Ethan Mills
\nAugsburg College<\/p>\n
There are two groups of scholars writing on the two main types of Buddhist meditation: one group that considers insight (vipassan\u0101<\/em>) to be essential and tranquility (samatha<\/em>) to be inessential in the pursuit of nirvana, and a second group that views both samatha<\/em> and vipassan\u0101<\/em> to be essential. I approach an answer to the question of which group is correct in two steps: (1) an outline of the disagreement between Paul Griffiths (of the first group) and Damien Keown (of the second group); and (2), an augmentation of Keown’s assertion that samatha<\/em> can cultivate moral concern. I am not definitively solving the problem of the relationship between samatha<\/em> and vipassan\u0101<\/em>, but rather I show that by making Keown’s theory of the cultivation of moral concern more plausible we have more reasons to accept his larger theory of the importance of both samatha<\/em> and vipassan\u0101<\/em>.<\/p>\n Read article<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" ISSN 1076-9005 Volume 11, 2004 Cultivation of Moral Concern in Therav\u0101da Buddhism: Toward a Theory of the Relation Between Tranquility and Insight Ethan Mills Augsburg College There are two groups of scholars writing on the two main types of Buddhist meditation: one group that considers insight (vipassan\u0101) to be essential and tranquility (samatha) to be … Continue reading Cultivation of Moral Concern in Therav\u0101da<\/span>