m m a:
That he does, sort of. Once the system is grasped, it is simple. I imagine that some people look at it and balk at memorizing a dozen (or few dozen) items of technical vocabulary, because they don't associate the encapsulation of complexity with simplicity.
It does matter what we call these things.
Look, I have been trying to learn noting for months using MCTB, DhO, Mahasi manuals, retreat time, and every link I could follow doing this essentially full time, and frankly thrashing. I kept thinking maybe my concentration wasn't strong enough, so back up and do that for a while. Maybe others can look at those instructions and just "get it", but I was struggling. One month with Shinzen's structure, and I am sailing. The irony is that I am re-reading MCTB in light of that, and it is making more sense than ever. I can't tell how much is just me practicing more (of
anything) and just getting better, and exactly how much is timing, and how much is Shinzen's system freeing me to actually do vipassana. All of the above, probably.
Also, Shinzen's 5 Ways is more encompassing than just vipassana. Do Nothing is an analog of Mahamudra/Dzogchen, whereas Focus on Positive is a kind of updated jhana practice, with aspects of metta, depending on how it is slanted. Various combinations and options allow one to practice vipassana in either essentially U Ba Khin or Mahasi style, for example, but very quickly and fluidly zeroing in on (or back out of) whichever variant is most effective for a given practitioner at a given time. Yes, one can say that this or that slice is like this or that other practice (or entire tradition) but the whole system has a generality and coherence unlike any other I have yet encountered.
So, obviously I am a fan, but I don't think I am over-analyzing or over-invested. On the contrary, I think I am being pragmatic. If the Goenka approach worked for me (by which I mean that I could with a modicum of motivation and sustained effort actually do it off-retreat) then I would have stuck with that. If I could have read MCTB and, as recommended, followed up a few of the sources like Mahasi in particular, and found a practice that I could do, I would have done that. Once I get good at this I might well be able to drop back into, say, a Goenka-style practice for a while, but that feels to me like worlds apart from "marrying" a tradition like that and assiduously avoiding any cross-contamination of "other techniques" which is an aspect of the Goenka tradition that I would like to un-bundle from the actual technique. Another way of looking at it is that I am doing exactly what MCTB suggests, and figuring out what works for me.
Upon reflection, it seems to me that Shinzen's system articulates protocols that facilitate the implementation of exactly the kind of pragmatic flexibility that is recommended, for example, in the hierarchy of vipassana practice thread, but the implication there is that the practitioner kind of assembles their own toolkit from exposure to various approaches. In contrast, the 5 Ways offers a toolkit that aims to be adequately comprehensive by design from the get-go.
The catch is, the technical vocabulary.
Maybe I will run into the converse problem at the Shinzen retreat I am hoping to attend: maybe nobody will know what I mean if I use words like "reobservation."
Whatever, it's all good. At the highest levels of practice, apparently, all this discussion fades away and one just holds up a flower and smiles. I'm not quite there yet.
P.S. There is no need to move posts; all I am suggesting is to set aside a corner where I wouldn't have to explain what I mean by Feel-Image-Talk when asking future technical questions.