Author: Dan_K
Forum: Daniel's Practice Hut

I am wondering when it is best to move from the Primary Object of focus in Noting (breath, feet) to the Secondary Objects, from the Mahasi school’s POV and from everyone’s personal experience. In my experience with Mahasi retreats (2), I have never been told to focus on anything other than the Primary Object. I believe I am consistently scraping into EQ, and in MCTB the instructions suggest focusing on Secondary Objects such as space, peace, etc. On my last retreat I followed the MCTB instructions over the official instructions, but towards the end of retreat I wondered if I might have jumped the gun, that maybe I should re-focus on the breath and feet. Is there a discrepancy here? Any thoughts are appreciated.

Thanks,
Dan

Great question.

When I was in Equanimity working toward First Path, it was helpful for me to loosely anchor my mindfulness on the primary object (the rise and fall of my abdomen). But I also had to open up to the rest of my experience is a balanced sort of way. Maybe try putting 30 or 40 percent of your focus on the breath or feet and allowing the rest of the field to do what it does within other 60 to 70 percent of your attention.

Just a suggestion. Let us know if you find a technique that works well in this phase of practice.
~Jackson

yes, great question.

i like the mctb way more, but was all over the place getting stream-entry myself, changing objects every other session, sometimes halfway through sessions. its probably possible to do either way (official u pandita way or mctb way), or possible to do with some combination of the two as well.. just keep at it. if nothing works, keep going, as confusion isnt strictly a dark night thing, equanimity territory can be confusing as well. too bad deeply psychic teachers are hard to come by, eh? so find your own way up the mountain.. whether its by following someone else's instructions or forging your own. you can do it!

ps on my one-and-only mahasi retreat (in u pandita's tradition), i was told by the sayadaw in no uncertain terms 'whichever object really does not matter'.. and i was told this repeatedly. of course, that was in specific contexts, and those are not the most commonly-given instructions, but i repeat them here so that you know there is room for that way of working in the mahasi tradition.

Author: Dan_K

Thanks for the replies. Jackson, I like your anchoring idea. Like Tarin, I was switching objects sporadically last retreat, sometimes with multiple objects (one 'here' and one 'there') and at the end I felt like I might benefit from a more grounded practice. So far, that has been going well. 30-40 percent seems like a good idea - not too tight like A+P focus, open to the rest of the field. This could also benefit momentary concentration.

Tarin, thanks for the encouragement, and it is helpful to know that the sayadaw told you that. Doing the MCTB method has been especially helpful for probing into more subtle functions of expectation, resistance, and such. In fact, it seems to me like it would be outrageous to get stream entry solely using the primary object, but I suppose there is also a real advantage from studying one object precisely. Kudos on the confusion comment.

Dan

I like the above replies, and would add the following:

I equanimity, real equanimity, the conflict of primary and secondary object would seem primitive to someone really paying attention, as attention by definition is very integrated at that point, so space and objects arise as part of the same thing, attention and objects begin to become part of the same thing, sounds and sights and physical sensations and memory and self and other all begin to converge in this great way that is simple, straightforward, direct, powerful and not conflicted at some deep level. Formations, formations, formations, these are the hallmark of real equanimity. Again, as Tarin says, the object doesn't matter, noticing the Three Characteristics of everything, and I mean everything, that arises is key, so that at some point you can do the whole field simultaneously, which is the key to stream entry. Shoot for that, but realize that you can't do it until you can do it, so build on whatever you have and fine tune as you go.

Helpful?

Daniel

Author: Dan_K

Thanks Daniel that is helpful and relevent to my experience. It raises a further question: I am familiar with seeing formations, seeing that everything whether here or there arises as one field with a visceral luminosity. I have also spent time noticing the faint suggestion of an observer, which in my experience flips like a suffocating fish when attention is paid to it.

Tarin wrote: "stay with the weird, unaesthetic, oozing/grinding/slipping that starts to happen that feels like it shouldnt be happening, like its some kind of regress, unwanted direction, etc, viscerally stay with it. note the sense of dissonance, things going out of sync rather than in," in the thread "Bored with Equanimity..."

In the thread "Formations," Daniel, you wrote

"You write that you can notice the blinking, then notice the sensations that seem to be you, then notice the blinking, then notice the you sensations. Increase awareness of the transition or motion of attention that includes both of them, notice how they are part of the same moving, transient open field of attention, look at how attention or space or manifestation moves around, and begin to notice that they are all part of the same thing, attention/space/manifestation moving, blinking, attending, doing its thing, and stay with it, even if it gets creepy and particularly if it begins to hit close to home or shake the sense of a center point or begins to feel like things are synching up."

In my experience, noticing this "flip" can be aggravating even in equanimity, especially when focusing on the characteristic of suffering. My question could be distilled to: is there a good way to balance attention to open, inclusive in-synch-ness, with attention to the subtle dissonance of the slipping out-of-synch? Should these practices be alternated?

Thanks,
Dan

Again, this question is missing something integrated, but is a very good and normal part of the thing, so just keep going. These last integrations feel off, confusing, frustrating at times, like you have seen it again and again and that should somehow be enough, and yet it isn't until it is, and there it goes. You don't need to do anything except stay with what is happening. At this point, trying to do something to it is not quite right, but to just stay with it, stay on it, realizing that the questions, the expectations, the debates, the frustrations are part of it, both in sync and out of sync, and stay on whatever happens, including those, as experiences, simply as what is happening, right on it, completely, totally, with abandon and faith and finally with complete naturalness, but that doesn't come until it comes, just keep on it.

Helpful?

Author: Dan_K

Thank you Daniel, that is helpful. If I am understanding you correctly even the elusive sense of a split should be recognized as integrated with the rest of the field in a wide sense. I think that maybe I "chase my tail" sometimes by trying to force the sense of an observer into the panorama. Instead I have been allowing it to ripen, using Jackson's advice of about 40% attention to the breath for anchoring. I'll let everyone know how it goes.

Dan