I've spent some time researching and testing various approaches in order to settle into a longer-term practice routine, and I've come up with something that I think is suitable. I welcome any constructive criticism or suggestions.

First, where I'm at. I think I'm a good contemplator but definitely not an experienced meditator. I'm not very good at directing stable, laser-like concentration toward a single object and keeping it there, and I have not practiced much in that way. However, I'm pretty good at staying present, staying aware in an open and inclusive way, watching things arise and subside without being carried away by content. I'm also pretty good at applying awareness techniques on the move, in daily life (and in general prefer this to sitting).

I do have access to a natural kind of shamatha. I've been able to access this reliably since 2006. It's not a highly concentrated state but rather a peaceful and lucid background in which surface phenomena arise and subside. If you think of deep sleep as objectless consciousness (consciousness present only to itself), this is the kind of background I'm talking about: smooth, soothing, clear. Against this background, I can usually maintain a level of effort that's not too slack and not too tense, balanced/adjusted as needed. (The latter varies from day to day; plenty of room for improvement).

Overall, it seems like a pretty reasonable platform from which to launch a more targeted practice.

I'm already working through some of the techniques in a Mahamudra Meditation Guide -- (I posted a link to it on the DhO somewhere) -- and these techniques -- and the basic orientation they're based on -- feel like a good and natural fit for me. I'm going to persevere with these. But I consider those to be 'background'-heavy; they work on something I'm already quite comfortable and familiar with, and I'm looking to complement it with more 'foreground'-related work.

I'd like to be able to observe the composition of foreground phenomena with greater acuity, precision... and then extend this to include more and more aspects of experience.... perhaps eventually including the 'background'. For this, noting/noticing as in MCTB seems ideal. I've tried following Mahasi Sayadaw's noting instructions but did not take to it readily. I like the way Shinzen Young decomposes phenomena into simple categories, and for me this seems an easier/smoother noting technique to apply, for some reason.

Overall, I'm intuitively drawn to a mode of consciousness in which all experience is harmless and transparent and interesting. I'm intuitively drawn to the notion that all phenomena are fundamentally clean and pure when obscuring factors are removed or seen through. And I believe this can be known and realised and lived right in the midst of everyday life, everyday phenomena, not anywhere else.

So... is this a fundamentally sound combination of techniques to that end? I think so, but I'd welcome any feedback.

howdy john,
my very general answer to your post is that, if it works for you then keep going. does it? for example, i can hang in equanimity and be a bliss freak and wander around the jhanas following what feels good. but what am i doing there? i might be aware, moment to moment, i may even be noting or noticing but is it moving me in a directed way along the path of insight or am i simply being self-indulgent and not testing my "discomfort zones"?

it is definitely possible to fool oneself by not using precise directed techniques.

tom

Hi Tom. I haven't done it long enough to know, but I'm going to lock it in for three years and find out.



For sure. Lost in the desert practising cartwheels. Give this man a destination, a path and a vehicle.

Hello John,


Okay. Sounds like you've taken some time to carefully consider how you'd like to approach your practice. It seems like most people don't take the time to do this. You're that much farther ahead when you do.


The ability that you admit to being skilled at (in bold above) is as important (if not more so) than being able to bore in with "laser-like concentration toward a single object and keeping it there." As long as your concentration ability keeps you in the vicinity of the object without too many side-trips or distractions and you're able to maintain that level of observation for two to five minutes (or more) per application, then you have enough skill to proceed with wherever you want to proceed. The strengthening of concentration happens over time. Sounds like you are well on your way to improving that.


Perfect. You just need to be able to discern phenomena clearly. And hopefully completely (i.e. without missing anything important).


You aren't the only one who didn't take to the Mahasi noting instructions readily. Neither did I. Going with what intuitively makes sense to you, only makes good sense.


The term in Pali for that ability is sampajanna. It means "clear knowing" or "clear discernment or awareness." Nyanaponika Thera talks a lot about this in his book The Heart of Buddhist Meditation. When you're able to clean out prejudice and preconception from objects of observation, that right there is half the battle to being able to see the thing clearly, without any influencing thoughts of bias. This is what I call "seeing things as they are" in their primordial suchness (to slip briefly into Tibetan flowery description).


So do I. I see nothing wrong with what you propose here.

All the best with your practice,
Ian

Thank you, Ian. That's confirmation enough for me.

I understand that you're not a big fan of Burmese noting methods (and derivatives?), so I'm curious about your own approach to developing insight. I understand that you based your practice largely on your reading of the suttas, figuring out for yourself what Gotama taught. I'm wondering: in lieu of noting, what specific aspects of Gotama's teaching did you use to develop insight?

The way I'm currently figuring it is that any way of paying attention to phenomena that is careful, inclusive, accurate, discerning enough to see the constituent parts of composite phenomena, and conducive to seeing the three characteristics, could be considered a form of vipassana. Whether the phenomena are named/noted, broken down into five skandhas and four elements or some other classification system is less important. What really matters -- (I'm assuming) -- is the kind of disentanglement that will arise naturally from clear and equanimous seeing. Is that a fair assumption, in your view, or have you found that specifics matter in this regard? If so, what would you recommend?

As you already figured out from my first message, I'm trying to get to the essence of something here, to avoid getting bogged down in non-essential detail.... but at the same time, I don't want to lose too much from going too 'generic'.

First, let's be clear here that we are talking about the same things and qualities. I'm not a big fan of Burmese noting methods as I have come to understand how they are applied (which may be a correct or incorrect understanding), simply because, from my understanding of them rightly or wrongly, they do not work well for me. That doesn't mean they might not work well for others, though. If they work for a person, then use them. If not, then find some other way that is more efficient for you individually.

Regarding what aspects of the teaching assisted my ability to understand the Dhamma and to make any sense of it, I would have to say the practice of dhyana meditation, which helped me to gain control of the mind so that I am able to (and I hate to use this term, but I can't think of a more appropriate one at the moment) "one-pointedly" maintain concentration on an object for as long as it takes for me to see it clearly and to glean insight about it. (Actually, a "unification of the mind" gathered around the object, more precisely describes what I mean by "one-pointedly.")

Now, let's be clear (on the same page) about what "insight" means. My Webster's New World Dictionary defines it thus: "1) the ability to see and understand clearly the inner nature of things, esp. by intuition 2) a clear understanding of the inner nature of some specific thing 3) Psychol. awareness of one's own mental attitudes and behavior." That pretty much sums up my definition of this word, also. Especially the last definition in conjunction with the practice of the Dhamma.


I agree with that, John. This isn't rocket science. Although one can take it to that level of precision if they care to. What is important to me is being able to see (and confirm from direct observation) the processes of mind that take place, such as the middle eight factors of dependent co-arising, the not-self aspect of the five aggregates, the way that the six sense spheres interact with dependent co-arising and so forth. Without concrete examples, it can be difficult to imagine (conceptualize) what I'm talking about. But that's it in a nutshell.


I agree. Keep reading, and perhaps I may have answered your question below. This worked for me; it may not work as well for others who are of a less intellectual inclination of mind.


Avoiding getting "bogged down in non-essential detail" was why I, at one very important point in my practice, realized that reading anything other than the direct discourses presumed to have been spoken by Gotama (other than insightful essays and treatises written by monastics wherein I was able to agree with and confirm the material being covered, which helped me to gain a keener insight into said material and concepts) was a waste the most precious asset I had which was my time.

I did something that most here would likely abhor: I endeavored to understand what Gotama was speaking about by endeavoring to be on the same page with him in regard to the terms he was using (or the Pali terms that we have inherited from the translated discourses) to describe his experience and instruction. I did this so I could understand not only what he was saying, but what he was pointing at in terms of intuitive knowledge pointing at concrete processes that I could directly confirm (from my own observation) were taking place. In other words, I wanted to be able to see those same processes in the same way that he was seeing and describing them.

I wanted to be on the same page as he when I read and contemplated his descriptions. Once I was able to do that, what I was looking at was a concrete process that I could not deny was taking place. I was looking at and saw the same reality that he had seen and described. In that sense, it was not so much an insight that occurred as it was direct confirmation of these truths. Kind of like holding out your splayed hand and seeing the five fingers. Once you've done that, there's no denying that there are five fingers being displayed! It is a KNOWN characteristic. There's no belief or opposing opinion about it! It is what it is. Period. That's why I can appear (to others reading my commentary) to be so confident (they might say arrogant and self-absorbed; however, the same could be said of Gotama if you read carefully the discourses) and set in my opinion. That's not to say that I might disagree with others who used different descriptions (as long as I am able correctly to comprehend the references they make, meaning to understand what they are talking about). In other words, there's more than one way in which an event or process can be described, and I'm not above agreeing with those that I'm able to correctly understand.

I hope this helps answer the questions you asked.

In peace,
Ian

Yes, it explains both the whats and the whys very clearly; thanks.

From both a philosophical and practical point of view, I'm interested in all this stuff on two levels...

One level is the "five fingers" you talk about: the things and processes that are simply there to be seen, simply happening, regardless of whether we know it or not, which can be brought into clear focus and known for what they are.

The other level is: possibilities that arise from practice itself, i.e., ways of seeing, being and understanding that aren't necessarily "there" already, but which might come into being (or cease to arise) through practice, and so on.

But, first things first!

Thanks for your comments and explanations, Ian. I'm ready to start the three year experiment, and look forward to comparing notes when I've got more practice under my belt.