Alan Wallace on Modern Vipassana

[alan]

Actually I was giving you a way out.

[tiltbillings]

Actually I was giving you a way out.

Of course, now you are trying to be funny. So, far you have blown a lot of smoke here. You were asked directly to give us an idea of what you understood "bare attention" to be and you just side-stepped it. If you want a dialogue, it helps to answer the questions put to you, rather than avoiding the question and countering with other questions.

[alan]

Take on the idea, tilt, not who said it. It's a diversion to ask who said what in this context. I could say A, B and C said it. Then you'd just tell me that you have no respect for A, B and C.

[tiltbillings]

Take on the idea, tilt, not who said it. It's a diversion to ask who said what in this context. I could say A, B and C said it. Then you'd just tell me that you have no respect for A, B and C.

Damdifino what you are talking about here. With Wallace we have an accusation of unnamed modern Vipassana teachers teaching in a way that distorts the Dhamma, but the problem is that we have no examples of what it is they are teaching or who they are. All we have is just what Wallace says they are teaching, and in the process pretty much implying the whole of the modern vipassana movement - or a fair number of teachers - are guilty of distorting the Dhamma, which is really ugly and serious.

[tiltbillings]

Keep in mind, Alan, that the OP states: "I don't necessarily agree with Wallace, but I'm curious exactly what Tiltbillings finds unimpressive about Wallace's critique, and what everyone thinks of the article he posted." He asking my opinion here, and one of things I find as a problem with this article is the accusation of unnamed modern Vipassana teachers teaching in a way that distorts the Dhamma, which very unnecessarily tars pretty much all modern Vipassana teachers with doing that.

[alan]

Oh, tilt.
Why the anger? I apologize if I said anything in the past that upset you.
We were supposed to be discussing the article. But you've turned it into a prosecution, and it does not reflect well on you. Thought I'd give you a chance to cool down, but you keep charging! Why?

[tiltbillings]

Oh, tilt.
Why the anger?

Anger? Hardly.

I apologize if I said anything in the past that upset you.

Don't apologize. Just answer questions put to you.

We were supposed to be discussing the article. But you've turned it into a prosecution, and it does not reflect well on you. Thought I'd give you a chance to cool down, but you keep charging! Why?

I ask a question; you refuse to answer. When asked about your claim that there are teachers who are doing what Wallace claims (which is one major complaint I have about Wallece's interview), you dodge the question. Don't play this game of trying to turn it back onto me.

Back to the subject, if you will be so kind.

[d.sullivan]

Here is Wallace's broadside against vipassana practice: http://www.tricycle.com/a-mindful-balance" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am not impressed.

In another thread, Tiltbillings wrote this, and I wanted to respond to it without taking the thread off topic, so I'm starting a new thread.

I don't necessarily agree with Wallace, but I'm curious exactly what Tiltbillings finds unimpressive about Wallace's critique, and what everyone thinks of the article he posted.

Reading the article, I'm not sure it contains a "broadside against vipassana practice," only a critique of modern mindfulness practice, which Wallace posits is actually not the same as traditional Therevadin vipassana.

Who are these naughty "modern vipassana teachers" Wallace is talking about?

To be clear, I don't necessarily agree with the distinction Wallace made between modern Theravadin teachers and traditional ones, I was merely pointing out that he made this distinction, and that he was not intending to attack the Theravadin tradition in general.

The fact that Wallace leaves these teachers unnamed is certainly problematic for this article. I'm reluctant to put words in Wallace's mouth, but I would guess that he is referring to teachers like Kornfield and Goldstein. In the article, Wallace asserts that a problem with this "bare attention" form of vippassana is that it is lacking in terms of not including Right Intention, View and Effort. Given that even teachers such as Kornfield and Goldstein do not neglect these aspects of the path, either Wallace is not referring to them, or his critique is invalid. I wonder if it is the latter.

The part of the article that I find most interesting is Wallace's claim that modern Buddhism in general seems to be lacking in the samatha department. From my limited knowledge, this distinction between western and eastern teachers seems to hold true; Jack Kornfield, for instance, seems to emphasize samatha/jhana practice very little, while eastern Theravadin teachers value such practices more. Am I wrong in perceiving this distinction, and what do you think of Wallace's critique of western Buddhism as lacking in the concentration aspect of the Path?

[tiltbillings]

To be clear, I don't necessarily agree with the distinction Wallace made between modern Theravadin teachers and traditional ones, I was merely pointing out that he made this distinction, and that he was not intending to attack the Theravadin tradition in general.

Damdifino what his intentions were, but it is a choice of wording that is a problem, which is less than skillful. And it sure looks like he was attacking modern vipassana teachings, and who would that be?

The fact that Wallace leaves these teachers unnamed is certainly problematic for this article. I'm reluctant to put words in Wallace's mouth, but I would guess that he is referring to teachers like Kornfield and Goldstein.

If he is referring to K & G, then he is remarkably stupid and ignorant. I have done 3 three month retreats with these guys, and Wallace's characterization of the modern Vipassana teachers simply do not fit their style and content of teaching.

In the article, Wallace asserts that a problem with this "bare attention" form of vippassana is that it is lacking in terms of not including Right Intention, View and Effort. Given that even teachers such as Kornfield and Goldstein do not neglect these aspects of the path, either Wallace is not referring to them, or his critique is invalid. I wonder if it is the latter.

I suspect it has to do more with sectarianism, but then who knows. There is a tendency to want to define things - vipassana and samatha - in one's own school's terms.

The part of the article that I find most interesting is Wallace's claim that modern Buddhism in general seems to be lacking in the samatha department. From my limited knowledge, this distinction between western and eastern teachers seems to hold true; Jack Kornfield, for instance, seems to emphasize samatha/jhana practice very little, while eastern Theravadin teachers value such practices more. Am I wrong in perceiving this distinction, and what do you think of Wallace's critique of western Buddhism as lacking in the concentration aspect of the Path?

This whole samatha/vipassana divide is a bit misleading in actual practice. We are stuck with it coming out of the Visuddhimagga and commentaries, and traditionalists such as Ledi Sayadaw or Mahasi Sayadaw were not going to challenge it. Mahasi Sayadaw understood that one does not need full blown Visuddhimagga described absorption to cultivate direct insight into the three marks, and U Pandita recognized that the levels of concentration cultivated via the Mahasi Sayadaw method are significantly profound, thus the vipassana jhanas, which look like what others call the sutta jhanas.

Kornfield, whom I admire greatly, may down play concentration some and he may put practice in more psychological terms, but he does not neglect the ethical and Dhamma basics of the practice.

[PeterB]

I am reminded of the analogy made in another thread about the treasure map , when the "expert" ( which was once defined by someone as " a guy from out of town who brings a flip-chart ) says that the Buddha didnt teach what he is said to teach etc. and therefore the map is wrong, and he addresses these remarks to someone loading up on the treasure he has discovered by following the map..
The same with Alan Wallace. I have done Vipassana retreats with a number of modern teachers* and they have reinforced and clarified my Dhamma practice like nothing else.
They have all emphasised the 8 fold path. They have all emphasised sila. modern Vipassana is dynamic and effective, and totally different to chewing the Dhamma fat.

* teachers in the Goenka and, Sayadaw tradition and primarly, Dhiravamsa.

[sukhamanveti]

Many meditation teachers preach the idea that to pay attention is enough. "Watch what arises and don't judge it" seems to be the dominant ethos. Scores of books echo this.
If 'mindfulness" has become a one-word path, then "bare-attention" is it's aim. I'm waiting for a cogent explanation of the value of this path.

So, name names. Who are these people?

I think Alan Wallace may have in mind Jon Kabat-Zinn, who has divorced vipassana from its Buddhist context and does say things like, "Watch what arises and don't judge it" (See, e.g., his book Wherever You Go, There You Are for words to this effect). JKZ is primarily interested in vipassana as a means of managing pain and reducing stress. As far as I recall, I don't think that he has said much about liberation or precepts, if anything. I am relying on memory, however.

I think it is unfortunate that Wallace overgeneralized or did not choose his words more carefully. I know that he is an intelligent, sincere person who seeks to understand and respect all major Buddhist traditions (his perspective is Ri-me or "nonsectarian"). Clearly, he needs to meet more vipassana teachers.

[d.sullivan]

Damdifino what his intentions were, but it is a choice of wording that is a problem, which is less than skillful. And it sure looks like he was attacking modern vipassana teachings, and who would that be?

Oh, I don't mean to say that he isn't attacking modern vipassana teachings. He clearly is. In your original post, you referred to Wallace's critique as a against Theravadin teachings in general, and for the sake of clarity, I wanted to point out that I think his attack was more leveled at modern, western Theravadin teachings, as opposed to Theravadin teachings in general.

If he is referring to K & G, then he is remarkably stupid and ignorant. I have done 3 three month retreats with these guys, and Wallace's characterization of the modern Vipassana teachers simply do not fit their style and content of teaching.

I agree. As I already mentioned, if these are the teachers Wallace is referring to, his criticism is invalid, because it really bears no resemblance to how both Kornfield and Goldstein teach, and his characterization of the "modern vipassana teacher" is a bit of a strawman.

Mahasi Sayadaw understood that one does not need full blown Visuddhimagga described absorption to cultivate direct insight into the three marks, and U Pandita recognized that the levels of concentration cultivated via the Mahasi Sayadaw method are significantly profound, thus the vipassana jhanas, which look like what others call the sutta jhanas.

The vipassana jhanas as mentioned by U Pandita crossed my mind also while reading Wallace's interview, and its a very good example of the false dilemma that exists between jhana and vipassana practice. From what I have read, also, the Buddha pretty explicitly stated that only access concentration was necessary for vipassana practice. It may very well be beneficial to vispassana practice to reach higher stages of absorption, but it does not seem to be necessary.

Kornfield, whom I admire greatly, may down play concentration some and he may put practice in more psychological terms, but he does not neglect the ethical and Dhamma basics of the practice.

I admire Kornfield a great deal, as well. In fact, I have plans to visit his meditation center early August, and I am looking forward to it a great deal!

[PeterB]

If you are correct Sukhmanveti in your indentification of the kind of modern teacher that Wallace is aiming his piece at then frankly he is attempting to evaluate an important Buddhist development without the necessary means of measurement. He might as well criticise Vipassana as taught by Osho's "Neo-Sanyassins ",
It exposes a danger in any Rime type of attempt to establish a neuralised Pan-Buddhism. To whit, that depth will be sacrificed in the cause of breadth.
And that the resulting melange will be a shade of khaki.

[d.sullivan]

I think Alan Wallace may have in mind Jon Kabat-Zinn, who has divorced vipassana from its Buddhist context and does say things like, "Watch what arises and don't judge it" (See, e.g., his book Wherever You Go, There You Are for words to this effect). JKZ is primarily interested in vipassana as a means of managing pain and reducing stress. As far as I recall, I don't think that he has said much about liberation or precepts, if anything. I am relying on memory, however.

Wallace may very well be referring to to Kabat-Zinn, that seems plausible. However, I am not sure Wallace's critique would apply even to JKZ, because as far as I can tell, JKZ makes no attempt at claiming that Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction is Buddhism, specifically because he does not teach it in a context in which Buddhist doctrine is also taught. He does not claim that MBSR is identical to vipassana, so Wallace should not critique him in that light.

Wallace does seem to be off the mark here. It would be cool if he would attend a two-month vispassana retreat at Spirit Rock to help him become better educated about the modern Buddhist scene.

[jcsuperstar]

well he uses the term like you're supossed to know who he's talking about, so i googled it here are some modern vipassana teachers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vipassana_movement