Goenka on elimination of sankharas

[SamKR]

From the discourse summaries:

"Any moment in which one does not generate a new sankhara one of the old ones will arise on the surface of the mind, and along with it a sensation will start within the body. If one remains equanimous, it passes away and another old reaction arises in Its place. One continues to remain equanimous to physical sensations and the old sankhara continue to arise and pass away, one after another. If out of ignorance one reacts to sensations, then one multiplies the sankhara multiplies one's misery. But if one develops wisdom and does not react to sensations, then one after another the sankhara are eradicated, misery is eradicated.
The entire path is a way to come out of misery. By practicing, you will find that you stop tying new knots, and that the old ones are automatically untied. Gradually you will progress towards a stage in which all sankhara leading to new birth, and therefore to new suffering, have been eradicated: the stage of total liberation, full enlightenment."

I don't see any problem here, if understood what he actually means. I understand from his other discourses in hindi that by "sankhara are eradicated" he means the process of whirlpool of sankhara is eradicated. It's not that by just observing the sensations the sankhara are destroyed directly. As I already said in my previous post it is by not generating newer ones and letting manifest old ones through sensations (with equanimity) that sankharas are gradually eradicated.

[suttametta]

Suttametta and SamKR. I think you both are discussing the prevention of arising of sankharas thorugh the reduction of Avijja. I'm not interested in that as it is clear enough that with the reduction of Avijja, there is less craving and aversion and hence sankharas will not be as deep as before.

I'm interested in the idea of past sankharas being eliminated through mindfulness. Ben, I'd appreciate if you could point me to the appropriate suttas.

Let's clarify the issue. I know about the 12-links, and that vijja destroys sankharas and that vedanā are part of the twelve links too. What is asked if there is a method in the sutras that talks about scanning the body from head to toe and from toe to head, bringing those to the "surface," i.e., the Goenka approach. I am saying, no. That's no in the sutras. If you think it is, then the onus is on the proponent to provide the rebuttal from the sutras. If that were presented, I would stand corrected. I would not continue to hold on to my opinion that, no, the Goenka approach is not mentioned int he sutras. This, as I see it, is how reasoned and open minded debate should happen on a public forum. Just saying, "your wrong," with nothing more, is not a reasoned response. Being protective, dismissive and flippant is not very helpful, IMHO.

[Mkoll]

Suttametta and SamKR. I think you both are discussing the prevention of arising of sankharas thorugh the reduction of Avijja. I'm not interested in that as it is clear enough that with the reduction of Avijja, there is less craving and aversion and hence sankharas will not be as deep as before.

I'm interested in the idea of past sankharas being eliminated through mindfulness. Ben, I'd appreciate if you could point me to the appropriate suttas.

Let's clarify the issue. I know about the 12-links, and that vijja destroys sankharas and that vedanā are part of the twelve links too. What is asked if there is a method in the sutras that talks about scanning the body from head to toe and from toe to head, bringing those to the "surface," i.e., the Goenka approach. I am saying, no. That's no in the sutras. If you think it is, then the onus is on the proponent to provide the rebuttal from the sutras. If that were presented, I would stand corrected. I would not continue to hold on to my opinion that, no, the Goenka approach is not mentioned int he sutras. This, as I see it, is how reasoned and open minded debate should happen on a public forum. Just saying, "your wrong," with nothing more, is not a reasoned response. Being protective, dismissive and flippant is not very helpful, IMHO.

You have a good point here. I think you're referring to what's called "the burden of proof" in that it is up to the one making a claim to provide evidence for it.

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. The fallacy of an argument from ignorance occurs if, when a claim is challenged, the burden of proof is shifted to be on the challenger.

-wikipedia page: "philosophic burden of proof"

Regardless, just because Mr. Goenka's method is not mentioned in the suttas doesn't mean that it is not a worthwhile practice in accordance with the Dhamma. From my limited knowledge, I think it is a worthwhile practice in and of itself. But I would be meticulous about the philosophical ideas surrounding it, for example the subject of this thread. Comparing them with what the suttas say is how one finds out their differences and similarities.

[Ben]

Let's clarify the issue.

Yes, let's do clarify the issue.
The OP asked for support within the Nikayas that sankharas are eliminated NOT whether the technique SNGoenka advocates is mentioned in the suttas. THAT is a separate question.

This, as I see it, is how reasoned and open minded debate should happen on a public forum. Just saying, "your wrong," with nothing more, is not a reasoned response. Being protective, dismissive and flippant is not very helpful, IMHO.

As you have...

If I have understood correctly Goenka teaches that during the body sweeping process, old stocks of past sankharas are brought to the surface as vedana (sensations). By observing them with perfect equanimity, these sankharas then evaporate. In this way we eliminate past sankharas, and consequently avoid the bad experience of our past bad kamma ripening. Is this teaching supported by the suttas?

no.

[mikenz66]

Let's clarify the issue.

Yes, let's do clarify the issue.
The OP asked for support within the Nikayas that sankharas are eliminated NOT whether the technique SNGoenka advocates is mentioned in the suttas. THAT is a separate question.

I would also add that Theravada is a much larger body of knowledge than "what is mentioned in the suttas".

Furthermore, the suttas contain almost no details on "technique". They don't mention, for example, where one should pay attention to the breath when doing anapanasati. One could, therefore, apply the argument "not mentioned in the suttas" to "refute" essentially any statement on technique by any modern teacher.

To me it is "consistency with the suttas", not "mention" that is the key issue.

:anjali:
Mike

[culaavuso]

To me it is "consistency with the suttas", not "mention" that is the key issue.

This is consistent with the suttas and the vinaya, both of which directly mention standards to determine consistency of things not explicitly covered.

AN 8.53

"Gotami, the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to passion, not to dispassion; to being fettered, not to being unfettered; to accumulating, not to shedding; to self-aggrandizement, not to modesty; to discontent, not to contentment; to entanglement, not to seclusion; to laziness, not to aroused persistence; to being burdensome, not to being unburdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is not the Dhamma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher's instruction.'

"As for the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'"

Mv 6.40.1

"Bhikkhus, whatever I have not objected to, saying, 'This is not allowable,' if it fits in with what is not allowable, if it goes against what is allowable, this is not allowable for you.

"Whatever I have not objected to, saying, 'This is not allowable,' if it fits in with what is allowable, if it goes against what is not allowable, this is allowable for you.

"And whatever I have not permitted, saying, 'This is allowable,' if it fits in with what is not allowable, if it goes against what is allowable, this is not allowable for you.

"And whatever I have not permitted, saying, 'This is allowable,' if it fits in with what is allowable, if it goes against what is not allowable, this is allowable for you."

[SarathW]

Thanks Culaavuso
In other words, Buddha ask us to use common sense.

[suttametta]

Let's clarify the issue.

Yes, let's do clarify the issue.
The OP asked for support within the Nikayas that sankharas are eliminated NOT whether the technique SNGoenka advocates is mentioned in the suttas. THAT is a separate question.

I would also add that Theravada is a much larger body of knowledge than "what is mentioned in the suttas".

Furthermore, the suttas contain almost no details on "technique". They don't mention, for example, where one should pay attention to the breath when doing anapanasati. One could, therefore, apply the argument "not mentioned in the suttas" to "refute" essentially any statement on technique by any modern teacher.

To me it is "consistency with the suttas", not "mention" that is the key issue.


Mike

Yes it does. Parimukham. Mukha is face. Pari is in front. I'm sorry we can't get along. I don't agree with many things. I respect your opinions. I suppose, because this is a Theravada site, it is nt appropriate to challenge the Theravada vision of dharma. I revere the suttas. The other stuff, not so much.

[suttametta]

Let's clarify the issue.

Yes, let's do clarify the issue.
The OP asked for support within the Nikayas that sankharas are eliminated NOT whether the technique SNGoenka advocates is mentioned in the suttas. THAT is a separate question.

This, as I see it, is how reasoned and open minded debate should happen on a public forum. Just saying, "your wrong," with nothing more, is not a reasoned response. Being protective, dismissive and flippant is not very helpful, IMHO.

As you have...

If I have understood correctly Goenka teaches that during the body sweeping process, old stocks of past sankharas are brought to the surface as vedana (sensations). By observing them with perfect equanimity, these sankharas then evaporate. In this way we eliminate past sankharas, and consequently avoid the bad experience of our past bad kamma ripening. Is this teaching supported by the suttas?

no.

I don't agree with your assessment of the question. I will defer to you, senior.

[pilgrim]

I thought I was clear enough but I apologise if my question was worded too ambiguously. Let me try again. Let's leave Goenka out of this now.

Is there any sutta reference that clearly states that PAST, EXISTING sankharas can be eliminated through mindfulness of sensations?
If so, why did the arahants still have to suffer for their past kamma?

[SarathW]

Does past Sankhara = past Kamma?
Does both mean the same?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Is there any sutta reference that clearly states that PAST, EXISTING sankharas can be eliminated through mindfulness of sensations?
If so, why did the arahants still have to suffer for their past kamma?

More fundamentally, are there suttas that even talk about the notion of "PAST, EXISTING sankharas" (i.e. specific sankharas that existed, and continue to exist through to the present), nevermind the means for their elimination?

The closest I can think of is this...

SN 35.145: Kamma Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

"Monks, I will teach you new & old kamma, the cessation of kamma, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma. Listen and pay close attention. I will speak.

"Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma.

"And what is new kamma? Whatever kamma one does now with the body, with speech, or with the intellect: This is called new kamma.

"And what is the cessation of kamma? Whoever touches the release that comes from the cessation of bodily kamma, verbal kamma, & mental kamma: This is called the cessation of kamma.

"And what is the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is called the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma.

"So, monks, I have taught you new & old kamma, the cessation of kamma, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma. Whatever a teacher should do — seeking the welfare of his disciples, out of sympathy for them — that have I done for you. Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, monks. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message to you."

It seems the Noble Eightfold Path is the answer to a lot of questions!

Metta,
Retro.

[pilgrim]

I believe Goenka's method is firmly within Vedananupassana. I am trying to understand his explanation of the mechanics behind its efficacy.

[mikenz66]

[Regarding Anapanasati and where to watch the breath...]
Yes it does. Parimukham. Mukha is face. Pari is in front. I'm sorry we can't get along. I don't agree with many things. I respect your opinions. I suppose, because this is a Theravada site, it is nt appropriate to challenge the Theravada vision of dharma. I revere the suttas. The other stuff, not so much.

I'm sure we can get along.

Regarding Anapanasati, your interpretation is the interpretation of the Theravada Commentaries. Some modern commentators disagree:

To the fore (parimukham): The Abhidhamma takes an etymological approach to this term, defining it as around (pari-) the mouth (mukham). In the Vinaya, however, it is used in a context (Cv.V.27.4) where it undoubtedly means the front of the chest. There is also the possibility that the term could be used idiomatically as "to the front," which is how I have translated it here.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .html#fn-2

See also this thread:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5636

In any case, my point is that there is almost nothing in the suttas that read like the meditation instructions in the books and talks by modern teachers such as Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Ajahn Brahm, Mahasi Sayadaw, Goenka, Ajahn Buddhadasa, and so on.

I don't actually see that as a problem. The satipatthana suttas say to be aware of vedena. Whether you do that by scanning (as in Goenka's instructions), or observing it whenever it becomes prominent, without specifically looking for it (as in, for example, Mahasi Sayadaw's approach) doesn't imply a disagreement over Dhamma. These teachers simply offer practical advice on how to implement the sutta instruction:

Herein, monks, a monk when experiencing a pleasant feeling knows, "I experience a pleasant feeling"; when experiencing a painful feeling, he knows, "I experience a painful feeling"; ...
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nysa.html

:anjali:
Mike

[Sylvester]

I'm rather inclined to agree with Mr Goenka, as what he says about saṅkhāra looks like a discussion of the anusaya. Here's a fairly standard exhortation regarding the establishment of equanimity (as a cetasika/emotional response) in reaction to the different types of feelings felt as pleasure and pain (as kāyika/hedonic tone)-

Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there arises what is felt either as pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain. If, when touched by a feeling of pleasure, one relishes it, welcomes it, or remains fastened to it, then one's passion-obsession gets obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of pain, one sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats one's breast, becomes distraught, then one's resistance-obsession gets obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one does not discern, as it actually is present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, or escape from that feeling, then one's ignorance-obsession gets obsessed. That a person — without abandoning passion-obsession with regard to a feeling of pleasure, without abolishing resistance-obsession with regard to a feeling of pain, without uprooting ignorance-obsession with regard to a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, without abandoning ignorance and giving rise to clear knowing — would put an end to suffering & stress in the here & now: such a thing isn't possible.

etc etc for the other 5 sense faculties, followed by the contra-case:

Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there arises what is felt either as pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain. If, when touched by a feeling of pleasure, one does not relish it, welcome it, or remain fastened to it, then one's passion-obsession doesn't get obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of pain, one does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, beat one's breast or become distraught, then one's resistance obsession doesn't get obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one discerns, as it actually is present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, & escape from that feeling, then one's ignorance-obsession doesn't get obsessed. That a person — through abandoning passion-obsession with regard to a feeling of pleasure, through abolishing resistance-obsession with regard to a feeling of pain, through uprooting ignorance-obsession with regard to a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, through abandoning ignorance and giving rise to clear knowing — would put an end to suffering & stress in the here & now: such a thing is possible.

MN 148 - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

What Ven Thanissaro translates as "obsession" are rendered elsewhere as "latent tendency" (anusaya).

Take a look at SN 12.38 for the role of the anusaya as the most basic and fundamental form of saṅkhāra that drives rebirth - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

These sort of "temporary" samatha moments, when one's anusaya (tendency) does not anuseti (underlie) the feeling would qualify as the case praised in SN 12.38 -

But when one doesn't intend, arrange, or obsess [about anything], there is no support for the stationing of consciousness.

NB - "obsess" here is anuseti, the operative verb for anusaya)

Take a close look at AN 4.233 if you can at the Pali. 4 types of kamma are described - dark kamma, light kamma, light-&-dark kamma, and kamma that leads to the destruction of kamma. The first 3 are described by the verb abhisankharoti, but no such verb is applied to the 4th. Its usage in the suttas suggests that abhisankharoti is one of the verb forms associated with saṅkhāra.

One's anusaya are moulded by one's habits that develop into one's character (whether in this life or the next). Notwithstanding the Western view that portrays the Buddhist theory of kamma as requiring intentional action to be ethically significant, this is actually not borne out by the suttas. Even "unconscious" habitual responses that are not "intentional" or made unawares qualify as saṅkhāra that push one into rebirth. Look at SN 12.25 where abhisankharoti is again implicated with the saṅkhāra, even if done asampajāna (unconsciously).

What Mr Goenka presents actually has doctrinal support, but it does require one to look at the most subtle form of saṅkhāra to make sense.