[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. 

[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.

[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.

[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.

 

 

[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.

[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.”

 

[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.

 

[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).

[Jorg]

It’s great to see so many noble efforts are being made to spread the teachings. It’s very inspiring.

Unfortunately, I can’t read Hindi but my German reading skills are fairly decent. I’d love to read through some posts, Daniel.

I did take a look at LDF’s site and I see he translated section by section. That actually seems like a very useful approach so anybody can see not only the source but also have the potential to gain a wider perspective (in case they understand both languages).

Language can be very subtle, and a sañña can sometimes be deepened by the addition or replacement of even a single word. Sometimes, that word might be in English, sometimes in one’s mother tongue (and sometimes even in another language altogether).

I know nothing about websites, but once I finish some projects I’m working on I would love to be able to start translating puredhamma.net posts into Dutch. Needless to say, I’d have to do some research on websites and gain Lal’s approval first.

[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.

[Jorg]

Thank you, Lal. The example of the photon puts things into more perspective.

[Jorg]

Thank you for the added explanation, Lal.

[Jorg]

Thank you, Lal.

Unfortunately, according to the translation, that does not fully tally.

Please refer to the linked segment below 9:45 it goes:

“Question: Venerable Sir, can we wish for the micca dittika to be free from their micca ditti by transferring the merits for that purpose?

Waharake Thero: No, they won’t ever renounce their micca ditti that easily. We’d have to transfer the merits to those who are samma dittika. If there’s any category of micca dittika amanussa, we might be wishing for them to be samma dittika and to have a fortunate rebirth. We might be doing that as it is our duty to do so, but the Micca dittika amanussa wouldn’t ever be samma dittika that easily.”

If there’s an inconsistency in the translation please share.

After that segment follow a few segments speaking about punyanu modanawa ( = merit sharing?) and Waharaka Thero’s own experience but there appear to be a few unintended contradictions in the translation, so I’m not completely clear on those segments (which run until just after the 12 min. mark). 

[Jorg]

I didn’t notice that dropdown icon before. Shame on me. But now I see where I can adjust it, thanks!

Regarding the translation, It’s very helpful in knowing that “disgusting” was used to translate asubha. Now that segment makes a lot more sense.

[Jorg]

Thank you Lal, let’s see if my successful formatting from that post translates in a successful format here.

What about the word “disgusting” in this timestamp?

edit: Just now there was another <br/> behind the link. I removed the link and readded it again. It seemed to have worked. Not sure why it happened again. Perhaps I forgot to add “new window” and it’s that what caused it.

 

[Author]

Posts