Yes, it's a nice and good analogy
Having spent several years as a professional diver, I remember that in the depth we do not realize the state of the sea, all is quiet. This is when approaching the surface that we realize there are large waves and that we begin to be shaken!
More generally, the comparison of mental states in relation to the water surface is a yogic model that Buddha did not refute.
So lace up your swimsuits!
Samatha and Vipassana question
- black hole
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:32 am
- Location: Abu Dhabi (UAE)
Re: Samatha and Vipassana question
Everything is naturally perfect just as it is
- eternityinmind
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 12:38 pm
Re: Samatha and Vipassana question
Hey Aleksandra,thanks for the links.I'll read them when I have the time. As for meditation I just wanted to do it the "right" way and that brought me alot of worries about my meditation practice.Maybe I should do as you said:Keep it simple.Aleksandra wrote:Hello eternityinmind
http://8tracks.com/eternityinmind" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Om muni muni mahamuni shakyamuniye svaha!
Om muni muni mahamuni shakyamuniye svaha!
-
- Posts: 10262
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: Samatha and Vipassana question
I find that to be a helpful approach. And as somebody said elsewhere, regarding the sutta accounts as descriptions rather than prescriptions.eternityinmind wrote:Keep it simple.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
- eternityinmind
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 12:38 pm
Re: Samatha and Vipassana question
That's a great video. The positivity,which radiates from Venerable Ashin Ottama,is amazing.Thanks,David2!
http://8tracks.com/eternityinmind" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Om muni muni mahamuni shakyamuniye svaha!
Om muni muni mahamuni shakyamuniye svaha!
Re: Samatha and Vipassana question
Once again, the term 'vipassana' comes up.
Beginners have a hard time separating the unique significance
of this word in the burmese tradition vs others eg thai tradition.
In the burmese tradition (mahasi sayadaw/goenka) tradition, 'vipassana' is THE method taught by Buddha to reach enlightenment.
In other traditions, "vipassana" means insight. It is not a type of meditation.
I think it would be extremely helpful if the followers of mahasi sayadaw, goenka will acknowledge this. Otherwise, many people will remain confused, as I was for a long time.
I am not trying to debate whether the mahasi sayadaw method is good or not. But hoping to clear up a very common confusion faced by many beginners.
hermitwin
Beginners have a hard time separating the unique significance
of this word in the burmese tradition vs others eg thai tradition.
In the burmese tradition (mahasi sayadaw/goenka) tradition, 'vipassana' is THE method taught by Buddha to reach enlightenment.
In other traditions, "vipassana" means insight. It is not a type of meditation.
I think it would be extremely helpful if the followers of mahasi sayadaw, goenka will acknowledge this. Otherwise, many people will remain confused, as I was for a long time.
I am not trying to debate whether the mahasi sayadaw method is good or not. But hoping to clear up a very common confusion faced by many beginners.
hermitwin
Re: Samatha and Vipassana question
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 emphasis on 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. '
Under the Burmese Mahasi Sayadaw and Ledi sayadaw, the emphasis
is that vipassana is more important than samadhi.
Why the emphasis on 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. '
Re: Samatha and Vipassana question
My conclusion.
Teachers from the Mahasi tradition teaches a meditation method(aka vipassana) different from the method taught by teachers who teaches jhanas eg Ajahn Chah, Ayya Khema, Pa Auk Sayadaw.
As a beginner, you need to be aware that they are different.
You can choose one and see which one suits you better.
Teachers from the Mahasi tradition teaches a meditation method(aka vipassana) different from the method taught by teachers who teaches jhanas eg Ajahn Chah, Ayya Khema, Pa Auk Sayadaw.
As a beginner, you need to be aware that they are different.
You can choose one and see which one suits you better.
Re: Samatha and Vipassana question
Ajahn Chah seems to have taught to suit the particular students, and his Western students teach quite a variety of approaches. Some (such as Ajahn Brahm) teach deep Jhanas. Others (such as Ajahn Tiradhammo) teach in a style closer to Mahasi-based teachers.
http://www.ajahnchah.org/book/On_Meditation1.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.aimwell.org/Books/Mahasi/Sal ... ffort.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Mike
http://www.ajahnchah.org/book/On_Meditation1.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I don't think that it is correct to claim that Mahasi-style teachers reject samadhi. As in the Ajahn Chah quotation above, they certainly encourage the development of both samadhi and sati. Without sufficient samadhi insight is not possible.Ajahn Chah wrote: Some people find it hard to enter samādhi because they don't have the right tendencies. There is samādhi, but it's not strong or firm. However, one can attain peace through the use of wisdom, through contemplating and seeing the truth of things, solving problems that way. This is using wisdom rather than the power of samādhi. To attain calm in practice, it's not necessary to be sitting in meditation, for instance. Just ask yourself, ''Eh, what is that?... '' and solve your problem right there! A person with wisdom is like this. Perhaps he can't really attain high levels of samādhi, although there must be some, just enough to cultivate wisdom. It's like the difference between farming rice and farming corn. One can depend on rice more than corn for one's livelihood. Our practice can be like this, we depend more on wisdom to solve problems. When we see the truth, peace arises.
The two ways are not the same. Some people have insight and are strong in wisdom but do not have much samādhi. When they sit in meditation they aren't very peaceful. They tend to think a lot, contemplating this and that, until eventually they contemplate happiness and suffering and see the truth of them. Some incline more towards this than samādhi. Whether standing, walking, sitting or lying, enlightenment of the Dhamma can take place. Through seeing, through relinquishing, they attain peace. They attain peace through knowing the truth, through going beyond doubt, because they have seen it for themselves.
Other people have only little wisdom but their samādhi is very strong. They can enter very deep samādhi quickly, but not having much wisdom, they cannot catch their defilements, they don't know them. They can't solve their problems.
But regardless of whichever approach we use, we must do away with wrong thinking, leaving only right view. We must get rid of confusion, leaving only peace.
Either way we end up at the same place. There are these two sides to practice, but these two things, calm and insight, go together. We can't do away with either of them. They must go together.
http://www.aimwell.org/Books/Mahasi/Sal ... ffort.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Mahasi Sayadaw wrote: Concentration that is powerful enough to exclude hindrances is called access concentration (upacārasamādhi). The concentration that a meditator has on the attainment of absorption is called attainment concentration (appanāsamādhi).
...
From the time that concentration is developed enough to exclude the five hindrances, the concentration that arises at every moment of mindfulness is momentary concentration for insight that is like access concentration. It is called access concentration because it resembles the latter in respect of its ability to free the meditator from hindrances. The meditator then has purity of mind because the mindful investigating consciousness is pure. ...
Mike
Re: Samatha and Vipassana question
I did not say that Mahasi rejects samadhi.
But, I have been there, you are certainly not encouraged to dwell in samadhi.
Ultimately, which tradition is better?
That is up to the individual.
What is the best way to explain to a newbie the difference?
But, I have been there, you are certainly not encouraged to dwell in samadhi.
Ultimately, which tradition is better?
That is up to the individual.
What is the best way to explain to a newbie the difference?
Re: Samatha and Vipassana question
Sorry, perhaps I misunderstood. I took from your posts that were arguing that the Mahasi teachers did not teach samadhi and vipassana together. Clearly this is not the case, since it is clearly stated by Mahasi Sayadaw and others that samadhi is essntial (as in the quote I gave above). However, as you say, the Mahasi teachers (and the other teachers that you mention) do point out that samadhi is not the ultimate goal of the practice.hermitwin wrote:I did not say that Mahasi rejects samadhi.
But, I have been there, you are certainly not encouraged to dwell in samadhi.
Ultimately, which tradition is better?
That is up to the individual.
What is the best way to explain to a newbie the difference?
Chanmayay Sayadaw (a student of Mahasi Sayadaw) certainly does not dismiss jhana. Here he speaks of the practicality of various approaches for different circumstances:
http://buddhanet.net/imol/vipcours.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://buddhanet.net/vmed_1.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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.
Mike
-
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2014 7:28 am
Re: Samatha and Vipassana question
I'm surprised that you associate insight with samatha and tranquility with vipassana; it seems more likely to be the opposite : samatha nourishing tranquility and vipassana nourishing insight , doesn't it ?
see Shinzen : http://here-and-now.org/wwwArticles/stray.html
may be it was a lapsus from you ?
see Shinzen : http://here-and-now.org/wwwArticles/stray.html
may be it was a lapsus from you ?
Re: Samatha and Vipassana question
Welcome rosiernain
I guess you are referring to the statement back here: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 14#p191061
Mike
I guess you are referring to the statement back here: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 14#p191061
I think you may be misunderstanding the statement. I believe that it is saying that some samatha is useful to be able to do vipassana.LonesomeYogurt wrote:Zazen is samatha, yes. It's far more of a Mahayana technique, but that tranquility in great for turning towards insight in Theravada. My recommendation would be to start moving that attention from the hara to other sensations in the body, or perhaps to your thoughts. Just as you mindfully examine the hara, try mindfully examining all other experiences for a bit. But don't stop trying to get samatha going; it's important!eternityinmind wrote: Well,when i meditate I usually count the breath from 1 to 10,paying attention to the motion of the lower abdomen (the hara) and the posture of my body,trying to keep my spine straight.It's basically zazen I think.Is that classified as samatha meditation? Thanks for all the answers!
Mike
-
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2014 7:28 am
Re: Samatha and Vipassana question
I'm surprised that you associate vipassana with tranquility and samatha with insight ; I imagine that it is a lapsus, isn't it ?LonesomeYogurt wrote:Yeah, basically haha. In samatha, you keep focus on the object of meditation ceaselessly until you can never leave it or you experience "one-pointedness." Vipassana is more active and mobile, where you direct concentration to different things as they arise. If you're trying to reach Jhana, you might feel a scratch on your back and move to it, but you just say "not breath" and go back immediately once you realize you've left. In vipassana, you examine that feeling mindfully and with equanimity.RatherSkeptic wrote: The only difference seems to be that in Samatha, you never really leave your primary object of meditation, while in Vipassana, you always select the distractions as the new meditation objects until they disappear. So actually, according to Gunaratana, the difference is just about how much concentration you're putting into the distractions.
Or isn't it?
In reality, those who do vipassana develop a huge amount of tranquility, and those who do samatha develop a huge amount of insight. The division is more conceptual than actual.
- badscooter
- Posts: 406
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:07 am
- Location: New Jersey
Re: Samatha and Vipassana question
rosiernain wrote:LonesomeYogurt wrote:Yeah, basically haha. In samatha, you keep focus on the object of meditation ceaselessly until you can never leave it or you experience "one-pointedness." Vipassana is more active and mobile, where you direct concentration to different things as they arise. If you're trying to reach Jhana, you might feel a scratch on your back and move to it, but you just say "not breath" and go back immediately once you realize you've left. In vipassana, you examine that feeling mindfully and with equanimity.RatherSkeptic wrote: The only difference seems to be that in Samatha, you never really leave your primary object of meditation, while in Vipassana, you always select the distractions as the new meditation objects until they disappear. So actually, according to Gunaratana, the difference is just about how much concentration you're putting into the distractions.
Or isn't it?
In reality, those who do vipassana develop a huge amount of tranquility, and those who do samatha develop a huge amount of insight. The division is more conceptual than actual.
I'm surprised that you associate vipassana with tranquility and samatha with insight ; I imagine that it is a lapsus, isn't it ?
Samatha and vipassana "meditation techniques" are both yoked together. With vipassana there is samatha. With samatha there is also vipassana. However samatha and vipassana are outcomes of meditation, not methods.
"whatever one frequently thinks and ponders upon will be the inclination of one's mind"