In the Tradition of Sayagyi U Ba Khin

The following is condensed from remarks made by S.N. Goenka in March, 1991, during an interview about his teacher, Sayagyi U Ba Khin.

Would you give us the outlines of U Ba Khin's teaching?

S.N. Goenka: A meditator has to start with s²la (morality), and then one develops samadhi (concentration), by cultivating awareness of the natural breath, pure breath, without anything else added to it. Next, one starts developing pañña (wisdom) by observing the sensations on the body with eqanimity, without reacting, understanding their characteristic of anicca (impermanence), so that no new impurities are generated, and the old ones come on the surface and get eradicated. This is what U Ba Khin taught; this is what Buddha taught; this is what I am teaching.

What is the fundamental distinction of Vipassana meditation as taught by U Ba Khin?

All importance is given to bhavana maya pañña (wisdom developed from direct, personal experience). In suta maya pañña (wisdom gained by listening to others), or cinta maya pañña (wisdom gained by intellectual analysis), one can purify the mind, but only to a certain extent. It is only bhavana maya pañña (wisdom developed from personal experience) which can purify the deepest level of the mind. Buddha called the deep-rooted sankhara (mental conditioning) anusaya kilesa - the impurities sleeping deep inside - and he taught that unless these are eradicated, one is not fully liberated. Purification of the anusaya kilesa can only be done by bhavana maya pañña. Bhavana maya pañña can only occur when there is a direct experience of reality. And direct experience of reality is only at the level of body sensations.

Why did U Ba Khin choose such a small area below the nostrils to concentrate on? Why did he suggest feeling a sensation in this area, along with the awareness of respiration? Isn't Anapana only concentration on the breath?

If one's goal in meditation is concentration of mind using either the four jhanas (states of mental absorption) or the eight jhanas, then using the object of sensation is unnecessary. A meditator can remain with the respiration, and along with it some symbols will appear while the eyes are closed. Then the meditator concentrates on these symbols, and attains jhanic samadhi.

But the Buddha's teaching takes one to Vipassana, and for Vipassana, awareness of body sensation is absolutely essential. One works with the breath passing over the area of the nostrils, and the smaller the area of awareness, the sharper the mind becomes. As the mind becomes more sensitive, it starts feeling sensations. If one keeps the mind scattered over a large area, it becomes difficult to feel sensations, especially the subtler ones. Therefore, after two or three days of Anapana - observing just the respiration - one is taught to feel the sensations.

Why did U Ba Khin give predominance to the observation of bodily sensations, and why pre­dominance to the observation of the material phenomenon, with the base of sensations, more than to the observation of the mental phenomenon?

Because when we are working with bodily sensations, this is a direct, tangible experience; no imagination is involved. Buddha did not want us to work with imagination. Most of the time when meditators talk of observing the mind, they are not observing it. They are merely rolling in thoughts; they are just contemplating, thinking. When you are aware of the body sensations, it doesn't mean that you have forgotten your mind, because it is not the body that feels, it is the mind that feels. The sensation is on the body, but it is felt by the mind. So mind and matter are both involved when one observes sensations on the body.

Why did U Ba Khin use the word "sweeping" for the observation of sensation? Is this a new technique that is different from the Buddha's teaching?

This was a way of explaining things. When a meditator reaches a stage where the entire body and mind get dissolved, one's attention can move from head to feet without any obstacle. In the ancient language of Pali this stage was called bhaªga - dissolution. One's attention moves quickly from head to feet, and feet to head, like a flow. The Buddha used these words: sabba kaya paµisa½ved² passasissam², ti sikkhati, sabba kaya paµisa½ved² assasissam², ti sikkhati. (with each breath, incoming or outgoing, one feels the entire body.)

In English we describe it as "free flow," or a "sweep." In Hindi we use the word dhara pravaha. When one has reached the stage of dissolution, then - when one breathes in, one feels the whole body; when one breathes out, one feels the whole body.

We can use the word bhaªga, or sweeping, or free flow for that. It is simply a way of describing an experience. This does not mean that we are changing the technique in any way. Call it by any name, but this experience of bhaªga ñaºa is a very important milestone on the path of full liberation.

How did this confusion arise?

Perhaps it all started because in one of his talks, Sayagyi said, "I have developed a technique which is very suitable for non-Buddhist English-speaking people. Everyone can work with this and get results. Come, try and you will get the same result." This was his announcement. Before U Ba Khin, the teachers were all teaching to Burmese Buddhists, who have a certain way of understanding. But U Ba Khin was dealing with non-Buddhist, non-Burmese students, so he had to develop a way of expressing the technique that they could understand.

His presentation was certainly the unique presentation of U Ba Khin, but the technique remained the technique taught by Buddha.

Who was U Ba Khin's meditation teacher?

Sayagyi was the appointed teacher of a tradition. His teacher was Saya Thetgyi, a farmer who lived on the opposite side of the Rangoon River. Saya Thetgyi's teacher was Ledi Sayadaw, a very learned monk and very renowned master teacher of Vipassana. That was a century back. The tradition stretches back before that, but we no longer know the teachers' names.

Why is your technique referred to as "in the tradition of Sayagyi U Ba Khin" ? Did your teacher inaugurate a new tradition of Buddhism? If not, what tradition was he continuing?

Buddha's tradition! Buddha's teaching went from India to Myanmar, and, as I said, we do not know the names of all the teachers. But we do know the names of the last three generations: Ledi Sayadaw, then his disciple Saya Thetgyi, then his disciple U Ba Khin.

We use the name U Ba Khin because he was the most recent teacher in the tradition, and was known to others. If we were to use the name Saya Thetgyi, or Ledi Sayadaw, many would not know who they were. So we use U Ba Khin's name, but this does not mean that he invented the technique.

In your teaching method, are you following U Ba Khin, or have you introduced changes? If so, how can you be sure that the changes are improvements, and are not simply creating confusion and wrong understanding?

No one can make any amendment to the teaching of Buddha unless he has become a super-Buddha. Everyone is below the status of a Buddha. Therefore no teacher should try to alter the teaching and, in the name of improving it, spoil it.

The method of explanation will of course differ. Sayagyi had to deal with Western students and had to explain things in a modern, scientific way which Westerners would understand. Similarly, when I came to India I had to face a large number of people who come from different sects and traditions. Being of Indian heritage myself, I have the background of the whole spectrum of Indian spiritual thought - before Buddha, during the time of Buddha, and after Buddha. So when I discuss Dhamma with someone from a particular sect, I have to consider that person's background, and then explain things in a way which is easily comprehensible. If the student does not understand my explanation, then the whole purpose of my teaching is lost.

When I give a discourse to Western people, the essence remains the same. But when I explain the Dhamma in Hindi, there is a big difference: the examples, stories, and so on are different. I have to consider who is listening and how I can explain the technique so that they will understand and practise properly.

If you study the suttas (discourses), you will find that Buddha himself when talking with a particular community - say, the brahmin (priests) community - would talk in one way. Then when he was talking with the shramana (wandering ascetics) community he would speak in the way which shramanas would understand. There is a term in Pali to describe this quality of the Buddha: upaya kosalla. It means "skill in the use of means." Even when he had not become a Buddha (enlightened one), when he was a Bodhisatta (one working to become a Buddha), we find him developing this quality. How skilfully in different situations he saved himself from slipping down in s²la (morality); how skilfully he helped others! When he became Buddha, he became all the more skilful.

Everyone who is walking on the path of Buddha, and everyone who is going to spread Buddha's teaching, has to be skilful. The method of expressing Dhamma differs from time to time, place to place, and person to person. But the essence of the teaching remains the same. The method of meditation does not change, even from one Buddha to another. When a Buddha does not change the technique of the previous Buddha, who is U Ba Khin to change the technique? Who is Goenka to change it? The technique of meditation must never be changed.

Did U Ba Khin call himself a Buddhist? How could he call Vipassana a universal teaching without giving it a sectarian connotation?

Sayagyi called himself a Buddhist, and felt quite satisfied and proud to do so. But it was very clear that he was not trying to convert people to a sectarian religion. His method of teaching Dhamma was always non-sectarian. In my case, for example, he never pressed me to become a Buddhist. He repeatedly said that someone who does not practise s²la, samadhi and pañña but calls himself a Buddhist simply because he was born into a Buddhist family, is not a Buddhist. Another person who may not call himself a Buddhist, but practises sila, samadhi and pañña - for Sayagyi, that person is a true Buddhist. Following the teaching of Buddha is more important than this or that name.

How did you realize that U Ba Khin was your teacher?

I come from a very staunch Hindu background and, although I was not very highly educated - not having a college degree - my thirst for knowledge was very great. Even from a very young age I started reading many books, especially books on Hindu religion: the Gita, Vedanta, Upanishadas, and so on.

These teachings attracted me so much. I felt that to free the mind from all negativities was the best thing one could achieve in human life. But I found that merely contemplating the purity of the mind, or understanding the theory of dharma did not help me at all. So I took to practising devotion, strong devotion, due to a friend's recommendation and also my family's tradition. I thought perhaps devotion might purify my mind, which was full of impurities, full of ego. I had not come out of these by playing an intellectual game, so I tried the emotional, devotional game. This also did not work, except for giving a temporary relief.

On my first course, the first thing which struck me was that all the teachings of the G²ta, Upanishadas, and so on, were only teachings. They offered no technique to purify the mind. The scriptures keep saying, "Purify the mind, make it free from craving, make it free from aversion." But how could I make my mind free from craving and aversion? Just giving suggestions to the mind does not work.

Here, on my first course, I found a technique which started helping. So then and there, in my first course, I made the decision that this is the path for me. There was no meaning in my looking here or there for another path. The practical teaching of the Buddha, given by my teacher Sayagyi U Ba Khin I found to be so enchanting, so fascinating, so satisfying.

Traditionally meditation has been perceived as retreating from society. Why did U Ba Khin give so much importance to the role of meditation within society?

You withdraw from others and focus your attention inside to gain purity of mind and Dhamma energy. Then you must become extroverted and use this energy. When you take a long jump, you must first take some steps backward. Then you run, and make the jump. Like this, you first withdraw, observe yourself inside and get the energy. Then you make a long jump into society, to serve society. These two steps cannot be separated.

Buddha left his householder's life for six years to gain enlightenment. But once he became a Buddha he was involved in serving the society throughout his life - for forty-five years, day and night. In the same way, one who develops in Dhamma does not turn away from responsibilities towards society. Householders have more worldly responsibilities to fulfil than monks or nuns. Monks and nuns are venerable and are worthy of respect because of their renunciation. But they too keep on serving society in one way or the other.

How did U Ba Khin use meditation to combat the problem of corruption in the government?

His colleagues and subordinates who were involved in corruption naturally were full of greed and craving (lobha). When one practises Vipassana, craving is lessened. So after practising Vipassana, these people no longer wanted to illegally squeeze money from others. By teaching Vipassana to office workers U Ba Khin tackled the root of the problem.

Besides, not everyone was corrupt. There were many who were not, but they were inefficient. Their minds were cloudy, and they were unable to make quick, efficient decisions. With Vipassana one's mind becomes clearer and clearer. One can go to the depth of the problem, and then make quick and correct decisions. This is how efficiency was increased. Vipassana was helpful for eradicating corruption and increasing efficiency in the administration.

Could you tell us some episodes in U Ba Khin's life which you feel clearly demonstrate his approach to meditation?

There are too many incidents to describe in such a short talk. But one outstanding thing was that he would not budge an inch from the truth, whatever the temptation or pressure might be. You see, every government officer works under the pressure of his superiors, who are politicians, ministers, party leaders, and so on. Frequently these superiors are corrupt. They want to favour their friends or party supporters, so they tell the officers to make decisions which are improper or illegal.

Many officers succumb to such pressures, whereas U Ba Khin's integrity was such that he never succumbed. Whatever pressure he faced, he would not hesitate to make the correct decision, however much he displeased his superiors.

Another difficulty a government officer faces is his limited salary. One signature of his can earn hundreds of thousands of dollars to this or that merchant, importer or industrialist. Ordinary human beings fall prey to greed and think, "This fellow is rolling in money due to the permit or license that I gave him. Because of my permission he can now undertake this industrial or commercial activity. Why shouldn't I get a share of this?" Often these business people want illegal permission from the offic­ers, and they try to instigate greed in the minds of the officers by offering bribes in larger and larger amounts. The officers have never seen this amount of money in their lives, and they could never hope to accumulate such wealth from their meagre government salary. So ordinary people may succumb to this temptation.

Here we see such a sterling quality of U Ba Khin. Whether facing pressure or temptation, he conducted his duties without fear or favour.

Namaskara gurudeva ko
kaise santa sujana!
Kitane karuna citta se,
diya Dharama ka dana.

Salutations to the Teacher,
what a wise and saintly man
Who with compassion overflowing
gave this gift of Dhamma.

- Hindi doha of S.N. Goenka