S.N Goenka

[greggorious]

Is S.N Goenka's style of Buddhism different to the usual Theravada teachings?. Does he run a different tradition altogether, or is it an offshoot of Theravada?

[iforgotmyname]

S.N Goenka's meditation retreats were secular - he had a way of making it secular and he took teachings from several religions and concentrated on any commonality rather than teach any one particular teaching. But he had trained under a Burmese Monk (I forgot his name, sorry).

AFAIK, Goenka teaches a form of Vipassana - and Dhamma, not necessarily Buddhism.

[makarasilapin]

i've been to two Goenka retreats and i can't believe i went back the second time as the first time was bad enough. i don't consider it dhamma because it's not in line with what Buddha taught. he's like Thich Nhat Hanh - basically his own weird religion/off-shoot of Buddhism...

[iforgotmyname]

i've been to two Goenka retreats and i can't believe i went back the second time as the first time was bad enough. i don't consider it dhamma because it's not in line with what Buddha taught. he's like Thich Nhat Hanh - basically his own weird religion/off-shoot of Buddhism...

What was it like the second time around? I've done it once (my first time and so far only time), I thought I gained something from it though - which has kind of faded with time.

[Mojo]

i've been to two Goenka retreats and i can't believe i went back the second time as the first time was bad enough. i don't consider it dhamma because it's not in line with what Buddha taught. he's like Thich Nhat Hanh - basically his own weird religion/off-shoot of Buddhism...

I've not explored Goenka's teachings as of yet. What does he present that is not in line with the Buddha Dhamma?

As a side note, I am familiar with Thich Nhat Hanh's style. And though I don't necessarily enjoy much of his writing, I've seen many people refer to it as flowery, I prefer to think of his efforts as making his understanding of the Buddha Dhamma more accessible to a very diverse group of lay practitioners that includes children.

[iforgotmyname]

i've been to two Goenka retreats and i can't believe i went back the second time as the first time was bad enough. i don't consider it dhamma because it's not in line with what Buddha taught. he's like Thich Nhat Hanh - basically his own weird religion/off-shoot of Buddhism...

I've not exploited Goenka's teachings as of yet. What does he present that is not in line with the Buddha Dhamma?

As a side note, I am familiar with Thich Nhat Hanh's style. And though I don't necessarily enjoy much of his writing, I've seen many people refer to it as flowery, I prefer to think of his efforts as making the Buddha Dhamma more accessible to a very diverse group of lay practitioners that includes children.

IIRC (it's been almost three years now), his teachings are mostly about impermanence and he teaches Vipassana by way of sil, ana-pana-sati and samadi. I was never too concerned about whether or not he was teaching Buddhism - when I went on my retreat I just wanted to meditate/learn how to.

[makarasilapin]

i've been to two Goenka retreats and i can't believe i went back the second time as the first time was bad enough. i don't consider it dhamma because it's not in line with what Buddha taught. he's like Thich Nhat Hanh - basically his own weird religion/off-shoot of Buddhism...

What was it like the second time around? I've done it once (my first time and so far only time), I thought I gained something from it though - which has kind of faded with time.

i experienced some interesting mind states from his guided meditations but it was all just equanimity practice. nibbana isn't equanimity, and you shouldn't be equanimous with whatever comes up in the meditation, ie. you need to develop discernment by seeing that some qualities should be developed and then actively developing them, others need to be dropped and then actively dropping them, some should be left alone, and so some things need to be fabricated. goenka's meditation is very inactive, while the Buddha's instructions are very much active.

i think one of the reasons why whatever you gained has faded with time is because it lacked any real insight because you were just being passive as per the meditation instructions. to gain any real insight you have to be actively engaged in the meditation and actually developing a skill.

[makarasilapin]

i've been to two Goenka retreats and i can't believe i went back the second time as the first time was bad enough. i don't consider it dhamma because it's not in line with what Buddha taught. he's like Thich Nhat Hanh - basically his own weird religion/off-shoot of Buddhism...

I've not exploited Goenka's teachings as of yet. What does he present that is not in line with the Buddha Dhamma?

As a side note, I am familiar with Thich Nhat Hanh's style. And though I don't necessarily enjoy much of his writing, I've seen many people refer to it as flowery, I prefer to think of his efforts as making the Buddha Dhamma more accessible to a very diverse group of lay practitioners that includes children.

don't exploit them because it's a half-teaching. it's just vipassana and equanimity practice. all you get is trance states and no real insight and some talk on "universal dhamma". goenka tries to make it accessible to everyone so he leaves out a lot of Buddha Dhamma, and so does Thich Nhat Hanh (although he incorporates more into his teachings than Goenka).

i think it's a little ridiculous when someone ignores and/or manipulates the Buddha's timeless instructions for attaining nibbana, as if their version of it is somehow more suitable.

[iforgotmyname]

greggorious, sorry about hijacking your thread like this.

i experienced some interesting mind states from his guided meditations but it was all just equanimity practice. nibbana isn't equanimity, and you shouldn't be equanimous with whatever comes up in the meditation, ie. you need to develop discernment by seeing that some qualities should be developed and then actively developing them, others need to be dropped and then actively dropping them, some should be left alone, and so some things need to be fabricated. goenka's meditation is very inactive, while the Buddha's instructions are very much active.

i think one of the reasons why whatever you gained has faded with time is because it lacked any real insight because you were just being passive as per the meditation instructions. to gain any real insight you have to be actively engaged in the meditation and actually developing a skill.

That's interesting. I have to admit that my meditation practice is no where near strong enough to be analysing his technique. Maybe that's why I felt I gained something. I felt even something as small as taking sil had something to do with it. That's why I want to do it again, to see what happens.

[Mojo]

I meant to write explored not exploited. Google Swype on my phone misunderstood and I didn't catch it before hitting submit. Corrected. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

[lojong1]

Is S.N Goenka's style of Buddhism different to the usual Theravada teachings? Does he run a different tradition altogether, or is it an offshoot of Theravada?

I've never known a Theravada teacher to be so bent on students eventually sticking with only one teacher, but his reason is worth listening to, and you will not be kept against your will.
People do get the idea during info-session-open-house-movie-screening-thingies (and sometimes even after a retreat it seems god knows how!) that it is not buddhism. It is as buddhist as buddhist gets, unless I'm missing a crucial difference between 'buddha-dhamma' and 'buddhism'. My biggest problem at the time was the placement and lack of lead-in to refuge at the start of the course.
During the regular 10-day and the 10--day satipatthana course, he teaches material that fits as easily into the pali canon as most other Theravada teachings around today.
I was unsatisfied by many Assistant Teachers' answers to questions.

These retreats are excellent! I recommend them as one source of some dhamma.

[convivium]

don't go there. go to wat metta.

don't exploit them because it's a half-teaching. it's just vipassana and equanimity practice. all you get is trance states and no real insight and some talk on "universal dhamma". goenka tries to make it accessible to everyone so he leaves out a lot of Buddha Dhamma, and so does Thich Nhat Hanh (although he incorporates more into his teachings than Goenka).

i think it's a little ridiculous when someone ignores and/or manipulates the Buddha's timeless instructions for attaining nibbana, as if their version of it is somehow more suitable.

this.

[vidar]

Well, these articles of Bhikkhu Analayo make it clear that the S.N. Goenka teachings are in complete agreement with the teachings of the Buddha and the suttas:

http://host.pariyatti.org/treasures/The ... tation.pdf
http://host.pariyatti.org/treasures/The ... nsight.pdf

i think it's a little ridiculous when someone ignores and/or manipulates the Buddha's timeless instructions for attaining nibbana, as if their version of it is somehow more suitable.

Yes, that is ridiculous, fortunately Goenka never done that

[convivium]

he 'ignores' and rules out a lot of teachings.

[vidar]

he 'ignores' and rules out a lot of teachings.

That's your opinion