Hi all,

I've been trying to do a bit of noting, watching the rising and falling sensations of the abdomen.

When I find I have gone of the object of meditation, i.e. noting "wandering" or whatever it was that appeared instead of breath, seeing an image hearing some talking music etc., I inevitably note it after it has finished, when what is actually happening is that I am noting a memory of it which may include fairly automatically about three notes, and the delay in noting sometimes seems to be a second or more. Sometimes I note the delay too. I wonder if it would be better to note things straightaway somehow. 

Any suggestions, other than keep going?

Thanks!

Noting can only happen after the moment of recognition. By definition you can only note things from the past.

True.
Thanks.

I wonder then if it's possible to note myself noting and then note myself noting myself noting etc.?
Sounds like something funky might happen then.

I think an integral part of noting practice is to return to the intended object of inquiry. So it could be  called a practice of noting, remembering what my intended object of inspection is, re-engaging with the intended object.  I like Culadasa's advise to include in that process of noticing/re-engaging practice a moment of gratitude for having returned from la-la land.

So, the final tip-top practice is:

• notice wandering
• resting for a moment of congratulations for having noticed
• remembering what the intended object of awareness is
• re-engagng with that object.

Thanks Matthew,
What you're describing sounds to me more like concentration practice rather than insight practice, my understanding is that Culadasa is a bit of both, but I'm interested in just noting. Now that you've mentioned this it's made me think a lot about what's going on, and I'm having a bit of trouble now in seeing the difference between the two practices. In the Mahasi book it says to return to the object once there's nothing left to note, which sounds essentially the same in terms of the process of returning to the object, but with no particular effort to focus on the object.

This reply came out as more of a thought process of trying to answer or ask another question, so I hope it makes sense. Does my understanding sound right?

I think the starkness of Mahasi noting description is a cultural artifact.  Culadasa is more wordy about the evolving landscape of the mind as energy, concentration and insight develops.  Value comes from your own active contemplative investigation.  It's good to wonder about nuance, then really give something a try for 1-10 hours, notice what's real and how things change.