Page 1 of 5

Unorthodox Vipassana

Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:14 pm
by Sacha G
Hi
I just wanted to expose the unorthodox way I practice vipassana (not always but for a good part of my practice).
When I'm concentrated enough, I focus my awareness on the pure consciousness which appears "around" and "between" the thoughts (I hope it's clear enough). I would call this, "recognizing" of the pure consciousness.
Then I try to stay on it as much as I can, without paying attention to the thoughts. Like somebody looking at a mirror, and wanting to see the mirror itself, not the reflections.
When I leave the cushion, I try to be aware of my environment as just "phenomena" appearing on the surface of this consciousness, and I try to keep this detached awareness.
What do you think? Can you call this vipassana? Or does it sound more like zen/dzogchen/advaita? :juggling:
Thanx
Sacha

Re: Unorthodox Vipassana

Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:33 pm
by bodom
Ajahn Sumedho speaks on the practice of noticing the "space" between thoughts here:

Noticing Space
http://www.meditationthailand.com/noticingsumedho.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

:namaste:

Re: Unorthodox Vipassana

Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:40 pm
by Sacha G
Thank you Bodom
I will look at that.
Sacha

Re: Unorthodox Vipassana

Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:52 pm
by PeterB
It does sound more like Dzogchen....rather than unorthodox Vipassana.
I think Dzogchen is well established in Theravada practice..it just tends not to be called that.
Or at least that was the case until Ajahn Amaro became a formal Dzogchen student.
Now it is known by that name.

Re: Unorthodox Vipassana

Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 8:20 pm
by Goofaholix
Sacha G wrote:Hi
I just wanted to expose the unorthodox way I practice vipassana (not always but for a good part of my practice).
When I'm concentrated enough, I focus my awareness on the pure consciousness which appears "around" and "between" the thoughts (I hope it's clear enough). I would call this, "recognizing" of the pure consciousness.
Then I try to stay on it as much as I can, without paying attention to the thoughts. Like somebody looking at a mirror, and wanting to see the mirror itself, not the reflections.
When I leave the cushion, I try to be aware of my environment as just "phenomena" appearing on the surface of this consciousness, and I try to keep this detached awareness.
What do you think? Can you call this vipassana? Or does it sound more like zen/dzogchen/advaita? :juggling:
Thanx
Sacha
Depends on what you mean by "pure consciousness". If you are imagining it as some kind of energy, or force, or entity seperate from you then no that's not vipassana.

However if you are simply noticing the mind being aware, if you are noticing that objects are arising and passing away withing that awareness and the times when there appear to be no objects the awareness still functioning, and rather putting emphasis on the process of awareness rather than the objects then this is a good basis for vipassana. It is the starting point of how my teacher Sayadaw U Teganiya teaches vipassana and i think fits in well with Ajahn Sumedho's teaching.

Re: Unorthodox Vipassana

Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 8:55 pm
by retrofuturist
:goodpost:

Metta,
Retro. :)

Re: Unorthodox Vipassana

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2011 2:23 am
by Sacha G
Hi
I found this document of Ajahn Amaro, of the link between Forest tradition teachings and Dzogchen.http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... untain.pdf
Right in the Pali Canon, the Buddha points directly
to this. In the Udaμna (the collection of “Inspired Utterances”
of the Buddha), he says:
There is that sphere of being where there is no earth,
no water, no fire, nor wind; no experience of infinity
of space, of infinity of consciousness, of no-thingness,
or even of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; here
there is neither this world nor another world, neither
moon nor sun; this sphere of being I call neither a coming
nor a going nor a staying still, neither a dying nor
a reappearance; it has no basis, no evolution, and no
support: it is the end of dukkha. (ud. 8.1)
Rigpa, nondual awareness, is the direct knowing of this. It’s
the quality of mind that knows, while abiding nowhere.
The natural ability to separate mind (or mind-essence, to
use Dzogchen terminology) and mind objects is clearly reflected
in the Pali language. There are actually two different verbs
meaning “to be,” and they correspond to the conventional or
conditioned, and to the unconditioned. The verb “hoti” refers
to that which is conditioned and passes through time. These
are the common activities and the labels of various sense
impressions that we use regularly, and, for the most part,
unconsciously. Everyone agrees, for example, that water is
wet, the body is heavy, there are seven days in the week, and
I am a man.
The second verb, “atthi,” refers to the transcendental qualities
of being-ness. Being-ness, in this case, does not imply a
becoming, the world of time or identity. It reflects the unconditioned,
the unmanifest nature of mind
Sacha

Re: Unorthodox Vipassana

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:07 am
by PeterB
:goodpost:

Its been there all along. Its just that Theravadin folk are less likely to form themselves into a club within a club...

This is the basis of real Buddhist unity.

Re: Unorthodox Vipassana

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:27 am
by pegembara
Sacha G wrote:Hi
I just wanted to expose the unorthodox way I practice vipassana (not always but for a good part of my practice).
When I'm concentrated enough, I focus my awareness on the pure consciousness which appears "around" and "between" the thoughts (I hope it's clear enough). I would call this, "recognizing" of the pure consciousness.
Then I try to stay on it as much as I can, without paying attention to the thoughts. Like somebody looking at a mirror, and wanting to see the mirror itself, not the reflections.
When I leave the cushion, I try to be aware of my environment as just "phenomena" appearing on the surface of this consciousness, and I try to keep this detached awareness.
What do you think? Can you call this vipassana? Or does it sound more like zen/dzogchen/advaita? :juggling:
Thanx
Sacha
Isn't this seeing practising Buddha's teaching?

"There is the case, Moggallana, where a monk has heard, 'All phenomena are unworthy of attachment.' Having heard that all phenomena are unworthy of attachment, he fully knows all things. Fully knowing all things, he fully comprehends all things. Fully comprehending all things, then whatever feeling he experiences — pleasure, pain, neither pleasure nor pain — he remains focused on inconstancy, focused on dispassion, focused on cessation, focused on relinquishing with regard to that feeling. As he remains focused on inconstancy, focused on dispassion, focused on cessation, focused on relinquishing with regard to that feeling, he is unsustained by[4] anything in the world. Unsustained, he is not agitated. Unagitated, he is unbound right within. He discerns: 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: Unorthodox Vipassana

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2011 8:56 am
by piotr
Sacha G wrote:Hi
I found this document of Ajahn Amaro, of the link between Forest tradition teachings and Dzogchen.http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... untain.pdf
in the Pali language. There are actually two different verbs
meaning “to be,” and they correspond to the conventional or
conditioned, and to the unconditioned.
I think this is rather misleading distinction.

Re: Unorthodox Vipassana

Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 4:09 am
by Sylvester
piotr wrote:
Sacha G wrote:Hi
I found this document of Ajahn Amaro, of the link between Forest tradition teachings and Dzogchen.http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... untain.pdf
in the Pali language. There are actually two different verbs
meaning “to be,” and they correspond to the conventional or
conditioned, and to the unconditioned.
I think this is rather misleading distinction.

That's putting it mildly, avuso.

My eyes popped out when I saw this -
The natural ability to separate mind (or mind-essence, to
use Dzogchen terminology) and mind objects is clearly reflected
in the Pali language. There are actually two different verbs
meaning “to be,” and they correspond to the conventional or
conditioned, and to the unconditioned. The verb “hoti” refers
to that which is conditioned and passes through time. These
are the common activities and the labels of various sense
impressions that we use regularly, and, for the most part,
unconsciously. Everyone agrees, for example, that water is
wet, the body is heavy, there are seven days in the week, and
I am a man.
The second verb, “atthi,” refers to the transcendental qualities
of being-ness.
Being-ness, in this case, does not imply a
becoming, the world of time or identity. It reflects the unconditioned,
the unmanifest nature of mind
I suppose the meditator cultivating the satipatthanas would now have to confront the transcendental and unconditioned Hindrances when this occurs to him/her -
And how does a monk remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves?

There is the case where a monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the five hindrances. And how does a monk remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the five hindrances?

There is the case where, there being sensual desire present within, a monk discerns that 'There is sensual desire present within me.' Or, there being no sensual desire present within, he discerns that 'There is no sensual desire present within me.' He discerns how there is the arising of unarisen sensual desire. And he discerns how there is the abandoning of sensual desire once it has arisen. And he discerns how there is no future arising of sensual desire that has been abandoned. (The same formula is repeated for the remaining hindrances: ill will, sloth & drowsiness, restlessness & anxiety, and uncertainty.)

Kathañca, bhikkhave, bhikkhu dhammesu dhammānupassī viharati?

Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu dhammesu dhammānupassī viharati pañcasu nīvaraṇesu. Kathañca pana, bhikkhave, bhikkhu dhammesu dhammānupassī viharati pañcasu nīvaraṇesu?

Idha , bhikkhave, bhikkhu santaṃ vā ajjhattaṃ kāmacchandaṃ ‘atthi me ajjhattaṃ kāmacchando’ti pajānāti, asantaṃ vā ajjhattaṃ kāmacchandaṃ ‘natthi me ajjhattaṃ kāmacchando’ti pajānāti; yathā ca anuppannassa kāmacchandassa uppādo hoti tañca pajānāti, yathā ca uppannassa kāmacchandassa pahānaṃ hoti tañca pajānāti, yathā ca pahīnassa kāmacchandassa āyatiṃ anuppādo hoti tañca pajānāti.
Why, o why, do otherwise good monks make gaffes like this?

Re: Unorthodox Vipassana

Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 4:18 am
by mikenz66
Sylvester, piotr,

Would it be possible for you to explain this in simpler terms so I could understand where the problem lies?

:anjali:
Mike

Re: Unorthodox Vipassana

Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 4:36 am
by Sylvester
Hi Mike.

I'm still reeling from the shock and dismay, so perhaps piotr could do the honours.

All this gobbledy-gook about "unsupported" or objectless consciousness or "unmanifest" mind (the anidassana vinnana, again!) is simply too much for me.

If the good monk had instead invested in some study of Pali, perhaps he could have avoided this silliness about "atthi" being a nexus for the unconditioned.

Re: Unorthodox Vipassana

Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 4:45 am
by mikenz66
That's OK Sylvester, we can wait for you to recover... :console:

But am I understanding that you are saying that the passage:
There is the case where, there being sensual desire present within, a monk discerns that 'There is sensual desire present within me.'
Is being or is, or both, the translation of atthi?

So Ajahn Amaro's:
The second verb, “atthi,” refers to the transcendental qualities
of being-ness. Being-ness, in this case, does not imply a
becoming, the world of time or identity. It reflects the unconditioned,
the unmanifest nature of mind...
is problematical because the use of "to be" in the Satipathhana Sutta isn't unconditioned?

:anjali:
Mike

Re: Unorthodox Vipassana

Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:08 am
by ground
When there is contact with symbols (words) vedana arises. In the wake of that symbols may be invested with meanings originally not intended by the one who offered the symbols.
It is all about the nature of language.

kind regards