to a scientifically/rationally oriented modern mind.
Regarding Japanese people...I guess I could have not mentioned that 90% of the people at my temple are Japanese. I guess I could have also not mentioned they are elderly.
Not sure my mentioning either thing suggested they had a better shot at enlightenment though. Not at all certain where you got that from
My point was simply that these people have embraced the dharma their whole lives, without scholarly debates or discussions, or meditation. I think it is very likely their perspective having been born and raised in a Buddhist culture, would be different from someone in the west coming to Buddhism from a non Buddhist culture, and at least at first, mostly based on books, or internet sites....maybe if they are fortunate, a Temple close by.
Username_5
If we change the ideas to a more Zen-like understanding for a second....
Buddha nature pervades the entire universe. We are already Buddha's but we don't know it.
Now applied to Shin Buddhism, Buddha nature is represented by Amida Buddha. Our already being Buddha's is represented by Amida's vow to save all beings.
Shin Buddhism does not hold faith in the idea that we can attain enlightenment through the ego, and instead feels our enlightenment is a natural thing that comes of itself, or put mythologically, through the vow of Amida.
In Shin entrusting to Amida is the same as the meditative idea of "letting go"
Because our Buddhahood is already assured, we do not recite Nembutsu as an ego powered activity contrived to bring about enlightenment, but as an expression of gratitude at being grasped by Amida (Buddha Nature)
My understanding of Soto zen is that it is similar. Meditation is not done to become enlightened, because that would be grasping and craving.
Shikantaza is enlightened activity itself.
It is absolutely true that Shin presents Amida in a way that it can easily be mistaken for a God like religion. In part this is to make the teaching accessible to all, not just those with deep intellectual understanding, but also those who hold to more simple ideas. This tends to cause a lot of confusion among other Buddhists though unfortunately, and makes it hard to have a correct understanding of, when coming from a different Buddhist perspective without delving a bit deeper.
Like most school of Buddhism, a single paragraph is unlikely to give a very deep or accurate picture.
thank you for that thought out response. I learned something and I appreciate your taking the time to teach it to me.
If you mean that there's a bias toward vipassana practice, as opposed to other forms of meditation practice in the Western world, you're correct. But what of it? It's popular for a good reason, it works and is congenial to the Western mindset.
Yep, that's exactly what I mean:)
Sure, my point though isn't really about the popularity of vipassana but rather the profound unpopularity - often to the point of scorn - of conceptual/intelectual/philosophical/abstract meditation.
namaste
Well the Buddha's contemplation certainly wasn't philosophical in nature but it doesn't mean that it could not dictate philosophy. As Ajahn Chah said, at a certain point it is all the same but dissecting it in theory is a bit problematic, IMO. As to contemplation yes but assumes a certain level of practice, and until then, why talk about it
Best wishes,
Abu
Why would you say that? This is the perhaps point of my OP, to explore this attitude you and others have.
The procession from the three foundations of existance to Dharma is, to me, an utterly beutiful and wise example of analytic philosopy.
I have no doubt that the buddha attained knowlegde of, say, emptiness, by deep meditation. But to say this "certainly wasn't philosophical in nature" makke no sensee to me.
So I hope you can shed some light on this for me.
Again, why not? Why not talk about interdependent causation and how it conditions karma and how that conditions suffering or happiness etc? Why not explain the eightfold path as the interwoven and intersupporting philosophical/moral/spiritual path that, to me at least, it so clearly is.
Doesnt it strike you as dogmatic to claim the only way to attain right view is x (whatver x is)?
looking forwards to your thoughts,
namaste
I am no expert but let me try to expound on my reasoning and perhaps we can both learn something together
As far as I understand, philosophy is intellectual contemplation, analysis. It can be deep, it can be varied and it can be very very wonderful. Smart even.
It is usually based on an observation or a theory perhaps and one extrapolates a logic or flow or theme to it - voila, philosophy.
The basic premise however of philosophers and scholars is undoubtedly of the intellect, aka the ego.
I hesitate to talk too much about meditation as people should really only learn and practice it under a good teacher, and in Buddhist terms this is someone who not only knows the Dharma through a genuine, sustained practice, but has flowered the genuine wings of compassion and wisdom.
And so I talk a bit loosely around it --
In meditation it is possible to know things that do not come about as, and/or from an intellectual deduction or analysis. It is...different but it is also hard or even impossible to explain this to another.
The Buddha taught the Eightfold Path, very simple and yet most of us would rather look elsewhere..in that Path however, meditation is a wing and in that wing..well
I am sorry if this is not satisfactory to you but Buddha was not just a philosopher, that is undoubted.
Even IF some people take Buddhism as a philosophy or prefer to think of Lord Buddha as a philosophy.
I attach a definition of philosophy for you from Wiki
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3] The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom", and was originally a word referring to the special way of life of early Greek philosophers.
And so I repeat again, the meditation of the Buddha is not a mere philosophical analysis or contemplation of the intellect IMO.
I do not know what you mean by three foundations of existence, do you mean annica, anatta, and dukkha. If so again, the meditation of the Buddhas is not a philosophical meditation.
How can you explain that to someone who cannot conceive of anything else. The intellect will always be limited, marvellous perhaps but still incomplete.
/laughter
Actually you can find a thousand theories and extrapolation, on the web, on blogs, on Wiki, on teishos. Some people really do try to explain it all intellectually.
Dear friend, the moment you learn all of that theory, you tell me is it yet enough to attain peace of mind, genuine peace of mind, including amidst the turbulences of real life. And that is the point IMO.
The Buddha Way is fine, but it is not for everyone.
As to explanation, perhaps I am too arrogant. I spent years learning and learning well the theories, in fact I even understood..
My dear friend, I mean no offence and I wish you well. We are all just sharing opinions on this Board and each person will have their own.
Is it dogmatic to point out to someone that the only way they will find the water is to dig through the sand?
Is it dogmatic to point out one needs to cross the road to reach the other side?
My opinion: If you say so.
The Tathagatas only point, it is up to each of us to walk the Way.
Best wishes, and again thankyou for the conversation, friend. Just some opinions and nothing more.
What do you see as the difference between the two? Isn't the definition of vipassana something along the lines of "meditation techniques that cultivates insights including contemplation, introspection, analytic meditation, and observations about experience." as opposed to just calming the mind with breathing, etc. Vipassana is contemplation, is it not?
Ok!:)
I think that is a very simple notion of philosophy you have there:) You would only need to look at a logic or metaphyiocis book to see that ego/individual/intelect is generally irreleivant, and moreover, excluded.
I assume you mean insight meditation, single pointedness, stream stepping etc as opposed to philosophical meditation.
I agree 100%. meditation is a key part, my point is, is it purely "insight" medittaion or is it as, i see it, also contemplative meditation?
Again, I agree 100%. He was far far more than a philosopher, of that i have never doubted:) But, again, I think there is a huge swath of philosophical mediation that seems rejected by post Buddha buddhists.
I would start with something like this:
1. The Three Foundations of Existence:<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
a. Emptiness/Interconnectivity ("Anataman"):<o:p></o:p>
i. All things are connected to all things.
ii. All things contain interconnected things.
b. Impermanence ("Anica"):<o:p></o:p>
i. All things that exist, did not exist.
ii. All things that can exist, might not exist.
iii. All things that exist, will not exists.
iv. All things that will exist, will cease existing.
c. Interdependence/Negativity ("Dukka"):<o:p></o:p>
i. All causes are effects
ii. All effects are causes.
iii. All causes have many effects.
iv. All effects have many causes.
v. A thing's cessation will be caused and inevitable (Dukka).
2. The Four Noble Truths:<o:p></o:p>
a. All Experience is Dukka: <o:p></o:p>
i. Dukka is suffering and stress.
ii. Dukka is conflict and gloom.
iii. Dukka is strain.
iv. Dukka is pain.
v. Dukka is loss and disappointment.
vi. Dukka is reasonless guilt and envy.
vii. Dukka is impermanence.
viii. Dukka is emptiness.
ix. Dukka is the aftermath of pointless argument over nothing.
x. Dukka has a cause:
1. The cause of Dukka is Tanha.
a. Tanha is attachment, thirst, craving, wishing, yearning, wanting...
b. Tanha is about the want that infects every type of experience we have.
2. The cause of Tanha is ignorance and delusion:
a. Ignorance and delusion about the true nature of things:
i. Thinking that there are discrete objects rather than interconnected systems.
ii. Thinking that anything can have an essence that is distinct from the sum of its parts.
b. Ignorance and Delusion about impermanence (Anataman).
i. Expecting things to last.
ii. Cuddling notions of immortality.
c. Delusion about the illusionary ego:
i. Not seeing it as empty and nothing.
ii. Not knowing how compelling an illusion it is.
iii. Not being able to extinguish it when it is caught.
d. Delusion about the egos of others.
i. Not understanding that they two, like you, live in Dukka and are subject to Dharma.
ii. Thinking of her and me and him and us and we and them as if they label real things rather than illusions.
e. Delusions about impermanence in time, space, quantity, value and qualities.
f. Delusions about importance.
b. Nirodha:<o:p></o:p>
i. If delusion is reduced attachment is reduced.
ii. If ignorance is reduced attachment is reduced.
iii. If attachment is reduced Dukka is reduced.
iv. If attachment is extinguished Dukka is extinguished.
c. Magga:
i. Magga, The Middle Path is the Forth Noble Truth.
ii. It is the path of Dharma Practice that seeks to reduce or end Dukka.
iii. It is the path towards dissatachemnt and peace.
iv. It is the [path that strives to increase Sukka:
1. Sukka is the opposition to Dukka.
2. Sukka is positivity.
3. Sukka is peace.
v. Magga is the middle way between nihilism and mysticism:
1. Nihilism is the view that life is utterly pointless, devoid of meaning, purpose and value (eg Moral absolutes)
2. Mysticism is the view that life has a purpose and existence that extends beyond it's experience, duration and location.
vi. The Middle Path shows how The Three Foundations condition our lives in both the positive and the negative.
d. The <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Middle Way</st1:address></st1:Street> travelled by the practice of The Noble Eightfold Path:
3. The Noble Eightfold Path:<o:p></o:p>
a. That the practice of The Noble Eightfold Path reduces Dukka is the Fourth Noble Truth.
b. The Noble Eightfold Path is the <st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Middle Way</st1:address></st1:Street>.
c. It is the path between extremes and delusions.
d. Magga, the Path of eight practices, can be divided into three kinds of Dharma practice, the Contemplative, Moral and Meditative.
4. Contemplative Dharma Practice(Panna):<o:p></o:p>
a. Strive to attain "Right View"
b. Practice with "Right Intention"
5. Moral Dharma Practice (Silla):<o:p></o:p>
a. Communicate with "Right Speech"
b. Behave with "Right Action"
c. Live by "Right Livelihood"
6. Meditative Dharma Practice (Samadhi):<o:p></o:p>
a. Practice with "Right Effort."
i. Be diligent in trying to increase positivity and decrease negativity.
b. Develop "Right Mindfulness"
c. Practice "Right Concentration"<o:p></o:p>
i. Understanding how one’s mind works.
ii. Knowing it.
iii. Engaging it.
As said, I dont think it can be all explained intelectually. That would not be the warm and warming Dharma that has changed my life, it would be cold and more like an equation.
To repeat, it is not enough. My point is about the curious exclusion of philosophy from Buddhist meditation and Right View. The path has many strands, I am interested in this thread just about one of those:)
Yes, if that is not the only way to find water:) Which, again, is back to my point.
I do belive it is Wrong View to say that the path has no philosophical mediitation component. I do belive it is wrong view to say that the path has no insight meditation component.
I am still at a loss to explain why so many think the former.
Nice talking and thinking with you,
namaste
Good Luck with the search.
Abu
Theres also a teaching that based on your karma you need to do one of those 3 things in your lifetime more than others. Think of this as your tendency. For example if you hadn't heard any of the teachings you would need to expose yourself more to get a more complete picture. Whereas if you were not convinced the teachings were accurate but you had heard them then you would need to contemplate them. Thirdly if you were convinced the teachings you heard were accurate you would need to meditate to rest with those teachings even as irritation, craving, and doubt came over you. To stabilize your realization.
I encourage you to take a look at this article.
http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Three_Wisdoms%E2%80%94An_Interview_with_H.H._Sakya_Trizin
"For anyone who wishes to follow the spiritual path, the Buddhist teachings explain the importance of the Three Wisdoms. The very first thing someone entering the path and seeking the truth must be able to do is to hear and to learn. An experienced teacher begins by explaining to you the very basic Buddhist view: all compound things are impermanent, all impure things bring suffering, all phenomena are empty of inherent existence, and Nirvana is peace (see Four Seals). After hearing this, you personally examine how it corresponds to your daily life. Of course, even without listening to Buddhist teachings we can see for ourselves that everything in life is impermanent, but if someone tells you, this it helps you develop the strength of that inner understanding. This is what we call the wisdom you obtain from hearing.
Next you go through the meaning of the teachings analytically and examine it very carefully in relation to your life and to the outside world. In this way you discover for yourself the truth of what your teacher said, and this enhances your inner understanding even more. This is the wisdom obtained through contemplation.
On the basis of these two wisdoms, you begin to practise meditation itself, further awakening and deepening your inner experience and understanding. This is the wisdom that one obtains through meditation."
"
You have to have an intellectual understanding first, otherwise you cannot develop a deeper understanding. I think we could say that the wisdom gained through hearing and study is intellectual. And then, from this basis, the wisdom you obtain through contemplation and meditation is deeper. I think there is nothing wrong with Westerners beginning with an intellectual understanding"
The Buddha was a part of a larger sramana movement in ancient India.
he studied and practiced with many other sramana teachers and students before defining his path, attaining realization, and teaching his own students.
Without the foundation of learning, contemplating, and meditating he would not have attained anything at all.
Everything the Buddha did was based on his previous understanding and investigation of the philosophies of his time.
The Buddha was a diligent student/philosopher/practitioner.
The narratives of the Buddha's life are full of meditation.
The six years of asceticism leading up to his realization are heavily based upon different forms of meditation that were being pursued during the sramana movement.
I disagree, actually. But that's not my point of interest here. I am happy to accept that to reach enlightenment you must be an expert stream-stepping single pointed super mediator etc....
My point is about why the philosophical mediation seems to hold such a lowly place:)
Philosophical meditation doesnt hold a "lowly place" either. It may be less important in modern theravada and zen movements but it certainly doesnt hold a lowly place historically.
Nalanda Monastery was a HUGE center for philosophical, scholarly, meditative practice within the Buddhist tradition and this scholastic/philosophical tradition lives on today and is very strong.
I have read many suttas of the PC now (and some on the PC, ho ho). Though, as there are many thousands I agree it is but a fraction that I have read.
In these insight mediation simply doesn't seem to occupy the huge role it does in many post-Buddha takes on Buddhism.
I think this is clear by looking at the kinds of suttas that are often cited are "cardinal", such as the first sermon, fire sermon....
Anyways, we get off topic now...
So you are referring specifically to vipassana in the Pali Canon, the earliest of which was written down at least 3 hundred years after Buddha passed.
These arent really "narratives of the Buddhas life".
Sorry to be a hair splitter, I'm just a nerd when it comes to this kind of stuff.