New Blog Post: Vipassana Meditation: More than just "noting"

Hey guys,

I just published a post at the Dharma Forum Refugee Camp Blog titled, "Vipassana Meditation: More than just 'noting.'" You can read it here...

http://wp.me/p1ednm-o

I talk a bit about how Folk teaches noting practice, and then describe one method that I prefer. Of course, there are many good ways to practice vipassana and meditation in general. I just thought it would be fun to compare and contrast Folk's teaching of noting with the IMS teaching on "RAIN".

I probably won't have a lot of time to reply to comments here in the forum, because I'll be working on some essays for a final exam. But I'd love to read any feedback you have, good or bad or in between.

Thanks!

-Jackson

Freaking great Jackson. You are extremely good at writing clearly and concisely about complicated issues.
You belong in grad school

One thing that occured to me while reading: this could be because I am misintrepreting "disembedding," but, for me, when I do what I call "disembedding" it entails both acceptance and non-identification at the same time. Coupled with noting or noticing (what I do is usually closer to noticing than noting) this disembedding activity I do can be very powerful and can bring me to High E and a place of cessation pretty quickly. It's a "looking" very closely, with great detail at exactly what is happening right now without identifying with the objects of experience or fighting their existence in any way. Hard to actually describe.

Now, what your essay also brings up to me is that what I may be missing in my practice is "investigation." I really don't relate at all to that part of the essay and I don't think I really do much of that. I'll investigate investigation.

So for me vipassana has mostly been about investigating my moment by moment experience. This is the noticing (not noting) of what occurs at a deep and detailed sensate level as we observe phenomena. Knowing how the mind processes the objects it senses seems to me to be the critical step. Noticing that then allows for the gradual revision of our habitual sense of what we are and how we interact with, and are a part of, everything else. It allows for awareness to separate from objects, to be less inclined toward and enamored of things. That, I think, is what leads to a release and a more permanent wisdom that transforms our relationship to ourselves and to the world.

-cmarti

Awesome! That's what I'm talking about. It's nice to hear it in your words, Chris

Hey Mike. I appreciate your kinds words about the article.

One thing that occured to me while reading: this could be because I am misintrepreting "disembedding," but, for me, when I do what I call "disembedding" it entails both acceptance and non-identification at the same time.

-michaelmonson

Kenneth's version of noting and "disembedding" (I prefer to say "de-embedding") is different from yours, if what he's posted on his site is any indication. For example, in his page titled Detailed Noting is Better , he writes:

"[D]etailed noting 'uses up' the available processing power of your mind, and that is exactly what you want to do. If you are noting in a way that requires all of your attention, your mind will not wander and you will not suffer. It's that simple. If, on the other hand, you use a noting technique that only requires 30% of the processing power of your mind, what are you going to do with the other 70%? You're going to suffer! Try it and see!"

His technique is to keep the mind busy with noting so that it doesn't expend any energy on "making love to ideas." I don't think this is the same thing you're doing. At least I hope it isn't :-/

This practice works fine while you're doing it. What I can tell, it's just a way to disengage with certain mental processes on a surface level for a while. It involves constant maintenance. There's no room to engage in rational inquiry. It's not for me.

Jackson

Hi Tomo,

Thanks for supplying some valid points. My critique was aimed more at Folk's recent developments of practice, and not on his prior teaching style with regard to vipassana (I alluded to this in my article, saying that his teaching changed within the last year or so). He was a wonderful companion to have prior to stream-entry and even beyond. But the teaching changed many times. After the Three Speed Transmission and the 20 Strata of Mind became routine for him, he started this whole paradigm shift with regard to noting. The text I cited for my reply to Michael shows what this new development is like. He certainly used to teach more of an inclusive approach to vipassana. For whatever reason, he decided to switch gears - no pun intended.

I think the Mahasi method is more surgery than massage, when done as taught in Practical Insight Meditation. As far as technique is concerned, he talks almost exclusively about noting. But he does point out all of the insights that the yogi should come to along the way. There's no reason why one cannot intentionally incorporate a more active form of inquiry during vipassana practice. My practice seemed to require an approach that differed from the Mahasi method, though I did follow the Progress of Insight map for clues.

I do think that Mahasi was about having fundamental changes occur, which is what I advocate for the most part. And I don't think Mahasi ever talked about dis/de-embedding.

Jackson

P.S. I write "de-embedded" instead of "dis-embedded" because that's how Wilber writes it. I like to try and use the term that was used in the source material. Either works, I suppose.

P.S.S. I like Kenneth. I'm certainly not on some kind of all out spree to discredit his teaching. I find some of his more recent developments troubling, which I have shared with him. For whatever reason, it seems that some of the people who frequent KFDh and DhO check their brains at the door prior to entry. Reason is a genie in a bottle. We can come up a any philosophy we want, and it can make sense within its own contained little network of meaning. But being a student of psychology has made me question the practice of meditation in a way that goes beyond philosophy. Learning how the mind actually works is amazingly beautiful. So, I want my philosophy and religion to to be informed by psychology and other sciences, and vice versa. The goal is to keep things integral

Just starting to get my feet wet around here.

Loved the article Jackson. I agree. What's pulled me away from noting as a practice is that it does seem to only dis/de-embed one from their own sense of self. It's almost like it catapults you outwards from your self, so that you can see it hovering there in front of your, working on its own, some kind of vast machine. (think Unicron, for any Transformers fans out there!)

And even faster version of the noting practice was brought up on KFD today (though I would bet it goes unanswered), which would, I assume, only lead to more confusion upon breaking free of the "self": http://bit.ly/i1tGbu

Then, because of the peace that comes with being completed disembedded, once is less than inclined to deal with this giant ball of self-machinary. Leading to the Tibetan critique of the Hineyana Arhat as being "stuck in emptiness". Of course, nothing stays still, so one is eventually drawn back into contact with those self-less "selfing" processes, this seems to be happening at KFD with all the talk of the "spiral" after 4th Path, and what has lead to Kenneth's new Direct Mode teachings (about which I will post something separately, hopefully tomorrow).

You guys, on the other hand, seems to have re-engaged with the selfing-machine willinging, in order to make it function better (integration, as Chris puts it). This seems to be Alan Chapman's take on things too, per his now-saddly-defunct-and-commentless Open Enlightenment blog. I agree, I think this is the most important thing. It might not change things quickly, but the more we work at it, the better the longer term effect.

In the end, I'd say both approaches are attempts at the same thing, though it seems you guys are doing this willingly, while the KFDh folks are being drawn back to it in an almost instinctual kind of way. The problem with being "done" I suppose.

Anyway, that's my take on it, and just for the record, I don't make a claim to being even a Stream Enterer, nor am I all that concerned on getting there, necessarily. I just like trying to see through to the truth of things, so that the false parts can be let go of. If stream entry and the 4 Paths happen along the way, great. If not, well, what's the point?

I love the massage versus surgery metaphor and the idea of the RAIN technique. There's no free lunch. Faster "enlightenment" only leaves you with more problems to be dealt with than slower "enlightenment", there's depths to this thing and anyway, why would anyone ever want to be truly "done"? Why bother living at that point? If improvement's not infinitely possible, then life will someday be pretty damn boring. No thank you to that.

Great points, Ian.

I don't have a lot to add. But, I will say that the de-embedding phenomenon is not unique to noting practice. Noting is a technique to keep mindfulness going. Mindfulness is the point. Whether we are noting, scanning, visualizing, chanting, or any other technique, we are practicing mindfulness.

By the way, it's funny that people think that noting REALLY FAST is better than other types of noting. Best to let the competative energy relax a bit. For, what happens if they get what they're after? Is that energy just going to stop? It's habit/karma, just like everything else. All of this doing-doing-doing leads to more doing. You have to stop noting so ferverently at some point in order to truly let go.

This is obviously not aimed at you, Ian, as I know you're not really into to noting practice Just going on a bit of a tangential rant.

Jackson

Hi Tomo,

I read the article. There's some useful information in there, particularly toward the end (differentiating bare awareness and 'consciousness'). The article is based on Abhidhamma, which is insanely detailed, expressing the tiniest, most insignificant pieces of information (as well as the broadly applicable stuff).

The text reads:

"Now, this is the delusion. This is the ignorance. What, then, is the insight that helps one to unravel this state of affairs? It is the understanding of the conditioned nature of consciousness - that consciousness arises dependent on conditions. Even that insight emerges through a refined way of attending. That is, by accelerating the mental noting in such a way as not to get caught in the net of perception or saññà. In other words, to stop short at bare awareness. It is by such a technique that one can get an insight into the back stage workings of consciousness."

Well... OK. I can see how that is true and all. But do I think that every yogi heading for stream entry needs to keep this in mind? Nope.

I don't think hyper-accelerating the noting technique is going to work any better than a basic process of keeping track of one's experience without getting carried away by the drama of it all. And I do mean "drama", as in story or narrative. Anyway...

I think the surest route to stream entry is a combination of noting and reflective awareness when appropriate, particularly when things get sticky. Sometimes the best way through a situation is to apply wisdom to it, rather than just trying to short circuit the mind.

My favorite applications of plain-old-noting are when navigating the early ñanas (1-4), and when trying to keep from floating off into bliss while in the 11th ñana. For cessation to occur, one must stay present. Noting keeps presence going, as it keeps the mind from drifting off or blissing out. Just noting the rise and fall of the abdomen should be enough. When thoughts of progress or desire for cessation arise, note them, and then let them go and get back to noting something neutral. That's all there is to it.

Thoughts?

Jackson

re: mindfullness, noting, scanning, etc:

For me, noting tends to push things out of my mind. I see/feel/experience something, then note it, and its gone. Or something else is in its place. I get the feeling of bouncing from one object to another, learning the "texture" of each, so that they are easier to recognize/let go of, the next time they arise.

To me, this is not mindfulness, I see mindfulness as more akin to whats been happening with my body scanning practice. As I move my awareness toward through different parts of my body, I can feel tension/holding. By being aware of that tension, holding it mindfully, it begins to release itself on its own.

So I guess I don't look at noting as a mindfulness practice because I'm never holding any kind of space. I just kind of bounce from object to object, recognizing them and seeing that they're not me (this is what I've been considering de-embedding). I see noting as eventually developing finer and finer awareness, as the larger things are seen through and dropped away, until one slips between the cracks, so to speak. But no where in there, for me, is there any sense of the space wherein these things are happening. Nothing is "held" in the mind, so there is not really a sense of mindfulness.

If anything, mindfulness seems to sort of generate itself as one gets deeper into the noting, but there is no holding-of-space for me. Where as body sweeping seems to approach it from the exact opposite direction, creating the space, and then allowing things to move, whereas noting moves things and generates space by doing so.

My goal in either case is to hold enough space and allow enough movement to happen that "I" don't need to identify with any of it.

Then again, perhaps I misunderstand noting practice and that's why I get bored with it? : )

Also, did you guys check out the other blog that Brian guy linked to:
http://theravadin.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/advantages-of-a-systematic-approach/

Interesting stuff. I like the Pali (Sanskrit?) translations.

Interesting points, Ian.

I guess my application of noting is somewhere in between the options you presented above. I don't try to note each and every little thing. That mostly just results in stress for me.

Rather, I treat noting more like an anchor or sorts. The breathing meditation taught by the Buddha includes something like, "Breathing in long, the yogi knows, 'breathing in long.' Breathing in short, the yogi knows, 'breathing in short.'" This is a way of establishing one's self in the present moment while simultaneously not allowing one's self to become absorbed in something seemingly unchanging.

Now, when I do this and something else shows up and takes me away from the changing sensations of the breath, I note it and return to the phenomena associated with the breath. With attention established in the breath (but not too solid), the other changing phenomena via the various sense media continue to rise and fall within awareness. They are noticed, but not really "noted." If something gets really strong and stressful, I'll direct my attention there and investigate it with reflective wisdom. Whatever allows me to release my clinging or aversion is what I will do, and then I'll go back to the neutral object and note the changes to stay present. The combination of mindful attention to the ever-changing present combined with the equanimity that is born out of the practice is what leads to the deeper letting go that results in cessation. That's why Shinzen Young is always emphasizing "Mindfulness & Equanimity."

There are SO many ways to practice, but there are common theme. Accelerated noting may work for some, but it certainly isn't the only way to experience deep insight. Neither is the method I use above. We all end up piecing together the aspects of insight practice that work for us, and then share those aspects with others. That's why forums like this one are so great

Jackson

That's why forums like this one are so great


-awouldbehipster

Indeed.

I see the difference now. You're talking about noting with an anchor, and I'm not. For me, I just pick the first sensation that comes into my consciousness and note that. Then the next one and the next one. The obsession with speed, I think, comes from the fact that the faster the noting occurs, the more "anchored" one is in the practice. The speed leads to depth, whereas with anchored noting, the clarity and the mindfulness lead to depth. Though I think there is a competitive aspect to it as well, which can be totally done away with and should definitely be watched out for.

Both work, but I think with an anchor results is a more aware letting go, so that more is actually let go of, while unanchored noting results in faster letting go. It's like Street Fighter. Would you rather use Chung Li, or Zhangief? Neither is inherently "better", I think. Depends on how one is feeling during a sit.

But you know, I'd forgotten that anchored noting was an option. Silly me.

Street Fighter. Nice

The thing I like about what we are loosely calling "anchored noting" is that the anchor makes it easier to let go of those appearances which are NOT the anchor. If the anchor is something feeling-tone neutral, like the breath, then letting go of the anchor AFTER letting go of everything else is pretty simple. This is the same kind of thing that occurs when people dwell as the Witness. Consciousness, which is neutral, anchors to itself. Attachments to other forms/appearances fade away, until only the Witness is held on to. From there, one gentle act of release sets one free.

When practicing anchorless noting, all attachments are fair game for deconstruction and release. This works really well for some people. It's more of a "dry insight" technique. Anchoring to the breath or consciousness results in more of a jhanic insight path. In fact, since concentration on the breath often leads to jhana, the anchoring practice I mention above is more or less the path of jhana as opposed to the path without jhana.

You know, sometimes I forget how daunting a lot of this must sound to any beginners out there who might be reading this. It takes a couple years to get it down, but after that it's pretty simple. Much like learning an instrument, I guess.

-Jackson

You know, sometimes I forget how daunting a lot of this must sound to any beginners out there who might be reading this. It takes a couple years to get it down, but after that it's pretty simple. Much like learning an instrument, I guess.

Yeah. And it's a sudden change too, though not always a noticable one. It's as if, it doesn't make sense, it doesn't make sense, it doesn't make sense. And then all of a sudden you start talking about it and it does. Most of the time, I don't even know that I know what I know, until some circumstance comes up that brings it out of me. If I worried about actually keeping track of what I know and don't know, I'd feel pretty lost most of the time. : )

But yeah, it does seem to be a question of directly involving janna in your insite or not. Both work, eventually, though chances are one will work better than the other for different people.

-- worth keeping the 'big picture' in mind: http://www.shambhalasun.com/sunspace/?p=19695#more-19695

Thanks for the link, Kate. I really enjoyed the article.

Yes, Chris. I think noticing is the whole point of noting. If noting gets in the way of noticing, why bother?

Moral of the story: Don't note so fast that you no longer notice with clarity.