Talk:Vipassanā

message: The section Practice of vipassanā shortly precedes this section, and AFTER it comes a whole slew of sections regarding the practice of vipassana in different contexts, leading me to believe that this new section (formatted with two equal signs = !) has been erroneously placed. As not to bring up a problem without offering a solution, I'd say after the "Practice" section mentioned before, as it's related to it's practice, and flows better than putting it after the "Vipassana movement" section, which concludes the article.
And no I'm not being sexist. Just in case.
Mr.troughton (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Relocation of "Women Practitioners" Section

message: I get an uncanny sense that some material here has come staright from Mr. Goenka's (a respected authority on Vipassana) websites.  He has been mentioned in the article and the reference is same as that in his website about his Burmese Guru.
Obviously! A NEUTRAL aproach would be apreciated... besides, the movement that has, by far, most impact among the monastic comunity, as far as i know, is the Mahasi Sayadaw's method.
This article is very very very very weak! For eample, what a hell is this: "In Vipassanā meditation, the meditation object is one's own consciousness, although it can be further refined to be one's consciousness while observing, say, the breath, as in ānāpāna meditation. In this context, the modes of seeing refers to focusing on those aspects of consciousness which appear to have (or not have) these characteristics."? 
The current trend in vipassana is Satipatthana, the four frames of reference (not explained!!!). However, using the 5 skandhas is more acordingly to the suttas, as far as i know (tangentialy explained). No mention is made to the prerequisition-of-jhana debate.
There are many different types of Vipassana and if a person has not experienced a particular technique for them selves how can they be any kind of authority on it? Vipassana is truly understood by prctising it. Mr goenka is an authority on his particular teaching of a technique. Anyone who has experienced one of his courses often understands the need to convey the technique correctly. So it seems inevitable that quotes will come directly from S.N.Goenka`s web site. As with regards to this particular technique these are the best words to use.Pary88 16:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection with Mr. Goenka? 

message: I've added the schedules/calendars of some of the identified "living teachers" initially as verification that they are in fact actively teaching.  Secondarily, it dawned on me that this might be useful for newbies looking for a teacher.  Then, after a click of the "Save" button, it dawned on me that this might violate current WP policy regarding commercialism.  If so, feel free to delete the "(schedule)" links or point me to the specific WP policy and I'll be happy to remove the offending text.  Thanks! LarryR 22:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schedules 

message: Probably not important, but the article referring to the other form of Buddhist meditation is named Samatha Meditation.  For symmetry, as the terms are so closely related, should this article be renamed "Vipassana Meditation"? 138.217.179.154 11:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone add a redirect please... 220.240.58.190 05:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming Vipassana Meditation 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Hi. I added a link to a Vipassana discussion forum where I am a member.
I didn't do this with a biased intent of for propaganda. I did it merely because it is a good source on Vipassana-related information, where people can clear some doubts and debate and search for resources that we have there.
If anyone feels that this link is undue please feel free to delete it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filipe.a.pinto (talk • contribs) 16:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link 

message: The section entitled "Notable Living Teachers" includes links to the Wikipedia pages (they might as well be MySpace pages) of a number of clowns.  Does the topic of Vipassana have to be trivialized in this way?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.74.1.99 (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be more specific? I take it you're not referring to clown as a complement, such as with Patch Adams, but as a pejorative judgment about some specific articles. Which ones? - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Notable Living Teachers" 

message: As part of the split discussion, and from the good comments there, it seemed important to clarify in the article itself what the distinction was between vipassanā the meditation practice and vipassanā the movement or lineages. So I started that first with a restructuring of the article. I've made major changes, though mostly structural and saving almost all of the original content. Since much of the vipassanā practice description was not necessarily general to all buddhist traditions, most of it I moved under the Theravada section, which adding some discussion about contemplation generally and what other forms of meditation in mahayana and vajrayana are considered vipassanā by those traditions. Since these are major edits, I welcome discussion or criticisms about the changes here. - Owlmonkey (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Restructuring

message: Nevertheless, Huineng, sixth patriarch of the Zen, considered the practice cannot be described as gradualistic nor subitist, but implies people with more or less clear minds.
:Can someone fix this torturous prose, please?  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy edit needed 

message: Under contemplative forms, it has: "One method is that there are 40 topics that can be concentrated by the meditator such as anitya (Pāli anicca, impermanence), duḥkha (Pāli dukkha, suffering), roga (illness), and so on. The meditator can meditate on one of these until he sees the truth in everything in the universe."
But Anitya & dukkha, and even roga are not mentioned in the list of 40 topics. The first two, are two of the "Three marks of existence" (see wiki page). Therefore, I believe there has been a misunderstanding or miscommunication in this paragraph (but am not, myself, an expert in buddhism).
- 121.72.207.203 (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. Does look like an error to me. And I suspect the way it is written now is too specific to one editor's understanding or lineage. Both the 40 topics as well as the three marks appear to be quite reasonable contemplations, not only one or the other. How about we rewrite that as "The meditator may contemplate truths or views of reality like the 40 topics or anitya (Pāli anicca, impermanence), duḥkha (Pāli dukkha, suffering), or roga (illness). In doing so the meditator refines their view and removes habitual ignorance." - Owlmonkey (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemplative forms - error? 

message: Any source? Mitsube (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hinduism? 

message: I removed the section of "The Courses" because there is no historical basis at all for Theravada Buddhism having "ten day programs." If someone wants to advertise, it may serve better to create a Wikipedia page specifically concerning profit-based programs that are Buddhist rather then weasling it into an article on a Buddhist concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.229.54.243 (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "The Courses" 

message: The last edit on vipassana movement done by Rogerbischoff is misleading as (1) the ressource is wrong (nothing written about Mother Sayamagyi at | Fronsdal, 1998) 2. and misleading as not only Mother Sayamagyi contiued the tradition of U Ba Khin. Beside this question should be raised, if the content of the edit is relevant, as the impact done by the teaching of mother sayamagyi to the worldwide vipassana movement is not so big. Just a question. At least I think if Mother Sayamagyi is listed, it should be more integrated in the context of the article --Guenesch802 (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vipassana Movement - last edit 

message: L.S. 
As a frequent Wikipedia user, I would be glad to see a comprehensive list of links to institutions that provide Vipassan meditation.
For that reason I added an institution that I know, inviting others to do the same.
Since buddhist institutions do not function on a commercial basis, by definition, would like to encourage the editors of this page (and other pages on buddhism) to tolerate this type of external links. In the respect mentioned, the links obey the editorial manifesto of Wikipedia.
Curious!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rijk Willemse (talk • contribs) 11:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion - list of external links to institutions that offer Vipassana meditation 

message: There seems to be some confusion about what this article is about. Right now it is a general article about the concept of Vipassanā/Vipaśyanā which is common (with variations, of course) across most if not all schools of Buddhism. However, it seems as though a number of editors do not realize this, and edit the article as if it was only about the modern Vipassana movement which has its own article. The reinsertion of the "Women Teachers of Vipassana" is a perfect example of this. I already incorporated that information into the Vipassanā movement article. Now it is back. In this context it makes no sense--it would be like having a section called "Women teachers of samatha" and "Women teachers of the Four Noble Truths" and listing Buddhist women teachers in every article about every concept in Buddhism. To clear up this confusion, I propose the article be moved to the Sanskrit version of the word, either with diacritics or transliterated. Sanskrit is generally used in scholarly discourse as the lingua franca of Buddhism.Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited the article, adding info on the origins, emphasizing the dichoyomy of vipassana and samatha, and removed text to make the article better readable. As with Zen, the influence of modernity on Vipassana, and the popular picture of it are very interesting and deserve more info. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The only corpus accepted as definitive by all traditions is the pali, in the pali language. Sanskrit is used in comparative discussion as related to Jain, Vedas, etc. -Alex  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.177.226.240 (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move proposal 

message: Sylvain1972, With the "superior" part of the Indo-Tibetan tradition, you also put back a long quote, removed quote-templates, and removed  clarifying subheaders. Maybe you could try to paraphrase the Zahler p.108 quote, which you put back, and edit the quotes back into quote-templates? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 04:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superior 

message: Contrary to what is claimed in the article, there are multiple references to vipassanā and samatha in Sutta Pitaka as different. The difference is also preserved in Pali, Chinese, and Tibetan commentaries on suttas. Some quotations from Sutta Pitaka below:
* AN 2.30 PTS: A i 61 II,iii,10 Vijja-bhagiya Sutta: A Share in Clear Knowing translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
:"These two qualities have a share in clear knowing. Which two? Tranquility (samatha) & insight (vipassana).
:"When tranquility is developed, what purpose does it serve? The mind is developed. And when the mind is developed, what purpose does it serve? Passion is abandoned.
:"When insight is developed, what purpose does it serve? Discernment is developed. And when discernment is developed, what purpose does it serve? Ignorance is abandoned.
:"Defiled by passion, the mind is not released. Defiled by ignorance, discernment does not develop. Thus from the fading of passion is there awareness-release. From the fading of ignorance is there discernment-release."
* AN 3.88:
:"There are these three trainings. Which three? [...]
:"And what is the training in heightened mind? (stock description of four jhanas).
:"And what is the training in heightened discernment? There is the case where a monk discerns as it actually is that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'
* AN 4.170:
:"Ven. Ananda said: "Friends, whoever — monk or nun — declares the attainment of arahantship in my presence, they all do it by means of one or another of four paths. Which four?
:"There is the case where a monk has developed insight preceded by tranquility. [...]
:"Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity preceded by insight. [...]
:"Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity in tandem with insight. [...]
:"Then there is the case where a monk's mind has its restlessness concerning the Dhamma [Comm: the corruptions of insight] well under control. 
* SN 43.2, The Connected Discourses of the Buddha by Bikkhu Bodhi, p. 1373:
:"And what, bhikkhus, is the path leading to the unconditioned? Serenity and insight.
* SN 43.2, Pali: 
:"Katamo ca, bhikkhave, asaṅkhatagāmimaggo? Samatho ca vipassanā ca. 
Happyseeu (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply by Joshua Jonathan: Good work, well done. Nevertheless, Gombrich and Brooks do not say that the two terms are not being used in the Pali canon; they argue that the distic=nction as two separate paths is a later interpretation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Reply by Joshua Jonathan: the cited sutta does not mention vipassana and samatha as two distinct paths; it talks about different combinations as "paths". To present them as two different "paths" is exactly what Gombrich is arguing about: it's a later interpretation. Buddhism isn't 'a-historical'; it has developed and changed over the centuries, which is reflected in different 'summaries' of the 'core' teachings. As far as my understanding goes, samatha and vipassana (or  "jnana", if you like) are to be practiced in tandem - better said, in concert, together with sila, virtues behaviour (and study of the sutras, but that's another discussion). Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

text: The "Origins"-section clarifies this section in the lead - or doesn't is? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: The distinction between vipassanā and samatha in Sutta Pitaka

message: The article Vipassana jhanas suffers from some issues that could easily be solved if its contents were put into the contents of their main subject, Vipassanā. Similarly, note that the subject of samatha jhanas falls under the main article and does not require its own article. ozhu量 (talk·contribs) 07:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: After 4 weeks retreat in Kopan [Tib buddh . ] Can I detect that there are strong differences are indeed the term Vipassana and its meaning according to context and these often lead to confusion. The German article and the English differ greatly, maybe these thoughts are helpful: 
The quote of the Dalai lama in sentence 2 of the article may generate more confusion than clarity. Vipassana is significantly associated with the Theravada Buddhism.  suggestion:
The " Vipassana movement " is a loosely lay and ordained movement that in Theravada Buddhism has its origins .
If Vipassana defined as analytical meditation [ as in the Dalai Lama line ] that grows up irritation [ so in 250 people of the course in Kopan ] because what is practiced much at Vipassana is singel point non-analytic - exactly the opposite.
In this respect I would like to propose the Dalai lama quote to be replaced by :
An essential part of various training methods is the practice of mindfulness ( sati ) . In the psychological literature Vipassana meditation is usually called " mindfulness meditation " instead of insight meditation .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe-webmystik (talk • contribs) 02:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the whole sentence. It's unclear, and there is no further reference to the Dalain Lama in the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mahayana or Theravada  /  analytical meditation or single point 

message: Substituted at 22:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Vipassanā. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160220185437/http://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana/Archive/K/Khema/guidelinesForVipassana.html to http://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana/Archive/K/Khema/guidelinesForVipassana.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The "…vipaśyanā (Sanskrit: विपश्यन)…" (currently in the lead sentence) is wrong on multiple levels.. 1. the first word is already in Sanskrit; 2. it is not the correct transliteration of the "विपश्यन" (this form in Devanagari agrees with Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary, 1899), which is "vipaśyana". The discrepancy should be fixed or explained. —Mykhal (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanskrit typo? 

message: I find the very last sentence in the lead (as of July 2022) confusing, and in particular the very last part of that sentence, beginning "while other critics...". And while I am not an expert, I do have some knowledge of the field. I reckon a general reader would simply be stumped by the text in question. It reads:
"The Vipassanā movement favors vipassanā over samatha, but some critics point out that both are necessary elements of the Buddhist training, while other critics argue that dhyana is not a single-pointed concentration exercise."
So we have an initial assertion, followed by two examples of possible challenges to that assertion. The first challenge is easily understood in the context of the initial assertion. The assertion says "A more than B", and the challenge says, "No. A *and* B".  Fair enough.
But it is not clear how the second challenge is to be understood in the context of the initial assertion. While, again, the assertion is, "A more than B", the second challenge is, "No. C is not D." Huh?
Now, I'm sure that can be cleared up. I even made a small step in that direction by wiki linking "dhyana", this being the first time that term is even mentioned in the article. (And none of the other mentions being wiki linked). But that on its own is not enough.
My suggestion is that we simply delete the entire last sentence. This is the lead after all, so it doesn't have to contain every detail. The information concerned can be covered down in the main article if desired. By deleting *only* that last sentence, and leaving the rest of that final lead paragraph means that the whole "combination or disjunction of vipassanā and samatha" debate still gets its lead mention (which sounds reasonable to me),  but we don't add the potentially confusing details *about* that debate. 
I guess I could have just been bold and deleted the thing myself, but I'm only an occasional visitor and didn't want to do a drive-by edit. However, if after some timeI don't hear any objections , and if no one does it first, I'll do the delete. Sleety Dribble (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it reads rather weird. especially the last part, which doesnt even seem to be relavent to the criticism. Id say delete the whole thing and leave the critique of the vipassana movements views to the page vipassana movement. Wikiman5676 (talk) 06:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested lead improvement