Moved from another thread, I have some Insight/Tranquility Method questions, here some to start, if anyone is interested....

Two methods of Insight Meditation, Don't know what they are called or if they have names, or if I am just way out in left field, or even in the outfield:

Method 1) Note what arises, when and where it arises, as it arises, be aware of it subsiding, then passing away on its own

Method 2 )Searching out phenomenon to note, and note this and note that, then have the mind find something else to note, then note that

I agree that Method 1) works really well, and allows deep forgotten issues to arise, which can then be dealt with, for if we don't deal with old mental foramations, we make no progress, I would also add that being aware of the breath is a good anchor, but for insight not so much that one would want to solely focus just on the breath and suppress or reject all other phenomenon.


Method 1)  seems to clear things out , sometimes permanently

Method 2)  seems to increase the speed at which the mind can be aware of phenomenon, but doesn't release any mental formations, perhaps because the mind is "hitting" phenomen too fast to allow mental formations to arise and dissipate on their own.

So both methods have advantages/disadvatages , But would you say Method one is more in line with the Tao, which would also be in line with the Middle Way of the Buddha?  Kind of same thing different words, from what I can tell Buddha wasn't and hasn't been the only Enlightened being to exist and to have existed, though he was definitely a genius and enlightened/liberated.

Actually, as a meditation object, I think Equanimity is preferable to the Breath as both an object and as an anchor, in this way when mental formations arise, they at least get to "conjoin" and/or "link" up with Equanimty, so that eventually one could, hypothetically have Equanimity connect with all mental phenomenon.  Really, what is the difference between an obect of meditation as the Breath sensation or as the Equanimty sensation?  They are both sensations, right? 

Anyway what does everyone think?

Bryan 




Okay, maybe using Equanimity as the Meditation anchor isn't always possible, but maybe it could be an  ideal type of anchor, and not Equanimity as described by some in a hard type Fourth Jhana (where that's all there is) , but Equanimity when one can still observe, and phenomenon still arise to awareness.

Also, Equanimity as a sensation, that statement kinda sounds right and kinda doesn't sound right.  I mean "I" know what I'm describing, but how can one describe a state of consciousness that doesn't have words in it, with words?  Nobody would ever know "exactly" what one was really trying to describe...



So anyway I am here to learn, and am interested in working out using Equanimity towards all formations, for it seems that is the "launching" platform for the mind to experience Nibbana, here and now, in this very life.  Not that experiencing Nibbana is something I am craving or anything, it is just that I started this path and that seems to be End of the Path.  More like that's just what people on the Path do, they go to the End.  

It could very weel be that as a Householder/Laymen there are too many responsibilities that requires the mind to cling to?  I would wish that not to be so , and don't believe that or anything, in fact I don't "believe" in anything, I know some things, or think I do, but beliefs always need to be investigated, So I am under the assumption that it is possible for every human to become Enlightened ( insert word here from what ever tradition) .  Because we all have brains, glands ,organs , nervous sytems, etc. etc. and on a Universal level, these body parts wouldn't "know" if they were a Monks bodyparts or a Laymens bodyparts.  So from that "having" to be a Monk to be fully enlightened sounds kind of hypocritical to the whole process.  Of course that's just my current belief, and I could be wrong.  But, so could the other beilef, of having to be a Monk.

Psi Phi

I'm unclear on the difference between Method 1 and Method 2. Remember, there's not actually a separate self with agency, so either way stuff just happens. The "searching" is just something else to note.

Or do you mean limiting the noting to specific types of sensations (the breath, skin sensations)?

Oh, okay.

Clarification of Method 1 and 2 

Method 1)  


REFLECTION #1
CHOICELESS AWARENESS

Meditation can also proceed without a meditation object, in a state of pure contemplation, or 'choiceless awareness'.

After calming the mind by one of the methods described above, consciously put aside the meditation object. Observe the flow of mental images and sensations just as they arise, without engaging in criticism or praise. Notice any aversion and fascination; contemplate any uncertainty, happiness, restlessness or tranquillity as it arises. You can return to a meditation object (such as the breath) whenever the sense of clarity diminishes, or if you begin to feel overwhelmed by impressions. When a sense of steadiness returns, you can relinquish the object again.

This practice of 'bare attention' is well-suited for contemplating the mental process. Along with observing the mind's particular 'ingredients', we can turn our attention to the nature of the container. As for the contents of the mind, Buddhist teaching points especially to three simple, fundamental characteristics. First, there is changeability (anicca) -- the ceaseless beginning and ending all things go through, the constant movement of the content of the mind. This mind-stuff may be pleasant or unpleasant, but it is never at rest.

There is also a persistent, often subtle, sense of dissatisfaction (dukkha). Unpleasant sensations easily evoke that sense, but even a lovely experience creates a tug in the heart when it ends. So at the best of moments there is still an inconclusive quality in what the mind experiences, a somewhat unsatisfied feeling. As the constant arising and passing of experiences and moods become familiar, it also becomes clear that -- since there is no permanence in them -- none of them really belong to you. And, when this mind-stuff is silent -- revealing a bright spaciousness of mind -- there are no purely personal characteristics to be found! This can be difficult to comprehend, but in reality there is no 'me' and no 'mine' -- the characteristic of 'no-self', or impersonality (anatta).

Investigate fully and notice how these qualities pertain to all things, physical and mental. No matter if your experiences are joyful or barely endurable, this contemplation will lead to a calm and balanced perspective on your life.

The above explanation from this link:
which seems to be gone from internet erosion....

http://amaravati.org/documents/intro/06ref.html  which 

Method 2)

Body Scanning 

http://buddhist-meditation-techniques.com/vipassana-insight-meditation/