I thought it would be better to move this out of Droll's thread.

So, I believe that noting practice - or even wider, the Vipassana Meditation practice of passively noticing sensations ala Buddhaghosa and the Visuddhimagga - is specifically what leads to the Dark Night.  I'm curious what other people think about this.  My personal opinion is that it's clear from the suttas that the Buddha didn't teach this method, and while it may eventually lead to similar insights, it doesn't seem worth all the trouble it causes.

As a side note, I don't intend to disparage visuddhimagga style meditation completely.  I know people believe they get results from it.  What I'm asking here is, is it really necesary or worthwhile to spend so much time mired in extreme states of distress?

There is something deeper at issue here for me, as well.  There is this idea of toiling away for a future reward - or suffering now for later release - that goes against everything I've learned from meditation, as well as many of the Buddha's teachings.  From what I've seen, proper meditation is the cultivation of patience more than anything else.  It's a gradual dropping of attachment and the need for fulfillment.  It's choosing rest over resolution until there is no resolution needed.

So, I'm curious if there's anyone here who has gone a different way and didn't need to spend lots of time suffering on their path.  I'm also curious if anyone who has spent a lot of time dealing with Dark Nights could say that, in hindsight, there was a better way to do it.  Also, if everyone could post witha spirit of kindness that would be much appreciated.  I know how most debates on here go, but I'd really like to see some thoughtful posts about this.  It's an issue I've spent a lot of time with, personally.

In the spirit of having an honest conversation about these things I think we need to acknowledge where our opinions come from, and what definitions we are using. If we do not do so, we will merely be listening to you debate your own opinion of others, which may or may not be an accurate interpretation. So, before moving forward, lets discuss what we are actually discussing.

1) How would you define noting? I have seen you write before that vipassana is just accepting that you feel like crap, and feeling worse as a result. Is that how you would still define it? This may seem facetious but it is crucial to the discussion since if you believe that to be accurate the conversation is not worth having as that's not a shared definition.
2) When did you experience the "dark night" stages you mentioned on a previous thread? I have read you at least twice say you did not experience any of the stages, which you referred to as "Daniel's stages". I can provide link if you'd like. 
3) How long did you practice noting? Using what method? What was your experience like? I saw you wrote you experienced "misery and disgust". How long were those there for? Anything preceding or following besides the dissapearance of these stages which stopped as soon as you practiced noting. 
4) Who has described the necessary part of the "dark night" as spending lots of time mired, which is synonymous with "stuck",  in states of extreme distress? I am asking for actual citations here rather than your interpretation because if you are suggesting the opinions of others, and that does not align with how I interpret my own or others experience, it would be good to know the source. Where is "stuckness", or not miving and not knowing a way out, advocated as necessary? Again, if you are only suggesting your own interpretation, and that is not based on the actual opinions held by others, the conversation is useless as you would essentially be arguing against your own misinformation.

As an aside I do think too much is made of the "dark night" and our projections about that, but I have also seen you repeatedly disparage and mislabel the views of others so I think if we want to have a discussion where thoughtfulness and kindness lead we need to clear away misinterpretations or if they are correct, supply our reasoning for believing so with actual experience or citation.

Bill

Hi Bill,

I can tell from you post you're gearing up for a fight.  I'm not really interested in adversarial debate, though.  If you feel the need to quote me contradicting myself, feel free, but I'll probably just be disappointing and ignore it.

As to your first question, I defined Vipassana Meditation above as "the practice of passively noticing sensations."  Noting practice is an extention of this - labeling the sensations as they are noticed with a mental note.  If this is incorrect, let me know.

EDIT: And the Dark Night is a period of emotional difficulty beginning with fear and moving to misery, disgust, desire for deliverance, and reobservation (which is said to be a combination of all previous "dukkha nanas") - each of which I've seen described as being more intense than normal emotions and lasting a period of weeks, months, or years.  Daniel goes further in his book and says that all enlightened beings cycle through this period on a regular basis, even after reaching arahantship.

Okay, maybe I am confused, I thought Vipassana Meditation is Noticing phenomenon that arises, and being Equanimous towards that phenomenon, then reviewing what happened to develop Insight.  Of course, that is just a one sentence sum-up...

Psi

Yes, the practice of passively noticing sensations.  You watch things as they come up without attempting to change them.

Not Tao,

      Whoa there, not at all. Not gearing up for a fight, though I believe I have challenged you in the past and I am challenging you here. Nowhere in the post did I insult you. I edited to make sure it came across as intended without resorting to insults or witty put-downs. I actually wrote at the bottom that I generally agree with your perspective on "dark night stages". I am trying to be courteous and critical at the same time. I do see discrepancies. I would hate to think that we are not allowed to ask other posters where they got their information if it strikes us as incorrect.
      My perception is that you criticize other systems in a general way be they scienctific studies about rebirth or powers, enlightenment, noting practice, but when asked to clarify or when confronted you ignore the questions asking for clarification. You actually wrote this in your response. It looks to me a lot more like avoidance rather than spiritual renunication based on wise action.
     I do think you have misunderstood and generalized in a way that is not useful, so I am asking you to clarify. Otherwise, why even engage in conversation. You are saying this practice is unnecessarily difficult, and framing it in a way that I believe is an unfair charicature based upon your own assumptions. I am saying I believe your understanding is incorrect, and asking you to clarify. Why can't we answer each others questions in a way that adds to the clarity of the conversation. If the conversation is just you writing your intepretation of others experience with a practice you have very little experience with, and no one can challenge that, that seems pretty boring, and unlikely to foster any growth on anyone's sides.
       As for contradicting reports about the nature of your experience I think that is key: If you are misrepresenting yourself, or your experience to prove a point, the integrity of the conversation is lowered. That's why I asked. If it's not true, and it's only my misperception, then you can say so, and clarify, as it will bring about a greater sense that you are a person whose opinion is coming from their experience. 

Bill

Hmmm, if that is so, and the Vipassana Method is practiced as a passive noticing of sensations, then you are correct in that this would be an unwise practice.  To practice in this manner seems wrong, and it would seem that it would produce little if any results, other than stirring up the mind pot.

It would be much more beneficial to watch things arise and pass away with equanimity.  In this way a practioner will develop real world skills, that could be put to use in daily living, here and now.  And, would be strengthening the skill of equanimity, which would be of great benefit to the practioner when dukkha arises.

Psi

First, I have a question for you, what exactly is cessation as taught by Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw?

 And to answer your question as to why this mind does not go to the next step of cessation at this time?  This mind is still clinging to greed and hatred, that is why.  Guess this mind just is not ready yet....  Maybe tonight?  Who knows?

Not Tao was not saying that passively observing sensations was good, he is saying that observing sensations passively is what causes the Dark Night stages, and that this is not necessary.  Correct me if I am misreading this.

But, as a side not, Pure equanimity has no duality, no self or watcher either, no awareness of awareness, maybe it is all just a bad choice of words.  Sorry, my bad writing.

And, I am not saying anyone has to use or be equanimous, do what you want.  If anger or greed arise, just be passive, watch it forever if one wants to, just let it go on and on and on and on and on..........just kidding, remove anger as if your head was on fire!  But, one does not have to, maybe they enjoy the head being on fire, some love being angry.

But, I agree with you, drop the duality, like you said, good advice, thank you.

Psi

P.S.  Pawel , did you lift weights yet today?

When I began actively using techniques of self-change, a few years ago, the continuum I experienced was as follows:
 
I became more clear headed towards things. Actual physical tension disappeared. Awareness seemed to broaden. Effort lessened.

The pinnacle of this experience was a total lack of tension, such that it would be correct to say there was no bodily sensation at all. Something happened with awareness, I describe it as being 180 degrees, there was no focus on anything but everything was sharper, colours were delightful, everything was crisp. The sense of there being something to do disappeared because 'there was a total absence of any type of bad feeling.'

Before I had these experiences regularly I assumed Buddhism was talking about the same thing. Now after reading more I'm not so sure. The path and the fruits of the path described in MCTB are something I lost interest in after my experiences.

Non-dual practice also seemed similar. Yet when I read about the experiences of people claiming some type of non-dual awakening they often include the experience of tension.

Actual Freedom might describe the continuum I experienced but even if it does so I'm pretty sure the AF techniques aren't really working very well for anyone but Richard and a select few.
 
Now days I seem incapable of getting back to that type of state. I read a lot to look for advice and when I do so I try and check out descriptions of peoples lived experiences. In particular I'm looking for 'loss of tension' and 'effortlessness'.
 
Weirdly one of the few places I've seen this clearly described is in your 'not taos' posts. My only conclusion is that whatever you're doing, it's different to what other people are doing. It also sounds way way better to me.

So yeah I think the dark nights bullshit but there's a small chance I could be wrong because my present state is not so great.

Alexander:

       Thank you for posting. Please describe the self-change exercises you did, if they were practices of some sort.

        You wrote, "It also sounds way way better to me.

So yeah I think the dark nights bullshit but there's a small chance I could be wrong because my present state is not so great."
Are these two sentences connected, i.e,  Do you think the dark night is "bullshit" because Not Tao's path "sounds way way better", which seems an odd way to decide what is truthful, or do you believe the dark night is bullshit because you currently do not feel so great, and how is that connected?

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089.than.html


Even though I believe the word was never used by the Buddha, in my view the khemaka practice is the definition of the word 'vipassana', passana from passati to see, and vi being an intensifier prefix with a connotation of perhaps 'in a specific way'. Applying the perception of the 3 Cs to the field of experience is not really 'passive' in my own experience.  The way you conceptualise some approach will condition the results. Different conceptual overlay, different results.

And I'm of the opinion that the knowledges of dukkha stages are really only 'dark' when a yogi falters in applying that 'specific way of seeing' .and perhaps yogis who jump right into trying to see like so without a base of a calm malleable pliant mind may falter more often than not.

My 2 cents subject to change at the drop of a hat 

Alexander,

I can relate very well to your post here.  I agree that actual freedom sounds very similar to that clear, perfect, stress-free experience.  I was lost for a number of months trying different practices to "get it back" like you say, but it turns out the simplest answer was staring me in the face the whole time.  I've been practicing pure concentration for about a month now, every day, and I'm back to where I was.

So that perfect state is created and managed by concentration.  After getting over the initial wall of "this is too much effort" it becomes effortless.  I'm not sure if it will ever lead to perminant results, but it really doesn't matter to me personally.  It only takes about 20 minutes of practice a day (very enjoyable practice, at that).  I'd say happiness (the normal, conventional kind) is a bit like bodybuilding.  You do the workouts, and then you can maintain a healthy mind.  This is also the way the Buddha taught things in the suttas.

@Everyone: Thanks for the posts guys.  I can't respond to all of them, but I can see there is more difference of opinion on what Vipassana is than I thought.  Do you guys suppose it's possible to attain the traditional theravada paths while maintaining stability through a daily concentration practice?  This was more my main question.  If not, then the DN is necessary.  If so, then why would anyone do dry insight practice like noting without a good base of concentration?  Seems like madness.  I think it's impossible for a person NOT to get mired while practicing a vipassana type meditation without tranquility.

EDIT: I also be interested to hear from anyone who didn't do vipassana at all, but rather what the Buddha suggests in the suttas by rising through the jhanas and attaining cessation, then using that to cultivate the themeless-awareness-release.

Nicolai,

You say we should train ourselves to see everything as not-self, right?  Is this like saying that even though I definately feel like I have a self right now, I should, in a way, pretend there is no self there?  Or, if pretend is the wrong word, I should intentionally shift the way I see things into the perspective that it is not a part of myself?

I'd only say you should practice whatever makes you happy and suffering-free, dude. I'm not on a mission to convert anyone to my (ever-changing) views. But I think we all approach these terms of 'vipassana' and perhaps other dharma related terms slightly differently due to our own conditioning and ever-varied conceptual overlays. If the approach you quote about 'pretending' works, do that. If it doesn't do something else. I am certainly not going to say that that is or isn't the way to do a practice. In the past and present, i've applied this manner of perceiving.

I think the 3 C's or rather the 3 perceptions are more a tool to lean/incline towards dropping the incessant clinging (and giving rise) to 'objects'. That is it. If you have another way to do the same that is more effective for your own conditioning, do that. 

Whether you steep in jhana or get right to applying certain perceptions to experience without steeping, I think it all (should) moves towards inclining to the dropping of all fabricating. 

I have taken a lot of inspiration from this little sutta reference

[Anuruddha & Sariputta discuss meditation]Anuruddha: “Brother Sariputta with the divine eye, which is clarified and supernormal, I am able to perceive a thousandfold world system. My energy is strong and inflexible; my remembrance is alert and unforgetful; my body is calmed and unexcited; my mind is collected and unified. Yet my mind is still not freed, without clinging, from the defiling taints (asava).”Thereupon Sariputta replied: “When you think, brother Anuruddha, that with your divine eye you can perceive a thousandfold world system, that is self-conceit in you. When you think of your strenuous energy, your alert mindfulness, your calmed body and your concentrated mind, that is agitation in you. When you think that your mind is still not liberated from the cankers, that makes for scruples in you. It will be good if the revered Anuruddha would discard these three things, would not pay attention to them and would instead direct his mind towards the Deathless-element (Nibbana).”Having heard Sariputta’s advice, Anuruddha again resorted to solitude and earnestly applied himself to the removal of those three obstructions within his mind (AN 3:128), more: Wheel 262, BPS.

I was just trying to rephrase what you were saying to see if I understood.

Do you think this sutta is pointing out that simply thinking of yourself in a context is what causes stress?  Like, if there is a self reference, then that is the clinging.  So it's more about being without a reference point than anything.  A kind of outward-facing awareness where nothing is identified with?  This jibes with my understanding of the teaching, but I'm not sure if I'm mis-representing you.

How does a person "apply the 3Cs to something" anyway?

Hey Bill
 
The way I currently conceptualise this stuff is that there are two paths or axis.

Axis Y involves doing stuff that is strenuous and unpleasant, applying effort, narrowing down and focussing on certain technical aspects of experience. The path involves pretty clear stages and a lot of weird experiences. Including the dark night. The fruits seem to be that you enter some kind of cycling mode which doesn't sound particularly pleasant, even if it's profound.
 
Axis Z involves doing stuff that is effortless and pleasant. The path isn't clearly mapped but there is some kind of peak experience 'maybe a pce' which seems so obviously a better way to be experiencing life. This peak experience can come at any point and often occurs without any formal practice what so ever.

The results I got from doing self-change stuff seemed to map to Axis Z, where as a lot of the stuff talked about on this forum seems to map to Axis Y. Not Tao's posts also seem to map to Axis Z and my own experience of it. Which is what I mean by Not Tao's path sounds way better.

My actual practice(s) during the period when I had success are hard to explain. Primarily because I think the mind set and expectations might be more important than the practice itself. For example:

Contrary to what Not Tao says I got really excellent results from noting meditation. The way I went about doing it though was with a very different set of expectations to that lain out in MCTB. Furthermore the most dramatic results I got were when I wasn't doing any type of formal practice but was instead just experimenting and introspectively exploring my mind/self.

Another example. I asked the question whether it was true that awareness tended to move from 1 thing to 1 thing. Checked this experientially and was shown that it wasn't true. The moment of seeing that it wasn't true also released all my muscle tension and got rid of an anxiety condition I had had for about 10 years at that point.

A lot of my more formal practice was also more similar to something like Open Focus than the way noting/insight is often described. They are very similar to be sure, yet from reading peoples actual experiences of practicing these things, it sounds like one can approach the same practice in radically different ways and produce radically different results. Which tends to confirm, to me,  that it might be the approach rather than the practice which is more important.

Hey Bill
 
Sorry I didn't explicitly address your question about the dark night. My current view is that it's something that seems to occur to people practicing the Axis Y type stuff. Not Tao seems confounded as to why people do Axis Y practice if it involves the dark night, when Axis Z practice seems not to. My current understanding is that they do actually lead to different places.

Axis Y seems concerned with the fundamental truths of reality above all else.
Axis Z seems concerned with not suffering, bliss, effortlessness.

BUT

I feel pretty crappy. What I'm doing isn't working which suggests that I don't have a full understanding. Furthermore, even if what I did was working. It doesn't follow that my understanding can be conveyed to others or that it will work for others. So I'm not proclaiming that any of what I've written is some kind of absolute truth or anything. Just how I currently see things.

Hi Alexander,

        Thank you for fleshing it out more, and keeping an open mind. As someone who reached a lot of interesting and difficult stages through doing anapanasati practice it does not line up well with my experience, but I would agree with what has been posted that to some extent what we are practing and how we view practice will alter what we experience. Beyond that I think there are a whole different set of conditioning factors that we bring with us that will alter experience. I am not saying you are wrong. My own experience is just that there are times when effortless practice feels more appropriate, and times when investigation feels more appropriate. The nice thing is we get to pick which is most suitable at which time if that is the path you choose.
        As for difficult stages in practice, most growth modalities or processes of signifigant change involve some sort of grieving. If we have habitually seen things a certain way, and then that begins to come into question, or we see suddenly that certain ways we have bought into the world being are not as solid as we thought, there is going to be some destabilization that goes along with this. This happened for me upon seeing impermance clearly, and seeing that the idea of the self as solid, eternal background against which all experience reflected, were not as solid and permanent as I'd taken them to be, We can respond appropriately to this destabilization in a number of ways. I have always found metta practice to be useful at such times, but it might be that we need to practice less and walk outside more. Either way, when we frame something as the "dark night", which is not a traditional buddhist way of phrasing these stages (a term adapted from Christian mystic St. John of the Cross) then our experience will be colored to some degree by that phrasing.
      As for the fruits of noting practice being cycling, I don't think it has ever been put that way. I only did noting practice seriously for a year or two of the eight or so years I've been practicing, but it to me brought about a release that my concentration practice was not. This is not to say noting is superior. It's just for that period it was more useful.
       Thanks.

Bill

Sure, if it jibes.

I prefer 3 'perceptions' over 3 'characterisitics', even though I did use the term 3C's in a post above. 'Characteristic' connotes an inherent aspect of phenomena. Whereas a 'perception' is an act that can be played around with to know cause and effect. I don't think the Buddha ever claimed 'characteristics' in any suttas but talked about a means of perceiving that was beneficial for someone wanting to uproot the fetters. 

We create/fabricate 'objects' that are clung to as desireable or not desireable by a co-arising felt sense of being a 'self'. This results in dissatisfaction. This is the deeply engrained habitual way of perceiving. With a malleable and pliant mind we can shift that perception (and corresponding cause and effect result) on purpose, which leads me to not considering it a passive approach and consiering it an act that can be 'applied' to any fabricated 'object'. 

Perception is very malleable. You can let it run its habitual course or shift it, tweak it, hack it, manipulate it, let it seem 'passive' or actively experience it in a certain way that leads to loosening and letting go of clinging. I shared a link in a post above to ways of shifting perception. Do you think they are passive ways of perceving? 


Perhaps a little experiment.

1. Take any 'object' and simply stare at it 'passively' for whatever length of time.

2. Take any 'object' and and for the same length of time, perceive it with the notion in the forefront of the mind that it may show 'gaps', movement, shaking, shuddering, dropping, re-appearing, morphing, shifting boundries. Or further perceive the 'object' with the notion in the forefront of the mind that these 'gaps'  and movement etc. occur in and of themselves without any help. Or further perceive the 'object' with the notion in the forefront of the mind that taking these 'objects' as enduring, unchanging and owned by/consisting of/part of/within a 'self' just results in dissatisfaction. 

Is there a difference in result between these two approaches in one's experience?

In my own experience I spent years shifting back and forth from passively looking on and on occasion shifting perception somewhat,  but I was never consistent. When consistency took hold I started to see a difference in results. 

My 2 cents. 

Edited to state that shifting perception like so while jhana has been established is quite effective in shifting baselines. 

This discussion is over my level but...

" Daniel goes further in his book and says that all enlightened beings cycle through this period on a regular basis, even after reaching arahantship."

How can they be arahants and feel dukkha, especially "desire for deliverance"? Would that be desire for death or something?