What is your opinion of this Brizzy? And how did you come you your conclusions?Brizzy wrote: Is "practicing" vipassana possible?
with metta
Chris
What is your opinion of this Brizzy? And how did you come you your conclusions?Brizzy wrote: Is "practicing" vipassana possible?
Refer to tiltbillings post. A meditation technique/ritual/bodyscan that one decides to label "vipassana" is a misnomer.cooran wrote:What is your opinion of this Brizzy? And how did you come you your conclusions?Brizzy wrote: Is "practicing" vipassana possible?
with metta
Chris
It is just one of those things like "taking" refuge or "enlightenment."Brizzy wrote:]
Refer to tiltbillings post. A meditation technique/ritual/bodyscan that one decides to label "vipassana" is a misnomer.
I do not understand.tiltbillings wrote:It is just one of those things like "taking" refuge or "enlightenment."Brizzy wrote:]
Refer to tiltbillings post. A meditation technique/ritual/bodyscan that one decides to label "vipassana" is a misnomer.
One does not "take" refuge; the Pali is gacchami, I go for refuge. Bodhi is awakening, not enlightenment. Calling the practice "vipassana" because it cultivates those things that leads to vipassana is just one of those things. It is no big deal.Brizzy wrote:I do not understand.tiltbillings wrote:It is just one of those things like "taking" refuge or "enlightenment."Brizzy wrote:]
Refer to tiltbillings post. A meditation technique/ritual/bodyscan that one decides to label "vipassana" is a misnomer.
It is, if one believes that by following a certain technique/rite/ritual/bodyscan etc. one will necessarily cultivate the eightfold path. A technique is just that and should not be vaunted as the thing itself. The Buddha was very reticent about such things as "techniques", he rather gave a teaching and left it to each individuals wisdom to penetrate.tiltbillings wrote: One does not "take" refuge; the Pali is gacchami, I go for refuge. Bodhi is awakening, not enlightenment. Calling the practice "vipassana" because it cultivates those things that leads to vipassana is just one of those things. It is no big deal.
No, sorry. bhanga is not Jhana. Although some may conflate the two.Oleksandr wrote:Hello Ben,
I understand that in Goenka tradition "bhanga" is not associated with jhanas. It is my personal opinion that state called "bhanga" by S.N. Goenka and his students is the same or near that what is called "jhana" in some other traditions.
Anyway, may be you can recommend texts or dhammatalks where "bhanga" is described in details (more or less) by S.N. Goenka or somebody else from his tradition? Then I would be able to elaborate on this topic or to correct my opinion.
My initial response is: tough beans. The fact of the matter is that it is going to be called vipassana meditation whether you like it or not and your petulant "rite/ritual" slam adds nothing. "Techniques" are simply tools, which may or may not be a fit for those who try them, but if they help one cultivate a concentrated/mindful mind, why complain? Being tools they are sooner or later let go.Brizzy wrote:
It is, if one believes that by following a certain technique/rite/ritual/bodyscan etc. one will necessarily cultivate the eightfold path. A technique is just that and should not be vaunted as the thing itself. The Buddha was very reticent about such things as "techniques", he rather gave a teaching and left it to each individuals wisdom to penetrate.
are the instructions to rahula not a technique? or the anapanasati sutta, or 4 things one does that leads to the 1st stage of awakening. they are like goenka's or mahasi sayadaw's or anyone else's technique, simply instructions one follows to allow for the arising of the conditions necessary for insight to arise. nothing more. it would seem those who vilify these techniques as more than this make more of them than do those who follow them or instruct other's in them.Brizzy wrote:It is, if one believes that by following a certain technique/rite/ritual/bodyscan etc. one will necessarily cultivate the eightfold path. A technique is just that and should not be vaunted as the thing itself. The Buddha was very reticent about such things as "techniques", he rather gave a teaching and left it to each individuals wisdom to penetrate.tiltbillings wrote: One does not "take" refuge; the Pali is gacchami, I go for refuge. Bodhi is awakening, not enlightenment. Calling the practice "vipassana" because it cultivates those things that leads to vipassana is just one of those things. It is no big deal.
Basically, description of "bhanga" in S.N. Goenka's lectures at the 10-day retreat reminds me quite close how "jhana" is described by Thanissaro Bhikkhu and Henepola Gunaratana. I have also considered Mahasi Sayadaw's texts, suttas and personal experience.Ben wrote:Hi Oleksandr,
As a matter of interest, what is your opinion based on?
To your last sentence I would say....... quite so.upekkha wrote:I find this whole 'bhanga: jhana or not jhana' discussion to be faulty, since it is too general.
It's not like you are analyzing someone's description of a certain meditation experience and then commenting on what you think that was, you are talking in broad terms.
'Bhanga' can mean different things to different people. 'Jhana' can mean different things to different people (Sutta Jhana vs. Visudhimagga Jhana).
If you take the 'Vipassana Jhana' approach (Mahasi Sayadaw), then the experience of Bhanga is within the 2nd Vipassana Jhana.
But from my own experience, what Goenka calls 'Bhanga' can be experienced in different ways. You could have a 'Bhanga-like' experience in the First Nyana (Mind & Body) where you feel the whole body as vibrations, but you can also have a 'Bhanga' experience (which is probably what Goenka means) at the 4th nyana (Arising and passing away), which feels much more intense than Nyana 1. It could be felt as the whole body exploding into vibrations, lack of orientation of body and so on.
It is simply a matter of one's own personal experience, and talking so broadly is really point-less, I think
Yes (although it may take some time to find all relevant quotes etc.)Ben wrote:Hi Oleksandr
Would you be so kind to elaborate; to compare and contrast?