Robert McLune:
I'm working purely on "Mahasi noting". I sit, breathe, and note the rising and falling of my abdomen. If other things arise I note them too. Simple in theory, but not always in practice.
If ever you'd want to expand your practice, know that in addition to noting the rising and falling of your abdomen when you're sitting, you can aim for 24/7 noting. To give you an idea of the sheer effectiveness and also the immense challenge that that poses: This approach is mentioned in the Pali Canon and the predicted outcome is enlightenment in 7 days.
Robert McLune:
A specific "problem" (I think) I'm seeing is the following progression. I start off any sit with my noting "focused" (I'll describe what I mean by that in a second). Then it becomes less so. And then I'm off thinking about other stuff and basically not noting at all. Finally, some minutes later, I realize what has happened and I start the process again. Focused, less focused, aimless day dreaming, catch myself.
You seem to be good at clearly and cleanly perceiving patterns and formulating your observations. My guess is that that will be tremendously helpful.
Robert McLune:
Now I assume that what I'm after here is more of the first part. (...) So the slipping into less focus and then onto mindless day dreaming (emphasis added) is, for want of a better word, bad, or sub-optimal, or at very least "something that one hopes one will be doing less of as one develops in ones practice!".
As already mentioned up-thread by Fitter Stoke, this
is meditation (at this level and with this technique). I think of it like this: When I lift weights, in the beginning I'm having an easy time lifting it - I feel strong and capable. Gradually, as I keep repeating the lift, my muscles fatigue and I loose the ability to effectively lift the weight.
Calling the deterioration of strength while I'm lifting "bad" is totally missing the point. The fact that the body outputs "bad, or sub-optimal" performance is
exactly what causes growth and one should appreciate it accordingly.
In a very practical way, it's
completely true that the "bad, sub-optimal" practice is "something that one hopes one will be doing less of as one develops in ones practice", yet there's also a finer point to it: there is no other way about it. The fact that you experience "bad, sub-optimal" practice is
the sign that you are
at all able to progress.
The above metaphor is valid in both micro and macro perspective. Micro: what you describe. Moment-to-moment deterioration of attention/concentration. Macro: Progressing through the stages of insight, especially relating to 5th through 10th nana (aka. The Dark Night).
Robert McLune:
The more I can stay focused, then I assume the more I'll be able to investigate deeper, note more things, at higher frequency and so on.
Yepp.
Robert McLune:
So I've found myself trying to examine exactly what the difference is between the focused noting and the unfocused noting. Maybe by seeing that I can avoid the latter and get more into the former.
Very, very good. I would advise you continue with that open, explorative, inquisitive, allowing attitude. There
are pitfalls on the path, meaning not everything should be examined, but, generally, such an attitude will overcome any obstacle.
Robert McLune:
(stuff about denoting) I think the difference between my focused and unfocused noting is that the former involves denoting, but the latter doesn't. (more stuff about denoting)
I love this stuff and I find that you communicate your point very clearly; I get it.
Robert McLune:
(stuff about "unfocused noting") It's hard to describe that because it is actually different from the gabbling baby situation. While the baby doesn't but the toddler does know that the sound "mama" means the mother, both I while focused and I while unfocused know that "rising" means "the thing my abdomen is doing".
Yeah, I understand. What's missing is what some people have called "touching" and/or "striking" - that awareness touch or strike the object. You're somewhat mechanically noting, and the note does happen to be correct, but your awareness does not
strike the object. This striking is the same as what you explain in pt. no. 1, quoted below.
Robert McLune:
When I note "rising", I am connecting the note word to the thing being noted. But in my unfocused noting, that connection begins to weaken. Eventually I *happen to be* uttering "rising" in my head, but it's almost independent of the actual rising of my abdomen. (...) But what I'm realizing as I practice is that mere "knowing that" the note word has something to do with the abdomen's movement, is not the same as "connecting" the note word to the movement.
Sweet. Good progress.
Robert McLune:
1. The simple, pure, "note-less" observation of whatever the thing is. For example, the rising of the abdomen.
2. The mental utterance of the note itself. For example, the word "rising"
3. The "bolting together", as it were, of those two things
Very lucid breakdown.
This might be a bit radical, but I'm convinced that 2 and 3 are not required to progress through the stages of insight and awakening by any other map. I believe Tarver on this board expressed a view where 2 and 3 are
essential to awakening. Admittedly, I feel that my understanding of the view Tarver expressed is quite contrived, so I might be totally misunderstanding his point.
As I understand it, many people on this forum often use the word "noticing" for 1.
Going by my own experience, I strongly advice you do as much of 1 as you possibly can, and if you can, drop 2 and 3.
As I think this particular point is quite important, hopefully someone more advanced than me can offer their take on this.
Robert McLune:
When Mahasi Sayadaw taught noting, was he actually specifically talking about "denoting"?
Is the non-denoting style -- what I'm calling "unfocused" -- in some way a baby-style, a beginner's gabbling, and not what I'm after in the longer term?
That is my current understanding, yes. But:
Robert McLune:
For Vipassana meditation, is it right to see the unfocused style -- the mere "gabbling" of the note words -- as somehow inferior to the focused style?
Not quite like that. There are elements needed along the way other than "simple, pure, "note-less" observation", one of them could be termed "surrender". In the case of surrender, you might experience that to progress you need to give up the clarity and seeming solidity of "simple, pure, "note-less" observation" in favor of more diffuse and less "in-control" attentiveness.
Robert McLune:
As with a baby, should I be looking to grow to a stage where I have dropped the gabbling entirely, so I can then develop more sophisticated "speech" overall?
Yes, with caveats mentioned above.
To me it sounds like you might be cut out for this. Best of luck