Chapter 8
A Summary of All the Experts
This chapter is part of Vipassanā in Jhāna: A Personal Narrative and Practical Guide, by Gary Buck.
New readers: Go to Overview | Table of Contents | PDF Download
Navigation: Previous Chapter | Next Chapter | Glossary | References
Chapter Eight
Reading Time: about 9 mins. 1,750 words.
A Summary of All the Experts
From what the Buddha and the various meditation teachers and scholars have said on this topic, a number of themes stand out.
First, there seems to be little doubt about what the Buddha actually taught. His advice is repeated in many places in the suttas, and he consistently and repeatedly taught that we should attain jhāna and then practice vipassanā. This description of how to practice vipassanā is very standard, and is repeated many times in the Sutta Piṭaka. First, enter jhāna, then, while in the jhāna, observe the five aggregates that compose the totality of a human being, namely material form (rupa), consciousness (viññāṇa), cognition (saññā), feelings (vedanā) and reactions (saṅkhāra). While objectively observing these phenomena, the meditator also knows their nature, the three universal characteristics of impermanence (anicca), suffering (dukkha), and non-self (anattā). But beyond the general statements, the Buddha explicitly states that this applies to vedanānupassanā, which is vipassanā which takes vedanā, sensations, as its main object of attention, as we do, in the U Ba Khin tradition.
And not only is this found in the Pāli Canon, but as Ajahn Brahm observes in his interview with Shankman, (Shankman, 2008) that this advice—to develop jhāna first and then practice vipassanā in jhāna—is also commonly found in the ancient Chinese translations of other early Buddhist Suttas. This cross validates what we see in the Pāli Canon. So there can little doubt about what the Buddha taught.
Simply put, the Buddha is telling us that vipassanā should be practiced while in jhāna, and that includes vedanānupassanā. There seems to be no room for doubt. I find it very reassuring that the conclusion I reached on this issue, based on my own personal practice, is in agreement with what the Buddha taught. This gives me enormous confidence to make the recommendation I make.
Why Buddhaghosa said something completely different from the Buddha on this topic is beyond my understanding. His ideas on meditation do not seem to come from the suttas themselves, but from somewhere else. Perhaps by then, meditation had already fallen out of practice in India and Sri Lanaka, so there was no one left who knew how it should be done. The ancient chronicle of Sri Lanka, the Mahavamsa, tells us that before becoming a Buddhist monk, Buddhaghosa was well-trained in the Vedic tradition. He may have brought in ideas from non-Buddhist, Indian meditative traditions, to fill in the gaps.
Or alternatively, his ideas may have come from another ancient meditation text, The Vimuttimagga (The Path of Freedom), traditionally attributed to an arahant called Upatissa, who lived in the first or second century of the common era. This was probably written in India and was brought to Sri Lanka at a later date. The Visuddhimagga bears a striking similarity to the Vimuttimagga, both in form and in content, suggesting the older text had a considerable influence on Buddhaghosa’s writing. Perhaps what he wrote was the common standard belief in India or Sri Lanka at the time.
Wherever his ideas came from, I think it is fair to say that most modern scholars believe that Buddhaghosa basically summed up the common view, which was already well established in this period, not merely within the Theravāda school but also, so I am told, in the Mahāyāna as well.
However, whatever the origin of his ideas, given the enormous impact these ideas have had over the centuries, I cannot help feeling that Buddhaghosa’s impact on Buddhist meditation has been very detrimental.
To me, it feels as though the Buddha’s teaching on how to practice vipassanā was largely lost over fifteen hundred years ago in India and Sri Lanka, and was replaced by something not taught by the Buddha. However, in Burma, it seems that the ancient ways, the way of the Buddha, survived. Thanks to the monks of Burma, it seems, we are now beginning to rediscover what the Buddha actually taught about meditation. In this sense, I think of the modern vipassanā movement as an attempt to return to the Buddha’s teachings and make them part of our everyday life.
When we turn to this modern revival, it appears to have begun in the eighteenth century with Medawi Sayadaw and to have gained momentum ever since. We can see a revival of meditation generally, along with a serious effort to spread the Buddha’s teaching to the laity.
It seems that at the time of Medawi Sayadaw, in the eighteenth century, within the Burmese Saṅgha, the traditional understanding of the Buddha’s teaching—namely, that jhāna is an integral part of the path and should be practiced along with vipassanā, preferably before starting vipassanā—had been preserved. Otherwise he would not have argued so strongly against the belief that you needed to get jhāna before starting vipassanā; and neither would he have insisted so strongly that vipassanā can be practiced without jhāna. However, whether many monks were practicing meditation at that time is unclear, but given the widespread belief that it was no longer possible to attain final liberation, it is quite possible that meditation was not practiced very widely at all.
It is also possible that the belief that one must attain jhāna before beginning vipassanā acted as a strong deterrent to practice, which would explain why Medawi Sayadaw, and later teachers, insisted that jhāna was not necessary in order to begin practicing vipassanā. Although he was clear that jhāna was helpful and of great benefit, nevertheless Medawi insisted that one could start without it. No doubt this idea was encouraging to members of the Saṅgha, but it must have been particularly encouraging to the laity, who did not have the time necessary to attain high levels of concentration. For them, it was “dry vipassanā” or nothing.
After Medawi Sayadaw, emphasis on the benefits of jhāna appears to have gradually decreased, at least in traditions more oriented toward lay practitioners. Mahasi Sayadaw, while acknowledging that jhāna can be helpful, maintained that it is not required for vipassanā and seems to have somewhat discouraged its practice, at least among the laity. U Ba Khin does not explicitly address this question in his writing. What he says is that the better the concentration, the better the vipassanā, without actually specifying how much is ideal. People can take this to mean what they want it to mean, but I take it literally: the stronger I can make my concentration, the stronger my vipassanā will be. Neither Goenkaji nor Mother Sayāma, who both focused on teaching the laity, placed any emphasis on jhāna at all. They seemed to have discouraged it, or at least ignored it.
I think we can see a clear tendency to de-emphasize jhāna by teachers who are focusing more on promoting vipassanā to the laity. And conversely, a clear tendency to emphasize jhāna more among those focusing on promoting vipassanā within the saṅgha. Examination of the Shankman’s (2008) interviews with current meditation teachers re-enforces this view. The lay teachers tend to focus more on mindfulness, where the monks tend to focus more on jhāna.
If I had to summarize the advice I take from this review, I would say that jhāna is an integral part of the Buddha’s path, that it is a necessary prerequisite for enlightenment, and that ideally it should be combined with vipassanā into one unified practice. However, jhāna is not necessary in order to begin vipassanā, and at least for the laity, it may be better, or perhaps more productive, to spend time practicing vipassanā with momentary concentration (khaṇika samādhi) rather than striving to attain jhāna.
Although I do think this is the most useful summary, I think it is important to note that there are some scholar monks who disagree strongly with this view, and maintain that jhāna is a necessary and integral part of vipassanā itself, and hence strongly criticize the dry vipassanā movement as misrepresenting the Buddha’s path. These monks argue strongly that we should go back to the Buddha’s teaching, as found in the four nikāyas of the Sutta Piṭaka, and work to develop both jhāna and vipassanā together from the beginning.
As for the most useful practical advice for current meditators, this review suggests that although we may start vipassanā without jhāna, eventually, if we want to make good progress, we have to attain jhāna. So if we have the chance, we should work for it. Work hard, if possible attain jhāna, and then decide for yourself. If jhāna leads to obvious benefits, then enjoy them; if not, return to your previous way of practice. And if you don’t get jhāna, don’t worry. It is along path. You will get there eventually. Just keep building your mindfulness and concentration.
So this brings us back full circle to the issue of cross-validation, which was the original rationale for examining the teachings of the Buddha and other teachers and scholars. Does the review of these experts cross validate the advice I have offered in other chapters? I think the answer is two-fold: “yes, they do” and “probably.” Let me explain.
Regarding my basic, core insight, namely that we should practice vipassanā while in jhāna, the answer is a clear “yes,” the review does validate my view on this. The most authoritative source, the Buddha himself, clearly says so; he teaches that this insight applies to vipassanā generally, and vedanānupassanā specifically. This interpretation is supported by many other teachers and scholars. All vipassanā meditators can believe this with confidence—absolute confidence.
But as for the many other statements I have made, such as the nature of jhāna, advice on how to attain it, and what benefits it brings, etc. the situation is not so simple. My assertions go far beyond what we find in the literature, so I cannot claim that these assertions are all validated. However, they are in general agreement with, and are coherent with what these experts say, and while I could be wrong on many details—I probably am—this review of the experts should, at the very least, give readers enough confidence in my practical advice to give it a try.
And if they do, I can see no downside to building concentration through increased effort, whether they get jhāna or not.
In the Buddha’s words, “ehipassiko”—come and see for yourself. I believe that those who do see for themselves—namely those who attain jhāna and then practice vipassanā while in that jhāna—will come to understand that the Buddha taught vipassanā and jhāna as two aspects of a single practice, both of which must be developed. The evidence is overwhelming, and I no longer have the slightest doubt about this.
End of Chapter 8
Next chapter:
Chapter 9: What This Teaches About Conducting Long Retreats
Previous chapter:
Chapter 7: What Modern Scholars Say
Table of Contents
Thank you for reading Gary Buck’s Substack. Everything here is free. I do not accept donations. You are free to copy or distribute the content, as long as you give credit, and for noncommercial purposes only.
Public comments are turned off. But feel free to message me privately, in confidence, if you wish. And if you find any typos, or mistakes, kindly let me know.
Feel free to share this post with anyone you think might be interested.
If you Follow me, you will be informed of any new posts. If you Subscribe, you will get a complete list of links, to all content, plus any new posts, sent to your email address.