Originally, Theravada Buddhism is a religion. I'm curious why it calls itself non-religious, but perhaps that's common in new religions these days.

It has beliefs and doctrines, and doesn't allow dissent, so I consider it a religion in practice.
While I thought the meditation technique itself was acceptable, there were no trustworthy instructors, so it's questionable whether it's a religion.

With Goenka meditation, there's a high probability of either experiencing self-loathing or having an inflated ego that leads to irritability (a very low anger threshold). If that's the case, something is wrong with the Goenka method.

I found it interesting to notice various things, but many participants were confused and mentally distressed, so I strongly believe that meditation beginners should not engage in such long meditations. It's very dangerous for beginners to do long meditations because unpleasant feelings can overwhelm the mind, leading to confusion. The lowered anger threshold could disrupt daily life. The biggest problem is the lack of trustworthy instructors. They don't properly address those who are confused, and they seem to have a policy of simply ignoring them. Therefore, beginners should avoid doing long meditations here. There was no support from the organizers for those who were experiencing mental confusion, so I wouldn't recommend this place to anyone, even if they asked.

I believe that many of the problems could be addressed with proper meditation instructors or gurus, but the lack of trustworthy guidance was the biggest issue.

I keep thinking that beginners should not be made to do long meditations. If you're interested in meditation, it's better to regularly receive guidance from a trustworthy meditation instructor in your area. There's not much point for meditation beginners to go there. Many people there seem to be caught in various pitfalls associated with meditation and the spiritual world.

It's a common thing for beginners in the spiritual world to develop a sense of entitlement regarding their spiritual practices, such as Goenka Vipassana meditation. This sense of entitlement is also a form of mental confusion, and it seems that they cannot maintain mental peace unless they cling to their sense of entitlement or something. If that's the case, it means they're "not meditating." However, there wasn't proper guidance on that.

I think it's better to regularly attend a place with trustworthy instructors, and there are various other Vipassana meditations. If the instructor there recommends it, you can try it, but if beginners do such long meditations, they may become confused or develop a sense of entitlement, or something might go wrong.

It claims to be non-religious, but that's just on the surface, and in reality, it's based on Theravada Buddhism, so it's truly a religion.
Goenka Vipassana meditation is based on Theravada Buddhism (Hinayana Buddhism), so it doesn't have much proselytization compared to Mahayana Buddhism. Some people may think that it's not a religion because there's no proselytization, but that's not how you determine whether something is a religion or not.

Goenka Vipassana meditation is a religion because it's based on Theravada Buddhism, and it has a thin concept of "god," so it's a "religion without the concept of god." It's not correct to say that it's not a religion because it doesn't worship a god. In Theravada Buddhism, people don't worship a god; they practice to attain enlightenment themselves, so it's a religion, isn't it? It's a religion because it has principles and doctrines to which people adhere. If this place is not a religion, then even Buddhism would not be a religion.

It's just a facade that it's non-religious. There are proper religious doctrines, and those doctrines are imposed unilaterally without allowing discussion. It's even more religious than most religions because it doesn't welcome people who practice other meditations or other spiritual practices. In fields of study other than religion, such as psychology, they thoroughly answer questions about "why." However, here, even if you ask a question, they interrupt you and unilaterally pressure you to "just do what you're told," so it's very religious. If this place is a religion, it should just say it's a religion instead of saying it's non-religious. It becomes strange because it says it's non-religious.

It's presented as just a seminar, and although there's no proselytization because it's based on Theravada Buddhism (Hinayana Buddhism), the ideology is religious. In Mahayana Buddhism, helping others is connected to helping oneself, so there's proselytization, but in Theravada Buddhism (Hinayana Buddhism), you can't help others unless you become enlightened yourself, so proselytization is basically not done. But both are religions, regardless of the means. Especially after the war, there were organizations that claimed not to be religions even though they were religious corporations, and there were organizations that were religious even though they claimed not to be. Those who believe that this place is non-religious are either naive or they have their own religion that they believe in, so they are going along with the idea even though they understand it, or they are simply anti-religion. However, if you reveal your other beliefs to the people here, you won't be well-received. Because it's a religion. There is a clearly written policy that rejects people who practice other meditations, and that was also the case when I talked to them. Although it says "other meditations," it's practically saying "we reject other religions or other meditations," even though they can't say that because they claim not to be a religion. Therefore, it's a very exclusive place, which is also a sign of being religious. It's more religious than most religions. In a sense, that's a compliment. I think it would be better if they openly called themselves a religion. Those who are considering attending should think of this place as a religion. The people who are actually doing it will strongly deny it, but it's pointless to listen to them.

＜The following is a detailed description, but it is very long.＞

■Preparation
I am going to receive Goenka-style Vipassana meditation, so I am doing some preliminary study.



When I traveled to Dharamshala, India, some time ago, I happened to pass by a meditation center, and although I didn't know what it was at the time, I was overwhelmed by the immense aura I saw through the closed gates. I thought, "I don't know what it is, but it's an amazing place," and later I found out that it was a Vipassana meditation center.

I was actually thinking about taking a course there, but I thought it would be better to first hear the explanation in Japanese and have my questions answered in Japanese, so I decided to take a course in Japan. I heard that there were Japanese audio tapes available in Dharamshala, so I thought I would understand the basic explanation in Japanese, and there were rumors that Japanese staff were stationed there, but I didn't have any friends who were familiar with the staff situation, so I thought it would be better to try taking a course in Japan, just in case there weren't any Japanese staff. I can speak English fluently, so I could have taken a course in English, but I was unsure how much I would understand the explanations of specialized terminology in English.

In the end, I read a lot of books and prepared in Japan, so now I think I could have taken a course in India, but Dharamshala is something I can consider for another time, so I'll take a course in Japan for now.

I will provide some information about Vipassana, which can be found in various books and on the web.

＊＊＊ Pre-study. I haven't taken the course yet, so this may be incorrect. ＊＊＊

■ Types of Meditation
There are two main types of meditation: Samatha meditation (concentration meditation) and Vipassana meditation (observational meditation).

Samatha meditation: A type of meditation that focuses on concentration. The goal is to concentrate your awareness on the object of meditation and merge with it. The state of consciousness where the subject and object are fused is called Samadhi.
Vipassana: In a narrow sense, it is meditation based on awareness (Sati). In a broad sense, it includes a wide range of things such as Sati, Samatha meditation, and ethics.

■ The first 3 days
Focus your awareness on your breath. Some books say to focus your awareness on the nostrils, but it seems that focusing on the breath itself is more important than focusing on the nostrils.

When I read "Vipassana Meditation: A Practical Guide" by S.N. Goenka as pre-study material, I understood that the focus should be on the nostrils, but when I read "Mindfulness" by Bante H. Gunaratana, it seemed that the essence is to observe the breath. I thought the explanation in the latter book, "Mindfulness," was very clear and conveyed the essence.

These first three days are for developing basic concentration (Samatha). It is a preparation period for entering Vipassana.

■ From the 4th day onwards
You will gradually practice Vipassana. According to the instructions of the instructor. The books do not go into detail, but it seems that you will be focusing your awareness on various parts of your body.

■ The final day
If you can even glimpse Vipassana during the period, you're lucky, and some people finish without any change in awareness, but even so, there should be some change if you complete it.

■ Goenka-style Vipassana
There seem to be different schools of Vipassana, and the famous one is the Goenka style.

■ Yoga and Vipassana
Goenka-style Vipassana meditation seems to be incompatible with yoga meditation.
However, it is said that you can do the yoga exercises and Vipassana meditation together.

This is a somehow a bit strange (subtle).

Some organizations that practice Goenka-style Vipassana claim that they are incompatible.
On the other hand, from the perspective of yoga, the basic principle is that everyone should do what they like, as there are various meditations that suit different people, and if you practice yoga, you should do mantras and so on, which is a very broad interpretation.

■ [Summary before taking the course] My current state
I started yoga about two years ago, and since then I've also started meditating. Yoga is very theoretical, as it aims for Samadhi through a step-by-step process. However, for a while, I was doing meditation with a feeling of "Is this how it's supposed to be?" and I wasn't quite getting it. After about a year of practicing yoga, I read books like the Yoga Sutras and meditated at a center, and I started to make some progress. Then, one day, when I said "I'm stopping my thoughts," it wasn't necessarily the correct way to put it, but I felt a state of bliss where my awareness was only focused on my breath and there were no thoughts. From that point on, meditation became incredibly enjoyable.

Before starting meditation, or even initially, it is common for the mind to keep chattering and not stop. Even when you are told to focus on your breath, you often can't tell if you are actually doing it. There are usually two types of states at that time. One is the state where you are mentally talking and thinking that you are observing your breath, but you are not actually observing it. The other state is when you continuously observe your breath, and you can recognize the sensation of each breath, and you can maintain a state where you are not "talking" in your mind, then you are observing it.

The former state is something that has been passed down through meditation as an "example of what is not achieved." The mind begins to assert itself and says, "I am able to observe the breath," or "I am meditating." The mind (ego, mind) asserts itself and says, "I can do it." If one is truly able to observe, they should be able to observe even that mental activity and simply let it pass. If one is able to observe, a sense of "stillness" emanates from that person, which is not being swayed by the mind's activity. In some cases, this stillness may even give off a "noble scent." While all of this is sensory, the absolute recognition of it clearly manifests as a "difference." Even if one has not reached ultimate enlightenment, there is still a difference in atmosphere between those who can observe to some extent and those who cannot. This is also reflected in the aura. The aura changes due to primary emotional disturbances, so it is not a direct reflection of the level of consciousness, but it can be used for a certain degree of discernment. The aura of those who cannot observe is usually cloudy, while the aura of those who can observe is generally clean, and it occasionally becomes dirty due to daily life, but quickly returns to a clean state.

I have been in samadhi without any relation to meditation, but I only recently realized that it was samadhi. I didn't understand what samadhi was, but as I meditated following the stages described in the Yoga Sutras, I realized that I had experienced samadhi many times before. However, there are many types of samadhi, and I learned that the samadhi that appears when I am absorbed in something, or the type of samadhi where the subject and object become one, is a relatively low level of samadhi. While it is certainly a kind of bliss, it is not something that can be called "enlightenment." Buddhism also divides samadhi into stages.

Also, shortly after I started practicing yoga, I began to hear "nada sounds." This is considered a "sign" of a certain degree of purification. (See a separate article for details.)

Regarding kundalini, I have not experienced a full awakening, but I have experienced something similar to what is commonly called "dormant kundalini," a very small and subtle experience. I felt an electric shock in the muladhara chakra (base of the spine), and then a small burst of energy flowed up to the ajna chakra (third eye), but it was not a full-blown kundalini experience as described in rumors. This happened on January 6th of this year. It is said that kundalini can either erupt and rise in one go or rise gradually and repeatedly, so perhaps this was the first experience if it is the latter. However, nothing particularly changed. At least, not yet. It seems more like the "shell" was broken and preparation was underway, rather than kundalini itself rising. Alternatively, it could be interpreted as the "shakti" (sexual energy) of kundalini rising, but I cannot make a clear judgment on that.

I think I have experienced "samadhi" in the sense of "concentration" many times in my life, even though I didn't recognize it as such. However, that samadhi was a temporary state that returned to normal after the samadhi ended.
For example, when I was traveling by bicycle, I occasionally experienced a state of bliss, or when I was programming, I experienced samadhi by becoming one with the logic. For over 20 years, I have been seeking similar states, even though I didn't call them "samadhi."
The experience of samadhi is similar to a catastrophe, and the greater the gap between the normal state and the state of samadhi, the greater the bliss. Therefore, for me, who had a lot of stress, the state of samadhi was an immense bliss. However, as I get older, the normal state becomes more stable, so the experience of samadhi has become relatively mild. As I continue to experience samadhi, I also begin to feel a sense of unease about the state of bliss. I also questioned whether this samadhi would become permanent, and the state of samadhi itself was very susceptible to external stimuli, so it was not suitable for 24 hours. The state of samadhi can be easily disrupted by even minor disturbances or the will of hostile forces, and even being surprised can cause immense damage to the depths of the mind and body, so I thought it was dangerous to do it at work or outdoors. In the United States, it might be okay if you have a private room, but in Japan, even if you are concentrating, if an awareness intrudes, it can cause tremendous damage to the mind. I have actually experienced such damage many times. The workplace in Japan has a thin understanding of the state of concentrated awareness, and in some cases, excessive energy is actually evaluated, so I was in a "workplace and daily life where it is difficult to concentrate" and I was forced to pursue samadhi. About 10 years ago, I realized that "this is dangerous," so I changed my environment and left my job to return to a stable mental state through individual activities. Samadhi uses concentration to create a state of unity, so in that state, abilities are greatly enhanced, for example, programming abilities increase dramatically, but it is a very fragile state. Recently, this may be called the "zone" state. At that time, I made sure not to be in a state of samadhi unless I was in a safe environment, such as my home. However, the more samadhi experiences one has, the more that samadhi permeates the normal state, so the daily activities can be carried out without much loss of ability, but it is still better to have samadhi for concentrated results.

So, in this state, I am going to receive Vipassana meditation. Well, let's see what happens.





■ I attended.

Vipassana meditation retreat completed. 11 nights and 12 days.
Every day, there were various discoveries, and I was enjoying it on my own.


■ Points that were interesting.

- The explanation of Anapana meditation was that it is a meditation for cultivating concentration, but I felt that it is actually a meditation that opens the nadis, which are like energy channels in yoga, or the meridians in Qigong.
- I realized the existence of the Ida and Pingala nadis, which are the main nadis, from the nose to the Manipura chakra (the solar plexus located around the navel) for the first time through Anapana meditation.
- I had the sensation that the Sushumna nadi, which is the main nadi and runs along the spine, extended from the nose to the Ajna chakra (the third eye chakra in the forehead), the Vishuddha chakra (the throat chakra), and the Anahata chakra (the heart chakra).
- There was something in common with the yoga technique of focusing awareness and relaxing.
- I was able to sit for longer periods. My hips have opened up. My back has become straighter.
- The explanation of Vipassana meditation was that it is a meditation for purification, but it felt more like a body energy exercise. I felt that by sensing and moving the body's energy, blockages are removed, and as a result, purification occurs.
- Around the 4th day, the scenery of the forest began to change. Initially, even when looking at the forest, I could only see a narrow range, but I started to be able to see a wider range at the same time, and when I looked at the movement of leaves swaying in the wind across my entire field of vision, it felt like I was looking at the beautiful scenery of a U.S. National Park. Even though it was just a rural area in Chiba, I felt that "this world, nature is so beautiful." I thought that the same scenery that I thought was just an ordinary Japanese countryside on the first day could change so much depending on how you look at it. I also remembered that I might have felt something similar during my trip to South America. I once again realized that the world can become beautiful just by changing your perspective, even in Japan. The clarity of my vision became so clear that my eyelashes, which were blocking the upper part of my field of vision, were subtly obstructing my view, and I even thought about trimming them.

■ Regarding seat assignments.

- Since the seats are narrow, it would be quite tiring if there was an energy vampire nearby. Although there wasn't one this time, I feel like I might get exhausted if I'm unlucky. This is because the seats are assigned and fixed from the beginning.

■Meals

- The first 5 or 10 people seemed to take most of the side dishes, and there were no more refills, so the remaining people (more than 30) were eating only rice, pickles, and soup. Also, it seemed like there was fruit once a day, but basically, rice was the main thing.
- Fortunately, there was brown rice, and I like brown rice, so I was relatively full, but I think it might not be enough for some people.
- As soon as the mealtime arrived, it became a competition, and when I went about 5 or 10 minutes later after finishing using the toilet, the side dishes were always gone. There are some selfish people who don't think about others. I saw people piling up a mountain of side dishes while eating, and no one seemed to point it out.
- It was like this until the very end. Seriously, that's too much greed. Are they hungry ghosts?
- Personally, I was fine with just brown rice and a little bit of pickles, so I thought it was a simple meal, but I didn't say anything because it was just right for me.

■There is a teacher who guides meditation methods, but there is no spiritual guru (mentor).

- There is a leader, but no group, so everyone is just doing things on their own. The leader provides guidance and instructs people to follow established procedures, but it doesn't seem like they are looking at the individual's condition, which I found a bit strange. A true mentor would consider the individual's situation and provide appropriate instructions.
- The leader is not a mentor. When I tried to explain my experience to the leader, starting with "I had an experience like this. First...", I was interrupted and told, "Don't do that. Don't try it. Just do what you are told." This felt like a one-way communication, not a conversation where I could explain myself. Because they are speaking from a higher position, it doesn't feel like they are listening. This one-way communication is more like a "teacher" who simply teaches methods, rather than a "mentor" who supports their disciples.
- The leader is a foreigner. They seem to be suffering from homesickness. They don't seem to have attained a certain level of truth, just an ordinary guy living abroad. They don't have much of an aura. They seem like a typical teacher.
- When I asked the leader a question, I felt that they were looking down at me and laughing, which I found strange. I had imagined that a meditation instructor would have a high level of meditation practice and be in a state of perfect stillness, but in reality, it seemed like they had developed a sense of privilege, which is common among meditation beginners. I also wondered if their ego is showing through during instruction, even though they are suppressing that privilege through meditation. It seems better to think of them as a "teacher" who teaches technical meditation methods, rather than a "mentor."

■ It seems that Anapana meditation is often undervalued.

- The timing for transitioning from Anapana meditation to Vipassana meditation varies from person to person, and it would be ideal if a teacher could determine the right time. There are instructors, but no guru. Some people may be fine with Anapana meditation for many years. There was a person who was feeling down because they couldn't concentrate at all.
- Anapana meditation seems to be somewhat undervalued here, but in reality, I think it is quite profound.

■Ida, Pingala, and Sushumna: Sensations

Ida and Pingala are nadis (energy channels, airways) in yoga, and they exist circling around Sushumna (which runs along the spine). These three nadis are the main ones. The most important nadi is Sushumna, followed by Ida and Pingala.

- Since the pathways of Ida and Pingala vary slightly depending on the book, I wasn't sure which one was correct. However, by comparing my own experiences this time, I was able to grasp a sense of "this must be it."
- I haven't felt the Sushumna much before, but I felt it a little this time.

■Originally, this is a meditation that is performed after mastering the Summer De.

- Buddha's meditation. Originally, this meditation is performed after achieving deep concentration (samadhi), but even if it's done before that, it might have some effect. However, if it's done too early, the density of the soul might become thin and it might become empty. I thought this because I saw Vipassana participants and staff, especially women, and felt that way. They seem to have a thin presence. Vipassana meditation is originally a meditation that brings up the last remaining samskaras (seeds of karma) that are deeply hidden. People who are 95% purified bring up these deep samskaras to purify the remaining 5%. However, if someone who is 50% purified tries to purify the remaining 50%, they might become empty. In the latter case, it might be better to purify oneself first with Anapana meditation or something similar before doing Vipassana. In terms of aura, I think that one should not proceed to the next step unless one has firmly gathered and stabilized one's own aura. It seems that people who should only be at the stage of stabilizing their mind and aura with Anapana meditation are rushing ahead to the next stage, which is Vipassana meditation, and that's why they become empty. However, this is just what I thought on my own. It would be wonderful if there were a guru who could determine which meditation should be practiced, but unfortunately, there is no guru. I wonder what other types of Vipassana there are. There are Vipassana methods other than the Goenka method.

■ Attitude towards people who are meditating.

- It's true, as rumored, that this place isn't very welcoming to people who practice other forms of meditation.
- I wanted to ask about the "nada" sound that I started hearing after doing yoga, but when I asked the instructor other questions, the atmosphere wasn't conducive to discussing anything other than Vipassana, so I didn't end up asking. I tried to ask the course manager, but when I mentioned that I practice yoga meditation, she abruptly interrupted me and said that if I'm doing yoga meditation, I should just do that, and it's not good to do both, effectively creating a barrier. It felt like it wasn't a place where you could ask about such specific things.
- While the Goenka style of Vipassana rejects people who practice other forms of meditation, it seems that the Theravada style and the Christian style of Vipassana are not as strict.
- I realized that it's not so much that it's a problem to combine other meditations with this technique, but rather that it's prohibited by the "doctrine" of this quasi-religious organization. Since it's a quasi-religious organization, whatever the quasi-guru says is law.
- People who practice the Goenka style of Vipassana don't seem to refer to the instructor as a "guru," but if you're following someone who is guru-like, that's fine. That's one option. However, Goenka himself says that he is not a guru, so the participants are unable to rely on a guru, and they have to figure things out for themselves, and they have to come up with their own reasons why other meditations are bad. Because of this, I feel like I'm getting stuck in a trap. It's unlikely that participants will reach that level of understanding. If there were a guru, it would be enough to say, "The guru said so. I trust the guru." But instead, they end up getting stuck in a trap by trying to come up with reasons. That's why they become hysterical. It's a vicious cycle. Goenka is a troublemaker.
- As I mentioned earlier, I was feeling excited and enjoying the beauty of nature through Vipassana meditation, but when I asked the course manager just one question about yoga meditation, she got angry and scolded me, which was unexpected and left me feeling quite shaken. It's strange that someone would get angry over just one minute of questioning. As a result, the feeling of "enjoying the beauty of nature" disappeared, and I was left with the feeling of having been scolded by the course manager. It's possible that other people I spoke to also indirectly received that dark aura from the manager. Because there was a rule prohibiting other spiritual practices, I couldn't do any cleansing or purification, so I had to try to deal with the negative aura I received by using what I had learned during the course, but that didn't completely cleanse the aura. Ugh, please forgive me. Goenka used to yell a lot, so I guess it's allowed in the Goenka style. If I had known that beforehand, I might not have come here. An organization where yelling is justified is no good.
- I heard from an old acquaintance who had been meditating since before the center in Kyoto was built, and who even donated to its construction, that they experienced similar things and had to distance themselves. So, it seems like both the Chiba and Kyoto centers have the same policy. Goenka clearly says this, and the regulations state that "people who practice other meditations cannot participate as servers." The person I spoke to who practices other meditations was told, "You can participate this time, but please only do one of the meditations. We are not responsible for anything that happens." It seems like they were hinting that they might refuse participation based on the manager's decision next time. The reason for mentioning responsibility is probably because there are times when even with focused meditation, people can get into difficult situations. There are definitely risks involved in meditation, so it's understandable that they wouldn't be responsible for people who are practicing meditations they don't understand. However, instead of saying that they can't offer the course because they don't understand anything other than their own methods, it would be clearer to just say that. It would be much easier to understand than Goenka listing all the reasons. There are definitely many risks involved in meditation. There was a lot of explanation about safety during the lectures. If there were a guru, they could combine safe practices and teach them to disciples, but there would still be risks involved in meditation. That's the kind of awareness that is originally necessary for meditation, but it's a double-edged sword to turn it into a technical method. The reasons why people at this Vipassana center say that other meditations are bad lack persuasiveness. Only people at the guru level can make that judgment. It would be much more honest and understandable if they just said, "I don't know, but I'm following what the guru, Goenka, says." Similarly, if someone was recommended Vipassana by a guru, they should just say, "I'm doing it because the guru recommended it," instead of trying to explain the reasons the guru gave. There was a participant who had been recommended Vipassana by a guru, but they were putting down other meditations. They seemed to think that other meditations were meaningless, that they were completely convinced that Vipassana was the only way, and that they looked down on people who practiced other meditations. It's a shame that the result of 10 days of Vipassana meditation was this. It would be enough to just say, "The guru recommended it to me, so I'm following the guru." The guru said that to you, not to others. So, even if the guru said that Vipassana is good for you, they never said that to others. If people assume that the same is true for them, then those participants are only at that level.
- So, the organization is surprisingly exclusive towards people who practice other meditations. Or maybe it's true, as rumored. I heard from other people that they "avoid mentioning that they practice other meditations from the beginning to avoid trouble," and even people who are serving also "don't mention it." I honestly asked a direct question, and as a result, I was abruptly blocked, as mentioned above.

■In the past, during the time of the Buddha, Vipassana meditation was special.

- Goenka's Vipassana claims that it dates back to the time of the Buddha, and argues that in the Buddha's time, the Buddha was superior to yoga, and therefore, the Buddha's methods are still superior. It is not known why, but it assumes that yoga has remained the same since that time. Should Goenka's Vipassana be compared to yoga of the Buddha's time, or to modern yoga?
- Yoga has incorporated the opinions of the Buddha through the ages, including by Shankaracharya and many other great figures, and yoga meditation is no longer "only concentration" as it was in the time of the Buddha. In fact, the idea that yoga meditation is "concentration" is a kind of misunderstanding or a beginner-friendly way to make it easier to understand. Although it is okay to understand it that way initially, when you read commentaries on scriptures (classical texts) or books by advanced practitioners, you will see that it is not so superficial. When you read various books, you will see that the methods of Vipassana that the Buddha spoke of have been fully incorporated into yoga meditation, and the claim that "yoga only performs simple meditation with concentration (such as with mantras)" is full of prejudice. For yoga, "concentration (on a mantra)" is only the beginning of meditation.
- In modern times, I do not think it has much meaning to distinguish between yoga and primitive Buddhism. Are they not both classical?
- To me, Vipassana meditation and yoga meditation do not seem that different. Of course, the methods are different, but are the essences the same? This is my current conclusion, based on my short experience with meditation, especially after experiencing the perception of "nada" sounds.

■Vipassana meditation from the perspective of someone in the yoga world.

- Mantras and other yoga meditations are often said to be concentration-based (samatha-based), but this is only true "initially." As meditation progresses, it tends to become Vipassana meditation, so in reality, yoga meditation and Vipassana meditation are not that different.
- When I talk to people in the yoga community, they are generally positive about Vipassana. Only the Vipassana side rejects the participation of other meditators. People in the yoga community rarely say that Vipassana is "bad," but rather say that it is "good" or "very good." In that sense, many people are saying that Vipassana is "good." Of course, some people say that it is "very good," and there are even some people who practice yoga but say that Vipassana is better for meditation. The basic stance of people in the yoga community is that whether it suits you or not varies from person to person, so you should try various things and choose what suits you best. People in Vipassana also explain it in that way, but while people in yoga naturally say that, people in Vipassana tend to react somewhat hysterically, which is something I don't quite understand. The words are the same, but there is a difference in the degree of naturalness.
- During the time when the Buddha was alive, yoga meditation was indeed a concentration-based (samatha-based) meditation that sought samadhi. So, in the time of the Buddha, the comparison between Vipassana meditation and other meditations was valid. However, it has been more than 2500 years since the time of the Buddha, so yoga meditation has incorporated Vipassana, and I don't think it is that different now. The Goenka method is based on classical teachings, so it is discussing the benefits of Vipassana using the materials of mantras and other yoga meditations from the time of the Buddha, rather than modern yoga meditation. This is where the misunderstanding arises.
- People who have not studied much and have only listened to the explanation of the Goenka method may think that the Goenka-style Vipassana meditation is superior because yoga meditation is a concentration-based (samatha-based) meditation. This thinking easily falls into the comparison of "samatha meditation that only focuses on concentration" and "Vipassana meditation." It is comparing "yoga meditation in the time of the Buddha" and "the Buddha's Vipassana meditation." In reality, yoga meditation has incorporated the Buddha's Vipassana, and now it is so much that it can be called Vipassana, but even so, some people who believe in the Goenka method say that "yoga meditation is just samatha meditation and only focuses on concentration."
- If people who are doing the Goenka-style Vipassana meditation don't know this point, that's fine. However, as mentioned above, people who say that "(the Goenka-style) Vipassana meditation is the best and other meditations are useless are foolish because they are belittling others with their own ignorance.
- As mentioned at the beginning, beginners in the spiritual world often develop a sense of privilege. It is very regrettable that people who are trying to achieve enlightenment through Vipassana meditation develop a sense of privilege. Perhaps it is unavoidable for beginners. It may be a path that everyone goes through.

■Guru's absence.

- The meditation techniques and philosophies align with the Buddha's teachings and I think they are good, but it is extremely regrettable that there is no guru who can discern the potential of disciples. I felt that there was a great potential for improvement. It feels like they are preserving the tradition without a guru, which is not necessarily bad and may be necessary, but it feels a little lacking. It gives the impression that they are sacrificing many things in order to preserve it.
- The leaders should properly supplement and provide additional explanations, but they just sit there, and their daily routine is to simply press the "play" button for Goenka's audio recordings. There is no time for detailed questions, and there is a wall there. They are just ordinary teachers who read textbooks and recite them.

■ A broad, unorganized, and non-systematic form of Vipassana meditation that I learned in the past.

- About 20 years ago, I learned a meditation technique based on observing the mind, and it gave me a nostalgic feeling. It wasn't as systematized as Buddhist Vipassana meditation, but it was probably based on Theravada Buddhism's "mindfulness meditation while moving." That could be considered a broad form of Vipassana meditation. The idea that eating is meditation, walking is meditation, and observing and letting go of thoughts is meditation, is similar in its core principles, although it's not as strictly practiced as in Buddhist traditions. Therefore, I was able to get into it relatively easily. However, Vipassana meditation emphasizes sensations in addition to observing the mind, which is a different aspect, and the lecture emphasized that point.

■ Use not only observation of the mind, but also bodily sensations.

- In Vipassana meditation, we use not only the observation of the mind, but also bodily sensations. The former, the observation of the mind, is particularly a matter of the strength of observation for beginners, so whether or not you have concentration (samadhi), you should try to observe the mind. Alternatively, as you become accustomed to it, you may naturally observe it. However, the latter, the observation of bodily sensations, is also a kind of observation of the aura, and it seems to make a big difference depending on whether or not you have concentration (samadhi). When concentration (samadhi) is achieved, or when you can concentrate to a certain extent, the aura remains around the body. Observing this aura, which remains around the body, undulating like a current and spreading in various directions before disappearing, is the essence of Vipassana meditation. However, in a state where you cannot concentrate, the aura radiates outward like a needle, scattering unpleasant impressions around, and the person themselves feels only intense thoughts and suffering. You should try to concentrate in such cases, but if that is the case, I think that for such people, Vipassana meditation should not be the primary method, and they should be allowed to observe only through Anapana meditation for 10 days. That would likely lead to more growth. At least, I personally think that one should be able to observe the breath for at least 5 seconds in Anapana meditation and become completely still before entering Vipassana meditation. Although "being still" is quite different from forcibly suppressing it and naturally calming the mind, if you cannot be still for even 5 seconds, you should first learn concentration.

■In yoga, meditation is approached gradually.

- In yoga, one progresses to meditation gradually, but I thought that Vipassana could be used as the final step. It is a meditation that is used after one has already developed some level of meditation skills. Therefore, I think that many people who think they are doing Vipassana meditation are actually just doing concentration meditation, not true Vipassana meditation. Recently, Vipassana and mindfulness have become popular, which is why this is popular, but originally, meditation starts with concentration.

- The purpose of yoga, as stated in the Yoga Sutras, is "control of the mind (cessation)," and the final stage of the eight stages is Samadhi. However, Samadhi is a kind of achievement, but it is not enlightenment itself. Vipassana is a meditation that leads to enlightenment based on Samadhi as a "foundation." However, first, there must be a foundation of ethical aspects, such as Yama and Niyama in the Yoga Sutras, or Sila in Buddhism, and then there is concentration (Samadhi), and then "control of the mind (cessation)" through Samadhi, and finally, one reaches Vipassana. While it is necessary to understand this at least intellectually, the essence cannot be understood without experiencing it. Therefore, if someone who has not yet reached the stage of Vipassana meditation does this meditation carelessly, they may get lost. I have talked to a few people, and I have seen some who are clearly lost. Ideally, there should be a guru who provides proper guidance, but basically, it is left to each individual, and there is no care provided. They only provide guidance on the place and method, so many people may not be able to achieve the proper effect.

■ The degree of concentration on Summer Day.

- In Buddhism, there are said to be eight stages of Samadhi, and Samadhi is generally described as the state of extreme concentration. My impression is that Buddhist Samadhi is 90% concentration and 10% observation. In yoga, Samadhi varies depending on the context, but it doesn't seem to be as much as 90% concentration. It seems that in yoga, Samadhi means 30-70% concentration depending on the context. Therefore, if someone in Buddhism says, "You cannot attain enlightenment just by being in Samadhi," it might be better to interpret it as, "You cannot attain enlightenment even if you meditate with 90% concentration." In yoga, there are many types of Samadhi, so it's difficult to understand just by the words, and I think you probably need to listen to the guru's nuances to understand which one they are referring to. In yoga, it seems that you start with strong concentration to calm the mind, and then gradually reduce the concentration and increase observation as the mind becomes calmer. In yoga, there seems to be a balance between strength and weakness, while Vipassana seems to switch the method itself. In Vipassana meditation retreats, concentration is divided into Anapana meditation, and observation is divided into Vipassana, but I think Anapana meditation should be given more attention.

■ Can we spread love by doing Metta Bhavana meditation?

- At the end of Vipassana, it was said to practice Metta meditation to spread love to those around us. I thought, "Isn't this the very 'meditation that covers and hides oneself' that was criticized throughout the lecture?" I felt a contradiction. It's a common thing to criticize others to cover up what you're doing. In fact, I saw several staff members who seemed to be superficially covering things up. Although the staff are just volunteers and not much different from ordinary people, since they resonated with this method, I think it's possible to see a certain tendency from that. I personally think that Metta meditation itself is wonderful, but I simply felt that the claims were inconsistent. In the spiritual world, anything is possible, so if you miss even such small inconsistencies, you may be led in the wrong direction.

- This is just my speculation, but I had the impression during the lecture that Metta meditation is the kind of state that the Buddha "reached as a result of practicing Vipassana meditation," and that it was not originally a form of meditation. Perhaps he entered a state of love after enlightenment. I don't know the truth because I couldn't ask the instructors about such things in a friendly atmosphere, and I couldn't do any research during the lecture. For that reason, I have a sense of unease about Metta meditation. It seems that it is a state where love overflows after enlightenment through Vipassana meditation, but imagining love through Metta meditation seems to be the kind of meditation that "covers the heart," as I mentioned earlier. This may be one of the reasons why I felt a sense of unease about the Vipassana staff. It's like a religious, almost blind atmosphere, even though they say it's not a religion. This is just my personal and subjective impression. There's an atmosphere where people who cover themselves with Metta meditation and those who raise objections are driven away. Even when trying to consult, there's a strange sense of rejection, which is odd. I didn't want to be like the staff there. I'm not attracted to them. I didn't find the instructors appealing either. It's also possible to imagine that they attach Metta meditation to Vipassana meditation because it's a problem to simply return people who can't do Vipassana meditation well. In any case, there is a sense of unease between the content of the lecture and this Metta meditation. I'll reiterate, I have no objection to Metta meditation itself. I think that kind of loving meditation is "okay." It's just that it contradicts the content of the lecture. If you miss such contradictions, you may end up being trapped in the spiritual world.

■ Comparison with Dharamshala.

- Originally, I was traveling in Dharamshala, India, and I passed by a meditation hall without knowing it was a Vipassana center. I only felt a strong aura and thought, "What is this?" and then I researched it and found out it was a Vipassana facility. I had heard about Vipassana before, but not enough to actually take a course. I saw the facility and decided to try it. So, I was actually planning to take the course in Dharamshala, but for my first time, I wanted to hear the explanation in Japanese, so I took it in Chiba, Japan. The atmosphere was better than some other places in Japan, but compared to the overwhelming aura of Dharamshala, it felt a bit lonely. I probably won't take it again in Japan.

■Are the students attending this time serious?

- This time, compared to other times, the participants seemed to be quite serious. I'm not sure because it was my first time participating.

■The same thing can also be achieved through yoga.

- It is rare to have an environment where one can sit for 10 days, so it was a valuable and good experience. However, I felt that the same things could probably be achieved through yoga without taking this course. In that sense, I re-recognized the benefits of yoga, and there are also benefits to sitting for a long time at once. Indeed, such meditation may be necessary for ultimate enlightenment, but for 99.99999% of people in this world, enlightenment is probably very far away. Therefore, it is better to do meditation with fewer mistakes.

- Since I was originally doing yoga, I may have been fine without taking this course. Perhaps there would have been a much more dramatic difference if I hadn't been doing yoga, but there was also a possibility that I might have fallen into a tremendous and fatal trap and ruined my life. I am certain that it was because I was doing yoga that I was able to avoid such a fatal and devastating result. That is why I do not recommend the Goenka method to beginners.

■ Has a low boiling point of anger.

- Among Vipassana enthusiasts, there are people whose threshold for irritation and anger is abnormally low. I have met such people at the venue, and the manager I mentioned earlier was one of them. There were also former participants who were like that. What does this mean? In both yoga and Vipassana, non-violence is spoken of as a fundamental moral principle. In Vipassana, it is called "sila," and in yoga, it is called "ahimsa." This includes not only physically harming others but also not verbally harming them. It also includes not sending negative thoughts to others. For Vipassana enthusiasts who are striving for enlightenment, easily getting angry and hurting others goes against this fundamental moral principle. If such contradictions are not properly addressed in the spiritual world, things can go in a strange direction. The feeling of unease suggests that something is wrong.
- I felt that many people are using Vipassana meditation not as a meditation to bring up deep samskaras (seeds of karma), which is its original form, but as a meditation to quickly get rid of conflicts. Therefore, even though the conflicts disappear, the underlying seeds of conflict, which are samskaras (seeds of karma), are not eradicated, and it simply ends with eliminating the superficial conflicts. When people become accustomed to quickly getting rid of superficial conflicts, they become less accustomed to properly accepting conflicts. Because the root seeds remain, when unfamiliar conflicts arise, they easily get angry. Perhaps this is why the threshold for anger becomes low.
- There are people in the spiritual world who try to keep things peaceful by keeping the causes of anger away. They want to maintain a peaceful atmosphere around them by denying the causes of anger, but even a slight unpleasantness can make them quickly angry. It seems they misunderstand the concept of peace. What they say about whether something is "peaceful" is ultimately at the emotional level. If they can truly objectively view things, they will understand that emotions are not important, and of course, the state of peace will increase as they grow, but that is not something that can be achieved by denying unpleasantness. Rather, unpleasantness is an important and valuable thing that reveals past samskaras (seeds of karma). Some people in the spiritual world continue to avoid unpleasantness, but if they get angry and avoid it even when they are usually peaceful, that is not true peace. Ideally, the samskaras should be eradicated, but when a phenomenon appears, we have no choice but to confront it. Instead of denying it, we must carefully observe and understand it. If you get angry and avoid it, the same lesson will keep coming back.
- These types of people sometimes create a hierarchy based on the concept of peace. People who point out the conflicts of others and create a hierarchy are misunderstanding the concept of peace. There are a certain number of organizations in the spiritual world where people who are equally inclined to create a hierarchy of peace diligently maintain their fragile peace, and gather with people who have the same ideas. This place cannot be said to be completely like that, but I saw a slight tendency in that direction.

■Indeed, the absence of the guru is the root cause.

- As I mentioned above, the method itself is good. If there is a guru who provides appropriate meditation at the right time and offers support, it would be very effective. Therefore, it is extremely regrettable. It should be better, but it is a waste. Because this is closely related to a person's consciousness, timing is extremely important. However, because ideological constraints are prioritized, the existence of a guru is denied, and as a result, many people end up going in the wrong direction due to the lack of a guru.

- If the effects can be properly judged and the training is received at an appropriate time, there will be effects. However, if there is no guru, it is almost like grasping at clouds, isn't it? That's why it's so regrettable. Really.

■Religious organizations that wear a mask of being non-religious.

- In yoga, there's a sense of being protected because there are deities. Regarding the claim that both yoga and Vipassana are "not religions," they share that point, but their positions seem quite different. Yoga seems to be polytheistic, while Vipassana leans towards atheism. In Vipassana, "Buddha" is placed at the top as the meaning of "enlightened person," which is de-personalized. If we say that yoga and Vipassana chose polytheism and atheism, respectively, as a method of de-personalization, it seems that the emphasis is different. While yoga and Buddhism create a worldview that calls the world "Brahman," meaning "everything is God," that point remains the same. However, in Vipassana, while "Buddha" is at the top, it is also de-personalized and technicized. In Vipassana, the perspective of "everything is God" is less prominent, and it focuses on the "technique" of "self-enlightenment." This may have been a consideration to allow people who believe in other religions to participate, but it may have eventually led to a loss of the polytheistic perspective. This is just a speculation.
- Vipassana claims to be non-religious, but I personally think that it is a religion because it has to be non-religious in order to construct its ideology consistently, and therefore it says it is non-religious, but it excludes everything else. For example, the existence of a guru is denied because each individual needs to be enlightened. Because there is no guru, individuals are not given personalized guidance, but rather receive a fixed curriculum that the students choose. I judged that it was a religion that was arbitrarily claiming to be non-religious. Presumably, those involved would deny this. It seems that the system is not working properly because the ideology is prioritized too much. Perhaps, when Goenka was doing it on a smaller scale, he may have been providing guidance in a more group-like manner, but now it seems to be an organization that only maintains a fixed system. According to a knowledgeable person, the organization becomes rigid as it grows, and there are probably no qualified gurus. Perhaps Goenka himself said that he was not a guru. And because the ideology is prioritized, the guru-like figure who should have been there has disappeared, which is a strange situation. If it were just a matter of logic that a guru is not needed, then someone should be assigned to that role, even if they are not called a guru.
- According to a knowledgeable person, Vipassana is different from Mahayana Buddhism in that it is based on the concept of "no-self," which is different from the yoga of Shankara, who came later. Considering the difference in eras, Vipassana is from the time of the Buddha, so there may be points that are not fully developed or explained. It may be reviving old ideas, leading to confusion, in an attempt to revive the technique. They are relying on the Buddha, but they cannot truly rely on him ideologically, which leads to various contradictions. The efforts of great people in later eras, such as Shankara, are not reflected here.
- Since it claims to be non-religious based on ideology, it should be able to accept questions and objections from students. However, in reality, because it is a religion but has to say that it is non-religious for ideological reasons, the system strictly divides the areas of the instructors, and any questions other than the technique are not accepted. If questions are accepted, the contradictions will be revealed, and even though the basis is "believing in Goenka," Goenka himself says, "Don't believe me, use your own judgment," which leads to self-contradiction. They live by avoiding self-contradiction, but they get angry at those who point out that self-contradiction. There are many troublesome people in the spiritual world, but how can someone get angry at me, who has only had a brief conversation with them? This is true even for general volunteers, but the attitude of the manager is even worse. It would be better if they could tell me the truth. For example, "Goenka says to use your own judgment, but I don't fully understand yet, so even though it goes against Goenka's intentions, I am currently following his words because I believe in them. Therefore, I don't fully understand this, but I am following what Goenka says." That would be much better than being told something like that while being half-angry. But, I probably can't.
- I intuitively know that if I reach a certain level of meditation, the damage from yelling will bounce back to me more than to the other person. Therefore, people at a certain level should not be able to hurt others. If you can yell, it means you are at that level. In yoga, it is said that "ahimsa" (non-violence) is necessary, and in Vipassana meditation, "sila" is necessary, otherwise, no matter how much you meditate, you cannot reach a higher level. What I mean by "bouncing back to you" is not a theoretical concept like karma, but something that is not thought about with logic, but rather intuitively and instantly experienced as the result of the anger being reflected back to your body and mind in the very moment you yell.

■Grounding and Hysteria

Grounding is a spiritual term that refers to trusting the ground or the Earth and creating and maintaining a connection with it.

- This Vipassana meditation consists of "Anapana meditation," "Vipassana meditation," and "Metta meditation," but it lacks grounding exercises, so energy tends to accumulate in the head. Since you are not allowed to do any spiritual exercises other than what is instructed, energy tends to accumulate in the head for the entire 10 days. Normally, even in situations where you would ground the energy and bring it down, you are not allowed to do your own exercises, so energy tends to accumulate in the head. The meditation instructions simply state "observe," and do not mention "moving the energy," so you end up observing the energy that is accumulating in your head for several days. This is bad for your health. Even in such situations, a teacher should provide appropriate guidance, but the mechanical and rigid curriculum is dangerous. It may not be a problem if you have progressed to the point where you can lightly observe, but because the instructions say "if there are areas you have not observed, observe them for a few minutes," focusing your attention on those areas causes some energy to accumulate in the head. It may simply be that I am putting in too much effort, but care is needed for beginners who are not doing well, and in reality, such care is completely absent. While it may not be fatal for about 10 days, it is still somewhat dangerous. Some people became hysterical.

- It was interesting until about the 7th day, but from the 8th day onwards, I started to get bored and lost concentration, which slightly disrupted my balance. Nevertheless, I did make some discoveries, so it was certainly interesting. A more flexible schedule, or a teacher who could provide a break if needed, would have been better. By the way, other people were not in the hall during free meditation time, but were sleeping in their rooms, so perhaps I should have participated in everything and taken some breaks.

■Kundalini

- I did not have any experiences related to Kundalini. The sensation of the Muladhara (base of the spine) that I always have remained unchanged. As mentioned above, I felt the energy flow of various Nadis, but I did not feel the Kundalini rising from the Muladhara.

■Purification

- The purpose of Vipassana is "purification of the mind," but it didn't change as much as I thought it would. As mentioned above, there were problems related to grounding, and it actually disrupted my energy balance. I was prohibited from doing any mental exercises to correct this myself, so the instability remained, which was a somehow a bit strange (subtle/tricky).

■ Mind control through Vipassana meditation.

- Recently, there are cases where Vipassana meditation is recommended in the workplace. However, if a superior who is a habitual perpetrator of power harassment and abuse forces subordinates to undergo this Vipassana meditation, the purpose is likely mind control. In such cases, the subordinates will probably have little or no knowledge of meditation, so the result will not be a meditation that brings out deep samskaras (seeds of karma), but rather one that only removes superficial conflicts. When Vipassana meditation is used to remove superficial conflicts, it may seem to create a peaceful and positive outcome, but it will likely lower the boiling point of anger and reduce stress tolerance. If the superior's power harassment is directed at such a subordinate, their heart will easily break and they will become obedient. For the superior, this seminar is very beneficial because it effectively removes the subordinates' stress and allows them to control their minds, creating compliant individuals. This type of meditation is based on the premise of a certain level of trust, so if strong stress and peace are alternately given, it would be considered power harassment in the workplace or abuse towards a child. However, if they are forced to undergo Vipassana meditation again before reaching the critical point, the temporary stress will be relieved, and they can be exploited again. While the spiritual world has a bright and peaceful image, there are also people who try to exploit it, so one must be careful, or there is a risk of becoming a spiritual slave and being exploited by others for life. Many people are not aware of this. Vipassana meditation itself is not bad, and it can produce powerful results if used properly, but it is common for exploiters to approach places with such power. Being aware of this and avoiding being exploited is also a lesson in the spiritual world.

■Mr. Goenka often shouted loudly.

- It seems that Mr. Goenka often shouted, so this organization may have a culture of shouting. It also seems that those who shouted were nonchalant, so perhaps that is the case here as well. I cannot associate with an organization that shouts about trivial matters. Since it is an organization that disguises itself as non-religious, it can only be interpreted that it is acceptable to shout about things that do not conform to the doctrine. As is common with religious organizations, whatever I say will only be used to demonize me and justify themselves, so it is pointless to say anything. If there were someone willing to listen, they would not interrupt and become half-angry. If they are an organization that teaches methods rather than being a religious organization, they should be willing to listen and improve, but if it is a choice between believing or not believing in the method, then it is a religion. Although they say, "Let's decide if this is good or bad after 10 days," if we only look at those words, it is non-religious, but in reality, they do not try to answer questions, do not try to listen to the content of the questions, only convey the method, and try to control people's minds by shouting if there are any inconveniences, then it is a religion. With such an organization, you either accept it knowing that it is useless, or you leave. However, people who have been subjected to mind control cannot even make that choice. Those who are serving or attending while hiding other meditations such as yoga are probably the former. However, I don't think it's good to meditate while hiding such a double life. It is difficult to grow if you meditate with a hidden heart. In that regard, the manager's story about "a person who chases two rabbits will catch neither" is certainly true, but in my opinion, it is simply a matter of choosing the right tool for the job, so I would not hide it. If I said something like that, I would be strongly rejected by this organization that disguises itself as non-religious. In this organization, if someone tries to use other meditations, they will come shouting at them like Mr. Goenka. It is truly the worst when a religious organization is combined with shouting. It is a matter of using love and punishment, which is a form of abuse, bad discipline, or harassment. It is impossible to have people who listen obediently just by making them shrink. I have seen some servants who seem to be shrinking, as if they have been subjected to something like that. As mentioned above, there may be some mind control. People who join religious organizations willingly become mind-controlled, and they fall into a state of mental peace and self-deception, so it is pointless for others to interfere.
- On the last day, the participants were not taken care of and simply dismissed, which made me question the system and organization. There was no time for questions with the instructors after the night before the departure, and since the living areas are separate, there was no contact with the instructors. If you talked to the manager, you would be scolded and not properly taken care of. As a result, many people were just chatting aimlessly with other participants, and the important questions about meditation could not be asked until the very end, which was impressive. I also heard some questions from other participants during the normal question time on the day before the departure, but for some reason, the instructors gave vague answers, and the questioners seemed to be dissatisfied, which was also impressive. If the level of understanding is that low, they should take care of the participants thoroughly at the very end, but the organization's decision to abandon that final care was quite shocking, as it is not something I would normally expect. As mentioned above, they probably do not recognize the existence of a guru because they emphasize individualism. As mentioned above, in reality, Mr. Goenka said, "I am not a guru," but in fact, he was a guru, so there should be a "de facto guru" even after Mr. Goenka is gone, but they are lacking that.
- There is a note that says, "Only ask questions about the method of meditation, and do not engage in philosophical discussions," but I think that most people do not want to have philosophical discussions, but simply want to be satisfied. They are cutting off the questioner by saying, "philosophical discussion," which reveals the true nature of this organization. They only teach the "method," and that is all they can do. Even if they said that, they are trying to cover up the situation by saying "philosophical discussion." Indeed, the lecture audio contains Buddhist teachings, but that is just a recording, not a live lecture. I thought the instructors would be giving live lectures and teachings, but the instructors are just sitting there, playing the recorded audio, and only accept questions about the "method" during the question time, so it seems that their policy is to only teach the "method," no matter how much they try to cover it up with words. That is why there is no time for questions with the instructors after the afternoon of the day before departure. Moreover, the instructors and participants live in separate areas, so it is not possible to ask questions or say hello individually after the program is over. It gives a very "abandoned" impression. It is quite shocking to have such a "abandoned" feeling at the end of a 10-day (or 12-day including the days before and after) retreat. It is very unsettling. I wonder if the organizers think that is okay? Perhaps there was follow-up care in the country where the Goenka system originated, but in Japan, where there is not much follow-up, this retreat, where understanding cannot be achieved without self-study or further meditation sessions, pointed out subtle problems at the very end. I cannot recommend this to others. As mentioned above, it seems that they emphasize individualism, so they let individuals do whatever they want. In reality, it is a religious organization, but they are leaving it to individuals because they emphasize individualism. That is what this organization that disguises itself as non-religious is like. I can imagine that if I said something like that, I would be scolded or shouted at, so I will not point out this organization that disguises itself as non-religious. I know the reality of this organization, so I just want them to do their own thing. I don't have anything to say to this organization, I am just writing what I understand. There are many other strange organizations, and this is a country of freedom, so everyone is free to believe whatever they want. It is also a matter of personal freedom to believe that it is non-religious without thinking or believing it, so they can do whatever they want.

■Do Goenka's Vipassana meditation practitioners have no interest in others?

- It seemed that the female manager, who appeared to have been practicing Vipassana meditation for a long time, muttered quietly, "There are all sorts of people," seemingly uninterested, but it seemed to represent the basic mindset of Goenka-style Vipassana practitioners towards others. Perhaps this is because the Theravada Buddhism that forms the basis of my own pursuit of enlightenment emphasizes self-cultivation. She seemed uninterested in others. Therefore, does this mean that even if someone is experiencing mental distress, they are simply left alone? The initial audio explanation stated that the venue is simply a "place," not a place for interaction with others. It seems that this is taken literally. It appears that this is not a place for interaction, not only with other participants, but even with the instructors. Basically, the policy here seems to be "leave them alone."

- I, on the other hand, get irritated with the operating side's policy of leaving people experiencing mental distress alone, so I don't think I'm a good fit for this place. Perhaps it's a difference in direction. There are organizations with this kind of policy in the world. There are probably countless other, even stranger organizations. I'll just think of this as a strange sight I happened to see during my life.

■Vipassana meditation addiction?

- Perhaps, by repeatedly engaging in such superficial meditation, one might develop a dependence on Vipassana meditation. Eventually, one should realize that something is wrong, but there may be people who do not notice. There are numerous pitfalls in the realm of the mind, and one might become obsessed and experience a slowdown in growth. Ultimately, it is a matter of personal responsibility, but the world of the mind also has many pitfalls that are fatal and irreversible. One might even waste the wisdom accumulated over many generations.

■ Two paths to purification.

- The aura of the soul can either be purified by pouring in light or purified by being extinguished. Utilizing the lessons to grow is purification by light, while severing an aura that is beyond saving and returning it to nothingness is purification by extinction. Understanding the deep-seated seeds, the samskaras, is essential for purification by light. Easily severing conflicts and returning them to nothingness is purification by extinction. Since there is no learning from the lessons in the latter case, as mentioned above, similar things will happen and people will become easily irritated. Growth is learning, so it is extremely important to understand the true nature of what appears to be purified.
- People who understand the importance of lessons will accept even temporary conflicts as something inevitable. Those who constantly purify by extinction will perceive even minor conflicts as something bad, so in communities like the latter, people must be careful not to get hurt by even the smallest things. Everyone's temper is short, so they get angry easily. And by scolding people who have some conflict, a hierarchy is created. In communities like the former, the range of tolerance is extremely wide, so conflicts are accepted as temporary, and the peace in those communities is on a completely different level from the latter. In communities like the former, people are not that interested in the conflicts of others and are simply enjoying their own peace, so even a little conflict is not a problem. Communities with such a narrow range of tolerance must expend a great deal of effort for peace, and eventually become tired. It's amazing that such communities exist. Both appear peaceful at first glance, but the difference is easy to spot. In the former, individuals are independent and peaceful, and do not interfere with others much. In the latter, a hierarchy is created based on peace. The former is well-ventilated and feels good, while the latter alternates between peace and irritation. In the latter community, people try to form a hierarchy by pointing out the problems of others. In the latter community, independence is lost, and a hierarchy of peace based on dependence is formed. In the former community, there is a diversity of opinions, and individuals strive to maintain peace. In the latter community, the diversity of opinions is lost, and people lose their ability to think, and it becomes considered correct to follow the opinions of the leader. Is this not a religion? If so, it would not be inappropriate to call the latter a religion. I have determined that this Vipassana meditation group is actually a religious organization disguised as a non-religious one.

■Indeed, a religious organization disguised as a non-religious organization.

- People involved in organizations like this will absolutely never acknowledge the strange aspects, and they will come up with various excuses. When you listen to them, you might think, "Is that so?" But ultimately, it's a religion, so it's important to leave if you feel any discomfort. Perhaps you might be mind-controlled and find it difficult to leave. All of that is your own karma.
- Everything, both good and bad, is karma. But the karma you have accumulated will come back again unless you learn from it as a lesson. You might think you are trying to get rid of karma, but in reality, you are only detaching from your emotions, which is why things become strange as described above. Generally, people involved in religions are strange, but this place is strange even though it claims to be non-religious. No matter how much I explain it with words, some people just won't understand.
- I think religions are okay, so there is absolutely no problem with Vipassana meditation being called a religion. In recent times, there are many religious organizations that claim to be non-religious. I think all of those are religions, so I'm not surprised that Vipassana meditation is now being called a religion.

■ Vipassana meditation in Japan and overseas.

- The people I have referred to are all Japanese, and I am taking the course in Japan, so I don't know about other countries.
- I heard that a certain Indian guru (or perhaps just a Vipassana meditation teacher) said that Vipassana meditation is suitable for Japanese people, but I wonder how much Indians understand Japanese people. Some people seem to take the words of that Indian guru seriously and look down on other forms of meditation. Seeing that, I feel that such thinking is superficial. If it were a deep thought, wisdom should be conveyed even by hearing about it. If they are saying that it is suitable for Japanese people because Japanese people are easily susceptible to mind control and that is why it is effective, that might be possible. Of course, they wouldn't say that explicitly. It is also possible that the guru simply doesn't have a deep understanding of meditation. If you only focus on the effects, Vipassana and mindfulness meditation may be a type of meditation that is too strong and potentially dangerous for Japanese people. Alternatively, it may be that the Indian person said something to encourage people, and Japanese people are misinterpreting it. As I mentioned above, if you are truly practicing yoga meditation, you should know that yoga meditation is ultimately connected to Vipassana meditation, and that they are not so different. It's strange. Even if you look at the underlying meaning of the statement, you should be able to sense that it is "strange," but if you simply accept what the Indian person said without much understanding and make it your own opinion, then your understanding of meditation may be at that level.

■If you don't understand well, will you be lucky and experience positive effects from Vipassana meditation?

- In the yoga class I attend, a student mentioned that she had previously experienced Vipassana meditation overseas. I asked her about it, and she said that she had a difficult time, with constant chatter in her mind and the emergence of trauma. Based on what she said, it seems that she was not actually able to practice Vipassana meditation, but rather continued with Anapana meditation, which involves observing the breath and the mind. She said that she eventually calmed down, but if that was the case, the teacher should have recognized this and allowed her to continue with Anapana meditation only. From the opinions of some acquaintances and several blog articles, it seems that there are quite a few people who are told they are doing Vipassana meditation, but in reality, they are only doing Anapana meditation, observing the mind. Whether or not they understand Vipassana meditation is up to them, but based on the effects they experience, it seems they are attributing the effects of Anapana meditation to Vipassana meditation. I don't think Vipassana meditation is suitable for beginners. In a sense, it's like taking a beginner's meditation challenge and relying on luck. Some people may have had a lucky experience where they took this session and, by chance, didn't go in a dangerous direction, and instead experienced the effects of Anapana meditation, leading them to have an inaccurate impression that Vipassana meditation was good. This is inherently dangerous, and if someone who doesn't understand it does Vipassana meditation carelessly, they may end up using it to superficially eliminate conflicts, which can lead to undesirable outcomes. In fact, there was a student who was fluent in English and, because of that, misunderstood and participated in Vipassana meditation overseas, which made her more prone to anger. Perhaps what was previously hidden has become more apparent. It's possible that people who receive explanations in English overseas and don't fully understand it may end up focusing mainly on observing the mind, which might be less dangerous. There are many blogs that suggest it would be better to say that they did 10 days of Anapana meditation rather than Vipassana meditation. It's like they did Anapana meditation without realizing it, but they thought they were doing Vipassana meditation. They probably wouldn't notice it themselves. That was just a lucky outcome, but the risk still exists. Meditation is inherently dangerous, so guidance from a teacher is essential. On the other hand, there are many people who do Vipassana meditation without being properly prepared and end up becoming unstable or irritable. It seems that during the time of Mr. Goenka, even those cases were "left to their own devices." Perhaps the policy hasn't changed. Ideally, a teacher should observe and guide the students, but if Mr. Goenka did it that way, we can't expect the policy to change in the future. Therefore, I think it's better for people who are not sufficiently prepared to avoid Vipassana meditation. I don't recommend taking it with the expectation of luck.

■ I do not seek "enlightenment."

- People who talk about things like "enlightenment" often seem lost or a bit suspicious. Here, it's not quite suspicious, but it's easily irritable, so it can be said to be "lost." It's not suspicious, so there's self-control, which is a point to be evaluated. It seems like they are trying hard, even though they talk about such distant things as "enlightenment," and their degree of being "lost" is low. I thought that if you become deeply involved in Goenka's method and deepen your faith as a religion disguised as non-religious, you might be able to achieve a certain degree of purification. However, that is if you can avoid the pitfalls I mentioned. Religious organizations often have such aspects. No matter how strange it may seem, there are people who are saved by it. In any case, there is a stage of actually trying it, and after trying it and understanding it, you reach a stage of "letting go," and then you graduate. I have no intention of commenting on the actions of others because I felt a sense of discomfort. They are probably doing things that they are learning from.
- At least, I don't plan to participate in Japan anymore at this point, but even if there are problems with the organization or guidance, if you can participate without relying on them, it can be used as a place for growth. I might participate again from that perspective, but I don't have any plans to participate right now. Even so, Japan is still a bit questionable, so if I were to participate, it would probably be overseas. I also know that yoga has a similar effect, so I might not participate at all. Originally, it is meditation for enlightenment, but 99.9999999% of the time, enlightenment is impossible, and what I am seeking is not enlightenment, but "a certain degree" of purification. There are many other options besides Vipassana.
- No matter how much you talk about or seek enlightenment, if you don't have basic morality like Sila or Ahimsa, it will only increase the ego of the mind. The worst kind of ego will grow, where you become a "holy person" and start saying things like "I am a holy person," "I am enlightened." And if your thoughts don't match, you will get angry and yell at the other person, and drive them away, trying to maintain mental tranquility. In reality, it is a religion, so they probably think that it is okay to yell if it doesn't match their way of thinking. If that's the case, it's really ridiculous. If you can spend a peaceful life by following the rules and behaving obediently, then it is essentially a religion. As I mentioned above, I am okay with religion, so they should just honestly call themselves a religion. If it is a religion, the rules are simply "because it is a religion" or "because it is the doctrine." It's because they are pretending to be non-religious that things become strange. There are many religions that are actually religions but claim to be non-religious. They should just honestly call themselves a religion. I think only people who are ignorant of the world would seriously say that it is "unrelated to religion." People who understand it would probably think, "Ah, this is also a religion in reality," and most of them would think it and not say anything.

■ Retaking the course?

- There are various inconsistencies, but I also learned some things, so I think I might consider attending a Vipassana retreat in Dharamsala, India, sometime in the future, if the opportunity arises. However, it would be problematic if the Vipassana organizers reject people who practice other forms of meditation. Alternatively, other methods of Vipassana meditation might be a good option.
- In my case, I can see the "lie" of pretending to be non-religious while being a religious institution, and once I see that lie, delving deeper into this place would be a lie to my own heart, so I'm not planning to attend this place in Chiba for now. Even if I were to do it overseas, it would probably be a 3-day course for repeat participants. I'm a little interested in whether Dharamsala is different from Japan.

■Other Theravada Buddhist scholars.

- Later, I attended a seminar by Phayuk Naratebo, a Theravada Buddhist scholar from Thailand. The approach and explanation were so different that it seemed like a completely different type of Vipassana meditation. Of course, in terms of the meaning of "realization," it was the same. However, this one does not reject other forms of meditation and is quite open. It seems to be quite different from the Goenka method. It is impossible to generalize about Vipassana meditation based solely on the Goenka method. The Goenka method has become a synonym for Vipassana meditation, but it is better to think that the Goenka method just happened to be a form of Vipassana. The Goenka method, while claiming to be non-religious, has a somewhat blind and religious feel, while Phayuk Naratebo is likely deeply rooted in Buddhism, but has an open and non-religious feel.

■ People who are feeling good about denying the samadhi of Samatha meditation. In reality, samadhi is useful for enlightenment.

- I felt that there might be some people of this kind who are somewhat Goenka-style. In Samadhi, there are concepts of Samadhi that identify with "things" and Samadhi that identify with the immaterial. According to Mr. Fujimoto's book, the former is helpful for enlightenment, while the latter is not helpful for enlightenment. According to the same book, it is possible to seek enlightenment through Vipassana meditation without Samadhi in Samatha meditation, but it is extremely difficult. Buddhist scriptures generally describe a path that involves achieving Samadhi with "things" and then proceeding through several stages to reach enlightenment. It seems that the Buddha himself did not deny Samadhi, and that people who interpreted it later are the ones who deny it. The reason for this is that they can feel superior by denying it, or perhaps they are simply ignorant. Of course, it is possible that my understanding is wrong, and the latter ignorance is not something to be blamed, but the former sense of superiority is foolish. Meditating with such things will only lead to confusion. On the other hand, it is true that being immersed in the feeling of Samadhi can hinder growth, so the danger of the pitfalls of Samadhi is not wrong. Ultimately, the root cause of the problem may be that there are no teachers who can accurately teach these things.
- It seems that Samadhi has stages, and initially there is a feeling of illusion, but gradually that feeling decreases. This is indeed what I have experienced, and I think I have read something similar in several books. The decrease in the feeling of illusion is said to be progress, not regression. Ultimately, it reaches a state of unity with almost no feeling of illusion. According to the Buddha's teachings, after reaching the stage where there is no feeling of illusion with Samadhi for "things," one should strive for enlightenment. If that is the case, the Goenka-style, which in a sense denies Samadhi, may be talking about enlightenment but is actually aiming for worldly benefits rather than enlightenment.
- I have written a lot, but if the Goenka-style Vipassana meditation is said to be a meditation for seeking enlightenment, but many people are not actually seeking enlightenment, but simply want to feel better, then that demand is at least being met, and they may think that this is enough. If they were serious, they would quickly notice such inconsistencies.

■Dangers of Prolonged Meditation for Beginners

The following is from "Meditation and Spiritual Life 3" by Swami Yatiswarananda:

Beginner practitioners should strictly avoid meditation as a sole practice. Our monastic order does not allow it. Until you can completely control your various thoughts, excessive meditation in the early stages of spiritual life can be dangerous. When you try to quiet your mind, forbidden and unpleasant thoughts may arise, causing confusion. These can even overwhelm you. In the initial stages, it is better to allocate a shorter time for meditation. The remaining time should be spent on work, service, or study.

This statement refers to Samatha meditation (concentration-based meditation), but instructors of Vipassana meditation may have different views. Nevertheless, this is a thought-provoking statement. Especially for beginners, it may be difficult to understand the difference between Samatha and Vipassana meditation, and it is dangerous to start with prolonged meditation. This is because, as I observed on the tenth day, some people were clearly experiencing this kind of confusion. Some were stressed, and others were experiencing self-loathing. However, there was almost no care or support from the staff or instructors, and they were essentially left to their own devices. The instructors did not appear on the final day, and the staff quickly left by taxi after the disbandment time. Given such a situation, I would not recommend this Vipassana meditation retreat to acquaintances, as the policy seems to be to leave people unattended.

In any case, most people, about 98%, cannot reach such a deep state of meditation, so it seems that any practice would be more or less the same for a short period. It is best to do what is easiest. Even if there is a risk of falling into a difficult situation by meditating for a long time, it is a free country, so people can do what they want.

Meditation is originally a form of spiritual practice, but this organization may simply be focused on superficial stress relief. That is my impression, because on the final day, I heard from some of the staff that the purpose was something like "purification." If that is the case, then simply discarding conflicts is sufficient, and meditation that separates emotions would be enough. This is not the proper use of Vipassana meditation, which is intended to eradicate the root of karma, samskaras. However, if Vipassana meditation is used to discard superficial conflicts, that is also a matter of personal freedom. The word "purification" can be interpreted in various ways, but my judgment was based on the person's demeanor and tone, so it is purely subjective. They seemed to be vague and lacking substance, so I thought they might be the type of person who quickly discards conflicts and becomes empty. I am not denying that, because the purpose of a method often changes when it moves from one place to another. When it comes to Japan, even if the explanation is the same, the way it is used may be different, which is a common cultural phenomenon, and I do not deny it; I simply observe it with interest. If the purpose is simply to relieve superficial stress, then that is fine. However, the way it is presented is quite grand. In reality, it may be like that. As mentioned above, beginners often become overwhelmed by conflicts and may end up in dangerous situations. That is also a comedy that occurs due to the freedom of choice in a free country. I am simply writing down what I have noticed, and I do not expect others to change. However, if the original purpose and the superficial presentation are different, I think it should be expressed more clearly. It should simply be stated as "meditation to eliminate superficial conflicts." Saying things like "burning the seeds of samskaras and how that affects rebirth" is something that most people cannot achieve. Even the instructors who were there could not reach that level, it was obvious.

■Common Ground: "Experience"

According to my inner guide, if it is based on "experience," commonalities will emerge. Indeed, even if things seem different in words and logic, similar things should be visible through "experience." Although various states and perceptions may appear different when expressed in words, I believe they are essentially the same. Also, as a common analogy, there are many paths to climb the "mountain" of spiritual growth, and the view from the summit is the same. Although different methods are distinguished by their appearance, the destination is the same. If one undergoes spiritual training, they should have some kind of experience, and that is what will become the common ground.

Vipassana meditation and various yoga meditations are essentially the same. At least, that's what I think.

■ Later, I spoke with a person who was organizing a Vipassana meditation retreat in Rishikesh, India.
In Japan, Vipassana meditation is often associated with the Goenka method, but in Rishikesh, Vipassana meditation seems to simply mean silent meditation. I had the opportunity to talk to a person who was organizing a Vipassana meditation retreat in Rishikesh, and he said, "I don't know anything about Goenka." He said that even though he was organizing Vipassana meditation, he didn't know about Goenka. Perhaps the meaning of Vipassana meditation is different in Japan. It's an interesting point.

■ I spoke with an Indian meditation instructor who received direct guidance from Mr. Goenka.
About four months after I took the course in Chiba, I had the opportunity to talk to an Indian meditation instructor while studying yoga in Rishikesh, India. That Indian person had received direct guidance from Mr. Goenka and had meditated for a few months, and is now teaching various types of meditation, not just Vipassana meditation. I learned a few things from the conversation.

"Why can't Goenka's method be combined with Vipassana meditation and other forms of meditation?" I asked. The answers were two. One was a technical explanation: that the yoga pranayama and Vipassana meditation are technically incompatible when practiced simultaneously. The other was that Goenka was serious and wanted to focus solely on his Vipassana meditation, so he didn't want people who were practicing other forms of meditation to join. In the explanation of Goenka's method, I had assumed that it was a technical explanation, but it seems that the technical aspects are not important, and rather, the regulations excluding other forms of meditation reflect Goenka's intentions. If it were a technical matter, it might be possible to change it with logic, but since it is Goenka's intention, the regulations excluding other forms of meditation are likely to continue indefinitely now that the charismatic Goenka has passed away.

Even people in India who received direct guidance from Goenka had lower anger thresholds. When I asked a few questions, they showed unpleasant expressions, became irritated, and their tone of voice changed. Eventually, they started interrupting my words. Therefore, it seems that many people who practice Goenka's Vipassana meditation have lower anger thresholds and are easily angered, and this is true even for people who received direct guidance from Goenka and are now teaching meditation. It is probably a good idea to think that there is a possibility that practicing Goenka's method may lower the anger threshold for some reason. It would be a good idea to keep in mind that there is a possibility that the anger threshold may be lower if you are practicing Goenka's method. Otherwise, you will easily get angry and apologize, so I once again thought that it might be better not to approach people who are practicing Goenka's Vipassana meditation carelessly. Meditation is supposed to be done to cultivate inner peace, but if many people are experiencing a decrease in their anger thresholds, it seems that there is something wrong with the method itself. I wonder if they feel that there is no problem with the current situation? It's a strange thing.

I spoke with a German who had received Vipassana meditation in the Goenka style in Nepal.

During the same period I spoke with the meditation instructor mentioned earlier, I also had a chance to talk to this person. He was someone who tended to have a low threshold for anger, was strong-willed, and yet sought a peaceful environment. He claimed to have peace within himself, but he seemed to not fully understand that, and he would get frustrated and talk about peace. He's the type of person I don't really want to associate with.

He seems to be proud of having received Goenka-style Vipassana meditation, and he was boasting to others about how Goenka-style is the most strict and rigorous. I don't think meditation is something to brag about. The fact that he's bragging about it already reveals that he hasn't made much progress in his meditation practice. As I mentioned earlier, this is a common pitfall for beginners in the spiritual world: they feel like they are amazing, even if it's an illusion, and beginners often can't realize that it's an illusion.

There are often such spiritually confused people among those who have experience with the Goenka style, so I imagine that many people spend the 10 days without being able to meditate properly, and end up either inflating their ego by saying "I made it through," or becoming spiritually confused, or a mixture of both.

As I mentioned earlier, I don't think it's a good idea to do a long meditation like 10 days unless you can meditate to some extent. Some people are driven by their ego to "challenge" themselves, but I think it's better to avoid that kind of "challenge" because it's a sign that they are beginners. If someone like this German brags about the results of the challenge and inflates their ego, it will be counterproductive, and even if it's just ego inflation, it can interfere with daily life if they become spiritually confused.

When I told that German, "I've done it too," he seemed to have his pride hurt or something, and he sent me hostile gazes, frustrated expressions, and piercing thoughts, and I suddenly got a headache. I should have just said something like, "That's amazing," and moved on. Why do I have to receive hostile gazes and aggressive thoughts every time I talk to someone? I'm the victim here. I've come to think that it's better not to associate with people who have experience with Goenka-style Vipassana meditation. I'm also starting to not want to tell other people that I have experience with Vipassana meditation.

■Religion is ingrained in life in India and Nepal
In countries around India, religion is ingrained in life, and the religious concepts that exist in Japan are thin. For example, India is said to be a country with many Hindus, but Hinduism does not have religious organizations like in Japan; it is a part of life and is as natural as Shinto. Nepal and Myanmar also have religion ingrained in their culture, so it's understandable why people in those countries might not consider Goenka-style Vipassana meditation to be a religion. However, from the perspective of Japan, that is primitive Buddhism, which is clearly a religion. It's like how Japanese people understand Shinto as a moral system, while people from overseas see it as an interesting religion. I suddenly realized that the people who practice Goenka-style Vipassana meditation seem to be truly accepting Goenka's words and saying "it's not a religion," so it might be unpopular to say "it's a religion because it's primitive Buddhism." I think it's better to just say "Is that so."

I am not denying religion, but rather affirming it, so it doesn't matter to me if it's a religion or not.

If you study a little, you will realize that this is primitive Buddhism, so if there are people who are not aware of that and are truly accepting Goenka's words and thinking that it's not a religion (which is rare), then their actions and words are not consistent. In a state where thoughts and actions are separated, I speculate that it is impossible to reach a certain level, no matter how much meditation you do. I think that only when thoughts and actions are unified can one reach a high level. In the time of primitive Buddhism, the concept of religion was thin, and there was no coercion, and people practiced with their own free will, so it's good in that it's not forced or threatened. However, if it's an organization that practices spiritual training based on primitive Buddhism, then it's a religion. I think it would be better to openly call it a religion. Nowadays, there are many religions that don't call themselves religions.

■Samadhi (Concentration) Meditation and Vipassana (Observation) Meditation
I read "The Samaṇa Fruit Sutra" written by a scholar of Theravada Buddhism (Burmese Buddhism), and it helped me understand the situation in which the Buddha was placed at that time, and the positioning of Samadhi meditation (Samatha meditation through concentration) and Vipassana (observational) meditation. Here is a brief excerpt.

In the past, practitioners who had reached a state of samadhi through summer meditation would enter Vipassana (insight) meditation to overcome the cycle of rebirth and attain enlightenment. Nowadays, people practice Vipassana meditation directly, without going through that roundabout way. Vipassana meditation alone can cultivate the conditions necessary for enlightenment, such as concentration and various forms of wisdom. "From the Sutra of the Ascetic," by Alomulle Sumanasara.

When I tried to ask the manager at the Goenka center about this, I was scolded. However, I feel good about this Theravada Buddhism because it seems very rational. I think this is the real thing.

■ When vitality (power) increases, both concentration (samatha) and observation (vipassana) improve.
After experiencing Kundalini again (see the article on Nada sound) and practicing Kriya Yoga in Rishikesh, India, I came to this realization.

The vitality (power) mentioned here is not the ego, but the power that arises from the root, the basic life force. It is said that there are observation meditation and concentration meditation, but that represents only two aspects of meditation. When the body's power increases, both observation and concentration improve, and distractions disappear.

From an absolute perspective, observation meditation and concentration meditation are the same and parallel. However, from a relative perspective of an individual, there is a direction based on which one is easier to practice. Therefore, there may be advantages and disadvantages of observation meditation and concentration meditation in a relative sense. The advantages and disadvantages are simply a matter of personal preference, but in an absolute sense, they are the same. Saying "this is better" can give the impression that the other one is bad, but the advantages and disadvantages are simply about individual preferences. For example, someone who is not good at concentration may be good at observation meditation, and that person may think that observation meditation is good. However, it may be that someone who is not good at concentration should practice concentration meditation. The opposite is also true. Some people may only practice one type of meditation for their entire life, while others may practice both. However, meditation is something that happens internally, so even when practicing concentration meditation, observation may improve, and even when practicing observation meditation, concentration may improve. Therefore, there may not be much difference between the two. There are various techniques, so there may be advantages and disadvantages, but I understand that observation meditation and concentration meditation are simply different perspectives.

The vitality (power) may be Kundalini or something else, but in any case, the goal is not observation or concentration. Observation and concentration are actions, and they are a "how to" (how to execute), so they are a type of technique. The goal may be to increase power. If "power" sounds misleading, it may be easier to understand if I say "increase vitality." The goal is to increase vitality, and observation meditation and concentration meditation are means to that end.

Furthermore, the fundamental aspect may be the development of energy channels (nadis). That is what I felt. Depending on the perspective, the essence of various meditations can be seen from the perspective of developing energy channels (nadis). Ultimately, what is called thought observation or observation meditation is a result or phenomenon, and the important thing is to develop energy channels (nadis) and increase energy. When energy increases, distractions naturally disappear. Some meditations do not mention thought observation at all, but focus on the development of energy channels (nadis).

It is something that everyone has experienced and knows that negativity disappears when you become energetic. However, when that happens at a higher level, it is likely to lead to awakening or a divine experience, and it is not necessarily the case that awakening occurs simply by observing thoughts or practicing observation meditation. The simple point that is actually quite profound is that the important thing is to become energetic.

I have been long confused by concentration (sati) and observation (vipassana), but recently, I feel that the essence is ultimately here.

■ Related articles
- Samatha meditation and Vipassana meditation and "intention" and "consciousness"
- Goenka Vipassana meditation sharpens the senses, which is a form of samatha meditation (concentration meditation)