I'm relatively new to vipassana and am still playing around with technique a bit. I got started with Daniel Ingram's MCTB2 and Mahasi Sayadaw's Manual of Insight. I've noticed that the techniques each describe are quite different. Daniel's method, as I understand it, is to be aware of as many incoming sensations as possible without applying labels to the sensations, the primary emphasis being on quantity. Mahasi recommends focusing on, and studying, individual sensations much more carefully and applying very simple descriptive labels to each, with the emphasis more on the depth to which individual sensations are studied rather than the quantity of sensations.

I've given each a try and have found that I prefer Daniel's method a bit more, for the simple reason that I feel it has dramatically increased my awareness of my feelings (physical and mental) during daily life in a very short span of time. I have not found it more conducive to attainments, of which I have none.

My question is this: I believe that Mahasi Sayadaw's method is much more widely-practiced. I am wondering if there is a reason for this? I.e. is it a better starting point? Does it help develop faculties that I am neclecting by practicing Daniel's method as a beginner?

Further, I'm wondering if anyone has written about Daniel's method, aside from Daniel himself as I've already read most of MCTB2. I believe he attributes this method to instructions from U Pandita Jr. However, I'm not aware of any of his writings.

Basically, I'd just like a compare/contrast or pro/con list for these two vipassana methods.

Thanks

Eli

You've hit on the answer, Eli, which is to do what suits you best. Back in the day, when I was practicing this way, I was uncomfortable with Daniel Ingram's multi-channel method and most often used the Mahasi method. It just suited me better for whatever reason.

Welcome to DhO!

- Chris

Get "practical insight meditation " from mahasi sayadow.   It's actually in manual of insight.  But buy the paperback. It's cheap.   It gives the directions without the commentary.  It's written  exceptionally  well.    The "manual " can be overwhelming if you are new.  

I've practiced with a few teachers in the Mahasi system and even there none taught exactly the same way. I find that even within the Mahasi lineage there will be differences from one teacher to the next, sometimes even contradicting one another, albeit on minor points. I think it's also normal that there will be individual differences. 

All the best in your practice.

I've preferred the fast noting that Daniel talks about, like monosyllabic noting or just noticing without noting. Gives the mind more to do. I would also be curious to where that technique comes from. Did Daniel come up with that variation himself or is it directly from some teacher?

Do the one where you find joy, effort etc. My favorite topic. I think it is equally whatever technique you chose. It is just different in explanation. It ends up with insight if practiced the right way. Just don't let it blure your mind, like, "it's all the same so why practice at all" or something like that.

Hi Eli,

I'm also curious about this.  

It's also fine to practice both methods.  Daniel's fast noting is very hard to do off the cushion due to the concentration required.  Slow noting works great all day long.  

I found I got stuck at one point doing fast noting alone, and doing slow noting more often off the cushion seemed to shake things loose.

Hey, even within Pragmatic Dharma there are plenty of variations on how to do noting.

Check Vince Horn's long list of noting methods/practices in the left column (many of them from Kenneth Folk).

Also Shinzen Young's simple yet comprehensive labels: See (in/out), Feel (in/out), Hear (in/out), Rest/Gone. 

Plus, these Shargrol's posts:

- Noting Speed
- Every yogi should have multiple techniques in their toolbox if they wish to attain Stream Entry

And it's also worth looking to a quick summary (7 pages) of Daniel Ingram's vipassana method.