Hi
I have completed 2 Vipassana retreats. What I wanted to add, is that the technique of Vipassana – i.e. the observation of sensations arising and passing through the body, allows the meditator to observe the relationship between mind and matter at the experiential level, this is key and what makes this approach so successful. This means that a practitioner is left without a shadow of a doubt, as to how thoughts impact the creation and dissolution process of matter directly.
For example when a gross and unpleasant sensation arises, one has two choices: 1) To react with aversion, which in fact has the effect of intensifying the sensation or 2) To remain equanimous. That is to simply observe the sensation without valuing or devaluing it. This allows the sankaras to rise to the the surface and be dissipated. If a pleasant sensation arises and one starts to crave and cling to it, then when the sensation passes, the meditator will react with aversion when unpleasant sensations – sooner or later – again rise, as he/she naturally only wants the pleasant sensations.
The practice of Anapana for the first 3 days, concentrating on breath and the sensations of a small part of the body; in and around the nostrils and above the upper lip, helps the meditator to develop a concentrated mind that will be able to detect the very subtlest of sensations.
Vipassana as taught by S.N. Goenke really is, as he puts it, a deep personal surgical operation that allows one to operate on one’s own psyche and, if performed properly, facilitates the removal of defilements from the mind. After completing around 100 hours of intense meditation over 10 days, practitioners will have uncovered a lot about themselves through direct experience. From my personal experience this technique is only advantageous. Presumably because Goenke dispels any notions of the technique being sectarian, according to conservative Theravadic traditions, by pointing out that the technique is universal.
As far as the assistant teachers of this technique are concerned, there does appear to be a general lack of clarity on the specifics, but maybe that’s because each one’s experience is unfathomably complex and personal.
My final point is that the technique basically speaks for itself without words needing to be spoken. Each meditator is thus allowed to persue his/her own truth pertaining to their own experience. Sound theoretical information such as found on this Pure Dhamma platform, provides me with a fascinating backdrop for a deeper analysis of my meditation experiences.
Many Thanks