Page 1 of 10

Alan Wallace on Modern Vipassana

Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:30 am
by d.sullivan
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.

Re: Alan Wallace on Modern Vipassana

Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:46 am
by Sobeh
He doesn't even say the word jhana, and yet still he understands that vipassana and samatha are--only together--sammasamadhi. Beyond this he seems to be critiquing the "be here now" sorts of meditations that I see in Zen and New Age seminars everywhere.

There are all sorts of little points I'd quibble with him on, but overall I do not get an impression of a specific vipassana attack.

Re: Alan Wallace on Modern Vipassana

Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:31 am
by alan
Thanks d.sullivan. Thought that article made many important points. If it is a broadside against Vipassana centers then let it be read by all.
I especially liked his critique of "bare attention" as the end-all of meditation.

Re: Alan Wallace on Modern Vipassana

Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:49 am
by tiltbillings
alan wrote: I especially liked his critique of "bare attention" as the end-all of meditation.
What did you like about it?

Re: Alan Wallace on Modern Vipassana

Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:59 am
by alan
Bare attention in and of itself strikes me as dry and kind of pointless. People with psychological problems might benefit, I suppose. I like the way the author emphasizes effort and attitude.

Re: Alan Wallace on Modern Vipassana

Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:03 am
by alan
Sati as the opposite of forgetfulness is also good.

Sometimes I think we should just drop "mindfulness" as a word. It just carries too many other implications to be of much value. It's become a one-word tradition.

Re: Alan Wallace on Modern Vipassana

Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:06 am
by tiltbillings
alan wrote:Bare attention in and of itself strikes me as dry and kind of pointless. People with psychological problems might benefit, I suppose. I like the way the author emphasizes effort and attitude.
And what is, in your opinion, "bare attention?" Have you ever practiced it?

Re: Alan Wallace on Modern Vipassana

Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:12 am
by alan
At a retreat, and as taught by Vipassana books.

Just sitting there paying bare attention seemed liked being charged with the task of picking up little pebbles for the point of making small piles of pebbles.

Re: Alan Wallace on Modern Vipassana

Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:17 am
by tiltbillings
alan wrote:At a retreat, and as taught by Vipassana books.

Just sitting there paying bare attention seemed liked being charged with the task of picking up little pebbles for the point of making small piles of pebbles.
Again, what is bare attention?

Re: Alan Wallace on Modern Vipassana

Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:28 am
by alan
Good question. Maybe my inability to get how "bare awareness" has any value led to to abandon that type of practice. I'd refer you to paragraph 4 in the article we are discussing.

Re: Alan Wallace on Modern Vipassana

Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:35 am
by tiltbillings
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?

Re: Alan Wallace on Modern Vipassana

Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:37 am
by tiltbillings
alan wrote:Good question. Maybe my inability to get how "bare awareness" has any value led to to abandon that type of practice. I'd refer you to paragraph 4 in the article we are discussing.
This?:
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.

Re: Alan Wallace on Modern Vipassana

Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:49 am
by alan
Yep, that would be it.
Fire away!
Tell us why it is wrong.

Re: Alan Wallace on Modern Vipassana

Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:52 am
by tiltbillings
alan wrote:Yep, that would be it.
Fire away!
Tell us why it is wrong.
Who are these people who teach this naughty stuff?

Re: Alan Wallace on Modern Vipassana

Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 5:07 am
by alan
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.