Rakshasa wrote:What I mean is, do each of them have to be completely mutually exclusive?
Rakshasa wrote:If yes, shouldn't Shamatha directly lead to Vipashyana, ...
Rakshasa wrote:In other words, practicing Shamatha is the only requirement to gain enlightenment?
Though there is neither canonical nor commentarial basis for this view, it might be maintained that satipatthana is called ekayaa magga, the direct path, to distinguish it from the approach to meditative attainment that proceeds through the jhanas or brahmaviharas. While the latter can lead to Nibbana, they do not do so necessarily but can lead to sidetracks, whereas satipatthana leads invariably to the final goal.
Astus wrote:Satipatthana (smrtyupasthana) is a complete method in itself that includes both calming (samatha) and insight (vipassana/vipasyana). Although it is not necessary to master several stages of absorption (jhana/dhyana), some level of mental peace is always required by every meditation system in Buddhism that I know of (including modern Burmese vipassana). The method of calming doesn't lead to liberation because it is simply a temporary tranquillity one gains and without insight there is no turning away from grasping at phenomena.
Users browsing this forum: markatex and 26 guests