Goenka Vipassana meets the EBT approach

[Virocano]

Long time reader, first post!

I spent twenty-one years “deeply involved in Dhamma Service” (their wording) in the Goenka Vipassana organization. On the whole, it was a positive experience. Unlike several of my former colleagues, I cannot bring myself to publicly criticize the organization, because I’m still so grateful. There was tremendous support to meditate in silence, to develop in virtue, and to serve other meditators. There were also some issues.

In 2022, I met Thanissaro Bhikkhu. It was immediately clear that he spoke from experience of deep Dhamma, in a way that my mentors in the Goenka tradition could not. Within a year, I had shifted my energy towards serving the Bhikkhusangha and looking for suitable places to ordain.

Now I wear brown robes, restrain my senses, and smile more than ever on a mountain in Northeast Thailand. I’m surrounded by Teachers and brothers (and lots of insects and reptiles)! The Pāli scriptures feel incredibly relevant and vibrant, describing the perceptions and training protocols that frame my present life.

I’ve taken some time (perhaps too much!) to document the transformations that took place in my heart as I entered monastic life. Occasionally, I shared reflections on this Substack or in private letters to friends and family. I thought this short essay might find an appreciative audience (and helpful feedback) on SuttaCentral. Please let me know what you think.

-–

“One Good Technique”

Perhaps one day, a Vipassana Acariya could speak along these lines, without being removed from her position in the Goenka organization:

"Our Indo-Burmese Teacher faithfully shared what he learned from his Burmese Teacher. Both Goenkaji and Sayagyi U Ba Khin were powerful and compassionate guides who delivered instruction according to their best understanding of the tradition and their own observations of what was effective. A lot of good has come from their work. Their efforts helped the Buddha’s teaching get re-established in India and in the West.

Thanks to contemporary scholarship and comparative analysis, we can appreciate all that Burmese traditions have given us, while seeing that some of the narrative details need to be reconsidered. Exclusivity claims regarding techniques of meditation do not hold up to scrutiny. Taking the Pāli Suttas as our source, we see that Gotama taught many techniques, many practices during his forty-five year ministry.

The Mahāsatipatthāna Sutta (DN 2) is a powerful guide to a multitude of relevant practices. Taken together, Satipatthāna refers to a vast toolbox of approaches to meditation, not merely awareness of impermanence (anicca) at the level of bodily sensation.

Moreover, the sixteen-step Ānāpānasati practice outlined in MN 118, within DN 2 itself, and elsewhere in the suttas bears little resemblance to the “bare breath at the nostrils” instruction that students practice for the first three days of a ten-day Vipassana course. Goenkaji’s Anapana instructions come from the Visuddhimagga, which is revered in Myanmar. That doesn’t make them incorrect. But it does call into question the claim that they are “pristine and pure” instructions conveyed from Gotama himself.

We can no longer assert that ours is the only correct technique given by the Buddha. That claim made some sense in Asia in 1969, when Goenkaji began teaching according to Sayagyi’s instructions and saw stunning results. It falls flat today, in light of improved understanding of Early Buddhism.

That said, we have ample evidence that Vipassana is an effective technique for healthy individuals who apply themselves earnestly. Observation of the impermanent nature of bodily sensation is one good technique among many."

Vipassana teachers who observed Goenkaji over decades saw him change positions on a variety of topics: homosexuality, the rules for female teachers, how servers should practice Mettā, etc. Perhaps if he were alive today, he would consider the overwhelming evidence that no single technique of Buddhist practice can be elevated above the rest.

-–

May you all step beyond suffering, using the practices that suit you best!

[stephen]

Why would something have ‘stunning results’ in 1969 but ‘fall flat’ today?

Are people’s minds so different now?

[moxu]

@Virocano

Goenkaji taught Dhamma widely to people of all backgrounds, reframing Theravāda teachings as a “Universal Remedy for Human Suffering.” That understanding has been a tremendous leap forward for the world.

He insisted (and demonstrated) that Dhamma is not an organized religion, but a living practice available to anyone. He managed to teach Satipatthāna, without ever calling himself a Buddhist. (If pressed, he often said that he was a Hindu!)

I understand the text and am happy to get to know more about this tradition, however, some things strike as odd. Reframe Theravada teachings as “Universal Remedy for Human Suffering” seems more a cultural movement related to the struggles at the time, since the teachings of the Buddha is the universal remedy for human suffering since the beginning.

That the Dhamma is a living practice available to anyone, that too is already inside the Buddha’s teachings. However, what do strike me odd is he saying that he is a Hindu! What? What is the difficulty in proclaiming yourself a Buddha’s disciple? If this non-religious attitude were that important, wouldn’t he say when pressed that he has no religion?

Obviously, he being a Hindu would not diminish his impact, but I would not trust to learn Buddhism from someone who calls himself Hindu when pressed.

With the position of “practice only one technique, the RIGHT one, with US, and if you don’t you can’t come back” and the claims of secret (and advanced) buddhist teachings, however, are my biggest reasons to not recommend his retreat. Although you have the benefit to get to know people from this background who will talk about buddhism, meditate with you and form a community around it, these two points are directly against what I think is a correct buddhist attitude.

I think this can make more harm than good (though for some this did more good than harm).

[Sutava_Putthujana1]

@Virocano

elsewhere in the suttas bears little resemblance to the “bare breath at the nostrils” instruction that students practice for the first three days of a ten-day Vipassana course. Goenkaji’s Anapana instructions come from the Visuddhimagga,

The defination of “Parimukham” is given in Khuddaka Nikāya:

evamevaṃ bhikkhu nāsikagge vā mukhanimitte vā satiṃ upaṭṭhapetvā nisinno hoti

the bhikkhu sits, having established mindfulness at the nose tip or on the upper lip

The defination of “Parimukham” is also given in Abhidhamma in Jhānavibhaṅga:

“parimukhaṃ satiṃ upaṭṭhapetvā”ti tattha katamā sati? yā sati anussati paṭissati …pe… sammāsati—ayaṃ vuccati “sati”. ayaṃ sati upaṭṭhitā hoti supaṭṭhitā nāsikagge vā mukhanimitte vā. tena vuccati “parimukhaṃ satiṃ upaṭṭhapetvā”ti

Setting up mindfulness in front” means: Therein what is mindfulness? That which is mindfulness, constant mindfulness, recollection, right mindfulness. This is called mindfulness. This mindfulness is set-up, well set-up at the tip of the nose or at the centre of the upper lip. Therefore this is called “setting up mindfulness in front”

Also, Goenkaji’s Anapana instruction are based on Anapanapabb of Satipatthana:

Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu araññagato vā rukkhamūlagato vā suññāgāragato vā nisīdati pallaṅkaṃ ābhujitvā, ujuṃ kāyaṃ paṇidhāya, parimukhaṃ satiṃ upaṭṭhapetvā. So sato va assasati, sato va passasati. Dīghaṃ vā assasanto ‘dīghaṃ assasāmī’ ti pajānāti, dīghaṃ vā passasanto ‘dīghaṃ passasāmī’ ti pajānāti. Rassaṃ vā assasanto ‘rassaṃ assasāmī’ ti pajānāti, rassaṃ vā passasanto ‘rassaṃ passasāmī’ ti pajānāti.

Here a monk, having gone into the forest, or to the foot of a tree, or to an empty room, sits down cross-legged, keeps his body upright and fixes his awareness in the area around the mouth. With this awareness, he breathes in, with this awareness, he breathes out. Breathing in a deep breath, he understands properly: “I am breathing in a deep breath.” Breathing out a deep breath, he understands properly: “I am breathing out a deep breath.” Breathing in a shallow breath, he understands properly: “I am breathing in a shallow breath.” Breathing out a shallow breath,

So, it is NOT very accurate to say “Goenkaji’s Anapana instructions come from the Visuddhimagga”, one can say, “Goenkaji’s Anapana instructions comes from Anapanapabb of Satipatthana with defination of ‘Parimukham’ from Khuddaka Nikāya and Abhidhamma”

[Snowbird]

@Virocano

Perhaps if he were alive today, he would consider the overwhelming evidence that no single technique of Buddhist practice can be elevated above the rest.

I mean, it wasn’t that long ago that he was alive and could have said this if he wanted to.

[stephen]

It’s not clear to me what kind of, if any, discussion this post is meant to generate- another anti-Goenka slug-fest, a ‘we understand the Buddha’s teaching so much better now than they did a few decades ago’ discussion, or an appreciation of what Goenka gave to people.

[Sutava_Putthujana1]

To look for Sutta references relevant to the Goenkaji’s method, it is important to note the following:

1. In the Goenka method, the order of scanning the body from head to feet is not important. As Goenka explains in the Day 4 discourse, one can choose any order. The key point is to be aware of all parts of the body and their anicca nature.

2. The Goenka method is not limited to surface-level sensations. As Goenka mentions in the courses, one must eventually probe and penetrate deeper into the body to observe sensations internally as well. The practitioner should reach a stage where the entire body mass—both external and internal—can be experienced as arising and passing away. Check Day 4 discourse summary for reference.

3. A key feature of the Goenka method is its emphasis on bodily sensations (kāya vedanā).

4. Out of the different sub-sections given in Kāyānupassanā, the Goenka method seems to specifically refer to Dhātumanasikāra. As Goenka says during the course, if one eats oily/stale food, then kalāpas with a predominance of the Earth element will arise, which have the characteristic of heaviness. If the weather is cold, then kalāpas with a predominance of the Fire element will arise, which have the characteristic of temperature, and so on. For details check Day 3 and Day 6 discourses summary in this book.

Therefore, to find relevant Sutta references for the Goenka method, one should focus on Sutta that highlight the importance of kāya vedanā, bodily awareness (kāyānupassanā) and 4 Elements(Dhatu).

Sutta that states importance of Kaya vedana explicitly:
1.Paṭhamaākāsa Sutta
2.Agaara Sutta
3.Paṭhamagelañña Sutta
4.Salla Sutta
(Note that there are many more Sutta that talk about seing Vedana to reach Nibbana but above Sutta talk about Kaya Vedana explicitly.)

Sutta that states importance of Body Awareness:
1.Chappāṇakopama Sutta
2.Kāyagatāsativagga
3.Parāyana Sutta
4.Amatavagga
(Note that there are many more Sutta that talk about Body Awareness (as part of 4 STP) to reach Nibbana but above Sutta talks about Kaya Sati explicitly.)

Sutta that states importance of seeing Elements:
1.Pubbesambodha Sutta
2. Acariṃ Sutta
3. Nocedaṃ Sutta
4. Ekantadukkha Sutta

[Vipassii]

I think you have given good reference feom Tipitaka and quite valid too . But I don’t think its totally about meditators trying to know the truth as per Tipitaka.

Its also a psychological issue .

And that is more imp . Because if Paññya is not developed enough i.e. if some kind of or other michchaditti ( wrong view) is stuck some where, it is natural for that mind to convince itself , to find reason to not accept what is right . This sense of right and wrong is the base of understanding. Brahmjaal sutta in DN or Right view being 1st in Noble 8 Fold path says a lot.

First and foremost most Vipassana practice actually makes you spiritually so independent that you don’t feel the need to be dependent on Gurus and teachers and monastics too . This doesn’t go well with many . Some times meditators develop ego too and even don’t pay respect to monastics . I am sure this must be hurting many . It hurts me and I am not a monastic ,but I have immense respect for the robes ,so much that I will pay respect to a fake monk too ,in India there are many .

Second….. The Vipassana as taught by Gurudev Goenkaji is so pure and unadulterated ( as proven by many suttas ) that it is not easy to follow . A pure practice will extract all kind of sankhara , but it also prepares you so well and protects you …and ,all you have to do is have that kind of faith and continue to practice . Sometimes meditators are not even able to do that . They get scared in lack of faith or find easier ways and then start convincing themselves and others about what is wrong with Vipassanā instead of what is wrong with their practise . Not easy to accept their mistakes .

I am not so deep into Pariyatti, but the practise of Vipassanā is so self explanatory, such evidence based that its Sanditthiko Akāliko Ehipassiko and Opnayiko beyond doubts.

Thankyou for references .

[Vipassii]

Third one too ….. while reading the posts I realised how so many statements made on behalf of Goenkaji are misunderstood and wrong statements that…like ….how can you practise right when you have misunderstood so wrong ? Simply straight things and yet totally misunderstood. Wish we listen more carefully and practise accordingly. Its not so difficult, but yes not so easy too .

[Virocano]

Thank you all for your feedback so far.

In particular, thank you to @Sutava_Putthujana1 for grounding the discussion in specific suttas.

I think that I did not consider the audience properly, when drafting the original post. In some ways, I was writing to my fellow post-Goenka crowd: former Acariyas, ATs, and long-term servers. Many of us remain grateful and quite reverent to the tradition that gave us so much. And yet, we often seek spaces where we can talk about reasonable criticisms, without encountering hostility.

Bruce Stewart is a long-time Vipassana Acariya (featured in the film Dhamma Brothers) who stepped down recently. He does an excellent job of articulating immense gratitude to Goenkaji, while still raising important questions about certain dubious claims that the Goenka organization continues to uphold. If you’re curious, please read Bruce’s article here.

I wanted my own piece to be similar to Mr. Stewart’s tone: deeply reverent, while encouraging critical discourse.

Unfortunately, the original post misses with two audiences, both of whom are well-represented on Sutta Central:

1. People who are strongly critical of the Goenka tradition
2. People who are loyal to the Goenka tradition

To simplify the post, and to make it more relevant to all readers. I have removed the last several paragraphs, which may have muddied the water for many of you. What remains is a imaginative statement: a meditation tradition continuing the practice, but revising some of its more controversial claims in light of new information (i.e. recent Pāli scholarship).

Please do let me know if that lands better for some (or any) of you. Thank you!

[Virocano]

Hi Stephen,

Are people’s minds so different now?

This is an excellent point, and it causes me to consider rewording that passage from the original post. The human mind has not changed. However, access to information certainly has.

In 1969, you learned what you learned from your teacher. If you had faith, you accepted it. If you didn’t, you might move to a different teacher.

Today, you can compare everything your teacher said against the entire Pāli Canon. Anybody can search the entire Canon easily by pushing a few buttons on their phone.

In 1969, you would have had to find a very special library to encounter these texts in English (or Romanized Pāli). And then you would have to go through a laborious process to search and cross-reference.

You see the difference?

[Virocano]

Sometimes meditators are not even able to do that . They get scared in lack of faith or find easier ways and then start convincing themselves and others about what is wrong with Vipassanā instead of what is wrong with their practise . Not easy to accept their mistakes .

In my case, I found that the Bhikkhusangha was a better vehicle for my practice than the retreat/laylife form espoused by Goenkaji. I have no quarrel with the Vipassana instructions; I faithfully delivered them as an Assistant Teacher for many years.

With deepest respect, you might consider moving very slowly before ascribing motives to people you have never met.

Warm wishes, and may your practice bear great fruit!

[Pasanna]

A few years ago Ajahn Nisabho and Ajahn Brahmavårå discussed these sorts of issues in an interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Knf6j3kGPTk I have never participated in Goenka retreats, so I was just a vaguely curious on-listener. I don’t remember the details, but maybe the interview will stir your thoughts.

PS you can reply to multiple people in one reply either by using @Virocano or highlighting the text and then replying below. Like this

@Virocano

Warm wishes, and may your practice bear great fruit!

and the same wishes to you. Thank you for coming out of lurking.

[Charlie]

@Virocano

The human mind has not changed. However, access to information certainly has.

Indeed. We have to keep in mind that back then a phone call of a few minutes between asia and europe or us was extremely expensive. Communication took place via books (hard to find) and letters (took weeks for a reply).

Goenka wanted to create an international organization to share the training that had been so useful for him. Doing that back then took either lots of control to keep a consistent teaching or individuals or communities that had internalized the teaching so as to be able to act autonomously (Buddha’s choice - though he did include the suttas - his version of video tapes).

Conditions change and all things arise and pass away. I only did one Goenka retreat (late 90’s). I found it helpful in the sense of learning another technique. It was clear to me what they were trying to get people to experience. But I found the insistence that they had - that there method was the only one to use - was too much for me.

But as has been noted already I think, this is not just found with Goenka. It is natural and good for teachers to teach what has worked for them. That is what they know. But we have to be willing to accept there are other approaches just as valid - perhaps even more so. We have to remain open minded and have a ‘bigger tent’ and this is not just an appeal to Goenka-ites but to this community as well.

[Virocano]

Very well said, Charlie… this was the level of discourse I was hoping for.

@Charlie

It is natural and good for teachers to teach what has worked for them. That is what they know. But we have to be willing to accept there are other approaches just as valid - perhaps even more so.

Would you change the wording of the original post in some way, to get readers thinking at this level earlier on?

I wanted to sidestep the default responses: “Guruji is wonderful, and the Vipassana technique is impeccable” AND “Why are they close-mimded? I can’t stand that the Goenka organization demands strict loyalty to their particular practices.” You and @Pasanna were the first to avoid getting mired in those extremes.

[Virocano]

I think @Charlie understood my intentions… see his post near the bottom of the thread.

I was hoping for discourse that goes beyond polarization and towards mutual understanding among Goenka devotees, Goenka critics, and folks who fall somewhere in the middle (like me).

Absolutely hoping to avoid a “slug-fest.” So far, things have stayed fairly tame.

[Virocano]

@Snowbird

I mean, it wasn’t that long ago that he was alive and could have said this if he wanted

A heterosexual man was born in Burma in 1923, raised in a conservative Hindu family, and fathered six children. He changed his mind about homosexuality in the 1990s, when he was already over seventy years old and living in India… That took a fair amount of open-mindedness.

The seventy-nine year old Goenka that I first met in 2002 often listened patiently to dissenting viewpoints, and his understanding evolved on a variety of topics. He also had deep faith in the Buddha and in the Pāli scriptures. If Goenkaji had a couple more decades to see the discourse around Early Buddhism mature, I think it’s quite likely that he would have revised some of his positions.

[I’m also certain he would have kept the technique intact. His reverence for that particular approach (and for his teacher) were huge…]

[Saurabh]

I have attended two retreats of goenka guruji’s vipassana course. What I understood is that, the technique of vipassana speeds up one to the realization of insight into truth of suffering very fast. It makes one aware of suffering first and then after that kind of rewards one. Now that requires powerful will and endurance to bear it. That’s why goenka guruji said jhanas is like longer route (requires more wisdom) towards insight and hence not necessary or important for the realization of insight. So vipassana gives realization of wisdom of reality (truth of literal suffering in one’s body, which inevitably follows the realisation of cause of that literal suffering as one’s wisdom starts to grow, offcourse how long it takes is dependent on one’s practice and paramis) first. That’s why the emphasis on ignoring jhanas or even using mindfulness of breathing (way leading to samatha I think) only as the temporary base for minimal required calm or samatha for main vipassana practice.

I personally understand that ‘samatha first way’ (including jhanas and stuff) gives calm first (i.e. develops mind first) and only after that introduces insight into reality of suffering (vipassana) step by step, only upto the level that practitioner can bear and is comfortable with (although it also involves vipassana but samatha leads here so wisdom is I think assumed to be present through this) (moreover there’s always a chance that one gets attached to jhanic happiness ignoring resultant insight), whereas, vipassana the main practice as taught by goenka guruji actually starts with teaching wisdom with just enough calm through breathing (i.e. with only minimal required samatha) then finally observing body (which is the main practice) and that’s why it is hard. It does not assume that practitioner has enough wisdom! Hence it gives wisdom into reality of literal suffering into body first. It demands more faith and consistency as compared to wisdom. Offcourse there may be other ways to see the noble truths but vipassana is not an easy route.

He wanted to spread this practice to as many people as possible and that’s why focused on this one technique only. Because off course, if you want to teach something to masses, that can’t be diverse and rather should be as concise and small as possible.

In short I wanted to say that vipassana technique is not that easy to accept. Again it is just my experience. Btw due to this thread, just became interested in reading the critique of goenka guruji, if anyone can give any link, I would appreciate it.

ps: If my post is too much critical, please tell me anyone, I will change it or delete it because my English is not that good, so I may have sounded rude, sorry for that. Also if anyone thinks I am mistaken anywhere please tell me as I will be glad to correct myself.

[Sutava_Putthujana1]

@Saurabh

That’s why goenka guruji said jhanas is like longer route (requires more wisdom) towards insight and hence not necessary or important for the realization of insight.

Could you please share a reference for where you heard him say this?
In the long courses he does explain jhānas and also encourages them. In every Vipassanā course, about one-third of the time is consistently devoted to Ānāpāna in order to cultivate samādhi, rather than beginning Vipassanā from day one.

If samādhi were not important in his method, why such a significant portion of every course is reserved for it—especially when, for old students, it would have been possible to instruct them to begin Vipassanā from day one if samādhi were unnecessary.

While appanā samādhi may not be a strict requirement for starting Vipassanā, he does encourage the development of at least khaṇika and upacāra samādhi before transitioning to Vipassanā in the long courses.

@Saurabh

Hence it gives wisdom into reality of literal suffering into body first.

In my opinion, his method put emphasis on insight into Anicca first and the most.