Vipassana meditation is the most Buddhist thing in “Consensus Buddhism.” This post starts to ask how Buddhist vipassana is, by tracing its history.
It appears that, in the early 1800s, vipassana had been completely, or almost completely, lost in the Theravada world. Either no one, or only a handful of people, knew how to do it.
Vipassana was reinvented by four people in the late 1800s and early 1900s. They started with descriptions of meditation in scripture. Those were vague and contradictory, so the inventors tried out different things that seemed like they might be what the texts were talking about, to see if they worked. They each came up with different methods.
Since then, extensive innovation in Theravada meditation has continued. Advocates of different methods disagree, often vitriolically, about which is correct. I am not a Theravadin, and don’t practice any of these methods, so I have no opinion about that.
I’m also not trying to prove that modern vipassana is “inauthentic.” Coming from Tibetan Buddhism, this rapid innovation, based on practical experiments, is slightly shocking for me. But as a scientist and engineer, it’s also inspiring. I am happy to regard all of it as terma—the Tibetan term for a valid new religious revelation.
What I want to explore is the context in which modern vipassana developed. Two things stand out:
- Asian Theravada repeatedly reinvented meditation under the influence of Western ideas.
In my last post, I described how Thai Theravada was Westernized under the kings of the late 1800s and early 1900s. Similar modernization occurred in Sri Lanka and Burma, the other two places meditation was reinvented. In the case of Thailand and Sri Lanka, there’s evidence that meditation was first reinvented because of Western influence. It’s known definitely that Asians, influenced by Western ideas, extensively revised vipassana methods during the 1900s.
Based on that, we can ask: how have Western ideas about meditation affected the new methods, and the ways they are explained?
- Theravada meditation was reinvented by guys who were into extreme asceticism.
Knowing that, we can wonder whether it’s the best practice for people who aren’t ascetics.
How do you invent vipassana?
Perhaps many people were trying to figure out how to do vipassana in the late 1800s. Only four succeeded. They all started from descriptions in the Pali scriptures. The most detailed are in the Satipatthana Sutta, the Visuddhi Magga, and the Anapanasati Sutta.
In the mid-1800s, these texts were revered because supposedly they showed the way to nirvana. However, the way they were practiced was for groups of monks to ritually chant the text in unison. This is like a bunch of people who don’t know what a computer is reading the manual out loud, hoping the machine will spring to life, without realizing you need to plug it in.
The people who reinvented vipassana tried to actually do what the scriptures said. That wasn’t a possibility seriously considered before; no one was seriously attempting to reach nirvana. The idea that you could read scripture and try to figure out what it meant was one of the Western-influenced 1800s Protestant Buddhist innovations.
Reinventing vipassana was difficult. It took each of the reinventors many years of trial-and-error experimentation before they came up with methods they considered worked. Their biographers emphasize what a hard time they had.
The vipassana scriptures are vague, and they contradict each other. Proponents of different vipassana systems consider different suttas authoritative. They disagree strongly about which is most important, and how to interpret it.
If you read the Satipatthana Sutta, the most-used one, and if you know how to meditate, you can say “yeah, parts of that are a pretty good description of what we do.” (Other parts are nothing like what people do now. I think that’s important, as I’ll explain in a later post.) If you had no idea what meditation was, the Sutta would not seem like much of a guide.
The methods the various reinventors came up with were different from each other. Quite possibly they are all unlike the way vipassana was practiced before the method was lost—in ways that may reflect Western influence. Again, I’ll return to that point in a later post.
Historical uncertainties
The rest of this post is geeky details about who invented what when. Skip it unless you like that kind of thing. Upcoming posts will return to the big picture.
Actually, some of the stories are pretty interesting for their own sake; but they don’t have practical implications beyond the two points I mentioned above.
Records from 1800s Thailand, and especially Burma, are sketchy. I’ll try to be clear about what I do and don’t know, and what sources I’ve used. I’ve learned everything here in the past week; I’m far from expert. I’d greatly appreciate corrections and additions.
Some of the questions I’d like answers to may not have answers. I’d especially like to know why people made innovations in meditation; and that’s probably mostly unknowable.
Anagarika Dharmapala in Sri Lanka
Anagarika Dharmapala was born in 1864, the son of a wealthy Sri Lankan businessman. Sri Lanka was a British colony them, and he was educated at British Christian mission schools.
As a teenager, he was interested in Western occultism. In 1884, at age 20, he met Helena Blavatsky, the founder of Theosophy, a mystical “philosophy” that borrowed heavily from German Romantic Idealism. He was much taken with her, and vice versa; he regarded her as his principal teacher for the rest of her life. He wanted to study Western occultism with her, but she told him to learn Pali instead, because in the Pali scriptures he would find everything he was looking for.
Dharmapala, at Blavatsky’s instruction, set up the Sri Lankan branch of the Theosophical Society. Both considered that its job was to reinforce Buddhism against Christian missionary influence.
This is highly ironic. With Buddhism in Sri Lanka mostly dead, Dharmapala looked to a Westerner for answers to his spiritual issues. But Blavatsky had come to Asia because she imagined the secret to solving the spiritual crisis of Western culture was there. Blavatsky had no idea what was in the Pali scriptures, but she “intuited” that they must have the answer. Particularly, she imagined that “meditation” was the practical key. But what was “meditation”?
In the 1880s, there is no evidence that anyone in Sri Lanka knew how to meditate. One biography of Dharmapala says flatly that “the practice had been neglected and then forgotten.” It’s possible that there were a few monks somewhere who still practiced vipassana, but there is no evidence for that. We do know that he travelled extensively in Sri Lanka, and “in spite of all his enquiries he never succeeded in finding even a single person, whether monk or layman, who could instruct him in… meditation practices.”
Eventually, he decided to start meditating anyway. He based his practice on texts he had found, mainly the Satipatthana Sutta and Visuddhi Magga. Presumably his ideas about meditation were influenced by Blavatsky’s, however, and by the methods of Christian prayer he had learned at school. Later, he received some brief instruction from a Burmese teacher in India.
“Dharmapala’s advocacy of meditation practice and the availability of modern translations of these three texts did much to foster Sri Lankan interest in meditation.”
However, his method is probably extinct, or insignificant. Since the late 1950s, the Mahasi method (discussed below) has been dominant in Sri Lanka. And, Sri Lankan Buddhism has not had much influence on the West.
Sources
Gil Fronsdal, “Theravada Spirituality in the West.”
Gombrich & Obeyeskere, Buddhism Transformed.
Bhikkhu Sangharakshita, Anagarika Dharmapala: A Biographical Sketch. (Presumably this is the same Sangharakshita who founded the Triratna Buddhist Community, but I haven’t checked that.)
The Maha Bodhi, Volumes 98-99 (available on Google Books).
Tricycle, “Anagarika Dharmapala.”
The Thai lineage
King Mongkut was the major reformer of Thai Buddhism (as explained in my last post). His reforms were based on Western ideas. He believed that meditation was important, but was unable to find anyone who could teach him a method he found plausible.
The only meditation methods available then were “called vichaa aakhom, or incantation knowledge; [they] involved initiations and invocations used for shamanistic purposes, such as protective charms and magical powers.” This seems to have been a mixture of tantra (Hindu and/or Buddhist) and Thai folk animism. “They rarely mentioned nirvana except as an entity to be invoked for shamanic rites.”
Mongkut rejected this “meditation.” The Pali scriptures—to which he insisted everyone should return—say that the goal of buddhism is nirvana, attained through the practice of vipassana. Vipassana was, as far as Mongkut could find out, lost in mid-1800s Thailand.
He and his students tried to reinvent vipassana based on scriptural explanations, but he considered that they had failed.
Mongkut founded a monastic movement called Dhammayuttika, which emphasized strict adherence to vinaya (the code of conduct for monks).
It was Ajahn Mun Bhuridatta, born in 1870, who developed the Thai vipassana method. Mun was a Dhammayuttika monk. I suspect it was Mongkut’s insistence on the importance of vipassana that led Mun to his discoveries, but I don’t have direct evidence of that.
His main teacher was Ajahn Sao Kantasilo. Sao taught a meditation method that consisted simply of repeating the word “Buddho.” I have not been able to discover who his teacher was, or where he got this method. I don’t know if it has any basis in Buddhist scripture; I haven’t found any. It is certainly found in Hinduism, however. It seems possible that Sao learned it from a Hindu teacher; there definitely were some in Thailand. That would be embarrassing, which could explain why no one talks about his lineage.
Ajahn Mun remained devoted to Ajahn Sao throughout his life, but Sao was unable to answer most of his questions about meditation, and Mun had doubts about the “Buddho” method. Sao, according to Mun’s foremost student, was “not a competent teacher.” Mun set off on his own, looking for someone who could actually teach him vipassana. He spent nearly two decades wandering around Thailand, Laos, and Burma, but never found anyone.
Ajahn Mun gradually developed his own vipassana method, starting in the 1890s, with the main breakthrough apparently between 1911 and 1914. He experimented with various techniques, developed what worked, and dropped what didn’t. According to his biographies, some key ideas came to him in visions (described in detail). Presumably his method was also based partly on his reading of scriptural explanations.
Ajahn Mun had two main students, Ajahn Maha Bua and Ajahn Chah. Both had Western students, but Chah was far more influential.
Ajahn Chah actually only spent one week with Ajahn Mun. He developed his own style of practice that is more Westerner-friendly.
Ajahn Chah was the primary teacher for Jack Kornfield, among many other well-known Western vipassana teachers.
Sao, Mun, Maha Bua, and Chah all practiced an extreme form of asceticism called dhutanga, which goes beyond even strict adherence to vinaya. They considered that dhutanga and vipassana were closely linked. The point of both was to violently destroy all desires through extreme effort and austerity.
Although the Thai method is still taught, the “easier” Burmese Mahasi method (described below) is more popular in the U.S., and even in Thailand.
Sources
Phra Ajaan Phut Thaniyo, “Ajaan Sao’s Teaching.”
Thanissaro Bhikkhu, “The Customs of the Noble Ones.”
Ajahn Maha Bua, The Biography of the Venerable Phra Acharn Mun Bhuridatta Thera.
Ajahn Maha Bua, The Venerable Phra Acharn Mun Bhuridatta Thera: Meditation Master.
Brooke Schedneck, “Comparing Forest Masters’ Techniques and Implications for International Meditators.”
Brooke Schedneck, “Meditation Techniques of the Masters: Luangda Maha Bua.”
The Mahasi (“New Burmese”) method
The “Mahasi method” is the most-practiced vipassana nowadays. It is considered faster and easier than the Thai method, and than the other Burmese method I describe later. Proponents of those methods consider it bogus, however.
It was developed by Mahasi Sayadaw (1904-1982), but does have antecedents.
Mahasi’s teacher was Mingun Sayadaw (1868-1955), also known as U Narada. Many sources count Mingun as the originator of the lineage.
Mingun’s teacher was Ale-Tawya Sayadaw, whose teacher was The-lon Sayadaw. According to Strong Roots, cited below, “The-Lon Sayadaw… put this textual guidance [the Visuddhi Magga] into practice without a personal teacher to guide [him] in mindfulness practice” (p. 110). This is based oral history from a traditional Burmese monk in The-lon Sayadaw’s lineage. I can’t find dates for The-lon or Ale-Tawya.
It appears that The-lon Sayadaw developed some method based on the Visuddhi Magga, which was learned and then substantially modified by Mingun, which was learned and then substantially modified by Mahasi.
As background, in the late 1800s, Burma, under King Mindon, tried to follow the same path of modernization that successfully held off the British in Thailand. It failed, and the British seized it in 1885, and ran the place until 1948. So Western ideas were common in Burma throughout the period the Mahasi lineage developed.
Mahasi made several innovations. The most important was skipping samatha and the development of the jhanas (concentration states) and going directly to vipassana. He thought that samatha would take care of itself, if you practice vipassana correctly. The jhanas are not ends in themselves, so bypassing samatha is a practical shortcut.
Mahasi taught that one should aim directly for sotapatti, a first taste of nirvana. Experiencing sotapatti guarantees you cannot be reborn other than as a human or in heaven, and no more than seven more times. He said that sotapatti could reached by newcomers in a month.
Mahasi aimed his teaching particularly at lay people, rather than monks. He imported from the West the “meditation center” idea (not a traditional Asian institution). He eliminated ritual and minimized textual study.
Mahasi’s best-known Asian student was Anagarika Munindra (1915-2003). Munindra was also a student of S.N. Goenka, from the other Burmese lineage. Munindra therefore joined the two Burmese vipassana systems. Munindra was the teacher of Dipa Ma.
Many influential American teachers, including most of the main figures in what I call “Consensus Buddhism,” were students of Mahasi, Munindra, and/or Dipa Ma. They include:
- Joseph Goldstein
- Jack Kornfield (who first studied Ajahn Chah’s Thai method)
- Lama Surya Das
- Sharon Salzberg
- Sylvia Boorstein
These Western teachers have, of course, further modified the combined vipassana systems.
Sources
Jake H. Davis, Strong Roots: Liberation Teachings of Mindfulness in North America. Much useful history here.
Robert H. Sharf, “Buddhist Modernism and the Rhetoric of Meditative Experience.”
Mahasi Sayadaw, “Satipatthana Vipassana: Criticisms and Replies.”
Joseph Goldstein, One Dharma: The Emerging Western Buddhism. Has some information on Mahasi by his best-known Western student.
Brooke Schedneck, “The Role of Samadhi in Meditation Centers and the Forest Tradition” and “Book Review: The Experience of Samadhi by Richard Shankman.” On samatha vs. vipassana, and differences between the various vipassana methods.
Gil Fronsdal, “Theravāda Spirituality in the West,” “Insight Meditation in the United States: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” and “The Treasures of the Theravada: Recovering the Riches of Our Tradition.” Insightful articles on the ways vipassana has been adapted in the West. Gil Fronsdal is a student of Jack Kornfield, but not afraid to point out problems with the Consensus approach.
The Ledi lineage (also Burmese)
This lineage begins with Ledi Sayadaw (1846-1923).
Little is known about how Ledi Sayadaw began to practice vipassana; it is possible that he was taught it, rather than developing the method from scratch. The Wikipedia says that “he learned the technique of vipassana still being taught in the caves of the Sagaing Hills,” and this line has been copied all over the internet. As far as I can tell, it is wrong. I can’t find that information in any reliable source. It is contradicted by Strong Roots, cited above, which quotes a traditional monk from the Saigang Hills as saying Ledi Sayadaw developed his method on his own, based only on texts. Ledi Sayadaw’s biography on S.N. Goenka’s site says “although we do not have any definitive information, it seems likely that [1882-1885] was the period when he began practicing Vipassana in the traditional Burmese way: with attention to Anapana (respiration) and vedana (sensation).” S.N. Goenka is the main teacher in the Ledi linage now, and presumably if he knew of a source for Ledi Sayadaw’s method, he would say so. “The traditional Burmese way” was probably lost sometime long before 1882, and reinvented by Ledi Sayadaw.
The Ledi method was extensively revised by his grand-student U Ba Khin (1899-1971) in the 1950s. U Ba Khin was a lay man, and the head accountant for the Burmese government. According to Sharf (cited below), “U Ba Khin apparently experimented with different techniques throughout his career, all of which focused primarily on bodily sensations.” The resulting differences from Ledi’s method are large enough that many sources refer to “the U Ba Khin method.” Like Mahasi, he removed most traditional aspects of Buddhism in order to teach lay people, and aimed directly for transformational experience.
S.N. Goenka teaches U Ba Khin’s method.
Lama Surya Das, one of the main founders of “Consensus Buddhism,” was a student of Goenka (among many others).
Sources
Jake H. Davis, Strong Roots: Liberation Teachings of Mindfulness in North America.
Gil Fronsdal, “Theravāda Spirituality in the West.”
Robert H. Sharf, “Buddhist Modernism and the Rhetoric of Meditative Experience.”
Later developments
The four lineages I’ve described above originated independently, and around the same time.
Later in the 1900s, several other meditation methods were invented within Asian Theravada.
One of these, due to Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (1906-1993), has had some influence in the West. He developed his meditation method based on the Anapanasati Sutta (rejecting the Satipatthana Suttas as vague and muddled) and extensive personal experimentation.
Buddhadasa was a classic Protestant Buddhist modernizer, emphasizing rationality, universalism, scriptural authority, and meditation, eliminating ritual and supernatural beliefs. He actually dissociated himself from Buddhism altogether, preaching “No Religion”: the idea that the mystical core of all religions is the same, and found in meditation. This idea is common in Consensus Buddhism now.
Two methods seem to have had no influence on the West as yet. They are the quasi-tantric methods of the Dhammakaya movement, and the idiosyncratic teaching of Sunlun Sayadaw. These are quite different from any of the others.
Theravada, apparently, remains open to major innovations in meditation technique.
Sources
Gil Fronsdal, “Theravada Spirituality in the West.”
Robert H. Sharf, “Buddhist Modernism and the Rhetoric of Meditative Experience.”
Suchira Payulpitack, Buddhadasa’s movement : an analysis of its origins, development, and social impact.
Brooke Schedneck, “Buddhadasa Bhikkhu and Modern Buddhism” and “Meditation Techniques of the Masters: Ajahn Buddhadasa Bhikkhu.”
Hi David.
I’ve really been enjoying reading your posts. Especially the last few. History is ridiculous. Who the hell would have thought Buddhism came to the West this way? Also, the fact that you seem to be hyper-prolific is great. I get to read a new, mind-blowing (not that hard, though, with my mind
) post almost every other day. I think you were even pumping out one per day for a bit there. Geesh!
And “bogosity” – I looked it up. Maybe you’ve already seen this. Good stuff:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bogosity
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/microLenat
One thing, though. I just started reading this latest post. Is the beginning supposed to be:
“Vipassana meditation is most Buddhist thing in ‘Consensus Buddhism.’ This post starts to ask how Buddhist vipassana is, by tracing its history.” ?
It kind of sounds like a joke. Like you might be intentionally using broken English to be funny, but maybe it’s just a typo.
Either way, thanks so much for all the great posts. Amazing what you can learn on these internets! Go internets!
-noah-
You caught it.
Thanks for pointing out the typo! Fixed.
Got most of the boring history stuff done. Probably next we get back to Controversial Spacey Stuff.
Regarding the “bogosity” and “microLenat” definitions, originally from the “Jargon File” maintained at my alma mater, the MIT AI Lab, I’ve just dug out this old email:
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1991 15:35:55 -0700
From: David Chapman
To: Phil Agre
CC: some other people
Subject: ‘bogosity’
That document [the Jargon File] is pretty badly out of date. For example, it predates the development of the bogotome, a very useful instrument in our field. You may not know that there have been rapid developments in bogotome technology at well-funded laboratories like Teleos Research. For example, we have recently replaced our old rotary-blade bogotome, and its attendant mechanical calibration headaches, with a Bogonix Beta 6000 bogotome, which utilizes a 4.5 kW pumped Argon/Cesium vapor laser cutting head and a distributed network of microfabricated semiconductor strain gauges using fuzzy control logic for self calibration. The Beta 6000 cuts at 5.75 milliLenats/sec with an accuracy of +- .03 x 10^6 training epochs. I’ve found it very satisfactory in reducing my input bandwidth.
(Disclaimer: I do not work for or have any financial interest in Bogonix Inc.)
“Bogonix”!
Replaced the rotary blade with an “Argon/Cesium vapor laser”.
Yeah, that’s a good idea. You know, oxidation and whatnot.
“Training epochs”!!! – I laughed my ass off at the training epochs.
Man! Good stuff.
Reading this post was one of those WTF?!?! -moments. So, meditation has been so neglected even in Buddhism? This really puts things in perspective.
Funny thing is that you can see the same thing happening in western mysticism. People have again and again dug out some of those old grimmoires and tried to figure out, how the instructed practices are actually done.
On the positive side, this also shows that real innovation is possible, that the so-called “tradition” is never a static entity in itself. For me, this is always important, because completely static tradition would be a dead one: that nobody is testing and developing methods through practice. Actual practice should always lead to change and refinement.
HI David,
This is great stuff. Deconstructing history to get beyond literal readings. Showing that things have changed and developed, and often in surprising and major ways is a valuable service.
The Sangharakshita who wrote the bio of Dharmapala is the same one who found the Triratna Buddhist Order. I think he was profoundly influenced by his contact with the Mahabodhi Society, who commissioned him to write the biography. However the influence was mostly negatively as the bhikkhus were often arrogant, greedy and even wealthy. The non-monastic nature of our movement can be traced to the fact that many of the monks he met did not meditate or do any kind of spiritual practice. In a related snippet Sangharakshita’s teacher Bhikkhu Jagdish Kasyap was advised against practising meditation by his monastic superiors, who thought that sort of thing incompatible with being a monk. This was early 20th century. Also the Mahabodhi Society allowed anyone with an interest to serve on it’s committees. This resulted in the committees being packed with ambitious and zealous Hindu’s with no sympathy for the aims of the Society.
One thing you do not say much about is that if these guys rediscovered effective meditation techniques on their own – and I mean effective in the sense of liberating – then they are tantamount to being Buddha’s, are they not? It must be a tension for their students. Legitimacy clearly comes through lineage, and yet there is no higher achievement in Buddhism than finding the way on your own. Which aspect to play up?
Great post, David, again! Thanks for all the links and the wonderful summary!
Some side notes:
1. The source texts:
Maha-Satipatthana Sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html
Anapanasati Sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html
Visuddhimagga (Google Books sample): http://books.google.com/books?id=C389AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
2. Bhante Sujato is a knowledgable researcher (and vigorous fighter
) of the samatha-vipassana topic (debate):
Video on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSVQhhEt7tQ
‘A Brief History of Mindfulness’ bog post: http://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/a-brief-history-of-mindfulness/
‘A Swift Pair of Messengers’ book: http://santipada.org/aswiftpairofmessengers/
3. Pa Auk Sayadaw is also a curious figure in the history of vipassana (or rather his criticism towards contemporary interpretations of vipassana:
Pa Auk Monastery US site (with further links): http://www.paauk.org/
Greetings,
Roni
PS: How can you link with link text in comments?
Will you talk about tibetan buddhism on this series? I hope you do
“It appears that, in the early 1800s, vipassana had been completely lost in the Theravada world. No one knew how to do it.”
This conclusion is very much overstated.The academic work on this topic is instructive. One of the better sources is Gustaaf Houtman’s 1990 dissertation “Traditions of Buddhist Practice in Burma,” which is freely available on the web. An even better source is “Ledi Sayadaw, Abhidhamma, and the Development of the Modern Insight Meditation Movement in Burma,” a 2008 dissertation by Erik Christopher Braun.
The fact of the matter is, we have only a hazy idea of what was going on throughout the 19th century in Burma, but there is no suggestion that meditation was ever “completely lost.” Certainly, before the 19th century interest seems to have been quite limited. But there seems to have always been some interest in meditation, and there seems to be a degree of clear continuity between Ledi and Mingun and what had come before them, although certainly there was a dynamic of change as well.
Houtman writes writes “while WM [Wi'pat-tha-na, ie Vipassana] was probably practised, there remains little published record of it.” pg 38
Braun writes “isolated instances suggest that meditation practice did generate interest among some monks and possibly among the laity as well before the nineteenth century. Much research remains to be done, however, which is beyond the scope of this thesis, before we can speak with confidence about meditation in this period.” pg 305
Braun also suggests that your contention that the nature of the meditation Ledi and Mingun taught was a dramatic innovation is not at all correct. He writes
“It seems that while the interest in vipassana was a groundswell among both monks and the laity that went beyond any individual teacher, Ledi’s work, and, slightly later, Mingun’s too, marked a watershed moment that moved the interest in meditation in specific directions. Ledi’s works appealed to the Burmese not because they were unprecedented in terms of topic, but because they tapped into a burgeoning interest already present.” pgs 316-317
In some regards it seems your conclusion is predicated on assumptions that are only operative in a Vajrayana or a Zen context – that is, without an unbroken lineage of oral instructions a meditation tradition is “lost.” That attitude does not seem to be relevant to Burma. Monks in Burma could and did base their practices on their own traditional textual study. Certainly meditation became enormously more popular in the 19th century, but that doesn’t mean no one did it in the early 1800s. Ledi and Mingun taught it to the laity more widely, and perhaps set a lower barrier to entry for vipassana practice, but to say they reinvented it and that it was completely lost goes well beyond what the existing evidence supports.
Hi David,
In the same vein as what Greg says above, I would like to add that while I greatly enjoy your posts (I really do!), there does seem to be a tendency to draw very strong conclusions from limited evidence. I, for one, would enjoy them even more if you were slightly more cautious or suggestive rather than presenting a hypothesis as something closer to fact. That’s probably not your intention, but that’s often how it reads to me.
1) ‘Mahasi made several innovations. The most important was skipping samatha and the development of the jhanas (concentration states) and going directly to vipassana. He thought that samatha would take care of itself, if you practice vipassana correctly. The jhanas are not ends in themselves, so bypassing samatha is a practical shortcut.’
It’s fascinating how wrong you can go in Buddhism and still have a grasp on something valid. My analogy is, if you go directly into Tantra, Sutra is spontaneously accomplished, by means of the Tantric ngöndrö. If Mahasi’s Vipassana had comprised its own ngöndrö Mahasi might have been justified. Such a ngöndrö could still be invented and inserted after the fact – but it would look a lot like samatha. It would be valuable, as it would save vipassana meditators from going crazy dealing with intense phantom meditation experiences (nyams) without emptiness as their base. I’ve met a number of them.
2) Trungpa Rinpoche was extraordinary among Tibetan Lamas for – among many things – his interest in Buddhism beyond Vajrayana. I recall from one biography that he met with the senior Buddhist abbot from Burma. They compared their traditional meditation methods, and when Trungpa recounted what he taught the Burmese master exclaimed “Oh, when did you come to Burma?” It is difficult to judge anything from an anecdote which does not report the details of their conversation (e.g. the Burmese might have misunderstood what Trungpa was describing) but on the face of it this looks more complimentary to modern Burmese Buddhism than what one might deduce from reading about vipassana.
@ David:
Excellent research and summarizing — all crucial to useful exploration of the “big picture”. I have one question:
Terma
You said, “I am happy to regard all of ['reinvented Vipassana'] as terma—the Tibetan term for a valid new religious revelation”
Do you consider your own tradition as “invented” also, or were you being generous in allowing modern invented meditation techniques to be called “religious revelation”?
It seems that your legitamacy criteria is not “lineage”, “revelation” or “authority”, but instead, effectiveness/pragmatism. If a tradition is effective, you don’t care if it is called “revelation”. But just as in the previous post where you did not want “True Self” to be an accepted term for “no Self”, perhaps we should be strict too with the word “revelation”. Or in this case do you feel laxity is of no risk?
@ Jayarava – Yes, a tremendously impressive accomplishment. Several of those guys are regarded as Arhats. I don’t know enough about how the Arhat vs. Buddha distinction works in Theravada to comment on that. Thanks for the info on Sangharakshita; I didn’t know that.
@ Roni – Thanks for the links, those should be useful for everyone! WordPress lets you use HTML to format text in comments, including creating linked text with the a tag. If you google a bit, you should be able to find an introduction.
@ Sherab Dorje – Probably little or nothing about Tibetan Buddhism, because it hasn’t really fed into the Consensus. One thing I’m thinking about writing would be a page called something like “The surprising modernity of Dzogchen.” When I was reading McMahan’s book, he often said “nowhere in traditional Buddhism do we find X, so it must be a Western insert”, and I’d often think “hang on! We do have X in Dzogchen!” He’s probably right that X was a Western insert, since the influence of Dzogchen on Western Buddhism is quite limited. But still, it’s surprising how “modern” Dzogchen is in some ways. … Mind you, Lama Surya Das studied Dzogchen, and Jack Kornfield presumably studied Mahamudra with Kalu Rinpoche, so maybe there was a direct influence as well.
@ Greg – Thank you very much indeed! I hoped that someone more knowledgeable than me would supply additional sources. To reflect the uncertainty about Ledi Sayadaw, I’ve amended the “completely lost” sentence, and added a hedging sentence in his section.
I would say, though, that the quotes you gave don’t seem strongly inconsistent with my original conclusions, as you suggest. “Interest in meditation” does not equal “knowledge of vipassana”; in Thailand, we know people were “meditating,” but what they were doing was quasi-tantric.. Houtman says “probably”, but apparently has no evidence for that. On the other side, there is specific evidence that Ledi did invent his method from scratch: the testimony of the monk from Saigang Hills cited in Strong Roots.
I agree strongly with the point of your last paragraph: “unbroken lineage” is a big deal for other meditation traditions, but not in Theravada, which is very much open to innovation.
The point of this post was not to suggest that vipassana is no good because it lacks lineage. Rather, I wanted to show that the vipassana we have today developed during the early 1900s, under the influence of ideas that were popular in the West at the time. In later posts, I’ll ask “what was left out, when ‘meditation’ became defined as modern vipassana?” (Examples: corpse practice, tantra.) And: “what Western ideas got smooshed into this vipassana?” (Example: the point of meditation is to gain an experience of oneness with the universe.) And then: “Is this vipassana the best tool for the job, based on that?” Since Western culture has changed drastically from the time vipassana was created, I think the answer is “no.” And I think this is one of the problems Consensus Buddhism faces.
@ Samsara – Thank you for your qualified words of praise! Please do continue to complain if you think I draw too-strong conclusions. However… I really don’t think I was going beyond the evidence here. There is some uncertainty in the case of Ledi Sayadaw, but the only available evidence says he did develop his method from textual sources only. It’s impossible to be sure that no one was practicing vipassana in 1880, but there is apparently no evidence that anyone was. And there is pretty good evidence that no one was: several highly-motivated, qualified, well-connected people (Mongkut, Dharmapala, Mun) looked hard and couldn’t find anyone.
@ Rig’dzin Dorje – Interesting observations! From the very slight reading I’ve done, it appears that Mahasi considered that practicing vipassana developed jhana automatically as a side-effect, so a separate samatha practice was unnecessary. Rather like you suggest. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can expand on that.
@ Sabio – Interesting questions! Yes, to describe the vipassana reinventions as “terma” may have been going too far. Like all words, it doesn’t have a precise definition, and the question of whether it can be applied outside Tibetan Buddhism has never been seriously debated, as far as I know. However, I found the descriptions of Ajahn Mun’s visions really startling for their similarity to the descriptions of visions in the biographies of Tibetan tertons. Terma does need to come out of visionary experience, rather than being something rationally and deliberately constructed. “Reinvention” is again an imprecise word, but it does suggest rationality and deliberateness. So, perhaps in Mun’s case at least, I should not have used it. And, I don’t consider the Aro gTér “invented” inasmuch as I don’t think Ngak’chang Rinpoche developed it rationally or deliberately.
@David – I would suggest you look over Braun, if you have not yet done so. Ledi may well have arrived at his *particular formulation* of Vipassana himself, based on his own textual study. Or at least, that was the claim that was later made on his behalf. But Braun demonstrates that what Ledi came up with was in the context of a general milieu where vipassana practices similar to his were not particularly unusual. There is no evidence that the general typology of the practice was ever entirely unknown in Burma. The various Vipassana traditions we have today seem to be of a general class of meditation which, in Burma at least, has been continually refined and tailored to individual preferences for as far back as anyone can determined. That is, back to a point in history (the early 19th century) when little was documented and about which we are not yet in any position to draw many conclusions.
Interesting article. I don’t know enough about the history of Buddhism to comment intelligently on the details as other commenters have, but I am struck by the similarity in the history of yoga asana. The modern form of yoga as physical asana practice continually claims to reach back thousands of years, but actually was formulated in the 1900′s by a small group of teachers and practitioners with very loose ties at best to ancient texts.
Nice work!
“Theravada meditation was reinvented by guys who were into extreme asceticism.”
I’d be interested in reading what it is about the method of Vipassana as taught by Sayadaw U Pandita (Mahasi Sayadaw) and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu’s method could be called “extreme asceticism”. Perhaps an example or two?
Also, perhaps it isn’t widely known in the West but the Burmese do have lineage.
Thanks,
Joyce
@ David: I tried last time, didn’t seem to work, but than it must have been another problem. Thx anyways.
David,
excellent post! great to see all this information in one page along with links to related resources. very geeky indeed.
one thing i’d like to add is this division between Westerns/Eastern is very arbitrary when it comes to dharma.
for example, according to Dr. Lewis Lancaster, a distinguished Buddhologist, Buddhist monks (via the Silk road) influenced the Western religion with their monasteries and such.
see “Burke Lecture: Buddhism in a Global Age of Technology”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX2f6QHkU-I
so from a higher historical vantage point can we really say who influenced whom?
that said, for the sake of conversation we can continue with the East/West designation.
Mahasi Sayadaw and U Ba Khin rock! i’m very thankful for their radical reinterpretation of the dharma. in fact my teacher Shinzen Young has adapted their techniques (e.g. noting technique, and focus on bodily sensations) as his main teaching method.
see: “Adapting Eastern Spiritual Teachings to our Western Culture: A discussion with Shinzen Young and Charles Tart”
http://www.mindfulnessblog.nl/images/pdf/Adapting_Eastern_Spiritual_Teachings_to_our_Western_Culture.pdf
the bottom line is, it’s the unique nature of Buddhadharma that allows it to be radically re-interpreted by any culture that encounters it. it’s really like an open-source “religion.”
imho, the next great leap in the evolution of Buddhadharma is its marriage with Western science. there are four people i know of who are actively and passionately pursuing this “marriage”:
Ken Wilber: see “Marriage of Sense and Soul” (and practically all of his writings)
http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/maseso_foreword.cfm/
Shinzen Young: see “Divide and Conquer: How the Essence of Mindfulness Parallels the Nuts and Bolts of Science”
B. Alan Wallace: see: “Toward the First Revolution in the Mind Sciences ”
Sam Harris: see: “Contemplative Science”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-contemplative-science_b_15024.html
incidentally, those four people have the greatest influence on me in theory and in practice
keep up the great post!
~Rommel
I suppose you are aware that within the tradition of Ledi and U Ba Khin, as taught by SN Goenka, we hold that the Burmese monks are the only ones who kept alive the techniques of Vipassana meditation as originally taught by the Buddha. There is a least a rudimentary lineage there, stretching back to the two monks who left India and came to Burma, and these monks are credited with passing the teachings along undiluted. That there may be no scholarly evidence of this certainly doesn’t make it untrue. They were not concerned with such things, so it’s not surprising that nothing was written of it. The real test of this, after all, is in the practicing of it.
I, also, want to thank you for the energy you’re putting into your wide-ranging inquiry, David. It’s having a salutary effect on my own muddling attempts at ordering my own perceptions, motives, assumptions, capacities, and practice.
@ Glenn
Hi.
Nice comment.
I found what you said interesting, for two reasons:
1) “[W]ithout significance, purpose, or value” how or where do you experience “exhilaration” and “passion”?
Do you not experience even transient purpose in your life?
When you wake up every morning, do you not go to the bathroom for *purposes* of peeing (especially if you drank a bunch of Riverwest Stein Lagers* the night before – yum!), and do you not experience the *value* of doing so; the *value* of not having your bladder rupture? I value my intact bladders walls. But maybe I’m missing your point.
@ David
2) Glen wrote, “I am curious about how you–or anybody, for that matter–continue to practice in a tradition such as the Nyingma Aro gTér,lineage, with its nagas, ter-ma, quasi-wizards, ahistoricism, absolutization of formlessness, romantization of emptiness, and so on.”
I guess I have wondered a little about this myself. Do you see yourself moving towards taking a Stance position in your life instead of remaining in a System?
You seem to very much enjoy being an Apprentice in the Aro community (given your comments, and obvious HUGE amounts of work on Approaching Aro**, for example).
I could hazard some guesses as to why you stay in the Aro lineage – you want to work with specific teachers, and those teachers are Aro teachers, and so, if you want to work with them, you have to do the Aro stuff. And, perhaps, the stuff you have to do isn’t sooo terrible?
Why DO you stay with those crazy Aro gTér-ers?
New slogan for the AgT???:
“gTérin’ it up with the Aro gTér! OOOOOHHHHH yeah!!!”
(“it” being dualism, obviously:))
I wonder if Tony the Tiger is still around. He’d be the perfect voice.
ALSO:
@Glenn
What do you have against the Quasi-Wisards?
That’s the name of my new Lord of the Rings jazz-fusion trio!
My band name is “Mortimer”. It means “stagnant water”***.:lol:
Just kidding.
-noah-
*http://www.lakefrontbrewery.com/riverwest_stein_lager.html – HIGHLY recommended.
**http://approachingaro.org
***http://sihiri0.tripod.com/id7.html
@Noah. You said: “Why DO you stay with those crazy Aro gTér-ers?”
I do not speak for David, but as another Aro apprentice with a high level of scientific education:
Crazyness is one of my many modes. ^_^
It is suprisingly worthwhile to practice “demon-worship and abominable rituals” among other things. Have you tried?
Hi Glenn,
Thank you for your exceptionally insightful observations and questions. I’ve just been over to read your blog and found much of interest there. Since you mention Jayarava, I thought I’d point to his post from yesterday, which touches on many of the same questions we are wrestling with.
I share the perception that “Buddhism” is collapsing. (Although prediction is always uncertain.) If so, the question is: what, if anything, do we want to rescue from the rubble, and what to reassemble it into? I have some extremely tentative answers, which I’ll present near the end of this series.
Your questions about nihilism point directly to the subject of one of the books I’m writing, namely Meaningness. Its central point is that eternalism and nihilism are not the only possibilities. I take it that both eternalism and nihilism are based on the idea that the only kind of meaning that matters is ultimate meaning. Eternalism insists that ultimate meaning exists, which is wrong. Nihilism denies that any meaning exists, which is also wrong. (See this page for more on that.)
You might define “nihilism” differently—perhaps just as the denial of ultimate meaning. That would cover both what I call “nihilism” and my preferred third alternative (“the complete stance”).
I’m skeptical that it’s possible to deny significance, purpose, and value altogether. If you are sufficiently hungry, the significance, purpose, and value of food is unmistakeable.
I agree that freeing oneself from all ultimate meanings can lead to exhilaration, passion, honesty, and freedom. I hope to point in that direction.
About Aro. Ngak’chang Rinpoche, its head lama, begins most public retreats by saying that he teaches methods, not Truth. (This is a Dzogchen perspective. It relativizes the Absolute Truths of the other yanas as pragmatic tools.)
So that leaves you free to take whatever ontological stance you find useful. Some Aro students, including close friends of mine, take the nagas, sorcerers, and so forth as concretely-existing truths. I can’t imagine how, but it seems to work well for them. I take the magical stuff as inspiring entertainment.
And I love that stuff. I like it so much that I’m writing a historical novel that’s packed full of it, as a serial on the web. In the most recent episode, the hero learns the hard way that he is a sorcerer. Nagas will make their first appearance about four episodes from now.
I hope it is entertaining, and perhaps inspiring. And it has my somewhat subversive take on Buddhism woven all through it. That most recent episode contains a thinly-veiled attack on karmic justice.
Anyway, as for why I practice Aro rather than another leading brand: mostly because I’m still learning things from my lamas that I couldn’t figure out myself. I might find other teachers who could do that for me, but I haven’t encountered any, and I’ve exposed myself to many versions of Buddhism.
Best wishes,
David
@ Joyce – Thanks for the question! What I wrote was that the inventors of vipassana were into extreme asceticism—which doesn’t necessarily mean that their vipassana methods are ascetic. As they increasingly taught lay people, the asceticism seems to have weakened. But in Asia, from what I have read, vipassana is still taught in a renunciative framework. For example, Buddhadasa Bhikkhu wrote that lay people should regard sex as disgusting, and should do it only when necessary for reproduction (if at all). Probably by most Westerners’ standards, that’s “extreme asceticism.”
The whole aim of that path is to abandon desire. So then the follow-on questions: Does vipassana has renunciation built into it? Is it the best practice for Westerners who have no interest in abandoning desire? I’ll have a whole post about that later in this series.
@ ~C4Chaos – Yes, the co-construction of “Buddhism” by East and West is fascinating. For an engrossing (but sometimes infuriating) history of the earliest phase of this, check out The Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies.
I’ve heard very good things about Shinzen Young from others. I’m greatly looking forward to hearing his talk at the Buddhist Geeks conference. I’m very interested in the neuroscience literature on meditation (but haven’t had time to read much of it yet).
@ Noah – “Do you see yourself moving towards taking a Stance position in your life instead of remaining in a System?” I’ll talk about that near the end of this series. Basically, having been born when I was, I’m reasonably comfortable with “subcultural Buddhism.” On the other hand, for whatever reason, part of me seems to have travelled with the Zeitgeist, into the “post-systems” world. I do experience some cognitive dissonance around this; but it’s not a major problem. What I hope to do late in this series is to articulate my post-systems experience, in case that’s useful for people who are younger than me. Possibly I can see it clearer, in some ways, for being partly removed from it; for being an outsider to that way of being.
@ David
“What I hope to do late in this series is to articulate my post-systems experience, in case that’s useful for people who are younger than me.”
Cool. I look forward to it.
@Kündröl
“Crazyness is one of my many modes.”
Ha!
“It is suprisingly worthwhile to practice ‘demon-worship and abominable rituals’ among other things. Have you tried?”
I’m still just shi-nè-ing around these days. But shi-nè is pretty abominable sometimes.
What about eating at McDonalds? Does that count?
I only do that once in a while. #6 Crispy Chicken Extra Value Meal. So bad, but soo good. Kind of my punk version of corpse eating practice. Just kidding. 
Sorry, McDonalds.
It’s pretty demonic and abominable.
Was that a thing though? Eating corpses to become enlightened? I know it’s not in the Aro gTér. But in Tibet, was that considered a fast track to realization if you knew how to do it correctly?
I’d do it.
I’d eat a corpse to be come enlightened. There, I said it.
Can it at least be a pretty corpse? Maybe the corpse of someone who liked the same music as me? Are salt and pepper allowed?
Kündröl, are there specific “demons” you might suggest worshiping, or any particular “abominations” you’ve found particularly helpful?
Cheers.
@Noah
“But shi-nè is pretty abominable sometimes.”
Oh yeah, it can be like grinding yourself to little pieces while waiting that wild dogs come to eat them away.
“What about eating at McDonalds? Does that count?”
Sure, if you eat most abominably. Have also some demonic laughter while doing it.
“But in Tibet, was that considered a fast track to realization if you knew how to do it correctly?”
At least in India as far a I have heard. I have to admit that I do not really understand the principle and function – maybe for the reason that I have never tried…
“Can it at least be a pretty corpse? Maybe the corpse of someone who liked the same music as me? Are salt and pepper allowed?”
Just go pick one from your local charnel ground. ^_^
“Kündröl, are there specific “demons” you might suggest worshiping, or any particular “abominations” you’ve found particularly helpful?”
The say that the “Lesser Key of the Solomon” (http://www.sacred-texts.com/grim/lks/index.htm) is quite a classic if you are into some good old fashioned demon summoning
– but that is not very Buddhist. I have heard that protector practices are quite funky though… At the moment, most of my “demon” worshipping within Aro is about Yeshe Tsogyel mantra practice. It has had its peculiar side(?) effects as far as I’m concerned.
When it comes to “abominations” I find the gChod practice very fascinating. Its concerns itself in certain matters that I find central to my life and path. You can also call upon some demons with that
.
I hava also practical experience with the good ol’ sorcery (outside Aro), and I think that many people really do not have any idea of its principle and funtion. But that path of discussion I will not take here… It would be too off-topic nad I do not have the time.
Re: ” I take the magical stuff as inspiring entertainment. And I love that stuff.” I think this is vital. You’ve got to enjoy whatever you do or you’re going to struggle to stick at it. The more intellectual/scientific/rational deconstruction one engages in, the greater the risk that at a certain point you’re just surrounded by bits of lifeless junk that you’ve ripped apart. I had thought at one point to study English Literature at University, but after spending a couple of months ripping apart a single short collection of poems that I loved, looking at the mechanics of what made them tick, all I had was empty words on a page. The intellectual process had killed all the passion.
This is a risk with regards the statement that “what, if anything, do we want to rescue from the rubble [of the collapse of Buddhism], and what to reassemble it into?” First up, implicit in that kind of statement is the notion that ‘My brain/rational scientific methodology/philological redactionist talents are bigger than Buddhism and I’m capable of deciding which bits to keep and which to ditch’. I’d guess that determining the future course of Buddhism is pretty hard unless one is Realised, but even setting that little detail to one side if one cannot approach the task with a sense of enjoyment and appreciation for the tradition(s) one is dealing with, all that will result is a lifeless souless husk. I reckon this is one of the problems that Consensus Buddhism faces – these guys just don’t seem to be enjoying themselves enough. They think that by leaving off the mayo & salad and adding extra couscous & museli their Buddha King Buddha Burger (You want it your way at BK? You gottit!) will become sufficiently paletable for them to chow down on. When that doesn’t work they’ll replace the sesame seed bun with a wholegrain bap, and the 14oz mega burger with a extra bland McTofu Speciale and by the end of the process it won’t look anything like Buddhism at all. And they’ll still be hungry. And miserable.
Hi David, being a student of SN Goenka I had in mind to post regarding the Burmese lineage to him and U Ba Khin, but I saw John Eden had very kindly posted it for me:-
‘I suppose you are aware that within the tradition of Ledi and U Ba Khin, as taught by SN Goenka, we hold that the Burmese monks are the only ones who kept alive the techniques of Vipassana meditation as originally taught by the Buddha. There is a least a rudimentary lineage there, stretching back to the two monks who left India and came to Burma, and these monks are credited with passing the teachings along undiluted. That there may be no scholarly evidence of this certainly doesn’t make it untrue. They were not concerned with such things, so it’s not surprising that nothing was written of it. The real test of this, after all, is in the practicing of it.’
As John says there is no scholarly evidence of this, but it’s worth taking note that there maybe enough evidence in the phenomenal growth of Vipassana meditation centres (as taught by SN Goenka) throughout the world while there is a parallel decline in Buddhism as a whole (the general theme throughout this series). I feel the fact that there has never been a single cent or penny charged to sit a course (with an aim of not polluting the dhamma) speaks volumes.
Thanks for changing the ‘completely lost’ to ‘almost completely lost’, it makes a big difference to the thread.
@Lawrence – Thanks for the “second”! Seems David is not interested in responding to this line of thought… perhaps most of these mostly academic commentators are missing the “swim-ology” piece!
@ John Eden, Lawrence — It sounds as if S.N. Goenka emphasizes the importance of an unbroken lineage? If so, I apologize if pointing out the lack of evidence for that is offensive to you. I did not intend that. As I said, I have no interest in suggesting that modern vipassana is “inauthentic” through lack of lineage. Rather, I wanted to trace the ways in which vipassana techniques have been revised under Western influence. Apparently it is uncontroversial that U Ba Khin did do that, and S.N. Goenka inherited his methods.
For me, what matters is efficacy, not lineage. As Lawrence points out, the success of S.N. Goenka’s organization speaks well for his approach.
What is swim-ology?
@ Namgyal Dorje — In case it’s not clear, I don’t think it’s a good thing that Buddhism may collapse, and I do the little I can to help prevent that. I do think it’s a good idea to start thinking about Plan B in case it does. I am not Realized, so all I can offer are some tentative guesses. …Yes, if Buddhism isn’t fun, why bother? That points in the direction of my tentative guess…
I don’t think Goenka emphasizes the lineage idea, it’s more the idea that the teachings themselves, the techniques and the emphasis on observing sensation, as described in both the Anapanasati and Sattipathana suttas, were passed down by Burmese monks. It’s not offensive to point out that there’s lack of evidence, just seems important that we realize that lack of scholarly evidence, written records, doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen.
And certainly U Ba Khin and Goenka may have revised the techniques, but they were not so influenced by Westerners; he was teaching pretty much totally Burmese, and Goenka began teaching Indians. Westerners began coming to his courses after they were well-established in India, and I don’t think the teachings changed much as a result. Even in the US, it’s still the same as it’s taught in India and elsewhere. My point is that this tradition seems to be different in some important ways than the other vipassana groups that you are discussing here, so I’m just pointing out some of those fine points of difference.
I’m really enjoying the blog and the discussion! Thanks for your response!
Oh, sorry, missed the question. “Swim-ology” refers to a story – on the virtue of practice – that Goenka tells in his discourses, about an academic and an ignorant ship worker… The academic tells the ignorant fellow that he’s wasted half his life because he knows nothing of Geology, Oceanography, Climatology and such, and then when the ship begins to sink, the worker comes to the academic and asks him if he has studied ‘swim-ology’ and when he says no, the worker says he is so sorry, he’s wasted his whole life because the ship is sinking and he won’t be able to swim to shore.
… my comment to Lawrence on academics, however, was not directed at you… some of the other commentators seemed to me to be excessively into display of technical terms and big words and other “academic” paraphernalia! As I said, I find your blog to be very interesting and stimulating.
I also think that the differences in this tradition are important to recognise. Rather than it getting tied up with being instrumental to ‘Consensus Buddhism’ and ‘A New World Religion’, the teachings suggest an awareness around the time of re-invention by keeping well away from the whole ‘Buddhist’ and ‘Religion’ ideas altogether, thus keeping it very open and diverse for all to attend whatever one’s religion or lack of relgion may be. There are no robes, no statues, no mantras etc etc. The emphasis is entirely on the practise of meditation.
I am not Buddhist, nor do I practise Buddhism.
In regards to Buddhism being fun I can only talk about vipassana meditation itself, which for me is something to be taken seriously, and very hard work to! There are plenty of other things I can do for fun.
The clock of Vipassana meditation has struck, it appears to be exactly what the world is in need of at this present time.
@David, definitely no offence has been taken, quite the opposite! I have been really enjoying this whole series and thouroghly admire your knowledge, research and approach to what I consider to be a really important subject.
@John, the swim-ology quote made me smile, thanks.
@Kündröl
Thanks for the info. And thanks for the sense of humor.
@David
In regards to that whole “swim-ology” thing: I’m sorry people keep doing that whole “this guy must not practice very much” routine. It’s kinda weird.
@ David re: “I am not Realized, so all I can offer are some tentative guesses.” Apologies if it seemed my comment was criticising your critique. Actually what I was trying (failing) to articulate is that the leaders of Consensus Buddhism seem to be saying ‘We aren’t Realized yet, so what do we change about Buddhism and incorporate from elsewhere to attend to that problem’. I don’t think that is a place from which to launch a major reform. I am very much looking forward to your tentative suggestions and am glad Fun is going to be part of that! I think the possibility of Realization is a Big Problem for some folk. As Ngak’chang Rinpoche has said in the past – ‘. . . in the Himalayas people practice because that is what they do. They do not do so with any great expectation of becoming Enlightened’. Yes some form of accomplishment is the goal, is wished and hoped for, and some people do get there. But, I figure it is a bit like running the London Marathon. Maybe 30 people run it each year because they honestly think they might win. The other 36,000 they do it for fun, or for the challenge, or self-improvement, or to raise money for good causes, or as purist runners ‘because this is what we do around here’. Ngak’chang Rinpoche primarily asks his students merely ‘To become just a little bit kinder’ as a result of their practice. One of the virtues of Fun, and also of being part of a Tradition, is that these are things are supportive of the notion that ‘I practice, because that is what we do around here’.
@Noah. I think it’s kinda weird that you feel the need to keep jumping to David’s defence… even after it’s been made perfectly clear that it wasn’t directed at him
David
Starting to read your rich serie about protestant buddhism or whatever the name is …
I have some small remarks on this one.
You say “Since the late 1950s, the Mahasi method (…) has been dominant in Sri Lanka.
And, Sri Lankan Buddhism has not had much influence on the West.”
I agree with the first part: it is dominant and one of the man that made much propaganda for it, in Sri Lanka and in the West (perhaps only in Europe) was the monk Nyanaponika Thera, who as a young German Jew got to Sri Lanka in 1935 (?) and has written much, in English and German about the Dhamma and (Mahasi) meditation.
His pupil is the well known American Jew (I mention the fact that they are jewish to make clear that they were no christians) Bhikkhu Bodhi who did enormous translation work – from Pali to English – and wrote many essays in which he in a way translated the Sri Lankan Theravada to the West: that is the influence. A small detail: he hardly meditates, is much more a scholar-monk.
Another man of influence is the (Sri Lankan-born), Bhikkhu Gunaratana who for decades teached vipassana (a la Mahasi) BUT ALSO samatha-meditation, about entering the jhanas, in the USA
Greetings
Joop
Pingback: Rationality and Magick
Pingback: Why You Don’t Want Vipassana « muflax' mindstream