Are there any roots of Goenka Vipassana Tradition in ancient Buddhist Texts?

[Nikolay Perov]

Hello, Everybody!

Some weeks ago I attended Goenka Vipassana retreat and I am very grateful for such opportunity. It improved my meditation practice and understanding of it. But I have some concerns, first about cultist nature of this organization, second about the fact that Goenka technique doen't have any roots in classical Buddhist texts, though Goenka claims that that meditation comes directly from Gautama.

I have read several topics of discussion related to Goenka retreats on this forum, so I will address my issue only to particular topic: the roots.

I am a writer and now I write on my blog about Goenka Retreat. And I want to be sure, that my concerns are true, that's why I will appreciate your help=) Here are the concerns:

1) Goenka doesn't talk of his tradition as only a tradition. In my opinion he wants to create a feeling within his students (especially those, who are unfamiliar to other meditation traditions), that his Vipassana is the only Vipassana, coming directly from the Buddha which stand outside any traditions and sectarian views. But as I know there is no reference in Buddhist text about this particular meditation (scanning your body from head to feet, staying for some times in the body parts with no feeling of sensation etc.). Goenka claims, that this technique was lost, but nobody can prove or disapprove that. Is this concern true?
2) Even if there are mentioned some techniques in ancient texts similar to Goenka's techniques, they are not totally the same (see no. 1) and they are not presented there as Vipassana Meditation, as the way to gain insight into true nature of reality. As I know in Tibetan tradition Vipassana is something else. Techniques containing scan of body are related to Shamatha, stabilization techniques there. And I personally agree with that. In many traditions Vipassana is something which helps to make a quality leap towards deeper experience, but only after you attained mind stability, practicing concentration techniques. On the first days of Goenka's retreat students do Anapana meditation for attending stability, then they do so called "Vipassana". But technically there is no difference between Anapana and Vipassana as taught by Goenka. In both methods we scan our body, the only difference is the space of scanning: in Anapana it is the space under the nostrils, in "Vipassana" it is entire body. But it is almost the same! Where is Vipassana as something different from concentration techniques? So that leads me to conclusion that Goenka's Vipassana is not Vipassana in classical sense of this word? Is it right?

Before you reply me please mention, that I don't want another Goenka arguing. If I am wrong, I am wrong. And I don't want to write wrong things in my article. That is why I am asking. I had overall good experience on Goenka retreat, so I am not against it. Though I doubt that I will go for another Vipassana by Goenka, because some negative parts were also there.

[Q]

Hi Nikolay,

As I don't know anything about Goenka Vipassana technique, so you will not get any Goenka arguing from me. :-)   

"1) About scanning your body from head to feet, staying for some times in the body parts with no feeling of sensation etc."

-It's still in the context of Kayanupassana (mindfulness as regards the body) in Satipatthana (the four foundations of mindfulness). I believe the old technique has to be tallored to fit an individual in modern day. Maybe? 

"2) Techniques containing scan of body are related to Shamatha, stabilization techniques there...In many traditions Vipassana is something which helps to make a quality leap towards deeper experience, but only after you attained mind stability, practicing concentration techniques."

-I think we have two contexts here. Let put it in this way, Shamatha is not Vipassana. Meditation is not mindfulness. Samatha (meditation) is to calm your mind. Vipassana is to know (get an insight about) your mind. So, yes, sometimes we cannot know our mind without calming it first. Anyway, Buddha also taught about "the four foundations of mindfulness". It's not meditation but mindfulness. It might be harder to calm your mind via mindfulness comparing to mediation. But it is, as you said, to make a quality leap. In other words, to skip on meditation part and directly observe what is going on in mind (which normally, it started with Samatha first, then vipassana).

"On the first days of Goenka's retreat students do Anapana meditation for attending stability, then they do so called 'Vipassana'. But technically there is no difference between Anapana and Vipassana as taught by Goenka. In both methods we scan our body, the only difference is the space of scanning: in Anapana it is the space under the nostrils, in "Vipassana" it is entire body. But it is almost the same! Where is Vipassana as something different from concentration techniques? So that leads me to conclusion that Goenka's Vipassana is not Vipassana in classical sense of this word? Is it right?"

-Hmm...it seemed you are still not so clear about "Vipassana". Vipassana means "insight; intuitive version; introspection". Hence doing vipassana means the "result/outcome" of doing insight development. By what? By anapana (sati) which means by mindfulness based on breathing. Yes, if your samatha (meditation) is already stabilize, you can also upgrade it into its outcomes which is vipassana (insight).     

Anyway, I kind of disagree to find fault with someone who was a (spiritual) pioneer. There were 84,000 Buddhist sutras, why? Because each sutra is for each individual. And everyone is unique. Everyone has different disease/dukka, so each one needs individual cure. There's no panacea. That's it. That's all. 

[Goofaholix]

Goenka's meditation technique is not in the Suttas, because there are no meditation techniques clearly outlined in the Suttas.  There are general principals upon which this and other techniques are based, see the Satipatthana Sutta and the Anapanasati Sutta.

I think Goenka's presentation is very much aimed at the Indian religious/spiritual market where people want to try this Guru or that God and end up with a smorgasboard of mismatched ideas that doesn't really achieve anything.  So he's perhaps over protective of the technique he is teaching, you may have noticed this is less evident in other vipassana traditions.  Yes it does seem a bit cult like but considering nobody ever tells you what to do after you leave the centre nor asks you for money I don't think it's anything like a cult.  They simply run a tight ship while you are there and considering the number of centres there are around the world now a lot of people have benefited from that.

[Nikolay Perov]

Thank you Q

You gave me clearer comprehension of what Vipassana is and of relation it to Shamatha. So as I see a simple concentration meditation with focusing on breathing can have an aim of both Vipassana or Shamatha, depending on what we trying to achieve and how stable our mind is. Did I get you right?

I am not doubting the Buddha. I am doubting Goenka's terminology. I cannot call him  a spiritual pioneer, he was a lay person, who opened a lot of meditation centers.

Thanks Goofaholix!

That makes sense

[Q]

Hi Nikolay,

About Goenka, hahaha, okay.
 
It's just I believe that if we don't agree with someone, why we have to waste our time talking about them?

As for your question:

"a simple concentration meditation with focusing on breathing can have an aim of both Vipassana or Shamatha, depending on what we trying to achieve and how stable our mind is."

-First, let me talk a little bit about "Ānāpānasati". Sati means mindfulness; anapana means breathing (inhalation and exhalation).
When we start doing Shamatha (meditation) we need something as the base (subject) of our meditation, say, counting beads, chanting etc. Whenever something outside and/or inside (our thought) distract us, we pull our attention back to our object of meditation again and again. Hence we are doing our Shamatha (meditation), to keep our meditative state or one pointedbess of mind. And at some point, if we don't attach too much to that so calm/blissful state of mind (meditative state), we will learn to use that stat of mind to dig deeper inside our mind. And that is Vipassana or insight development.
As for Ānāpānasati is the practice of "sati" (mindfulness), not meditation (Samadhi). Sometimes it's hard to convey its meaning for mutual understanding. For example, I know the word "Samadhi" more than "meditation" as English is not my first language. And that was why I know "sati" (mindfulness) is not meditation (Samadhi). But again, I don't know if meditation has many meanings including sati or not. But for the sake of clarifying, I have to separate them here.

Sati (mindfulness) means attentiveness; detached watching; awareness
While Samadhi (meditation) means concentration; one pointedbess of mind; mental discipline.         

So when we start practicing Ānāpānasati", we are practicing sati (mindfulness) by using our breathing as its base (yes, we can use other objects as its base, for example, the movement of our body, walking etc.) If we focus too much on our breathing, it might turn to be meditation, not mindfulness. It's not bad if we get our meditative state by that. But it's not the aim of mindfulness. Roughly speaking, if we focusing on breathing (meditation) we cannot interact with our mind. Whenever our thought arise, our awareness always shake them off and come back to our breathing. But as for the awareness of mindfulness, it just lets the thoughts arise, and just watching them (observation) without doing anything, not even trying to stop them. Just watching until they fades away by themselves. That's all. See the difference?

Hope this make to clarify it a bit.     

[Nikolay Perov]

Q, how are terms sati and shamatha related to term Vipassana?

[Q]

I honestly don't know what your question is.
We haven't already talked all of those on this thread?

[Nikolay Perov]

Sorry, I've got confused with terms in your post.

You say meditation (Shamatha)
Then you say meditation (Samadhi)

And you talk of sati as mindfulness.

So am I right that Shamatha = Samadhi = meditation (In your comprehension)
And sati = mindfulness = Vipassana???

Ye I may sound stupid, but the short answer about these terms will help me to get the the idea of your post=)

[Q]

Ah! I see.

Sorry, too, if I got you wrong. I always got misunderstanding all the time until I kind of getting used to it.

Yes, I mean "Samatha = Samadhi = meditation"
And "sati = mindfulness = Vipassana"

You didn't sound to agree with "Vipassana"? Let me explain it a bit here.

I already posted on another thread that the complete words of Samatha and Vipassana are "Samatha Kammaṭṭhāna" and "Vipassana Kammaṭṭhāna". Kammaṭṭhāna roughly means "base of action". While there are two if they are the same (meditatation and/or vipassana)? The point is, roughly speaking, Samatha is focused on meditative state while Vipassana is focused on "insight". I've just give an example on another thread that you cannot get your cake and eat it too. For exmaple, if you are too focused on reading, you might not be able to aware of anything all around you. On the contrary, if your aware is on everything all around you, you might not be able to focus on your reading. That is the difference between "meditation" versus "mindfulness".
Hope I make it more clear. Or not?   

[Quardamon]

So that leads me to conclusion that Goenka's Vipassana is not Vipassana in classical sense of this word? Is it right?

You are right. But in fact, we might get into another Goeka arguing. If you can, you might want to consult
The Birth of Insight: Meditation, Modern Buddhism, and the Burmese Monk Ledi Sayadaw by Erik Braun.
Ledi Sayadaw started the tradition that Goenka is in.
Wikipedia can help you to a great extend to find things out.

[Quardamon]

You can try this link also, but I doubt whether it works without logging in:
https://www.coursera.org/learn/buddhist-meditation/lecture/ZxFIW/introducing-ledi-sayadaw-the-monastic-reformer-of-burma-erik-braun
It is an interview with Erik Braun, on these traditions.

[Nikolay Perov]

Ah! I see.

Sorry, too, if I got you wrong. I always got misunderstanding all the time until I kind of getting used to it.

Yes, I mean "Samatha = Samadhi = meditation"
And "sati = mindfulness = Vipassana"

You didn't sound to agree with "Vipassana"? Let me explain it a bit here.

I already posted on another thread that the complete words of Samatha and Vipassana are "Samatha Kammaṭṭhāna" and "Vipassana Kammaṭṭhāna". Kammaṭṭhāna roughly means "base of action". While there are two if they are the same (meditatation and/or vipassana)? The point is, roughly speaking, Samatha is focused on meditative state while Vipassana is focused on "insight". I've just give an example on another thread that you cannot get your cake and eat it too. For exmaple, if you are too focused on reading, you might not be able to aware of anything all around you. On the contrary, if your aware is on everything all around you, you might not be able to focus on your reading. That is the difference between "meditation" versus "mindfulness".
Hope I make it more clear. Or not?

Yes, thanks it is clear

[Nikolay Perov]

Quardamon, thanks, will check that out

[Vivek]

Nikolay, there is a 8-day Satipatthana course offered by Goenkaji's organization in which you will get the opportunity to study the theoretical foundations of this particular tradition of Vipassana in light of the Satipatthana Sutta. Additionally, this analysis of the meditation technique as taught in U Ba Khin tradition by Bhikku Analayo, should also prove helpful: https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/development-insight.pdf

[Nikolay Perov]

Nikolay, there is a 8-day Satipatthana course offered by Goenkaji's organization in which you will get the opportunity to study the theoretical foundations of this particular tradition of Vipassana in light of the Satipatthana Sutta. Additionally, this analysis of the meditation technique as taught in U Ba Khin tradition by Bhikku Analayo, should also prove helpful: https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/development-insight.pdf

Thanks Vivek for your help! I will examine that. But I am more focused to get answers from outside of Goenka organization. Because this organization has it's own view on meditation techniques and it's own interpretation of Suttas, as I learned while listening to Goenka's lectures. And that view can be biased and doen't always match the views of other classical Buddhist tradition.

[Goofaholix]

Thanks Vivek for your help! I will examine that. But I am more focused to get answers from outside of Goenka organization. Because this organization has it's own view on meditation techniques and it's own interpretation of Suttas, as I learned while listening to Goenka's lectures. And that view can be biased and doen't always match the views of other classical Buddhist tradition.

Bhikkhu Analayo is not from the Goenka organization, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhikkhu_Analayo

[Vivek]

And that view can be biased and doen't always match the views of other classical Buddhist tradition.

Hi Nikolay, as Goofaholix said, Analayo is not part of Goenkaji's organization. Even so, any view can be biased to some extent no matter whose it is. I am not arguing that the views presented are absolute, I just wanted to present some perspectives which may prove useful to you. I guess, more than looking for whether the technique has foundations in classical texts or not, the priority should be given to whether the practice is benefiting you or not, provided you give it a fair trial for some period of time. If not, it may well not be suited for you.

[Matthew]

Ah! I see.

Sorry, too, if I got you wrong. I always got misunderstanding all the time until I kind of getting used to it.

Yes, I mean "Samatha = Samadhi = meditation"
And "sati = mindfulness = Vipassana"
.....

The above is quite misleading. Neither Shamatha nor Samadhi means or is synonymous with meditation.

Shamatha means to abide or rest in a calm state, it is a fruit of meditation. It is foundational for Samadhi.
Samadhi refers to a highly concentrated, "one pointed" meditative state of mind, developed through the Jhanas.

So all three Samadhi, Shamatha and Vipassana share in common that they are fruits or "Phala" of mindfulness practice.

Mindfulness practice is synonymous with meditation in this context - and in its widest meaning, not just the stuff you do in formal practice. But the Buddha, it ought be noted did not trek his students to go mediate, he said go do Jhana.

[Q]

Hi Matthew,

I said, ""Samatha = Samadhi = meditation".
But you said, :

"The above is quite misleading. Neither Shamatha nor Samadhi means or is synonymous with meditation."

I think I have to explain that I'm Thai and from Thailand. So, Pali has been already into my native language for some hundred years. This is not my bluff, it's just that sometimes it's hard for me to convey my thought into English (which is not my first language).
 
It was true, as you said, "shamatha means to abide or rest in a calm state" and that was I call, "samathi" (in the broad sense). I never called it "meditation" as it's English and it's not my language. But when I have to say it in English, how could I call it except "meditation"?

So when you said,:

"Shamatha means to abide or rest in a calm state, it is a fruit of meditation. It is foundational for Samadhi."

Lets consider from my part, when I try to say it in English:
"meditation means to abide or rest in a calm state, it is a fruit of meditation. It is foundational for meditation."
See my point?

So, let's forget about "meditation" here for a while and consider only about "Samatha" and "Samadhi", ok?

You said,

"Samatha it is a fruit of meditation. It is foundational for Samadhi. Samadhi refers to a highly concentrated, 'one pointed' meditative state of mind, developed through the Jhanas."

One the contrary, "Jhanas" are Phala (fruit/result) of states of serene contemplation attained by mediation. Hence there are Jhanas (Samapatti or attainment) 2, 4 and 8. For example, Jhanas 4 is Aruppa (Jhana) or absorption of the formless spheres which are:
1. Sphere of infinity of space
2. Sphere of infinity of consciousness
3. Sphere of infinity of Nothingness
4. Sphere of neither perception nor non-perception

So we practice meditation (or Samadhi) to get a a result (Phala) that is Jhana (s). Not vice versa. But again, Samadhi (or meditation) has a broad sense. Sometimes, we say we practice Samadhi  (meditation) to get samadhi ((meditation) as a result (Phala).

You said: 
     

"So all three Samadhi, Shamatha and Vipassana share in common that they are fruits or 'Phala; of mindfulness practice."

-I still believe that you are not so clear about Shamatha and Vipassana. Sorry to mention again about Kammathana. There are ShamathaKammathana and VipassanaKammathana. They are not the same. And mindfulness (Sati) is not Samadhi (nor Shamatha). Why? Because in the Noble eightfold path, there are Sama-sati (right mindfulness) And sama-samadhi (right meditation). They are different, not the same.

P.S. I don't like to disagree with anyone. So, this will be my last post here.       

[Quardamon]

Q, please do not run away immediately. Personally, I am shocked that what you post seems to contradict things that I heard from a Dutch teacher who knows Pali and a bit of Thai. I think that has much to do with the school that he was trained in. There is disagreements among schools - we cannot help that there is.

[Q]

Hi Quardamon,

Thanks for your kind post. Okay, let me try another one here.

If anyone seach for "samantha vs vipassana", you will find that they are different, not the same. So, I don't need to post any link here again.
Besides, our context on this thread, was only about "samatha is not vipassana", NOT about we should practice only vipassana and ignore samatha or vice versa. That will be another context.
Before and during I was a monk I personally used to practice both samantha and vipassana but finally focused only on mindfulness after that. And I have been practicing mindfulness for more than 30 years now, so I'm rather quite sure the difference between samantha, vipassana and mindfulness, even sometimes I might not be able to explain it (in English).
More than that, when these words were translated into English, they always come with the word "meditation". Hence, we have samantha meditation, vipassana meditation and even mindfulness meditation!?! This is really mislead. 
"Samantha meditation" and "vipassana meditation" are translated from "Samantha Kammatthana" and "vipassana Kammatthana". Kammatthana literally means "base of work" or "place of work". Therefore the right translation should rather be "way/method", not "meditation". Therefore, "Samantha way" and "vipassana way".
Samantha means tranquillity, Vipassana literally means "clear-seeing". The war between Samantha versus Vipassana way has happened for a long time. Pariyatti or Buddhists who believe only in studying of the scripture; never really practiced any Kammatthana; believe that Panna (wisdom/insight or in this context Vipassana) is the result of long time studying. And Patipatti or Buddhists who believe in practice Kammatthana; they even don't need to know anything about Tipiṭaka (for example, Zen Buddhism) but only practice Kammatthana.
I really feel uncomfortable to explain all this. I come from the (spiritual) tradition that doesn't believe in argument. So this will be my really last post. I'm so sorry.
       

   

[Middleway]

I really feel uncomfortable to explain all this. I come from the (spiritual) tradition that doesn't believe in argument. So this will be my really last post. I'm so sorry.
   

I hope you mean this is your last post on this thread. I really appreciated your comments on this and on other threads and I hope you will continue to contribute to this forum.

Kindly,

Middleway

[Vivek]

Hello Q, as long as we respect each other and do not resort to personal attacks etc., diverse and even contradictory views on topics are always welcome. Healthy discussion and collaboration on the meditative path is the main purpose of the forum. As Middleway indicated, we hope you'll stay with us. If you feel you are getting reactive or uncomfortable while engaging in discussion, then maybe that is a good opportunity to be mindful of?

[Matthew]

Hello Q,

I too will say better not to leave: understanding and clarification can result from you staying. There may not be agreement about everything yet there is no need to be disagreeable: we can respectful of each other even when not be in agreement.  There is a book on my shelf I refer to often, "The Meaning of Nirvana" by Rune Johansson. In the introduction he writes this:

It is a well-known fact that Nibbana is the summum bonum of Buddhism and that a person who has attained this ultimate goal is called an arahant. But here the agreement ends.

So disagreement is not to be unexpected, nor does it necessitate unpleasantness. In fact it's often where the learning is to be found.

If anyone seach for "samantha vs vipassana", you will find that they are different, not the same.

Yes they are different. I do not disagree. I said they are both fruits of good "mindfulness practice" - not the same thing. Shamatha means "calm" as you agreed (though you use the word tranquility - they are synonymous for this purpose), Vipassana is often translated as "insight" yet a better translation may be "introspection".

Much of the confusions come from poor or confused translations, and also from the confusion of meditation as a verb: the practices we undertake and meditation as a noun: the mind-states that result. You point this confusion out clearly yourself:

But again, Samadhi (or meditation) has a broad sense. Sometimes, we say we practice Samadhi  (meditation) to get samadhi ((meditation) as a result (Phala).

In the above you are in the first place using Samadhi (by which you mean meditation) as a verb, then the second time as a noun (the mental states arrived at in the meditation).

I was referring in my first post to Samadhi in terms of the mind-states found in meditation: usually it is translated as simply as "concentration" or "one-pointed mind" and the beginning stages develop in the second Jhana. The Wikipedia entry on Samadhi is very clear:

Samādhi (Sanskrit: समाधि, Hindi pronunciation: [səˈmaːd̪ʱi]), also called samāpatti, in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and yogic schools refers to a state of meditative consciousness. It is a meditative absorption or trance, attained by the practice of dhyāna. In samādhi the mind becomes still. It is a state of being totally aware of the present moment; a one-pointedness of mind

So the common agreed usage is to refer to the meditative state.

You are right that "right mindfulness" and "right meditation" are quoted as two of the eight folds of the path. So this makes me wonder: in this context, was the Buddha using Samadhi/meditation as the things we do or the states of mind we inhabit?

Kind regards,

Matthew

[Quardamon]

Thank you for your kind words and your explanation, Q.

I have this picture, that sometimes the words and thoughts and opinions are like the foam on water that is in a process of being cleaned. And that it is not proper and not fruitful to give attention to the words and thoughts and opinions, because the cleaning process is taking place in the water, not in the foam.
Maybe this picture does not appeal to you at all.
Anyway, I believe you when you say this was your last post.

I will sit and look at the water with my heart.
I stop now my searching for words.