I have practiced for a while according to the instructions in Wallace's "The revolution of attention".

The instructions are something like this: this is a practice involving thoughts observation. Your attention should be put in two ways: both on the thoughts and on the space surrounding the thoughts.
Once you can do this without losing your focus, you should work in order to make your experience of thinking more vivid, more clear, identifying level more and more subtle of agitation/torpor.
By doing that with time you develop a remarkable quality of stillness and clarity in your mind, wich is good.

Now, the question is: is this kind of practice an insight practice?

Since I'm not sure about that I'd like to hear other people's opinion, but my best guess goes something like this:
as long as the main goal of your practice is to make the mind more and more still, focusing on the space surrounding the thoughts, you are likely to get more tranquillity and less insight; when you use the stability/clarity/stillness you develop in order to observe your actual experience, then you are likely to get insight.

However, Wallace states clearly that, though it may seem that way, this tecnique is NOT an insight tecnique, and will not lead to Nirvana.

Another question related: what are the consequences of focusing on the space surrounding experience? Looks like it's good in order to smooth the unplaesent qualities of the experience, though it has a samatha quality that makes me wonder wheather or not this is going to be a cause for insight knowledge to arise...

My practice goes something like this: first I get some stability observing thoughts, and then I go to my body; when I see that things are going a little bit out of control I come back developing stability, and then come back to the body again... by doing that I'm going back and forth between insight and concentration quite often, so basically I'm not doing like 60 min of straight insight practice; in your opinion is this a good way to go or is an eccessively dispersive approach?

I'm kind of confused, as you see... any thoughts?

First, my kudos to B Allan Wallace for his book Hidden Dimensions: the Unification of Physics and Consciousness, as the Audiobook is simply hilarious: the droll and cutting commentary on the culture of science and how it has related to subjective phenomena had me laughing hard again and again.

That said, most of what he talks about to me seems very heavily on the concentration end of things and low on insight, not that really, really strong concentration can't do some really cool things to the brain, as it can, and it can serve as a fantastic platform for insight, if one can dig one's way out of that deep and fascinating trench, and your general observation that as you pay attention to certain aspects you are more likely to get into insight vs concentration is accurate.

As to space, paying attention to it depends on what aspects you look at, and even how you look at those aspects. For instance, space is made of many fresh, transient sensations of various sense doors, including visual, mental and physical, as well as proprioceptive and auditory, and if you investigate those and tease those apart, one can see the sensations that make up space in the same light of insight that one sees other things if one practices insight practices well.

If you pay attention to the width and openness and steadiness without looking closely or noticing things like the true nature of those sensations, then it will definitely be more on the formless jhana end of things.

As to oscillating between concentration and insight, some of that happens anyway, as people may first stabilize on and object and then penetrate it, or may realize the pleasant fruits of insight (such as in the A&P) and then stabilize on those until the fascination ends... So naturally going back and forth is generally part of the process.

However, it does depend on what you wish to accomplish. What do you wish to accomplish?

Well, by now the main goal is to be able to sit for like 60 minutes straight, since there are always unplaesent sensations of tension that creates a lot of shakings that after a few minutes have very much the power of throwing me out of the meditation session.

I just asked this because this kind of approach seems to be the one that allows me to meditate more time in a row -because the stillness tend to give me the ability to see the tension in the moment of arising without reacting/reinforcing- and so I was curious about it... wanted to know what I could expect from an approach like that.

Once I will find the way to work theese things out the plan is to develop concentration using a kasina object, thing that by now it's almost impossible to do... one step at the time, I guess...

Shaking: insight stage stuff. Good stuff. Close to better stuff, even, so are you sure you don't like that direction?

Also: longer sits are one ok goal, but quality of perception is a better goal.

Like kasina practice? Check out candle flame...

D

What do you mean by that?
I can see two ways in wich I can improve the quality of the perception:
1)Trying to push up the perceptual treshold
2)Making the perceptions more clear, more vivid, wich is a side effect of Wallace' Samatha.

You made clear many times that 1) is good; is 2) useful in the same way for insight purposes?




I did, though not consistently; after some hour of practice I didn't have enought concentration to prevent the main object from disappearing after a while, and so I would stare back at the flame and then, when I would close my eyes, no dot would appear in the center, but only black, and some forms around the black center...




Well, the problem are not the shakings by their own, but the fact that after them I really need some time to ricovery, since they are associated with a lot of agitation and restlessness; basically, I can observe shakings, but not restlessness and agitation. I feel thrown out from the meditation, I'm kind of scared, like if something bad and unexpecetd just happened to me, and then I have to start again.
By now it's not really a question of what I like or I don't like: that's pretty much the only thing I can do, really. However, when I use the samatha stability in order to observe the sensations in my body that's insight, I think, so... I think it's a good way to go.

Hey, I'm no expert, but you could try:

- putting the candle closer or further from you, because of luminosity and angle of sight

- stairing right at the tip of the white flame or the tip of the "black flame" inside. After a while, the nimitta appears to me even with eyes open, and so when you close your eyes you'll know where to look at.

best,

P

The blackness with subtle stuff around it is the 3rd jhana aspect.

Here is where most people think something has gone wrong and stop, when in fact this is a higher stage than when the red dot was showing up, and so re-adjust your expectations, try to figure out how to stay with something wide, black, vague, out of phase, and subtle: it requires a lot of a different kind of concentration, a more chill concentration, a more willing to let it show itself concentration, a much more diffuse concentration, a non-forced but just stay with it anyway sort of concentration, and a lot more practice.

Just about everyone can get the red and spinning dots. Most can get the black circle when the dot vanishes, and just about everyone gives up there.

Don't be afraid to let the blackness just be there with not much going on.

Let the stuff around it gently reveal itself.

This phase is not easy as people's expectations get in the way.

The stuff around the edge will not be clear and bright like the red dot was for most people.

Instead, it is complex, subtle, more dream-like, like a vague dream, out of phase with attention, and that is ok. Just be with the out-of-phase-ness.

It is the transition to the volumetric stuff of 4th and it is, for many, a hard transition to make, as there is not much to hold onto, not much to ground in, but just see what is actually there, what is really looks like, but naturally, un-forcedly, with just enough to stay on what you are actually seeing without doing any more than that, letting it naturally unfold and go places and into modes of attention and widths of perspective that feel unnatural or different or not how you would think they should be, and be willing to go further into that than you would think was necessary and in some way that feels somehow wrong in comparison to the simple, straightforward, clear way of the red dot.

It's an old thread I know, but I was searching for info on the same book the OP mentioned and a specific item jumped out at me. Mario wrote, in the context of candle-based kasina practice:



And Daniel replied:


But couldn't it just be retinal fatigue? Or is retinal fatigue itself a component of 3rd jhana?