Re: Bhante Vimalaramsi
Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2011 6:44 pm
Hi ancientbuddhism,
Thank you for your post and your opinion. Mettaya!
Thank you for your post and your opinion. Mettaya!
A Buddhist discussion forum on the Dhamma of Theravāda Buddhism
https://www.dhammawheel.com/
Your contention is that you have issue with.........Hi Tilt,
No need to apologise, I am not offended at all. I would point out though, that if I have ever put up a post that said 'Goenka talks crap on so many levels', I would certainly not be in a position to pm you now. Even this pm is a result of what would happen if I made the above comments in a posting.
Having said that I do not think it should be a free for all, but there should be a balance in what one 'school' is allowed to say about the other and what another 'school' is not. I think one of the main causes for contention is that people of my ilk are concerned that the Buddha's teachings are being/have been changed. I personally couldn't care less about Buddhaghosa's teachings and if they do or they don't fit into the Buddha's teachings. I would much prefer to refer to the original suttas and have contemporary teachers, who I can relate to, to explain things. I don't see the point of having contemporary teachers explaining a commentary that is meant to explain the suttas. There seems to be one level to many there. It might make people think that the Buddha was a poor teacher.
Metta
This is your contention, not fact.V's gross distortion of the Buddhaghosa story in order to impeach Buddhaghosa teachings, which basically is an ad hominem attack and it lacks intgerity. Also, the snide, flippant attitude towards other teachers, both in terms what was said, how it was said and the body language.
And it was not identified as being your msg and full context makes no difference to my point.Brizzy wrote:Hi Tilt,
Having stated that this subject should not be pursued on this thread, you then go and further it, using my pm!
Since you saw fit to use a portion of my pm on your post, I thought it only fair to post the full message to put it in context.
And it is a contention that I supported by V's own words and actions: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 40#p117352 And as I said, if you wish to re-litigate this, then please use the older thread. And again as I said, you do not have to agree with me, but the point of what I said in the PM was that my complaint about V was not his dismissal of the commentaries. It is, rather, as I said, his unnecessarily prejudicial dismissal of other teachers and his distortion of the Buddhaghosa story. Now, if you want to discuss these issues further, take it to the thread linked in the msg.Brizzy wrote:Your contention is that you have issue with.........This is your contention, not fact.V's gross distortion of the Buddhaghosa story in order to impeach Buddhaghosa teachings, which basically is an ad hominem attack and it lacks integrity. Also, the snide, flippant attitude towards other teachers, both in terms what was said, how it was said and the body language.
The "smile and relax" I first heard it talked about by Joseph Goldstein during a 3 month reteat in the 70's. He said he got it from Munindra-ji.Khalil Bodhi wrote:Tilt,
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my question with great links and by pin-pointing your problem with Bhante V. I, too, find it troubling but do like the technique. You mentioned you were familiar with other teachers who employ a similar "smile and relax" method and, if you happen to remember them and don't mind sharing their names I'd appreciate it.
Hello Tiltbillings:tiltbillings wrote:The "smile and relax" I first heard it talked about by Joseph Goldstein during a 3 month reteat in the 70's. He said he got it from Munindra-ji.Khalil Bodhi wrote:Tilt,
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my question with great links and by pin-pointing your problem with Bhante V. I, too, find it troubling but do like the technique. You mentioned you were familiar with other teachers who employ a similar "smile and relax" method and, if you happen to remember them and don't mind sharing their names I'd appreciate it.
What Joseph G. talked about was recognizing the tension that one might be carrying, or that might arise as a result of a particular mind state or object of awareness. Sometimes it is easy to get into a state of grimness or tension while sitting in meditation. He talked about making a deliberate effort to physically and mentally relax, to let the face and body go soft, which makes it easier to let the mind relax and to let go, and part of all this is to put a small smile on one’s face, which has a rather interesting effect of lightening up one’s affect.2600htz wrote: "smile and relax" are general statements, probably every person on earth is using this instructions in some way or another, that doesnt mean they are doing the same thing that this or another buddhist meditator.
So my guess is that Joseph Goldstein and Munindra-ji are doing different meditations that B.Vimalaramsi if we go to the details. Anyways i would love to know they are doing simmilar things.
With metta.
Hello Tiltbillings:tiltbillings wrote:What Joseph G. talked about was recognizing the tension that one might be carrying, or that might arise as a result of a particular mind state or object of awareness. Sometimes it is easy to get into a state of grimness or tension while sitting in meditation. He talked about making a deliberate effort to physically and mentally relax, to let the face and body go soft, which makes it easier to let the mind relax and to let go, and part of all this is to put a small smile on one’s face, which has a rather interesting effect of lightening up one’s affect.2600htz wrote: "smile and relax" are general statements, probably every person on earth is using this instructions in some way or another, that doesnt mean they are doing the same thing that this or another buddhist meditator.
So my guess is that Joseph Goldstein and Munindra-ji are doing different meditations that B.Vimalaramsi if we go to the details. Anyways i would love to know they are doing simmilar things.
With metta.
Whereas Joseph G. talked about this as an as needed practice, Vimalaramsi incorporated, as an integral aspect, something like this into the method he devised, which is really naught more than a variation of the Burmese methods. As I have said, if Vimalaramsi’s method speaks to you, then use it. I am not criticizing the actual meditation method he has devised and is teaching.
Thank you for your considered reply. The issue here for me concerning Vimalaramsi does not have to do with his meditation instructions, but it is interesting to look at what Joseph G. has to say in light of what Vimalaramsi has said.=” 2600htz”]I just listen to a Joseph Goldstein dhamma talk on "mindfulness of breathing instructions" and found it very good:).
Even while i train under B.Vimalaramsi instructions, im not an advanced student, so mainly i just want to see the differences between teachers techniques, nothing else .
I repeat, im not interested in saying wich teacher is better or worst.
While Joseph G. has been trained in formal Mahasi Sayadaw type practice, he also recognizes that techniques are not sacred. While it is important when using a technique to be impeccably disciplined with its use, there is also a recognition that they are not set in stone and that it may be quite useful to experiment with them. As one’s practice matures, as one gains insight, what worked at one time may not be as effective for deeper practice or for the place one may find oneself.But Joseph G. takes an open approach on the controvertial parts of the sutta, while B.Vimaralmsi sticks with one choice.
Different results? Maybe, but it should be a matter of leading to insight into the dependent arising and falling nature of all that we are, seeing the anicca, dukkha, and anatta nature of what we imagine ourselves to be, all leading to letting go.So the differences in that matter are subtle, yet they seems to be there and hipotetically they could lead to different results sometimes.
A rose by any other name . . . . Vimalaramsi’s technique is a bit more busy than what Joseph G. is advocating, but noting when done correctly is a very effective technique for cultivating concentration, mindfulness, and for letting go of “distractions.”-Distractions/hindrances. Joseph G. seems to take a "noting and coming back to the object" approach (?). While Vimalaramsi is against noting, and he uses the "6rs": recognice a distraction (just knowing u are not in the object anymore without the need to do a "noting" of what pulled you), release attention to thoughts and the distraction, relax tightness in body and mind, resmile, return to the object, repeat process. Here he states that without doing this relax before coming back, you bring back craving to the object. The smile is used as a secondary object theme (as stated in MN-20 The Relaxation of Thoughts).
As you are describing this, there seems to be a lot of conceptual thought going on here. If one simply pays attention with a concentrated, mindful mind, one sees that without having to look for it.-Insight. For Vimalaramsi, what the student must practice always is "to see how mind goes from being in the object, to being pulled away and being in a distraction". Thats his main meditation instruction. So the student by repeating over and over again the process of being in the object and getting pulled away begins to learn that first there was a feeling,later the craving,later the clinging, and so on, until finally he sees the process in a clear way and he is able to let go of craving.
What is the Burmese method? In the case of Joseph Goldstein, I would say the Mahasi Sayadaw method, but he is certainly not slavish to it.Tiltbillings, why do you call it variations of the Burmese method?, What is the Burmese method?. From what i heard, Goldstein and Vimalaramsi they both used nothing more than the suttas as their base for instructions, would that be the Suttas method?
This is a key point. Any elaboration of how to use the suttas in practice is, clearly, "not literally what the Buddha taught" and that applies to every teacher. One certainly doesn't find the "smile" and "6Rs" instructions in the Suttas, for example. However, such elaborations are not contradictory to the suttas, and they seem to be helpful to many practitioners.tiltbillings wrote: These sorts of techniques that Joseph G., Vimalaramsi and others teaches are not what the Buddha taught, but they are ways of putting into practice what the Buddha taught.
"As for the individual who has attained neither internal tranquillity of awareness nor insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, he should approach an individual who has attained both internal tranquillity of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment... and ask him, 'How should the mind be steadied? How should it be made to settle down? How should it be unified? How should it be concentrated? How should fabrications be regarded? How should they be investigated? How should they be seen with insight?' The other will answer in line with what he has seen & experienced:
...
Thank you, i read it. The main discussion was that Vimalaramsi´s method is no different that Burmese vipassana/Mahasi Sayadaw variations. But for the moment i don´t see it that way because of the things we had talk about (specially the difference between "noting and coming back" and the "6rs"). I dont see you as an opinionated blowhard because we are talking about completely objective differences, not talking about preferences or personal ideas .tiltbillings wrote:Thank you for your considered reply. The issue here for me concerning Vimalaramsi does not have to do with his meditation instructions, but it is interesting to look at what Joseph G. has to say in light of what Vimalaramsi has said.=” 2600htz”]I just listen to a Joseph Goldstein dhamma talk on "mindfulness of breathing instructions" and found it very good:).
Even while i train under B.Vimalaramsi instructions, im not an advanced student, so mainly i just want to see the differences between teachers techniques, nothing else .
I repeat, im not interested in saying wich teacher is better or worst.
Thank you for the answer! , oh my god im really bad using this multi quoting thing but i will try .
While Joseph G. has been trained in formal Mahasi Sayadaw type practice, he also recognizes that techniques are not sacred. While it is important when using a technique to be impeccably disciplined with its use, there is also a recognition that they are not set in stone and that it may be quite useful to experiment with them. As one’s practice matures, as one gains insight, what worked at one time may not be as effective for deeper practice or for the place one may find oneself.But Joseph G. takes an open approach on the controvertial parts of the sutta, while B.Vimaralmsi sticks with one choice.
These sorts of techniques that Joseph G., Vimalaramsi and others teaches are not what the Buddha taught, but they are ways of putting into practice what the Buddha taught.
Good point.
Different results? Maybe, but it should be a matter of leading to insight into the dependent arising and falling nature of all that we are, seeing the anicca, dukkha, and anatta nature of what we imagine ourselves to be, all leading to letting go.So the differences in that matter are subtle, yet they seems to be there and hipotetically they could lead to different results sometimes.
A rose by any other name . . . . Vimalaramsi’s technique is a bit more busy than what Joseph G. is advocating, but noting when done correctly is a very effective technique for cultivating concentration, mindfulness, and for letting go of “distractions.”-Distractions/hindrances. Joseph G. seems to take a "noting and coming back to the object" approach (?). While Vimalaramsi is against noting, and he uses the "6rs": recognice a distraction (just knowing u are not in the object anymore without the need to do a "noting" of what pulled you), release attention to thoughts and the distraction, relax tightness in body and mind, resmile, return to the object, repeat process. Here he states that without doing this relax before coming back, you bring back craving to the object. The smile is used as a secondary object theme (as stated in MN-20 The Relaxation of Thoughts).
Here i disagree. If what Joseph G. does is "noting and coming back" i would say that its very different to the "6rs" that B. Vimalaramsi does, so i wont call it "a rose by any other name".
Its like saying that there is no difference between just coming back and noting and coming back. I repeat, i only care about differences,im not into effectiveness.
As you are describing this, there seems to be a lot of conceptual thought going on here. If one simply pays attention with a concentrated, mindful mind, one sees that without having to look for it.-Insight. For Vimalaramsi, what the student must practice always is "to see how mind goes from being in the object, to being pulled away and being in a distraction". Thats his main meditation instruction. So the student by repeating over and over again the process of being in the object and getting pulled away begins to learn that first there was a feeling,later the craving,later the clinging, and so on, until finally he sees the process in a clear way and he is able to let go of craving.
B. Vimalaramsi explain that this seeing isn´t done in a conceptual way. Its made as you say by attention and repetition, in a "mechanical" way, and the doing of the "6rs".
The instruction its putted in that way to show where is the real practice.
What is the Burmese method? In the case of Joseph Goldstein, I would say the Mahasi Sayadaw method, but he is certainly not slavish to it.Tiltbillings, why do you call it variations of the Burmese method?, What is the Burmese method?. From what i heard, Goldstein and Vimalaramsi they both used nothing more than the suttas as their base for instructions, would that be the Suttas method?
ohh ok
You might find this thread of interest:
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 55&start=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It is an argumentative thread, but if you can overlook that, you might find it interesting in regards to your question. Now, it is not easy to have one’s teacher criticized, and you may not want to read that thread, which is fine, and if you do read it you certainly can, not without justification, dismiss what I have to say in it as coming from an opinionated blowhard.
Thanks. It will be a day or two before I'll have the time to give your msg the time it requires.2600htz wrote: . . . .
Khalil Bodhi wrote:Hi All,
I have heard some criticisms of late of Bhante Vimalaramsi and would be interested in hearing why some people have an issue or issues with him.