[Jorg]

Theruwan Saranayi everyone!

Lal’s comment: Here is the file that Jorg sent me: “True Ānāpānasati & Satipaṭṭhāna (Vipassana)“

I’ve written a file that discusses how the Vipassana practice (as taught by S.N. Goenka) relates to pure Buddha Dhamma and address various issues in this method that are actually opposed to Buddha Dhamma and, therefore, can never lead to Nibbana. In one’s best interest, don’t simply believe or reject what I say but critically analyze it and see if it indeed makes sense and is overall consistent: Buddha Dhamma is all about realization. Only realization leads to a change in perception. I’ve added a (detailed) explanation about my background with the practice and my encounter with pure Dhamma.

I practiced Vipassana (as taught by S.N. Goenka) for about seven years until early 2022. I attended over ten courses among which a 30-day course. I had always been a very dedicated student, rarely missing my daily practice, and I made a lot of progress, especially towards the end. Early 2022 I started deepening my practice a lot resulting in a deep feeling of peace. Every time I meditated, I was so calm and equanimous I would reach the state Mr. Goenka referred to as “bhanga,” where the whole body becomes incredibly subtle and one basically feels the physical structure “dissolve.” I say this not because I feel proud in any way, but to set the background for the following:

Despite the deep feelings of peace and equanimity that I had never felt before at any point in my life, my perception towards meditation and life in general changed completely, practically overnight, leading me away from the method that I benefited from so much. Why would I possibly do that, you may wonder. It was because I came across pure Buddha Dhamma. It was because, for the first time ever, that I could see life for what it really was. Anicca, dukkha, and especially anatta, became so clear that I realized that Nibbana is the only way to true liberation. “What’s the point of it all, if nothing ever can lead to happiness,” was the thought that came to mind. Then, a strong physical reaction occured as if the vertebrates in my neck elongated, reaching “towards the sky.” Another thought strongly came to mind, “Nibbana is the only way out.” I didn’t really understand what Nibbana was before that so it felt incredibly strange, yet so clear at the same time. The feelings of bliss I had felt from “Vipassana” before that, were simply not comparable to the changes that happened from that moment onwards. At that moment I wasn’t completely sure what had happened. It was only in hindsight that I could pinpoint that something happened that day.

It was that day, or the day after, I started having a quenchless thirst for Buddha Dhamma. I dedicated as much free time to the Dhamma as I could (by reading up on puredhamma.net). It so happened that I had a lot of free time those days, so practically my whole days were filled with learning about the pure message of the Buddha. The interesting thing that happened over the coming weeks/months was that my meditation practice began to change, but not forcefully. In the beginning, I was still practicing “Vipassana,” but I started reflecting on the Dhamma more and more and focusing on the relief that came with it. Gradually, this way of practicing started replacing the time I spent doing “Vipassana.” It happened very naturally, as if my mind knew exactly what it had to do. One day, I realized I wasn’t doing anymore “Vipassana.”

Since I was a dedicated “Vipassana” practitioner, am very familiar with the practice, and I benefited a lot from it, I feel like I’m in a good position to share my take on the practice from the standpoint of Pure Buddha Dhamma. I have nothing bad to say about the method in a mundane sense, I think it has benefits (albeit only mundane ones). After all, I benefited a lot from it. However,  I also can’t deny that it may give a false sense of relief and even lead to a false sense of attainment (magga phala). From that perspective I see many drawbacks as it will keep one in samsara. Therefore, I have written about the inconsistencies and contradictions that are present in the teachings of this practice. I have attempted to provide evidence to support my arguments and provide an overall consistent picture, for others to analyze, reflect upon, and even scrutinize. Since some inconsistencies (like with anapana supposedly being related to breathing) coincide with modern day Buddhism, at times I also reflect on that.

It’s a rather large file, though I hope anyyone who decides to read it (even if only a part), feels free to leave any comments in this thread. I’m open to feedback; I’m happy to clarify things if they are not clear; and I will make adjustments based on your feedback, especially if any inconsistencies arise. That means the Buddha Dhamma has been misrepresented (unintentionally) and that should be corrected at once.

I have a special request for anyone who is into abhidhamma:

1. If you could, please go through the chapter “the mind process” on page 11, and especially check the sections on citta and cetasika.
2. Similarly, in the second to last chapter “A deeper analaysis of  ‘sankharas’ and Buddha Dhamma,” please go over the section related to gandhabba/utuja kaya and how I relate it to “sankharas” as used in the Vipassana method as taught by Mr. Goenka. I’m presenting a theory that may, or may not be fully consistent with the workings of utuja kaya. It would serve to read and understand the section on “sankharas” as well within the same chapter.

With Metta.

2 users thanked author for this post.

namo0804, LayDhammaFollower

[lal54]

I only took a glance and then started reading “The Mind Processes” on p. 11; Jorg especially requested comments on this.

1. First, I am glad to see that Jorg has gained a good understanding. Some gaps need to be filled in. 

• I think it is a good idea for everyone to read it and make comments/ ask questions. That is the best way to make progress.

2. On p. 11, the Figure is excellent. It visualizes the underlying process of “seeing an object.”

• The paragraph: “For example, your eyes make contact with a tree. It sends the “image” via electrical
  signals to the brain (the visual cortex). The brain then sends a suitable form (rupa) to the pasāda
  rupa. Then the pasāda rupa makes contact with the mind base (hadaya vatthu). This contact
  results in vibration. This vibration leads to the arising of thought, feelings, and consciousness” may be written as follows:
• “For example, your eyes make contact with a tree. The eyes send the “image” via electrical signals to the brain (the visual cortex). The brain processes that signal to a form that the mind can understand.  That signal is transmitted to the cakkhu pasada rupa via the “fine body” of the gandhabba which is spread throughout the physical body. The cakkhu pasāda rupa contacts the mind base (hadaya vatthu), which results in the vibration of the hadaya vatthu 17 times, resulting in a citta vithi with 17 cittas. Cakkhu vinnana (CV) arises in the fourth citta of that citta vithi; see #3 of “Citta Vīthi – Processing of Sense Inputs.”

3. The second Figure is a good visual representation of 17 cittas arising in succession. 

• Note that all cittas arise in the MIND. Cakkhu vinnana (CV) has that name because the cakkhu pasada rupa gives rise to it. But that citta also arises in mind.
• Then the mind goes through more cittas with other functions. 
• Further down in the text, Jorg describes “Tiṇṇaṁ saṅgati phasso.” That happens at the fifth citta, Sampaticchana (Receiving consciousness) in that citta vithi of 17 cittas. That is followed by the Santīrana (Investigating consciousness) citta, and then the  Vottapana (Determining consciousness) arises.
• At the votthapana (V) citta, the mind decides on the appropriate action for that sensory input. Then those actions are launched with the subsequent seven javana citta. See the above-referenced post.

I will stop here for now. We can discuss any questions anyone may have regarding the above description.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Jorg

[LayDhammaFollower]

Greeating, @Jorg.

It is inspiring to see your work. I will study it for sure. It is always good to hear from another PureDhamma practitioner about their experience and analyse same concept from different angles.

I just glanced through it. The diagram representing Aniccā saññā among other pictures is brilliant.

===

May all beings be able to penetrate the four noble truths, subtle then even one horse hair split into seven equal parts.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Jorg

[Jorg]

Thank you very much, Lal for your look through and comments! I will make some adjustments.

Also a big thanks to LDF. That is appreciated! And I’d be more than happy to hear what you think.

[lal54]

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.

Jorg

[Jorg]

1. Please explain, Lal, in the table presented here https://puredhamma.net/tables-and-summaries/four-stages-of-nibbana/, it says “issa” is removed for a Sōtapanna.

3. Corrected to āpānā!  (I didn’t see “pāna” in any post, so I just made a mistake).

4. I attempted to explain “sankharas” as used in that tradition in regard to the practice itself. However, here is an excerpt from “The art of Living” by S.N.Goenka himself:

All saṅkhāras are impermanent.

When you perceive this with true insight

then you become detached from suffering;

this is the path of purification.

In response to the above dhammapada (not sure which dhammapada, but anicca is translated as impermanence), he writes (bolded parts by me):

“Here the word saṅkhāra has a very wide meaning. A blind reaction of the mind is called saṅkhāra, but the result of that action, its fruit, is also known as saṅkhāra; like seed, like fruit. Everything that we encounter in life is ultimately the result of our own mental actions. Therefore in the widest sense, saṅkhāra means anything in this conditioned world, whatever has been created, formed, composed. Hence, “All created things are impermanent,” whether mental or physical, everything in the universe. When one observes this truth with experiential wisdom through the practice of vipassanā-bhāvanā, then suffering disappears, because one turns away from the causes of suffering; that is, one gives up the habit of craving and aversion. This is the path of liberation. The entire effort is to learn how not to react, how not to produce a new saṅkhāra. A sensation appears, and liking or disliking begins. This fleeting moment, if we are unaware of it, is repeated and intensified into craving and aversion, becoming a strong emotion that eventually overpowers the conscious mind. We become caught up in the emotion, and all our better judgment is swept aside. The result is that we find ourselves engaged in unwholesome speech and action, harming ourselves and others. We create misery for ourselves, suffering now and in the future, because of one moment of blind reaction. But if we are aware at the point where the process of reaction begins—that is, if we are aware of the sensation—we can choose not to allow any reaction to occur or to intensify. We observe the sensation without reacting, neither liking nor disliking it. It has no chance to develop into craving or aversion, into powerful emotion that can overwhelm us; it simply arises and passes away. The mind remains balanced, peaceful. We are happy now, and we can anticipate happiness in the future, because we have not reacted. This ability not to react is very valuable. When we are aware of the sensations within the body, and at the same time maintain equanimity, in those moments the mind is free.”

Regarding the bolded part:

In the practice one observes sensations because “Anything that arises in the mind flows together with sensations.” (I addressed this part, though, in a separate section). So, that means that defilements supposedly manifest in the body through physical sensations (besides in the mind). When you observe sensations with equanimity, they “break down” from gross to subtle. And then they literally disappear at some point (which i refer to as “dissolve.”) I referred to these “sankharas” as “energy knots” because that’s how some experience them (for example when you have a throbbing sensation somewhwere). I don’t remember Goenka calling them such, though. Anyway, When they “dissolve,” new layers of “sankharas” (physical sensations) arise after a little while again (sensations feel heavier and unpleasant again), and they can be dissolved through the same equanimous observations. Those subtle sensations feel nice and are said to be manifestations of craving (because the mind wants more of them). The gross sensations are mostly unpleasant and are said to be manifestations of aversion (the mind doesn’t want them).

I should probably rephrase that sentence “What are these ‘sankharas’ in the physical body?” It’s better to say “the mental defilements that manifest/show themselves through the physical body. That’s why the mind can be applied towards the physical body in order to eradicate the defilements/”sankharas.” (According to this method).

I attempted to offer some explanations in that section that Lal addresses to that physical experience that occurs. I’ve never heard an explanation for this. I know it has nothing to do with the eradication of defilements, so I tried offering other explanations there to that process. One of which is related to the utuja kaya, hence I was hoping I could get some feedback on my theory. Please read the section for more details (starting p. 80).

[lal54]

1. OK. It is possible that a Sotapanna would have removed “Issa.” It is not an akusala by itself. It is an “occasional asobhana cetasika” that can arise in an akusala citta. 

• I wrote that post some years back, so I need to check how I made that Table. I will check on it and comment here later on.
• But it is good to keep in mind that a Sōtapanna has entirely removed only one of the dasa akusala, that of wrong views. All other akusala would be weakened so that a Sotapanna is incapable of “apāyagāmi actions.” 

4. The problem starts with a mistranslation of the verse “sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā ti” as: “All saṅkhāras are impermanent.”

• Anicca DOES NOT mean just impermanence. This an excellent example of why one MUST have the fundamentals right.
• The bolded sentence you quoted, “A blind reaction of the mind is called saṅkhāra, but the result of that action, its fruit, is also known as saṅkhāra; like seed, like fruit,” is wrong too. The correct sentence would be”An unwise reaction of the mind is called saṅkhāra, but the result of that action, its fruit, is a saṅkhata; like the seed, like fruit.”
• Thus, our physical body is a saṅkhata. It is a result of past kamma done with a puññābhisaṅkhāra (puñña abhisaṅkhāra).
• Saṅkhāra is mental, not material. I think you pointed that out in your essay.

[cubibobi]

I practiced the Goenka’s technique a number of years, and found it to be quite an oversimplification (and at times misrepresentation) of Buddha Dhamma. The benefits, as you pointed out, are the temporary relief one gets after attending a retreat.

First, the verse you quoted:

All saṅkhāras are impermanent.
When you perceive this with true insight
then you become detached from suffering;
this is the path of purification.

… is the translation of the Pali verse:

“Sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā” ti,
yadā paññāya passati;
Atha nibbindati dukkhe,
esa maggo visuddhiyā.”

…which is Dhammapada 277 and is explained in:

Anuloma Khanti and Sammattaniyāma – Pre-requisites for a Sotapanna

(See #7)

This post is about Anuloma Khanti and Sammattaniyāma.

At the start of the thread, you wrote:

“…Another thought strongly came to mind, “Nibbana is the only way out.””

It sounds like you may have realized Sammattaniyāma, and if that is the case then it is great!

The oversimplification is that the method focuses on just bodily sensations: dukha vedana, sukha vedana, adukhamasukha vedana. It is explained that these sensations are manifestations of all mental phenomena, especially sankharā.

Very briefly, the “vipassana” part of this technique involves moving attention from head to toes, noticing the sensation in each part of the body, and observing that sensation with a mindset of equanimity. (The “anapana” part of the technique is taken to be breath meditation).

For those who are following this method, and this is all you do, then do not be surprised that after years and years of practice your gati seems to stay the same.

Best,
Lang

[lal54]

Thank you, Lang!

• I revised your post to make some sentences bold, etc. Just select the sentence first and then click “bold (B)” to make the sentence bold. Same to make it to italics (with selection of “I” in the formatting bar, AFTER selecting the sentence.)
• The following post could be helpful in formatting a comment: “Formatting a Post“

Regarding the translation of “anicca,” the following section could be helpful too. Since we have not discussed it recently, many people may not be aware of it: “Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta“

[cubibobi]

Thank you, Lal.

About formatting, the only formatting I’ve done so far is to italicize Pali words, which works fine per the instruction.

I posted last night, after a long absence, and wonder if the following is happening with anybody:

I wrote my post in Notepad and pasted it to the forum, italicizing here and there.
Everything looked good before I submitted.
Once I submitted, I saw line break formatting tags: “<br />” or something like it.
I edited the post and removed them manually, but that did not work.

Let’s see if that is happening with this post.

Looks like it does, and there is no formatting of any words here, so it looks like the copying and pasting caused this.

[Lal]

I see. Thank you, Lang.

I am not sure why you could not remove those extra “<br />” stuff. I just edited your post to remove them.

I will try to contact the plugin author to see why it happens. 

• If you are unable to remove them, please leave them. I can remove them.

[Jorg]

Thanks Lang for sharing. You may be right about that. That description you quoted happened a little bit over a year ago. Since then, I’ve been feeling much more disenchanted about worldly things. “Normal” conversations don’t interest me anymore. All I can think of is how to “sneak in” some dhamma in conversations and help others in whatever way I can.

That said, I still have a long way to go. So, I just keep practicing! I do feel very fortunate that I can advance faster with so many wonderful kalyanamittas out there.

On a technical note, the “Br” thing sometimes shows up in my posts as well. When that happens, I view the post in source code and remove them manually. I forgot to mention it before.

 

[cubibobi]

“Since then, I’ve been feeling much more disenchanted about worldly things”.

However much longer you have to go, you are definitely going in the right direction. I’d venture to speculate that you are going through nibbidā, which leads to virāgā, and then to nirodhā.

Best!

1 user thanked author for this post.

Jorg

[Lal]

Yes. Lang is right. You have come a long way, Jorg. 

Please don’t hesitate to ask questions. Your approach to writing things down is good. It makes one think through. Post a revised version when you are ready.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Jorg

[Jorg]

I’ve revised it partly. When I finish it up I’ll mail it again!

If it’s possible, Lal, are you able to elaborate further on what you posted earlier in #43914:

“1. OK. It is possible that a Sotapanna would have removed “Issa.” It is not an akusala by itself. It is an “occasional asobhana cetasika” that can arise in an akusala citta. 

• I wrote that post some years back, so I need to check how I made that Table. I will check on it and comment here later on.”

 

[Lal]

Yes. I have not forgotten. It may take some time—too many things to do.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Jorg

[Lal]

Jorg has revised the document:

“True Ānāpānasati & Satipaṭṭhāna (Vipassana) – Version 1.1“

Please make comments so that the document can be made better. Such efforts help everyone.

• I will make some comments about the previously unsettled issue soon. 

1 user thanked author for this post.

Jorg

[Lal]

I have rewritten the post “Conditions for the Four Stages of Nibbāna” to make some corrections. 

• I would not have caught that issue if I did not read Jorg’s document. 
• It is best to write another post or two clarifying the above post, but that involves Abhidhamma and may not be fruitful for the wider audience. Perhaps in the future, when I have the time. Those familiar with Abhidhamma may be able to figure things out by referring to Bhikkhu Bodhi’s book I referred to.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Jorg

[cubibobi]

In

Conditions for the Four Stages of Nibbāna

Can we add tanha as another way to characterize the stages of nibbana: kāma tanhā, bhava hanhā, vibhava tanhā.

vibhava tanhā is removed at the sōtapanna stage.

kāma tanhā is weakened at the sakadāgāmi stage and removed at the anāgāmi stage.

bhava tanhā is removed at the arahant stage.

[Lal]

Excellent idea, Lang. Thank you!

• I have revised the post (and the Table there) to include the three types of tanhā and also the three types of the rāga.

[Lal]

I have read the two parts of Jorg’s document that Jorg especially requested input on.

1. The “The Mind Processes” section on p. 11 is good. You seem to have a good grasp of the concepts. I am happy to see that level of understanding.

2. The “A deeper analysis of “sankharas” and Buddha Dhamma” on p. 82 can be improved. 

• You seem to be more focused on sankhata than sankhara there. Of course, sankhata arise due to sankhara, and they need to be discussed. But the critical part to discuss HOW sankhata arise due to (abhi)sankhara.
• The recent post “Saṅkhāra – An Introduction” and the links referred to there could be helpful. 

[Jorg]

Thanks a lot, Lal, for going through it again.

Regarding your #2:

I wrote that part the way sankhara is used in that tradition. That’s why i used the quotation marks (“sankharas”) to distinguish between actual sankhara and the way they use it. I don’t know if I made that clear enough? The physical sensations are basically described as “sankharas” that are supposedly manifestations of defilements. The more you practice in line with the tradition (equanimously obeserving pysical sensations) the more these sensations become subtle, and the calmer mind and body become. As far as I know, Goenka has never used the term sankhata. That would have made more sense, though.

The theory I offered related to the gandhabba (later in that chapter) may not be easy to get unless my explanation on “sankhara” is clear. But even then, if one has never practiced according to this tradition, one may not be familiar with how these sensations behave in the same way as more advanced practitioners of that tradition are. In the end, it’s all meaningless (for Nibbana) but I thought there must be an explanation I can offer to those practitioners.

I could make a mention of sankhata specifically for that chapter. I have spoken about it in other parts but I have not used the term sankhata. I’ll go through it again and then i’ll make an appropriate reference or something of that sort. I’ll need a proper look.

[Lal]

Jorg wrote: ‘I wrote that part the way sankhara is used in that tradition. That’s why i used the quotation marks (“sankharas”) to distinguish between actual sankhara and the way they use it. I don’t know if I made that clear enough? The physical sensations are basically described as “sankharas” that are supposedly manifestations of defilements. The more you practice in line with the tradition (equanimously obeserving pysical sensations) the more these sensations become subtle, and the calmer mind and body become. As far as I know, Goenka has never used the term sankhata. That would have made more sense, though.”

Should I be reading that section with the assumption that it (Goenka’s explanation) can logically explain what happens in a Goenka retreat?

• In other words, should I be abandoning Buddha Dhamma (temporarily) to understand this explanation?

Likely, I have not fully grasped your intention with this section. May be you can explain it a bit more (not in the essay/pdf but here.) I have not read the section carefully because it appeared to me that the section was not really about sankhara but more about sankhata.

[Jorg]

Two sections before that one (“What is really meant by Saṅkhāra?” p.78) I first explain what is meant by “sankhara” and how it’s an inconsistency when compared to pure Buddha Dhamma. For the Vipassana practitioner of this tradition it will make somewhat more sense.

The reason why I wrote that last section was to try and offer an explanation what this physical phenomenon, that is described as “sankhara,” is. It’s basically the backbone of the tradition. Perhaps I should attempt to give a few examples before continuing. Then I might be able to answer the question better. To be clear, I’ll speak from the perspective of that tradition, not Buddha Dhamma.

Example 1:

Let’s say one gets angry. One may be feeling sensation of heat in several parts of the body, let’s imagine the chest and back. These are coarse (e.g., heavy, throbbing, unpleasant) sensations. During meditation one scans the body and notices these unpleasant sensations, but stays equanimous and accepts them for what they are, ephemeral and impermanent, and pays no particular attention to these. OR one stops in those areas and stays there for a short time observing the sensations, equanimously, before moving on with other body parts. As one continues the observation/scanning process, the aversion that manifests itself through these unpleasant sensations, will pass away (aversion gets eradicated). With it, the emotion of anger also reduces. The more advanced practitioner can observe these areas a bit longer. He or she would be able to reduce the coarseness of the sensations, resulting in more subtle sensations that feel more pleasant. This would also result in a reduced feeling of anger.

Example 2:

Let’s say one thinks back of a pleasant event, e.g., a holiday. Instead of unpleasant sensations one will now be experiencing more pleasant sensations (e.g., tingly, soothing, etc.). These arise because of craving/desire. Let’s say, pleasant sensations arise in arms and legs. One will have the tendency to like these and not want them to go away. However, because they are impermanent, they will go away eventually. So, one should keep observing the body, as mentioned above, in a similar way; equanimously. This is how craving/desire is eradicated.  If one practices correctly and keeps doing this, eventually all sensations in the body become incredibly subtle. This means all sankharas arise to the surface and pass away with great rapidity.

Note regarding both examples: when one is not equanimous, the craving and aversion cannot be eradicated since one only feeds it.

Regarding example 1 and 2, we are talking about body parts where particular sensations manifest. These are the manifesations of desire when they are of pleasant nature or aversion if they are of unpleasant nature. The third one would be neutral sensations which are manifestations of ignorance. (Reminder: I’m speaking from the perspective of this tradition, not Buddha Dhamma)

Now, for the (very) advanced practitioner, he or she will notice that sensations manifestaing over larger surface areas of the body seem to originate in very small areas. This needs some explaining and this is what I’m mostly trying to offer an explanation for.

Let’s take example 1. There are unpleasant sensations felt on chest and back. When you “zoom in” with a calm mind on this area, one will notice there’s a tiny point from where these sensation seem to originate. It’s usually felt as some kind of throbbing sensation/”heart beat.” I referred to it as an “(energy) knot.”

When one focuses on this point, and has a strong concentration, one can sometimes dissolve it so that it becomes completely subtle. Then the whole area feels light and subtle. The anger seems to vanish from that very moment. This easily leads to states where the whole body feels “dissolved.” This state is explained as “sankharas” of craving, aversion, and/or ignorance arising and passing away very rapidly. Layers and layers are being washed away. This state doesn’t last forever. After some time, course sensations arise again and the process starts over again as well.

My intention for the chapter Lal speaks of (p.82) is to explain in this phenomenon with the help of Buddha Dhamma. The vast majority of practitioners won’t be familiar with the process I described as “energy knots” btw, but they are with the general concept of sensations that arise and pass away and they can also get to those states where the whole body seems to dissolve. I thought that maybe it could be explained with the help of the utuja kaya of the gandhabba.

 

 

[Lal]

Jorg wrote: “The reason why I wrote that last section was to try and offer an explanation what this physical phenomenon, that is described as “sankhara,” is. It’s basically the backbone of the tradition.”

AND

“My intention for the chapter Lal speaks of (p.82) is to explain in this phenomenon with the help of Buddha Dhamma.”

1. I am not sure what the benefit is in explaining the “physical phenomena” felt by a Goenka practitioner with Buddha Dhamma.

• As I have explained before, the tranquility felt in the body can be explained without any deep concepts in Buddha Dhamma. See, for example, the following video. It is a long video:

“How Meditation Works & Science-Based Effective Meditations“

2. It seems that Mr. Goenka does not understand what is meant by “sankhara.”

• If you have a (preferably short) video on his description of “sankhara,” please post it so that we can get an idea of what he really means. I think that would be a better approach.
• It would be waste of time to discuss “sankhara” if his idea of “sankhara” has nothing to do with Buddha Dhamma.

[cubibobi]

Lal wrote:
If you have a (preferably short) video on his description of “sankhara,” please post it so that we can get an idea of what he really means.

For those who have taken the 10-day courses in this tradition, the following nightly discourses should be familiar.

These are definitely not short, but I’ll point out a few segments which should be sufficient to get what is meant by sankhara in this technique. I know that when we pick and choose like this then then we are taking things out of context, but you do have the full discourses if you’d like to listen to all of them.

— Day 4:

10 Day Vipassana Course – Day 4 (English)

53:00 “The whole technique is to divide …”

Day 4 is the day one starts on “vipassana“. From about 53:00 on he described the technique of dividing and dissecting bodily sensations, similar to what Jorg pointed out:

“He or she would be able to reduce the coarseness of the sensations, resulting in more subtle sensations that feel more pleasant. This would also result in a reduced feeling of anger”.

He also introduced sankhara here, as mental reaction to different types of physical sensations.

— Day 5:

10 Day Vipassana Course – Day 5 (English):

The first part of this day is again about dividing and dissecting sensations.
15:00 : he introduced the noble truths, as related to this technique

Starting around 39:00, he talked about paticca samuppada, starting with tanha
39:00 : tanha
42:00 : sankhara, avijja
47:00 : where in the chain to break — vedana
48:00 : anicca as the arising and passing away of sensations
59:00 : sankhara
1:00:00 : What full liberation is like, why sensations are the key

— Day 6

21:00 : sankhara as related to the kalapas; 4 types of “food,” two of which are mental: sankhara old and new
key to the technique: stop generating new sankhara (by not reacting to sensations with craving or aversion); then old sankhara arise and pass away.
Full liberation happens when all old sankhara are gone.

Best!

[Lal]

Thank you, Lang. 

I have edited your post a bit. I took a quick look, and it seems that the segments I selected on the videos for Day 5 and Day 6 could help clarify some issues. I moved the starting points back from where Lang suggested so that one could get a better background.

• I may not be able to comment on these today. Please feel to make comments.

[Lal]

I went through the videos for Day 5 and Day 6. I think I have a good idea of what is involved in Goenka’s “vipassana.”

1. I was under the wrong impression that Goenka’s meditation sessions involved breath meditation. Thanks to the above videos posted by Lang, I now have a better understanding of why many people argued with me, saying that “no, it is about vipassana.”

• Even though it is not breath meditation, it is not vipassana either. It is a “half-baked cake” with a lot of verses from the Tipitaka thrown around. 
• Just like breath meditation, it CAN lead to calming of the mind and may even lead to pleasant “bodily sensations.” That is why people get fooled.

2. Day 5 video: I watched from 38 min mark. The theme that emerges is the following.

• One can gain bodily “sukha” AND wisdom (paññā) by controlling bodily sensations. He says it is the responding to vedana that leads to suffering. So, he wants to suppress all vedana. (@49 mins, for example).
• He says every sensation must be turned to paññā (by suppressing/ignoring the vedana?) According to him, that will lead to “avijja nirodha sankhara nirodha“!!
• Just by this practice, all suffering can be ended! He says learning is not enough, and it is the practice that will get rid of sankhara (this theme is further explained with “rupa kalapas” in the Day 6 video.)
• @54.40 mins, there is a flawed interpretation of the “Aniccā vata Sankhārā…” verse.

3. Day 6 video: I watched from 12 to 29 mins. The same theme, i.e., about “bodily sensations.”

• This video got to the point of what sankhara are. 
• There is a mundane explanation of the connection between anger, greed, etc., to the “four great elements” of pathavi, apo, tejo, and vayo.
• He also gives an incorrect picture of “sankharas” being “rupa kalapas.” He seems to think that “sankharas” ARE “rupa kalapas.“
• The following seems to be the main point: Such “bad sankharas” lead to bodily sensations. Once you stop generating new sankharas, bodily sensations do not stop, because now “old sankharas” bring sensations. However, if one keeps practicing, eventually these “old sankharas” will also be depleted. Presumably, one attains Arahanthood at that point!
• @26 mins, he directly says this practice leads to wisdom! No need to learn anything else.

4. If I missed anything critical or my understanding of “Goenka vipassana” is incorrect, please don’t hesitate to point them out. I want to be fully informed about this technique. I should have spent some time earlier. That would have saved a lot of arguing with people assuming that it was all about “breath meditation.” 

• In a way, this is even worse than breath mediation. It gives the idea that these are the actual teachings of the Buddha. 
• The point is that one must first get rid of the “ditthi anusaya” by understanding the worldview of the Buddha, i.e., how births in different realms arise due to “avijja paccaya abhisankhara.” One can seriously start “meditating” on removing defilements only after that. Otherwise, practices like these only SUPPRESS defilements. They DO NOT get rid of the anusaya. It is critical to see that one must get rid of the “ditthi anusaya” first: “Conditions for the Four Stages of Nibbāna.’
• Please let me know if anyone has seen him refer to various types of anusaya and abhisankhara. I need to review them to see if there are any explanations of those terms.

[cubibobi]

“Please let me know if anyone has seen him refer to various types of anusaya and abhisankhara. I need to review them to see if there are any explanations of those terms.”

I can confirm a couple of things at this point:

(1) There are no reference to anusaya and abhisankhara in the discourses from a 10-day course.

That said, there are longer courses in this tradition: 20-day, 30-day, 45-day, 60-day.

I don’t know if there are discourses in those longer courses. I do know for sure that the technique remains the same: scanning bodily sensations from head to toes.

(2) Many practitioners in this tradition do believe that this practice alone leads to wisdom, that book knowledge is not necessary.

Again, that said, there is a 7-day course that discussed the Satipatthana Sutta. Those who have gone through three 10-day courses can take this course.

I just saw that the discourses for that course are also online:

SN Goenka Mahasatipatthana Sutta Discourse (ENGLISH)

The book used in this course has Pali / English side by side, and the English part is a word-for-word translation.

It has been too long since I took that course. I will need to re-listen here and there, but I do remember the impression I had at that time: that he interpreted the Satipattana Sutta in a way to fit this technique, not the other way around.

Finally, this tradition is not about breath meditation, but it does play an important role. Breath meditation is used to “sharpen” the mind so that the mind can observe subtler “realities”, meaning bodily sensations. For a 10-day course, the first 3 days are spent on breath meditation. For a 20-day course, I heard that the first 10 days were spent on breath meditation. Furthermore, they take breath meditation to be anapanasati.

[Jorg]

Thank you, Lang, for providing relevant segments. That’s very helpful, since I’ve been a bit short on time the last few days.

Also, Lal, thank you for going through some of the segments.

Regarding Lal’s comments:

1. I was under the wrong impression that Goenka’s meditation sessions involved breath meditation. Thanks to the above videos posted by Lang, I now have a better understanding of why many people argued with me, saying that “no, it is about vipassana.”

Breath meditation always precedes the “vipassana” part as Lang implied. It’s about 30% of the total practice during a course, but at home one does not necessarily engage in this form of anapana. One could directly start with the “vipassana” practice as well. It could be described as “equanimous observation of however the breath manifests at any given moment.”

One important note here is that Ledi Sayadaw—likely the “forefather” of this tradition as he passed it on according to Goenka—has written about anapana and based his views in part on the visuddhimagga. You can find something about it here.

3. He also gives an incorrect picture of “sankharas” being “rupa kalapas.” He seems to think that “sankharas” ARE “rupa kalapas.“

Yes, but that would give an incomplete picture. Sankhara is two-fold in that tradition. I’d like to refer to his own quote which I posted in #43909: “Here the word saṅkhāra has a very wide meaning. A blind reaction of the mind is called saṅkhāra, but the result of that action, its fruit, is also known as saṅkhāra; like seed, like fruit.”

To add to this, in the video segments, he also states that sankhara is the “volition of the mind,”  “the reaction of the mind.” So this part comes closest to the actual meaning of sankhara. But, similarly as the quote, in the video he also stated that “sankhara are generated at the level of sensations” and that a “seed is planted as a sensation.” The latter refers to the point Lal made above.

4. If I missed anything critical or my understanding of “Goenka vipassana” is incorrect, please don’t hesitate to point them out. I want to be fully informed about this technique. I should have spent some time earlier. That would have saved a lot of arguing with people assuming that it was all about “breath meditation.” 

Perhaps to sum it up, I could add this:<br /><br />
Every time you remain equanimous with the sensations, i.e., not react to them, you get rid of them. When you react to them mentally, you plant a seed “physically.” In turn, this manifests physically (fruit) to which one reacts then again mentally and then the cycle repeats itself again. So by remaining equanimous, these “seeds” get eradicated, leading to no more new fruit.

Finally, the one point I tried to make in my previous post:<br />
Those “seeds” (physical sensations) manifest themselves in specific ways. And they originate from very tiny places/”dots,” yet radiate sensations over a much larger surface area. I understand that staying away from sensual pleasures already calms down the body and mind. I’ve also explained that in the file as well. However, advanced practitioners will find that these tiny “dots” behave in specific ways. They will beat/throb slowly at first but as you remain equanimous, and maintain focus, they beat faster and faster, until they eventually completely break down and dissolve, resulting in the much larger surface area around it to do the same.<br />
I don’t know if there’s an explanation for this phenomenon (if there’s not, so be it) but I believe it could still help those people.

 

Technical note:

I found that I can only replace the “<br/>” line breaks with <p/>. If I simply delete them (whether within the post or within source view) the br will simply reappear (if deleted from within the post) or it will put the lines before and after the br on the same line.

[Lal]

The main question is the following, Jorg.

Do you see that there is a problem with Goenka’s vipassana?

Regarding the technical note:

There is no need to use <br/>, <p/>v, etc. It is very easy to change a selected text to “bold,” for example. Please read the following post carefully: “Formatting a Post“

 

 

[Jorg]

“Do you see that there is a problem with Goenka’s vipassana?”

Yes, that’s why I wrote that entire file. I broke it down as thoroughly as I could regarding that technique. The part I mentioned is the only part I could not cover completely.

“There is no need to use <br/>, <p/>v, etc. It is very easy to change a selected text to “bold,” for example. Please read the following post carefully: “Formatting a Post“

It’s not intentional. It does it automatically. It must be some kind of bug. Otherwise, there would be no need to go to “source view” for me and try to fix it. It seems to appear after pressing enter. But apparently not every single time.

[Lal]

But then, why go into great detail to discuss this useless technique? 

• There are many such useless topics out there.
• There is no point in analyzing such “meditation techniques” in terms of Buddha Dhamma. There is no rational way to do that. It is like trying to explain an unfounded/erroneous theory using another logical theory.
• My point is that it is useless to try to explain Goenka’s “sankharas”.  He does not even understand what “sankharas” are! So, why go to all that trouble?
• To put in another way: Pointing out problems with Goenka’s technique must be done. But that is different from trying to explain his technique. I thought your pdf was about what you have learned to be the true Buddha Dhamma. Or is it that you are uncertain which is the correct one? That is fine too. Then I can handle the discussion from that point of view. I am confused about your intention. May be you can clarify that.

I don’t understand why this popping up of <br/> etc. happens. Don’t worry about them for now. I can remove them easily.

[Jorg]

There’s absolutely no doubt about what Buddha Dhamma is. I’ve never been more sure about anything. I hope that’s clear from my very first post. I quit practicing this technique for that very reason. I started writing why this technique can’t be Buddha Dhamma and what is Buddha Dhamma (tilakkhana, anapana, paticca samupadda, etc.), because I wanted to share this with the people who I knew/know who also practice(d) this  (very popular) technique. After all, I can relate since I came from the same background and it’s easier for me to explain certain things.

My writing is partly based on the conversations I’ve had with these people. These topics popped up. My intention is simple: I want to show those people what is true Buddha Dhamma and help them on their way. In fact, I see it as my responsibility. 
This is not about explaining that technique itself (those people know it already anyway) but only by knowing it can problems be pointed out. If I haven’t been successful in pointing that out, then that’s all right. I’m not sure how else to put it.

It was just that one single point I mentioned and it’s talked about only at the very end of the essay. No need to discuss it further but thank you for trying to understand.🙏🙏🙏

My writing would surely clear things up further but I understand that may not be possible since it’s quite a lot. 

[Lal]

OK. Thank you for clarifying that, Jorg.

In that case, you may want to change the title “A deeper analysis of “sankharas” and Buddha Dhamma” and the text there (p. 82) to make clear what your intention is (what you discuss mainly is REGARDING “sankharas” in Goenka’s Vipassana.)

• You should EITHER discuss the correct “sankharas” (different types, why they are important, etc.) OR you can discuss the problem issues with Goenka’s Vipassana. That section confuses me because I am not sure which of those you are discussing there.
• Anyway, I agree that there is no point in discussing this further. But I am glad that I got a better understanding of “Geonka’s Vipassana,” thanks to you and Lang.

Of course, if you or anyone else has questions about “sankhara,” we can discuss those. If anyone else wants to defend “Goenka’s Vipassana,” we can discuss that too.

• I must say that Goenka seems to have faith in the Buddha. But unfortunately, that faith is not based on Buddha’s true teachings.
• I see many such people in discussion forums too. They present incorrect information, but they believe they know the true teachings. The problem is that even when shown evidence from the Tipitaka, they don’t seem to be able to understand the true teachings or to get rid of their wrong views. Self-consistency is the best way to verify any concept. Once you have the correct fundamentals, no one can point to any contradictions.
• But some people are so blind with miccha ditthi that they don’t see, for example, why translating “vinnana” as “consciousness” everywhere is WRONG! Even a child should be able to see that contradiction.

[Jorg]

Thank you for your suggestion, Lal. I will look at it again, make necessary adjustments, and/or perhaps split it up and create clearer matching titles. I explained the actual sankharas elsewhere, so I need to match it accordingly.

I have had mixed experiences regarding the sharing of dhamma to others. Some very positive that I really feel they’re getting close whereas with others I seem to hit a “dead end.” However, even some of the “dead-end cases,” I’ve noticed a few unexpected little moments of silence where something seemed to stick. At least briefly.

However, the other day I realised that I was offered help countless times (in similar ways) throughout samsara and I surely had a strong miccha ditthi. Perhaps I was rude and insulting as well and, shamefully so, who knows what else. I’m extremely grateful for all those moments of help I received, even though they may have seemed to lead absolutely nowhere at those times. I see it as a giant puzzle now. Even if words of pure dhamma seem to completely “miss” their mark, each of them are still a valuable piece of the puzzle. Piece by piece, at some point the puzzle takes shape and it will start to be clear what image is being laid out (getting on the noble path), and one day it will be complete (Arahanthood). We just can’t see how big the puzzle is, how many pieces have been laid so far, and how long it’s going to take until it’s finished.

[Lal]

Yes. Teaching/sharing Dhamma with others can be tricky. The best is to present the case and leave it to the other person to decide. In many cases, it is not worthwhile to get into arguments.  But some need a little push, so the effort is worthwhile.

 I could see that you were reluctant to give up many of the “old views,” but you are definitely making progress.

 

[TripleGemStudent]

– “Every time you remain equanimous with the sensations, i.e., not react to them, you get rid of them. So by remaining equanimous, these “seeds” get eradicated, leading to no more new fruit.”

Is it really true that by remaining equanimous we can “get rid of or eradicate seeds, thereby leading to no more new fruit?

My understanding is that “seeds aren’t necessary get ridden off or eradicated by remaining equanimous . . .”

I hope what is mentioned can be helpful for our learning and understanding.

[Lal]

Your understanding is correct, TGS.

“My understanding is that “seeds aren’t necessary get ridden off or eradicated by remaining equanimous . . .”

These “seeds” are “anusaya” and can be removed ONLY by dispelling avijja by comprehending the Four Noble Truths/Paticca Samuppada/Tilakkhana.

• Goenka’s approach is the same as that of many ancient yogis, who only suppressed defilements. 
• Even though Mr. Goenka had faith in the Buddha, he did not know about the anusaya, it seems. That is true of many practitioners of breath meditation, who adamantly insist that it is Buddha’s Anapanasati!

[Lal]

I just saw the following thread at Dhamma Wheel by a Goenka practitioner of 21 years:

“Insights from my 21 years of practising Goenka style“

I just glanced through it, but it could be informative for gaining insights into the drawback of the Goenka practice. The following video is a summary that he posted on that thread today:

[TripleGemStudent]

Candana Bhikkhu’s new video ‘Goenka Cult’ vs The Dhamma

I just woke up and came across the thread Lal mentioned, but I’m about to head off to work so I haven’t had the time scrutinize everything in the thread or watch the video’s (which I might later on), but I quickly scanned through the comments and something really really caught my eyes.

“I have also been to the Davos WEF summit. And while I have seen Goenka’s UN talk in 2000
I never knew about Goenka’s WEF Davos involvement.

But now it all makes perfect sense… especially given how Klaus Schwab’s top man, Yuval Noah Harari, is (or was) a Senior AT.
Here you have one of the highest most influential people in the entire World Economic Forum
Yuval Noah Harari, also acting as one of the highest teachers in the Goenka group (cult)
where Harari is “teaching” people meditation as a Senior Assistant Teacher (AT).”

To me this is a very big deal. I don’t know if I’ll ever go into why this so . . . because there’s so many layers to this . . .  but thought of sharing the link that relates to this discussion . . . 

“Is it really true that by remaining equanimous we can “get rid of or eradicate seeds, thereby leading to no more new fruit?”

I was going to say as well . . . “If that’s the case, then we would’ve all have attained Nibbana many times . . . “

 

[LayDhammaFollower]

TGS wrote above,

To me this is a very big deal. I don’t know if I’ll ever go into why this so . . . because there’s so many layers to this . . . but thought of sharing the link that relates to this discussion . . . 

I am not sure what you are getting at exactly, but I have little glimpse into this direction. But, Everyone needs to understand that “we receive anything the way we give it”. Someone who gives slavery or ignorance or distortion is bound to receive same. We don’t need to worry about anyone’s actions except our own. Everyone is heir to their kamma.

This what I was contemplating recently.

Spiritual teachers have extremely huge and important responsibilities. They are supposed to teach others about how to break prison of saṅsarā. If they don’t do it properly i.e. teach DISTORTED dhamma (whatever intention might be) they will receive the distorted dhamma in future. Because distorted dhamma is not going to lead anyone (neither teachers nor students) to true absolute unconditional permanent freedom.

In addition this teacher and students who are practicing distorted version of dhamma which doesn’t lead to Nibbāna will be tried to each other with kammic strand. Which will hinder their own Nibbāna.

“Is it really true that by remaining equanimous we can “get rid of or eradicate seeds, thereby leading to no more new fruit?”

I was going to say as well . . . “If that’s the case, then we would’ve all have attained Nibbana many times . . . “

This is something people don’t seem to be understanding.

The natural equanimity to any sensory event can be only achieved through Dhamma.

One can force mind to be equanimous for only so long. Then again one will start to create merits or demerits.

This where many spiritual traditions fail.

They have good description about end goal, but they don’t share any methodology about how to mold mind to permanently behave in the said equanimous way.

[TripleGemStudent]

“To me this is a very big deal. I don’t know if I’ll ever go into why this so . . . because there’s so many layers to this . . .”

Actually I come to realize that it’s not that of a big deal, which I’ll explain at a later time. But it was something that I wasn’t aware of, but could be used to learn of it. In a way I was surprised and rushed words, spoken too soon.

I was going to say as well . . . “If that’s the case, then we would’ve all have attained Nibbana many times . . . “

The reason’s why I said this was because to indirectly hopefully share an example of where one can use the dhamma where one is learning / understands for discernment. One of the other ways to express what will be mentioned.

I’m sure everyone here knows about the sansara process, how we have been reborn in the hells and heavens without a discernable beginning. I believe in our previous life, we all had attained the 4 jhana’s and been born in the highest of heavens. My understanding is that the 4th jhana is related to upekkha. If we all had attained the 4th jhana some time in our previous lives and that if by achieiving / remaining in upekkha can get rid of or eradicate seeds, thereby leading to no more new fruits. Then wouldn’t we have already attained nibbana and many times over?  

One can force mind to be equanimous for only so long. Then again one will start to create merits or demerits.

One can also get attached to equanimity.

“They have good description about end goal, but they don’t share any methodology about how to mold mind to permanently behave in the said equanimous way.”

I can’t say my book learning or understanding of upekkha is much, but from understanding so far, it seems like the permanent way to mold the mind to behave “in the said equanimous way” is by developing and having Lokuttara Samma ditthi leading the way.

[LayDhammaFollower]

@Jorg, Can you give any update about your work?

Is document prepared completely? Or still working on it?

I am going to start study your book. Should I use the pdf shared in #44044 above?

Or do you have new more revised version? if so, please share the new version.

Much merits and mettā 🙂.

[Jorg]

@LayDhammaFollower, Thank you for your reminder and sorry for my late reply!

I just returned home yesterday. I had stayed with my family in Holland the last few months, but my wife and I actually live in China. 
We were very busy in our preparation and did not have time for much else.

Looking at what has to be done over the next few days, I expect to be able to finish the file early next week.

With metta,

Jorg

[Lal]

Jorg has revised the document:

“True Ānāpānasati & Satipaṭṭhāna (Vipassana) – Version 1.2“

• Please make comments so that the document can be made better. Such efforts help everyone.
• Thank you for sharing your thoughts and progress, Jorg. 

Also, I thought it would be illuminating to include part of Jorg’s email with this new attachment:

“It’s actually just the introduction that’s (partly) about my own progress. My intention wasn’t even to share my own progress but to make it clear to the reader that, despite the benefits I received from that technique, I left it behind for good. You don’t easily leave behind something good, so it may encourage one to read further.

The rest of the pdf  (98% or so) is just about the dhamma and how inconsistent that technique is, explained through the dhamma, e.g., what the real meaning of Tilakkhana is, what anapana is and why it can’t be breath, what Satipatthana is and why it cannot be observing sensations, prerequisites for a Sotapanna, why PS is essential to understand, etc.
Perhaps the table of contents could give you a better view of it.

The one chapter towards the end, which was part of the discussion, I have reworded it in such a way that it’s clearer for the reader. It’s mostly aimed at the more advanced practitioner of that method due to questions that may still arise among them up until that point. “

2 users thanked author for this post.

LayDhammaFollower, Jorg

[Samana Johann]

TripleGemStudent wrote:

Candana Bhikkhu’s new video ‘Goenka Cult’ vs The Dhamma

I just woke up and came across the thread Lal mentioned, but I’m about to head off to work so I haven’t had the time scrutinize everything in the thread or watch the video’s (which I might later on), but I quickly scanned through the comments and something really really caught my eyes.

“I have also been to the Davos WEF summit. And while I have seen Goenka’s UN talk in 2000
I never knew about Goenka’s WEF Davos involvement.

But now it all makes perfect sense… especially given how Klaus Schwab’s top man, Yuval Noah Harari, is (or was) a Senior AT.
Here you have one of the highest most influential people in the entire World Economic Forum
Yuval Noah Harari, also acting as one of the highest teachers in the Goenka group (cult)
where Harari is “teaching” people meditation as a Senior Assistant Teacher (AT).”

To me this is a very big deal. I don’t know if I’ll ever go into why this so . . . because there’s so many layers to this . . .  but thought of sharing the link that relates to this discussion . . . 

“Is it really true that by remaining equanimous we can “get rid of or eradicate seeds, thereby leading to no more new fruit?”

I was going to say as well . . . “If that’s the case, then we would’ve all have attained Nibbana many times . . . “

 

Atma doesn’t see where this Bhantes ways are different to that of late grandfather Goenka’s, aside of that people would think Bhante would carry the heritage. It’s pointless when an Monks, like him, with less confidence in living on giving and Vinaya criticizes a ‘trading’ lay persons common social undertakings. It’s like as if one teaches not to kill while smashing a mosquito. Sure, own defilements aren’t seen easy: therefore the teaching ‘authority’ is thought to be bond to Vinaya.

The main issue, good Bodhaparisadas, lies in the basics: goodness, gratitude, relay on given – > Refuge into the Gems first.

It’s not possible to gain path if not, at least, wishing to leave the household stand, if not delight and relaying on the sphere of gone forth, but do all just for “homes” and the world.

[Bahula]

@Jorg

I read your article “True Ānāpāna & Vipassana 1.2 – Jorg Wijnen-2023.PDF” with great pleasure and cherished. I too was initiated into Buddhism many years ago with the practice of goenka vipassana and have participated in several 10-day courses. I am now trying very hard to understand puredhamma. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to you for creating such a valuable document that resonates with me in many ways and has helped me greatly in my Dhamma practice.

I am translating it into Korean without your permission. I am organizing the translation on my personal blog. A few interested Dhamma friends are reading them, and I would like to ask your permission to do so. If I am allowed to continue translating, I would like to hear and check with you from time to time on paragraphs where my understanding is not clear. I would prefer to use email.

Thank you. 

Bahula

[Lal]

As I understand, Jorg is on a trip to Sri Lanka. So, it could take a few days before he responds. I don’t think he will have any objections. 

1 user thanked author for this post.

Bahula

[TripleGemStudent]

Greetings Bahula,

I was able to meet and chat with Jorg about over a week ago. He definitely would like his article to reach as many people as possible and I’m sure he would have no problems / issues with you translating the article. But he did mention that he hasn’t published his article online or to the public yet because there was something that he would like to do first with the article before doing so, which I can’t exactly remember what the thing was. 

Like Lal mentioned, I also don’t think he will have any objections with you or anyone translating the article, in fact he’ll probably be very happy to hear what you mentioned. But I would recommend you not to post your translation of the article online or to the public yet until you talk further with Jorg. In the meantime you can start working on the translation and I’m sure there would be no issues with you posting your translated work online or to the public at a later time. 

I also posted in the Whatsapp group (with Jorg in it) about your message, I’m sure he’ll get back to you when he notices or see’s your message and when he has the opportunity to reply.  

 

 

 

1 user thanked author for this post.

Bahula

[Jorg]

@Bahula, I’m sorry for my late reply. I was indeed in Sri Lanka for the last 9 days and I just got back.

Thank you Lal for the notice and thank you TGS for your explanation!

Yes, I don’t mind at all. I’m happy to hear it has benefitted you and that you wish to share it.

You can contact me via juirtle at msn.com.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Bahula

[Bahula]

I sent you an e-mail two days ago. Please check it.

[Jorg]

I’m sorry, it seems your email ended up in the spam folder.  Just found it! We can communicate further there.

[Author]

Posts