Alan Wallace on Modern Vipassana

[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

[Zom]

So, name names. Who are these people?

Guess he is speaking about Goenka Vipassana teachers (and probably) Mahasi Sayadaw Metidation Teachers with their techniques of "just watch, name-it, and don't do anything with it"

[PeterB]

It is a puzzle to me that these lists usually exclude Dhiravamsa..who was one of the pioneers in the field.
He as Chao Khun Dhammasudhi more or less single handedly introduced Vipassana to the UK in the late 60's. Before the Mahasi or Goenka organisations reached these islands. ( I am fairly sure ).
He left the robe some time ago and continues to teach. He lives in the Canary islands.
I am sure Mr. Walalce would be less than enthusiastic about his approach.

[Sobeh]

From the article:

"When I first noticed this disparity about thirty years ago..."

Could be his information is simply out-of-date and he hasn't thought to re-assess the current context.
---

Tilt: rather than asking what bare attention means, let's ask the author of the article in question what he thinks it means:

"...bare attention corresponds much more closely to the Pali term manasikara..."

(In Sammasati, An Exposition of Right Mindfulness by Ven. P. A. Payutto:
"To demonstrate the process involved as a sequence of events, one could say that when sati brings an object to mind and lays it down in full view of the mind, yoniso-manasikara, as it were, picks it up and manipulates it in such a way that pañña may scrutinize it and then deal with it effectively.")

So what is the author's problem?

"The cultivation of bare attention is valuable in many ways, and there’s a rapidly growing body of research on its benefits for both psychological and physiological disorders. But it’s incorrect to equate that with mindfulness, and an even greater error to think that’s all there is to vipassana."

It seems he might agree with Ven. Payutto's quote, above. Logically we would say that bare attention (yoniso-manasikara) is a necessary but insufficient component of the vipassana process. But wait!

"So bare attention doesn’t by any means capture the complete significance of vipassana, but represents only the initial phase in the meditative development of right mindfulness." (emphasis added)

(Payutto disagrees here, as yoniso-manasikara is not initial:
"A comparison may be made to someone in a rowing boat out on a choppy river, picking flowers or water greens. Firstly, that person ties up the boat or anchors it in such a way that it will remain stationary at the spot where the plants grow. Then with one hand he grasps hold of the stems, gathers them together and exposes them as conveniently as possible for harvesting. With the other hand, using the tool he has prepared for the job, he cuts them off. Sati may be compared to the anchor which stabilized the boat, enabling the man to remain within reach of the plants. The boat, held stationary at a given spot, may be compared to the mind. The hand which grasps the plant stems and holds them in a convenient way is like yoniso-manasikara. The other hand, using a sharp tool to cut off the stems, is like pañña.")

Aside from differing on the ordinal structure, both agree that yoniso-manasikara is a component and not, in and of itself, the whole of vipassana. So now we have a rubric: a vipassana meditation teacher will be subject to the author's critique if they teach only yoniso-manasikara to the exclusion of other sammasati path factors.

Turns out we simply need to determine if this rubric applies to one vipassana teacher or another, or we have to deny the rubric as being either subtly or critically flawed.

[Goofaholix]

"So bare attention doesn’t by any means capture the complete significance of vipassana, but represents only the initial phase in the meditative development of right mindfulness." (emphasis added)
...
Turns out we simply need to determine if this rubric applies to one vipassana teacher or another, or we have to deny the rubric as being either subtly or critically flawed.

Yes, and how long does it take to teach and learn this "initial phase"?

I think we might find that teachers emphasise this initial phase because most of their students are at this initial phase, explanations of what to do with this new found mindfulness come later when mindfulness is established. There isn't a lot of point trying to understand and purify the workings of the mind if one can't even be present in the present moment consistently. It would be like trying to find your socks and underwear with the light off, the first step is to turn the light on then hunt for your socks and underwear.

[mikenz66]

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.

I took him to be referring to the sort of "non-secular vipassana" people I come into contact with at times, who are very nice people but have a tendency to reduce teachings on liberation down to a teaching on stress reduction...

Since Wallace is clearly only criticising what he perceives in some modern developments it seems odd to accuse him of sectarianism. There is plenty of criticism of some of these things from Theravada teachers.

Still Crazy after all these Years: Why Meditation isn’t Psychotherapy
by Patrick Kearney
http://buddhanet.net/crazy.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Buddhism is not a collection of spiritual or therapeutic techniques. Buddhism is an ocean. If we want we are free to paddle on the edge of the shore, trying a technique here or a therapy there, occasionally getting our feet wet, but staying safely within our limitations. Or we can take the advice of Døgen Zenji, who said: "Arouse the mind that seeks the way, and plunge into the ocean of Buddhism." Ultimately the future of Buddhism in the West will be decided by those who take the plunge, because the paddlers will always draw back and, rather than adapt Buddhism to its new home, will develop new forms of Buddhised psychotherapy. For ultimately we must choose whom we will follow. We can follow Buddha or we can follow Freud; we cannot do both, because they are just not travelling in the same direction.

Wallace's observations seem quite reasonable to me:

What, then, is the role of bare attention?
[Wallace:] The cultivation of bare attention is valuable in many ways, and there’s a rapidly growing body of research on its benefits for both psychological and physiological disorders. But it’s incorrect to equate that with mindfulness, and an even greater error to think that’s all there is to vipassana. If that were the case, all the Buddha’s teachings on ethics, samadhi (highly focused attention), and wisdom would be irrelevant. All too often, people who assume that bare attention is all there is to meditation reject the rest of Buddhism as clap-trap and mumbo-jumbo. The essential teachings are dismissed rather than one’s own preconceptions.
...
Do the differing definitions of mindfulness have any practical bearing? Or is this just a semantic issue?
[Wallace:] It’s far more than a semantic issue. In common usage the English term mindfulness simply means to be aware, or heedful. Sati has a much richer connotation, so those wishing to practice Buddhist meditation are well advised to gain as clear an understanding of this and other related terms as they can, based on the most authoritative sources they can find. Otherwise, Buddhist meditation quickly devolves into a vague kind of “be here now” mentality, in which the extraordinary depth and richness of Buddhist meditative traditions are lost.

Mike

[mikenz66]

I think we might find that teachers emphasise this initial phase because most of their students are at this initial phase, explanations of what to do with this new found mindfulness come later when mindfulness is established. There isn't a lot of point trying to understand and purify the workings of the mind if one can't even be present in the present moment consistently. It would be like trying to find your socks and underwear with the light off, the first step is to turn the light on then hunt for your socks and underwear.

I think this is a very good point. I recall a conversation we had here with Bhikkhu Pesala where he stated that most of what he's teaching (he is a genuine Mahasi-style teacher) is not actually insight meditation, but preliminary attention to arouse sati.
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1151#p14419" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And that, I think, is related to the point that Wallace, and others, are trying to get across. Sure, most of us have to start with what we are capable of, but we should not write off the depth of development that is possible (with considerable work) just because it would take a lot of time an effort.

Mike

[Sobeh]

Yes, and how long does it take to teach and learn this "initial phase"?

Hold up; you are debating the specifics of the stage, which is missing the forest for the trees.

The rubric is asking about whether bare attention is taught alone, or in connection with the rest of sammasati. The vipassana method is not the issue here, but rather the content of the vipassana instruction. In other words, defining bare attention as "initial" means there are later steps. Defining it as "vipassana in sum" is thereby inaccurate and misleading. So, never mind a preliminary teaching or a later one: is a given vipassana teacher defining vipassana solely as bare attention, or not?

Bhikkhu Pesala, as noted, refers to bare attention as a preliminary step, so we expect there will be other meditative skills to learn and that we will not rely solely on bare attention over time. Quite contrary to this, the article is critiquing unnamed individuals who teach that bare attention is the whole of vipassana; the question is whether such individuals exist, which we can find out by discerning how various meditation teachers define vipassana to their students.

It is now largely a matter of finding examples.

[tiltbillings]

Since Wallace is clearly only criticising what he perceives in some modern developments it seems odd to accuse him of sectarianism. There is plenty of criticism of some of these things from Theravada teachers.

Who are these many modern Vipassana teachers he is criticizing? And - There is plenty of criticism of some of these things from Theravada teachers - all Theravadin teachers?

[mikenz66]

Hi Tilt,

There is plenty of criticism of some of these things from Theravada teachers - all Theravadin teachers?

I'm not sure where you are trying to go with this. You were complaining about Wallace being unspecific. I gave a reference to an article by Patrick Kearney, who has spent time as a monk with U Pandita and teaches Mahasi-style meditation (Chris has done retreats with him - I have only listened to recordings and read his articles). That's one example of a Theravada teacher pointing out shortcomings in some modern approaches with specific examples. Since I don't have the time to research exactly how many articles there are on the net on this issue, perhaps I should rephrase my statement to:
"There is some criticism of modern developments from some Theravada teachers."

There is plenty of discussion on forums like this one, about what is, and what is not, the correct path. Isn't that the whole point of the Forum? As I said, if Wallace is referring to some of the "insight" people I have met, who play down the rest of the 8-fold path, and turn the meditation teachings into a self-help exercise, then I certainly agree with many of his points.

In addition, he may have some genuine technical points that even some of the "serious" modern teachers may have got slightly muddled. I can't really comment on that because my depth of knowledge is not sufficient, but I did refer to Bhikkhu Pesala's comments here: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1151#p14424" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; which address a related, but not exactly the same, topic.

Mike

[Shonin]

With bare attention or mindfulness, insight arises by itself - we can see which behaviours and habits of mind lead to good conseqences and which lead to bad consequences. Awareness gives us the freedom to respond accordingly.