Reply To: Goenka´s Vipassana – Part 2


1. The following paragraph is not quite right (p. 12): “Example: if one believes one is a Sōtapanna, but noticed one of his thoughts was slightly, just slightly tainted with jealousy, even just a fraction of a second, that means one is not a Sōtapanna. Perhaps a Sōtapanna Anugāmi, but not a Sōtapanna.”

A Sotapnna has removed only the WRONG VIEWS out of dasa akusala.

  • However, that means not only the ten types of wrong views but also the wrong view about an “unchanging self/me” (like that of a “soul in many religions, and that of an atman in Hinduism. That means getting rid of “sakkaya ditthi.”
  • That is an enormous accomplishment and is enough to avoid future rebirths in the apayas. That is because most “apayagami deeds” are done with the wrong views. See “Akusala Citta – How a Sotāpanna Avoids Apāyagāmi Citta.” I just noticed that I have not revised it at all. If anyone sees any revisions that are needed, please let me know.
  • However, what Jorg describes on p. 15 about āsava/anusaya is correct.
  • P.S. Therefore, a Sōtapanna’s thoughts COULD BE tainted with jealousy, but NEVER to the extent of leading to an apāyagāmi action. That is true for any of dasa akusala. A Sōtapanna has fully removed only one of the dasa akusala, that of wrong views.

2. I appreciate Jorg’s efforts to incorporate visuals. That is impactful.

3. On p. 18: “Ānāpāna and Satipaṭṭhāna both have the word “āna” inside which means “taking in.” Sequentially, “pāna” means to “expel.”

  • It should be “Ānāpāna and Satipaṭṭhāna both have the word “āna” inside, which means “taking in.” Sequentially, “āpāna” means to “expel.”
  • I, myself, may have written it the wrong way in an earlier post. If so, please let me know so I can correct it.

4. Then I jumped over to the “A deeper analysis of “sankharas” and Buddha Dhamma” on p. 80. The following sentence caught my eye: “Regarding Vipassana and “sankharas,” a question that remains is, “What are these
“sankharas” then in our physical bodies?

  • The bolded part seems problematic. Are there any “sankharas” in our physical bodies? Did Goenka teach that?
  • On p. 82, you write, “If “sankharas” are defilements that are stored in the body, that means they should belong to the rupa category.”  If he taught that, his teachings would be much worse than I imagined!
1 user thanked author for this post.