I think I've been pretty clear in several posts but here's another try:

You investigate phenomena by observing and examining, very, very closely and in very tiny increments of time and with as much precision as you can, the objects that arise in your awareness. You can choose to focus on one object for an extended period or to focus on whatever arises. Either way, you are observing the process of dependent origination -- seeing objects from the point of sensory contact to their passing away.

If you are unsure, try both methods. Take a few weeks to work with each, see what works better. Pick the one that works (actually brings some insight) and do that long term.

It helps to be very, very, very curious about what, exactly, an object is. Is it "out there?" Is it "in here?" How does an object form, and how does it disappear? (Arise... pass away, arise.... pass away.)

We are, at the end of all discussions about process, trying to pierce the veil of ignorance, which in pragmatic dharma terms means the illusion of permanence, satisfaction, and self.

Yilun,

Thank you so much for your posts and this one in particular!

I'm probably not as far along the path as most participants here, so take my thoughts with a big grain of salt.

I like the advise I read somewhere, perhaps in 'wings of awakening' by thanissaro [or 'the heart of buddhist meditation' by thera], to work with what is evident. Wow, that seems really profound to me.

'Work' means to practice something (as opposed to do the same old dumb thing I've done all my life). Surely doing something new will lead to beyond where I am. Notice if I'm having beneficial results and adjust.

'Evident' means what is actually perceivable, as opposed to what someone told me might be out there. Someone else's words are not actually evident by my senses, they are just me thinking about something somebody said. That kind of thinking is all we have [aside from pondering the first noble truth] for a starting point, but that's the start of practice not the meat of practice.

I naturally gravitated to unbiased, open minded observation of what is evident (Method 1 I guess) and I've been pleasantly surprised to recognize what I think are 3 C.

That "Oh, so *this* reaction to a sound is suffering, I didn't realize I had torture built into me" moment is a signpost that I'm doing good practice, so keep on doing that.

"Oh, *there* is a sensation that I've unconsciously identified as I/me/mine, it's there, I'm here...... what's next?" was a good moment, an *interesting* moment because of what I read before, so this seems like doing good practice.

So for me, reading about 3C provides diagnostic information that in the most motivating way can tell me that I'm doing good practice, what does good practice feel like. Once one layer of illusion is seen, that is the best possible place for sniffing out the next layer of illusion.

Vibrations, strobing of experience is a good example. It's a glaring blaring signpost of progress on the path. MCTB says something like 'lean into any hint of vibrations". I don't think I would have known to put my attention on vibrations without having read that line, but I would not have come to an experience of vibrations by thinking about trying to find them, I had to find interesting, static observations, very permanent seeming feelings and put my attention on them till they started to wriggle, wax and wane, etc and eventually vibratory phenomena appear in a way that I had no clue they would, and then I consciously shift attention that way.

edit: I'm voting for some *reading* and then a bunch method 1, but when 3C shows up, then dive in to something that looks like method 2, but when you you realize you're just wondering which book that you read something in, go back to method one.