Talk:Samatha-vipassanā

Link to vipassana.com

In the external links section, there's a link to vipassana.com, a school offering classes in Vipassana meditation, not Samatha. That link should be removed. JasonAdama (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A Honed and Heavy Axe

re: * A Honed and Heavy Axe

The removal of this link without consensus was certainly an oversight. As far as I can tell, this comes in under WP:ELYES point 3, and the condition of reasoned and reasonable dissent has not been met. I agree that a copy of the work should be located from a better mediating website, but the work in and of itself is relevant to the article and appears reputable. I would suggest some editorial courtesy in the future, just a thought. -- BETA 01:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion. I don't understand how the link meets WP:ELYES. Please explain. --Ronz (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, on its face it is "neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to amount of detail.", it's merit should be discussed before cutting it out without discussion. I mean surely you wouldn't get a book from a library and cut out something you disagree with right? Surely a Buddhist Monastery would have a good understanding of one of it's basic tenets. -- BETA 23:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:ELBURDEN regarding continuing to edit-war over the link while it is under dispute.

If it's a useful reference, include it as a reference.

At a glance, none of the external links appear appropriate. --Ronz (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've examined all the links closely and trimmed back the list per WP:EL and WP:NOTLINK. --Ronz (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

So far there are at least two people who think that this link is relevant and helpful to someone who wants an encyclopedic understanding of this subject. I think it's only fair that it be included. If there is a specific reason not to include it I'm all ears. Simply linking to a bunch of different rules isn't helpful, I'm sorry to say. BETA 21:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:ELBURDEN regarding continuing to edit-war over the links while they under dispute. --Ronz (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I've trimmed the links once again, removing those that would be disallowed with even a very lax interpretation of WP:EL. --Ronz (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I've gone over the remaining links once again.

I'd like a better directory entry than DMOZ's, but I think it's better than a list of ebooks from Buddhanet.

Is either Ajahn Chandako or Lama Gursam a recognized authority? I don't believe so. Additionally, I found the material from those links to be redundant and far less straightforward than that of the here-and-now.org link which I kept. --Ronz (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

No response other than edit-warring? --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe I responded sufficiently in the edit summary. And though you may find it less straightforward, the issue is whether someone looking for an encyclopedic understanding of the subject would gain more insight from the link than the article itself. as for it's so called redundancy, the two works have very different syles of writing, the here and now link seems to favor a point by point factual commit-all-this-to-memory prose, whereas the honed and heavy ax gives more colloquial and simplified analogies focused on making connections in the mind, and leading to understanding. And again "recognized authority" is not the criteria for External Links. They are not references. BETA 21:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your perspective.

No one is saying they are references.

I think it is obvious that if it were written by a recognized authority, it would be far more acceptable. I'd rather find such links. I hope other editors will choose to help. --Ronz (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

What would be the criterion of a ‘recognized authority’, academic credentials? Ṭhanassaro Bhikkhu is ‘recognized’ and has written on this topic (samatha ca vipassanā) in A Tool Among Many, which would be as concise reading as Ajahn Chandako’s article. There is also Bhante Gunaratana ‘recognized’ as such, and has discussed the topic in a larger work (Mindfulness in Plain English) [1], although this is not as concise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.108.1.54 (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

In the wiki article, the Thai Forest Tradition is mentioned in context of samatha and vipassanā being a unified contemplative dynamic as found in the Pāḷi canon, citing Ṭhanassaro Bhikkhu from his article A Tool Among Many. As Ajhan Chandako is also a well respected teacher in the TFT, I can find citing from his article appropriate to the Pāḷi-Dhamma section to add his perspective to this section.

Because both articles are on point with this topic perhaps this would be a suitable way of linking the articles:

• Discussions of Samatha in Pāḷi Buddhist contemplative praxis:

A Tool Among Many by Ṭhanassaro Bhikkhu A Honed and Heavy Axe by Ajahn Chandako — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.108.1.54 (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Writings by noted experts

I'm sure there are noted publications and noted experts that we're overlooking in this article, suitable for references or external links. Anyone want to help find them? --Ronz (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Tara Brach?
• Lots in Category:Modern Buddhist writers--Ronz (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure there are hundreds of relevant publications, but the article is fairly well sourced as it is. What is it that you would like to add?Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Of those hundreds, let's find a few that won't be disputed as external links. --Ronz (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

More on the external links

Who is disputing the link in question other than you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.184.198 (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Posting a dismissive is not productive to a discussion. As for 'focus on content’, Ṭhanassaro Bhikkhu is quoted ‘in the early suttas’ section, it would support this citing to link his article. The Ajhan Chandako article also supports the suttanta method this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.184.198 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 26 July 2011

"One Tool Among Many" by Thanissaro is currently included as a reference. I've tagged the article for cleanup noting that the references need consistent formatting and expansion of details such as the title of each of Thanissaro's works cited.

I've removed "A Honed and Heavy Axe" as it appears redundant to Thanissaro's works. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Burma, vipassana etc

The New Burmese Method (which is completely erroneously titled as it is as ancient as the hills) and the Vipassana school of U Ba Khin are two different traditions. Mahasi Sayadaw teaches a different technique to U Ba Khin. Also, it is completely untrue that either tradition teaches that samatha is 'optional'. Where's your source? I shall answer for you: There is no source for such an absurd statement. Samatha is a prerequisite for vipassana meditation (satipatthana). That is why this section has been removed. Also I have removed the statement "In Sri Lanka samatha includes all the meditations directed at static objects." because it is untrue as well as uncited. 81.106.127.14 (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've put back Sri Lanka again, and corrected the source. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Did you also bother to check the same source to see if it contains the information you've added to the lead? NB: I like the change you made to the first two sentences. It's a very clear and comprehsive ovrview. Butt he third and fourth sentence do need a reference. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Regarding samatha as "optional", and the term "New Burmese method": Anne M. Blackburn (2003), "Approaching the Dhamma: Buddhist Texts And Practices in South And Southeast Asia", p.169: "For example, a key feature of the "New Burmese method" was it's emphasis on the ability of meditators to proceed directly to vipassana without first developing samatha." [2] Joshua Jonathan (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

See also

@Joshua Jonathan: I don't know why, neither the reason was stated in edit summaryfor revert, which is important, if it is revert. But May I know, why my edits got reverted. The template was placed in wrong place, that template is placed belowthe section heading.. Also, for see also of the page normally there is special section below the page, which already exist here also. and contains the same links. May I know, the reason of revert, Please ? JaMongKut (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@JaMongKut: you seem to be right; in that case, we'l have to use template:for, to attend readers to closely related pages. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Yeah that's what I was saying. JaMongKut (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

But you here mistakenly deleted my earlier message. JaMongKut (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I deleted your first answer when I replied: diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

No Problem. Thankyou. JaMongKut (talk) 04:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Feedback

Hi, This article seems to me long-winded and hard to digest. I suggest breaking it into separate articles. One, the practice itself. Another, the history. Of course, that could be further refined into separate articles on the individual traditions, Indian, Indio-Chinese, Japanese, Tibetan, etc. Also, some illustrations would be helpful, one of the Ten Bulls, the Tibetan meditation path thangka, that sort of thing. It needs to be succinct and lucid, and right now it is not, probably as a result of multiple editors all adding various topics and subtopics. But at that rate, you can write hundreds of pages on this, and still not be exhaustive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B8AA:E50:D4F6:937C:71C2:FD9A (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Tranquility worker

@Wikiman5676: you added back diff

This method is the one most often described in the Pāli canon, as a practice where samatha and vipassana are practiced together. One who uses this method is referred to as a "tranquility worker" (Pali: samatha yānika). Buddhist texts describe that all Buddhas and their chief disciples used this method.

It's sourced from Busweel p.889. Yet, Buswell is wrong here; this is not what the Nikaya's say, but what Buddhaghosa says. That's why I added Gunaratana. See also Richard Shankman, The experience of Samadhi, p.57, in his chapter on the Visuddhimagga. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Interesting point, but in that case, wouldn't it still make sense to include that information and simply attribute it to Buddhaghosa? Since he is the most influential Theravada commentator, his views would be relavent no? Wikiman5676 (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I did, for the phrase "tranquility worker." But I doubt that we can find a sutta describing such a practice, where one 'leaves' a jhana and examines it for the three marks. I never did. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I was talking more about this part "Buddhist texts describe that all Buddhas and their chief disciples used this method." and that it is the method that appears most often, although i guess the last part is kinda implied in the statement of vipassana alone being less common, although it seems a bit unclear by the wording imo. Wikiman5676 (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm talking about the same: find me one sutra where the Buddha, or one of his disciples, enters a jhana and then leaves is it, to reflect on it as being dukkha, anatta, anicca. Most sutras imply that samatha-vipassana is used in tandem; or better said, that they appear in tandem, as the 'result' of dhyana. NB: this is what Buswell wrote:

The most common method of meditation described in the Pali canon relies on vipassana and samatha practiced together. In this method, jhana is first induced through samatha. The meditator then exits from that state and reflects upon it with mindfulness to see that it is characterized by the three marks. In this way jhana is made the object of vipassana meditation. One who uses this method is called a tranquility worker (samatha yanika), and all buddhas and their chief disciples are described as having practiced in this way. A less com-mon method found in the canon relies on vipassana alone. Developing concentration to a lesser degree than jhana, the meditator examines ordinary mental and physical phenomena for the three marks as described above. The meditator who uses this method is called a bare insight worker (suddhavipassana yanika).

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I feel like this is original research that we shouldn't be doing. And just because primary texts don't clearly show this doesn't mean there isnt scholarly or tradition wide consensus that it is to be interpreted that way. But you do have a point that the lack of evidence in primary texts suggests Buswell is wrong. So yeah, I agree we should leave those out unless we find more compelling evidence across multiple reliable sources that this is the case. Wikiman5676 (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• Gunaratana: "It is virtually impossible to find evidence in the Suttas that one should come out of Jhāna to practice Vipassanā."
• Shankman: "... in the fixed concentration of the Visuddhimagga, insight could arise only upon leaving jhāna." (read the whole page please; it's a good summary of Buddhaghosa's influence).

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Very interesting yes, but this just makes me think we should simply include Buddhaghosa's view, take out the speculative bit that it "may not reflect actual meditation experience", and simply include the modern views of Bhikkhu Gunaratana and Shankman that Buddhaghosa's commentary contrasts with what is seen in the suttas. What do you think of that? Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The criticism of Buddhaghosa is already mentioned in the article; it's broadly shared nowadays, including the view that he did not write from actual meditation-experience. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but it is quite vague and difficult for a reader not versed in this to find any good meaning from it, anyways, rather than just going back and forth with you on this, i have simply made the edits that i think would improve the section. Wikiman5676 (talk) 06:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Samatha-vipassana

I've taken the bold liberty to merge Vipassana into this article, since they are not two separate subjects, but a tandem. And I've moved the page to "Samatha-vipassana," to reflect this relation. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Should the title be Samatha and vipassana? The current article nowhere uses the hyphenated form. Srnec (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

You've got a point, I think. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I was going to question the move/merge on the basis of the hyphenated form earlier, but then I found that the topic is referred to in the hyphenated form in at least some sources, and I assumed the merge was following that example so I dropped it.

It may be better to incorporate the hyphen into the article at some appropriate place rather than moving it to the "...and..." title, since I'm fairly sure Wikipedia has a guideline somewhere against titles referring to multiple topics, which the "...and..." form appears to do (although I don't remember the relevant shortcut). If the point is to emphasise that this is one topic, the hyphen should remain; otherwise, I'd lean toward reverting the merge rather than moving to "...and...". – Scyrme (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

It's one topic, at least in the suttas.

• Thanissaro Bhikkhu (2005), What is Theravada Buddhism?: "This description of the unified role of samatha and vipassana";
• Keren Arbel, Early Buddhist Meditatin, p.183: "...when [vipassana] does occur in the suttas, in most cases, it is part of the pair samatha-vipassana."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Then I'd say keep the hyphen and incorporate it into the article. It makes misunderstandings* between editors less likely and, similarly, it won't be misleading to readers without prior knowledge.

* Misunderstandings such as trying to split the article because they think it's two topics, or creating new, essay-like articles which compare/contrast two topics because they've seen the title of this one and mistakenly think it sets a precedent. – Scyrme (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

"Translations of" box

The displayed "Translations of" box currently covers only vipassana, and not samatha. There should probably be another translations of box for samatha to avoid the lead accumulating language clutter. Either that or the existing box needs to be amended to translate the compound "samatha-vipassana", assuming it exists as a compound or phrase in the relevant languages.

@Joshua Jonathan: Seems to be a loose end from your merge. – Scyrme (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the box could be expanded with translations of samatha. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The template isn't set up to handle multiple terms, it's designed to handle one. It only takes 1 input per language and treats the whole thing as a single word/phrase in that language, so separating term with "and" or "or" messes up the language tagging. A janky way to force it could be just to separate the terms with <br /> but that might be confusing, idk. I think it would be clearer to have two boxes or revise the current box to only list compound terms where they are attested (unless the compound is only used in English sources?). – Scyrme (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Two boxes would be the easiet solution then, wouldn't it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)