Talk:Vipassanā

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject Buddhism This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Vipassanā, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Discussion of Vipassana

I'm getting an &radix; appearing in the article; could someone replace this with the right entity? M.e 03:39, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

http://www.chibs.edu.tw/publication/chbs/07/385-416n.htm (an article that tries to clarify the various uses of vipassana and vipassana meditation.)

There is some authority for translating vi- as "in a special manner" or "in many directions" and some of the Pali canon and commentaries support the idea that Vipassana allows one to see through the modes of impermanence etc. (See for example, sec. 2.4.2 in the above article)

I have some concerns about the author's attitude. For example, he says that

Abhiññā is derived from the verb,jānāti, which means to know, to have or gain knowledge, to experience, to beaware of or to find out.[31]　 That is, abhiññā is a special knowledge obtained through experienceand awareness. The very significant words which we should pay attention to are “experience” and“awareness”.　These two words suggest that vipassanā is cultivated by being aware of livingactivity (experience) rather than thinking barely or working on abstract ideas,such as speculation, assumption and the like. The statement can be supported by the Pāli-English Dictionary. Inthe explanation of abhiññā the dictionary says that “wrong-doing, priestlysuperstitions and vain speculation do not conduce to abhiññā”.[32]

Now, this is just silly. "jānāti" is the third person singular active form of the verb √jñā. And that verb is exactly the same as the English verb "know." They're cognates and everything. And sometimes people useit in a high-falutin sense, and sometimes they use it in an everyday sense. But these usages don't magically inhere in the word, and there's no reason at all that we should think that "experience" and "awareness" inhere in √jñā. The author writes with the characteristic exuberance of one who understand a language poorly and reads in too much meaning. There's a rule in linguistics and philology that the more romantic an explanation is, the less likely it is to be true. It's a good rule for Indology, too.

He's good enough to cite some suttas for us, which yields some results. For example:

In that case,Vaccha, develop (bhāvehi) further two things (dhammā): serenity (samatha) andinsight (vipassanā). When thesetwo things are developed (bhāvitā) further, they will lead to the penetrationof many elements.

Penetration is fine, penetration is excellent. To see-apart, to see cuttingly or piercingly, to discern or discrimate, are completely defensible and supportable (as a knife di-vides what it cuts).

The article also draws on the PTSD. Let's take a look:

Vipassanā (p. 627) (f.) [fr. vi+passati; BSk. vipaśyanā, e. g. Divy 44, 95, 264 etc.] inward vision, insight, intuition, introspection D III.213, 273; S IV.195, 360; V.52 (samatha+); A I.61 (id.), 95; II.140, 157 (samatha+); IV.360; V.99, 131; Ps I.28, 57 sq., 181; II.92 sq.; Pug 25; J I.106; Dhs 55, 1356; Nett 7, 42 sq., 50, 82, 88 sq., 125 sq., 160, 191; Miln 16; Vism 2 (with jhāna etc.), 289 (+samādhi), 628 sq. (the 18 mahā°); PvA 14 (samāhita--citta°), 167; VvA 77; Sdhp 457, 466. --anga constituent of intuition SnA 8 (given as "nāmarūpa--pariccheda etc."). --upekkhā indifference by introspection Vism 162. --kammaṭṭhāna exercise for intuition DhA IV.46. --ñāṇa ability or method of attaining insight Vism 629; DhA IV.30; cp. Cpd. 65 sq., where 10 such modes. --dhura obligation of introspection DhA I.8; IV.37 sq.

Now, I'd be inclined to hold as close to this as possible in my interpretations of "Vi-". Why? Because a prefix has many meanings, and not all of them apply to each and every stem to which the prefix is attached. But we can look at the prefix itself, too:

Vi (p. 611) (indecl.) [prefix, resting on Idg. *ṷi "two," as connotation of duality or separation (Ger. "ent--zwei"), which is contained in viŋśati, num. for "twenty" (see vīsati), cp. Sk. viṣu apart, Gr. i)/dios private (lit. separate); also Sk. u--bhau both; and *ṷidh, as in Lat. dīvido=divide. A secondary (compar.) formation in Sk. vitara further, farther, Goth. wipra against, Ger. wider]

1. (a) inseparable prefix of separation and expansion, in original meaning of "asunder," semantically closely related to Lat. dis-- & Ger ver--. Often as base--prefix in var. meanings (see below 1--4), also very frequent as modifying prefix (in combn with other primary prefixes like ā, ni, pa, paṭi, saŋ), where its prevailing character is one of emphasis. --

(b) The native grammarians define vi- either as "vividha" (i. e. our meaning 2): see Bdhgh. at SnA 136 (viharati=vividhaŋ hitaŋ harati); and Vism 179 vividhaŋ khittaŋ=vikkhittaŋ; see also under viggaṇhati; or "prātilomya" (i. e. meaning 3): Nirukta (ed. Roth) I.3; or paraphrase it by su° or suṭṭhu (i. e. meaning 4): see under vimāna & vippasanna. The latter meaning also in Hemacandra's Anek' ārtha--sangraha (ed. Calc.) 7, 15: "śreṣṭhe 'tīte nānārthe" (i. e. Nos. 4 & 2). --

(c) vi° occurs also as distributive (repetitional) prefix in reduplication compounds (here closely resembling paṭi° and the negative a°), like cuṇṇa--vicuṇṇa piecemeal, chidda--vicchidda holes upon holes, vaṭṭa--vivaṭṭa, etc. -- Contracted forms are vy° (=viy° before vowels) and vo° (=vi+ ava); the guṇa & vriddhi form is ve°. --

II. Meanings. --

1. denoting expansion, spreading out; fig. variety or detail, to be trsld by expressions with over or about (cp. Lat. e--), as: °kampati shake about, °kāseti open out, °kirati scatter about, °kūjati sing out (=upa--nadati C), °carati move about (=ā--hiṇḍati), °churita sprinkled about, °jāyati bring forth, °tāna "spread out," °tthāra ex--tension, de--tail, °dāleti break open, °dhammati whirl about, °dhāyaka providing, °pakirati strew all over, °pphāra pervading, °pphārika ef--fulgence, Qbhajati ex--plain, °bhatta dis--tributed, °bhāga division, distribution, °ravati shout out, °rūhana growing up, °rocati shine out, °ssajjati give out, °ssaṭṭha sent out, °ssara shouting out, °ssuta far--famed. --

2. denoting disturbance, separation, mixing up (opp. saŋ°), as given with "away" or "down," or the prefixes de-- and dis--, e. g. °kasita burst asunder, °kubbana change, i. e. miracle (meta--morphosis), °kkaya sell ("ver--kaufen"), °kkhambhati de--stroy, °kkhāleti wash off (=ācameti), °kkhepa de--rangement, °gata dis--appeared (used as defn of vi° at ThA 80), °galita dripping down, °ggaha separation, °cinati dis--criminate, °jahati dis--miss, °desa foreign country (cp. verajjaka), °naṭṭha destroyed, °nata bending down, °nāsa de--struction, °nicchaya dis--crimination, °nodaka driving out, °pāteti to be destroyed, °ppalapati to talk confusedly, °rājeti discard as rāga, °rodha destruction, °lumpati break up, °vitta separated, °vidha mixed, °veka separation, °vāha carrying away, i. e. wedding. --

3. denoting the reverse of the simple verb, or loss, difference, opposite, reverse, as expressed by un-- or dis--, e. g. °asana mis--fortune, °kaṭika unclean, °kappa change round, °kāra per--turbation, dis--tortion, °kāla wrong time, °tatha un--truth, °dhūma smoke--less, °patti corruption, °parīta dubious, °ppaṭipanna on the wrong track, °bhava non--existence (or as 4 "more" bhava, i. e. wealth), °mati doubt, °mānana dis--respect, °yoga separation, °raja fault--less, °rata abs--taining, °rūpa un--sightly, °vaṭa unveiled, °vaṇṇeti defame, °vāda dis--pute, °sama uneven, °ssandati overflow, °ssarita for--gotten, °siṭṭha distinguished, °sesa difference, distinction. --

4. in intensifying sense (developed fr. 1 & 2), mostly with terms expressing per se one or the other of shades of meanings given under 1--3; to be trsld by "away," out, all over, "up," or similarly (completely), e. g. °ākula quite confused, °katta cut up, °kopeti shake up, °garahati scold intensely, °chindati cut off, °jita conquered altogether, °jjotita resplendent, °tarati come quite through, °niyoga close connection, °nivatteti turn off completely, °pariṇāma intense change, °ppamutta quite released, °ppasanna quite purified, °pphalita crumpled up, °bandhana (close) fetter, °ramati cease altogether, °sahati have sufficient strength, °sukkha dried up, °suddha very bright, °ssamati rest fully (Ger. aus--ruhen), °haññati to get slain.

I dunno. I don't really see it. I mean, sure, II:1 has "sprinkled around" and whatnot, which involve pluralities, but they seem to be primarily consequences of the idea of broading or dividing--open out, for example. They don't seem nearly as compelling as II:4, to see intensively. And this isn't to say one doesn't gain insight into many things through vipassanā--it's just to say it doesn't seem to be hard-coded into the word.कुक्कुरोवाच 01:18, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Connection with Mr. Goenka?

I get an uncanny sense that some material here has come staright from Mr. Goenka's (a respected authority on Vipassana) websites. He has been mentioned in the article and the reference is same as that in his website about his Burmese Guru.

Obviously! A NEUTRAL aproach would be apreciated... besides, the movement that has, by far, most impact among the monastic comunity, as far as i know, is the Mahasi Sayadaw's method. This article is very very very very weak! For eample, what a hell is this: "In Vipassanā meditation, the meditation object is one's own consciousness, although it can be further refined to be one's consciousness while observing, say, the breath, as in ānāpāna meditation. In this context, the modes of seeing refers to focusing on those aspects of consciousness which appear to have (or not have) these characteristics."? The current trend in vipassana is Satipatthana, the four frames of reference (not explained!!!). However, using the 5 skandhas is more acordingly to the suttas, as far as i know (tangentialy explained). No mention is made to the prerequisition-of-jhana debate.

There are many different types of Vipassana and if a person has not experienced a particular technique for them selves how can they be any kind of authority on it? Vipassana is truly understood by prctising it. Mr goenka is an authority on his particular teaching of a technique. Anyone who has experienced one of his courses often understands the need to convey the technique correctly. So it seems inevitable that quotes will come directly from S.N.Goenka`s web site. As with regards to this particular technique these are the best words to use.Pary88 16:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] non-sectarian?

While it is often referred to as Buddhist meditation, the practice taught by the Buddha was non-sectarian, and has a universal application. It does not require conversion to Buddhism.

This is confusing to me. "While it is" suggests a contrast - does this mean that Vipassana is sectarian and requires conversion? --Singkong2005 03:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I had a go at editing the first three lines which might be an improvement. While Vipassana is Buddhist it is widely practiced in a wide variety of secular and non-secular traditions today often under the rubric of "insight meditation" just as very similar practices were widely common in the ancient India of (and indeed before) the Buddha's time and whilst they may have differed in the philosophical and ideological baggage (i.e. of the philosophical underpinnings of Buddhist scriptures or suttas) they are largely indistinguishable in actual meditational practice... Mattjs 12:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Vipassana Meditation as taught by S.N. Goenka and Vipassana taught by others seems to be slighly different in as much as there is great emphasis within S.N. Goenka's teachings that it is free from dogma and rituals and that it is non sectarian. The focus is on the technique and on one's own actual invidual experience rather than on beliefs and scriptures. A person can be Hindu or jewish or of no religion at all and practice vipassana meditation. But as soon as a person calls them self Buddhist they belong to a group, a sect. So for Vipassana Meditation to be non sectarian it can not be called Buddhist meditation.Pary88 19:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lakshan Attanayake

Hon Lakshan Attanayake is one of the Theravada meditation teacher living in Sri Lanka, one of living Aryan. I would come up with more information soon.

[edit] Schedules

I've added the schedules/calendars of some of the identified "living teachers" initially as verification that they are in fact actively teaching. Secondarily, it dawned on me that this might be useful for newbies looking for a teacher. Then, after a click of the "Save" button, it dawned on me that this might violate current WP policy regarding commercialism. If so, feel free to delete the "(schedule)" links or point me to the specific WP policy and I'll be happy to remove the offending text. Thanks! LarryR 22:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Renaming Vipassana Meditation

Probably not important, but the article referring to the other form of Buddhist meditation is named Samatha Meditation. For symmetry, as the terms are so closely related, should this article be renamed "Vipassana Meditation"? 138.217.179.154 11:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone add a redirect please... 220.240.58.190 05:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong denotation?

Hi, don't know where to put this: Reading this sections last sentence; isn't the direct perception type of seeing denoted by "paccakkha" instead of "vipassanā"?

A synonym for "Vipassanā" is paccakkha (Pāli; Sanskrit: pratyakṣa), "before the eyes," which refers to direct experiential perception. Thus, the type of seeing denoted by "vipassanā" is that of direct perception, as opposed to knowledge derived from reasoning or argument.

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origin and History

Is there any clear historical data backing up the assertion that this particular type of meditation was *re*discovered, as opposed to discovered or invented, by Gautama Buddha 2500 years ago? The rest of the article solidly locates this practice within the tradition and framework of Buddhism. If the same practice is described in, say, some old vedas predating Gautama Buddha, it would be nice to cite them and possibly explain vipassana in terms of those beliefs or practices as well. Mtiffany (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if these techniques were current in the Vedas, then I'm not sure we could say they were rediscovered or discovered at all by the Buddha. I initially thought that the meaning of the article's first sentence is that it was a rediscovery in terms of traditional Buddhist history, which sees the Buddha as only the most recent in a progression of past buddhas.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 17:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External link

Hi. I added a link to a Vipassana discussion forum where I am a member. I didn't do this with a biased intent of for propaganda. I did it merely because it is a good source on Vipassana-related information, where people can clear some doubts and debate and search for resources that we have there. If anyone feels that this link is undue please feel free to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filipe.a.pinto (talk • contribs) 16:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Split Article

This article confuses me, because it begins discussing a type of buddhist meditation but then later sections are as much about the meditation traditions that use the term vipassana as a descriptive title. I'm seeing two very distinct uses in the article currently

  1. a kind of meditation, not specific to any particular buddhist lineage
  2. a set of lineages that use the term vipassana as a descriptive title, such as S. N. Goenka and Jack Kornfield

For example, the "Notable Living Teachers" section is primarily filled with teachers in the vipassana "tradition", not a list of people who teach the vipassana meditation as the article begins. The latter would probably be a list of all buddhist meditation teachers. The following section though then returns to discussing vipassana as meditation form that spans many traditions. Then the further reading and external links sections return to primarily discuss the vipassana lineages and not the vipassana meditation. So which is it? I propose we split this article into two, one for vipassana the term and approach to buddhist meditation and then another separate one about the vipassana meditation lineages. But conflating them here is problematic because 1) it tries to combine the two uses merely because they share the term even though they're really separate topics and 2) that implies that the vipassana traditions have a unique claim to vipassana meditation forms, which is not true (as discussed in the three yanas section). Thoughts? Article title suggestions? - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. --Guenesch802 (talk) 06:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Any other opinions? I'll just split it at some future point unless there are any objections. Thanks - Owlmonkey (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the distinction. Vipassana is a specific practice as taught by the Buddha and some people teach it today. They don't teach a different subject but the same one (hopefully, but there are surely varying degrees of purity in them). So I think that they belong together and would disagree with splitting the article. However I have no objection to additional articles about vipassana as taught by various different teachers. To some extent this already exists under the teachers names. Ray Tomes (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well the term is used in a variety of ways, beyond the two i listed even. It's also used to refer to the type of insight that sees the true nature of reality which is a different usage than the meditation practices designed to cultivate that kind of insight and then i believe separate from the usage by S.N.Goenka and others to describe all of their meditation practices as a whole. The problem I'm finding with this article is that it tries to conflate all of those usages. As you'll see in the article currently, at the end of the first section it reads "The term is also used to refer to the Buddhist vipassana movement..." and that's the aspect that I think should be separated since it's about specific traditions and not about the practice or insight generally. Right now it makes those lineages — that use that term to describe their movement — sound like they have a special claim to the technique but they don't. - Owlmonkey (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
For a more specific issue, the article lists these teachers currently as teachers of Vipassana: Ajahn Sumedho, Ajahn Amaro, Ajahn Sobin S. Namto, Henepola Gunaratana, Bhikkhu Bodhi, Christopher Titmuss, Gil Fronsdal, Jack Kornfield, Noah Levine, Joseph Goldstein, Larry Rosenberg, Luangpor Thong, Matthew Flickstein, Rodney Smith, S. N. Goenka, Sayadaw U Pandita, Sharon Salzberg, Shinzen Young, Sujin Boriharnwanaket
But if this article is really about the vipassana taught by the Buddha, then we would need to include ALL Buddhist teachers here, not just these teachers. These teachers are associated with the "vipassana movements" which is a specific set of lineages. Alternatively, we could just remove their names from this article altogether since Buddhist teachers already has a separate category. - Owlmonkey (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)