A Former Vipassana Acariya Examines the Roots of Insight Meditation Traditions

Discussion
,
1

Bruce Stewart, an assistant teacher and close disciple of SN Goenka for over forty years, gave me permission to share some of his recent essays on SuttaCentral. Bruce is the featured meditation instructor in Dhamma Brothers, a documentary film about introducing Vipassana courses to a maximum-security prison in Alabama, USA.

Revising an essay that he wrote for the Pariyatti Journal nudges Bruce to take a careful look at the historical foundations of his own tradition. When what he discovers does not align with the official narrative, he embarks upon a life-changing Dhamma inquiry.

Because this essay touches on universal themes, it will interest Dhamma practitioners of various backgrounds. The piece is especially relevant to those who have meditated and served in the Goenka Vipassana lineage.

“From The Buddha to Us” in Currents of Dhamma:

(This is part one of a series of five essays. With Bruce’s permission, I’ll post links to the other four, if and when it makes sense to do so…)

May Mr. Stewart’s sincere explorations promote reflection and respectful dialogue.

12 Likes
2

Towards that end, I re-submitted this newer version to the Pariyatti Journal; however, the editorial board rejected it, writing that their decision was “primarily due to the criticism of Vipassana as taught by SNG that is embedded in the article.” But it was not at all my intention to “criticize” the tradition or its teachings!

It seems any criticism in this article is just pointing out facts. And even those seem to favor the overall narrative.

The Sixth Council, held in Rangoon, Burma, from 1954–56, commemorated 2,500 years of the Buddha Sasana. The entire Pāli Canon was recited by monks from Burma, Sri Lanka, India, Nepal, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. Versions of the Tipiṭaka from these countries, in different scripts, were examined, and discrepancies noted, reconciled, corrected and approved.8 By this point, the Therāvada9 had long been ascendent in the Buddhist world of Sri Lanka and southeast Asia, and the “accepted interpretation” of the Tipiṭaka was according to the Therāvada orthodoxy.

As noted above, by the time of the Second Council, factions of monks had begun to coalesce over disputes about discrete details of the Vinaya, but over time, they came to encompass more general points of Buddha Dhamma.

My understanding (although unfortunately I don’t have a citation) is that the non-Burmese contingent was not fully in agreement with the outcome and their objections were never properly addressed. I only bring it up because here we have an example of a council in living memory that is reported to represent some grand unified position when that was just the narrative pushed by the hosts.

8 Likes
3

Thank you for sharing. I did manage to get to his substack and read Part 2 and 3. I am unable to find part 4 and 5 - but I think they are yet to be posted.

It is a fascinating read. My earliest engagment with Buddhism (around 6 years ago) was through the lens of Western Vipassana teachers - but very quickly I caught on to authors such as Bhikkhu Analayo, Bhikkhu Bodhi, Thānissaro Bhikkhu and more recently Bhikkhu Sujato and Ajahn Brahmali.

I developed a deep and meaningful understanding of Dhamma through these authors who were meticulous with their references to the suttas and translations. Quite grateful to them. I still have far to go!

In the midst of this I had developed a very judgemental and negative attitude to other traditions or teachers that ‘I perceived’ did not keep up with this meticulousness of references with regards to the suttas.

Essays of this sort and others on this forum have led me to realise that my perception was wrong and even within these traditions there are plenty of good intentions to relate to the word of the Pali suttas and do as well as one can to preserve the Dhamma. It has helped me to reflect on my perceptions and views and cultivate better attitudes towards them. Thank you for sharing - I look forward to Part 4 & 5.

9 Likes
4

I really appreciated reading this. It made me think. At the same time, I have a small concern which I am trying to think around.

For someone who hasn’t practiced much yet, confidence in a tradition can matter a lot. Even if the history is more complicated than the usual story, that sense of continuity sometimes gives beginner the trust needed to actually try the practice. If we question that strongly, I wonder whether some people might lose interest before they’ve given it a fair try atleast once.

Also, even if lineage isn’t perfectly straight or simple, it still seems to serve a purpose. It helps preserve discipline and keeps the technique from getting diluted. That practical role feels important to me.

Another thing I thought about is this: many of us are naturally drawn to thinking and discussion. Inquiry is good, no doubt, even much interesting. But without a strong reminder that practice is the main thing, could some people end up holding on to ideas instead of actually testing the method?

Off course I’m not at all against inquiry. I just care about making sure the practice remains accessible, especially for people who haven’t experienced its benefits yet. Excluding those who have tried it allready…

5

I thought the Part 1 was rather ‘nothing new’, so I didn’t quite understand why this article was rejected by Pariyatti. Well, Parts 2&3 make it clearer. :slight_smile:

It was an interesting foray into the history of a tradition I know close to nothing about. Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Bhante. :slight_smile:

I think confidence matters a lot, and so shouldn’t be short-cut. :slight_smile:

Many traditions “round up” the details and make a nuanced topic simplified, that’s just what happens.

But we shouldn’t chase the confidence of the student. Rather, confidence should spring up naturally when coming in contact with integrity. So, I think integrity should be the focal point - and confidence will follow naturally.

Never have I seen in the suttas Buddha expressing concern that people are questioning “too much”, or that their inquiries might make them miss out on the benefits of Dharma. On the contrary, he invites inspection at every turn. If I’m mistaken, feel free to correct me with a sutta reference! :smiley:

Buddha wasn’t afraid of searching alone, and he urges us to roam alone like a Rhino. If something doesn’t meet our strictest of questions, maybe we’d be better off as Rhinos? :slight_smile:

Interestingly, isnt that what Ledi Sayadaw has done for himself? :grin:

4 Likes
6

Don’t be afraid to try various practices earnestly and without expectations! I’ve practiced a handful of meditation techniques and learned from a few different monastic teachers. I gave each of them my sincerity and respect, and practiced all the techniques with ardency, rather than skeptical doubt. In the end, after about six years, I’ve settled on the one teacher and practice that I saw made lasting changes to my mind, decreased unwholesome habits, and helped me overcome deeply rooted negative mental states and suffering. But you never know unless you try.

6 Likes
7

So much Mudita for you, @dhammasaari

It is wonderful that you are following and learning from wise teachers. Association with people of integrity (sappurisa) is an essential factor for realizing the goal, according to SN 55.5 (and many others). And it is wonderful also that Vipassana practices got you started. I’m also grateful to the Western teachers; Joseph Goldstein was one of my early influences, before I met Goenkaji.

As I left the Goenka tradition, I noticed in myself a lot of the same kinds of judgment you describe. And like you, I learned to hold gratitude for my past practice along with reverence (and fascination) for Thai Forest and Sutta-based approaches.

Like @Upasika-in-training , I eventually settled down with one teacher who inspired deep trust and inspiration. And then I became a bhikkhu, realizing that conditions were ripe for me to give my entire life to Dhamma practice. (That was not an option presented to me when I was still serving within the Goenka tradition. Of course, there is no prohibition, but until I met some monastic mentors, it was not possible for me to imagine actually going forth.)

Absolutely true. Especially since most people come to a ten-day Vipassana course as non-Buddhists, without connection to the Suttas or to monastics, they need a practical framework to get started.

However, as their faith matures, practitioners can and should become aware of the broader world of Dhamma. @Dogen puts it quite well:

Many traditions “round up” the details and make a nuanced topic simplified, that’s just what happens.

But we shouldn’t chase the confidence of the student. Rather, confidence should spring up naturally when coming in contact with integrity. So, I think integrity should be the focal point - and confidence will follow naturally.

Sadhu to you all! I’m quite impressed with the reflections that Mr. Stewart’s essays have stimulated. Many of you already found the second and third essays. I’ll post fourth and fifth shortly after Bruce completes them.

May you all reach ultimate freedom, using the tools that suit you best! :sparkles:

3 Likes
8

Thanks for sharing these excellent essays. It’s nice to see an approach that is both empathetic and informed. Looking forward to the next articles.

6 Likes
9

Yes. I agree with you. Integrity should be the focal point and confidence will follow naturally. You gave the example of Ledi Sayadaw, I agree with you even more now.

@Upasika-in-training yes, I have also tried that, in fact, although I am fan of practice of vipassana by Goenka Guruji, it is not what I practice, what I practice is the one admonished by ven Ledi Sayadaw. But at the same time I came to know that ven Ledi Sayadaw taught practicing like that, after year or two of starting that practice. Again, whatever both taught comes from tipitaka/buddha only and that is my firm understanding.

yes venerable, I would even say that, as one progresses honestly in any proper practice, be it vipassana or any other thing (practice where the goal is of nibbana/true happiness), I believe one naturally starts to become aware of broader world of dhamma. Atleast that’s what my experience is saying.

3 Likes
10

Part Four is now published:

Best wishes! :sparkles:

3 Likes
11

Ok I read this part 4 as well (I read previous parts as well). This is what came to my mind then… The way this article explains how teachings changed over time is honest, realistic and based on facts. Of course when something spreads to different countries and cultures, it will change in some way. That part I agree with.

But while reading, I felt something was missing — especially if we look at it from early Buddhism, like from the suttas in the Tipiṭaka.

That article talks about how lineages changed and how teachers adapted things. But it does not really compare those changes with the main teachings found in the early texts. At least in part 4 (don’t know it might be there in next part).

By ‘main teachings’, I mean the foundation, which is very clear in suttas — the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, Dependent Origination, the Middle Way, and the three characteristics: anicca (impermanence), dukkha (suffering or unsatisfactoriness), and not-self (anattā). These are the core teachings.

So when we discuss how teachings evolved, I feel we should also ask some questions:

Are these main principles still fully there?
Is the whole Eightfold Path being taught, or only parts of it?
Is Dependent Origination still important?
Is the focus still on understanding impermanence, suffering, and non-self?

The article explains the historical side very well, but it does not really check those changes against the early Buddhist framework from the suttas.

Based on what we see in the early teachings (suttas), the Buddha’s concern was liberation from suffering — not preservation of a lineage as such. So if we talk about evolution, maybe we should also see whether that evolution still matches the original structure or core teachings of the Dhamma found in the early texts.

I am not saying the article is wrong, it is right in fact. I just feel this angle would make the discussion more complete.

1 Like
12

LOL about acquiring a “very judgemental and negative attitude to other traditions or teachers.” I recall how quickly I became very, VERY sectarian when I began my studies and practice in the Theravadin tradition. Here I am, as far from enlightenment as a living creature can get and still be breathing, and I’m already condemning the beliefs of tens of millions of other “so-called” Buddhists. I’ve since shifted more towards, “I don’t know if their doctrine and practice are correct, but I hope they arrive at Nibbana anyways.”

2 Likes