Discussion Forum Discussion Forum

Insight and Wisdom

Another perspective on the Vipassana nanas

Toggle
Hi,

In some other thread, Daniel described what the vipassana nanas are:

Further, notice how you add a slightly paranoid (Mara-deceiver, these are designed to trick you) take on the stages of insight, whereas the stages of insight are basically a general tour of various modes of reality presenting itself. No mode is inherently a problem if perceived clearly, [..]


I've recently come back from another retreat in the Ajahn Tong tradition. (Derivation from Mahasi.)
The teachers gave talks about what the vipassana nanas are. Their take on them reminded me of the above quote and I noticed that this is not how the vipassana nanas are typically viewed in this community.
But I guess it's a valuable take on them, so here's a bit more elaboration on this view:

The vipassana nanas are different states of mind. If we go on retreat, we won't find anything we didn't already know before. It's just seen in more detail, and the 3Cs of experience become clear(er).
In normal life, the mind just jumps around from one nana to the next, often dependent on the content of one's life. This happens regardless of whether you ever meditated, or not.

Here are a few examples I remember of how the vipassana nanas correspond to daily life:
Dissolution: Go somewhere with the intention of doing something. Arrive there, having forgotten what you were up to => things end.
Disgust: See how things aren't that nice. Turn away from them => one way of how depression works.
Desire for Deliverance: The condition of a student who has only one semester more to go, but just can't finish it, and ends up doing other things than studying => looking for a way to somehow get out of here.
Reobservation: you have already finished an exam, but there's time left. so you go and look over it again, and again, and again...

Also, an explanation for how/why Ajahn Tong tradition was created:
In Burma (e.g. the original Mahasi tradition), you start to meditate, and you are just in some nana from real life. Then it's possible that you will stay in this nana for maybe 3 months. Eventually, you will 'progress' through the different nanas, but this can take arbitrarily much time. That means, if you are a monk, it can take a really long time to see the full progress of insight with all 16 nanas. How, then, is a layman supposed to do this?
=> From this observation, the idea for the ajahn tong technique is formed:
Do a basic course of 15 (or 21, or 28) days, in which beginners experience a different nana every 1 or 2 days. At the end of the course, they are in equanimity. Now give them 2-3 days with hardly sleep and changed schedule to build up concentration intensify the meditation even more. This enhances the probability of fruition happening.
Subsequent courses have 10 days. In the first seven days, experience nanas 4-10. In the last 3, stay in equanimity.

=>Advantages of this approach:
Frequent change of nanas makes you realize how "unstable" the mind really is. On a 10-day-retreat, every day is very different, so you don't get bored/unmotivated/stuck that easily. An early glimpse of ultimate reality makes it easier to really get started.

Remark: This seems to mean that it would be possible to traverse 4 cycles of the progress of insight in just 15+3*10 = 45 days = 7 weeks. But that's obviously not the same as doing 4 cycles which take 50 weeks of practice. In short: On the whole this approach doesn't guarantee reaching awakening in a shorter time at all.

My remark: I'm not sure how they do the scripting thing, although I've seen it work 5 times so far. Maybe it's the discussion of the past experience with the teacher, or the regular slight changing of the technique. Or something else I've overlooked.

My conclusion:
On this board, the vipassana nanas are often talked of as if they were levels of a video game emoticon
Maybe, that's because in MCTB Daniel decided to call them "stages of insight". There are many posts like "Oh no, here's A&P stuff, soon I have to do dark night, this sucks so much and really frightens me..." or "I've been in equanimity, but then I fell back to reobservation, oh no, this sucks even more..."

But: If the knowledges of suffering (nanas 5-10) are just a (more intense) experience of what's happening all the time anyway, then it's quite ridiculous to view them as ascending levels or call them "dark night of the soul" every time they appear.
The term "dark night" may be appropriate if you get stuck in these stages after an unintentional A&P experience w/o knowing anything about any nanas at all.
It might also be appropriate if you get stuck in them on retreat really long and experience them in ever more intensive ways, without ever experiencing equanimity. <- This is a problem which the Ajahn Tong approach seems to do away with. The possibility of scripting nanas seems to be completely unknown in this community which is why hereby I'm addressing it.

Any comments on those thoughts? I realize that some/most of this can be found in MCTB, but somehow it seems to be overlooked quite often.

RE: Another perspective on the Vipassana nanas
Answer
8/9/13 9:13 AM as a reply to bernd the broter.
Hi there, I have a few questions for you, in response to your questions

How is this description of insight thing any different from levels slash stages too?

Also why do you presume that a person in the retreat that you describe, is getting to go through all the stages of insight and then into equanimity?
What if they don't get through all the stages?
Also at the end, are they just calming their mind with equanimity and concentration?
What is the difference between calm and the insight stage of equanimity? Is being calm and relaxed the state of equanimity?
And if so how is that different from concentration based equanimity: synonyms for calm sate or soft 4th jhana?

Also, just because the practice is described in terms of the 10 stages of insight as referenced in the Visuddhimagga, what makes you think that the actual practice is so liner and progressional? Sometimes its described as up and down or back and forward, other times as peak experience and centre of attainment experience, and sometimes even as spiral like such as with the mini dark night of the subnana in equanimity called late master.

Have you seen the attachment below, which is written by Ingram?

It could be a good approach to practice though. But, I wonder?

Also, a lot of the people here will talk about using calm and concentration at the start, i sometimes use it in the morning in my practice. But at the end of a retreat, the way you describe using equanimity makes me think there isn't a really clear distinction between concentration and insight with regard to equanimity? You would want to know at the end that you're using the actual state of calm concentration as a basis to investigate or support investigation.

Again it might be good to use the start of the day or a difficult day to focus on concentration. But most of the people here seem to prioritise using concentration at the start and sometimes in the form of metta. And at the later stages of the retreat just getting into the insight.

Keep in mind, at the higher stages of practice phenomena and its formations change so much your noting cannot keep up with all the variables, you can note in a general manner, the rising and fulling and predominant objects. This is done to help keep the attention from wandering and stay focused on bare sensations. This generalised noting in no way labels all the various changing formations/phenomena, even if you do it with a large amount of detail. The reason I said to keep this in mind, because it clarifies aspects of what equanimity is when it is an insight base nana, rather than a calm neutral state of concentration.

you can practice in quite a lot of different ways when you understand what practice is. When you understand what insight is. what concentration is. And what the difference between the two is and what is similar between the two. But that takes a familiarity with the real taste of the honey rather than the idea. until you have tasted the honey and the sugar and recongised the difference between the two, you practice to understand the theory or you do what your told. i chose the former, depending on the person you will get different results.

I only claim late mastery, the third subnana in the nana of equanimity.

Take care.

RE: Another perspective on the Vipassana nanas
Answer
8/11/13 8:46 AM as a reply to Neem Nyima.
neem nyima:

How is this description of insight thing any different from levels slash stages too?

I'm not introducing anything new. (Well, so maybe the thread title is a bit misleading.) I'm just saying that notions such as "stage X is better than stage Y", "dark night-things happen only by meditation" or "getting from reobservation to equanimity is very hard and very often one must fall back" frequently appear here. These seem to be either misunderstandings of MCTB or ignore the possibility of exploring the nanas in a round-robin-fashion. I thought that both points might be worth pointing out.

neem nyima:

Also why do you presume that a person in the retreat that you describe, is getting to go through all the stages of insight and then into equanimity?

1. The teachers say that this is what it's designed for.
2. It seems to work for me, or at least has worked 5 times so far with little deviation.
3. btw I'm not the first person here to report about this approach. Here's another example.
neem nyima:

What if they don't get through all the stages?

Then they don't get through all the stages. Won't prevent anyone from practicing. I don't know how/if the instructions will be changed in this case. Although this tradition is pretty hardcore, almost no one will talk openly about anything that doesn't directly concern YOUR practice..

neem nyima:

Also at the end, are they just calming their mind with equanimity and concentration?

What is the difference between calm and the insight stage of equanimity? Is being calm and relaxed the state of equanimity?
And if so how is that different from concentration based equanimity: synonyms for calm sate or soft 4th jhana?

No, forget the remark about concentration, that was a misunderstanding; The method is all dry insight, balancing mindfulness and concentration. Intensifying the practice thus means to increase both of them, which especially includes concentration. The latter seems to be an important requirement for fruition. But I don't claim to know how it works from personal experience. Basically, I was just quoting a teacher out of context here...

neem nyima:

Also, just because the practice is described in terms of the 10 stages of insight as referenced in the Visuddhimagga, what makes you think that the actual practice is so liner and progressional? Sometimes its described as up and down or back and forward, other times as peak experience and centre of attainment experience, and sometimes even as spiral like such as with the mini dark night of the subnana in equanimity called late master.

Practice needn't be linear. I'm just stating that it seems to be possible to practice deliberately in such a way that it's mostly linear/circular. Even if that works only 19 out of 20 times, it's still remarkable. Which is why I'm wondering why this possibility is largely ignored (or unknown?) here.

neem nyima:

Have you seen the attachment below, which is written by Ingram?

Yes. I just looked at it. I have also read the important sections in MCTB about 5 times. I'm not really sure why you were referring me there?

neem nyima:

you can practice in quite a lot of different ways when you understand what practice is. When you understand what insight is. what concentration is. And what the difference between the two is and what is similar between the two. But that takes a familiarity with the real taste of the honey rather than the idea. until you have tasted the honey and the sugar and recongised the difference between the two, you practice to understand the theory or you do what your told. i chose the former, depending on the person you will get different results.

I've practiced for around ~600 hours. I don't feel like I have much of an intuition about how all of this works together. I'm seeing though that just following instructions yields good results, so that's what I'll keep doing until it no longer works.

RE: Another perspective on the Vipassana nanas
Answer
8/11/13 12:26 PM as a reply to bernd the broter.
Hey there Bernd. Nice to hear from you.

1. The teachers say that this is what it's designed for.
2. It seems to work for me, or at least has worked 5 times so far with little deviation.
3. btw I'm not the first person here to report about this approach. Here's another example.

Yes there are always idealised examples of people attaining in any tradition. But what do you think is particularly useful or helpful about this technique. I find it easy to believe people have chanced onto insight attainment in all kinds of contexts. Chance, being more about the individuals capacity, rather than a criticism of any technique.

Then they don't get through all the stages. Won't prevent anyone from practicing. I don't know how/if the instructions will be changed in this case. Although this tradition is pretty hardcore, almost no one will talk openly about anything that doesn't directly concern YOUR practice..


The method is all dry insight, balancing mindfulness and concentration.

I guess, from your description, I wasn't sure that the path you described or the way you saw the path, was clear in your mind. In a practice context, on the differences between the two equanimities. I found that helpful, because the concentration and insight manifest different with different strengths at different points.
I've have quite strong 'experiences' (rather than a full accomplishment) in late mastery. The late mastery stage is extremely cyclical, rising in intensity of formations and smoothing out to very refined states, that can easily be mistaken for high equanimity. The classic one is where you feel great, unbelievable calm & blissful ease of body. The mind will feel quite happy but in a very peaceful manner. At the other end of the spectrum is easy and calm but not as happy and blissful, but with unbelievable neutrality, the happiness is more in realising that your not reacting to stuff at all on a Vedana level. But they where too transient, both were kind of on the edge between the high equanimity and late master. I was, usually able to sit for 2 and a half hours when I get a state peak like that, at this period. As the peak weakens, slowly formations began, in alternating cycles, between physical spacious ease & calm, in contrast to growing to steadily coarser and longer periods of fast flowing vibrations.

So, its a dry insight technique. Is the basic technique, the same throughout? How do you practice, that's different from other insight schools? Have you read 'Living Buddhist Dharma', by jack Kornfield, it describes a few additional ways of practice in the insight tradition, besides Goenkha and Mahasi

Practice needn't be linear. I'm just stating that it seems to be possible to practice deliberately in such a way that it's mostly linear/circular. Even if that works only 19 out of 20 times, it's still remarkable. Which is why I'm wondering why this possibility is largely ignored (or unknown?) here.
By linear do you mean, flowing through the the stages of insight with, clarity on the different stage you are progressing through?

I didn't really get what you were saying there. The way i see the practice, from my experience, it becomes easier to see the development of the different stages of insight, the further you have developed through them. As well, the more you focus on distinguishing the stages the clear they become.
Before stream-entry people say, we have a tendency to make a lot of mistakes, on this topic because our apprehension is a lot weaker.
One of the signs of development of insight, is not to think you know what's going on but to realise how rarely you know what's going on. Its the observance of missing observance, its the awareness of lack of clarity. Not just when your about to fall asleep. But micro moments of unclear perception on a blurry phenomena. Its the recognition that most phenomena is hazy, blurry, open, edgeless, because its changing. etc.
I mention this stuff because, in a days practice in intensive retreat, you will go up and down the stages many time, usually like a ziggzagg on one of those graphs. Also maybe if we stop for half and hour we might go back to the start, but because our concentration is strong, from weeks of practice we'll move through the lower stages without distinct awareness because we are tuned into our center of gravity. I rarely notice significant phenomena, associated with A&P. The dark night pulls me up like a black whole. Anytime I stop and just sit with my body, its tingling, moving, pushing changing. etc.

Yes. I just looked at it. I have also read the important sections in MCTB about 5 times. I'm not really sure why you were referring me there?
yeah, just great to look at again and again when your, going through the I need to map everything faze, trying to confirm to yourself, what different stage of meditation your in. I used to be obsessed with that. I got it again for a bit when i started looking at Allan Wallaces book, on samadhi, "the attention revolution".

I've practiced for around ~600 hours. I don't feel like I have much of an intuition about how all of this works together. I'm seeing though that just following instructions yields good results, so that's what I'll keep doing until it no longer works.

Great, sounds like your really working at it.
I meditated in all different kind of way until about four years ago when I was 34 then i got exclusively into dry insight, since that I've done about 12 months of retreat. U could say I done 4 rains, he he. Though quantity isn't the measure of attainment.

Lovely talking with you, sounds like your studying and practicing really hard. I'll read over what you wrote in your first entry. I found it a bit hard to understand at points.

Kind Regards, from Neem.

RE: Another perspective on the Vipassana nanas
Answer
8/23/13 6:23 AM as a reply to Neem Nyima.
So, its a dry insight technique. Is the basic technique, the same throughout? How do you practice, that's different from other insight schools?

The basic technique hardly changes. The only difference is that in walking you start with a 3-step (noting lifting, forward, lowering) and go up to a 6-step. In sitting you go up from (lifting, lowering, sitting) to (lifting, lowering, sitting, touching) with touching being one of 28 touching points, which are also added during a course. Also there's a mindful prostration at the beginning of each walking+sitting. I don't know how different all that is in comparison to the Mahasi's original technique.


Have you read 'Living Buddhist Dharma', by jack Kornfield, it describes a few additional ways of practice in the insight tradition, besides Goenkha and Mahasi

No. I read "A path of heart" which Daniel keeps recommending though, which I found in the local library. But I discovered that "Living masters" is on googlebooks and so far read the first 4 chapters. This seems quite cool. I'll read the rest of that too, so thanks for the hint.

By linear do you mean, flowing through the the stages of insight with, clarity on the different stage you are progressing through?

Not necessarily complete clarity. In my experience, A&P, dissolution, desire for deliverance, reobservation and equanimity are quite obvious, but the other nanas are less clearcut. In retrospect, it's always more clear what actually happened.


I've practiced for around ~600 hours. I don't feel like I have much of an intuition about how all of this works together. I'm seeing though that just following instructions yields good results, so that's what I'll keep doing until it no longer works.

Great, sounds like your really working at it.
I meditated in all different kind of way until about four years ago when I was 34 then i got exclusively into dry insight, since that I've done about 12 months of retreat. U could say I done 4 rains, he he. Though quantity isn't the measure of attainment.

Kind Regards, from Neem.


Quantity may not be the best measure of attainment there is, but I don't think it's that bad. Consider e.g. the measure "stream entry or not". If this was a really good measure on its own, then it woud be safe to say "someone who attained to SE is further down the path than someone who did not". But then there are Goenka practitioners who did 10 Goenka courses and never got SE. And when they start practicing noting, they make seemingly very intense progress in a much shorter time. So maybe quantity (assumption: quantity of correct and serious practice) is actually a better measure than those path numbers and nana numbers.