1 Chapter 1 Introduction Overview and Statement of the Problem A continuing central issue in Buddhist meditation, a popular substitute for the Pāli term ‘bhāvanā ’ which literally means ‘development’ or ‘culture,’ i.e., mental development or mental culture, is how two interconnected processes are related. These processes are samatha (tranquillity) or samādhi (concentration) on the one hand and vipassanā (insight) or paññā (wisdom) on the other. 1 Samatha which denotes calmness, tranquillity, serenity and concentration possesses the function of calming, centering and unifying the mind by means of which the mind and its concomitants remain focussed on a single object. The mental unification cannot be attained all at once but develops in a graded sequence of absorption levels, namely the jhāna s. 2 Vipassanā aims to gain direct understanding of the true nature of phenomena as they really are, in terms of the three characteristics; anicca (impermanence), dukkha 3 (unsatisfactoriness) and anattā (not-self). It is generally regarded as the unique discovery of the Buddha and of central importance for the achievement of nibb āna. 4 The issue of the relationship between these processes is crucial because meditation provides the reliable means for the achievement of Buddhist liberation from the circle of existences and supreme security from bondage to ignorance. 1 Henepola Gunaratana, A Critical Analysis of the Jhanas in Theravada Buddhist Meditation , (Ph.D thesis, The American University, 1980), p. 11. 2 The grammatical rules for the use of the plural forms of Pāli terms, are very complex and depend on such things as the gender and final vowel of the term. For example, the term jh āna could be pluralized as jh ānāni , and khandha as khandh ā. To avoid explaining each different individual use of Pāli pluralization, and for the sake of simplicity and readability, this study will add the suffix “s” in non- italic type to the Pāli term, in italic type, in order to represent two or more units of the terms. 3 The term “ dukkha ” is occasionally interpreted as different meanings such as; pain, suffering, ill, unsatisfactoriness, according to its certain connections (Nyanatiloka: Buddhist Dictionary , p. 54). In this research, it will be rendered as unsatisfactoriness in connection with the three characteristics, as suffering with four noble truths, as pain with the mode of feeling. 4 Piyadassi, The Buddha's Ancient Path (Taiwan: The Corporate Body of the Buddha Educational Foundation, 1964), p. 204. 2 In the varying opinions about and practice of Buddhist meditation, 5 the relationship between samatha and vipassanā can be abstracted into three categories: 1) regarding the development of vipassanā as a direct approach to enlightenment in which the development of samatha is not essential; 2) the contemplation of the meditation methods independently of each other as a path to enlightenment; 3) the concomitant contemplation of samatha and vipassanā in order to achieve enlightenment. From these three diverse positions, the relationship between samatha and vipassanā can be seen as potentially problematic. In particular, vipassanā practice lacks clarity due to differing and contradictory interpretations of the Buddhist canon. To date, this conflict of practice remains unresolved and the debate continues. The principle purpose of the current study is to determine what the intrinsic characteristics of vipassanā are and how they are related to samatha . To contribute to the debate of vipassanā which is generally related to samatha , the later chapters attempt to examine samatha and vipassanā individually and then to draw out the ideas about and understanding of their relationship in Theravāda Buddhism. This work attempts to determine which position may be correct. Moreover, some suggestions will be posited to help clarify what Buddhist soteriological practice is actually all about. It is useful to present a body of evidence which may contribute in a minor way to an eventual resolution of the question. This introductory chapter has three main aims. It will first introduce the three main positions in the debate about the relationship between these two processes and to position this thesis in this debate. It will then give a methodological 5 See, for example, Nārada, The Buddha and His Teaching , 4 th edition, (Malaysia: Buddhist Missionary Society, 1988; 1 st publ. 1964), p. 537; Paul J. Griffiths, On Being Mindless : Buddhist Meditation and the Mind-Body Problem (La Salle: Open Court, 1986), p. 14; and Prakash Pathak, “Vipassan ā and Relation with Puggala- Paññatti,” in Vipassan ā the Buddhist Way , ed. Harcharn Singh Sobti (Delhi: Eastern Book Linkers, 2003, pp. 138-147), p. 140. 3 approach to the issue of the relationship between samatha and vipassanā and a preliminary description of our scriptural sources. The third aim is to give an overview of the thesis by introducing the individual concept of each chapter. Regarding the first position, most scholars (e.g. Nārada, Nyanaponika, and Bucknell) argue for the significance of vipassanā alone. For instance, Nārada states that samatha is not essential and is regarded as an asset only; the meditator can direct him/herself to vipassanā alone in the pursuit of arahantship. 6 Dependant on the unique practice of vipassanā , Nyanaponika classifies the practice of bare insight ( sukkha -vipassanā ) into the direct and exclusive practice of vipassanā without the progress of samatha into the state of jhāna s. 7 In The Twilight Language , Bucknell says: “It is stated that tranquillity meditation, though valuable as a foundation for insight meditation, is not indispensable, and may be bypassed by exceptionally gifted meditators.” 8 While these scholars attempt to interpret vipassan ā as essential and samatha as inessential in the pursuit of ultimate goal, one might ask why the Buddha taught numerous methods of meditation to bring about one-pointedness of mind. Moreover, the Buddha says: Perfect concentration, Ānanda, when developed and made much of, has as its final goal the removal of desire, the removal of hatred, and the removal of delusion .9 At this point, the opinion of the first category which disregards samatha as non-essential appears to be controversial. 6Nārada, op. cit., p. 537. 7 Nyanaponika, The Heart of Buddhist Meditation: A Handbook of Mental Training Based on the Buddha’s Way of Mindfulness , 2 nd edition, (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1 st publ. 1962), p.103. 8 R.S. Bucknell, & M. Stuart-Fox, The Twilight Language : Explorations in Buddhist Meditation and Symbolism (New York: St. Martin Press, 1986), p. 6. 9 S.V.5-6: “ Samm āsam ādhi Ānanda bh āvito bahul īkato r āgavinayapariyos āno hoti, dosa… mohavinayapariyos āno hoti.”(All translations from P āli to English throughout are the author’s own translations unless otherwise stated.) 4 Regarding the second position, a few scholars propose that both samatha and vipassanā are clearly distinguished in relation to the Buddhist soteriology and Buddhist philosophical theory . For example, Griffiths focuses on the independency of these two meditative techniques as a result of their different soteriological methods and goals. On the one hand, he says about vipassanā : “Those who follow and advocate the analytical techniques tend to perceive the basic human problem as one of ignorance, an inaccurate understanding of the way things are.” 10 Regarding samatha , on the other hand, he says: “the practitioners of the enstatic 11 techniques aimed at tranquillity tend to perceive the basic human error as one of attitude rather than cognition; the key Buddhist term here is ‘thirst’ ( tahā), a term that denotes all types of passionate desire and attachment.” 12 However, if samatha and vipassanā are clearly independent, why are their synonymous terms, samādhi and paññā arranged in the group of threefold training ( sīla , samādhi and paññā)? Indeed, Griffiths’ point about the inconsistency between samatha and vipassanā seems to contradict the Buddha’s statement of their identical responsibility for obtaining knowledge ( vijjā ). These two things, monks, are partaking of knowledge. What two? Tranquillity and insight . 13 Regarding the third position, a considerable number of scholars (e.g. Pathak, Anālayo) attempt to portray both meditative processes as equal for Buddhist liberation . For example, Pathak states in regard to their cooperation continuing up to nibbāna , that samatha and vipassanā must be combined into a single process to nibbāna .14 In support of this, Anālayo states: “…not two different approaches to realization but two aspects of the meditative path, one of which is 10 Paul J. Griffiths, op. cit., p. 14. 11 The word ‘enstatic,’ derived from the Greek word ‘en-statis,’ provides the meaning of ‘standing within.’ It is generally employed in the opposite of ecstatic which means standing without (Amjol Shrestha). The enstatic meditation aims to reduce the contents of consciousness, to focus awareness upon a single point (Paul J. Griffiths, op. cit., p. 18). 12 Paul J. Griffiths, loc. cit. 13 A.I.61: “ Dve me, bhikkhave, dhamm ā vijj ābh āgiy ā. Katame dve? Samatho ca vipassan ā ca. ” 14 Prakash Pathak, op. cit., p. 140. 5 not sufficient by itself to bring realization.” 15 His statement can be justified as it coincides with the Samathasutta where the Buddha advises monks to put effort into both samatha and vipassan ā processes: …a monk while considering knows thus: ‘I have gained the tranquillity of heart within oneself, but have not gained insight into dhamma through higher wisdom.’ Then, Monks, he should apply himself to establish the tranquillity of heart within oneself and to insight into dhamma through higher wisdom. …a monk while considering knows thus: ‘I have gained insight into dhamma through higher wisdom, but have not gained the tranquillity of heart within oneself.’ Then, Monks, he should apply himself to establish insight into dhamma through higher wisdom and to the tranquillity of heart within oneself.16 Although both processes seem to be useful and necessary in a quest for nibbāna , the definite answer of “how and when to develop both processes” is unclear.