Hi everyone,

I'm trying to decide which practice to take on for ideal long term development. Background: About 3 years of experience with Shinzen Young-type "Focus In", 2 Goenka Retreats and one 15 Day Mahasi style retreat in Thailand.
***

I'm having the impression that MCTB's approach to practice is like a fast lane with the sole goal of stream entry, which is where the positive effects are realised (most interesting for me: higher degree of fulfillment, less suffering, contentment, less reactivity). And while it is a fast lane, it takes years and requires (like anything worthwhile) great effort. The passage in page 14 puts it this way

"Many people try to make insight practices into an exercise that will produce both insights into the ordinary world and also ultimate insights.I have come to the conclusion that we should not count on ultimate teachings to illuminate our relative issues or vice versa,and so I feel that it is extremely important to keep the relative and ultimate wisdom teachings separate."


In contrast to that: For example with Shinzen Young's or Goenka's approach, the stated goal is to bring equanimity to what one is observing, in order to make that an automatic reaction for real life. SY describes it as a base line of mindfulness that is raised gradually over time which brings all the positive effects for day-to-day life with it. The stream entry event then comes at some point as a consequence of that high baseline at some point (my understanding).

In contrast to that, the noting seems to bring "only" insights in the way reality functions, which brings one to approach the stream entry very quickly. This is at least how I understood the theory, could someone comment on that? Put differently, my issue comes down to the question: Does the Mahasi method of purely analytical noting bring any changes in ones "interpretation of" and "reaction to" sensations in real life, even before one realizes the end goal?

Thanks for answers! If any clarification is needed please ask, as it's a bit tricky to put into clear words what bugs me.

All the best wishes!
D

What you seem to be looking for will come easier with stream entry, at least that's my experience. There are different ways to practice, but my advice would be to note your ass off at about 1 note per second until you get stream entry. For me, regular daily practice seemed to be more important in the long run than massed practice at retreats, but YMMV.

I don't know that I would think of the different practices as quite so walled off from each other, it's all good, and you can develop great equanimity and the same base of mindfulness from noting. I like that noting is simply doing what you would normally be doing, but just paying attention by labeling that attention. I think there is great insight to be had with noting because in many cases you are directly pointing out the chain of dependent origination in your noting. I have had many deep insights from noting, seeing into my stressors and reactions.

If you really weren't into noting, I would try to find the practice that gave me the most continuous awareness and the highest percent aware-time.

Dominik,

This is a good question that I have also considered some, lately. There are a few different ways that I consider this question - maybe some of them would speak to you.

1) First, MCTB discusses the stage of equanimity, which is before stream entry. So there is a recognition that moving up past the dark night stages allows one to grasp equanimity short of the 'goal' (preliminary goal?) of stream entry. And then one likely obtains more equanimity after stream entry, so in a sense, these teachers are all pointing in the same direction.

2) I have understood MCTB, on this point, to be making a distinction between "meditation as a striving for awakening" and "meditation as self-performed psychotherapy". Perhaps what Ingram is talking about in the quote you pull, is that many people turn vipassana meditation into some sort of psychotherapy or "talk therapy" for their problems. I think this is a common tendency in more popular meditation/buddhism books, when the authors start throwing in sort of palliative "chicken soup for the soul" type discussion instead of it being really a proper dharma talk.

3) This used to be a huge confusion in my mind. The book "Thoughts without a Thinker" addresses this problem at some length. One way the problem manifested for me, was me essentially controlling breath, controlling thoughts, and having inner dialogue (beyond noting) about my daily stresses and anxieties. I understand MCTB as basically saying that vipassana meditation is about awakening and insight into the three characteristics, and not just a forum where you tell yourself "damn I have to stop stressing about this problem at work, because you know, it's 'just work' and I have to 'keep it in perspective'"

4) In the end, I see this as really sticking to a set of proper meditation instructions (for me, Mahasi Sayadaw's noting instructions). If I am sticking to the instructions, I might note "thinking, thinking" but then come back to the anchor of "stepping, stepping" etc. When discursive thought/self help talk comes in, that is just "thinking, thinking".

5) Finally, if you have some sort of tangible, daily problem, then it is best to work on that in addition to meditation. I get stressed sometimes from work, so I do yoga or workout for that. I don't (any longer) try to use vipassana as a sort of "self-therapy" for dealing with mundane work stress, at least in any way other than a longer term view of awakening in some way.