nina van gorkom vs burmese abhidhamma styles?

Discussion of Abhidhamma and related Commentaries

Moderator: Mahavihara moderator

User avatar
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am

Re: nina van gorkom vs burmese abhidhamma styles?

Postby Jechbi » Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:58 am

User avatar
Posts: 14947
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: nina van gorkom vs burmese abhidhamma styles?

Postby mikenz66 » Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:14 am

Thanks Jechbi for your analysis. I'm not really interested in "attacking" anyone. I'm more interested in figuring out the meaning, so your post is very helpful.

Since this is an Abhidhamma forum, I don't want to veer off into a discussion of meditation experiences, which is not really appropriate here, but I certainly agree that this "danger" of "enhancing the self" is something that we need to be aware of, and something that many teachers do talk about.


User avatar
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:15 am
Location: alaska

Re: nina van gorkom vs burmese abhidhamma styles?

Postby jcsuperstar » Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:19 am

from my readings of her, i do notice a slight anti meditation thing going on, ther eis this idea of who meditates and that we cant set up a situation for mindfulness, it just happens cause of causes and conditions, but then she'll say things liek "when i study" etc which is what? the exact type of situation but since it isnt meditation it's fine i guess?

it seems a bit odd that we can set up a period for study and that is kosher but to set up a period to meditate is somehow wrong.

right now i'm, reading "mindfullness in daily life" my next chapter is on samatha, maybe it'll provide me with some insights on her ideas about meditation.
สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ

the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat

Posts: 416
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:30 am

Re: nina van gorkom vs burmese abhidhamma styles?

Postby pt1 » Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:17 am

Hi Mike, JC, all,

I remember wondering about similar things when just starting with Nina's books - like when she says first that there is no self that can control and direct dhammas like sati or panna, and then saying in the next paragraph that we should study and be mindful. One of the helpful things to understand was that these are two ways of speaking about things - ultimate and conventional, which are often employed in works on abhidhamma.

For example, when talking on the ultimate level of a single citta with its cetasikas, there's no point really talking about people, methods, meditation, doing something specific, etc, because this citta lasts for a nanosecond or so, and then disappears forever, and the only thing that can be said about it is that it was accompanied by certain cetasikas, and that's about it. And of course, this citta cannot be taken for any kind of a self, because its arising was conditioned by the preceding citta which was just as short, etc. So, it's just pointless to talk about any control, methods, or self, on the ultimate level (which is why I love studying abhidhamma - understanding anatta and anicca comes so naturally from it). On the conventional level though, sure, it can be said that people need to study and be mindful, but I feel this is only due to necessities of language because abhidhamma generally focuses on the ultimate level.

Regarding "no method" approach, Nina and A.Sujin's students follow dry insight approach, so I don’t see much point arguing with them about meditation. I think there is even a sutta which says something like - if you are a samatha student and you are interested in insight, then go talk to people who are good at insight. And I feel that A.Sujin's students can offer a lot on insight. As I understand it, insight is all about being able to verify in practice the ultimate level of things - citta and it's kusala/akusala cetasikas, rupas, and finally nibbana.

Regarding criticism of certain methods on DSG, I found that Nina usually tries to draw attention to the kind of citta at the present moment - is it akusala or kusala, rather than getting drawn into speculative arguments about certain teachers/methods. I mean, regardless of what particular method one is following (even if it's a no-method), the success of the practice at the moment will be determined by the kind of the citta at the moment. Kusala is kusala, and akusala is akusala no matter whose teachings one is following.

Anyway, these are just my observations.

Best wishes

Return to “Abhidhamma”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine