According to the āgama below, it seems appropriate to practice only Vipassana. The scriptures say that practicing vipassana will lead to Samatha, and vice versa.
Therefore, those who only practice vipassana can expect to achieve success in “Samatha” as well.
This implies that if one fails to achieve “Samatha”, it means that one’s Vipassana is not done well enough. The reverse is also true.
Saṁyukt āgama, SA 464
修習於止，終成於觀，修習觀已，亦成於止。謂聖弟子止、觀俱修，得諸解脫界。
The practice of Samatha leads to Vipassana; the practice of Vipassana also leads to Samatha. Thus, the noble disciple who cultivates both Samatha and Vipassana attains the liberation. SuttaCentral
My understanding has always been that vipassana, or “clear seeing” / insight is a byproduct of samatha. Samatha builds the stable, absorptive mind needed to see reality clearly (vipassanā).
Vipassana and samatha are not the results. They are, as mentioned above, the paths/practices: right view (samma-ditthi) = vipassana, and right mindfulness (samma-sati) = samatha, according to SN/SA suttas.
Oh, when will I stay in a mountain cave,alone, with no companion,discerning all states of existence as impermanent?This hope of mine, when will it be?
Oh, when will I stay happily in the forest,a sage wearing a torn robe, dressed in ocher,unselfish, with no need for hope,with greed, hate, and delusion destroyed?
Oh, when will I stay alone in the wood,fearless, discerning this body as impermanent,a nest of death and disease,harried by death and old age; when will it be?
In this example, Vipassana is refered as practice of discerning (seeing things as they are) body and all states as Anicca.
For a person of wisdom-temperament, the Blessed One points out the sign (object) for insight meditation: the aspect of impermanence, the aspect of suffering, and the aspect of not-self.”
Here,
Vipassana is practice (meditation) of seeings things as Anicca,Dukkha, Anatta.
I can’t see any way that this quote implies that vipassana is a meditation.
I couldn’t find that quote in Mnd 16.
Is that your translation or someone else’s? I don’t know Pali very well, but I can’t see how a person could stretch that translation from that quote.
I don’t think sign is translated as an object of meditation on anicca, dukkha or anatta.
From the book “On Meditation” by Ajahn Chah, page 86:
At times it’s what you see; at times what you hear, smell, taste, feel with your body, or think and feel in your heart. Whatever sensory experience presents itself – whether you like it or not – take that up for contemplation. Simply know what you are experiencing. Don’t project meaning or interpretations onto those objects of sense awareness. If it’s good, just know that it’s good. If it’s bad, just know that it’s bad. This is conventional reality. Good or evil, it’s all impermanent, unsatisfying and not-self. It’s all undependable. None of it is worthy of being grasped or clung to.
If you can maintain this practice of peace and inquiry, wisdom will automatically be generated. Everything sensed and experienced then falls into these three pits of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and not-self. This is vipassanā meditation.
Now, how one will interpret this passage by Ajahn Chah depends on how they practice meditation.
I interpret it this way: Vipassana is practice of “seeing/contemplating experiences(Vedana) as Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta”; this practice leads to generating wisdom (Panna).
Similar thing mentioned in the book “Seeking Buddho” by Ajahn Anan on page 102:
Broadly speaking vipassanā kammatthāna, or ‘insight meditation’, involves the contemplation of the Three Characteristics of impermanence, suffering and not-self.
The sense media or connections: There are internal sense media and external ones. The internal ones are the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind. The external ones are sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, and ideas that make contact with the internal sense media, giving rise to cognition and then to all sorts of assumptions, most of which go off in the wrong directions. We should analyze these things so as to see them well. This is called vipassanã, which means seeing clearly – knowing clearly and seeing truly, not knowing in counterfeit or illusory ways.
Perhaps we’re close to the same thing. The way I interpret this is that when one is quite secluded from the senses, when the mind is clear and still, then one is able to know with clarity impermanence, suffering and not self. So the meditation is the stilling of the mind, freeing it from the senses and the outcome is samatha and vippassana.
Like I said earlier, the way to interpret will depend on how one practices. In your context of practice, you define it one way, and I do so according to my practice. But in essence, we are pointing at alomst the same thing—just from different angles or contexts.
Perhaps! My comments are just stating my understanding regarding the question of the topic of conversation in the thread. I think that the suttas are very clear that vipassana is the outcome of Buddhist practice. I think that the modern vipassana movement tends to make vipassana a meditation technique rather than a fruit of the path. In doing so, some techniques can agitate the mind instead of leading away from stilling the mind.
Vipassanā if used as a Noun ,will be a name . Vipassanā as a verb is the right way to see things . Vipassanā is also a way of living . If you practice right have no doubt that “Vipassanā is Satipatthāna”
Vipassanā mostly used as a method of practicing Satipatthānas, became extremely popular world wide ,when taught by Sh. SN Goenkaji. As a lay person I practice the Vipassanā ( right view) to develop Paññya . Again Rt view and Rt intention are factors of Paññya, which also help develop other 6 factors of path simultaneously.
That is the Dhamma . All Dhamma in 4 Noble truth . All 4 Noble truth in SammāSati and SammāSati in Satipatthānas and Satipatthānas in 4 Noble truth .
Now what is the mean here and which is the end?
In Dhamma every mean is end and end a mean……and all this cycle of interdependence in Dhamma finally is left behind when the Ultimate aim of Nibbāna achieved.
Based on suttas, it seems more proper to consider vipassana as bothmeditation practice as well as the result of that practice.
As far as I understand, the word ‘vipassana’ is used in two contexts:
One as a quality/result: vipassana means “clear seeing” or “insight”—the wisdom that knows phenomena as impermanent (anicca), unsatisfactory (dukkha), and not-self (anatta). This insight is the fruit that cuts fetters.
Second as a cultivation/practice: many teachers speak of “vipassana meditation” for methods that cultivate that clear seeing—e.g., mindfulness of body/feeling/mind/dhammas (satipatthana), observing arising–passing, noting, etc. These are intentional trainings that condition the arising of vipassana.
“These two things play a part in realization. What two? Serenity and discernment.
What is the benefit of developing serenity? The mind is developed. What is the benefit of developing the mind? Greed is given up.
What is the benefit of developing discernment? Wisdom is developed. What is the benefit of developing wisdom? Ignorance is given up.
The mind corrupted by greed is not free; and wisdom corrupted by ignorance does not grow. In this way, freedom of heart comes from the fading away of greed, while freedom by wisdom comes from the fading away of ignorance.”
I think, as I understand it, serenity corresponds to samatha and discernment corresponds to vipassana. It completely makes sense.
Viewing Vipassanā as a meditation method is not a modern development. It has been handed down continuously since the early period of sectarian Buddhism. The same is true in Mahāyāna Buddhism as well.
I admire your enthusiasm and dedication to Buddhism and your practice! Sadhu! I wish you success on your path to awakening!
I think the meditation technique you describe is valuable to see the body for what it is, but not everyone shares your belief that that Vipassana meditation method has been handed down like you describe or is the only way to practice the Dhamma.
