As I detailed in a series of posts earlier this summer (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3), I went to one of the Goenka Vipassana retreats at the center outside Dallas. I mentioned I would write some about my impressions of the experience from a Zen perspective, but it has taken me a month or two of reflection to get to that point.
First and foremost, we live in an amazing time and place. We have basically any form of Buddhism and/or meditation system at our fingertips here in the West. If we want to deeply pursue a practice, it’s available to us. That is not the case in other countries where one or two traditions might predominate. So, whatever “flavor” of practice might suit you best for whatever reason, it’s there if you’re willing to get involved and maybe occasionally go out of your way to pursue it.
Secondly, I think any tried-and-true, traditional school of Buddhist meditation practice will lead to the same place ultimately: loosening the seemingly intractable grip of ego, eroding ingrained negative mental patterns, and ultimately, understanding who you really are and what life really is, beyond the conditioning we receive as a result of everyday existence. Our ability to follow the precepts extends from an understanding of our own conditioning and the suffering that creates, alongside the understanding that everyone – indeed everything – wants the same happiness that we want. We are not each a separate existence but part of a greater whole, so what reason is there to cause harm?
Vipassana is one such school of meditation. Zen is another. Both have been around for a long time, and to some extent, Zen was a reform movement that sought to bring back the meditation-centered values originally established with Vipassana. To me, they are closely related and not incompatible.
That said, I am a Zen practitioner. Maybe this is true in part because it was the first practice I encountered, and this occurred at a time when it more or less saved my life, so I owe a debt of gratitude. Maybe there is just something about Zen that works with my particular conditioning and perspective. Maybe it’s something about the balance between outer concentration on form and the inner experience of ultimate freedom that come with Zen practice. I’ll never know, but Zen has resonated with me since the moment I first encountered it. Maybe even before that, because it already felt familiar and true to me in a way that nothing else ever had.
So why did I do a 10-day Vipassana retreat? The simple answer is that I needed a big dose of hard practice for reasons detailed in the previous posts, and the price was right (i.e., donation at my discretion – after the course, no less). For the most part, Zen sanghas do not offer that kind of extended immersion in practice, unless your sangha does a traditional 7-day silent Rohatsu sesshin once a year in December, or you do a monastic practice period. But my day job is teaching, and the end of my semester almost always conflicts with Rohatsu. And my own sangha doesn’t really do silence very well anyway. There tends to be a lot of chatter because we come from all over the country and don’t see each other often. But having experienced the relative outer silence of Rohatsu and brief monastic stints a time or two before, I knew I needed that again. In some sense, it was also about the challenge. Could I really overcome my conditioning and not-talk for 10 days? Could I really do that much meditation, despite whatever discomfort, boredom, and/or frustration it might present? I felt my practice had gone soft, and I needed a jolt. The Goenka retreat provided that.
Zen and Vipassana
Despite the fact that Zen and Vipassana have similar aims, the practices themselves differ considerably. Zen, at least in the Soto tradition, emphasizes the practice of shikantaza (just sitting). That’s it, that’s all. You’re just sitting. If extraneous thoughts come, let them pass without hopping onboard. If physical sensations happen, they happen. Stillness of body corresponds to stillness of mind, so try not to move too much. It’s experiencing exactly this, whatever this happens to be, fully and completely. It’s wholeheartedness, giving oneself totally to the act of sitting, adding nothing “extra” in the form of mental commentary or labeling or attaching to certain outcomes.
Vipassana, in the Goenka version and other traditions, has particular concentration objects and uses guided meditation to some extent. The concentration practice might be meditation on breath, sound, physical sensation, etc. But there is always an object of single-pointed concentration. The concentration is said to promote samadhi (mental focus), which paves the way for several specific moments of insight (vipassana) and ultimately prajña (wisdom). The sequence in which all these things occur is mapped out very precisely in the Sutras and is supposed to occur in the practitioner in a fairly set order of stages or levels called jhanas. The focus seems to be fairly exclusively on personal enlightenment or liberation, but moral practice in the form of precepts is considered to play an integral role, so it’s not that Vipassana excludes the needs of other beings, as we might assume from a Zen/Mahayana perspective.
In a nutshell: If Vipassana is a sequentially delivered course of swimming lessons at the Y, Zen is your uncle throwing you into the lake and saying “swim to me.” You’ll learn to swim either way. Vipassana has a particular set of mental forms for the practitioner to follow, but little in the way of outward ceremony. Zen has a fairly precise outer form, particularly as pertains to physical posture and a few other traditional/ceremonial practices, but the inner mental experience is one of finding one’s own way to liberation. Obviously, in either case, having a teacher to coach and cheerlead the practitioner through rough spots is extremely helpful.
In Zen the samadhi/vipassana/prajña develop alongside one another at the practitioner’s individual pace. There are no “levels” of practice. We do what the Buddha did and what all Zen Ancestors have done. The practice of zazen already contains within it the realization that they experienced before us. All we have to do is engage in the practice fully, and the awakening and liberation that are already inherent show themselves, little by little, even if we don’t notice it happening. Practice is precisely enlightenment, whether you are a fancy so-called “Zen Master” or just trying out zazen for the first time. It’s all just practice. And it’s all the real thing too. Both at the same time.
Goenka’s Approach to Vipassana
Many aspects of the Goenka retreat were very foreign to me as a Zen person. And here I should mention that many aspects of the Goenka interpretation of Vipassana are also atypical of Vipassana generally. For instance, the role of the teacher in the Goenka tradition is, well, rather baffling to me, honestly. Other branches of Vipassana such as the ID Project, Against the Stream, and the Insight Meditation Society all have independently operating, accredited teachers. Goenka Vipassana does not. Goenka himself is the teacher of all Goenka retreats across the world.
Oh yeah, also worth mentioning: S.N. Goenka happens to be dead.
But even when he was alive, the content his retreats was delivered in the form of audio instructions and video discourses, so there was no way to communicate with him on a person-to-person level. Yet he must’ve been physically present for some retreats, so maybe those were different. But nowadays, wherever, whenever the retreat, the content is always delivered remotely and is therefore exactly the same. In a very corporate-y, or perhaps scientific way, the retreat’s contents, and presumably results, are endlessly duplicable.
The “assistant teachers” who run the retreats have a precise script that they follow, including in private interviews with the students. When I had experiences that differed from what we were supposed to be experiencing according to the instructions, the assistant gave generic advice that she had clearly delivered in the same exact manner hundreds of other times. Frankly, it felt parroted and perfunctory, robotic even. Granted, I don’t expect to personally connect on a deep level with a teacher I just met, but in dokusans with unfamiliar Zen teachers in the past, even if for only five minutes, the teacher always did his/her best to form a personal connection to the degree that was possible in that time frame. The student/teacher connection is indeed one of the real hallmarks and assets of Zen, which I suppose I took for granted before.
Also, if he’s dead now, does the organization consist only of assistant teachers? Did he not name at least one successor? If not, that’s just weird. Will the retreats proceed in perpetuity using the machinery already set in place? I guess so. Again, that feels a little strange to me.
Zen in general, Soto Zen in particular, and even specific sanghas and groups within the different Zen lineages, all have their own accredited and recognized teachers with their own particular perspectives on Zen practice. Serious study of Zen requires a personal, one-on-one connection with an experienced teacher. You may not always agree with or even necessarily like your teacher, but an element of trust in the teacher and the practice as a whole has to be there. A good Zen teacher is very much “what you see is what you get” in terms of his/her distinct personality, so it doesn’t take long to understand what he/she is about and to develop that sense of trust. The assembly line approach of the Goenka retreats was, on the whole, rather alienating. Is this an attachment on my part? Maybe. It’s also just what I know from Zen. The entire Zen tradition and most of its major texts hinge on that mind-to-mind connection of teacher and student reaching back, at least in theory, to the Buddha himself. This seems somehow essential to me.
Is ten days of very intense meditation too much for a beginning practitioner? It would’ve been for me. My first Zen sesshin was a 4- or 5-day affair after I had sat 20 to 30 minutes a day for three months or so. It went from 5:00a.m. to 9:00p.m. and consisted of just sitting with occasional dokusan, oriyoki meals, brief chores, and periodic brief chanting services (which, until then, I didn’t know Zen had). But mostly the endless hours of sitting. I was woefully unprepared, and it was January, in rural Wisconsin, and I had ridden with other people, so there was no escape. It was like going crazy, very slowly and quietly, seeing exactly how insane I was as if there were a mirror in front of me, and coming out the other side of that mirror unharmed but with a completely altered perspective. That sesshin remains one of the hardest things I have ever done in my life. Extremely rewarding, but indescribably challenging.
The Goenka retreats are 10 days of pretty much nothing but meditation, but for longer hours, for longer sitting periods, with near-complete verbal silence – in other words, extremely challenging for anyone of any experience level. And yet complete beginners come to the Goenka courses to learn meditation. A huge hats-off to those people. I have no idea how they manage. I might’ve gone truly, stark-raving mad.
Goenka encourages people to meditate two hours a day after the course, one 60-minute period in the morning and one in the evening. I’m not sure how anyone makes time for that. That would require monastic levels of commitment, which is very difficult in “the marketplace” (aka layperson life), which is why they have monasteries in the first place. Finding two 60-minute periods in a normal day of lay life is, frankly, unrealistic. On a really good day I do one 40- or 50-minute period. Usually more like 25 or 30. Having a daily practice at all as a layperson is somewhat challenging for most people. In fact, I have met years-long monastics who returned to lay life and discovered that they had a hard time maintaining daily practice without a set daily monastic schedule of group practice. In some ways, I feel like Goenka’s expectations set practitioners up for failure.
Yet he does run things on a very business-based model and seems to attract a lot of driven professionals, so maybe businesspeople thrive on the challenge of unrealistic expectations that they strive to meet anyway. Still, I’d be surprised if many people really do manage the two-hours-a-day recommendation over the long haul. But big kudos to those who do. That is some serious dedication. Maybe the Goenka approach works for a specific subset of the Type-A, high-achiever type personality. I am not that type.
One of the major tenets of Goenka’s retreats is that he allegedly offers nothing dogmatic or sectarian. Sorry, but that is simply not the case. In some sense, yes, Buddhism is compatible with just about anyone’s lifestyle and will not conflict with existing religious views or practices, or lack thereof. However, Buddhism is still Buddhism whether you are “into labels” or not. To claim it’s anything other than that is rather disingenuous and borderline disrespectful to centuries of teachers.
More egregiously, however, Goenka insists on his own particular interpretation of Buddhism. And that is entirely dogmatic and sectarian, regardless of your position on what “Buddhism” is or if it should even be called that. Specifically, he insists that Buddha’s real teachings were only preserved in Burma/Myanmar and only passed down by a few teachers – including, of course, the teacher and tradition he learned and taught. He also insists that his particular body-scanning Vipassana technique is the only real meditation technique taught by the Buddha. And that, my friends, is just plain, flat-out Completely Not True. At one point in a nightly discourse he alludes to “other meditations of liberation” so it’s possible he recognizes other specific traditions, but that was the only such allusion I ever heard.
In the last night’s discourse, he tells of a Burmese Buddhist prophecy that the “real teachings” would rise again out of Burma and return to India, eventually spreading to the whole world, and he strongly implies that he is the person who fulfilled the prophecy. What?!?
Umm… sorry, but that’s where I have to hop off the bandwagon. If you claim you are the only one who has the answer, you definitely do not have the answer. In fact, you are probably harming people in some sense. That’s the sort of thing I would expect from that Bikram Yoga guy or the Hare Krishnas or fundamentalist Christians, but from a Buddhist? Jeez. The actual Buddha himself even said you shouldn’t believe his words without testing them out.
Some Conclusions
All this said, I believe that Goenka’s retreats are valuable despite their shortcomings. They teach a solid technique, just as I stated in the previous posts. But I think some aspects of his teachings – specifically the claims to exclusivity while declaring himself “nonsectarian” and “nondogmatic” – have to be approached with caution and not a little skepticism.
To his credit, the coverage of Buddhism 101 (the Four Noble Truths, the precepts, the Noble Eightfold Path, the Paramitas, etc.) is presented in an accurate, easy-to-grasp manner that would appeal to and make sense to a wide range of people. I’ve already mentioned my admiration for the level of dedication from the organizers and participants in these courses, as well as the wholehearted practice that characterized the event as a whole. Despite the sometimes assembly-line feel of the experience, in the end, it does introduce tons of people to the practice of meditation and the value of Buddhist teachings. For that, the Goenka folks should be commended.
In terms of organization and fundraising, they also deserve a lot of recognition. There is, as far as I know, no Zen institution in the U.S. that manages to attract hundreds of people to its doors, and every center I know struggles with the issue of fundraising. I’m not sure what it is about the Goenka organization that pulls in such dedicated volunteers and donors, such that they can finance beautiful and functional practice spaces all over the world, but Zen could certainly learn a thing or two from them. Buddhism is inherently non-profit in the truest sense of the word, but we live in a world that revolves around money, and we have to come to terms with the fact that Westerners are not used to donation for the sake of selfless giving. They want something back for their investment, and we have to be clear and honest about what that is (and “nothing to attain” or “non-gaining” isn’t going to cut it for most new practitioners). Churches have the promise of heaven, which is so abstract, yet brings in million$. We’re very cagey in Zen about the promise of liberation in this life, and yet it is demonstrably real, so maybe we should be a little more upfront (albeit realistic) about that aspect of practice…
Goenka is, as I mentioned, just one representative of Vipassana and teaches only one of many techniques from that tradition. Meanwhile, Vipassana is only one of the many Buddhist traditions. Luckily, here in the U.S. we have the opportunity to explore those different traditions and find what works. But at the end of the day, I always advise people to stick with what works and engage in it deeply once they find it. The amount of options we have here encourages people to dip a toe into many different traditions but never fully immerse themselves or commit. Yet that commitment to a particular practice is an indispensable part of the process.
In the end, Vipassana is great and might be the right practice for some people. It was neat to experience it in such an immersive way. But I’ll stick with Zen. Your mileage may vary.