Hi,

First post and I thought I'd introduce myself by way of a question.

I was introduced to vipassana and that led to an introduction about metta and I then came across concentration meditation.

In the interest of optimizing a 30 minute per day meditation session I thought it would be a good idea to attain a certain level of concentration, then go over metta then insight meditation.

Now I'm not sure that is a good idea, one reason might be that that the transition to vipassana would relate to the everyday more effectively by establishing concentration through vipassana.

Perhaps more effective to focus on a particular style for 30 minutes ?

I'm about 6 months into sitting regularly.

Thanks, 
   Mark

Hi Mark,
Welcome to the DhO.So, to state the obvious, many objects can be used to develop concentration. 

Metta (radiant friendliness, loving care) can be a great object to focus the mind on when:
...mind is very negative and/or gratifiying itself with negative perseverations
...mind is very sluggish or actually tired or bored
...a person wants to develop concentration for longer periods of time
 
Metta tends to naturally cause body comfort when it's very well developed.

And like any concentration, once a person gets really familiar with the object, one starts to "get insight" about the object. So with metta, one might eventually understand, "This feels great, but it doesn't last/I'm still testy with people, etc", other non-verbal understandings, and one will see that metta has highly aggitated, even exhausting states, and some that are really cool, calm and seem metabolically super-low. It is a great door into insight, sila and equanimity

Hi Mark,

I've never been very good at metta meditation. I mean I have hard time producing a feeling of gratitude, love etc. But it gets easier the more concentration I built up. Same is true for insight meditation. If that's not the case for you and you have an easy time doing metta, then of course you could implement it right away with great benefit. You can even get into some jhanas while doing metta - at least that's what I was told. So it seems metta in and of itself can be/is concentration practice (please, everyone, correct me if I'm mistaken here).

There's only one thing I would careful of and that's overloading your practice in the beginning. This can lead to a lot of frustration and hence quitting all together. I would stick with one or two methods/techniques that resonate with you and do them beyond the phase of any awkwardness you might feel. Then you can think about implementing something new.

All the best,
Andreas

Hi Katy,

Thanks for your reply. 

I see how metta could be used for concentration but I use the breath. I think concentration can be developed through insight meditation also. For myself at the moment I see them as separate techniques. I can't achieve the same level of concentration with metta or insight that I can when focusing on a simple single object (the breath).

I've found the concentration practise leads to a lot of energy and comfortable sensations. More so than metta, I guess because I'm not able to achieve the same level of absorption in metta meditation.

I think you are suggesting using metta to achieve concentration and insight. This is different from what I was explerimenting with which was basically within a 30 minutes session first concentrate on breath (more the concept of breath than the physical sensations of breath) to achieve a stable mind and energetic state, then practise metta for a short time, then move back to the breath in the typical insight style of meditation. 

    Mark

Hi Andreas,

I think many of us have difficulty with metta - particularly directing it toward ourselves. I've seen the same thing - it is much easier after establishing concentration. I'm not sure if it is cheating but replacing "may they ...." with "may we ....." makes it much easier to include myself. 

I'm not trying to esablish a metta practise specifically, I see it as a beneficial support to the insight practise. I wonder if it is better developed in dedicated sessions or if combining periods of meditation directed at concentration, then metta, then insight is a wise approach.

By overloading I guess you mean setting the bar too high in terms of effort invested or results expected. I've built up to 30 minutes which seems to be OK, no plan for more sitting time at this stage. I agree there is a risk of frustration by setting the bar too high. Mixing the different methods seems to have an advantage of minimizing the feeling of being stuck. I see there is a risk of not perceiving much progress for extended periods while pursuing a single method. 

By fixating on a single method I may be more likely to get frustrated. I started with the insight style and experimenting with metta was a big step forward - it was also good motivation. Again the concentration practise was a big step forward and that is motivating. It is easy to be motivated with noticeable changes and it is probably easier to see progress early on. That led me to thinking that establishing concentration, then metta, then insight might be a good way of progressing.

The last few days I've switched back to just insight meditation. 30 minutes of a specific type of meditation may be better than trying to switch between them in the same session. I might try to find a routine where I alternate between those different techniques but focus on just one in a specific session.

Good to bounce the ideas around - thanks.

   Mark

Hello Mark, I think your approach is fine. As long as you seperate your practice and not try to mix up insight, metta and calmness. And as long as you stay open to change. Eventually you will find a schedule that works for you.

By overloading I meant to not do too many different practices (e.g. awareness of breath + insight meditation + metta meditation) while still trying to grow accustomed to them. At least for me that sometimes halts progress. But I understand what you mean when you say "I see there is a risk of not perceiving much progress for extended periods while pursuing a single method". I think that's why I found Shinzen Young's method quite valuable in my beginning stages. It gives you a lot to work with, a lot of observe, a lot to learn and a broad framework. It's simply entertaining and bears a lot of insights. And it helped me to understand better many of the seemingly abstract concepts of meditation.

As for the time you spend meditating, I think there is no limit. As long as it is not too much of a strain.

Best,
Andreas

Hi Mark,

Your opening post mentioned developing efficacy and optimization in your practice. Could you explain that? What outcome(s) would measure/define the conditions of efficacy and optimized practice for you?

Thanks for sharing your  practice here.



[edited: shortened : ]

Thanks Andreas, I think I'll put the idea of mixing different styles in a single session aside and focus on one style per sitting. It was good to put this on "paper" as it makes things clearer. Mark.

Hi Mark, don't get me wrong, If it feels right and good for you, give at shot! This path is also about trial/error/adjustments. Once you have some concentration built up it is even a good idea to add insight meditation at the end your session. Then your mind is calm and focused and from what I've been told and experienced this is the best time to do insight meditation. Andreas

Hi Katy, that is a pretty loaded question You specifically asked "for me" and that's important as I have no basis on which to answer that question for other people. 

I can think of two "spheres" of wisdom. One of social interaction and the other of subjective experience. I don't think these are isolated but the practices that lead to "improvement" can be different.

Meditation seems to be a practise with benefits in both spheres but I think it offers most in the supermundane. 

For the social interation, the benefits of increased patience, compassion and equanimity would be nice

For the subjective, the idea of being at peace is very appealing.

I like this model because it helps explain why some people can be extraordinary in the subjective yet ordinary in the social (or vice-versa). It might help explain why leaders in one domain are rarely leaders in the other, because it takes a lot of effort to master either one.

Optimization in this context is the idea of a practise that is more efficient, I'll focus on the word efficient.

By efficient I mean achieving the benefits I mentioned with the minimal amount of time invested in meditation. Not to be taken too literally - I'm not saying it needs to be the absolute shortest time possible. But I think there are people who meditate for let's say 2000 hours and get less benefit than someone else who meditates 1000 hours. Obviously people are different and circumstancees are different but I think that in this example the person who spent 2000 hours could have got a better result with 1000 hours if they had used more appropriate techniques.

It seems the Buddha took 40 years to reach enlightenment and there are stories of people reaching enlightenment by listening to him. I imagine those people were on the path but the point is that they found a very efficient path.

I'll caution all this by clarifying that I don't know when I'll next change my opinion - maybe upon reading your reply

   Mark

 

Hi Andreas. Agreed, it is certainly my call. I did give it a go for a little while. But at the end of the day I'd rather follow something widely adopted. The idea of concentation then insight came from a podcast I listened to where the person was claiming benefits to that approach. My experience was that it reduced the mental distractions during insight. But it would often take quite a while to get through the concentration and metta so the time available for insight was reduced. I see something positive about transitioning to insight from "everyday" experience because that is one goal - to increase mindfulness off the cushion. Mark

Bhikkhu Bodhi gave a talk this morning (also streamed live on Ustream, and one can recieve his teaching schedule and reminders by contacting Chuang Yen's BAUS friends) on anapanasati and how the suttas indicate samadhi moves into insight during anapanasati. This talk will be posted to his youtube account if not immediately, then in coming days, if it follows the usual posting of his teachings.

His talk is very clear, with bouts of humor, excellent analogies (beginning with his own one and ending with one from the Visuddhimagga) with reference to suttas and commentarial positions and continues through to nirodh and also recounting of how commonly persons are reported to have "clicked" into stream entry during daily off-cushion activities (after developing good practice) or even arhatship in daily life with, again, the previous supporting conditions of good practice and the causes of good practice.

~ He also humoursly and personally relates how often common daily activities also do not just "click" a person into the stream or araharship-shift. ~

It is an excellent summary. I can't add to it. If you like this teacher, suttas, commentaries, I cannot think of a more efficient talk to optimatize your practice and support the proper conviction that this sometimes tedious, slow practice is quite worthwhile.

To me, your peer, if you will, your daily practice sounds like the start of a proper foundation and that you are looking to make sure it's a well made foundation. Thank you and best wishes in it.

Hi Katy,

Sorry for my late reply - I missed your post for some reason. Still learning the forum system.

I could not find the YouTube yet but would very much like to see it.

Would you know how satipatthana fits in the picture with Anapanasati ?

Thanks for your advice and kind words.

   Mark

Writings within Theravadin Buddhism observe four broad categories (bases) in which mind establishes itself (body, feelings, mind/consciousness, and mental objects). Therefore Ānāpānasati (meditation on the inhale and on the exhale) is a method which gives attention to the mind's establishment on the body, specially on the breathing of the body.

This technique, meditation on the inhale and exhale (ānāpānasati), is the technique the person who came to be called a Buddha is reported to have used on the night of his realization and understanding of dukkha, causality, and means to end dukkha.

So because of the importance of breathing meditation in the Siddhartha's own experience ~ as a child, as a young person, and again as the means of his awakening in adulthood ~ the instructions on breathing meditation come up in a few suttas, including Satipatthana. 

In plain speak, meditating on the breath allows a practitioner to study own-being, being alive, at a most basic and automatic level of existing: breathing.  In this simple activity one can see how many ways the mind is leaping away from or onto the breath, without actually being able to just attend that one activity: awareness of inhale, exhale.

Over time though, in medititating on the breath, one can see that everything arises and passes, including the mind, and the mind can enter a very deep calm here, an unprovoked, unaggitated place, a completely equanimous, alert state. From that state wordless understandings arise (aka: "insight"). 

But to get here, one must train the mind in a friendly way (hence the progression of the jhanas-- they are like positive reinforcement treats-training, decelerating from joy through contentment to utter equanimity) and also in daily life with undistracting conduct (aka: sila, ethical discipline) so that one is not distrubed also by remorse and fear and aggitation and confusion arising from those states. 

I am a relative newbie, but value ānāpānasati.

I don't see the video posted yet either. I will post a link when I see it is up.

Your thoughts?

Hi Katy,

That helps with the undestanding of anapanasati, thanks. It seems that satipatthana is a broader notion of mindfulness and anapanasati is one method for developing mindfulness through meditation of the breath. There is also vipassana that seems to fit under satipatthana.

Satipatthana seems to include mindfulness off the cussion e.g. noting of body position.

The relation between satipatthana, anapanasati, vipassana is still confusing!

Here is a crack at putting my understanding on "paper" : Anapanasati is a technique within satipatthana which develops samatha and vipassana. Different meditation styles develop samatha and vipassana in different ways. Vipassana meditation stresses vipassana. Noting is a technique within vipassana.

Hello, Katy, kind regards, and thank you for that summary.   I was just getting ready for my session and enjoyed the "nudge".

HI Mark, 

You're welcome. Thank you also for your practice and for contributing here. It's another complementary aspect of community learning and meditation.

Yes, awareness of how the mind is establishing itself and on what bases mind can come into being happens all the time, but the cushion is like a simple lab to see "What is mind? What's it doing? What am I? What am I doing?" and then starting to know "What's worth doing and why?"


Yes, I agree: ānapānasāti is a technique of developing equanimous concentration step-by-step: training to attend a single object with joy and comfortable until finally the mind may be satisfied with an affectless calm state of attention.

And yes, different meditation technics work with different mental states. Some people have a good deal of distress and distraction and so breathing meditation biologically works to develop meditation as a pleasant feel practice. Some people deal with trauma and need mettā meditation. Some people are perhaps "high-brow" so they may need a practice that at first gratifies their intellect and need for attainment/advancement. Some people are very facts oriented and so noting Mahasi-style is very good for just-the-facts.

And is "noting a technique within vipassana"?  I would say that noting is a concentration practice; it is asking the mind to stay with one activity, even if that activity is distraction: the object of attention is following the mind without labeling the mind as "distracted". This can be a very compassionate practice if one is berating oneself for "being distracted". Here we can tell them mind, "Perfect! Move as much as you want. We're noting."

So attention to breathing and attention to noting are two ways to see what the mind is up to and how often it is inclined to move around and to make things up, including strong feeings.

Once we get familiar with how the mind is moving and if we do it in a friendly, accepting way, we can become less reactive to the mind. 

Once we see that we are becoming less reactive to the mind's movements, we see the mind is moving a bit less.

This is like the pull reflect reflex in a dog: pull hard on the leash, dog will pull back. Stand still and eventually the dog will stop pulling. So we try not to pull against the mind, but just watch it-- this is what we do when we take our minds "for a walk" by noting or breathing meditation: we're practicing letting the mind show us what it's up to and we're letting it de-escalate itself by merely watching it.

Then the mind naturally takes up "What am I?", "What is this?" with a natural curiosity, without being threatening or de-railed by its own arisings.

All practices will benefit from daily conduct that leaves a person without worry and remorse (high bar); so this is why a meditation practice that is reliable is also said to be beholden to ethicial discipline and efforts to build on ethical discipline. 

So how's it going?

Thanks Katy, making more sense!
How is it going ?
I'm spending most of my sitting effort on concentration: observing the breath, then transitioning to attention on the hands which seem to get warm, then build that sensation throughout the body, then smiling slightly and transferring attention to the smile, that sometimes gets ridiculous to the point of laughing, then things get very still and relaxed, typically hear my heart thumping in my ear and some high pitched noise, as the relaxation comes on the thumping goes away, the high pitched noise stays and can start to show some separate tones, still get distracted but can have periods of not much thinking which is sort of nice!
That is a "good" session, I'm sitting 35 mins each morning, but sometimes don't get very far through that sequence.
When it goes well I feel a sort of energy in my chest through a lot of the morning. 
I've also been spending time investigating different teachers in the insight traditions. Currently intrigued by Shinzen Young but am just scratching the surface. Want to know there is some support before jumping in to vipassana.
Also spending a lot more energy learning about the relationship between virtue ethics and the latent tendencies. It raises some questions I've not gottent to the bottom of. I hi-jacked a thread http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/view_message/5570015#_19_message_5572135 trying to explore so I'll save some bandwidth here
Thanks for asking. Feel free to critique!

here is a hybred model I have done a bunch - from this thread -- love/metta or other less palpable targets

l can relate to this. For some reason, for me as well, hands are often an easy starting point for the mind to notice a place in the body where there can be  suffsive boundaryless sensation and this sensation, with care and gentle effort, can be expanded body-wide. The culmination of this expanding work results in a boundaryless comfort-sensation in the body and either a) a highly energized mind or b) a deeply calm still mind. (Just working on this expansion may bring the mind through first and second jhanas, and it can sink easily into third jhana when the mind's excitment around this boundarylessness fades).

There's often some confusion-kerfuffle over "insight v. concentration". I am in the camp of "They happen together regardless of practice" and either practice can become one that lacks practical learning (insight): Calming techniques like breathing meditation can be used just as soothing techniques without providing for reliable mind changes (insight); 'insight' technqiue can become mechanical/tense identification, developing an ability for strong attention in something without any benefit, like memorizing the parts of a 1950s defunct refrigerator. But both techniques cause insight (some learning with practical benefit in actual life by changing the way one perceives):

Here are insights I think you already have from your experience though:
1) A constructed insight (meaning you can see this through your own conscious reflection on your practice): you know whatever you're woking on-- like transitioning attention from breath to hands-- it is a practice that takes effort to start and sustain and that it also ceases; and

2) a spontaneous insight: the mind sinking deeply to the object (edit: I am pointing to Andreas' recent post and experience, as I see it; you linked me/us to kind of a huge thread; could you isolate what you'd like me to read there to know more about your practice?). Could you/one/Andreas have planned or predicted that event to happen? Could you/one/Andreas know what that would feel like? This is sponteous insight. We're focusing, focusing, efforting, and something out of the blue happens that we simply could not anticipate. Even if we tell someone that is likely to happen, a person cannot construct when that will happen and how. Just one day, the mind will, after some practice and depending on one's life, just magnetize to its object and that feels WOW.

Then we train with that and become unreactive to that and there the mind learns to stay alert, attentive and open to anything (like, some day I will be attentive to grammar and spelling). More spontaneous (unforeseen) events occur and we, as egos, can arise from those sessions either clearly knowing what change we are making or have made, or we're a bit flummuxed and caught by the spontantous experience. 

What do you think of that as a way to understand "insight" in your practice? 

Hi Katy,

"Boundaryless sensation" is an intersting way to describe it. The feeling seems a little strange - there is a part of me that does not want to interpret what is going on but I can't help thinking it is some sort of "energy". Which does not make a lot of sense! Sort of funny wathcing the "engineering mind" trying to understand it Concentrating on it seems to intensify it.

I suspect it is possible to practise concentration and get so good at it that the insights stop. But I also imagine that takes a lot of practise. It was perhaps the buddha's innovation to reintroduce the analytical mind into a deeply concentrated state. The idea of jhana junkies comes to mind.

I also suspect it is impossible to follow vipassana instructions without developing concentration - but there are probably plenty of people doing "mindfulness" work with very little concentration. I heard someone say "I go into problem solving mode" and a teacher reply "that is still meditation" I guess the person has noted they were problem solving but if they spend a huge chunk of time doing that then there is not much mindfulness going on.

I like your angle that there are already insights available from the concentration. I had not thought of it like that. Certainly has been suprising to find very enjoyable sensations arising from sitting not "doing" anything. Also been interesting watching how a session goes in relation to expectations - bringing in expectations or comparisons really seems to have the opposite effect of what is desired. Hard to let it happen when sitting to "make progress".

I agree with you that the big insights are likely to be unexpected. A bit like a pradigm shift. I guess there are smaller insights too e.g. what happens when I don't get enough sleep. This idea of natural progression as opposed to forcing is a real challenge - I guess it is Right Effort. Maybe the "balancing" of the 8 fold path is a good way to think about it.

The bit in the other thread I wanted to focus on is (sorry it was not very fair linking to that other thread!) :

http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-con ... .-piya.pdf "When we understand our latent tendencies, we begin to work at radically healing ourselves: we get to the roots of our personality." That seems a fairly strong link of the latent tendencies to personality but I suspect character would be a better choice than personality. The connection from the latent tendencies to nonvirtuous behaviour (or character) seems more direct than personality (which seems to include more superficial behaviours). That document links the reduction of those latent tendencies to insight practises.

I wonder if the idea of character and virtues are too connected to the self to get a lot of air time in Buddhism. But if the character is seen to be the latent tendencies then it could be seen as not self.

The idea of developing the virtues through acting/speaking in the world does not seem to be a major theme in buddhism. I can see that for a monk a lot of these issues are simplified and maybe that is why they don't get so much attention. 

Positive psychology seems to have jumped on the virtue ethics bandwagon. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_ ... nd_Virtues The Character Strengths and Virtues (CSV) handbook of human strengths and virtues, by Christopher Peterson and Martin Seligman, represents the first attempt on the part of the research community to identify and classify the positive psychological traits of human beings

It leads to 24 traits Creativity, Curiosity, Open-mindedness, Love of learning, Perspective and wisdom, Bravery, Persistence, Integrity, Vitality, Love, Kindness, Social intelligence, Active citizenship, Fairness, Leadership, Forgiveness, Humility, Prudence, Self control, Appreciation of beauty, Gratitude, Hope, Humor, Spirituality.

Those traits can be grouped into categories Wisdom, Courage, Humanity, Justice, Temperance, Transcendence.

I wonder whether this is more useful for the layperson. Mind you I've not had a lot of luck finding practises that are aimed at helping adults improve these virtues (which I assume is like reducing the latent tendencies). There is a lot of material on imparting these virtues in children. Social service stands out as an action that can help strengthen a bunch of those traits but that does not seem to be a major axe of development in buddhism (not to say it is something that is ignored by buddhists either).

There seems to be plenty of overlap but a few of the traits that don't seem to be emphasised in the dhamma might be: Creativity, Social intelligence, Active citizenship, Leadership, Appreciation of beauty, Humor. I'm not implying these virtues are not held by buddhists or ignored in the dhamma, just that these don't seem to be valued so highly in the dhamma (maybe for good reason).

I think it could be valuable to use right action, right speech and right livelihood to address the latent tendencies, while of course still meditating and improving insight. I'm somewhat surprised it does not seem to be a big part of the few buddhist communities I've seen (mainly online and western).

Would be interested to explore that topic with you!

Thanks for sharing DW! It took some faith to get to the bottom of Daniel's post - some good info on Brahma Viharas from point 32 on.

Your practise sounds like where I wanted to get to. I've extended my sitting to 35 mins and I think it would be good to get to 40. I'm currently getting up early (for me) so I'll see if I can keep that up before winding the alarm back another 5 minutes!

The idea of using the metta to reach concentation makes more sense to me than what I was trying to do (concentration then metta). It sometimes takes me the whole session to get the concentration settled. I was getting frustrated because I wold often not fit metta & insight in. So I pulled back and have been focusing on concentration. I'm hoping that if I improve that it gives a good base.

It seems like a good idea might be to get the concentration stronger then try to use metta as the object for concentration ?