Calm and Insight

A Buddhist Manual for Meditators

Bhikkhu Phra Khantipalo

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2003
• Print ISBN:
  9781138405905
• eBook ISBN:
  9781135799625
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Ethnic Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

This manual, by an experienced Buddhist, has been written so that it will be easily accessible also to the reader who knows nothing about meditation, but also contains knowledge and experience that can be gained only through practice.

Appendix 1

SOME QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q. Please say a few words about the relation of learning to practice of Dhamma in general and meditation in particular.

A. The Buddha was not concerned to propound a philosophical system. His intention is shown in his often repeated words—‘I teach two things only, dukkha and dukkha’s cessation.’ That is, he taught people how to be able to distinguish their dukkha, how to spot it with mindfulness, and then how to find the path out of dukkha. An eminently practical teaching! His discourses all have this intention—leading people to the lessening and final cessation of dukkha. So learning the Buddha’s discourses in the earliest times had only this purpose—as information on the path out of dukkha. Later Buddhists grew more scholastic and were not so much interested in finding this path for themselves but rather in building the Buddha’s teaching up into a flawless system which (they hoped) could not be attacked. Much of the Abhidhamma and its commentaries, together with the treatises of Mahayana authors come into this category and from a practical standpoint, especially for meditation, it is all useless. It only clutters the head with more words which, even if they are Dhamma words, have to be put down when meditation starts. Such speculative theories and systems do not lead one out of dukkha, nor are they of benefit to others because they cause the dissension which always arises from holding views. By contrast with all this, the Buddha’s discourses in Pali point directly to practice on various levels which can only benefit both individuals and society in general. They are words of guidance but they are not to be clung to and have to be put down when meditation starts. The Commentaries rightly depict the Buddha’s Teaching as consisting of three stages: thorough learning, practice, and penetration. The first ensures that one has good directions for the journey ahead so that one will not stray off the path. The second is actually walking the path and finding out for oneself the various benefits of virtue, meditation and wisdom. The third is arriving at the goal, the end of the journey, when one completely verifies the Dhamma for oneself. But if one sticks to words and concepts then the second and third parts of the Dhamma cannot be practised and penetrated.

Q. Can one get good advice from a spirit guide or from divination if one has no meditation master to turn to?

A. The Buddha said:

Oneself is refuge of oneself—
what else indeed could refuge be?
By the good training of oneself
one gains a refuge hard to gain. (Dhammapada 160)

This means that even when one has a good Teacher he cannot lead one to wisdom, it has to be developed by oneself through the practice of Dhamma. No doubt people do get help in the ways you mention, such as from the Tarot, the ‘I Ching’ or from astrology but in these ways one’s wisdom is not sharpened up because an exterior ‘refuge’ is being relied on. When Dhamma is practised according to moral conduct, meditation and insightwisdom then one’s heart becomes clearer and brighter so that guidance can be obtained easily from within. Dhamma is then the best path as it is naturally the refuge within one’s own mind, speech and body, while the Buddha called such practices as astrology and divination ‘the low arts’. Spirit guides or devas cannot be relied upon to give infallible guidance—they are not Enlightened themselves so how could they do this? And besides, they may actually represent, or their messages be coloured by, the subconscious mind of the medium from whom they are obtained. If some evidence is needed of how confused the devas can be a glance at such ‘spirit-writings’ as the Book of Urantia or the Book of Oahspe should be convincing. These works, supposedly the composition of highly developed spiritual beings show a lamentable ignorance of the Buddha’s Teachings, worse indeed than many human beings!

Q. Recently I have had the chance of practising a vipassanā course with a group who say that they alone have the pure way of practice and attainment. What would you say about this?

A. In every religion there are little groups who form sects in time and say that their way is the original pure teaching and everyone else is wrong. But this is just ditthi— views, a way of propping up the ego and has nothing to do with insight! Insight or vipassanā, if it is the real thing, leads to more or less sudden changes in people as their cravings drop off. In groups like the one you mention, have the teachers’ cravings dropped off, or are they still attached to a lot of worldly things? And if not to worldly things, then perhaps there is still the attachment to views that ‘we have the only true path’ and so on? Such are the snares of Mara that he can even lead ‘teachers of insight’ by the nose! But there is another point in question—vipassanācannot be practised. One can practise one of the many ways leading to vipassanā (which is not a trade name for one particular group) taught by the many teachers who teach it in Thailand and Burma but the method used cannot be called vipassanā. That is something experienced as a result of the method. Even if one has some unusual experiences they are more likely to arise from calm in the beginning, rather than be concerned with insight. Insight experiences must involve the Three Characteristics, or one of them, and they must have some liberating effect though in the case of ‘new’ vipassanā this could disappear if not carefully nurtured. Courses are good to take while one has only a limited amount of time but they should not become an addiction! If meditation becomes so important to one’s life that one wishes to make it the central theme, then one course after another (with some sensual relapses in between) is not the answer. This lies in the Sangha and renunciation as a monk or nun so that one’s lifestyle perfectly fits the way of meditation.

Q. You have told us how important it is to be free from views but in teaching Theravada Buddhism surely you are clinging to those views. Why not give them up?

A. This is an honest and straightforward question. I shall explain it only as far as it is necessary to supplement what has been said elsewhere. (See Chapter IV. 3). Right View—that kamma has appropriate fruits and the Four Noble Truths together do not require that one suspends one’s reason and just beliefs. Believing means holding views more or less dogmatically. But in the Dhamma this is not necessary for it is quite easy to test out whether kamma has appropriate fruits or not. Try propping up the bar for a week getting drunk every day and night—and see what kind of results you experience! It is likely that there will be an increase in dukkha! Then compare that week with another spent carefully keeping the Five Precepts and extending loving-kindness and compassion to others. There should be a marked increase of happiness! And this takes no account of the residue of those kammas which may continue fruiting in the future. As to the Four Noble Truths, they do not require belief. They do need understanding though which is then mundane Right View. Afterwards mundane Right View is transformed through insight-wisdom into supermundane Right (Perfect) View which, as has been explained, is No View. The Dhamma I teach is not specially Theravada though I have been trained in this tradition. Dhamma is not Theravada, nor Mahayana either, Dhamma is for putting down views, all views, even Buddhist ones.

Q. I understand from what you have said that your Dhamma-teaching is of the exoteric kind given by the Buddha to his monk disciples who were not mature like the great Bodhisattvas but you have not said much about the practice of esoteric Buddhism suitable for those of an advanced nature. Will you please enlighten us on this?

A. When the Buddha was nearing his Final Nibbana, just before death, he was asked by his attendant Ven. Ananda for his last instructions to the monks. Indian teachers have sometimes left their most closely guarded secrets until a few moments before death before imparting them to a specially favoured disciple. The Buddha, by contrast answered Ven. Ananda in this way: ‘I have set forth the Teaching without making any distinction of esoteric and exoteric doctrine; there is nothing with regard to the teachings that the Tathagata holds to the last with the closed fist of a teacher who keeps some things back’—thus indicating that he had no secret teachings which he held back in his ‘closed fist’. From other places in the Buddha’s discourses, it is clear that he classified those who had religious secrets, such as the brahmins with their Vedas, with rogues and wrongdoers. Why do they hide things? What are they afraid of?—was his attitude to those who held that secrecy and esoteric doctrines were valuable. The Dhamma that he taught, of s

la-samādhi-paññā (Moral conduct, meditation and wisdom) was accessible to everyone, not restricted at all for all could question what they did not understand and obtain explanations. It is true that he taught basic Dhamma relating to household duties, good social relationships, virtue and generosity to householders, while monks and nuns received discourses on the deeper aspects of practice, such as detailed descriptions of states of calm and insight and how they could be cultivated. But this does not imply exoteric and esoteric teachings because laypeople when they had developed their practice could hear the same deep Dhamma—nothing was hidden from them. The only way in which they could have any relevance to his teaching is to say ‘exoteric’ is what one can easily understand while ‘esoteric’ means what is beyond one’s understanding due to delusion and other defilements. But this is not the meaning implied in the question. Though there are now schools of Buddhism which use these terms, the Buddha neither knew of such doctrines nor would he approve of them. Surely these terms imply, on the part of the one who approves them, some kind of ‘one-upmanship’, a sense of spiritual superiority over those who merely follow ‘exoteric doctrines’, which must rightly be called pride and conceit. Such thoughts as ‘I am a Bodhisattva who follows the esoteric tantric tradition while they have only the exoteric teachings to practise’ is only a way of nourishing thoughts of self or ego which cannot result in anything good and cannot be called the practice of Dhamma. Many people are deluded these days because of the prevalence of such terms, mostly in books dealing with Tibetan forms of Buddhism. It may give them a good feeling to follow an ‘earwhispered’ tradition with initiations and ceremonies, secret mantras and the promise of magical powers but how far away indeed is all this from what the Buddha taught! That good feeling is just reinforcement of the ego, an obstacle to the attainment of wisdom.

Q. I have studied and practised some Zen and from the little knowledge I have gained it seems that satori is the Zen equivalent of vipassanā (insight). Is this correct?

A. It is difficult to compare terms in differing systems of practice but vipassanā is clearly defined in the Pali Suttas as being insight into the Three Characteristics of all living beings:-impermanence, dukkha and not-self. If a spiritual experience is not concerned with penetrating these three in oneself then it is not vipassanā but rather a samatha calm) experience. So if by satori is meant experiences relating to the Three Characteristics then there is true vipassanā in Zen. It is noticeable that Zen Masters do not make much of these three in their instructions, nor do the experiences of their pupils (as related, for instance, in The Three Pillars of Zen) reveal penetration of these characteristics. These happenings all seem to be the result of strong calm. So it is evident that satori is a much more loosely defined term than vipassanā, though some satori may qualify to be called insight.

Q. How important is it for a Buddhist to have a guru? I have noticed that you speak about having a Teacher rather than a guru. Is there any difference implied?

A. Yes, it is important for most people. However good a book on meditation may be, it cannot answer one’s questions. It is quite common to find that books explain everything about some aspect of meditation except the one thing that one needs for guidance. Besides asking a Teacher and being able to get a good reply, the Teacher will on occasion admonish or stir up the disciple if he thinks this necessary. Books can never do this! And one cannot serve a book! But to a Teacher one can show one’s reverence and love by such service as is in agreement with the precepts and reasonable. Here is, perhaps, the line which differentiates Buddhist Teachers from Hindu gurus. A Teacher, even if he has reached the peak of Enlightenment, has a natural virtue from which he cannot depart (because there are no defilements to cause this) and he does not expect his disciples to depart from their virtuous conduct in order to serve him. Nor does he want the unreasonable devotion of the blind bhakta. In fact, a Teacher may censure people who get too much concerned with devotion towards him. Devotion should be directed towards Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha and expressed in sincere practice. A Teacher (if a bhikkhu-monk, or bhikkhuni-nun) is a member of the Sangha and not just an individual who teaches how he likes. He has accepted a code of conduct which is common to himself and all other monks. This may be different from a guru too. With the latter, he may speak of ‘his grace’ in blessing his disciples and frequently a famous guru is identified with one of the Hindu gods; a Buddhist Teacher in the Theravada tradition would never permit this to happen as he is not an incarnation (avatar) or instrument of any divine being, nor does he teach belief in a Creator or any Godhead. The Buddha praised respect to one’s Teacher and gratitude for the Teaching he gives:-

Should one a man of wisdom see
who points out faults and gives reproof

as though revealing treasure hid—
one should consort with such a sage,
for while one lives with one like him
better it is, never for worse.
Let him then exhort, instruct
and check one from all evil things;
dear indeed is he to the true
but to the false he is not dear.
(Dhammapada 76–77)

Q. How can meditation be integrated into ordinary everyday life? Doesn’t its practice cause one to be inactive in social matters?

A. An answer to the first question is found in Chapter II. 3, the application of mindfulness at first to simple jobs involving the body and later as mindfulness grows stronger, its extension to mindfulness in all situations. This needs patience and perseverance. The second question needs a more detailed answer. Some social matters one should be inactive in and others one should engage in. Those to be avoided are the causes and movements where violence is used or encouraged for the attainment of some goal. From a Buddhist standpoint, the end never justifies the means. Violence and hatred can never lead to the attainment of worthy goals. What they do lead to is more violence and hatred. A meditator comes to see this clearly and to know other better non-violent means to deal with injustices and inequalities. For instance, loving-kindness opens many doors which are closed (out of fear) against the violent man. And as meditation develops a clearer mind one knows much better how to approach problems that need to be solved. The answer is clearer and more direct to a successful meditator who does not have a head cluttered up with wandering thoughts and proliferating ideas.

Q. It seems to me to be selfish to go off by yourself and meditate. Surely it would be better to engage in social service. Isn’t that what you call the Bodhisattva’s work?

A. Bodhisattvas (beings who aspire to Full Enlightenment) must not cultivate only exterior actions of body and speech. If they do only this then how will they differ from the typical western do-gooder? And how can such a person be called a Bodhisattva? Instead of bodhisattvas they will just be body-busies! Bodhi comes from the mind-heart which has been systematically cultivated, not from body and speech actions. The latter when they arise from compassion and a proper sense of duty must not be neglected for they banish selfishness. (Oh, I haven’t time to do that, I’m meditating!) But they are not fundamental: mind-heart decides and chooses, mind-heart makes kamma, therefore mind-heart should be properly attended to. Then, if one chooses an active life of good works, that goodness will not lack wisdom and compassion. As regards selfishness, all Buddhist practice to begin with is somewhat selfish because one is rightly concerned with oneself! But the inwardness of meditation which leads to increased purity must be balanced with the growth of loving-kindness and compassion which goes out to all living beings—so the meditator is not selfish but rather finding the way beyond the boundaries of self. Dhamma can never be practised selfishly; it always leads to benefit for other beings besides oneself. More Dhamma-practice brings more benefit for beings at large.

Q. You have spoken of crossing yourself over. What about all the many sentient beings? Should one not rather follow the Bodhisattva path and cross them over too?

A. The Buddha’s advice to people who have the opportunity to practise Dhamma was they they should practise as much as they possibly could. When Dhamma is practised in the proper way it must benefit both oneself and others. It cannot be practised only to benefit oneself. Giving obviously benefits both sides, the recipient and the donor. Virtue benefits the one who practises Five or Eight Precepts and gives the gift of no-fear to other living beings. Even meditation which seems at first to be an inward-going practice also benefits others because with fewer defilements the meditator relates better to other beings. Mindfulness and meditation must always be complemented by loving-kindness and compassion. This is brought out strongly by the story of Little Fat Pot, the girl acrobat apprentice and her master. (See end of Chapter III.)

The Buddha was once asked by Uttiya, a wanderer, whether the Dhamma provided a way out for all the world, for a half or for a third of it. The Buddha did not reply to this, possibly because the question was phrased in terms of ‘beings to be delivered’, which is deluded as they are just clung-to aggregates. Venerable Ananda, the Buddha’s usual attendant, then gave the simile of a city surrounded by a thick wall having no gaps and only one gate so that the beings entering that place must use the one way in. He goes on to say that entry to the city of Nibbana can only be by way of one gate:

abandoning the Five Hindrances,

developing the Seven Enlightenment Factors,

establishing the mind well in the Four Foundations of Mindfulness.

All beings who wish to enter this city must follow this path to it and enter it in this way.

Perhaps you are thinking of one of the Bodhisattva Vows: ‘Though the many beings are numberless, I vow to save them’. This should be seen as an expression of one’s loving-kindness towards all beings, it should not be taken literally! Even Gotama the Buddha, or Shakyamuni as he is sometimes called, did not save all human beings, what to speak of devas, animals ghosts, and hell-realm beings. Shall I be able to accomplish more than he has done? And if I think that I can, will this not just be conceit? The Sixth Patriarch of Ch’an Buddhism in China has interpreted this vow ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction: Why Meditate?
• Every Evil Never Doing
• And in Wholesomeness Increasing
• And One’s Heart well Purifying
• This is the Buddha’s Teaching
• Appendix 1: Some Questions And Answers
• Appendix 2: A Glossary Of Buddhist Technical Terms On Meditation