Samatha vs. Vipassana, am I thinking of this correctly?

General discussion of issues related to Theravada Meditation, e.g. meditation postures, developing a regular sitting practice, skillfully relating to difficulties and hindrances, etc.
seanpdx
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Samatha vs. Vipassana, am I thinking of this correctly?

Post by seanpdx »

Manapa wrote:do you care to explain?
I can try, but no guarantees. ;)
Kenshou wrote:Well, the meditations are named after what results they are aiming for, no?
First, I take issue with the word "meditations" (plural). This implies that there are two (or more) types of meditation that the Buddha taught. I am, of course, working from the assumption that we're speaking of buddhist meditation specifically, and not including non-buddhist meditation. I don't believe he taught more than one type of meditation. And I certainly don't think they could be called "vipassana" or "samatha" if he ever did such a thing.

Secondly, and just as importantly, neither vipassana nor samatha, as qualities, are the results for which buddhist meditation aims. The result for which buddhist meditation aims is nibbana (or whichever synonym or metaphor you prefer). Vipassana and samatha are qualities (and indispensable qualities at that) which arise from buddhist meditation (singular), but they are not the goal.

It may seem like nit-picking, but you _did_ ask me to explain my answer. =) In the end, I think that many people either intentionally or unintentionally find a good blend of sati and samadhi, resulting in the sort of meditation the Buddha was probably trying to teach. More or less. I think the biggest problem with the artificial separation of buddhist meditation into two branches is that it ends up confusing people. Heck, just look at how often the topic comes up on buddhist forums. And using pali words that most people don't even understand just seems to exacerbate the problem.
Kenshou
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: Samatha vs. Vipassana, am I thinking of this correctly?

Post by Kenshou »

I'm not in disagreement with you. There is meditation, there is the practice. Release from suffering is the goal of course, not "vipassana" or "samatha" themselves. I did not intend to imply that there are two distinct methods of meditation. I was under an impression like that before this thread was posted, but I do not see things in that particular way at this point, thanks to the clarifications of people on this forum and the materials they've given. And those names applied to different aspects of meditation are not the final goal and if I implied that it was due to a fault in my own phrasing/ a brain-fart moment.

But I understand that from your side what I said could appear to have certain connotations that would imply misunderstanding on my part, and you pointing those out is understandable and obviously comes from a place of good intention. So yeah, :tongue:
seanpdx
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Samatha vs. Vipassana, am I thinking of this correctly?

Post by seanpdx »

Kenshou wrote:I'm not in disagreement with you. There is meditation, there is the practice. Release from suffering is the goal of course, not "vipassana" or "samatha" themselves. I did not intend to imply that there are two distinct methods of meditation. I was under an impression like that before this thread was posted, but I do not see things in that particular way at this point, thanks to the clarifications of people on this forum and the materials they've given. And those names applied to different aspects of meditation are not the final goal and if I implied that it was due to a fault in my own phrasing/ a brain-fart moment.

But I understand that from your side what I said could appear to have certain connotations that would imply misunderstanding on my part, and you pointing those out is understandable and obviously comes from a place of good intention. So yeah, :tongue:
You pretty much nailed why I no longer refer to "vipassana" or "samatha" meditation at all. You aren't the only one who has been under that impression. Words are funny, though. I remember being horribly, horribly confused about all the talk of "vipassana meditation", "insight meditation", "samatha meditation", "jhanic meditation", et cetera. I always felt very uncomfortable with it all, but could never quite put my finger on it. So these days I try to refrain from using such words as qualifiers to "meditation", in the hope that I won't confuse others the way I was confused. I prefer just talking about "buddhist meditation". =)

Folks like Ajahn Chah and Ajahn Brahm, quoted previously, do an excellent job of explaining things. =D
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19944
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Samatha vs. Vipassana, am I thinking of this correctly?

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Sean,

We will obviously have to agree to disagree. As I read it there are approaches with different emphases in the Suttas, Commentaries, and the instructions of modern teachers. Without some general understanding of this I think that it's very easy to get confused about the instructions.
seanpdx wrote: Folks like Ajahn Chah and Ajahn Brahm, quoted previously, do an excellent job of explaining things. =D
I like Ajahn Brahm, he's a talented teacher, but personally I ignore some of his statements about other approaches as overenthusiasm... His opinions are not always shared by the other Ajahn Chah students I've had teachings from, such as Ajahn Tiradhammo.

Metta
Mike
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Samatha vs. Vipassana, am I thinking of this correctly?

Post by Cittasanto »

Hi Sean
seanpdx wrote:First, I take issue with the word "meditations" (plural). This implies that there are two (or more) types of meditation that the Buddha taught. I am, of course, working from the assumption that we're speaking of buddhist meditation specifically, and not including non-buddhist meditation. I don't believe he taught more than one type of meditation. And I certainly don't think they could be called "vipassana" or "samatha" if he ever did such a thing.
Well There is Buddhist meditation and then there are the techneques in developing the different sides, that is what meditations refers too, these are stages along the path, rather than the end goal or results. but after saying that meditation isn't a word found in pali, the closest is Bhavana which means cultivation, so when buddhist meditation/s is used it is really referring to the cultivation of a certain aspect.
seanpdx wrote:Secondly, and just as importantly, neither vipassana nor samatha, as qualities, are the results for which buddhist meditation aims. The result for which buddhist meditation aims is nibbana (or whichever synonym or metaphor you prefer). Vipassana and samatha are qualities (and indispensable qualities at that) which arise from buddhist meditation (singular), but they are not the goal.
they are the result of the meditative techniques aims which bare the names, not the end result of the path itself, if someone knew they needed to develop samatha more they would ask about that, they wouldn't ask about buddhist meditation generally.
seanpdx wrote:It may seem like nit-picking, but you _did_ ask me to explain my answer. =) In the end, I think that many people either intentionally or unintentionally find a good blend of sati and samadhi, resulting in the sort of meditation the Buddha was probably trying to teach. More or less. I think the biggest problem with the artificial separation of buddhist meditation into two branches is that it ends up confusing people. Heck, just look at how often the topic comes up on buddhist forums. And using pali words that most people don't even understand just seems to exacerbate the problem.
using english has the same problem, as Pali words can mean something slightly or grossly different to the English being used. look at satipatthana as an example, it can be split in two different ways which give it different meanings to one extent or another, both in pali and translation, and the context could potentially change which is being meant, plus it removes confusion as to what is being meant, take sampajanna as an example one person says alert, another says comprehension so someone who doesn't know the alternative translation is still in the dark, but using a dictionary they are familiar with can find the meaning they are familiar with, and any confusion in the explanation stemming from a post can then be addressed.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
seanpdx
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Samatha vs. Vipassana, am I thinking of this correctly?

Post by seanpdx »

mikenz66 wrote:Hi Sean,

We will obviously have to agree to disagree. As I read it there are approaches with different emphases in the Suttas, Commentaries, and the instructions of modern teachers. Without some general understanding of this I think that it's very easy to get confused about the instructions.
No worries. To each their own.
mikenz66 wrote:
seanpdx wrote: Folks like Ajahn Chah and Ajahn Brahm, quoted previously, do an excellent job of explaining things. =D
I like Ajahn Brahm, he's a talented teacher, but personally I ignore some of his statements about other approaches as overenthusiasm... His opinions are not always shared by the other Ajahn Chah students I've had teachings from, such as Ajahn Tiradhammo.

Metta
Mike
Oh, don't misunderstand -- I don't see eye to eye with every monastic, including Brahm. =)
seanpdx
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Samatha vs. Vipassana, am I thinking of this correctly?

Post by seanpdx »

Manapa wrote:using english has the same problem, as Pali words can mean something slightly or grossly different to the English being used. look at satipatthana as an example, it can be split in two different ways which give it different meanings to one extent or another, both in pali and translation, and the context could potentially change which is being meant, plus it removes confusion as to what is being meant, take sampajanna as an example one person says alert, another says comprehension so someone who doesn't know the alternative translation is still in the dark, but using a dictionary they are familiar with can find the meaning they are familiar with, and any confusion in the explanation stemming from a post can then be addressed.
I glanced at your "Exploration of the Satipatthana Sutta". I had started writing up a reply to your message, but on second thought I think I'll refrain. I'd like to ask you a question, only tangentially related to the topic: On which side of the "sati-patthana/sati-upatthana" debate are you, and why?
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Samatha vs. Vipassana, am I thinking of this correctly?

Post by Cittasanto »

neither, both are for different reasons accurate as both refer to different things.

The foundations of mindfulness (sati-patthanā) are;
1. Ardent;
2. Alert;
3. Mindful;
4. Putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world.
The references of mindfulness (sati-upaṭṭhāna) are;
1. Body;
2. Feeling;
3. Mind;
4. Mental Qualities.

it has moved on since then, not a very good exploration for a couple of reasons, mainly for wordings, and clarity.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
seanpdx
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Samatha vs. Vipassana, am I thinking of this correctly?

Post by seanpdx »

Manapa wrote:neither, both are for different reasons accurate as both refer to different things.

The foundations of mindfulness (sati-patthanā) are;
1. Ardent;
2. Alert;
3. Mindful;
4. Putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world.
The references of mindfulness (sati-upaṭṭhāna) are;
1. Body;
2. Feeling;
3. Mind;
4. Mental Qualities.

it has moved on since then, not a very good exploration for a couple of reasons, mainly for wordings, and clarity.
Have you read any academic papers on the subject?
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Samatha vs. Vipassana, am I thinking of this correctly?

Post by Cittasanto »

one or two, looked at the sutta in pali-english translations, talked to pali translators, dictionaries, encyclopedias etc.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
seanpdx
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Samatha vs. Vipassana, am I thinking of this correctly?

Post by seanpdx »

Manapa wrote:one or two, looked at the sutta in pali-english translations, talked to pali translators, dictionaries, encyclopedias etc.
I wholeheartedly recommend "Mindfulness in Early Buddhism: New approaches through psychology and textual analysis of Pali, Chinese, and Sanskrit sources" by Tse-fu Kuan. Good read.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Samatha vs. Vipassana, am I thinking of this correctly?

Post by Cittasanto »

I have a link to the google version although from what I read it has nothing particularly of value not found in other works which I could add to the newer version http://books.google.com/books?id=ZEk2rp ... q=&f=false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
seanpdx
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Samatha vs. Vipassana, am I thinking of this correctly?

Post by seanpdx »

Manapa wrote:I have a link to the google version although from what I read it has nothing particularly of value not found in other works which I could add to the newer version http://books.google.com/books?id=ZEk2rp ... q=&f=false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The google version? The one that ends at page 23? The entire book is 200+ pages.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Samatha vs. Vipassana, am I thinking of this correctly?

Post by Cittasanto »

Look at the link, :focus:
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Samatha vs. Vipassana, am I thinking of this correctly?

Post by tiltbillings »

Manapa wrote:Look at the link, :focus:
Looking at the index, it is over 200 pages, but the text online stops at 125 or so with pages missing inbetween. It is one of those books from Routledge that runs over $100. There may eventually be a cheaper paperback edition.
>> 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
Post Reply