vipassana craziness

On the cultivation of insight/wisdom
Post Reply
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: vipassana craziness

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:What you say makes my point: it is a matter of interpretation and then it becomes a matter of how that interpretation is put into practice via whatever technique one devises.
If you see the necessity to devise a technique beyond what is said, then that is what you see. It is not for me to say that you should see otherwise.

Just be cognizant that there's quite possibly four people so far in this topic (MrMan, daverupa, robertk, myself - I'll allow them to correct me if I'm misrepresenting them) who do not seem to see such a necessity.... therefore, whilst you're as entitled to your "point" as the next person, just be aware that it's not (and need not be) ubiquitously accepted as fact.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: vipassana craziness

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:What you say makes my point: it is a matter of interpretation and then it becomes a matter of how that interpretation is put into practice via whatever technique one devises.
If you see the necessity to devise a technique beyond what is said, then that is what you see. It is not for me to say that you should see otherwise.
It is not a matter of my devising a technique beyond what is said, it is simply looking at what you have said, and looking at the interpretation and technique you have presented.
therefore, whilst you're as entitled to your "point" as the next person, just be aware that it's not (and need not be) ubiquitously accepted as fact.
Well, yes, of course. That is the point I have made. It is a matter of how one interprets the texts at hand, what one thinks they are saying and based upon that how one opts to try to put that into practice. And all that is going to vary.
>> 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
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: vipassana craziness

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:It is a matter of how one interprets the texts at hand, what one thinks they are saying and based upon that how one opts to try to put that into practice. And all that is going to vary.
In that case.....
Mr Man wrote:Tilt, do you think the Buddha taught the "technique"?
tiltbillings wrote:The Buddha taught no technique, which is why there are various differing techniques developed to put the Buddha's teachings into practice.
...what is it about Goenka, Mahasi etc.'s teachings that makes them "techniques" as opposed to what the Buddha taught, which you say is not a technique? Where do you (non-arbitrarily) draw the line?

What is it that is missing (deficient?) in the Buddha's guidance that requires it to be necessarily converted into a vipassana "technique" by someone?...... and how is what vipassana teachers as Goenka, Mahasi etc. say any less subject to your "how one opts to try to put that into practice. And all that is going to vary" criteria than what the Buddha said?

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: vipassana craziness

Post by Ben »

Hi Paul,
retrofuturist wrote:What is it that is missing (deficient?) in the Buddha's guidance that requires it to be necessarily converted into a vipassana "technique" by someone?...... and how is what vipassana teachers as Goenka, Mahasi etc. say any less subject to your "how one opts to try to put that into practice. And all that is going to vary" criteria than what the Buddha said?
There isn't anything deficient in what the Buddha taught.
What is apparent is that there is not a lot of specifics with regard to meditation practice. For example - there is material in MN10 regarding vedana as meditation object (amongst others), and the nature of vedana and what can be observed from them, but there is little on how one observes.
As I have mentioned before, technique is just skillful means or in Ledi Sayadaw's words "exercise" to help one cultivate particular mental qualities and habits. Whether the fine detail is derived from a living tradition that has practiced the same thing continuously for hundreds or thousands of years, analysis of the commentarial sources or is found in the writings of later teachers or inferred directly from the suttas themselves - its unimportant. The important things are: - is it in keeping with what the Buddha taught?, and 2. Does it give results?
kind regards,

Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: vipassana craziness

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:It is a matter of how one interprets the texts at hand, what one thinks they are saying and based upon that how one opts to try to put that into practice. And all that is going to vary.
In that case.....
Mr Man wrote:Tilt, do you think the Buddha taught the "technique"?
tiltbillings wrote:The Buddha taught no technique, which is why there are various differing techniques developed to put the Buddha's teachings into practice.
...what is it about Goenka, Mahasi etc.'s teachings that makes them "techniques" as opposed to what the Buddha taught, which you say is not a technique? Where do you (non-arbitrarily) draw the line?
The point is that the development of a "technique" is based upon how one understands what it is that the Buddha taught and how that might be put into practice.
What is it that is missing (deficient?) in the Buddha's guidance that requires it to be necessarily converted into a vipassana "technique" by someone?......
I don't think there is anything deficient in the Buddha's teachings, nor do I think it what he taught must be necessarily converted into a "vipassana technique," which is not something I have said at all.
and how is what vipassana teachers as Goenka, Mahasi etc. say any less subject to your "how one opts to try to put that into practice. And all that is going to vary" criteria than what the Buddha said?
That is the whole point: it is not "any less subject" to '"how one opts to try to put that into practice. And all that is going to vary" criteria than what the Buddha said.' What the Buddha said is always going to be interpreted by those who engage it. It is simply the nature of the beast. Are you arguing that there is only one objective truly true invariant understanding of what the Buddha taught?
>> 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
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: vipassana craziness

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:It is a matter of how one interprets the texts at hand, what one thinks they are saying and based upon that how one opts to try to put that into practice. And all that is going to vary.
In that case.....
Mr Man wrote:Tilt, do you think the Buddha taught the "technique"?
tiltbillings wrote:The Buddha taught no technique, which is why there are various differing techniques developed to put the Buddha's teachings into practice.
...what is it about Goenka, Mahasi etc.'s teachings that makes them "techniques" as opposed to what the Buddha taught, which you say is not a technique? Where do you (non-arbitrarily) draw the line?

What is it that is missing (deficient?) in the Buddha's guidance that requires it to be necessarily converted into a vipassana "technique" by someone?...... and how is what vipassana teachers as Goenka, Mahasi etc. say any less subject to your "how one opts to try to put that into practice. And all that is going to vary" criteria than what the Buddha said?

Metta,
Retro. :)
Hi Retro,

As I said, Robert is quite clear on what he advocates. Which is that any sort of sitting or walking meditation with the idea of building mindfulness is wrong view, and so on (no need to elaborate on the thread he linked to). This gives a clear basis for interesting and useful discussion, even if we don't actually agree.

As I said, if someone (not just yourself, but some others posting on this thread) are unwilling to explain what they actually advocate doing, I see little basis for discussion, and I find it very difficult to take their criticisms of Goenka or others seriously.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: vipassana craziness

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Ben, Tilt, all,
Ben wrote:What is apparent is that there is not a lot of specifics with regard to meditation practice.
That is a noteworthy observation from which any number of differing conclusions could be drawn... guided as I am by the Simsapa Sutta, my conclusion is more likely to lean towards the inconsequentiality of them.
Ben wrote:For example - there is material in MN10 regarding vedana as meditation object (amongst others), and the nature of vedana and what can be observed from them, but there is little on how one observes.
Not to be cheeky, but unless someone born handicapped, all people are born experiencing the six consciousnesses, and don't need specific instruction on how to observe these things - they are present, that is what makes them vinnana. However, for clear seeing of any experienceable dhamma (and the Satipatthana Sutta is comprehensive in that it provides at least one possible frame of reference for every experienceable dhamma), we need only perceive them as they truly are (i.e. how the Buddha explained them to be), not perceiving them otherwise... and in doing so, avoid appropriating anything in that loka, as per the instruction in the oft-repeated Satipatthana Sutta refrain. Such perception doesn't even require a given "meditation object" - merely a frame of reference amenable to accurate perception of whatever is loka. I appreciate that's quite a radical position for a Theravada orthodoxy that stresses satipatthana-vipassana as the means of cultivating insight knowledges, but I think it holds its own.
Ben wrote:As I have mentioned before, technique is just skillful means or in Ledi Sayadaw's words "exercise" to help one cultivate particular mental qualities and habits. Whether the fine detail is derived from a living tradition that has practiced the same thing continuously for hundreds or thousands of years, analysis of the commentarial sources or is found in the writings of later teachers or inferred directly from the suttas themselves - its unimportant. The important things are: - is it in keeping with what the Buddha taught?, and 2. Does it give results?
Agreed - each person can reflect on that for themselves, though as Robert said in the other topic, "to find which is right, one has to learn what wisdom really is, and what the real conditions for such wisdom are."
tiltbillings wrote:What the Buddha said is always going to be interpreted by those who engage it.
Yes ~ there are even interpretations of the interpretations of the interpretations. My preference is to minimise the interpretations, rather than argue...
tiltbillings wrote:...that there is only one objective truly true invariant understanding of what the Buddha taught
Yet, the Dhamma is the truth and there is none higher. There are many ways in which that truth may be expressed, and various skilful means of varying efficacies by which it might be known.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: vipassana craziness

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:]
Not to be cheeky, but unless someone born handicapped, all people are born experiencing the six consciousnesses, and don't need specific instruction on how to observe these things. However, for clear seeing of any experienceable dhamma (and the Satipatthana Sutta is comprehensive in that it provides at least one possible frame of reference for every experienceable dhamma), we need only perceive them as they truly are (i.e. how the Buddha explained them to be), not perceiving them otherwise... and in doing so, avoid appropriating anything in that loka, as per the instruction in the oft-repeated Satipatthana Sutta refrain. Such perception doesn't even require a given "meditation object" - merely a frame of reference amenable to accurate perception of whatever is loka. I appreciate that's quite a radical position for a Theravada orthodoxy that stresses satipatthana-vipassana as the means of cultivating insight knowledges, but I think it holds its own.
The problem with what you saying is here is that you really are leaving a great deal left unsaid, so it really does not tell us anything of substance as how this "radical position" manifests as a practice.
>> 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
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: vipassana craziness

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:As I said, if someone (not just yourself, but some others posting on this thread) are unwilling to explain what they actually advocate doing, I see little basis for discussion
I would suggest that Robert, myself, daverupa and possibly others have in fact done this now and in the past. See the paragraph above starting with "Not to be cheeky..." and you'll see one from me.

Yet, if it is assumed that (to quote Robert) "some technique is one of the conditions", there is bound to be confusion when technique is not discussed, let alone acknowledged.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: vipassana craziness

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:The problem with what you saying is here is that you really are leaving a great deal left unsaid, so it really does not tell us anything of substance as how this "radical position" manifests as a practice.
You just do it as you live, I don't know what else you want.

It doesn't require any specific "doing"... you just perceive according to Right View, instead of perceiving according to Wrong View.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: vipassana craziness

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:
It doesn't require any specific "doing"... you just perceive according to Right View, instead of perceiving according to Wrong View.
And how does one "just perceive according to Right View?"
>> 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
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: vipassana craziness

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:And how does one "just perceive according to Right View?"
I could point to any number of suttas (e.g. Bahiya Sutta, Satipatthana Sutta, Maha-cattarisaka Sutta and I will find more if you actually want to see them) but I suspect that no matter how many I present, you'll still be asking "how", because the "how" you have come to expect goes beyond what and how the Buddha of the Sutta Pitaka taught.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: vipassana craziness

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:And how does one "just perceive according to Right View?"
I could point to any number of suttas (e.g. Bahiya Sutta, Satipatthana Sutta, Maha-cattarisaka Sutta and I will find more if you actually want to see them) but I suspect that no matter how many I present, you'll still be asking "how", because the "how" you have come to expect goes beyond what and how the Buddha of the Sutta Pitaka taught.
Interesting that you are telling me how I think, without actually asking me, but also interstingly you are not really answering the question I have put to you.

Basically, what you seem to be saying here is that these texts can only be understood in one way which, if understood that way, would be the unquestionable way of understanding the Buddhas teachings. You seem to think that I do not correctly undestand the Buddha's teachings, but you are interstingly unwilling expound on how one should correctly understand these texts. So, tell me, show me, what I am missing here.
>> 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
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: vipassana craziness

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:Basically, what you seem to be saying here is that these texts can only be understood in one way which, if understood that way, would be the unquestionable way of understanding the Buddhas teachings.
No, but there is one underlying meaning and intention behind what the Buddha taught - the truth of the Dhamma that the Buddha wanted to put into words. It would be folly or political correctness to think that all interpretations of the Buddha's teaching that have arisen over time are equally good representations of that Dhamma.
tiltbillings wrote:You seem to think that I do not correctly undestand the Buddha's teachings, but you are interstingly unwilling expound on how one should correctly understand these texts. So, tell me, show me, what I am missing here.
I already have. You found that "a great deal [was] left unsaid", as if there must necessarily be something more to it. Some extra level of prescriptivity that needs to be expounded and elaborated - perhaps, simply, there's not?

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: vipassana craziness

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote: It would be folly or political correctness to think that all interpretations of the Buddha's teaching that have arisen over time are equally good representations of that Dhamma.
That is not a claim I have made, even remotely.
tiltbillings wrote:You seem to think that I do not correctly understand the Buddha's teachings, but you are interestingly unwilling expound on how one should correctly understand these texts. So, tell me, show me, what I am missing here.
I already have. You found that "a great deal [was] left unsaid", as if there must necessarily be something more to it. Maybe there's not?
Well, you already have, but I must have missed it, being rather thick and all. Or you are purposefully being cryptic. I have asked you to elucidate your point of view, but it is still unclear what you mean by: It doesn't require any specific "doing"... you just perceive according to Right View, instead of perceiving according to Wrong View.


we need only perceive them as they truly are (i.e. how the Buddha explained them to be), not perceiving them otherwise... and in doing so, avoid appropriating anything in that loka, as per the instruction in the oft-repeated Satipatthana Sutta refrain. And one does this how?

When do you know when one has Right View? And just how does one "you just perceive according to Right View?" Simple questions for trying to understand your point of view.
>> 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