A rebuttal to empty0grace on youtube regarding his views on Acharya Goenka’s teachings

A reader, Paul, has brought to my notice a video in which the speaker offers his critique of what Acharya GoenkaJi teaches. In this, I will attempt a rebuttal to the best of my ability. The video is here


Here begins my review

1. He says between 2:30 and 5:30, certain symptoms come up while meditating and he disagrees that these symptoms are somehow purifying. He goes on to say that they have no intrinsic significance and that all that needs to be actually perceived is impermanence.

My comment:  I agree with the speaker. The symptoms themselves are not purifying. It is observing them with detachment, without reaction, without craving or aversion that is actually purifying. Acharya Goenka keeps repeating himself when he says that the sensations/symptoms have no significance in themselves. The significant thing is to observe them without reacting. So I am not sure where the conflict is here. This is not a criticism. He is saying exactly the same thing Acharya Goenka keeps saying. The speaker’s criticism seems to be regarding the way that the teachings “can” be misinterpreted. And he is right. The teaching is easy to misunderstand because it is so subtle while our minds are so gross. Yes, students misinterpret the teachings exactly as the speaker mentions it. I did so as well. This is because while GoenkaJi’s teachings are excellent, they are not perfect. Yes, GoenkaJi’s teachings are not perfect. GoenkaJi will be the first to admit it. Hell, even an Arahant’s teachings are not perfect. Webu Sayadaw (an arahant) admits as much in his discourses. Only a Buddha’s teachings can be perfect. Because the teachings of a non-Buddha cannot be perfect, they will always be misunderstood. That is the nature of things and not a valid criticism.


2. The next criticism starts at 11:40. He claims that the teachings could be more precise.

That is true. I agree. But please remember, English is not GoenkaJi’s first language. In fact he could not speak English till he was 45 or so. He still does a remarkable job, though. As a matter of fact, his discourses in Hindi are indeed more precise. Hindi is his first language. Thus, there is a lot less scope for misinterpretation there. Still he does a very Good job in English. The assistant teacher is there to actually clear any such misconceptions that might arise. As I said earlier, Perfection is possible only for the Blessed One.

3. At around 12:00 another criticism is that the class size is too big and that the instruction is a one size fits all and that there is no concept of personalized instruction. The speaker wishes that there was more individualized instruction

My comment: First, it is not fair to call it one size fits all. A more fair comment is that the one size that fits the most. The author later admits to the trade-off between personalized instruction and bringing the teaching to as many people as possible. The author thus answers his own question. But I still say the class size is not too big. If one reads the Pali Canon, one sees that the Buddha also gives short, simple, basic instructions to his students and they go off to the Forest to practice. They were then expected to understand the details and intricacies of the method by themselves. There was no spoon-feeding along every step. There was no constant running back to the Buddha to clear doubts. They were expected to apply their logical faculties to understand if they were violating any of the instructions of the Buddha. GoenkaJi teaches similarly. There are basic instructions regarding observation of breath, then sensation, then sweeping and very importantly not reacting, or craving or disliking or favoring one sensation over the other. Similarly we are expected to be able to fill in the blanks. And at any rate, one can keep running to the assistant teacher for help if one so desires. I have never heard of an assistant teacher admonishing any student for coming running to him all the time. But this is left to the student’s own initiative as to how often he wants to keep running to the teacher. You can’t force someone to learn so subtle a path. In this tradition a lot of importance is given to the meditator making his own mistakes and learning from them. But even if you keep running to the teacher for every small problem, no body will stop you or discourage you. So this is not a valid criticism as well. In the Pali Canon, one sees that the students usually meet the Buddha only twice. The first time to receive the instructions and a second time to announce that he is liberated. There were some who met him in between to express their frustration over their lack of progress or some who wanted to go back to the Lay life. But the Gist is that two meetings with the Buddha were all it took.

4. At around 15:00, it emerges that the speaker is familiar with the Maha-Satipatthana Sutta where the Buddha de-lineates four different objects of contemplation, viz. Anapana-Sati (Breath), Kayagati-Sati/kayanupassana(Body), Vedanupassana(Sensations), Cittanupassana (Mind), Dhammanupassana (mental contents). Of these Acharya Goenka focuses only on Anapana and Vedananupassana thus eliminating half of the Buddha’s teachings. The Author maintains that one must practice all 4 satipatthanas in order to get closer to reality. He alleges that just focusing on sensations does not do justice to the Buddha’s teachinsg, that it does not show us the whole reality. Thus he claims that GoenkaJi is not honoring the Buddha’s teachings.

My Comment: This brings a smile to my lips as what I used to believe was similar. First, The Buddha’s teachings regarding objects of contemplation are not limited to the Satipatthana Sutta. By some accounts there are over forty different ways to practice anapana alone. This fact is alluded to in The Ven. Websu Sayadaw’s (The Venerable Monk who admonished U Ba Khin to teach others) discourses. Ledi Sayadaw (the teacher of GoenkaJi’s teacher’s teacher) mentions some of these different ways to practice Anapana in his manual on Anapana-Sati called Anapana-Dipani. Of these forty different ways, GoenkaJi teaches only one. Why? By some accounts, the Buddha gave his disciples over 108 different objects of contemplation. Of these GoenkaJi teaches only 3 (One way to do anapana, vedananupassana and metta-bhavana). Why only three? Why not some more?

The best way to answer this question is by another question. The technical college I went to teaches over 15 different disciplines in Engineering alone. Why did I choose just one field, electrical Enineering. Why not also include Mechanical Engg., Aeronautical Engg., Chemical Engg, Computer Science, etc? After all the more the merrier, right? After all the extra disciplines will show me more of the reality of this world of Engineering right? No friends, more is not always merrier. Had I tried to master 10 other disciplines, I would still be in college and would never have gotten started in earning a living and supporting my family. I would still be living off my parents. Please remember, my object in college was to earn a living. Similarly my object in learning meditation is to come out of misery. One method will suffice. If I try to do several more, I will just keep rolling in misery, not making progress in any. Choose one path, maybe experiment a bit, but at some point you have to make a choice, a commitment and stick with it. Similarly, this tradition of Ledi Sayadaw teaches this method. If there is some other school that teaches another and it suits your temperament, GoenkaJi says Go for it. After all, it is not fair to ask Albert Einstein, “Why do you only teach Physics? Why not Chemistry as well?” It is the same as asking Acharya Goenka why do you not teach Cittanupassana as well.

Besides as any practicing Engineer worth his salt will tell you, Electrical Engineering is not all that different from Mechanical Engg. The basic principles are all the same. Infact, after having practiced pure Electrical Engineering for the last 8 years. I am now getting into Mechanical Engineering and to my pleasant surprise the two fields are not all that different. The Similarities are far more than the differences. Far more. Similarly, Cittanupassana, Vedananupassana, Kayanupassana, Dhammanupassana are not all the different. Just like Sila, Samadhi and Panna are not all that different. Panna is actually just Sila for the mind. They are just taught differently to make it easy to grasp.

Also please understand that while the Buddha might have taught 108 different objects of contemplation and over 40 different ways to practice Anapana, he did not teach them all to the same student. Sariputta was just given Dhammanupassana. The Buddha gave instructions according to the mental ability and situation and condition of the student. But Acharya Goenka will be the first to admit that he is no Buddha. He will be the first to admit that his capabilities are infinitesimal in comparison the Buddha’s. He can only teach one method. Just like Albert Einstein or Richard Feynman can only teach Physics. My dear Friends, the Buddha is the Peerless, un-excelled teacher of Men and the Gods. What he can do, nobody else can do. No Man, demon, Deva, Brahma, Gods, Angels can do what the Buddha can do. So to compare my Beloved teacher with the Buddha is most unfair, I say.

5. Around 18:00, The author claims that one must observe the conditionality. One must observe one’s intentions. This he says is not contemplated in GoenkaJi’s teachings.

My comment: This is an unfair accusation. Observing intentions and reactions among many others is a part of Dhammanupassana. Thus my previous comment applies. Finally, as I move my mind through my body, I am completely aware of my intentions. It is just that I do not make an effort to observe them or push them away. I note them and am aware. I talked to the Assistant teacher about this and he is in agreement with what I am doing. As earlier mentioned, observing the sensations brings us closer to awareness of the mind and the various associated Dhammas.

6. The author believes there is a better approach than the sweeping the body via the mind. A claim is made that Ruth Denison teaches a better method than forcing the mind to feel sensations.

I would not say there exists a better method. I would say there are other approaches. GoenkaJi gives very good reasons as to why he promotes sweeping in his discourses. Those reasons are beyond the scope of this post. But let it be known that there are advanced students of GoenkaJi who do not sweep all the time. Sweeping is only an aid. It is helpful but not necessary all the time. The important thing is the perception of impermanence.

Finally, nowhere in this method is the mind forced to feel sensations. You cannot force your mind to feel sensations. This is a misinterpretation of what GoenkaJi teaches.

I cannot comment on Ruth Denison’s method. She is GoenkaJi’s Dhamma Sister. She is far advanced than I am. So I will not comment on her teaching’s. If herr teaching’s works for you, go for it. As for me, I have found my teacher. The speaker’s criticisms seem reasonable on the surface, But a little reflection convinces me that they are not valid criticisms.

About these ads

About masculineffort

A Man should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, seduce a woman, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
This entry was posted in Vipassana Meditation. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to A rebuttal to empty0grace on youtube regarding his views on Acharya Goenka’s teachings

  1. Daniel says:

    Hello Friend,

    Thank you for taking the time to listen to my video, and posting these very thorough rebuttals here. You obviously gave this a lot of reflection, and did so based on your own experience. If most of my video’s viewers had the depth of practice and wise reflection that you have, then the video would not have been necessary. You are obviously able and willing to learn from your own experience, and as such, you do not need to be “spoon fed” as you say, and can “fill in the blanks” nicely. It also seems that you have greater access to Goenkaji’s intentions because you understand Hindi. None of the criticisms I offer would have much value for you, or for those like you, but are rather aimed at those who are suffering from the misunderstandings you speak of, or who are not able to take the maturity of approach that you are not capable of.

    My primarily intended audience are those Western or Hindu (culturally) students who tend to bring the “guru” mentality into the teachings. I’m sure you know the ones: “how dare you criticize the teacher!?” “Who are you to say such a thing!!??” etc. Unfortunately, many do not understand that the Buddhism of all schools has a long and respectable history of debate, starting with the Buddha himself. Such debates can I feel make things clearer for all parties, as this one has.

    All that being said, I disagree with a couple of your points: We cannot say from the suttas how much actual face time students might have gotten with the Buddha, and even if it wasn’t much, they were practicing in the presence of the Buddha! Since we agree that no teacher or their teaching is perfect, all the more reason not to generate numbers that you cannot actually help. I don’t believe a teacher can really handle more than 10 students at a time, not effectively anyway, and I do hear chronic complaints about the assistant teachers, which suggests to me there is a problem in the teaching, because and important part of any teacher’s teaching is his or her’s capacity to teach others how to teach. I hear not understanding of the five controlling faculties in this teaching, and that understanding is foundational to guiding other people’s practice.

    Another point I disagree with is on the fulfillment of the four foundations. These are not just another way of parsing the 108 forms of contemplation. This teaching is given so much importance because of its basic and comprehensive nature. One thing that the satipatthana sutta mentions is the contemplation of each satipatthana in its own dimension, and not through another. Feelings in feelings, citta in citta, dhamma in dhamma etc. For example, although it is possible to contemplate dhamma through vedana (one can feel the sensation of a thought arising) and there is nothing wrong with this insight (it will tend to come along on its own anyway), I will say that making this a method is not the Buddha’s teaching, as the “cause, fulfillment, danger and passing away” of that dhamma will not be clearly evident if sensed through another.

    In short, I likely need to update this video and make some points clearer, but I still feel that the U Ba Khin approach is a great beginner’s practice, one in fact that I vigorously recommend to beginning yogis, but ultimately, if you want a well balanced practice, you will have to do something like the Mahasi method. I have criticisms of this method as well. As you admit, no meditation subject is perfect, and one can serve well to help clarify the weaknesses of another.

    Best wishes,


    • Friend Daniel, as I mentioned in the Youtube page, I always appreciate criticism of what I practice since it allows me to understand my own practice Better. Certainly, the criticism you have offered is borne not out of ego but out of a sincere desire for helping your Dhamma brothers progress on the path. Criticism such as the one you offer is always for the welfare of beings and never for their harm. It is the intention that matters and only an ignorant person can doubt your wholesome intentions. I will always always welcome criticism from sincere disciples of the Blessed one such as you.

      I think you are too kind to me when you imply that my depth of practice is greater than yours. It is most definitely not. Any person of average intelligence who browses my website and your youtube channel will come to the same conclusion.

      Your concern regarding the assistant teachers is well taken. In fact your view is shared by at least one Assistant teacher himself. He admitted to me that some assistant teachers are not there Yet. Some assistant teachers in fact had to be dismissed by GoenkaJi. Some were dismissed because they distorted the technique. But some were dismissed because of serious misconduct. But what to do? Such things happened in the Buddha’s time as well. You probably know the story of the Ven. Devadutta, the evil monk who even tried to kill The Perfect One.

      Friend, I am not sure what you mean by the four controlling faculties. Would you mind telling me more about this. Do you have a video talking about this?

      Friend, I also have very little competence in the scripture. Your comment that according to the Blessed One, mind must only be observed in mind and not via sensations is very thought provoking and I have no answer at present. Neither did I think about this in any depth. To be frank, this question of yours has stumped me. Let me delve into GoenkaJi’s discourses and see what he says regarding this Topic. But whatever I post will be hearsay and not borne of practice.

      The 10-Day course is a good beginner’s practice. The U Ba Khin tradition has several advanced course such as Satipatthana, special 10-day, 20-Day, 30-Day, 45-Day where they go into great depth regarding the teachings and there are changes in how one practices. Great latitude is given to the meditator in these courses. One is allowed to make one’s own decision. The 10-Day course is considered Kindergarten and that is wht it seems that this is a very rigid method. This is in keeping with GoenkaJi’s philisophy that theory should not overtake practice.

    • Desi Literature says:

      “My primarily intended audience are those Western or Hindu (culturally) students who tend to bring the “guru” mentality into the teachings. I’m sure you know the ones: “how dare you criticize the teacher!?” “Who are you to say such a thing!!??” etc. Unfortunately, many do not understand that the Buddhism of all schools has a long and respectable history of debate, starting with the Buddha himself. Such debates can I feel make things clearer for all parties, as this one has. ”

      Buddhism has a long history of debate because Hinduism has an even longer history of debate. Essentially there is no difference between a number Hindu philosophical schools and Buddhism. Same culture.

      • Friend, in a humorous and lighter note, Some buddhists like to refer to themselves as “Non superstitious Hindus.” The comment is tongue in cheek. No offense intended.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s