SuttaCentral
Is Ajhan Chah being with the Maha Nikaya, a “dry insight” meditator?
Or, while we’re at is, was Phra Khantipalo?
In that I am no meditator in any seroius sense, it is a question over my pay grade. But I am neverthe the less convinced by the arguement that calming and insight must proceed together as co-equals as originally intended.
@LeoCGOR I am not sure what you mean by “dry insight” but if you mean achieving insight without the need for Samadhi, then neither Ajahn Char or Khantipalo would fall into the category of those who teach this.
When he was a monk, Khantipalo was very orthodox and taught meditation according to his interpretation of the Suttas. In the later part of his life, he tended to be more inclusive of non-Theravada traditions.
You should read Wisdom Develops Samadhi by Ajahn Maha Boowa.
In referring to Maha Nikaya, this is the monastic organization, but the kind of meditation you do is not determined by this.
It is true, having said which, that in the 20th century, the most prominent form of meditation taught in the Maha Nikaya was the Burmese so-called “dry insight” technique, especially through the main Bangkok monastery Wat Mahathat.
The bigger practice distinction is between city and forest monastics. Typically dry insight was taught in the city, while the forest monastics practiced samatha and vipassana. But even this has many exceptions.
Is Ajahn Char the same person as Ajahn Chah?
Yes. This is just a case of phonetics. Back in the sixties and seventies the Thai word for “Ajahn” was most commonly anglised as “Acharn”. This is just a case of styles changing with no firm rules to follow. Maha Boowa is now Maha Bua. It is little confusing isn’t it?