Why the criticisms?

[Billymac29]

Quick question:
Why are there so many criticisms about the Mahasi technique out there?
Which parts of the technique are based off the suttas? And which part is based off of the commentaries? Can anyone help with this question?

With metta

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Billymac,

Do you care to provide some examples, so we can address specifics rather than deal in generalisations?

Personally speaking, one reason I don't follow a Mahasi style practice ( a more comprehensive explanation of my reasoning is here - viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10653&start=240#p164576 ) is because it is rooted in the commentarial ditthi (views) of momentariness and kalapas, and I do not find either to accord with the Buddha's teachings or my own experience. But that's just my perspective - other people may think it's the bee's knees and get great benefit from it, so good for them.



Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

Greetings Billymac,

Do you care to provide some examples, so we can address specifics rather than deal in generalisations?

Personally speaking, one reason I don't follow a Mahasi style practice ( a more comprehensive explanation of my reasoning is here - viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10653&start=240#p164576 ) is because it is rooted in the ditthi (views) of momentariness and kalapas, and I do not find either to accord with the Buddha's teachings or my own experience. But that's just my perspective - other people may think it's the bee's knees and get great benefit from it, so good for them.



Metta,
Retro.

Actually, that is an interesting thread on any number of levels, but one of the things shown in that thread is that nay-sayers of the Mahasi Sayadaw practice make a very poor set of arguments in terms of actual experience. Glad you brought it up.

[Billymac29]

Greetings Billymac,

Do you care to provide some examples, so we can address specifics rather than deal in generalisations?

Well people bring up the Satipatthana Sutta as the Mahasi's main reference to practice.. And that that is one of the only sutta references of the Mahasi method. Some say the Mahasi interpretation of that sutta maybe incorrect. Also, people critique the technique because of usage of "noting", momentary concentration, insight knowledges..etc ( of which have been claimed Commentarial practices)

I'm trying to wrap my head around everything.. The suttas do reference the Buddha telling his students to go do "jhana"... Mahasi doesn't really stress jhana.. However, I dont think its a coincidence that the Mahasi technique leads one through the stages of Insight... Which makes me believe the method has some kind of buddhist significance as long as one takes the commentaries as significant as well.

Is the Mahasi method mainly taken from the commentaries? Any sutta references of it?
I've read some of Ven Sujato... He started with the method and doesn't advise against it. However, he states its not as well seeded in the suttas as one might expect.

This is all pure curiosity

with metta

[daverupa]

This is all pure curiosity

I'm uninformed about the specific practices of many of these modern groups, but I have noticed that there is an environment of ...static surrounding nearly every modern pedigree of meditation. It's all quite palpable.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings BIllymac,

If it's curiosity alone that's driving your investigation (rather than an intent to investigate the Mahasi technique with the view to applying it) I'd suggest this...

The path of practice the Buddha taught is the Noble Eightfold Path. If you believe a particular practice/method/technique/activity/exercise supports the fulfilment of that path, then by all means do it - if you believe it doesn't or that there's something that works better for you, then don't do it. Each of the aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path are well detailed by the Buddha, and you can evaluate for yourself, whether a given activity helps cultivate those components for you. The important thing is the personal fulfilment of the Noble Eightfold Path.

This is why I'd rather not trade in "criticisms" because "criticisms" infer some kind of independent hands-off objectivity, like a scholarly debate, where there's pros & cons, rights & wrong... whereas I think the important thing in matters like this is actually the subjective element, and how it works for you. I've explained why Mahasi-vipassana doesn't work for me personally, but that doesn't constitute a criticism... that only constitutes why it's not for me. Some people do follow a Mahasi technique and presumably they do so because it works for them. Whilst I think it's quite obvious from the sum of your two posts that you mean no harm through your investigation, harm can arise unintentionally if people feel that something valuable is being degraded or unjustly criticised, and as you observed, the Mahasi method is often already criticised as it is... therefore, if there's no practical personal application for you in the answers you seek, it might be worth reflecting on the net benefit of the question and whether it's best left set aside in the interests of others.

All the best.

Metta,
Retro.

[Billymac29]

Greetings BIllymac,

If it's curiosity alone that's driving your investigation (rather than an intent to investigate the Mahasi technique with the view to applying it) I'd suggest this...

actually I've used the Mahasi method for quite a while now.. I guess my question is why do people criticize it and other practices.. especially if those people don't practice that way... With so much talk about suttas and commentaries in reference to it, i kinda get lost as to whats what i guess..

The path of practice the Buddha taught is the Noble Eightfold Path. If you believe a particular practice/method/technique/activity/exercise supports the fulfilment of that path, then by all means do it - if you believe it doesn't or that there's something that works better for you, then don't do it. Each of the aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path are well detailed by the Buddha, and you can evaluate for yourself, whether a given activity helps cultivate those components for you. The important thing is the personal fulfilment of the Noble Eightfold Path.

I agree... nicely said

Buddhist or not I believe it's a great meditation method!
with metta

[tiltbillings]

but I have noticed that there is an environment of ...static surrounding nearly every modern pedigree of meditation. It's all quite palpable.

?

[Ben]

Hi Billymac

If you have confidence in what you are doing and that confidence is grounded in experienced benefits - then continue with it.
kind regards,

Ben

[Billymac29]

Thanks ben, retro, tilt, dave... I guess I was just searching for more canonical evidence of my practice to quiet the critics

May all be well

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Billymac,

I guess I was just searching for more canonical evidence of my practice to quiet the critics

Right Defence is not one of the steps on the Noble Eightfold Path.



Seriously though - very often the compulsion to defend things flies directly in the face of Right Effort, which actually is one of the steps on the Noble Eightfold Path.

All the best.

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

Thanks ben, retro, tilt, dave... I guess I was just searching for more canonical evidence of my practice to quiet the critics

May all be well

If you are comfortable with the efficacy of your practice, then I would not give a rat's ass about what the critics say, given that it is highly unlikely you be able to placate them and that is not because their arguments are necessarily compelling.

Here is a large detailed PDF book Strong Roots: Liberation Teachings of Mindfulness in North America by Jake H. Davis that has a detailed discussion of the Mahasi Sayadaw practice using mostly sutta material. It is worth the time spent with it. Also, spend some time with Joseph Goldstein, who teaches from a place of both extensive meditative experience and learning.

[mikenz66]

Hi Billy,

Greetings Billymac,

Do you care to provide some examples, so we can address specifics rather than deal in generalisations?

Well people bring up the Satipatthana Sutta as the Mahasi's main reference to practice.. And that that is one of the only sutta references of the Mahasi method. Some say the Mahasi interpretation of that sutta maybe incorrect.

Of course, that's not much of a criticism because it applies to anyone who suggests any particular way of applying any sutta (Vens. Thanissaro, Goenka, Vimalaramsi, Buddhadassa, Brahm, etc. I.e. any teacher at all).

Also, people critique the technique because of usage of "noting",

Noting is just a "trick" to focus awareness. Like counting breaths to build up continuity of awareness on the breath. No deep Dhamma in those (or any other such instructions that teachers come up with).

I would say that the key idea that Ven Mahasi teaches is the primary object/secondary object thing. The primary object being usually something to do with body (motion of abdomen or feet, or touching, etc), which builds up concentration and continuous mindfulness. The secondary object idea then gives a scattergun approach to the rest of the satipatthanas, with attention being paid to whatever comes up strongly. This in in contrast to approaches such as Goenka's, which focusses on the body/feeling part of satipatthana in a particular way, or other methods that work systematically though satipatthana sections.

Of course, that primary/secondary thing is actually taught by many (Ven Thanissaro, for example), but not so explicitly.

momentary concentration, insight knowledges..etc ( of which have been claimed Commentarial practices)

Yes, those are commentarial terms. The momentary concentration (and Sayadaw U Pandita's "Vipassana Jhana" idea of it) seem to me to be similar to the "shallowish jhana" that people such as Ven Thanissaro advocate (as opposed to the "deep jhana" of Ajahn Brahm, or the Commentaries).

How much of the the insight knowledges are fully tracable to the suttas is an interesting question that would take a lot of answering.
See, for example the extensive discussion at:
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=11701&p=177938&hilit=upanisa#p177147
and also:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

this list of the seven purities formed the framework for Buddhaghosa's Visuddhimagga (The Path of Purity), the cornerstone of his Pali commentaries, in which the seven purities cover all three parts of the threefold training in virtue, concentration, & discernment.

I'm trying to wrap my head around everything.. The suttas do reference the Buddha telling his students to go do "jhana"... Mahasi doesn't really stress jhana.. However, I dont think its a coincidence that the Mahasi technique leads one through the stages of Insight... Which makes me believe the method has some kind of buddhist significance as long as one takes the commentaries as significant as well.

Momentary or Access Concentration (or "Vipassana Jhana") involves developing the Jhana factors to a high level. See U Pandita's explanation here:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pesala/Pan ... hanas.html
It seems clear from Sutta and Commentary that the Jhana factors are important.

Is the Mahasi method mainly taken from the commentaries? Any sutta references of it?
I've read some of Ven Sujato... He started with the method and doesn't advise against it. However, he states its not as well seeded in the suttas as one might expect.

Well, as I've said, all instructions on implementing what is discussed in the suttas go beyond the suttas.

What all teachers do is draw on their experience, and/or the experience of teachers and students, ancient and/or modern, to work out how to implement what is discussed in the suttas.

[I put the commentaries in the category of "experience of ancient teachers and students".]

We are lucky to have useful information and opinions from all of the various teachers I've mentioned above (and many others, famous or not).

This is all pure curiosity
with metta

Personally, I have found the Mahasi method to be compatible with the suttas I've read, and very helpful. But it's just one of a number of implementations, and different implementations will suit different people, or different stages of development.

For a good discussion of the origins of the Mahasi approach, and other methods, listen to the introductory talks from one of Patrick Kerney's retreat series:
http://www.dharmasalon.net/Audio/audio.html


Mike

[Billymac29]

Hi Billy,

Greetings Billymac,

Do you care to provide some examples, so we can address specifics rather than deal in generalisations?

Well people bring up the Satipatthana Sutta as the Mahasi's main reference to practice.. And that that is one of the only sutta references of the Mahasi method. Some say the Mahasi interpretation of that sutta maybe incorrect.

Of course, that's not much of a criticism because it applies to anyone who suggests any particular way of applying any sutta (Vens. Thanissaro, Goenka, Vimalaramsi, Buddhadassa, Brahm, etc. I.e. any teacher at all).

Also, people critique the technique because of usage of "noting",

Noting is just a "trick" to focus awareness. Like counting breaths to build up continuity of awareness on the breath. No deep Dhamma in those (or any other such instructions that teachers come up with).

I would say that the key idea that Ven Mahasi teaches is the primary object/secondary object thing. The primary object being usually something to do with body (motion of abdomen or feet, or touching, etc), which builds up concentration and continuous mindfulness. The secondary object idea then gives a scattergun approach to the rest of the satipatthanas, with attention being paid to whatever comes up strongly. This in in contrast to approaches such as Goenka's, which focusses on the body/feeling part of satipatthana in a particular way, or other methods that work systematically though satipatthana sections.

Of course, that primary/secondary thing is actually taught by many (Ven Thanissaro, for example), but not so explicitly.

momentary concentration, insight knowledges..etc ( of which have been claimed Commentarial practices)

Yes, those are commentarial terms. The momentary concentration (and Sayadaw U Pandita's "Vipassana Jhana" idea of it) seem to me to be similar to the "shallowish jhana" that people such as Ven Thanissaro advocate (as opposed to the "deep jhana" of Ajahn Brahm, or the Commentaries).

How much of the the insight knowledges are fully tracable to the suttas is an interesting question that would take a lot of answering.
See, for example the extensive discussion at:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... sa#p177147
and also:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

this list of the seven purities formed the framework for Buddhaghosa's Visuddhimagga (The Path of Purity), the cornerstone of his Pali commentaries, in which the seven purities cover all three parts of the threefold training in virtue, concentration, & discernment.

I'm trying to wrap my head around everything.. The suttas do reference the Buddha telling his students to go do "jhana"... Mahasi doesn't really stress jhana.. However, I dont think its a coincidence that the Mahasi technique leads one through the stages of Insight... Which makes me believe the method has some kind of buddhist significance as long as one takes the commentaries as significant as well.

Momentary or Access Concentration (or "Vipassana Jhana") involves developing the Jhana factors to a high level. See U Pandita's explanation here:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pesala/Pan ... hanas.html
It seems clear from Sutta and Commentary that the Jhana factors are important.

Is the Mahasi method mainly taken from the commentaries? Any sutta references of it?
I've read some of Ven Sujato... He started with the method and doesn't advise against it. However, he states its not as well seeded in the suttas as one might expect.

Well, as I've said, all instructions on implementing what is discussed in the suttas go beyond the suttas.

What all teachers do is draw on their experience, and/or the experience of teachers and students, ancient and/or modern, to work out how to implement what is discussed in the suttas.

[I put the commentaries in the category of "experience of ancient teachers and students".]

We are lucky to have useful information and opinions from all of the various teachers I've mentioned above (and many others, famous or not).

This is all pure curiosity
with metta

Personally, I have found the Mahasi method to be compatible with the suttas I've read, and very helpful. But it's just one of a number of implementations, and different implementations will suit different people, or different stages of development.

For a good discussion of the origins of the Mahasi approach, and other methods, listen to the introductory talks from one of Patrick Kerney's retreat series:
http://www.dharmasalon.net/Audio/audio.html


Mike

Thanks a lot Mike... that site has some great talks by Kearny... Just listened to his "Mindfulness of Breathing" lecture.. I thought it was very good

with metta

Billy

[Billymac29]

Personally, I have found the Mahasi method to be compatible with the suttas I've read, and very helpful. But it's just one of a number of implementations, and different implementations will suit different people, or different stages of development.

Which suttas are you referring to by the way Mike? Any in particular you would recommend me reading over?

with much metta

[mikenz66]

Hi Billy,

Many suttas.

Most obviously the Satipatthana Sutta. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nysa.html
But also suttas on dependent origination:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .html#sn12
Papanca
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .html#sn12
Hindrances
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=14716
Faculties
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=14239

and so on...


Mike

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

Quick question:
Why are there so many criticisms about the Mahasi technique out there?

Because criticism is much easier than practice:

Easily Seen Are Others’ Faults

Here are some noteworthy responses by Sayādaw U Pandita in reply to various points raised by critics of the Mahāsi method.

[purple planet]

Without straying to much - i think that this might help understand :

Can we say that the goal can be to get rid of the defilments (and that will automaticlly lead to nirvana) ? and if so it might be a good way to judge a technique is by how affective it is removing defilments

i practice in the mahasi style and i think one nice think about it is for a beginner it is more acceptable because you arnt told to focus on something just to note things as they are : so its easier to think of it as : ohh im just trying to see reality as is not focusing on some object like breathing its noticing things as is - it raises less doubts this way for a beginner

i understand now the general idea of all methods but as a beginner its raises less question as to how looking at the breath will help me "see" reality (again - i understand how but for a doubtful beginner just at the start its helpful)

[Billymac29]

Hi Billy,

Many suttas.

Most obviously the Satipatthana Sutta. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nysa.html
But also suttas on dependent origination:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .html#sn12
Papanca
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .html#sn12
Hindrances
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=14716
Faculties
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=14239

and so on...


Mike

thanks mike I'll look them over

Quick question:
Why are there so many criticisms about the Mahasi technique out there?

Because criticism is much easier than practice:

Easily Seen Are Others’ Faults

Here are some noteworthy responses by Sayādaw U Pandita in reply to various points raised by critics of the Mahāsi method.

Thank you Bhikkhu Pesala..
Would you happen to have any more writings of the subject??


may all be well

[Billymac29]

Without straying to much - i think that this might help understand :

Can we say that the goal can be to get rid of the defilments (and that will automaticlly lead to nirvana) ? and if so it might be a good way to judge a technique is by how affective it is removing defilments

i practice in the mahasi style and i think one nice think about it is for a beginner it is more acceptable because you arnt told to focus on something just to note things as they are : so its easier to think of it as : ohh im just trying to see reality as is not focusing on some object like breathing its noticing things as is - it raises less doubts this way for a beginner

i understand now the general idea of all methods but as a beginner its raises less question as to how looking at the breath will help me "see" reality (again - i understand how but for a doubtful beginner just at the start its helpful)

thanks purple

with metta