hi d z,
welcome to the dho.
more important than the phenomena of the insight stages (which are more formally known as knowledges -
for good reason) are the
insights which can present in them. what insight have you had into the arising (appearing) and passing away (disappearing) of phenomena? what, experientially, is arising and passing away? what are the casual implications of such arising and passing away? should you wish to pursue insight practice, these are the matters most worth bearing in mind.. and by that, i mean 'be attentive to the theme of impermanence'. on the other hand, changes in your mood, behaviour, and/or beliefs are side effects of the path, and any fascination with them is deemed a corruption of insight, which tends to manifest during the early ('weak') stage of arising and passing away[1] ... and which may stunt (or imbalance) your further progress.
regarding the reputedly negative or undesirable stages of insight which succeed the (uncorrupted) mature ('strong') knowledge of arising and passing away... these are tendencies, not certainties, and, as nikolai pointed out, a kind of fascination with the experiences (even in anticipation of them) does condition them to a great extent. stick with the three characteristics - staying with the
insight into phenomena, rather than concern with its
content[2] - and you will keep making progress.
tarin
[1] Mahasi Sayadaw,
The Progress of Insight,
IV. Purification by Overcoming Doubt, 4. Knowledge of Arising and Passing Away (udayabbaya-ñana) in its weak stage, involving the Ten Corruptions of Insight[2] as concerns insight practice, the difference between insight and content[3] is crucial to understand, and i recommend re-reading the MCTB chapters
The Three Characteristics and
From Content to Insight to drive it in further.
[3] a point may come at which this distinction between insight and content is understood to exist only as a function, and rightly. indeed, should this point
not arrive, and should a practitioner
not understand how this is so, he or she may end up reifying from this distinction a non-phenomenal category of existence (such as a 'space', or 'super-space', in which phenomena is embedded, or such as a 'box' for 'its contents', or an 'ocean' underlying 'its waves'). this type of understanding - which is taking literally what is meant metaphorically, or assuming something concrete about what is abstract - is a misunderstanding, and though it may not be particularly germane to your practice here and now, entire buddhist and buddhist-inspired doctrines appear to have been built on some version of it, and so i have included this quick mention/warning to balance out the heavy emphasis i have placed on the distinction (between insight and content) in my post, lest its emphasis be misunderstood and misapplied, whether by you or other readers, whether now or later.