Lost in secular land?

As some of you might or might not know I've been actively trying to get into real dharma practice with real people. To this end, I've become more and more active in the local SFZC-affiliated sangha in my Modesto home, as well as the Spirit Rock/Gil Fronsdal-affiliated vipassana sangha here (call it IMM).

While my experience at the IMM day long recently was very postive -- mostly, I think, because I got some great momentum and continuity and had a chance to meditate in a group for long periods of time -- my experience since then has me wondering.

First, the teacher, Lori, never uses the word vipassana, it is either "insight" or "mindfulness" meditation. At the first "intro to mindfulness meditation class" on Sunday she spent two hours talking talking talking -- about how the practice isn't religious but was instead "practical" about how much the practice would help each person's lives (stress levels, jobs, relationships, etc.), and all about Kabat-Zin's work with stress reduction and all about the various scientific studies on the positive effects of "meditation."

Nothing about awakening.

Also, I'm on Lori's email list and now I "like" IMM on FB, so I'm getting a lot of messages and posts about all of this, i.e., postive effects of meditation on humans' lives.

(I recently read this, which is related: http://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/nice-buddhism/ )

Of COURSE, there is nothing wrong with all of this. But it isn't what I am interested in spending any of my free time, on, you know? I'm going to stick it out for a couple of weeks longer, but obviously, what I am looking for is some kind of IMS/Spirit Rock style intensive vipassana instruction and if Lori and the IMM isn't offering it, I won't keep it up.

I wonder too, whether this is just something that Lori herself is doing, if it his her chosen emphasis as a teacher, or if it is more the norm for this "insight meditation" teachers these days.

I'm looking for a dharma group and teacher that is local or relatively local that I can dig into and practice with for a long period of time. I like practicing with other people. I like practicing in day long or longer retreat settings. I'd like to have a teacher to kind of get to know me and challenge me and maybe help keep me honest.



The Modesto zen sangha might provide this, or the Insight group might, but I'm kind of just exploring right now and seeing how things look and feel.

Zen or vipassana I'm not sure if that distinction matters, but at some point I think I'll just know what is working, what feels right, where I feel the most at home and comfortable.

I know I don't want to do "online" studying.

This is such a challenge, isn't it? I ended up working with a teacher online, and supplementing that with trips to area groups a few times a month for the social/group part. The local groups were nice in many ways, but not what I wanted from teaching on a regular basis. Where I'm living now I have been poking around hoping to find some like minded people, but best fit so far was a group over an hour away on Sunday afternoons, which is an awkward time for me. I take some yoga classes instead, which is something and the rest of my interaction with like minded folks is via skype.

I've found forums can be supportive, but not a substitute for teaching, since you tend to get a hundred opinions on everything (and not always from helpful people), and the benefit of working with one main teacher is staying really focused. Some people do fine with other approaches, obviously. Good luck!

Conversely to Chris, to _me_ it seems like what you're looking for is a more full-fledged theravada practice (theravada being my hammer and Mike being my latest nail!)—the way that people in my cohort tend to see it is that most vipassana practices are drawn from theravada practice—but not the full set of practice. Indeed, that many vipassana schools have essentially taken the meditative core of theravada buddhism and attempted to create a modernized, streamlined practice that's more amenable to modern life—shading, naturally, into full-on mindfulness-in-the-context-of-modern-psychology practice, a la JK-Z. And so if you feel like you're lost in secular land, Mike, that would be my guess why.

My personal experience with vipassana is that it's good, but it's not the full picture. It can make you happier, and more relaxed, and better at existing entirely in a modern western secular context, but it can't lead to awakening. That's why I try to integrate sila practice, metta practice (admittedly, this is quite often found in most vipassana practices too), renunciation—the full arsenal of Thai Forest practice, rather than just meditation, vipassana or otherwise.

I will say: I have listened to Gil's talks for a long while now, and he's definitely more textual, more sutta-based, and less apparently secular than the aforementioned Lori seems to be. And obviously, the man has really put in the hours, spent a lot of time as a monk in many traditions—so nobody could ever accuse him of not knowing what a rigorous, holistic practice looks like. But I think that what he's ultimately decided on is not as rigorous and holistic as what I prefer for myself.

My feelings are roughly analogous to J. Bulitt's FAQ answer on the subject (excerpted from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bullitt/bfaq.html#vipassana):

Although many students do find all they want in Vipassana, some have a nagging sense that something fundamental is missing. This reaction is hardly surprising, as the Satipatthana discourse itself was delivered to a group of relatively advanced students who were already quite experienced and well established in the path of Dhamma practice.

Happily, all those missing pieces can be found in the Pali canon. In the Canon we find the Buddha's teachings on generosity and virtue , the twin pillars upon which all spiritual practice is built. His teachings on the recollection of the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha serve to strengthen the development of saddha (faith, confidence), which provides a potent fuel to sustain Dhamma practice long after we return home from that meditation retreat. In the Canon we also find his teachings on the drawbacks of sensuality and the value of renunciation ; on developing all the factors in the Eightfold Path , including those that are seldom explored during organized Vipassana retreats: right speech , right livelihood , right effort , and right concentration (meaning jhana ). And there is much, much more.

I think that niceness article is a little overheated, and a little judgmental. But I also do think that there is a huge tendency in mainstream buddhism that one should fight against, more central and harder to find than being too 'nice'. I think there's a thousand practices that are basically tailored to make one more comfortable and relaxed without challenging a single assumption they have about their self or their life. And while I think most of the practices we discuss here—Zen, vipassana—are not at ALL necessarily so, I think that any practice or tradition can be taken up like that. It's like a macrocosmic version of the problem that so many people have with samatha: you don't meditate just so you get nice and relaxed and blissed out, you meditate to do real work, in order to train your mind and your spiritual powers for your whole life. Well, you don't practice buddhism just to get nice and blissed out and do exactly what you were doing—probably be kind of a dick to a lot of people, maybe have a scummy job, probably never give to homeless people, probably buy lots of stuff you don't need, probably operate with both feet firmly located within the sangsaric cycle of eat the cheesecake/feel good/want more cheesecake—only more relaxed, more focused, more able to taste every morsel of the cheesecake. You practice buddhism so you find a peace more fundamental than cheesecake. If you want to shatter the cycle of sangsara, you have to allow every one of your assumptions about the life that you lead to be questioned. Alllllll of them. And I think, whether the practitioner in question is Zen, Thai Forest, Vipassana, Vajrayana, there's a nearly ever-present risk to backslide into a practice where you use your spiritual habits as a way to prop up and smooth over the basic, fundamental habits of sukkha and dukkha that you were born into. Shit is scary!

Cool.

I think "overheated" is a good term for that article, though it does contain some truths, a lot of the same things that your teacher Josh Korda was saying in his "punx" talk you posted, right?

Also, I think that both Christopher and Korda emphasize the entire eight fold path over just getting focused on meditation practices only. Does that seem right. I'm liking that now.

What I'm getting from Korda -- and it occurs to me that this is sort of a Thai forest flavor maybe --- is that what is important is learing how to do activities of all kinds (eight fold path) that promote a peaceful and calm mind and that that calm mind is a mind that might become awakened.

Have you asked Lori if she's available for one-on-one session with a more advanced yogi? It's possible that she may have more to teach but feels that a lot of that is not appropriate for a general audience that includes beginners and people at all different points of practice.

Eran - that's such a good point. Many if not most teachers gear their talks to be comprehensible or welcoming for the broadest audience attending.

Maybe that's what has stood out most among the "hardcore" dharma types - they tend to just jump right in and if they lose half the audience to shock or dismay, so what. Not everyone is ready for that kind of approach.

Chris, it doesn't sound like we're in much disagreement. I believe vipassana meditation is a crucial component of Buddhist practice, and it's definitely a huge part of my meditation practice—the greater part, without a doubt. I just think that it's a subset of greater buddhist practice. The vipassana I was referring to above (and I should probably have made this clear) is the capital-V Vipassana Movement; those practitioners who attend, say, vipassana retreats instead of Buddhist ones, who practice mindfulness rather than the eightfold path. I truly don't believe that even the greatest vipassana meditator can achieve awakening if they ignore metta, sila, dana, et cetera. But I equally cannot imagine a full-fledged Buddhist practice that doesn't make very heavy use of vipassana techniques in its meditative sphere.

"I truly don't believe that even the greatest vipassana meditator can
achieve awakening if they ignore metta, sila, dana, et cetera."

There are cases of people awakening without any meditative practice at all, vipassana or otherwise, through some traumatic experience, for example. So it's possible, no? People awaken in non-Buddhist traditions, too, which have different approaches.

I do agree with you that a "holistic" practice is probably more beneficial not only towards awakening but also towards integrating awakening into a meaningful sort of life.

But I also think things like compassion and generousity tend to just arise naturally out of the awakening process, whether or not one sets out to deliberately practice them. I'd be surprised if I ever met an awakened person with no sense of connection to others - that's a fundamental part of the shift, isn't it? - and that sense of connection makes compassion, generosity etc almost inevitable.

As mentioned, I'm not referring to Kabat-Zinn's mindfulness techniques, but rather the so-called Vipassana Movement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vipassana_movement

It is indeed confusing, but unfortunately the word 'vipassana' is by far the identifying element of this movement.

Zach, I looked at the wikepedia article you just referenced. You are basically stating that the people mentioned in the article and their students (Goenka, Goldstein, Dipa Ma, Kornfield, Fronsdal, Strasberg, Mahasi Sayadaw, etc.) can't or won't be awakened JUST with the practice of vipassana meditation?

I think it's kind of a moot point. I've been reading the books and listening to the podcasts of most of these people for years and while I have my own odd problems with a lot of them, they certainly talk about the full range of "thervada-type" practices all the time and incorporate all the parts of the eight fold path into their teachings. Don't they?

I mean Mahasi Sayadaw -- can't say enough about all the parts of the dharma path and insists that one can't get to equanimity and then fruiton/cessaton/nibbana, etc. unless they've got their complete dharma acts together. For him, it's certainly not just about meditating in the vipassana technique. Plus he was an ordained monk and not secularized at all even though he taught and invited non monks to his retreats.

I think it is true though that much of this "movement" once it got to the US became secularized in appearance it has probably been emphasized that one need not be a religious buddhist to get involved and that there must be a lot of students who just took the up the "technique" and left the rest -- which serverely limited their potential. However, visit Spirit Rock sometime and in seconds you will know that you are in some kind of Buddhist center.

Which I guess still brings me to Lori and whatever she was/is teaching with this six week course I started last Sunday. At the day-long (which took place in a hospital conference room) there was a large buddha statue behind her all day and she seemed pretty buddhist in her talk and approach and I felt like I was getting emmersed in dharma -- all day. The course, however, was at the local Unitarian Church and I don't think she brought the buddha with her (in more ways than one). But, it was under the auspices of "Modesto Insight Meditation."

Back to IMS/Spirit Rock "vipassana movement." Are they religious? That is a good question. Like I said earlier, they all definitely talk about the Buddha and the dharma all the freaking time and know all about it and probably identify as "buddhist." Many of them ordained as monks somewhere at sometime in the past. However, do they go to buddhist temples and engage in rituals and services? Are they priests who perform weddings and funerals, etc? Is Spirit Rock considered a temple? I don't think so. It does seem like they are organizations mostly created to support meditation practice. Though they do seem to have strong relationships with both Burmese and Thai Forest priests/monks in the US and all over.

(I would think the dharma punx are part of this movement because the founder is from the Spirit Rock/Kornfield lineage. However, Mr. Korda seems to greatly emphasize the influence of the Thai Forest Tradition in his teaching as well as he association with many monks from that tradition)

(This is LONG -- sorry) Now, the Zen Sangha I'm going to in Modesto and I think most of the sanghas in the US that are headed by dharma transmitted priests who are part of some Japanese or Korean lineage -- these are certainly religious organizations. They don't seem to preach secularism. They are buddhist through and through and have formal processes to ordain and train professional clergy. But, as an exception, the zen center in Oakland that is led by a Joko Beck heir is completely secularized.

I think the approach that fits with each person is going to depend a lot on their personal attachments and aversions. I don't mean, thusly, which technique they like best!

I think very secular approaches that focus heavily on effort have some strengths (like inspiring people to apply themselves and not distracting with lots of robes, candles and chanting). But they can also get people stuck in spots where they get attached to the idea that effort is the key, and they miss finding surrender/letting go, which is also necessary. And maybe they get egotistical thinking "look at me doing all this work, accomplishing stuff".

On the other hand, something like a very devotional practice (such as a guru or deity centric system) can make some people get stuck in seeking the bliss of the guru/deity or the powerful feelings they get and cling to that. On the other hand, it encourages a deep surrender, which can be beneficial, and an association with something outside yourself having control, which is useful.

So it depends on so many things, no?

Just finding my way into this conversation...



Zach, while I would agree that a vipassana-only approach probably isn't the most effective way to practice a path leading to awakening, I just can't get behind the idea that it's impossible to "awaken" without practicing the entire eightfold path. Being that I tend to have a pragmatic, contextualist bias toward all-things-Dharma (but not in the "pragmatic dharma movement" sense... ask and I'll clarify), I hesitate to suggest that there is but one Awakening, and that only the Buddha found that path to this Awakening, and that the only way to reach the one true Awakening is by practicing the one true Path laid out by the one true Buddha of all time.



I honestly think that the problem is less about what practices people include or exclude from their personal practice, and more about the fact that people aren't clear enough about what they want to get out of it. Saying "awakening" or "enlightenment" is pretty broad. Even saying "freedom from suffering" is vague, since there are differing ways to be "free" in relationship to suffering. In this context, I think that there are those who know what they want, and have an idea of how vipassana-only will get them to this place. Others only know what they want in a non-specific sense, and are deluded into think that if they just note their experience in an uber-detailed fashion, they will magically Awaken and get all kinds of wonderful benefits. This may be partially true, but the limitations of going about practice in this way are legion.



My point is that you very well may have a specific idea of what you're going for, and you could be very right in your view that the streamlined practice of the Vipassana Movement will not get you there. Where we should all be careful is in our tendency to devalue the goals of others, as if their desired results couldn't possibly be called "awakening". I'm not saying this as someone who is somehow beyond this kind of judgment. I've been known to be FULL of such judgments. It's something that I'm working on, though, and it's much easier to notice when other people are doing it than when I am



I hope that makes sense, and that it doesn't seem like I'm harping on you.



-Jackson

Interesting, this "Vision Statement" from Spirit Rock makes it pretty clear they are Buddhist ALL the way:

http://www.spiritrock.org/page.aspx?pid=460

Doesn't seem like "just vipassana" to me at all. I'm actually a little surprised at how religious this is.

Oh and this:

http://www.spiritrock.org/page.aspx?pid=288

is an explanation of the Spirit Rock "commnity dharma leaders" training program that Lori is a part of and which her forming of the Modesto group was probably integral to. Note one of the requirements for the program:

Depth of practice including but not exclusive to: familiarity and understanding of foundational Buddhist teachings; consistency with a lineage of practice; history of daily and/or regular ongoing practice; an embodied presence resulting from the realization of key Dharma principles and practices.

"embodied presence" - I wonder what, exactly, that means. I'm sure it has a specific meaning to the Spirit Rock people.

"Where we should all be careful is in our tendency to
devalue the goals of others, as if their desired results couldn't
possibly be called "awakening"."

I agree 100% with the first phrase. But the second makes little sense to me. I suspect there is a lot of contentious backstory behind this carefully worded phrase, so no need to dig into the bone there.

But I would rather say something like: not everyone has the same goals, and different people can reach a level of satisfaction and happiness (or utter misery!) they consider tolerable, sufficient or what-they're-stuck-with in life, with or without reaching Awakening or Enlightenment by any definition (except possibly their own). And that's just totally okay.

Which maybe is what you meant?

Sort of?

I've written 3 long replies here and deleted them all. It's obvious we're coming from very different positions in this respect. I'm sorry if anybody feels like I was belittling their practice.