Can Vipassanā be practised without Samatha?

Abstract

This study will be devoted to discuss the relation between Samatha and Vipassanā-bhāvanā. Some Modern practitioners of meditation hold the view that Vipassanā-bhāvanā itself is sufficient for the realization of Nibbāna. Some canonical references, too, appear to support this view. This issue, whether Vipassanā alone is enough for the attainment of enlightenment, is examined here in. In meditative practice, whether everybody gets enlightenment through the same process or not is not quite clear. Though the final outcome of enlightenment is same, the process through which one attains enlightenment could differ. Thus, though it is generally held that the mind should be cultivated through the four jhānic process to make it pliant and suitable for the arising of super-cognitive powers that lead to knowing and seeing, there are instances in the canon which say that one could develop insight knowledge (vipassanā) after successfully accomplishing the first jhāna through samatha practice. By whatever name or designation it is known samādhi or mental concentration is a compulsory requirement for the attainment of insight knowledge. However, commentarial literature refers to a type of person who is finally emancipated without going through the jhānic process and they refer to as ‘Sukkhavipassaka.’ But, there are some problematic issues that deserve attention. Therefore, this study focuses on the ‘sukkhavipassaka,’ ‘khaṇika samādhi’, ‘Susīma sutta,’ ‘cetovimutti,’ ‘paññāvimutti,’ etc. and their problems of interpretation. In many early suttas, the attainment of jhānic states are shown as necessary condition for the attainment of nibbāna. It is very clear that Vipassanā practice alone is not enough for final emancipation. Therefore, jhāna cannot be discarded from the course of training laid down by the Buddha if the proper end of that training, deliverance from suffering, is to be achieved. And the Visuddhimagga also clearly says that ‘there is no supramundane without jhāna.’ Hence, the attainment of jhāna is a necessary condition for the development of that insight. Through this study, it could be surmised that the state of Sukkha-vipassaka - if it means a state reached without any jhānic attainment - is not possible and not compatible with the practice explained in the Nikāyas. In the early suttas, the development of insight after emerging from one of the jhānas is certainly the normative pattern. Perhaps, it is reasonable to conclude that Sukkha-vipassaka is a commentarial development to give a new interpretation to the practice given in the early Nikāyas. Therefore, this study shows that practitioners in order to engage in Vipassanā-bhāvanā properly should focus on the Pāli Nikāya before they accept the commentarial interpretations.