What is the Dark Night of the Soul in Buddhist terms?

[Caodemarte]

The Dark Night, in the buddhist context, refers to a phase in a vipassana meditator's practice when the meditator can be filled with feelings of dread, fear, anger, depression, worry, and so on.

There's already a term that covers that: samvega.

The question is, insofar "samvega" and "the dark night" can be construed as overlapping eachother.

No, not really. They are not the same or equivalent states. I am not the language and you can always make your own language up with meanings only understood by the in-group. Teenagers, gangs, clubs, professions, clubs and cults do it all the time. Of course, Orwell pointed out that sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking, which is sometimes the intent.

[Sam Vara]

Yes, as I said, it depends on how one views spiritual practice. If one takes the view the first steps are to develop virtue, wakefulness, mindfulness, etc, then practising any (reasonably sensible) path will be perceived to be helpful. If one focusses on dictrine, one will have a different view.

It's kind of hard to ignore the threat of eternal damnation.
You think the Christian religions are "reasonably sensible paths"?

In the terms in which Mike is talking, I think that Christianity has, inter alia, every right to be called a "reasonably sensible path". I have just spent two years living among very devout Christians (priests and those training to be priests, and eminent Christian theologians) in a Cambridge college. Their virtue was, generally speaking, far better than most people that I have met, and I cannot imagine that any group of non-monastic Buddhists living in such close proximity would do any better. I was very frequently humbled by their selfless actions and the care they took over speech. I learnt a great deal from them. The same applies - to a lesser extent - to their wakefulness and mindfulness. Now I am living in a rural parish, and am still interacting on a daily basis with Christians, albeit in a more ordinary and less intense environment. Again, though, my neighbours seem to be virtuous people. I've no doubt that the same applies to Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs, all of whom have from time to time impressed me with their personal qualities.

I can't recall anyone ever talking about "eternal damnation", except ironically. They may have had beliefs about eternal damnation, of course, but this is precisely the kind of doctrinal point that Mike said would lead to different conclusions.

[Modus.Ponens]

The Dark Night, in the buddhist context, refers to a phase in a vipassana meditator's practice when the meditator can be filled with feelings of dread, fear, anger, depression, worry, and so on.

There's already a term that covers that: samvega.

The question is, insofar "samvega" and "the dark night" can be construed as overlapping eachother.

These two things are not the same. They can exist at the same time, or just one of them, or neither.

If I understand correctly, samvega is a sense of urgency for spiritual liberation. It can be brought about by reflecting on death, on the shortness and fragility of life, on the precious opportunity that is associated with a human life, on sickness, on old age, on impermanence, on unsatisfactoriness.

The "dark night" is quite similar to the grieving process associated with the death of a loved one, or with knowing that you have a deadly illness. Except this grief is not brought about by the direct confrontation with your death, or the death of a loved one. It is brought about by the direct confrontation with impermanence. Samatha can make the difference between a long difficult "dark night", and a short easy "dark night". But I don't think liberation is possible without a direct confrontation with (or rather, a direct knowledge of) impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and not self.

So, one is a sense of urgency, the other is similar to grief. They originate from similar themes, but they're not the same.

PS: There is also another more general sense in which the expression "dark night" is employed. It can mean any significant negative side effect of meditation. But this use of "dark night" is not as common.

[Caodemarte]

The Dark Night, in the buddhist context, refers to a phase in a vipassana meditator's practice when the meditator can be filled with feelings of dread, fear, anger, depression, worry, and so on.

There's already a term that covers that: samvega.

The question is, insofar "samvega" and "the dark night" can be construed as overlapping eachother.

These two things are not the same. They can exist at the same time, or just one of them, or neither....
The "dark night" is quite similar to the grieving process associated with the death of a loved one, or with knowing that you have a deadly illness. Except this grief is not brought about by the direct confrontation with your death, or the death of a loved one. It is brought about by the direct confrontation with impermanence. Samatha can make the difference between a long difficult "dark night", and a short easy "dark night". But I don't think liberation is possible without a direct confrontation with (or rather, a direct knowledge of) impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and not self....

This is somewhat like redefining the term “passion of Christ” in Christian mysticism as an eager or happy feeling, desire for liberation, or the temptations offered by Mara (or calling Mara the “Buddhist Satan”). It is not a crime, but does not increase understanding. And with that I betray my own passion for clear speech and bow out.

[binocular]

I can't recall anyone ever talking about "eternal damnation", except ironically. They may have had beliefs about eternal damnation, of course, but this is precisely the kind of doctrinal point that Mike said would lead to different conclusions.

Well, eagerly ignoring doctrine like that, we might also hang out with, say, gangsters. Gangsters place a great amount of importance on virtue -- as they understand it.

[mikenz66]

...

It's kind of hard to ignore the threat of eternal damnation.
You think the Christian religions are "reasonably sensible paths"?

In the terms in which Mike is talking, I think that Christianity has, inter alia, every right to be called a "reasonably sensible path". I have just spent two years living among very devout Christians (priests and those training to be priests, and eminent Christian theologians) in a Cambridge college. Their virtue was, generally speaking, far better than most people that I have met, and I cannot imagine that any group of non-monastic Buddhists living in such close proximity would do any better. ...

Thanks Sam Vara, that fits with my experience. I have a Seventh Day Adventist friend who I have worked with extensively (he's a professor at a US University, which I have visited briefly), and, though of course we disagree strongly on theology, we certainly have a lot of commonality in general outlook.

As for "eternal damnation", we have "aeons of damnation" in the suttas. I have had door-knocking Jehova's Witnesses talk about eternal damnation, but apart from that, I've not heard Christians obsess about it, any more than I hear Buddhists obsess about avici hell.

Perhaps I've been lucky...


Mike

[mikenz66]

Comparing Fransciscan monks to Thai Forest meditators is laughable. Just sayin'.

I don't think Thomas Merton would agree with you if he was still around: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Merton

I can't find a reference right now, but I understand Catholic (Jesuit?) monks who resided in Buddhist monasteries in Asia provided some of the earliest accurate reports of Buddhist monasticism (in the 16th-17th C?).


Mike

[Sam Vara]

I can't recall anyone ever talking about "eternal damnation", except ironically. They may have had beliefs about eternal damnation, of course, but this is precisely the kind of doctrinal point that Mike said would lead to different conclusions.

Well, eagerly ignoring doctrine like that, we might also hang out with, say, gangsters. Gangsters place a great amount of importance on virtue -- as they understand it.

I am, of course, talking about virtue as I understand it. The virtue which gangsters prize has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

I'm not "eagerly ignoring" doctrine; just talking about virtues. Doctrine is another thing which I am happy to talk about, but it's not relevant here.

[Modus.Ponens]

These two things are not the same. They can exist at the same time, or just one of them, or neither....
The "dark night" is quite similar to the grieving process associated with the death of a loved one, or with knowing that you have a deadly illness. Except this grief is not brought about by the direct confrontation with your death, or the death of a loved one. It is brought about by the direct confrontation with impermanence. Samatha can make the difference between a long difficult "dark night", and a short easy "dark night". But I don't think liberation is possible without a direct confrontation with (or rather, a direct knowledge of) impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and not self....

This is somewhat like redefining the term “passion of Christ” in Christian mysticism as an eager or happy feeling, desire for liberation, or the temptations offered by Mara (or calling Mara the “Buddhist Satan”). It is not a crime, but does not increase understanding. And with that I betray my own passion for clear speech and bow out.

I understand what you're saying. The expression "dark night", as used in some buddhist circles, means something quite distinct from what it meant originally in the christian context. But I am merely describing how the term is used in buddhist circles, which was SarathW's question. I guess pointing both these things will clarify SarathW's question.

I actually agree with your objection regarding precise language. I like to see commonalities between spiritual traditions, because some of the differences are merely semantic. But I don't like to see different things being equated (often in a strained effort of ecumenism). It seems to me that this is a case where the christian "dark night" and the buddhist "dark night" are genuinely different things. I don't think the buddhist use of "dark night" has an ecumenic motivation _ at least not anymore _ , but the term has already become a part of the buddhist lexycon on the internet.

[Spiny Norman]

but the terms seems to have slipped its Catholic moorings by now:

Agree.
That is why I confused about this.
It seems some people use this word to denote "depression"

Some compare it to the “Knowledges of Suffering” and regard it as an inevitable stage of practice:
https://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/gu ... Dark+Night

[binocular]

I'm not "eagerly ignoring" doctrine; just talking about virtues. Doctrine is another thing which I am happy to talk about, but it's not relevant here.

Cults typically focus on cultivating virtue; virtue in mostly quite mainstream terms (hard work, honesty, kindness etc.). They are, however, still cults. (Even though lately, the term isn't supposed to be used anymore.)

Divorcing virtue from doctrine is a form of silabbata-paramasa, grasping at precepts and practices in the conviction that they are the highest, the most important there is, or sufficient.

[Sam Vara]

I'm not "eagerly ignoring" doctrine; just talking about virtues. Doctrine is another thing which I am happy to talk about, but it's not relevant here.

Cults typically focus on cultivating virtue; virtue in mostly quite mainstream terms (hard work, honesty, kindness etc.). They are, however, still cults. (Even though lately, the term isn't supposed to be used anymore.)

Of course, but it is not the virtues which makes them cults. If they were merely virtuous, then they would just be virtuous people, with nothing to identify them as cults. The status of being a cult depends on something other than mere virtue.

Divorcing virtue from doctrine is a form of silabbata-paramasa, grasping at precepts and practices in the conviction that they are the highest, the most important there is, or sufficient.

I don't have any such conviction that precepts and practices are "the highest, the most important there is, or sufficient". I'm just pointing out that virtue is something conceptually separable from other path factors, just like the Buddha did.

[Derek]

It's not really an official Buddhist term. Bill Hamilton borrowed it from St. John of the Cross as a collective name for certain knowledge-states (ñāṇa-s) that are described in the commentarial meditation tradition.

In chapter 21 of the Visuddhimagga, Buddhaghoṣa enumerates eight “knowledges”:

1. Knowledge of rise and fall
2. Knowledge of dissolution
3. Knowledge of appearance as terror
4. Knowledge of danger
5. Knowledge of dispassion
6. Knowledge of desire for deliverance
7. Knowledge of reflection
8. Knowledge of equanimity about formations

Mahasi Sayadaw's version of these appears in works such as The Progress of Insight. The Mahasi Sayadaw scheme differentiates eighteen states:

1. Analytical knowledge of body and mind
2. Knowledge by discerning conditionality
3. Knowledge by comprehension
4. Knowledge of arising and passing away in its weak stage, involving the ten corruptions of insight
5. Knowledge of dissolution
6. Knowledge of fearfulness
7. Knowledge of misery
8. Knowledge of disgust
9. Knowledge of desire for deliverance
10. Knowledge of re-observation
11. Knowledge of equanimity about formations
12. Insight leading to emergence
13. Knowledge of adaptation
14. Maturity knowledge
15. Path knowledge
16. Fruition knowledge
17. Knowledge of reviewing
18. Attainment of fruition

Some further small changes to the Mahasi Sayadaw list appear in Daniel Ingram's Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha. This list of sixteen is apparently identical to the one taught by Bill Hamilton:

1. Mind and body
2. Cause and effect
3. The three characteristics
4. The arising and passing away
5. Dissolution, entrance to the dark night
6. Fear
7. Misery
8. Disgust
9. Desire for deliverance
10. Re-observation
11. Equanimity
12. Conformity
13. Change of lineage
14. Path
15. Fruition
16. Review

Following in the footsteps of Bill Hamilton, MCTB groups steps 5 through 10 together using St. John of the Cross’s term “dark night” for them collectively. If you want to read what St. John originally meant by “dark night,” see Dark Night of the Soul at CCEL.

[Saengnapha]

Comparing Fransciscan monks to Thai Forest meditators is laughable. Just sayin'.

I don't think Thomas Merton would agree with you if he was still around: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Merton

I can't find a reference right now, but I understand Catholic (Jesuit?) monks who resided in Buddhist monasteries in Asia provided some of the earliest accurate reports of Buddhist monasticism (in the 16th-17th C?).


Mike

Yes, but their practices were quite different. Monks of different religions have certain things in common, more about lifestyle than instruction on what to do inwardly. Asceticism looks similar. A cursory reading of ST. John of the Cross will point out what the actual practice is and how it is gone about plus the various stages, etc.

[binocular]

I don't have any such conviction that precepts and practices are "the highest, the most important there is, or sufficient". I'm just pointing out that virtue is something conceptually separable from other path factors, just like the Buddha did.

Of course they can be conceptually separated. I'm saying that such a separation, while ignoring doctrine, is unwise (and the Buddha didn't separate while ignoring doctrine). Separating like that, one might end up in a cult.
Insisting that such a separation is wise or useful, and ignoring doctrine, that is a case of silabbata-paramsa.