Why I Sit by Paul R. Fleischman

[OMW]

Why I Sit by Paul R. Fleischman

The English word "meditate" until recently had a vague meaning, referring to any one of a set of activities like extended deep thought, or prayer, or religious contemplation. Recently, "meditation" gained a pseudo-specificity: "T.M.," deep relaxation, or alpha-wave conditioning, with connotations of Hinduized cult phenomena like mantras, gurus, and altered states of consciousness. To "sit" is a basic word, with connotations ranging from chicken-coops to boredom and sagacity, so it forms a neutral starting point for an explanation of why I have spent thousands upon thousands of hours "sitting," and why I have made this activity the center of my life.

This morning, the first thing I did was to sit for an hour. I have done that regularly for twenty years, and have spent many evenings, days and weeks doing the same.

I would like to know myself. It is remarkable that while ordinarily we spend most of our lives studying, contemplating, observing and manipulating the world around us, the structured gaze of the thoughtful mind is so rarely turned inwards. This avoidance must measure some anxiety, reluctance or fear.

Most of our lives are spent in externally oriented functions that distract from self-observation. This relentless, obsessive drive persists independently of survival needs such as food and warmth, and even of pleasure. Second to second, we couple ourselves to sights, tastes, words, motions or electronic stimuli, until we fall dead. It is striking how many ordinary activities, from smoking a pipe to watching sunsets, veer towards, but ultimately avoid, sustained attention to the reality of our own life.

This motivated me on a search that led through intense intellectual exploration in college, medical school and psychiatric training, and finally to the art of "sitting", as taught by S.N. Goenka, a Vipassana meditation teacher with whom my wife and I first took a course near New Delhi, India, in 1974. Those ten days of nothing but focusing on the moment by moment reality of body and mind, with awareness and equanimity, gave me the opportunity ironically both to be more absolutely alone and isolated than I had ever been before, and at the same time to cast my lot with a tradition, a way, as upheld, manifested, explained and transmitted by a living person. I am continuously grateful to S. N. Goenka for giving me this technique.

...continued at http://www.fudomouth.net/rhizome/pfwhysit.htm

[Flipasso]

I had already read it.
It's a nice text, but too much propaganda on S.N.Goenka....
I wish Goenka disciples could talk about Vipassana in general without making so much reference to Goenka. It gets me nauxious...

[Matthew]

nauseous

[frepi]

It is because we only know Goenka's "style" vipassana.

[Flipasso]

I understand that he probably only knows Goenka-Style, and it's great he has such strong feelings for it.
But it makes me mad that he talks about Goenka-Style like it was the best meditation technique, while there are so many others, and especially so many other Vipassana teachers...
He assumes Goenka-Style is the best and he never tried the other techniques, that's what makes me nauseous!!

[Matthew]

It is because we only know Goenka's "style" vipassana.

I have come to the conclusion that Genka's style is one of the most religious and faulty in modern Buddhism based on recent converstaions with dedicated Goenka-ites. You may benefit from widening your horizons.

I wonder if this is where some of your animosity and passive-aggression towards Buddhism/Religion may come from.

In the Dhamma,

Matthew

[frepi]

Goenka doesn't talk about buddhism in his course. He talk about Buddha, the dharma which he calls the law of Nature and Karma. It is obviously his religion but he is not preaching buddhism.

[Matthew]

No he certainly is not preaching Buddhism - which is impossible as Buddhism can not be preached but merely signpost given to the path.

He is preaching Goenka-ism and this is one of the main complaints that has been levelled towards him - that he has become enmeshed in his own egotistic celebrity to the expense of the Dhamma.

When the Buddha taught his ministry in 45 years there were several hundred followers who attained Arahantship or Buddhahood - the state of being fully awake to now. Goenka is no Buddha, none of his followers have attained Arahantship and therefore his path is not the true path of the Buddha but is yet another faulted attempt to discover it.

The complaints about Goenka becoming lost in his own identification of his celebrity comes from former senior teachers in his organisation who have rejected both the sect and the teachings as false. It also makes him the typical "career Buddhist" who takes Dhamma and turns it into a part of their ego and has therefore missed the fundamental point of meditation practice.

In the Dhamma,

Matthew

[frepi]

Sect?
Maybe the close circle around Goenka is behaving like a sect, but I can tell you that the Vipassana "à la Goenka" practitionners in Montreal are not members of that sect. Is Goenka now acting like a guru? I don't really care but he surely wouldn't not the first one in this situation. I will never follow him.
And as far as Goenka's teachings are concerned, I find them really efficient for my needs.I heard some monks complaining about Goenka, but I am wondering if they really know what they are talking about. Have they followed the course? I doubt it, since they are way too advanced for it. I think it is more a purist's point of vue of a diletant practice.
I would lie if I said I was not offended by your comment. I seems to me to be exactly like 2 closely related phylosophy/religions that accuse the other of following a perverted version of the scriptures. I franckly don't understand.

[Matthew]

Dear Frepi,

The path is lost. No one knows where it is. Anyone who tells you they do is not speaking the truth. The path is there, has never changed and will always be available to all of us, but for now it is lost.

"Buddhism" - as a result of the process of losing the path - has become a mishmash of ideas and practices coming from so many cultures and periods of time that there is a huge agglomeration of cultural bullshit surrounding most varieties of it. The Buddha himself taught of this "My Dhamma will last 500 years" he said. After this period the original teachings were so perverted as to be effectively lost. The best signposts we have for them are the Pali Cannon of Buddhist texts, kept as an oral tradition and then committed to writing some 300 years or so after the Buddha died.

Goenka has stripped the cultural bullshit out of his teachings and reduced his teachings to the core of a path - and for this at least I salute him. It is not the Buddha's path however and does not lead to the state called enlightenment - although I realise you do not believe in such a state.

I have over the last two weeks been engaged in a long discourse with the founder of the forum that proceeded this one. He was strictly Goenka for a long time. However he has made three changes to the practice - which I discussed with him over a year ago for the first time - and these changes have made a total change to the quality of practice. It has taken a year since we discussed them first for him to grasp fully the nature of the differences but they are all suggestions I made for very good reasons.

These changes are:

1) Focus on the rise and fall of the belly during calming stages of meditation, not Anapana "a la" Goenka.
2) Label thoughts, feelings, and such that take your focus from the breath and then gently put the focus back on the breath.
3) Drop bodyscans as they are habit forming.

If your practice is working for you that is good and I am not saying you must change it or it is bad. However it is a limited practice with limited fruits. You may find you grow beyond the practice you are doing now, look back, and not be offended by my comments at all but be able to laugh at them and recognise something in them that you can not yet see. If that point comes let me know and I will explain in detail why these three differences are important.

In the Dhamma,

Matthew

[Jack]

It is because we only know Goenka's "style" vipassana.

Not all of us.  I haven't attend Goenka's 10 day retreat, but have practiced Vipassana for several years now.  Most of my learning, which is ongoing, is from the "Western" teachers in the US and Europe, although I have a fondness to Thich Nhat Hanh.  I also am also interested in learning some of the core aspects of Buddhism from the Tibetan, Theravadan, and Mahayana worlds.  I am finding that Vipassana is one, albeit very important, aspect Buddhism.  And, as Matthew has suggested, Goenka is one style out of many.

Back to the main topic:  I sit to practice 1) Mindfulness, 2) Concentration, and 3) Insight.  My overall goal is to find all of them both on the cushion and off.  Sometimes, I don't find any of them in one sitting, and only a bit of the others.  But, for me, it is why it is called a practice - to get better over time.  Maybe, after a while, I'll get it right more often

[anicca]

I had already read it.
It's a nice text, but too much propaganda on S.N.Goenka....
I wish Goenka disciples could talk about Vipassana in general without making so much reference to Goenka. It gets me nauxious...

Paul Fleischman is a Senior Assistant teacher in the Goenka tradition so that is what he talks about.

I have followed the meditation technique as taught by Goenka for almost 15 years, but I do not consider myself a 'disciple' or a Goenkist or any thing like that. I don't meditate two hours daily out of any religious guilt or piety or because Goenka tells me to. I sit because I have found tremendous benefits in my daily life. There are some aspects of Goenka's discourses that I don't totally agree with, but as in his analogy with the black stones, I am happy to leave them aside. But as for his technique, I agree with it 100%. I had tried several different forms of meditation prior to Vipassana but none of them 'fit' me as well as Vipassana does. It may not be the perfect meditation technique for everyone, but it is for me.

[mettajoey]

I had some amazing experiences at my 10-day with the Goenka people and plan to do it again.  I don't feel anyone has a monopoly on the truth and firmly believe in the statement under Matthew's avatar, "Strive diligently for your own salvation - Buddha".  I also do various other forms of meditation.  The main one being lotsa long walks.  I seek my own truth and don't look towards heroes or systems to give it to me.  They are just tools or "signposts" lovingly placed to help me become free.

[anicca]

He is preaching Goenka-ism and this is one of the main complaints that has been levelled towards him - that he has become enmeshed in his own egotistic celebrity to the expense of the Dhamma.

Back in 2001 I travelled with Goenka and several hundred other meditators around the major sites of the Buddha's life - including Lumbini, Sarnath, Boddh Gaya, Sravasti, etc. There were many Indians on this course who did the whole worship thing with Goenka - called him Guruji, prostrated themselves before him, etc. It got to the point where Goenka called a special discourse and basically reprimanded all those who had set him up on a pedestal - he admonished us all to make ourselves our own guru, and not to make others our guru.

[Matthew]

Thank you for sharing that Anicca. It's good to hear people's personal experience.

In the Dhamma,

Matthew

[pamojjam]

Hi Matthew,

The complaints about Goenka becoming lost in his own identification of his celebrity comes from former senior teachers in his organisation who have rejected both the sect and the teachings as false. It also makes him the typical "career Buddhist" who takes Dhamma and turns it into a part of their ego and has therefore missed the fundamental point of meditation practice.

thats interesting but very unlikely. More likely is that those alleged 'senior teachers' have been 'career Buddhists' them self - because there are almost impossible hurdles to cross for becoming a 'senior teacher' in Goenka's organization. And that certainly might have frustrated some ATs (shorthand for Assistant Teacher).

There are other reasons for leaving Goenka's organization, but I haven't heard yet any former AT talk other than with high respect and gratefulness about SN Goenka himself.

Could you give the reference for to these 'senior teachers', so these claims could be rectified?

Thanks in advance..

[pamojjam]

Dear Matthew,

some of your statements in this thread which also deserve further examination:

I have come to the conclusion that Genka's style is one of the most religious and faulty in modern Buddhism based on recent converstaions with dedicated Goenka-ites

Where is the limit between casual and dedicated Goenka-tes here?

Did those with which you conversed have any number of long courses like me - and would therefore come equal to me in using 'the most religious and faulty style in modern Buddhism'?

Lol, I begin to see such epithets as compliments! - if I compare it with what kind of gullibility prejudices are formed and indiscriminately thrown at a whole group.

He is preaching Goenka-ism and this is one of the main complaints that has been levelled towards him - that he has become enmeshed in his own egotistic celebrity to the expense of the Dhamma.

Please give only one example how he is preaching Goenkaism to the expense of Dhamma - other than his maybe simplified understanding given in 10-day courses. I don't see how this could ever be to his own aggrandizement.

... and therefore his path is not the true path of the Buddha but is yet another faulted attempt to discover it.

The path is lost. No one knows where it is. Anyone who tells you they do is not speaking the truth.

In your second statement you're giving the parameter to evaluate your first? 

I have over the last two weeks been engaged in a long discourse with the founder of the forum that proceeded this one. He was strictly Goenka for a long time.

He is quite open minded and still a beginner - and in no sense strict at all.

However he has made three changes to the practice - which I discussed with him over a year ago for the first time - and these changes have made a total change to the quality of practice. It has taken a year since we discussed them first for him to grasp fully the nature of the differences but they are all suggestions I made for very good reasons.

These changes are:

1) Focus on the rise and fall of the belly during calming stages of meditation, not Anapana "a la" Goenka.
2) Label thoughts, feelings, and such that take your focus from the breath and then gently put the focus back on the breath.
3) Drop bodyscans as they are habit forming.

Here one of his most recent post at e-sangha (Jul 25):

I like to think that I have a fairly good understanding of sensation based vipassana meditation, in the Goenka tradition to be specific. However, I have a very poor understanding of zen meditation. Which leads me to my question: I was wondering if someone could compare these techniques? How are they different?

Any thoughts and/or links to online resources would be much appreciated.

Doesn't sound he has become more settled yet, doesn't it?
He is still searching and doesn't mentions that he actually practiced belly Anapanna!

I am not saying you must change it or it is bad. However it is a limited practice with limited fruits ...
... and recognise something in them that you can not yet see. If that point comes let me know and I will explain in detail why these three differences are important.

I can't help it, but in such posts for me the strong impression arises as if the recipient is been offered help in exchange for being looked down at.
How would you feel if I offered you such help without being asked for, Matthew?
On the contrary, he had just expressed his feelings of offense caused by your slanderous words about his practice the post before!
And you telling him he should laugh about his own feelings of hurt only made it worse.

I might be wrong though - as always. And truth will reveal itself. 

Whatever way, Matthew, you either don't believe in your own statement: that the path is no more known to anyone - or you know that path.

But both at the same time is impossible.

kind regards..

[Stefan]

Hei Matthew and all,

hmmm, maybe we should add some information beneath the Avatar:

Which Vipassana-Tradition are we into? It would be helpful especially for Newbies to know with whom one talks. When I first entered this forum I wasn't even aware of the existence of different types of Vipassana.

Boy are we gonna laugh when we will find out that ALL styles of Vipassana lead to the ultimate truth ...

With Metta, Stefan

[Matthew]

Dear Pamojjam,

However he has made three changes to the practice - which I discussed with him over a year ago for the first time - and these changes have made a total change to the quality of practice. It has taken a year since we discussed them first for him to grasp fully the nature of the differences but they are all suggestions I made for very good reasons.

These changes are:

1) Focus on the rise and fall of the belly during calming stages of meditation, not Anapana "a la" Goenka.
2) Label thoughts, feelings, and such that take your focus from the breath and then gently put the focus back on the breath.
3) Drop bodyscans as they are habit forming.

Here one of his most recent post at e-sangha (Jul 25):

I like to think that I have a fairly good understanding of sensation based vipassana meditation, in the Goenka tradition to be specific. However, I have a very poor understanding of zen meditation. Which leads me to my question: I was wondering if someone could compare these techniques? How are they different?

Any thoughts and/or links to online resources would be much appreciated.

Doesn't sound he has become more settled yet, doesn't it?
He is still searching and doesn't mentions that he actually practiced belly Anapanna!

The post on E-Sangha pre-dates most of the conversations I have had with him and the changes in practice and realisations of this person - although we had been discussing precisely these issues for more than a year, the person concerned telephoned me around mid September and explained how these issues had finally slipped into place for him. He was much calmer, more balanced and filled with joy than at any time I have spoken to him over the two years now that we are in contact.

At that point in time he felt he had made a natural breakthrough into being a meditator - in a way that had evaded all previous efforts. In particular he noted that I had been explaining many specific aspects of these issues to him for over a year but that he was not able to hear or comprehend them until now.

Whatever way, Matthew, you either don't believe in your own statement: that the path is no more known to anyone - or you know that path.

But both at the same time is impossible.

Both at the same time is possible. I know I do not know the path. I suspect very strongly based on what I see and on what the Buddha taught - though clearly I can not prove this - that no one knows the path. I admit that I am not in a position to make a categorical statement of fact that "no one knows the path" and that "the path is lost".

However, the Buddha clearly stated in his teachings that it would be and my eyes and experience tell me that it has, and that I can believe those teachings. If this was not the case we would not have Buddhists the world over arguing about what the path is! We would all know and have good reliable agreed upon resources to help us along it.

The Buddha's teachings themselves make a COMPLETE mockery of anyone, including my Tibetan teachers and Goenka who claim an "unbroken lineage from the Buddha" - as the Buddha plainly stated in his teachings that ALL lineages would be broken before now.

in the Dhamma,

Matthew

[Stefan]

If there is no unbroken lineage, how can you tell what he said and what of his "citings" are fake?

[Green Tara]

  lol, the path was never lost because it was never found.

[Stefan]

 

don't worry ... I'll try to find it for you ...

 

[Green Tara]

don't worry ... I'll try to find it for you ...

oh Stefan, that is the point I am not worried

[Stefan]

that is the point I am not worried

maybe because all the pathes are a bowl of cherries?

[Green Tara]

maybe because all the pathes are a bowl of cherries?

or maybe because non of them lead to the city of liberation