John Wilde:
I understand that you're not a big fan of Burmese noting methods (and derivatives?), so I'm curious about your own approach to developing insight. I understand that you based your practice largely on your reading of the suttas, figuring out for yourself what Gotama taught. I'm wondering: in lieu of noting, what specific aspects of Gotama's teaching did you use to develop insight?
First, let's be clear here that we are talking about the same things and qualities. I'm not a big fan of Burmese noting methods as I have come to understand how they are applied (which may be a correct or incorrect understanding), simply because, from my understanding of them rightly or wrongly, they do not work well for me. That doesn't mean they might not work well for others, though. If they work for a person, then use them. If not, then find some other way that is more efficient for you individually.
Regarding what aspects of the teaching assisted my ability to understand the Dhamma and to make any sense of it, I would have to say the practice of
dhyana meditation, which helped me to gain control of the mind so that I am able to (and I hate to use this term, but I can't think of a more appropriate one at the moment) "one-pointedly" maintain concentration on an object for as long as it takes for me to see it clearly and to glean insight about it. (Actually, a "unification of the mind" gathered around the object, more precisely describes what I mean by "one-pointedly.")
Now, let's be clear (on the same page) about what "insight" means. My Webster's New World Dictionary defines it thus: "1) the ability to see and understand clearly the inner nature of things, esp. by intuition 2) a clear understanding of the inner nature of some specific thing 3)
Psychol. awareness of one's own mental attitudes and behavior." That pretty much sums up my definition of this word, also. Especially the last definition in conjunction with the practice of the Dhamma.
John Wilde:
The way I'm currently figuring it is that any way of paying attention to phenomena that is careful, inclusive, accurate, discerning enough to see the constituent parts of composite phenomena, and conducive to seeing the three characteristics, could be considered a form of vipassana.
I agree with that, John. This isn't rocket science. Although one can take it to that level of precision if they care to. What is important to me is being able to see (and confirm from direct observation) the processes of mind that take place, such as the middle eight factors of dependent co-arising, the not-self aspect of the five aggregates, the way that the six sense spheres interact with dependent co-arising and so forth. Without concrete examples, it can be difficult to imagine (conceptualize) what I'm talking about. But that's it in a nutshell.
John Wilde:
Whether the phenomena are named/noted, broken down into five skandhas and four elements or some other classification system is less important. What really matters -- (I'm assuming) -- is the kind of disentanglement that will arise naturally from clear and equanimous seeing. Is that a fair assumption, in your view, or have you found that specifics matter in this regard? If so, what would you recommend?
I agree. Keep reading, and perhaps I may have answered your question below. This worked for me; it may not work as well for others who are of a less intellectual inclination of mind.
John Wilde:
As you already figured out from my first message, I'm trying to get to the essence of something here, to avoid getting bogged down in non-essential detail.... but at the same time, I don't want to lose too much from going too 'generic'.
Avoiding getting "bogged down in non-essential detail" was why I, at one very important point in my practice, realized that reading anything other than the direct discourses presumed to have been spoken by Gotama (other than insightful essays and treatises written by monastics wherein I was able to agree with and confirm the material being covered, which helped me to gain a keener insight into said material and concepts) was a waste the most precious asset I had which was my time.
I did something that most here would likely abhor: I endeavored to understand what Gotama was speaking about by endeavoring to be on the same page with him in regard to the terms he was using (or the Pali terms that we have inherited from the translated discourses) to describe his experience and instruction. I did this so I could understand not only what he was saying, but what he was pointing at in terms of intuitive knowledge pointing at concrete processes that I could directly confirm (from my own observation) were taking place.
In other words, I wanted to be able to see those same processes in the same way that he was seeing and describing them. I wanted to be on the same page as he when I read and contemplated his descriptions. Once I was able to do that, what I was looking at was a concrete process that I
could not deny was taking place. I was looking at and saw the
same reality that he had seen and described. In that sense, it was not so much an insight that occurred as it was
direct confirmation of these truths. Kind of like holding out your splayed hand and seeing the five fingers. Once you've done that, there's no denying that there are five fingers being displayed! It is a KNOWN characteristic. There's no belief or opposing opinion about it! It
is what it is. Period. That's why I can appear (to others reading my commentary) to be so confident (they might say arrogant and self-absorbed; however, the same could be said of Gotama if you read carefully the discourses) and set in my opinion. That's not to say that I might disagree with others who used different descriptions (as long as I am able correctly to comprehend the references they make, meaning to understand what they are talking about). In other words, there's more than one way in which an event or process can be described, and I'm not above agreeing with those that I'm able to correctly understand.
I hope this helps answer the questions you asked.
In peace,
Ian