Definitional Problems: Theravada and Vipassana

Brooke Schedneck, a contributor for Progressive Buddhism and a PhD candidate in Asian Religions at Arizona State University, wrote an article on the definitional differences between Theravada Buddhism and Vipassana practice. Vipassana, known as insight meditation in English, instructs the practitioner to analyze the arising of mental phenomena from a passive or neutral standpoint. Although it exists in both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism, the form that was imported into America during the 1970's from Southeast Asia originates from the Theravadin tradition. Since its importation, Vipassana has become one of the major forms of American Buddhism, and the most prevalent American form of Theravada practice.

During its growth in America, some Vipassana teachers and centers deemphasized the practice's connection to Buddhism. As one commenter to Schedneck's post stated, he only learned of Vipassana meditation's root in Buddhism after a year of practice. Not only do different Vipassana centers and teachers place different emphasizes on the technique's connection to Theravada, the large numbers of Southeast Asian immigrants since the 1970's brought a large number of Theravada monks to American soil, who teach Vipassana mediation as part of Theravada practice.

Schedneck, along with other scholars of American Buddhism, have written about how the current state of Vipassana practice in America raises problems on how to classify different Buddhist (or in this case, Buddhist inspired) schools. In response to two articles she read, one in Bodhidharma Magzine and one in Tricycle, Schedneck writes:

I assume that for both of these classifications, ‘Vipassana’ refers to meditation centers that are mainly composed of lay converts and lay meditation teachers, and that ‘Theravada’ refers to monasteries consisting of lay Asian immigrants and Asian monks.

Schedneck writes how both authors, one of which includes the noted scholar Charles Prebish, fail to indicate if their definition of Vipassana includes schools with only a tenuous connection with its Buddhist origin. As she notes further in the post, the assumption that the main difference between Theravada and Vipassana is one is "Asian" and one is "American" is currently being questioned by a new generation of scholars.

My own experience leads me to agree with Schedneck. Wat Dhammasala, the Theravada temple near my home town, holds meditation classes every Saturday and Sunday, led by Ajahn Khemasanto, a Caucasian bhikku. The few times I attended the mediation classes at Wat Dhammasala, I saw a mixture of Westerners and Southeast Asians practicing together, under the guidance of a Western monk. The traditional Thai festivals held at the wat also saw a mixture of Southeast Asian and Western participants. When I interviewed Ajahn Khemasanto, he told me that he did not see a substantial difference in the practice of Southeast Asians or Westerners.

However, this example does not answer the question about how to properly deal with and define, meditation centers that down play Vipassana's roots in Theravada practice. Should scholars and students differentiate between centers that acknowledge, or even encourage, their Theravadin roots, and the centers that disassociate from Buddhist practice altogether. Like Hatha Yoga, Vipassana practice can, and has, been used as a secular practicum to help the practitioner relieve mental stress and anxiety. Even centers that have established ties to Buddhism, such as Wat Dhammasala, do not require a practitioner to accept any Buddhist tenants to learn Vipassana.

My thoughts are that the in the complicated landscape of American Buddhism, the only way to define Vipassana is to bifurcate the practice into two categories: Religious Vipassana and Secular Vipassana. Religious Vipassana is taught not only in Buddhist temples, but in meditation centers that not only acknowledge Vipassana's Buddhist roots, but use Buddhist terms and associated beliefs in conjunction to meditation practice. Secular Vipassana would cover those centers who either disassociate themselves from Buddhism, or acknowledge that Vipassana's Buddhist roots, but do not use Buddhist terms or associated practices in conjunction with Vipassana practice.

Two potential problems arise with these categories. First, they are not mutually exclusive. However, it seems that no definable categories could engage the complex relationship between Vipassana and Theravada Buddhism and not create overlapping categories. The categories also only cover the practices and teaching methods of institutions, and not the beliefs or religious affiliations of the practitioners. The focus on institutions over practitioners is necessary due to Vipassana's non-dogmatic nature. While a center could teach Vipassana as a Buddhist means for reaching enlightenment, there is no guarantee that every practitioner accepts either the Buddhist doctrines or eventual end goal. Likewise, a meditation center that makes no mention of Buddhism could have practitioners who not only understand Vipassana's roots in Theravada Buddhism, but accepts Theravadin doctrine, and attend a secular meditation center due to a lack of Theravada temples in the area.