[Great Western Vehicle] [Events] [Supporting the GWV]

[Pali & Buddhist Studies] [Tipitaka Index]  [Buddhist Timeline] [Pali-English Dictionary] [Glossary Key] [Sanskrit & Vedic Studies] [Ecstatic Meditation Archive]

---

Understanding Insight and Revelation

There are common misconceptions regarding insight and absorption that should most probably be eliminated in our discussion on meditative absorption and the various fruit of the contemplative life before we can make any progress. When we examine the dogma of the three vehicles of Buddhism we find only superficial similarities, as we dig deeper into the doctrine of the three vehicles of Buddhism we find profound differences in their doctrine.  We also find some pretty hefty posturing, and "peacock words," which are colorful terms that elicit emotional responses, such as 'Hinayana,' which literally means 'shit cart.' 

The Sanskrit term 'Hinayana,' is used by the Mahayanist schools of Buddhism to present themselves as superior to the original schools of Buddhism.  We could say the term 'Mahayana' is a peacock term as well because it means the 'superior school.' However, when we critically review the doctrine of the Mahayanist and Vajrayanist schools we find only superficial agreement with the original literature of Buddhism, thus they are really only examples of colloquial forms of Buddhism that do not seem to reflect accurately the original teachings of the Buddha.

In the case of Theravadan Buddhism, while they endeavor to preserve the original teachings of the Buddha, we find in their interpretation of that teaching a profound disconnect between their doctrine and the Buddha's, as recorded in the Pali Canon, which they endeavor so well to preserve. So, which vehicle of Buddhism are we going to believe?  Or, should we just chuck the whole lot of dogma into the "shit cart" (Hinayana) and go back to the original discourses?  The later has been my choice, and I believe it is the wisest one.

In Theravadan Buddhism the priesthood tend to express insight (vipassana) in cognitive and intellectual terms.  The most common misuse of the term insight (vipassana) is to think of it as a cognitive meditation technique or practice strategy (magga), as expressed by the U Bha Kin method of body scanning; the next most common misuse of the term is as the exercise of logic and critical thinking; or finally insight is often incorrectly expressed as reflection upon three concepts, suffering (dukkha), impermanence (anicca) and no self identification (anatta).  However, when one reads the Discourses of the Buddha (Sutta Pitaka) one will see that the Buddha did not refer to insight (vipassana) as a practice strategy, which is 'magga' in Pali.  He referred to insight (vipassana) in terms of an attainment, or fruit (phala) of the contemplative life.  For more details you may find the following essays of interest:

The Lack of Evidence In Support of a 'Dry' Insight Practice

Dispelling Common Misconceptions Regarding Insight (vipassana) and Absorption (Jhana/dhyana)

The "Wets verses Drys" in Theravadan Buddhism.  Why Does Jhana Represent Conflict?

The Fruits (Phala) of the Contemplative Life (September 13, 2004)

Many Buddhist teachers and priests make some pretty wild claims regarding insight (vipassana). While many Buddhist teachers claim the Buddha invented insight, or insight was his central gift to mankind, it turns out The Buddha only occasionally referred to the Sanskrit term 'vipassaná,' and since the term 'vipassaná' is Sanskrit and not Magadan, then it most assuredly was not something the Buddha invented and must therefore have predated him possibly going back to the Aryan Invasion of India 1,500 years before the Buddha. 

Many amateur Buddhist teachers even claim vipassaná is a meditation technique the Buddha invented.  This claim also turns out not to be true.  When the Buddha referred to the practice (magga) of meditation he called it 'sati' not 'vipassaná.' The Pali term 'sati' means mindfulness, or concentration.  In fact the term  'vipassaná' does not even appear in the Pali of the Buddha's four primary discourses on meditation (sati).  However, many amateur Buddhist teachers conflate insight with mindfulness, which is incorrect.

One of the other gross errors that amateur Buddhist teachers claim is vipassaná is conducted by reflecting upon the Three Marks or Characteristics of Existence, which are called 'Ti-Lakkhana' in Pali.  The three marks are: suffering (dukkha), impermanence (anicca) and no self-identification (anatta). The error here is in assuming reflecting upon anything is insight.  Reflection is not insight.  Insight is an intuitive understanding about nature, oneself and the path to enlightenment.  It is however true that insight can immerge due to reflecting upon many things, such as the Three Marks.

The Sanskrit term 'vipassaná' means most clearly 'insight,' which is 'to see clearly' into the nature of a subject. It is an intuitive insight or a light flashing forth and exposing the truth within any subject that one directs one's attention to. There is a common misconception that insight is a practice strategy (magga). This, however, is an error in understanding that cannot stand up to canonical review. Insight is just one of the 12 attainments (phala) of the contemplative life, and depends upon the attainment of meditative absorption (jhana) for its attainment, just as all of the other attainments (phala) depend upon absorption as their source.

It is insight-wisdom ('vipassaná) that is the decisive liberating factor in any contemplative tradition. Fore instance it is called 'revelation' in Christianity. The culmination of the attainment of insight (s. visuddhi VI), which leads directly to the stages of holiness. Insight is not the result of a mere intellectual understanding, but is won through direct meditative observation (jhana) upon an abstract meditation subject. A classic example of insight is revealed in the following stanza of the Mahaasaccaka sutta (MN 36), where the Buddha gains the insight that jhana is THE path to enlightenment.

Mahaasaccaka sutta (MN 36)
"It occurred to me: Doing these difficult exertions (his earlier ascetic practices), I will not attain, any noble distinctive knowledge and vision above human. There should be some other method for the realization of enlightenment. Then Aggivessana, I recalled the experience under the shade of the rose apple tree near my father's field: Secluded from sensory stimuli and secluded from unwholesome thoughts, with applied and sustained attention (vitakka and vicára) and with joy (sukha) and pleasure (piiti) originating from seclusion, I attained to the first jhana. Then the awareness arose this is the path to enlightenment. I thought, why should I fear this pleasantness, which is other than sensual pleasure and away from unwholesome thoughts."

Quite a few misguided Theravadan meditation teachers say the Buddha taught a meditation technique called 'Vipassana' (insight).  This is clearly a gross error in dhamma. The meditation technique called 'Vipassana' was never introduced by the Buddha.  It came as a latter invention by the priesthood of Theravadan Buddhism.  It is in fact a repackaging of fragments of the Buddha's four discourse on Mindfulness (Sati) with the charismatic component of bliss (piiti), joy (sukha) and ecstasy (jhana) removed (See DN 22, MN 10, 118 and 119).

While you may not accept my opinion on this important issue of dhamma, you may accept the opinion of Thanissaro Bhikkhu.  While I do not accept Thanissaro Bhikkhu's use of language or many of his conclusions, he nonetheless supports some of my central premises in his essay 'One Tool Among Many.'  Please see below.

One Tool Among Many, by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

''Vipassana is not a meditation technique. It's a quality of mindÉ if you look directly at the Pali discourses -- the earliest extant sources for our knowledge of the Buddha's teachings -- you'll find that although they do use the word samatha to mean tranquility, and vipassana to mean clear-seeing, they otherwise confirm none of the received wisdom about these terms. Only rarely do they make use of the word vipassana -- a sharp contrast to their frequent use of the word jhana. When they depict the Buddha telling his disciples to go meditate, they never quote him as saying "go do vipassana," but always "go do jhana." And they never equate the word vipassana with any mindfulness techniques. In the few instances where they do mention vipassana, they almost always pair it with samatha -- not as two alternative methods, but as two qualities of mind that a person may "gain" or "be endowed with," and that should be developed together.''

Further, one of the important things Thanissaro Bhikkhu left out in his essay is when the Buddha referred to the practice of a meditation methodology he ALWAYS called it 'sati,' not 'samatha,' not 'jhana' nor 'vipassana.'  Further, know that when Thanissaro Bhikkhu and other translators of Asian literature use the term 'concentration' it is ALWAYS a translation for the terms 'samatha,' 'jhana' or 'samadhi.'

One should also realize that Vipassana is not part of the Noble Eightfold Path, where as jhana is the Buddha's very definition of the 8th fold. Vipassana is not on the list of the Seven Factors of Enlightenment, however, jhana (as samadhi) is. And, the 8 liberations are all stages of jhana and samadhi; whereas vipassana is not one of the liberations.

The relevancy of exposing the chinks in the armor of the doctrine of the Three vehicles of Buddhism: as revealed in errors in doctrinal issues, such as: revealed in Theravada's conflation of insight (vipassana) with mindfulness (sati); institutionalized breaches in ethics, as revealed in 700 years of pedophilia in Japanese Zen Buddhism; and general hypocrisy, as revealed in an over-all misinterpretation of meditative absorption by the priesthood of the three vehicles of Buddhism; is to reveal that the doctrine of Theravadan Buddhism, as well as that of the other two vehicles of Buddhism cannot be relied upon as authoritative sources for the description of the experience of meditative absorption.

Thus, revealing that the term "vipassana" does not even appear in the four suttas on sati, even though the concept is sold as if it were the Buddha's central meditation practice, reveals that the arguments provided by the priesthood of Buddhism against the model that the GWV advances, simply cannot stand up because they are founded upon 21 centuries of falsehood.  As evidence one need only examine the Buddha's four discourses on the practice of meditation (please see below).

We can conclude, unless one can provide evidence in support of one's claims, one's claims are just empty words. And, standing upon tradition is clearly not enough. If we do not critically review our sources we cannot hope to engage in meaningful self-enquiry and meditation.

Kindest regards,

Jeffrey S, Brooks

(sámañña Jhananda)

the Great Western Vehicle

Sources:

The GWV Ecstatic Buddhist Pali-to-English Dictionary

Anapanasati Sutta (MN 118) "Mindfulness of the breath"

the BJT & PTS Romanized Pali for this sutta is at this URL:

Dhammapada Verse 372

Dispelling Common Misconceptions Regarding Insight (vipassana) and Absorption (Jhana/dhyana)

The Fruits (Phala) of the Contemplative Life (September 13, 2004)

The Lack of Evidence In Support of a 'Dry' Insight Practice

Kayagata-sati Sutta (MN 119) "Mindfulness of the Body"

the BJT & PTS Romanized Pali for this sutta is at this URL:

Maha-satipatthana Sutta (DN 22), "Larger Discourse on the Four Paths of Mindfulness" updated 10-27-04

the BJT & PTS Romanized Pali for this sutta is at this URL:

One Tool Among Many, by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Satipatthana Sutta (MN 10) "Larger Discourse on the Four Paths of Mindfulness"

the BJT & PTS Romanized Pali for this sutta is at this URL:

Visuddhimagga  XXII, 113

The "Wets verses Drys" in Theravadan Buddhism.  Why Does Jhana Represent Conflict?

---