Vipassana - Insight Knowledge

[smokey]

I have a question. Does anyone on this forum have any insight knowledge gained with vipassana? I know that the first insight knowledge is discrimination of mind and body, has anyone gained that knowledge? Please do state and describe your insight knowledge.

With Metta - smokey

[Ben]

Hi Smokey
What you are asking is an indelicate question. Most practitioners I know, online or in the 'real' world, would hesitate to answer this question directly.
Kind regards

Ben

[David N. Snyder]

The Zen master Roshi Kapleau was asked if he was enlightened. He responded, "if I say no, all the beginners will leave and never come back. If I say yes, all of the advanced students will leave and never come back."

A Zen master, but the response could apply to anyone from any tradition.

[rowyourboat]

Hi Smokey

I know many many people who have gained this insight knowledge! It is the first one and not that difficult to gain insight into. You CAN do it with the help of meditation teacher who teaches insight meditation.

here are some clues:

moments of experiences are discrete, not continuous

every moment of experience contains a material component and a mental component

rupa: patavi,apo,tejo,vayo, nama: phassa, vedana,sanna,cetana, manasikara

the point of this insight is to understand that even a single moment of experience is made up of multiple mental and physical components- there by fracturing reality- actually seeing this, not just knowing

this is the first blow to breaking and dismantalling ignorance or avijja, hence letting go when all the reference points collapse and the drawbacks (adinava), the unsatisfactoriness is seen.

with metta

[Kare]

The Zen master Roshi Kapleau was asked if he was enlightened. He responded, "if I say no, all the beginners will leave and never come back. If I say yes, all of the advanced students will leave and never come back."

A Zen master, but the response could apply to anyone from any tradition.

[smokey]

Hi Smokey
What you are asking is an indelicate question. Most practitioners I know, online or in the 'real' world, would hesitate to answer this question directly.
Kind regards

Ben

In that case, I am sorry I asked. I apologize.

Metta - smokey

[Ben]

No problem.
I'm sorry I couldn't answer!
Metta

Ben

[smokey]

No problem.
I'm sorry I couldn't answer!
Metta

Ben

No problem. Thank you anyway.

Metta - smokey

[flyingOx]

The Zen master Roshi Kapleau was asked if he was enlightened. He responded, "if I say no, all the beginners will leave and never come back. If I say yes, all of the advanced students will leave and never come back."

A Zen master, but the response could apply to anyone from any tradition.

And VERY rediculous on BOTH sides, if you ask me. In the Christian tradition, salvation is celebrated and expected to be proclaimed by all who reach it. Since it is something that they all are expected to reach, and because it was not out of something that they did, but rather out of submitting, they automatically see it as something humble. It's too bad that Buddhism didn't evolve that way as well. When you look at the Gotama Buddha and his earliest followers, they didn't have any objection to any kind of proclamation or find it something not worthy of talking about. Actually, they encouraged all who wanted liberation to see for themselves if it is true or not. New comers back in those days were lucky to have leaders willing to be examples by saying it like it was. Now days if a beginner has a question about whether he/she is getting it right are hushed into silence, and the leaders go hide in the dark. That is truly a sad situation if you ask me.

[David N. Snyder]

And VERY rediculous on BOTH sides, if you ask me. In the Christian tradition, salvation is celebrated and expected to be proclaimed by all who reach it. Since it is something that they all are expected to reach, and because it was not out of something that they did, but rather out of submitting, they automatically see it as something humble. It's too bad that Buddhism didn't evolve that way as well. When you look at the Gotama Buddha and his earliest followers, they didn't have any objection to any kind of proclamation or find it something not worthy of talking about. Actually, they encouraged all who wanted liberation to see for themselves if it is true or not. New comers back in those days were lucky to have leaders willing to be examples by saying it like it was. Now days if a beginner has a question about whether he/she is getting it right are hushed into silence, and the leaders go hide in the dark. That is truly a sad situation if you ask me.

The answer is right in your post. For the Christians it is humble since they are submitting, not achieving anything. In Buddhism, it is not about submitting, but rather achieving, in Buddhism it is enlightenment. So it could not be humble to announce to the world that one is enlightened. In fact, it would be quite arrogant, because it may not be full enlightenment and even if it were, most would not recognize it, thus, an enlightened one would have not interest in proclaiming it.

The Buddha proclaimed his enlightenment, because the Dhamma had died out and he was 're-discovering' it and had to announce the re-discovery in a way that would be acceptable. I challenge you to find many instances of other monks during the Buddha's time (from the Suttas) who regularly proclaimed their enlightenment.

[flyingOx]

The answer is right in your post. For the Christians it is humble since they are submitting, not achieving anything. In Buddhism, it is not about submitting, but rather achieving, in Buddhism it is enlightenment. So it could not be humble to announce to the world that one is enlightened. In fact, it would be quite arrogant, because it may not be full enlightenment and even if it were, most would not recognize it, thus, an enlightened one would have not interest in proclaiming it.

The Buddha proclaimed his enlightenment, because the Dhamma had died out and he was 're-discovering' it and had to announce the re-discovery in a way that would be acceptable. I challenge you to find many instances of other monks during the Buddha's time (from the Suttas) who regularly proclaimed their enlightenment.

I disagree. Enlightenment isn't something that one achieves. It is the recognition of ultimate reality that is already there. The only thing that it could be said that one does to attain it is to wake up. And like you say, if someone hasn't really awakened to the true awakening, then it is obvious that they are not truly enlightened as they have the attitude that they have accomplished something. I can go through the suttas and list them for you, but you would probably just say that they were saying something different than what I was reading into it, so what would be the point? There would be no way of convincing someone who is stubbornly convinced that something is being misinterpreted by someone else who is less knowlegable. If someone comes along and indicates that they are not truly enlightened, then just ignore them and don't follow what they say.

But why listen to me, anyway? I have already admitted to being nuts.

[Macavity]

In the Christian tradition, salvation is celebrated and expected to be proclaimed by all who reach it. Since it is something that they all are expected to reach, and because it was not out of something that they did, but rather out of submitting, they automatically see it as something humble.

Depending on the church, this salvation is achieved either by baptism or by baptism plus some kind of inner conversion experience. This would be more closely analogous to a Buddhist's going for refuge, not to realizing enlightenment. Buddhists don't have any problem with talking about their going for refuge.

A better analogy than the one you proposed would be between Buddhist enlightenment and Christian sainthood. It isn't usual for Christians to go about declaring themselves to be saints. In the Catholic Church, for example, such a declaration has to be made by others after one is dead.

When you look at the Gotama Buddha and his earliest followers, they didn't have any objection to any kind of proclamation or find it something not worthy of talking about.

In fact some limitations on what could be said were established by the Buddha himself in the rules for monks and nuns.

[flyingOx]

Depending on the church, this salvation is achieved either by baptism or by baptism plus some kind of inner conversion experience. This would be more closely analogous to a Buddhist's going for refuge, not to realizing enlightenment. Buddhists don't have any problem with talking about their going for refuge.

A better analogy than the one you proposed would be between Buddhist enlightenment and Christian sainthood. It isn't usual for Christians to go about declaring themselves to be saints. In the Catholic Church, for example, such a declaration has to be made by others after one is dead.

In fact some limitations on what could be said were established by the Buddha himself in the rules for monks and nuns.

I suppose you are right. If someone is proclaiming some kind of position within a certain religion, then yes, it is best left up to some committee. Although you say that enlightenment is not like salvation, then I guess you are also correct, but I don't see enlightenment as being like given the title of a saint, either, it is probably more like being filled with the holy spirit. Christians say that in order to walk in the spirit, one's self has to be crucified like Christ, or to give up one's own mind for the mind of Christ. This also is something that many Christians celebrate with speaking in angelic toungues and dancing. However, I do not believe that one even has to be a Buddhist in order to experience enlightenment, and as long as someone isn't purposefully trying to deceive others, then why make a big deal about it either way. Even if someone reaches a state that isn't full enlightenment, it is still probably better than the state that they were previously in, and if they are on their way to becoming enlightened, then everything will eventually work its way out, anyway, because they will begin to feel like something is missing and continue looking towards the real awakening.

I seriously think that too many people take things way too seriously and run people off because of it.

[Sanghamitta]

Going back to the actual topic. I think smokey its a good idea to have a relationship with a non-cyber teacher to discuss these issues. This does not imply a " guru" type relationship, just cultivating a relationship with someone who is experienced in these matters. It may be a monk or lay person.

[smokey]

Going back to the actual topic. I think smokey its a good idea to have a relationship with a non-cyber teacher to discuss these issues. This does not imply a " guru" type relationship, just cultivating a relationship with someone who is experienced in these matters. It may be a monk or lay person.

Thank you for the advice.

[smokey]

I have talked with a Rinpoche via Facebook and when I asked him did he gain knowledge with Vipassana, he said a little bit. But that was few months ago.

[rowyourboat]

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/bm7insight.pdf

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... gress.html

[Brizzy]

And VERY rediculous on BOTH sides, if you ask me. In the Christian tradition, salvation is celebrated and expected to be proclaimed by all who reach it. Since it is something that they all are expected to reach, and because it was not out of something that they did, but rather out of submitting, they automatically see it as something humble. It's too bad that Buddhism didn't evolve that way as well. When you look at the Gotama Buddha and his earliest followers, they didn't have any objection to any kind of proclamation or find it something not worthy of talking about. Actually, they encouraged all who wanted liberation to see for themselves if it is true or not. New comers back in those days were lucky to have leaders willing to be examples by saying it like it was. Now days if a beginner has a question about whether he/she is getting it right are hushed into silence, and the leaders go hide in the dark. That is truly a sad situation if you ask me.

The answer is right in your post. For the Christians it is humble since they are submitting, not achieving anything. In Buddhism, it is not about submitting, but rather achieving, in Buddhism it is enlightenment. So it could not be humble to announce to the world that one is enlightened. In fact, it would be quite arrogant, because it may not be full enlightenment and even if it were, most would not recognize it, thus, an enlightened one would have not interest in proclaiming it.

The Buddha proclaimed his enlightenment, because the Dhamma had died out and he was 're-discovering' it and had to announce the re-discovery in a way that would be acceptable. I challenge you to find many instances of other monks during the Buddha's time (from the Suttas) who regularly proclaimed their enlightenment.

Hi

Not only monks but lay people like Citta would regularly explain their attainments. Citta explained - in a sutta I cannot readily recall that he did not believe in jhanas - because he had experienced them, and so had no reason to just believe. Many householders talk of themselves not having to be reborn again, in the sensual plane. It is only false claims that are to be censured.

[alan]

I gave up Vipassana because I found it to be a waste of time. Forget about "insight knowledge". Just concentrate, and then take it from there.

[christopher:::]

I have a question. Does anyone on this forum have any insight knowledge gained with vipassana? I know that the first insight knowledge is discrimination of mind and body, has anyone gained that knowledge? Please do state and describe your insight knowledge.

With Metta - smokey

I thought that rowyourboat's response to smokey's question was helpful. Perhaps i'm misunderstanding, but it seems to me that the question of " Does anyone on this forum have any insight knowledge gained with vipassana?" is quite different from "Are you fully enlightened?"

Hi Smokey

I know many many people who have gained this insight knowledge! It is the first one and not that difficult to gain insight into. You CAN do it with the help of meditation teacher who teaches insight meditation.

here are some clues:

moments of experiences are discrete, not continuous

every moment of experience contains a material component and a mental component

rupa: patavi,apo,tejo,vayo, nama: phassa, vedana,sanna,cetana, manasikara

the point of this insight is to understand that even a single moment of experience is made up of multiple mental and physical components- there by fracturing reality- actually seeing this, not just knowing

this is the first blow to breaking and dismantalling ignorance or avijja, hence letting go when all the reference points collapse and the drawbacks (adinava), the unsatisfactoriness is seen.

with metta

Yesterday I listened carefully and followed the instructions of Joseph Goldstein, from a 2 part dhamma talk about mindfulness and feelings. Much of the above became clearer, at the time, from those observations.

Today I have not been as mindful but I plan to go back to the Goldstein talks, and will continue practicing. Having some initial insight into the above is quite possible, imo, for all of us, if you have proper guidance and put the time in to observe mindfully...

Understanding this so deeply and completely that one lives continuously with such Mindfulness and Insight is a whole nuther matter....