Vipassana vs Theravada

[Zom]

Zom, I think its incredible that you feel qualified to judge that what a respected teacher is teaching "wrong view" based on your own incomplete knowledge of what he teaches

Here I'm judging students, not teacher.

Here, again, you display your very real lack of knowledge of what he teaches.

So, does Goenka teach kamma and rebirth?

Because he talks about the last path factor first?

Not only (but this is very important too). When explaining Right Mindfulness I don't see 4 satipatthanas. When explaining Right Concentration I don't see 4 jhanas. I heard that he gives satipatthana teachings for "some students" , but as far as I know - he doesn't teach jhanas.

[Ben]

Zom, I think its incredible that you feel qualified to judge that what a respected teacher is teaching "wrong view" based on your own incomplete knowledge of what he teaches

Here I'm judging students, not teacher.

Here, again, you display your very real lack of knowledge of what he teaches.

So, does Goenka teach kamma and rebirth?

Because he talks about the last path factor first?

Not only (but this is very important too). When explaining Right Mindfulness I don't see 4 satipatthanas. When explaining Right Concentration I don't see 4 jhanas. I heard that he gives satipatthana teachings for "some students" , but as far as I know - he doesn't teach jhanas.

You might want to do some research, Zom.
kind regards,

Ben

[daverupa]

And all of these factors can be found in the Buddha’s teachings on one contemplative effort where ānāpānasati, which is the support of satipaṭṭhāna, leads to the fulfillment of satta bojjhaṅga and vijjāvimuttiṃ. (S.N.5.10.2.3. Ānanda Sutta)

It seems to me that this is factual and helpful and said at a good time.

[ancientbuddhism]

Ben Wrote: I've never heard of the Burmese vipassana tenet system.
Perhaps you could do us the favour of explaining what you mean by this statement.

Call it by its various dīpanī or kathā if you like.

I don't call it anything. Purely for the purposes of discussion, the teachings of various Burmese Vipassana teachers have been described as "Burmese Vipassana". By describing it as a 'tenet system' as you have, you infer something monolithic - which it isn't.

'Tenet System'' does seem an unusual term to introduce into a discussion on a Theravada list.

My understanding of the term is that, in religion, a tenet can be a central belief or doctrine that is proclaimed to be true without scientific proof.

I don't think this could be applied to tried and tested methods of meditation.

te-net (noun) : a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true; especially: one held in common by members of an organization, movement, or profession

And doctrinal tenets within sectarian Theravāda are being discussed here.

Again, call it dīpanī or kathā if you like. Below is from the Mahāsi system, which are found in common, although arranged differently perhaps, within Burmese Vipassanā, and as regurgitated throughout Theravāda for the most part.

The Progress of Insight (Vipassanā) Through the (seven) Stages of Purification:

I. Purification of Conduct (sīla-visuddhi)

II. Purification of Mind (citta-visuddhi)

III. Purification of View (diṭṭhi-visuddhi)
1. Analytical Knowledge of Body and Mind (nāma-rūpa-pariccheda-ñāṇa)

IV. Purification by Overcoming Doubt (kaṅkhā-vitaraṇa-visuddhi)

2. Knowledge by Discerning Conditionality (paccaya-pariggaha-ñāṇa)
3. Knowledge by Comprehension (sammasana-ñāṇa)
4. Knowledge of Arising and Passing Away (I) (udayabbaya-ñāṇa)

V. Purification by Knowledge and Vision of what is Path and Not-Path (maggāmagga-ñāṇadassana-visuddhi)

VI. Purification by Knowledge and Vision of the Course of Practice (paṭipadā-ñāṇadassana-visuddhi)

5. Knowledge of Dissolution (bhaṅga-ñāṇa)
6. Awareness (Knowledge) of Fearfulness (bhayatupaṭṭhāna-ñāṇa)
7. Knowledge of Misery (ādīnava-ñāṇa)
8. Knowledge of Disgust (nibbidā-ñāṇa)
9. Knowledge of Desire for Deliverance (muñcitu-kamyatā-ñāṇa)
10. Knowledge of Re-observation (paṭisaṅkhānupassana-ñāṇa)
11. Knowledge of Equanimity about Formations (saṅkhārupekkhā-ñāṇa)
12. Insight leading to Emergence (vuṭṭhānagāminī-vipassanā-ñāṇa)
13. Knowledge of Adaptation (anuloma-ñāṇa)
14. Maturity of Knowledge (gotrabhu-ñāṇa)

VII. Purification by Knowledge and Vision (ñāṇadassana-visuddhi)

15. Path Knowledge (magga-ñāṇa)
16. Fruition Knowledge (phala-ñāṇa)
17. Knowledge of Reviewing (paccavekkhaṇa-ñāṇa)
18. Attainment of Fruition (phala-samāpatti)
19. The Highest Paths and Fruitions (Uparimagga-bhāvanā

A well organized system of doctrinal tenets.

The distinction that I made is that 19th century Burmese vipassanā cannot be found in the Buddha’s teachings.

As you have already stated, vipassana is found in the Buddha's teaching.

And this is where we are talking around each other. I have shown that there is a distinct difference between nikāyan vipassanā and Burmese Vipassanā in terms of context and to the suttas. To discuss or guess the reasons for this disconnect I will leave to others. I only suggest that the above tenet-system cannot be found in the suttas.

The fact that certain "insight exercises" were later developed to facilitate the arising of vipassana, I think, is not important.

The above list is taken directly from the Visuddhi Ñāṇa Kathā and similar lists are found in U Ba Khin's and Ledi Sayādaw's literature. These are not simply "insight exercises", but are assertions of values to be found and developed in contemplative effort. Where these would fit in the suttas and where they fail is important to some.

That Burmese vipassanā claiming support from the suttas is one thing, but to back-read its tenet system into the suttas is quite another.

I am beginning to wonder whether your use of the use of the term "tenet system" is to cast negative aspersions on something you don't like.

I prefer to distinguish what are the teachings of the Buddha, as closely as I can discern from the suttas. If discussing the doctrines of Burmese Vipassanā as tenets bothers you, I suggest that you simply read this as dīpanī or kathā as these would apply in yours or other Vipassanā schools. Also, I realize that there can be some degree of emotional investment in ones 'school' or 'tradition'. And as I have none other than the Buddha as Ajahn, I apologize if my discussing these matters has upset you 'and others'.

Since you have used the term several times in this thread I would appreciate it if you could tell us what this tenet system is. Especially since it has never been defined nor discussed in any literature that I have ever come across.

As given above, and there are other examples from the U Ba Khin and Ledi Sayādaw literature. I must admit that I am a little surprised that you haven't read these, but many are content to just ad-hoc from retreats.

Please feel free to provide textual support.

This has been given as relevant.

[tiltbillings]

. . . and as regurgitated throughout Theravāda for the most part.

Regurgitated. Vomited up. Another one here with the idea of having the pure teachings, and everything else is just stuff that is vomited up by distorters of the pure teachings.

[Zom]

You might want to do some research, Zom.
kind regards,

Ben

Don't use that Jedi trick on me, Ben

[daverupa]

. . . and as regurgitated throughout Theravāda for the most part.

Regurgitated. Vomited up. Another one here with the idea of having the pure teachings, and everything else is just stuff that is vomited up by distorters of the pure teachings.

Was anything in that post factually incorrect? Is this your sole objection?

[Clarence]

Has anyone here read Gethin's Buddhist Path to Awakening? In it, he gives a good view on the commentaries and their place in Buddhist history and practice. I haven't finished the book yet but what I have read thus far was worth the time.

[tiltbillings]

. . . and as regurgitated throughout Theravāda for the most part.

Regurgitated. Vomited up. Another one here with the idea of having the pure teachings, and everything else is just stuff that is vomited up by distorters of the pure teachings.

Was anything in that post factually incorrect? Is this your sole objection?

As far as "facts" are concerned, probably not, but as far as my objection is concern, what comes across here is a contempt, or in the very least a bit of disparagement, of doctrinal Theravada that spins things in a lopsided comparative manner. Is that really necessary?

There seems to to be an assumption among the Sutta Purists here that the Theravadins have got it mostly, if not all, wrong, have distorted the Dhamma, lost its essence and wandered hopelessly down the garden path, Visuddhimagga firmly in hand. The Sutta Purists brush aside any claimed value in what these tenet-istas teach when compared to the pure truly true truths they so neatly mined from the suttas. And never, ever mind, however, the serious problems that the Sutta Purist position presents.

Since you asked, that is my objection.

[tiltbillings]

Has anyone here read Gethin's Buddhist Path to Awakening? In it, he gives a good view on the commentaries and their place in Buddhist history and practice. I haven't finished the book yet but what I have read thus far was worth the time.

It is a good book. Well worth reading.

[daverupa]

As far as "facts" are concerned, probably not, but..

I'd like to know whether you agree on the veracity of the statements in the post, but the scare quotes around the word "facts" leaves things unclear. So as far as facts are concerned: what wasn't factual?

(I didn't read any contempt, so that - and the rest of the objection which hangs on it - is a subjective assessment on your part which I'm not interested in.)

[mikenz66]

As far as "facts" are concerned, probably not, but..

I'd like to know whether you agree on the veracity of the statements in the post, but the scare quotes around the word "facts" leaves things unclear. So as far as facts are concerned: what wasn't factual?

(I didn't read any contempt, so that - and the rest of the objection which hangs on it - is a subjective assessment on your part which I'm not interested in.)

My main objection to these discussions is that I read the insight stages as a report on the experience of practitioners, not as "tenet systems", or "philosophy".

In my view there are a number of ways of implementing the dhamma, all quite consistent with the suttas, which are, after all, rather vague on details. Hence the numerous expositions by various teachers of the anapanasati sutta, for example.


Mike

[Ben]

I am beginning to wonder whether your use of the use of the term "tenet system" is to cast negative aspersions on something you don't like.

I prefer to distinguish what are the teachings of the Buddha, as closely as I can discern from the suttas. If discussing the doctrines of Burmese Vipassanā as tenets bothers you, I suggest that you simply read this as dīpanī or kathā as these would apply in yours or other Vipassanā schools. Also, I realize that there can be some degree of emotional investment in ones 'school' or 'tradition'. And as I have none other than the Buddha as Ajahn, I apologize if my discussing these matters has upset you 'and others'.

I am not emotionally invested in anything and I am sorry to disappoint you but I am upset with nothing that you have said. However, what does concern me is the misrepresentation of a number of Burmese traditions by you. This need to run-down "Burmese Vipassana" speaks volumes about the lack of knowledge, the lack of spiritual maturity and conceitedness of those who feel qualified to to do so.

Since you have used the term several times in this thread I would appreciate it if you could tell us what this tenet system is. Especially since it has never been defined nor discussed in any literature that I have ever come across.

As given above, and there are other examples from the U Ba Khin and Ledi Sayādaw literature. I must admit that I am a little surprised that you haven't read these, but many are content to just ad-hoc from retreats.

I have read everything Ledi Sayadaw has written that is available in English. I have also read everything written by Sayagyi U Ba Khin. I have not read anything resembling a tenet system.

Please feel free to provide textual support.

This has been given as relevant.

Yes, and what you have given is, as Mike has said, a list of reported experiences. A tenet isystem it does not make. Furthermore, its origins is in the Vism - a document authored by the Mahavihara and used extensively throughout the Theravadin world and not just in Burma.
What you have not given us is any published material by a respected modern or ancient scholar that describes the teachers and traditions of Burma as having a 'tenet system'. Your use of the term "tenet system" as I have said elsewhere, as well as other negative expressions "regurgitated" actually reflects on your lack of objectivity and your own investment in your prosecution of something you do not like.

Ben

[ancientbuddhism]

The Progress of Insight (Visuddhi Ñāṇa Kathā), Original English publication translated by Nyanaponika Thera with the Original Pāḷi text.

The original publication of The Progress of Insight (Visuddhi Ñāṇa Kathā) seems nowhere to be found on the internet, so I am offering a scan of this here. I think this will be helpful for Vipassanā practitioners (and critics), as this also contains Mahāsi Sayādaw’s original pāḷi version of the document.

[Passavipa]

The term 'vipassana' is rarely found in the discourses. What exactly, in terms of detailed explanation, do the suttas impart about vipassana? Not very much, in reality, if not close to nothing.

It follows teachers over the years have done their best to explain vipassana. The dhammas listed above, such as bhaṅga-ñāṇa, bhayatupaṭṭhāna-ñāṇa, ādīnava-ñāṇa, nibbidā-ñāṇa, etc, are certainly not alien to the sutta discourses . The terms ādīnava (danger) and nibbidā (revulsion) are used abundantly in the sutta discourses. Bhayatupaṭṭhāna is found at least at the very end of MN 130, which states: "Clinging they look upon with fear".

Anāpānasati may indicate one contemplative effort but the discourse offers little explanation. Is the term vipassana found in the Anāpānasati sutta? Or consider, the terms sabbakāyapaṭisaṃvedī and cittasaṅkhārapaṭisaṃvedī as found in Anāpānasati. Do they relate to vipassana? What do they mean, exactly?

The opinions on these subjects are numerous because the suttas often do not provide detailed explanations.