nina van gorkom vs burmese abhidhamma styles?

Discussion of Abhidhamma and related Commentaries
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: nina van gorkom vs burmese abhidhamma styles?

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Jechbi,
Jechbi wrote: I don't find anything in that Q&A that necessarily conflicts with sitting practice as it actually occurs, at least for some. As it states in the "Comprehensive Manual of Abdhidhamma," this all manifests in the meditator's experience as "a continuity of processes." Each moment presents with different kamma, and it's not all going to be the same for every "sitting meditator" all the time. This is a highly specialized criticism, imho.
This bit summarises most of the arguments I see from Khun Sujin's followers:
Bhikkhu Dhammadharo wrote:If you try to concentrate on your feet going around no awareness of anything. It is just a self who is trying to direct awareness, an idea of what you think awareness is, to some place or other of the body, because we want to know this, we want to know that. It is not natural. It is not getting rid of attachment, it is increasing it.
I.e. any attempt to be aware of anything (such as the breath) is creating a "self". [Which is, of course, a pitfall that most meditation teachers will point out...]

The aspects of the argument that I find puzzling are:

1. They have a fatalistic ring. See, for example, MN101 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...it is not proper for you to assert that, "Whatever a person experiences — pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain — all is caused by what was done in the past.
I understand (intellectually) that there is no "chooser", but that does not mean there is not "choice".

2. The approaches advocated also seem to involve choices (to study, to think about not-self, etc). Thus they would be subject to exactly the same criticism of "self making" as "formal meditation".

I would particularly appreciate it if anyone could shed light on the second point.

Metta
Mike
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: nina van gorkom vs burmese abhidhamma styles?

Post by tiltbillings »

mikenz66 wrote: This bit summarises most of the arguments I see from Khun Sujin's followers:
Bhikkhu Dhammadharo wrote:If you try to concentrate on your feet going around no awareness of anything. It is just a self who is trying to direct awareness, an idea of what you think awareness is, to some place or other of the body, because we want to know this, we want to know that. It is not natural. It is not getting rid of attachment, it is increasing it.
Obviously the good monk hasn't a clue as to what Mahasi Sayadaw practice actually is, if this is directed at that type of practice. If it isn't, damned if I know what it is directed at.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: nina van gorkom vs burmese abhidhamma styles?

Post by cooran »

Bhikkhu Dhammadaro has been dead for many years, and, of course cannot expand on or defend his snipped remarks.
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: nina van gorkom vs burmese abhidhamma styles?

Post by tiltbillings »

Being dead makes defending anything rather difficult. Not just the snippets, but the extended remarks - criticisms - at this site:

http://www.dhammastudy.com/behere.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

to whom are they directed?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: nina van gorkom vs burmese abhidhamma styles?

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Chriis,
Chris wrote:Bhikkhu Dhammadaro has been dead for many years, and, of course cannot expand on or defend his snipped remarks.
I don't think anyone expects Ven Dhammadaro to respond. Ven Dhammanando simply offered the conversation as an example of the arguments given by Khun Sujin's students. One can find many similar conversations at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/messages" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and on this forum, e.g. http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 210#p16923" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Metta
Mike
User avatar
Jechbi
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am
Contact:

Re: nina van gorkom vs burmese abhidhamma styles?

Post by Jechbi »

Hi Mike,

I'm going to defend the Ven. Dhammadharo position as I understand it, because the more I read it, the more I like elements of it and the more convinced I am that it's actually a complementary criticism that, properly understood, can provide insight regarding what's really going on during sitting meditation -- namely, that these processes are not self. I stand to be corrected. But here goes:
mikenz66 wrote:2. The approaches advocated also seem to involve choices (to study, to think about not-self, etc). Thus they would be subject to exactly the same criticism of "self making" as "formal meditation".

I would particularly appreciate it if anyone could shed light on the second point.
In the context of this comment:
Ven. Dhammadharo wrote:We can be aware while studying and listening, in order to learn that such moments are not self.
... we might conclude that any activity (including sitting) can involve awareness in order to learn that such moments are not self. To expand on that, to make use of the words of Ven. Dhammadharo:
The more we [INSERT ACTIVITY HERE] in the right way, if there are conditions for it, the more will we understand the difference between just thinking and being aware. We will understand the difference between trying to control realities and just letting awareness arise naturally and being aware of what appears for one brief moment.
The volitional action, or kamma, presents itself in each moment, and it is always not-self. Each meditator, each moment, brings different kamma. Yeah, very often the kammic content will include the delusion of a self. But that also is not-self. I think that's what Ven. Dhammadharo and other critics are getting at. It's essentially an examination of the kamma that some folks might bring to the "meditation" experience. So from that perspective, you're right, activities such as studying and "thinking" about not-self would be subject to the very same criticism, depending on the kamma that presents during the course of these activities.

And that all seems very much in keeping with Abhidhamma teachings as well, at least in my limited understanding.

Metta
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: nina van gorkom vs burmese abhidhamma styles?

Post by mikenz66 »

Thanks Jechbi for your analysis. I'm not really interested in "attacking" anyone. I'm more interested in figuring out the meaning, so your post is very helpful.

Since this is an Abhidhamma forum, I don't want to veer off into a discussion of meditation experiences, which is not really appropriate here, but I certainly agree that this "danger" of "enhancing the self" is something that we need to be aware of, and something that many teachers do talk about.

Metta
Mike
User avatar
jcsuperstar
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:15 am
Location: alaska
Contact:

Re: nina van gorkom vs burmese abhidhamma styles?

Post by jcsuperstar »

from my readings of her, i do notice a slight anti meditation thing going on, ther eis this idea of who meditates and that we cant set up a situation for mindfulness, it just happens cause of causes and conditions, but then she'll say things liek "when i study" etc which is what? the exact type of situation but since it isnt meditation it's fine i guess?

it seems a bit odd that we can set up a period for study and that is kosher but to set up a period to meditate is somehow wrong.

right now i'm, reading "mindfullness in daily life" my next chapter is on samatha, maybe it'll provide me with some insights on her ideas about meditation.
สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ

the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat
pt1
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:30 am

Re: nina van gorkom vs burmese abhidhamma styles?

Post by pt1 »

Hi Mike, JC, all,

I remember wondering about similar things when just starting with Nina's books - like when she says first that there is no self that can control and direct dhammas like sati or panna, and then saying in the next paragraph that we should study and be mindful. One of the helpful things to understand was that these are two ways of speaking about things - ultimate and conventional, which are often employed in works on abhidhamma.

For example, when talking on the ultimate level of a single citta with its cetasikas, there's no point really talking about people, methods, meditation, doing something specific, etc, because this citta lasts for a nanosecond or so, and then disappears forever, and the only thing that can be said about it is that it was accompanied by certain cetasikas, and that's about it. And of course, this citta cannot be taken for any kind of a self, because its arising was conditioned by the preceding citta which was just as short, etc. So, it's just pointless to talk about any control, methods, or self, on the ultimate level (which is why I love studying abhidhamma - understanding anatta and anicca comes so naturally from it). On the conventional level though, sure, it can be said that people need to study and be mindful, but I feel this is only due to necessities of language because abhidhamma generally focuses on the ultimate level.

Regarding "no method" approach, Nina and A.Sujin's students follow dry insight approach, so I don’t see much point arguing with them about meditation. I think there is even a sutta which says something like - if you are a samatha student and you are interested in insight, then go talk to people who are good at insight. And I feel that A.Sujin's students can offer a lot on insight. As I understand it, insight is all about being able to verify in practice the ultimate level of things - citta and it's kusala/akusala cetasikas, rupas, and finally nibbana.

Regarding criticism of certain methods on DSG, I found that Nina usually tries to draw attention to the kind of citta at the present moment - is it akusala or kusala, rather than getting drawn into speculative arguments about certain teachers/methods. I mean, regardless of what particular method one is following (even if it's a no-method), the success of the practice at the moment will be determined by the kind of the citta at the moment. Kusala is kusala, and akusala is akusala no matter whose teachings one is following.

Anyway, these are just my observations.

Best wishes
Post Reply