That's quite possible. He speaks quite derisively of samatha, but only in the context of talking about how his attempts at it failed.mikenz66 wrote:...this dichotomy tends to be in the minds of those who complain about it.
Best,
Daniel
That's quite possible. He speaks quite derisively of samatha, but only in the context of talking about how his attempts at it failed.mikenz66 wrote:...this dichotomy tends to be in the minds of those who complain about it.
There are 372 talks by Goldstein here. One will find here not some warm fuzzy, airy-fairy, feel-god hodgepodge mixture of different schools; rather, what one finds in Goldstein's talks is a highly skilled, a highly practiced and highly studied teacher deeply grounded in the Buddha-Dhamma of the Pali/Theravada. As a matter of of wanting to understand the various other traditions of Dhamma, he worked with teachers of these traditions, finding with in them value, but at his core his commitment is to the Dhamma. Goldstein did not train as monk, and being a monk does not, in and of itself, make one a better teacher.greggorious wrote:Then there's the 'One Dharma' book by Joseph Goldstein, trained as a Theravada Monk but now incorporates Zen and Tibetan. Is this all part of the Vipassana movement?
"Kabat-Zinn and others" are not founders of IMS.MartyP wrote:In 1975, Jack Kornfield, Sharon Salzberg, Joseph Goldstein, Jon Kabat-Zinn, and others, after having studied and
practiced abroad and here, met up in some fashion and formed the non-profit "Insight Meditation Society,"
and in 1976 purchased real property and opened a retreat in Barre, Massachusetts.
Having attended 3 three-month retreats at IMS, I can say that this is, to understate it, not an accurate description. One need not be a Buddhist to attend retreats there, but the teachings are within a Buddhist context. Nothing "mindfulness meditation lite" about the practice and the teachings at IMS.MartyP wrote:It appears to me that their object was to bring Mindfulness Meditation, Insight Meditation/Vipassna
to the US in a secular manner, so as to avoid the religious connotations, and thus avoid the "religious" Buddhist
teachings and such aspects that would alienate a large portion of the population who would thus be deprived
of the benefits of what appears to be, if one would stop at the beginners stage, "mindfulness meditation lite."
It is a Goenka retreat center: http://courses.dhamma.org/en-US/schedules/schpatapa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;MartyP wrote:I met a gentleman this past month, who had been meditating for less than a month, who was seriously considering
going on a 10 day Vipassana retreat in Jesup, Georgia. This sounded quite unusual as a teaching technique.
I wonder if this is part of the movement.
I would not dare speak for all the "vipassana teachers" out there, but the teachers that I have worked with would never have made this mistake. It is not in the suttas, the commentaries, the Visuddhimagga, the teachings of Ledit Sayadaw, Mahasi Sayadaw, U Pandita, U Ba Khin, all of which are the foundation of the "vipassana movement."danieLion wrote:Is the vipassana "movement" just Buddhist Modernism run amok?
In this video Rev. Sujato challenges:
"I don't think anybody who seriously considers what the Buddha said in the suttas, or who has any appreciation for the historical context of the Buddhist scriptures, can seriously maintain that the Buddha taught a path of pure vipassana" (5:42-6:02).
The problem with that is that in actual practice the "dry" practice is not so dry. "Dry insight" is something of a theoretical construct, but in actual practice, as it is carefully looked at we see something a bit different, which is why the idea of "vipassana jhanas" has been put forth to better characterize the practice: http://www.dharmaseed.org/teacher/96/talk/305/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;danieLion wrote: But I do know at least one practitioner who claims to do "dry insight" to the exclusion of samatha and jhana.
Hi Tilt,tiltbillings wrote:The problem with that is that in actual practice the "dry" practice is not so dry. "Dry insight" is something of a theoretical construct, but in actual practice, as it is carefully looked at we see something a bit different, which is why the idea of "vipassana jhanas" has been put forth to better characterize the practice: http://www.dharmaseed.org/teacher/96/talk/305/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;danieLion wrote: But I do know at least one practitioner who claims to do "dry insight" to the exclusion of samatha and jhana.
Modern Western/American Vipassana Meditaion is a whipping for some purists out there, but far more often than not the characterization is a generalized caricature.
I think that is a reasonable assessment. As for the Buddha and the suttas on jhana, I suspect that the monks at the time of the Buddha worked with their preceptors/teachers, as the Buddha advised. What is described in the suttas is an outline, and the teachers fleshed out the jhana in terms of directing their students this way or that as needed. After the death of the Buddha the tendency seems to have been to push jhana to deeper levels. And this is pretty much the argument Leigh Brasington makes this point in his interview with Richard Shankman: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 7&#p140097" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;danieLion wrote: Hi Tilt,
I've listened to this talk a few times now. IMHO, it shares the perspective, with the likes of Gil Fronsdal and Rev. Thanissaro that while jhāna requires some persistence and effort it's not that hard and is to be expected (Corollary to this is the idea that the jhānas are part of ordinary human psychology and experience, and that their augmenting and re-organizing in tandem with the Buddha's teleology is the practicing of--as opposed to theorizing about--jhāna .). This has the advantage of sidestepping the rather almost purely academic debate as to what jhāna actually is. We have the stock sutta description and the Buddha's own injunction to DO jhāna, but I'm not aware of anywhere where the Buddha can be found debating the meaning of jhāna.
Kind regards,
Daniel
I think the above example goes against Buddhism in an important way for the following reason: As I understand it the Buddha didn't care much for the number of followers he had (I remember a story where he told a man to think it through before becoming a follower, though I can't find it at the moment). He taught one Dhamma in the full as there is one truth and no other.It appears to me that their object was to bring Mindfulness Meditation, Insight Meditation/Vipassna
to the US in a secular manner, so as to avoid the religious connotations, and thus avoid the "religious" Buddhist
teachings and such aspects that would alienate a large portion of the population who would thus be deprived
of the benefits of what appears to be, if one would stop at the beginners stage, "mindfulness meditation lite."
Suffering is asking from life what it can never give you.
If you see any unskillful speech (or other action) from me let me know, so I can learn from it.mindfulness, bliss and beyond (page 8) wrote:Do not linger on the past. Do not keep carrying around coffins full of dead moments
I understand you point, but do understand mine: It would be quite wrong to assume that all American teachers of vipassana teach a "light" version of the Dhamma.Ytrog wrote:Although Tiltbillings explained that the following quote is not (entirely) true I want you to pretend it is for the sake of argument:I think the above example goes against Buddhism in an important way for the following reason: As I understand it the Buddha didn't care much for the number of followers he had (I remember a story where he told a man to think it through before becoming a follower, though I can't find it at the moment). He taught one Dhamma in the full as there is one truth and no other.It appears to me that their object was to bring Mindfulness Meditation, Insight Meditation/Vipassna
to the US in a secular manner, so as to avoid the religious connotations, and thus avoid the "religious" Buddhist
teachings and such aspects that would alienate a large portion of the population who would thus be deprived
of the benefits of what appears to be, if one would stop at the beginners stage, "mindfulness meditation lite."
To thin the teaching out by presenting it as a "light" version will help none to reach the goal with it and damages the teaching of the Dhamma. One can not teach the Dhamma only partially and expect anyone to reap the full benefits. Even more so it can cultivate a perception that you don't need a lot of the non-secular "baggage" in the Dhamma and that it can be ignored without consequence while in reality the Dhamma exists in that form for a good reason. If people are, for example, only taught a single technique of watching the mind they can miss valuable parts that may seem very religious like prostration which in reality is a very good way to cultivate humility. The whole path is designed so that all parts reinforce each other.
In short I think that the Buddha would never have altered his teaching to appeal to a larger group of people. He recognized that it was not for everyone although anyone was welcome. I personally hope that a "light" version never becomes the norm for the reason I mentioned above. Let's put quality above quantity.
I realize I express some things strongly, however the above should be interpreted as a big IMHO. What do you think?
He is also excellent in a one-to-one teaching situation.danieLion wrote:Well put, dear Tilt. And thanks for posting the Goldstein talk. It lead me to his talks on pain at Dharmaseed. He really is an excellent Dharma teacher (and I find his voice and delivery very soothing).
I would want to make a point here about that. I am not perforce criticizing others who feel a need for careful, detailed study and practice in those terms.I think I'm turning towards sharing your "rat's ass" perspective on it all (awakening "stages", jhana, etc...).
Best,
Daniel
It was meant by me as a what-if scenario for the sake of argument as I explain in the first sentence. I surely hope that it is not really the case.Tiltbillings wrote:It would be quite wrong to assume that all American teachers of vipassana teach a "light" version of the Dhamma.
Suffering is asking from life what it can never give you.
If you see any unskillful speech (or other action) from me let me know, so I can learn from it.mindfulness, bliss and beyond (page 8) wrote:Do not linger on the past. Do not keep carrying around coffins full of dead moments
It may be the case among some, but I am just responding I terms of those, not you, who have been critical of American vipassana teachers as a whole for what a few happen to do. I share your concerns.Ytrog wrote:It was meant by me as a what-if scenario for the sake of argument as I explain in the first sentence. I surely hope that it is not really the case.Tiltbillings wrote:It would be quite wrong to assume that all American teachers of vipassana teach a "light" version of the Dhamma.
Granted. I still have hope some coherence and uniformity might emerge from it.tiltbillings wrote:He is also excellent in a one-to-one teaching situation.danieLion wrote:Well put, dear Tilt. And thanks for posting the Goldstein talk. It lead me to his talks on pain at Dharmaseed. He really is an excellent Dharma teacher (and I find his voice and delivery very soothing).
I would want to make a point here about that. I am not perforce criticizing others who feel a need for careful, detailed study and practice in those terms.I think I'm turning towards sharing your "rat's ass" perspective on it all (awakening "stages", jhana, etc...).
Best,
Daniel