Alan Wallace on Modern Vipassana

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Alan Wallace on Modern Vipassana

Post by tiltbillings »

alan wrote: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?
>> 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
alan
Posts: 3111
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: Alan Wallace on Modern Vipassana

Post by alan »

Go into any general bookstore! I'm sure you know what I mean.
But our subject is sadly neglected.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Alan Wallace on Modern Vipassana

Post by tiltbillings »

alan wrote:Go into any general bookstore! I'm sure you know what I mean.
But our subject is sadly neglected.
Since it is one of Wallace major points that "For years I’ve been puzzled by the discrepancies between the descriptions of mindfulness given by many modern Vipassana teachers....", it is to the point, who are these teachers? Essentially Wallace is tarring the whole of the Western contingent of vipassana teachers with this sort of accusation as he makes in his cheesy interview.
>> 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
alan
Posts: 3111
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: Alan Wallace on Modern Vipassana

Post by alan »

I'll just retreat from this so as to avoid any unnecessary bad feelings. That way we can both wrap it up and let others take over if they choose.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Alan Wallace on Modern Vipassana

Post by tiltbillings »

alan wrote:I'll just retreat from this so as to avoid any unnecessary bad feelings. That way we can both wrap it up and let others take over if they choose.
In other words, you were trying to blow smoke. So, you cannot name names of these naughty modern Vipassana teachers, whomever they might be.

Well, that is one example of why this interview by Wallace is rather problematic.

Now for:
What are some of the pitfalls of viewing meditation simply as a process of bare attention? When mindfulness is equated with bare attention, it can easily lead to the misconception that the cultivation of mindfulness has nothing to do with ethics or with the cultivation of wholesome states of mind and the attenuation of unwholesome states. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the Pali Abhidhamma, where mindfulness is listed as a wholesome mental factor, it is not depicted as bare attention, but as a mental factor that clearly distinguishes wholesome from unwholesome mental states and behavior. And it is used to support wholesome states and counteract unwholesome states
.While such naughty modern Vipassana teachers may be out there I have never read any or practiced with any modern Vipassana teachers who have not put bare attention into its much broader Dhamma context.

The question is asked: A frequent claim is that bare awareness will automatically prevent unwholesome thoughts from arising. Is there any basis for this notion in the texts?Not from what I have been taught or experienced. All we are getting from Wallace is a distortion of the modern vipassana movement on the basis of bad teaching by unnamed modern Vipassana teachers.
>> 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
alan
Posts: 3111
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: Alan Wallace on Modern Vipassana

Post by alan »

Actually I was giving you a way out.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Alan Wallace on Modern Vipassana

Post by tiltbillings »

alan wrote: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.
>> 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
alan
Posts: 3111
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: Alan Wallace on Modern Vipassana

Post by 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.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Alan Wallace on Modern Vipassana

Post by tiltbillings »

alan wrote: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.
>> 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
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Alan Wallace on Modern Vipassana

Post by 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.
>> 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
alan
Posts: 3111
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: Alan Wallace on Modern Vipassana

Post by 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?
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Alan Wallace on Modern Vipassana

Post by tiltbillings »

alan wrote: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.
>> 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
d.sullivan
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 8:24 am

Re: Alan Wallace on Modern Vipassana

Post by d.sullivan »

tiltbillings wrote:
d.sullivan wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
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?
Every blade in the field,
Every leaf in the forest,
Lays down its life in its season,
As beautifully as it was taken up.

Thoreau.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Alan Wallace on Modern Vipassana

Post by tiltbillings »

d.sullivan wrote: 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.
>> 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
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Alan Wallace on Modern Vipassana

Post by 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.
Post Reply