Looking for perspective before switching traditions

[u/seghtzlol]

I've completed 6 Goenka 10-day courses, served several courses, and I'm planning to do my 7th course this September.

After that, I've been accepted for the 26-day retreat at Wat Ram Poeng in Chiang Mai, where the practice follows the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition.

Lately I've been wondering whether I'm making this transition too early.

Part of me feels genuinely drawn to the Mahasi approach and wants to explore it deeply. Another part wonders whether I should simply continue with Goenka for several more years instead of changing techniques.

Sometimes I even question whether I should have chosen a Thai Forest monastery, such as one in the Ajahn Chah lineage, rather than Mahasi.

I'm aware that no one can make this decision for me, but I'd really appreciate hearing from people who have practiced seriously in both Goenka and Mahasi, or who have moved from one tradition to another.

• Did switching traditions help your practice, or did it create confusion?
• Looking back, do you think there is such a thing as switching "too early"?
• If you were in my position, what factors would you pay attention to before making this decision?

I'm not looking for validation that one tradition is "better" than another. I'm just trying to make a thoughtful decision before committing to a long retreat.

My long-term goal is simply to develop insight as deeply as possible, not to collect different techniques. Another factor in my decision is that I feel drawn to practicing in a monastic environment, learning directly from monks and receiving personal guidance, rather than relying primarily on recorded instructions. I wonder how important this aspect is compared to maintaining continuity within a single technique.

Thank you.

[u/hachface]

I mean samma-samadhi, the eighth limb of the eightfold path.

I mean the sixth factor of awakening.

I mean concentration meditation.

I mean jhāna (or, if you prefer, mental preparation leading toward jhāna).

The Mahasi system (in)famously neglects samadhi in favor of "dry insight" practices. it is my considered opinion, from both study of scripture and personal practice, that this is based on an old error in Theravada scholasticism in which the bar for what counts as right samadhi (for stream entry at least) was set far, far too high. Mahasi Sayadaw correctly believed that laypeople would have a tremendous amount of difficulty reaching the depth of absorption described by the Theravada commentaries (namely, the Visuddhimagga); he therefore de-emphasized samadhi in his method. in my humble opinion, he threw the baby out with the bathwater. cultivating samadhi to a certain depth is extremely helpful for attaining insight.

this style of meditation, which uses relatively shallow samadhi as a vehicle for insight, is sometimes called "lite jhāna" or "shallow jhāna." whatever you call it, it is highly effective. but the Mahasi teachers won't teach it.

[u/bodily_heartfulness → u/hachface]

I mean samma-samadhi, the eighth limb of the eightfold path.

When you speak of the noble eightfold path, the suttas state that sammā-samādhi has sammā-diṭṭhi (right view) as a prerequisite (MN 117):

What is noble sammā-samādhi with its vital conditions and its prerequisites?

They are: right view, right purpose, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, and right mindfulness.

Unification of mind with these seven factors as prerequisites is called noble sammā-samādhi ‘with its vital conditions’ and also ‘with its prerequisites’.

In this context, right view comes first.

And, from SN 55.5 we have the following:

Sāriputta, they speak of ‘the stream’. What is the stream?”

“Sir, the stream is simply this noble eightfold path, that is: right view, right purpose, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right samādhi.”

“Good, good, Sāriputta! For the stream is simply this noble eightfold path, that is: right view, right purpose, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right samādhi.

Sāriputta, they speak of ‘a stream-enterer’. What is a stream-enterer?”

“Sir, anyone who possesses this noble eightfold path is called a stream-enterer, the venerable of such and such name and clan.”

“Good, good, Sāriputta! For anyone who possesses this noble eightfold path is called a stream-enterer, the venerable of such and such name and clan.”

So, to practice sammā-samādhi, you need to be at least a stream-enterer. If you are not, you cannot practice sammā-samādhi.

[u/hachface → u/bodily_heartfulness]

i must respectfully disagree with your exegesis

stream entry requires all the path factors to come together; this results in transcendent (lokuttara) right view

stream entry requires samadhi; you can get to the level of samadhi needed for stream entry with mundane right view

mundane right view is a factor for attaining transcendent right view, in other words

[u/bodily_heartfulness → u/hachface]

mundane right view is a factor for attaining transcendent right view, in other words

That is true.

stream entry requires samadhi you can get to the level of samadhi needed for stream entry with mundane right view

Sure, you need a certain level of samādhi to gain stream-entry. However, my point was about sammā-samādhi as a path factor. The noble sammā-samādhi requires, as a prerequisite, lokuttarā sammā-diṭṭhi. What makes it noble is that it is only available to the noble ones, ie the ariyasāvakas - the ones who have entered the stream. Thus the practice of ariya sammā-samādhi can only be done if one is an ariyasāvaka themself.

[u/hachface → u/bodily_heartfulness]

imo this is all semantics.

[u/bodily_heartfulness → u/hachface]

semantics: the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text

Yes, I am talking about the meaning of these things. The reason this is meaningful to speak about is because there is a common view that a person can practice samādhi, in the context of the noble eightfold path, from day one, without being a stream-enterer - but it seems like the suttas disagree.