Hey everyone,I’ve been practicing Mahasi-style noting for a little while, and it’s been insightful, but recently, I came across a community called Hillside Hermitage, which has left me confused about the role of meditation “techniques” in the path to awakening.From what I understand, they emphasize sense restraint combined with yoniso manasikāra (which seems to be a kind of skillful reflection or inquiry) and enduring unpleasant feelings rather than applying structured meditation techniques. They argue that only after achieving stream entry (sotāpanna) should one begin formal meditation. This seems quite different from the methods taught in communities like r/streamentry, Dharma Overground, and by teachers like Mahasi Sayadaw and Dan Ingram.One of their main claims is that laypeople in the suttas became enlightened simply by hearing the Buddha’s teachings, without engaging in specific meditation techniques. Their teacher, Ajahn Nyanamoli, argues that meditation techniques (including noting) are a misinterpretation of the Buddha’s original teachings. He suggests that Mahasi Sayadaw’s awakening was due to his commitment to sense restraint, not to noting practice itself.This is throwing me for a loop because the definitions of stream entry between these different groups seem to be the same—eliminating the first three fetters and guaranteeing enlightenment within seven lifetimes—but the means of attaining it are wildly different.So I wanted to ask the community:

1. Is there any validity to the claim that meditation techniques (like noting) are not what the Buddha actually taught?
2. Is sense restraint necessary for stream entry? How does it fit in with practice?
3. What are your thoughts on yoniso manasikāra as a practice?
4. Are stream enterers in this community and r/streamentry achieving the Buddha’s version of stream entry, or is there a chance we’re missing something?

Would love to hear everyone’s thoughts. Thanks!

Generally when someone pops up saying - this is what the buddha 'actually' taught, everybody else is wrong ...thhey are either deluded, or deliberately and intentionally lying.

The Buddha taught various different approaches and techniques to various different people at different points of time.

Atleast some people who pick up Hillside Hermitage are people who either failed at meditation or ran for the hills when meditation clarified the perception of dukkha. In HH they now have an authoritative and arrogant voice who tells them that meditation is unnecessary, useless, and actually harmful.

Hillside Hermitage is best avoided.

I have been meditating and reading the suttas, and people's interpretations of the suttas for more than 20 years. My take on this is: OK. 

These guys have a view. It's not crazy. You can support that view with the suttas. You can support all kinds of views with the suttas. There are a lot of suttas! One of the reasons Buddhism has thrived in very different cultures around the world is that it lends itself to a very broad range of interpretations. 

Also, so what? The world is awash with views. Here's another one. OK. It's not like, up to now, we all thought that our views on Buddhism were the only views out there. It wouldn't be useful to me, right now, and it would not be the framing that I would recommend to anyone else, but it sounds like it is interesting to some people. I hope they get what they are looking for. 

As an afterthought, if I were investigating this, I would try to work out if the people expounding these views were putting them forward as the only correct interpretation of the suttas. If they were, that would suggest to me that their teachings are not benefiting them as much as they could be. 

"From what I understand, they emphasize sense restraint combined with yoniso manasikāra (which seems to be a kind of skillful reflection or inquiry) and enduring unpleasant feelings rather than applying structured meditation techniques. They argue that only after achieving stream entry (sotāpanna) should one begin formal meditation."

I don't see any issues in what they are saying nor do I see any difference in what they teach and what Mahasi Noting is teaching.

Skillful reflection is noticing-actual-arising of matter-of-fact-experience. Even more skillful is NOTING so you don't waste much time in daydreaming while sitting in meditation.

And they use words "enduring unpleasant feelings" while Ingram uses "acceptance of all matter-of-fact experiences no matter if they are pleasant, neutral or unpleasant". So they endure and Ingram is accepting. I see no difference here. All good  

Just to add; And I do agree that the actual work of liberation starts after the stream entry.

Sense restraint is not unique to the Buddha dharma. That alone means it can't be sufficient for liberation as defined by the Buddha.

+1 

I see I haven't addressed that part in my reply above. Instead of "sense restraint" I would just let "sense acceptance" lead the way. "Loving acceptance" is even better still!