I think you could say that tantric practice is a tool for developing vipashyana.pilgrim wrote: Vajrayana also teaches Vipashyana, but it does not appear as important as their tantric meditations.
Spiny
I think you could say that tantric practice is a tool for developing vipashyana.pilgrim wrote: Vajrayana also teaches Vipashyana, but it does not appear as important as their tantric meditations.
Do you actually know anything about the Mahasi Sayadaw method of practice?hermitwin wrote:I believe the Theravada view is that samadhi leads ultimately to 4 stages of enlightenment. This is in the sutta.
Under the Burmese Mahasi Sayadaw and Ledi sayadaw, the emphasis
is that vipassana is more important than samadhi.
Why the obssession with vipassana, I dont understand.
Ajahn chah said ' samadhi and vipassana are like the 2 sides of your hand,
you cant really separate them'
Ayya Khema said' vipassana is not a meditation method, it is the result of meditation. I repeat, vipassana is not a meditation method, it is the result of meditation. '
Okay, but what is the source of your above comment?hermitwin wrote:Yes, it is the 1st place I learned meditation.
hermitwin wrote:Under the Burmese Mahasi Sayadaw and Ledi sayadaw, the emphasis is that vipassana is more important than samadhi.
Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el370.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Mahasi Sayadaw wrote:It is also necessary to practice samadhi or concentration. Samadhi is the fixed or tranquil state of mind. The ordinary or undisciplined mind is in the habit of wandering to other places. It cannot be kept under control, but follows any idea, thought or imagination, etc. In order to prevent this wandering, the mind should be made to attend repeatedly to a selected object of concentration. On gaining practice, the mind gradually abandons its distractions and remains fixed on the object to which it is directed. This is samadhi.
There are two kinds of concentration: mundane concentration (lokiya-samadhi) and supramundane concentration (lokuttara-samadhi). Of these two, the former consists in the mundane absorptions, such as the four rupa-jhanas — the absorptions pertaining to the world of form — and the four arupa-jhanas — the absorptions pertaining to the formless world. These can be attained by the practice of tranquillity meditation (samatha-bhavana) with such methods as mindfulness of breathing, loving-kindness (metta), kasina meditation, etc.
Source: http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh171-p.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Ledi Sayadaw wrote:The antithesis of concentration (samadhi) is distraction (vikkhepa) of mind (i.e., wandering thoughts and idle fancies). It is the inability to concentrate, to control the mind and keep its attention fixed on one object. It is the arising of thoughts on objects other than the object of concentration. It is the unquiet and restless state of mind when applying itself to the work of meditation. Ordinary concentration cannot dispel the unwholesome state of distraction. Only developed concentration (bhavana-samadhi) can do it.
Not at all. Mindfulness and concentration are both equally required, but I think it is imprtant to understand the context of the Mahasi Sayadaw practice. It was developed as a way of practice that could be taught to groups of laity, people who are not professional contemplatives. This footnote from some unknown book helps put into context the emphasis of practice:hermitwin wrote:I believe the Theravada view is that samadhi leads ultimately to 4 stages of enlightenment. This is in the sutta.
Under the Burmese Mahasi Sayadaw and Ledi sayadaw, the emphasis
is that vipassana is more important than samadhi.
Those are extremely good talks, which I re-listened to yesterday and today as a result of some conversations I've had recently had with Dhamma friends about places where one's practice can easily get stuck.tiltbillings wrote: You might find it of interest and of value to listen to these two talks by these two vipassana teachers:
http://www.dharmaseed.org/talks/?search ... =-rec_date" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thank you.dhamma_newb wrote:Thanks tilt! I really appreciate the great links and resources you provide in the forums.
One of the six Mahayana paramitas is wisdom, which requires insight. The six are dana (generosity), sila (ethics), kshanti (patience), virya (effort), dhyana (concentration), prajna (wisdom). I'm not very familiar with Tibetan, but the Rinpoches seem pretty wise.pilgrim wrote:Goofaholix wrote:... perhaps their bodhisattva vows result in an emphasis on the development of paramis rather than insight which leads to liberation. Just my speculation.
I've listened to dhamma talks by about half a dozen Burmese Sayadaws of the Mahasi tradition and they all went something like this "Vipassana meditation is like this, Samatha meditation like that, we are practising Vipassana meditation not Samatha meditation".tiltbillings wrote:The reality is, however, that the level of concentration cultivated by Mahasi Sayadaw type vipassana practice looks, according some people, a lot like jhana described in the suttas.
So Vipassana meditation is of two types: The first, Vipassana meditation, insight meditation is preceded by Samatha meditation. The second is the pure Vipassana meditation or insight meditation not preceded by Samatha meditation. The first type of Vipassana meditation or Insight Meditation is practised by those who have ample time to devote to their meditation. They have to spend maybe three or four months on Samatha meditation. And when they are satisfied with their attainment of jhana concentration they proceed with Vipassana meditation.
Pure Vipassana meditation is practised by those who haven't enough time to devote to their meditation like yourselves, because you do not have three or four months or six months or a year for your meditation. So you can spend about ten days on your meditation. For such meditators pure Vipassana meditation is suitable. That's why we have to conduct a ten days Vipassana meditation retreat. Actually ten days meditation is not enough. The period is too short a time for a meditator to succeed in any noticeable experience in his meditation. But there are some who have some experience in Vipassana meditation who when their meditation experience becomes major can attain the higher stages of insight knowledge of the body-mind processes of their true nature. Although you can spend just ten days on your meditation, if you strive to attain the deep concentration with a strenuous effort without much interval or break in the course of your meditation for the whole day, then you are able to have some new experience of meditation. So the point is to practise intensively and strenuously as much as you can.
As I said, you have to understand the context, which is when they talk about jhana type concentration they are talking about it in terms of the Visuddhimagga, and as I said, take a look at this msg: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 6&p=140097" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Goofaholix wrote:I've listened to dhamma talks by about half a dozen Burmese Sayadaws of the Mahasi tradition and they all went something like this "Vipassana meditation is like this, Samatha meditation like that, we are practising Vipassana meditation not Samatha meditation".tiltbillings wrote:The reality is, however, that the level of concentration cultivated by Mahasi Sayadaw type vipassana practice looks, according some people, a lot like jhana described in the suttas.
Most likely.Maybe this is what is informing people's view.
The Mahasi Sayadaw method is, in fact, both.In my opinion Mahasi technique is really a Samatha technique on changing objects. Ultimately whether that leads to insight (vipassana) is dependant on the attitude with which it is practised.