Jesse Harter

#112831943
Rels 3723
07March2013
The Value of a Bucket in a Desert
The endless change of everything and the subsequent impermanence of all
existence are foundations of the Buddhist belief system, and it comes as no surprise that
Buddhism is subject to this constant change as well. With a history that predates the
written recording of events and ideas, the fact that things have changed or evolved within
this belief system should be almost entirely incapable of shocking anyone with even a
rudimentary knowledge of the Buddhist teachings and how the development and
alteration of any teachings through the passage of time typically occurs. The argument
over samatha/samadhi bhavana (calming) and vipassana bhavana (insight) is one with a
fairly enigmatic history. While many conjectures can be made about the relationship
between the two ideas, it is unlikely that the issue can ever be completely resolved.
Indeed, it would be hard to even pinpoint an exact point at which the meditation views
begin to fully diverge into two distinct forms. In the meantime, I will look closer at the
relationship between calming and insight practices through the comparison of works by
Griffiths, Gombrich and Bodhi. In doing so I will attempt to show that the nature of the
relationship between calming and insight is not fully resolved; however, it is at an
equilibrium position in which all involved can agree to disagree and still work towards
and, presumably, achieve nibanna.
The three views put forth by the three authors each express different lines of
thought within Buddhism about the nature of this dichotomy. Griffiths proposes in his
work that there exists two types of meditation which both lead to their own similar but
distinct soteriological goals. Gombrich follows a similar line of reasoning; however, a
much different conclusion is reached. Gombrich asserts that while two forms of
1

Jesse Harter
meditation arose, the Buddha likely envisioned only one way in which a combination of
calming and insight are used. Its is conjectured that a misunderstanding at some point in
history led to the development of this dichotomy and that the suttas which propose
opposing views are evidence of the rivalry between the opposing factions of monks,
serving as a record of their plight to assert their own monastic ideologies of what is
required to attain Enlightenment. Lastly, Bodhi puts forth a final contrasting view. Bodhi
reasons that both concentration and insight are required to achieve nibbana, however,
different degrees of focus can be applied to each with the same ultimate goal. Despite the
flexibility of where one may apply the main part of their focus, the fact remains that a
focus must be placed on both to truly achieve the status of an arhat.
Despite their apparent disagreement, there are still aspects in which they can
agree with one another. In the most obvious example, they agree that despite how or why,
a very real split in thinking led to these juxtaposed positions. Furthermore, all three can
agree that insight meditation is very important to Buddhism and to the ability of one to
become Enlightened. Likewise, both Gombrich and Bodhi could likely agree that the
Buddhas intent when developing the teaching of the path to Enlightenment was for a
combined calming and insight practice and that a combination of the two would be
required. Additionally, both Gombrich and Bodhi seem to imply that this combined way
is the true way to practice, while Gombrich presents this in regards to the opposing sides
trying to best one another and Bodhi presents an argument that, through a roundabout
analysis, presents why the Kosambi Sutta is meant to show the error in the assumption
made by Savittha in regards to Musila being an arhat through simply insight and wisdom.

Jesse Harter
In spite of the various aspects in which the authors agree, there still exists some
disagreement. Their disagreement, like that of the Buddhist monks, serves as an indicator
of the unresolved nature of the issue. The main emphasis of the disagreement between the
three being focused primarily on the importance and place of calming meditation within
the context of the path to enlightenment and secondarily, especially for Griffiths, on how
much can be achieved by insight/wisdom meditation. For Griffiths and many Theravadin,
insight alone can be enough. For Gombrich, Bodhi, and numerous other Buddhists, one
needs calm, at least to some degree, to be able to make it to complete awakening.
However, it seems to me that while it may be possible for one to become Enlightened
with only the use of insight and no practice of calming whatsoever, I do not see how it
can hurt to practice some calming meditation as well. Griffiths discusses how calming
meditation is used to turn off ones thoughts and feelings and insight meditation in a direct
juxtaposition is used to bring an aware view free of ignorance in order to realize the truth
of samsara and become enlightened. These two are hardly compatible for use at the exact
same time; however, it seems to me that when used in combination they could be very
affective. Just as when one wishes to construct a building where one already stands they
must first demolish the building that is present to make the new building possible,
calming allows one to clear the mind of the defilements which will impede their progress
to complete wisdom. To use Naradas analogy from the Kosambi Sutta of the well in the
desert, if a man knows he is entering a desert and that in the desert he is likely to come
upon a well, and if he knows that within that well there dwells a cool drink for his
parching journey, why would he not take a bucket to be able to partake of this water.
While the man with insight can know there is a well, and know that within the well there

Jesse Harter
is water, it will do him little good unless he has a bucket. It seems to me that the onepointedness developed in calming meditation is the bucket that makes possible the
drawing of water. Perhaps knowledge alone can allow the man to get a drink, but with a
bucket it is all but guaranteed that he will have his drink.
Regardless of the aspects in which these three agree and disagree, no complete
resolution can be reached. Despite what conclusions individuals or groups may reach,
nothing short of a Buddha could successfully resolve the issue for everyone. The
dichotomy of calming and insight meditation will remain a dichotomy within which each
group and individual is free to reach their own conclusions about which methods allow a
more thorough opportunity at escaping samsara.