We should note that Vipassana is a form of Buddhist meditation, which takes as its base observances the four noble truths. The first of which is: To live is to suffer.
Perhaps if the author tried a form of meditation that isn't based on such a fundamentally negative philosophical basis then on his journey to enlightenment he may find a more enjoyable and charitable viewpoint.
My first encounter with meditation was with a Tibetan Buddhist tradition. I fully respect what I learned from their teachings, particularly about cultivating compassion, but I was put off with this negative base assumption. Later on I learned a form of meditation whose philosophical approach characterises life as a glorious struggle to expand ourselves in every possible dimension of existence, and along the way overcoming our flaws and weaknesses.
To some, struggle might also seem negative, but struggle is NOT equal to suffering - just ask all those struggling to get their startups off the ground whether hard work and effort are suffering?
That's not to say that suffering doesn't exist - of course it does, but I personally don't accept that it is the fundamental condition of humans.
Once you take a different philosophical basis then many of the observations of the condition of others also take on a very different hue.
It's a bit disingenuous to claim that Buddhism has "such a fundamentally negative philosophical basis"-- one shouldn't forget that the third noble truth is that there is a way to end to suffering, and the fourth noble truth is the description of that way.
Furthermore, a lot of translators think that "suffering" is not the most felicitous translation of "dukkha"-- the root words mean "a wheel with a bad axle", and it might be better to translate it as "unsatisfactory".
Sorry, my intent wasn't to dissuade anyone from Buddhism or to be disingenuous, only to point out that it isn't the only form of meditation and also that the fundamental assumptions taken as the basis for meditation can and do (heavily) influence your approach and view of life.
Personally, I chose not to accept that to live is to suffer or in your words that life as a human being is inherently unsatisfactory, rather that it is a state full of potential and opportunity to grow and help others.
Comments
We should note that Vipassana is a form of Buddhist meditation, which takes as its base observances the four noble truths. The first of which is: To live is to suffer.
Perhaps if the author tried a form of meditation that isn't based on such a fundamentally negative philosophical basis then on his journey to enlightenment he may find a more enjoyable and charitable viewpoint.
My first encounter with meditation was with a Tibetan Buddhist tradition. I fully respect what I learned from their teachings, particularly about cultivating compassion, but I was put off with this negative base assumption. Later on I learned a form of meditation whose philosophical approach characterises life as a glorious struggle to expand ourselves in every possible dimension of existence, and along the way overcoming our flaws and weaknesses.
To some, struggle might also seem negative, but struggle is NOT equal to suffering - just ask all those struggling to get their startups off the ground whether hard work and effort are suffering?
That's not to say that suffering doesn't exist - of course it does, but I personally don't accept that it is the fundamental condition of humans.
Once you take a different philosophical basis then many of the observations of the condition of others also take on a very different hue.
It's a bit disingenuous to claim that Buddhism has "such a fundamentally negative philosophical basis"-- one shouldn't forget that the third noble truth is that there is a way to end to suffering, and the fourth noble truth is the description of that way.
Furthermore, a lot of translators think that "suffering" is not the most felicitous translation of "dukkha"-- the root words mean "a wheel with a bad axle", and it might be better to translate it as "unsatisfactory".
Sorry, my intent wasn't to dissuade anyone from Buddhism or to be disingenuous, only to point out that it isn't the only form of meditation and also that the fundamental assumptions taken as the basis for meditation can and do (heavily) influence your approach and view of life.
Personally, I chose not to accept that to live is to suffer or in your words that life as a human being is inherently unsatisfactory, rather that it is a state full of potential and opportunity to grow and help others.