did the buddha teach vipasanna meditation?

[jcsuperstar]

vipasanna is very popular, but is it a method taught by the buddha? is there a sutta where the buddha teaches vipasanna the way he teaches anapanasati
or is this a modern method?

[David N. Snyder]

I think the Satipatthana Sutta qualifies as vipassana instruction. Or maybe there is some controversy over whether the Satipatthana Sutta is teaching vipassana?

It can be found at: Digha Nikaya 22, Majjhima Nikaya 10

[appicchato]

FWIW...Buddhadasa Bhikkhu states in his book 'Handbook For Mankind' that the Buddha did not teach Vipasanna meditation, and that there is no mention of it in the Tipitaka...

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

Vipassanā is very popular, but is it a method taught by the Buddha? is there a sutta where the buddha teaches vipassanā the way he teaches ānāpānasati or is this a modern method? (spelling corrected)

This is a matter of terminology only. Without any doubt, the Buddha taught meditation for the purpose of gaining insight and liberation, not for the purpose of gaining tranquillity or psychic powers. The progress of insight is referred to in the Rathavinīta Sutta.

The Satipatthāna Sutta teaches mindfulness meditation, and mindfulness together with concentration leads to insight (vipassanā), so we call it vipassanā meditation.

The Buddha never taught Buddhism either — he taught the Dhamma, but today we call it “Buddhism.”

[retrofuturist]

Nice summary, Bhikkhu Pesala.... well said.



Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

"Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.

"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering." Ud 10

Perception of impermanence should be maintained in being for the elimination of the conceit "I am," since perception of not-self becomes established in one who perceives impermanence, and it is perception of not-self that arrives at the elimination of the conceit "I am," which is extinction [nibbaana] here and now. — Ud. Iv, 1/p.37

Looks like “vipassana” practice to me.

[cooran]

Hello all,

Yes, the Buddha taught vipassana.
"I have heard that at one time the Blessed One was staying in Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. There he addressed the monks, saying, "Monks."
"Yes, lord," the monks responded to him.
The Blessed One said, "Monks, Sariputta is wise, of great discernment, deep discernment, wide... joyous... rapid... quick... penetrating discernment.
For half a month, Sariputta clearly saw insight [1] into mental qualities one after another. This is what occurred to Sariputta through insight into mental qualities one after another. ......"
1. "Clearly saw insight": In Pali, this is vipassanam vipassi, which could be translated literally as "clearly saw clear seeing" or "insighted insight." The Commentary states that the half month mentioned here refers to the half month between Ven. Sariputta's ordination and his attainment of arahantship, described in MN 74. These two suttas treat Sariputta's attainment from two different perspectives. This sutta shows it from the standpoint of his mastery of the four jhanas and the formless attainments based on the fourth jhana. That sutta shows it as occurring when he starts reflecting on a point while listening to a discourse that the Buddha is giving to his nephew. To put the two suttas together, we can infer that prior to the discourse given in MN 74, Sariputta had mastered the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. While listening to the discourse, he reflected on the point that the Buddha recommended abandoning all mental qualities through direct knowledge. This would have led him to the cessation of perception and feeling (during which he would not be listening to the discourse) and so to Awakening.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... n.html#n-1

and these other readings from Access to Insight:
Vipassana (insight). See also Samatha (tranquillity); Tilakkhana (three characteristics of existence).
~ is developed in tandem with samatha (tranquillity): SN 35.205, AN 2.30, AN 4.170, AN 10.71
As direct knowledge of the five aggregates (khandha):
Analyzing the five aggregates until their appeal is shattered: SN 23.2
Developing skill in applying the four noble truths to the five aggregates: SN 22.56
Developing skill in seeing seven qualities in each of the five aggregates: SN 22.57
A contemplation for every meditator, from beginner to arahant: SN 22.122
Like taking apart a lute in search of its sound: SN 35.205
As direct knowledge of the six sense bases (salayatana): MN 149
Reflection on not-self as a basis for insight: SN 22.59
"Is Vipassana the same as Theravada?" (Frequently Asked Question)
Basic Themes (Lee)
"One Tool Among Many: The Place of Vipassana in Buddhist Practice" (Thanissaro)
"Stop and Think" in Food for Thought (Lee)
Straight From the Heart (Boowa)
Things as They Are (Boowa)
Satipatthana Vipassana: Insight Through Mindfulness (Mahasi)
"Two Styles of Insight Meditation" (Bodhi)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-su ... #vipassana

metta
Chris

[Cittasanto]

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[clw_uk]

Ajahn Chah talks about this ( i will have a look for the Dhamma talk)


He says that Viapssana and concentration meditations are actualy two sides of the same coin, the Buddha didnt sperate the two ( at leas in the suttas)



Metta

[rowyourboat]

AN 4.94
Samadhi Sutta
Concentration (Tranquillity and Insight)
Translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu PTS: A ii 93

"Monks, these four types of individuals are to be found existing in the world. Which four?

"There is the case of the individual who has attained internal tranquillity of awareness, but not insight into phenomena through heightened discernment. Then there is the case of the individual who has attained insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, but not internal tranquillity of awareness. Then there is the case of the individual who has attained neither internal tranquillity of awareness nor insight into phenomena through heightened discernment. And then there is the case of the individual who has attained both internal tranquillity of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment.

"The individual who has attained internal tranquillity of awareness, but not insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, should approach an individual who has attained insight into phenomena through heightened discernment and ask him: 'How should fabrications be regarded? How should they be investigated? How should they be seen with insight?' The other will answer in line with what he has seen & experienced: 'Fabrications should be regarded in this way. Fabrications should be investigated in this way. Fabrications should be seen in this way with insight.' Then eventually he [the first] will become one who has attained both internal tranquillity of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment.

"As for the individual who has attained insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, but not internal tranquillity of awareness, he should approach an individual who has attained internal tranquillity of awareness... and ask him, 'How should the mind be steadied? How should it be made to settle down? How should it be unified? How should it be concentrated?' The other will answer in line with what he has seen & experienced: 'The mind should be steadied in this way. The mind should be made to settle down in this way. The mind should be unified in this way. The mind should be concentrated in this way.' Then eventually he [the first] will become one who has attained both internal tranquillity of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment.

"As for the individual who has attained neither internal tranquillity of awareness nor insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, he should approach an individual who has attained both internal tranquillity of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment... and ask him, 'How should the mind be steadied? How should it be made to settle down? How should it be unified? How should it be concentrated? How should fabrications be regarded? How should they be investigated? How should they be seen with insight?' The other will answer in line with what he has seen & experienced: 'The mind should be steadied in this way. The mind should be made to settle down in this way. The mind should be unified in this way. The mind should be concentrated in this way. Fabrications should be regarded in this way. Fabrications should be investigated in this way. Fabrications should be seen in this way with insight.' Then eventually he [the first] will become one who has attained both internal tranquillity of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment.

"As for the individual who has attained both internal tranquillity of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, his duty is to make an effort in establishing ('tuning') those very same skillful qualities to a higher degree for the ending of the (mental) fermentations.

"These are four types of individuals to be found existing in the world."

[robertk]

Vipassana is the culmination of profound insight into the nature of phenomena- it can only be known by the very wise, is subtle and even the moments of genuine satipatthan that preceed vipassana can only be experienced during a Buddha sasana.

To reply to the opening post.
The Buddha never taught vipassana as a technique, but sadly ,and I think contributing to the decline of the sasana , in recent times there are groups who have co-opted the word to mean some type of focusing on an object/objects. It is quite easy to fool people as if they quote the satipatthana sutta (which includes countless number of objects) then it is assumed the technique is 'vipassana'. However I believe little can be done to help anyone who thinks they are 'doing' vipassana, the attachment runs too deep usually.

.

[pink_trike]

Vipassana is the culmination of profound insight into the nature of phenomena- it can only be known by the very wise, is subtle and even the moments of genuine satipatthan that preceed vipassana can only be experienced during a Buddha sasana.

Hi Robertk,

If you don't mind...

Posts should also include support from a reference or a citation (Tipitaka, commentarial, or from a later work from an author representative of the Classical point-of-view).

I'd be curious to see a supporting reference. thanks.

[robertk]

Vipassana is the culmination of profound insight into the nature of phenomena- it can only be known by the very wise, is subtle and even the moments of genuine satipatthan that preceed vipassana can only be experienced during a Buddha sasana.

Hi Robertk,

If you don't mind...

Posts should also include support from a reference or a citation (Tipitaka, commentarial, or from a later work from an author representative of the Classical point-of-view).

I'd be curious to see a supporting reference. thanks.

Buddha
Profound is this doctrine, hard to see, hard to comprehend, calm, excellent, beyond the sphere of reasoning, subtle, intelligible only to the wise.

I hope that clarifies that vipassana - the highest level of Buddhist insight that culminates in the experience of nibbana is not some simple training exercise.



Yet compare this with what is said by some modern teachers:
[
he exhorted viewers to come and give Vipassana a try. " It is a simple mental exercise that keeps the mind healthy and happy.”

People don't seem to grasp that they have been in samsara for literally triliions and trillions of aeons. It is impossible that it can be brought to halt without deep and genuine accumulations of insight into phenomena. Using some focusing technique - which tends to increase the idea of control- is like an ant trying to stop the river ganges.
Why then rush to do such techniques? I think it comes down to attachment and not wanting to face up to just how profound, long, and difficult is the task of ending samsara.

[robertk]

Dear Pink
I now reply to your question about my statement that even moments of beginning satipattana can only arise during a buddha sasana.
First off I assume you know that only the Buddha is anatta-vadin,the teacher of anatta? If not I will provide references.
And satipatthana - the way to nibbana - is inseperable from understanding of anatta.
If at the moment that sati-sampajanna (supposedly)arises there is not the perception of anatta whatever is arising is actually some sort of imitation sati. And what is the sign of anatta - uncontrollabilty(i can provide references for this if you wish?).

Here is the section from the ancient commentary to the satiptthana sutta:

Gacchanto va gacchamiti pajanati = "When he is going (a bhikkhu) understands: 'I am going.'" In this matter of going, readily do dogs, jackals and the like, know when they move on that they are moving. But this instruction on the modes of deportment was not given concerning similar awareness, because awareness of that sort belonging to animals does not shed the belief in a living being, does not knock out the percept of a soul, and neither becomes a subject of meditation nor the development of the Arousing of Mindfulness.

Going. The term is applicable both to the awareness of the fact of moving on and to the knowledge of the (true) characteristic qualities of moving on. The terms sitting, standing and lying down, too, are applicable in the general sense of awareness and in the particular sense of knowledge of the (true) characteristic qualities. Here (in this discourse) the particular and not the general sense of awareness is to be taken.
From the sort of mere awareness denoted by reference to canines and the like, proceeds the idea of a soul, the perverted perception, with the belief that there is a doer and an experiencer. One who does not uproot or remove that wrong perception owing to non-opposition to that perception and to absence of contemplative practice cannot be called one who develops anything like a subject of meditation.
[I]

Thus satipatthana is profound and not easily comprehended, it cannot arise at will, and can only occur (momentarily) to those with sufficient right view.

[pink_trike]

Vipassana is the culmination of profound insight into the nature of phenomena- it can only be known by the very wise, is subtle and even the moments of genuine satipatthan that preceed vipassana can only be experienced during a Buddha sasana.

Hi Robertk,

If you don't mind...

Posts should also include support from a reference or a citation (Tipitaka, commentarial, or from a later work from an author representative of the Classical point-of-view).

I'd be curious to see a supporting reference. thanks.

Buddha
Profound is this doctrine, hard to see, hard to comprehend, calm, excellent, beyond the sphere of reasoning, subtle, intelligible only to the wise.

I hope that clarifies that vipassana - the highest level of Buddhist insight that culminates in the experience of nibbana is not some simple training exercise.



Yet compare this with what is said by some modern teachers:
[
he exhorted viewers to come and give Vipassana a try. " It is a simple mental exercise that keeps the mind healthy and happy.”

People don't seem to grasp that they have been in samsara for literally triliions and trillions of aeons. It is impossible that it can be brought to halt without deep and genuine accumulations of insight into phenomena. Using some focusing technique - which tends to increase the idea of control- is like an ant trying to stop the river ganges.
Why then rush to do such techniques? I think it comes down to attachment and not wanting to face up to just how profound, long, and difficult is the task of ending samsara.

Sorry, specifically which "Doctrine" is being addressed in the quote above attributed to the Buddha?

All those Buddhist teachers who teach Vipassana are attached and don't want to face up? Vispassana is a means that increases "control"? Is this your own opinion/experience/psychological default? Or is it found in the teachings? Where do you recommend beginners start in their quest for the "hard to see, hard to comprehend, calm, excellent, beyond the sphere of reasoning, subtle, intelligible only to the wise"? Thanks.

[MMK23]

Vipassana is the culmination of profound insight into the nature of phenomena- it can only be known by the very wise, is subtle and even the moments of genuine satipatthan that preceed vipassana can only be experienced during a Buddha sasana.

To reply to the opening post.
The Buddha never taught vipassana as a technique, but sadly ,and I think contributing to the decline of the sasana , in recent times there are groups who have co-opted the word to mean some type of focusing on an object/objects. It is quite easy to fool people as if they quote the satipatthana sutta (which includes countless number of objects) then it is assumed the technique is 'vipassana'. However I believe little can be done to help anyone who thinks they are 'doing' vipassana, the attachment runs too deep usually.

.

At the risk of making myself a pariah so soon after joining this forum... I tend to agree with this comment. In fact the more I read the Suttas and the Visuddhimagga, the less I am able to defend the modern samatha/vipassana false dichotomy. I do not read "two types" of meditation in the Buddhadhamma, and the only way that I can read two types of meditation is to rely on the interpretations of people who do believe in two types of meditation. But then, I also believe that meditation is for those who have already put great effort into cultivating sila so I don't expect to make friends with these opinions

Interestingly, Johannes Bronkhorst's "The Two Traditions of Meditation in Ancient India" is an interesting (if highly speculative) foray into the meditative teachings of early Buddhism. Bronkhorsts posits a theory (just a theory!) that the original meditative teachings of the Buddha were the 9 stages (8 jhanas + attainment) which I actually find to be eminently plausible with regard to my reading of "one" meditation.

As for modern vipassana methods I think that anything that is characterised as the highway to enlightenment has to prove its record as some stage or another. As I understand it the modern vipassana methods have been very popular in Asia and the West for approaching something like a century. So I ask the statisticians: have we had a massive increase in the rate of enlightenment? Or is the case that we have to, as the Buddha entreated us, abandon avarice and egoism and simply do the hard work necessary to curtail future births.

With unlimited love,

MMK23

[Jechbi]

Mindful of the Classical Theravada forum guidelines, which state:

Posts should also include support from a reference or a citation (Tipitaka, commentarial, or from a later work from an author representative of the Classical point-of-view).

I would like to add that this comment ...

The Buddha never taught vipassana as a technique, but sadly ,and I think contributing to the decline of the sasana , in recent times there are groups who have co-opted the word to mean some type of focusing on an object/objects. It is quite easy to fool people as if they quote the satipatthana sutta (which includes countless number of objects) then it is assumed the technique is 'vipassana'. However I believe little can be done to help anyone who thinks they are 'doing' vipassana, the attachment runs too deep usually.

... is in some respects inaccurate, and at the very least it represents an incomplete presentation of what is meant by the term "vipassana."

Here are some citations that I hope are on-topic in this forum:

More than one meaning for 'Vipassana'
From that link:

Followers of the popular Vipassana movement often cite the Satipatthana Sutta as the essence of the Buddha's teachings; some even claim that the instructions it contains are the only ones necessary for achieving liberating insight. Theravada Buddhism, by contrast, embraces the thousands of discourses of the Pali canon, each highlighting a different aspect of the Buddha's teachings. In Theravada each discourse supports, depends upon, reflects, and informs all the others; even a discourse as important as the Satipatthana Sutta is seen as but a single thread in the Buddha's complex tapestry of teachings.

Although many students do find all they want in Vipassana, some have a nagging sense that something fundamental is missing. This reaction is hardly surprising, as the Satipatthana discourse itself was delivered to a group of relatively advanced students who were already quite experienced and well established in the path of Dhamma practice.

Also please read:
One tool among many
Satipatthana Vipassana

Here are some links to further discussion of a nature that might be off-topic in this particular forum:
Over at the E
Here on this board
and here

In reality, there is a great deal of inaccurate information being presented by some who feel strongly that the practices commonly referred to as "Vipassana Meditation" are a corruption of Classical Theravada. Let's try to see things as they really are.

Metta

[tiltbillings]

Robert: Thus satipatthana is profound and not easily comprehended, it cannot arise at will, and can only occur (momentarily) to those with sufficient right view.

Sounds like one of those Tibetan Madhyamakins. Intellectual right view, or right view that comes from direct experience?

Who are these naughty perverters of the Buddha's teachings, those vipassana teachers?

[piotr]

Hi,

vipasanna is very popular, but is it a method taught by the buddha? is there a sutta where the buddha teaches vipasanna the way he teaches anapanasati or is this a modern method?

Take a look at this brilliant post: http://theravadin.wordpress.com/2008/03 ... llakkheti/

[robertk]

Robert: Thus satipatthana is profound and not easily comprehended, it cannot arise at will, and can only occur (momentarily) to those with sufficient right view.

Sounds like one of those Tibetan Madhyamakins. Intellectual right view, or right view that comes from direct experience?

Who are these naughty perverters of the Buddha's teachings, those vipassana teachers?

Without right view at the level of pariyatti - correct theroretical understanding- there can be no direct experience.

You are asking me to list specific vipassana teachers? Could I ask why ?

Anyway the comment in my post above about the teacher who claims vipassana is a 'simple mental technique' comes from Goenka. Now if you agree with him please discuss or show evidence from the teachings.