Are the meditation techniques taught by the Buddha open for modifications/alterations?

[Nalanda]

So there are meditation techniques that the Buddha didn't favor. There are ones that he did and taught to be effective. I'm curious if those meditation techniques the Buddha taught are open to any creative reformulation, alteration, etc. What about the addition of new techniques, new rituals, and practices? How do we know that the Buddha would approve of these modified or added techniques?

[PadmaVonSamba]

I'm curious if those meditation techniques the Buddha taught are open to any creative reformulation, alteration, etc.

It wouldn’t actually be a modification. It would be a different technique inspired by or sort of based on the Buddha’s teaching. For example, I might focus on the ringing in my ears rather than on the breath.
It would be a modification if it were presented as an actual teaching of the Buddha. But since there is no way to ethically do that…

[Johnny Dangerous]

They are all tranquility and insight, or a combination or union of the two.

You could debate it until the cows come home, it would just depend on views of orthodoxy. If one is just going by what is in the Pali Canon it’s a minimal list of techniques, and not even the Theravadins do that. There are techniques like Kasinas which (afaik) aren’t found in Pali Texts but could be argued to be based on contemplation of the body as elements.

In the Mahayana of course there are innumerable techniques found in the Sutras, Commentaries, and when we get to Tantra, lots of extraordinary techniques and things like termas, which involve a kind of regular update or renewal of methods.

Beings have needs based on their relative situations, as such placing limits of techniques is only useful for people who function best with a narrow approach. That’s not wrong, but it’s merely one approach, assuming the Buddha would not have had the foresight to allow for the continuity of his teaching is a stifling viewpoint to me. It is exactly what attracted me to the Mahayana initially.

Also the question is kind of Theravadin by definition, in the Mahayana Buddhas are not locked away in Nirvana, practitioners are receiving blessings and teachings from them.

[Kim O'Hara]

They are all tranquility and insight, or a combination or union of the two.

You could debate it until the cows come home, it would just depend on views of orthodoxy. If one is just going by what is in the Pali Canon it’s a minimal list of techniques, and not even the Theravadins do that. There are techniques like Kasinas which (afaik) aren’t found in Pali Texts but could be argued to be based on contemplation of the body as elements.

... Also the question is kind of Theravadin by definition, in the Mahayana Buddhas are not locked away in Nirvana, practitioners are receiving blessings and teachings from them.

I have also heard that meditation techniques were lost from some Theravadin traditions for a very long time and that some now taught as orthodox were reconstructed or reinvented or borrowed back from other traditions (take your pick) in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The best known of these is Goenka's Vipassana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._N._Goenka which does in fact claim direct origins in the Buddha's teaching. It also claims to be completely secular, which seems rather strange.

But anyway, it does seem that the answer to the topic title is "yes" for just about everyone.


Kim

[Nalanda]

So it seems to me that the technical mechanics of the meditation practice isn't in itself what generates liberation/enlightenment/transformation but merely a part of doctrines.

[Kim O'Hara]

So it seems to me that the technical mechanics of the meditation practice isn't in itself what generates liberation/enlightenment/transformation but merely a part of doctrines.

That's an odd way of putting it. Meditation techniques are a set of tools.
Some are described in sutras, some aren't.
Some are effective for most people, others are more limited in their usefulness.
None of them are at all helpful unless practised.


Kim

[PadmaVonSamba]

So it seems to me that the technical mechanics of the meditation practice isn't in itself what generates liberation/enlightenment/transformation but merely a part of doctrines.

Oh yeah. They are just tools.
Saws and Hammers, not magic wands.

There’s this thing I’ve noticed lately, that many times people look at dharma practice and meditation like a “cookie recipe” but it also reminds me of a video game, where, if you catch all the coins or whatever, then you can unlock something and automatically move onto the next level. Like, do this and this and this and you get the reward. Or the cookies. Whatever.

You can meditate for a hundred years and not get a minute of awakening. It’s not the tools that do it. It’s how you use them, how you apply them in your life that matters. But they aren’t ‘merely part of doctrines’ either. There are reasons why breath meditation (for example) is a very effective tool.

If a person thinks, “okay now, I’m sitting on any cushion! I’m already for some enlightenment! Hello? Is anybody there? Hello, Buddha? I’m ready!” You know, that’s not going to happen!

………….
(I had to use the video game analogy because we just dug Nintendo Wii and Mario Kart c.2008 out of a box in the basement and started playing it again!)

[Johnny Dangerous]

So it seems to me that the technical mechanics of the meditation practice isn't in itself what generates liberation/enlightenment/transformation but merely a part of doctrines.

Techniques are not discrete like that, people can argue endlessly just about how to practice just what’s prescribed in the Satipatthana Sutta or Anapasati Sutta, which are simple compared to Mahayana practice.

Techniques achieve something, and in the Mahayana there are 84,000 methods, etc.