Whatever anyone may think of the actual instruction, I see no asceticism in the 10-day Goenka retreat. I see conduct in accord with the 10 precepts, which is conducive to intensive meditation practice and has been so since the Buddha lay down the model of the 10 precepts in the first place.Brizzy wrote:Think of it more that the mind & body having been crushed for 10 days via asceticism is freed.
It's not asceticism. People are allowed to eat twice a day (new students even three times a day; many monks only eat once a day). Asceticism would be to eat nothing a whole day. People are allowed to sleep 7 hours a night + they can very well sleep during the noon break. (many monks only sleep 4-5 hours a night). People have to keep noble silence and precepts (well, that is pretty standard for a Buddhist retreat... it is helpful for the practice, nothing to do with asceticism as well.) People are not forced to meditate 10-11 hours a day. They are recommended to try, but there are only a few hours of obligatory group sitting each day, so if one feels completely unable (for one reason or the other), he can take some more rest.Brizzy wrote: Think of it more that the mind & body having been crushed for 10 days via asceticism is freed.
If I express my views on this view, I guess your view would be more likely that I am trying to defend Goenkaji's views (method) at any cost.Brizzy wrote:Hi SamKR,SamKR wrote:Hello Brizzy,Isn't it true for almost all disciples and organisations? And I don't think it's a problem.Brizzy wrote: I think one of the problems stems from the fact that any defence of Goenka tends to come from his disciples and not the man himself or his organisation.
Well, yes some smiles could be because of relief of a "prisoner" released (if the method is not suitable for them). But certainly not all; many are because of meditation method itself.The smiles one sees on day 11 are indeed the smiles of relief as of a prisoner released (IMO).
And, I think this is true for any long course.
Probably the number of "prisoners" depend upon locality or country, and their cultural background or other factors.
What is your view on this view?............
Metta................ Mr Goenka's organisation is a closed book that refuses to engage with other traditions or directly engage with accusations made against them or defend their own highly original interpretations of the suttas and the teachings. The reasoning I have seen for this attitude is that 'we have got it right, why should we engage in dispute with others'. If the Buddha had this attitude then his Dhamma might not have lasted beyond a century...............
David2 wrote:It's not asceticism. People are allowed to eat twice a day (new students even three times a day; many monks only eat once a day). Asceticism would be to eat nothing a whole day. People are allowed to sleep 7 hours a night + they can very well sleep during the noon break. (many monks only sleep 4-5 hours a night). People have to keep noble silence and precepts (well, that is pretty standard for a Buddhist retreat... it is helpful for the practice, nothing to do with asceticism as well.) People are not forced to meditate 10-11 hours a day. They are recommended to try, but there are only a few hours of obligatory group sitting each day, so if one feels completely unable (for one reason or the other), he can take some more rest.Brizzy wrote: Think of it more that the mind & body having been crushed for 10 days via asceticism is freed.
So, of course a Goenka retreat feels like asceticism when doing the first time because one isn't used to it, but really, it isn't asceticism at all, it's all about the middle way.
I don't what Goenka retreat(s) you went on Brizzy, but "mind crushing mind" bears no resemblance to either the video instruction, or personal instruction that I received whilst on a Goenka retreat.Brizzy wrote:Mind crushing mind...
Me neither. I found it a challenging, but eventually very helpful, experience. Much like any other retreat I've attended. Some people don't get on well with it. Just like any approach...retrofuturist wrote:I don't what Goenka retreat(s) you went on Brizzy, but "mind crushing mind" bears no resemblance to either the video instruction, or personal instruction that I received whilst on a Goenka retreat.Brizzy wrote:Mind crushing mind...
I view mind crushing mind as forcing minds attention to stay with something and not actually using discernment to work with it or I see it as an acceptance of whatever is there with no discernment. The Buddha rejected forms of meditation that led to an unstable & tortured body (even if mindfulness was produced by that meditation). Couple this with a view of 'eradicating sankharas' which entails a 'reward' for the pain one sits through and a 'reward' for the joy one neglects.retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Brizzy,
I don't what Goenka retreat(s) you went on Brizzy, but "mind crushing mind" bears no resemblance to either the video instruction, or personal instruction that I received whilst on a Goenka retreat.Brizzy wrote:Mind crushing mind...
Metta,
Retro.
Indeed!mikenz66 wrote:Me neither. I found it a challenging, but eventually very helpful, experience. Much like any other retreat I've attended. Some people don't get on well with it. Just like any approach...retrofuturist wrote:I don't what Goenka retreat(s) you went on Brizzy, but "mind crushing mind" bears no resemblance to either the video instruction, or personal instruction that I received whilst on a Goenka retreat.Brizzy wrote:Mind crushing mind...
Sure it seems regimented, but that's an organisational thing that you need to run silent retreats in a consistent way in dozens of countries. I personally prefer the Mahasi-style approach my local teachers use, but this retreat was incredibly useful to my development.
And it really developed my compassion. I distinctly recall seeing a mosquito during one of the evening videos, and wondering how to get it to fly out of the room without hurting it. When catching the train back into the city (this was in Hong Kong) one of the participants (I think an American living in Korea) was having trouble finding enough cash, I found myself reaching for my wallet on automatic pilot. Getting some exercise in a pool later in the day I was worried more that other swimmers might be hurt if they collided with me than that they were "getting in my way".
Quite the opposite of mind crushing mind...
Mike
To support your point, after my ten day stay at a monastery, the first time I opened up dhammawheel it really seemed like a waste of time. I remember the first couple of days at the monastery I was coming up with all these things I was going to write on the board, but at the end it just seemed better to remain quiet.SamKR wrote:But I don't think that your reasoning for this is quite accurate. They do not engage in such things because they think it is futile to do so. Why futile? It is not only because of the attitude that "we have got it right, why should we engage in dispute with others" (which I think is a good attitude!) but also because of the mental training they get. The experienced old mediators (not the less experienced ones; they tend to be talkative like me) are slowly becoming incapable of engaging in disputes.
Yeah, I think that the discomfort we feel when an organization like this doesn't openly lash out at those who criticize them comes from our own conflict-loving nature. As you become more and more steadied mentally and assured of the results of your teachings, you don't feel the need to fight back at everyone.Buckwheat wrote:To support your point, after my ten day stay at a monastery, the first time I opened up dhammawheel it really seemed like a waste of time. I remember the first couple of days at the monastery I was coming up with all these things I was going to write on the board, but at the end it just seemed better to remain quiet.
Nobody expects them to 'lash out', just engage. If a mind is steady then it can engage with others. We are not talking about forest dwellers here. The idea of 'assurance' is great, one wonders why with such assurance they are so silent with regards to how some of their teachings stack up against the suttas (the actual teachings of the Buddha). Silence is not always the mark of wisdom nor is the repetition of 'just observe the sensation'.LonesomeYogurt wrote:
Yeah, I think that the discomfort we feel when an organization like this doesn't openly lash out at those who criticize them comes from our own conflict-loving nature. As you become more and more steadied mentally and assured of the results of your teachings, you don't feel the need to fight back at everyone.
Remember...
They find fault in one sitting silently,
They find fault in one speaking much,
They find fault in one speaking in moderately.
No one in this world is not found at fault.
There has been, there is,
And there will be no person
Who is only criticized,
Or only praised.
I was scratching my head the first time you said that, a few pages ago. The Goenka camp are prolific authors, they have written much about how their technique compares to classic suttas. Mr. Goenka's commentary about the Satipatthana Sutta was especially helpful for me in understand the "why" of that technique. You also said that the Goenka camp does not respond to complaints or accusations. I quickly found several interviews with Mr. Goenka and others which included responses to reoccurring accusations.Brizzy wrote: Nobody expects them to 'lash out', just engage. If a mind is steady then it can engage with others. We are not talking about forest dwellers here. The idea of 'assurance' is great, one wonders why with such assurance they are so silent with regards to how some of their teachings stack up against the suttas (the actual teachings of the Buddha). Silence is not always the mark of wisdom nor is the repetition of 'just observe the sensation'.
I don't think that the teachings of S.N. Goenka "stack up" against the suttas, maybe these teachings stack up against your particular interpretation of the suttas which is different.Brizzy wrote: one wonders why with such assurance they are so silent with regards to how some of their teachings stack up against the suttas (the actual teachings of the Buddha)
