Inquiry/Turnaround vs 'Did You Note It?'

This topic was inspired by Nadav's recent comment on Zach's thread, and also some discussion about Mahasi on Joe's - 'the turnaround' seems to be what we mostly do here, and I love it, it's definitely where I'm at personally at the moment.

But at the same time, it does occur to me, if someone came to me and said, I want to get stream entry, what should I do? I'd say, 2-3 formal hours daily of Mahasi noting (or else vipassana-style choiceless awareness of the presenting object) - plus that same practice whenever and as much as you can in daily life (with an appropriate warning about the Dark Night).

For me, it was actually the process of 'hitting' 1st and 2nd Path that led me to being disenchanted with that system/map and turning away from it, and I think this is reasonably common as a rough trajectory (putting aside the issue about how 'real' the numbered paths actually are, which I'm not sure should in fact be put aside). Does anyone agree/disagree, and what might this say about advice or teaching?

It seems *generally* the case that some beginners do better with "techniques" - some kind of "do this this way" kind of rote thing to do. It provides focus, it's simple, it provides a kind of obvious feedback (look for this, notice that). But it depends a lot on personality type, too. Some people find technique-based practices not at all suitable right from the start.

Also, it seems generally the case that once a person has some level of stable practice developed (if they are doing technique practice), then inquiry/investigation type questions are often useful, even if just to get them to note/notice more things they aren't paying attention to. Just as you might find a hook or inspiration by reading a book, these sorts of questions can do the same thing. If one sticks, then you have a point of good investigation. They only tend to stick if they are relevant to what the person is puzzled by and if they aren't relevant to where the person is they tend to go in one ear and out the other.

I tend to see these varieties of training as supportive of each other, rather than two different methods. It is true that generally speaking inquiry type practice often makes more sense the further along one goes in practice. But I don't think there's some sharp dividing line, and it does depend a lot on the individual. I got that kind of questioning thrown at me very early on, so perhaps that influences my view.

Other perspectives?

Here's my data point:

I spent many years doing self-taught inquiry, based on Jean Klein's "Who Am I? The Sacred Quest", 1988, ISBN 1-85230-029-9; 2006, ISBN 0-9551762-6-3. This was probably from age 19 to 25 or so. I often dwelled in an equanimity-like state, which was very healing, but it wasn't well grounded. I had none of the early nana insights that come from noting practice. Based on my experience, I would only recommend inquiry for a new student that was working with a teacher. There are just too many promising sidetracks with this approach. There are also some real train wrecks possible, inquiry can quickly lead to depression-nihilism or ignorance-is-bliss-monism.

I didn't get stream entry until maybe age 38, after about two years of noting (and two retreat). I had a strong jhana on my first 5 day retreat using noting -- which convinced me this stuff was real. I had a mindblowing A&P on my second retreat which freaked me out and made me seek a teacher. Stream entry happened at home, after about 4 months of working with a teacher.

When doing mostly noting in early paths, there is a form of inquiry makes sense during equanimity-states: noting the mind stream. This is "difficult" when discursive thoughts are strong (which is when it is time for standard noting), but when there is some space around thoughts and emotions, then thoughts and emotions themselves can be "noticed" as a mindstream. This isn't noting exactly, it's more like doing gentle inquiry of "what is the mind stream?". That works very well for transitioning from low equanimity into high equanimity. This is the kind of inquiry I was doing before stream entry.

I very much agree that post second path, practice become more inquiry-ish. I mostly focused on mindstream, as well as used attraction/aversion/fantasy (ignorance) as my three main "notes". The effort of noting also changed. If before I used 10-20% of my "mind" to note, during third path it was more like 3%.

Turning the question around and noting the sensations that make up the question are two different things.. It's a difference in abstraction. Going along with Ona's first sentence, which I would state with less hesitation, I would argue that "did you note it?" ("what did it feel like? what was going on in the mind? in the body? how did it change?" etc) is much more helpful than "what's your motivation for wanting to know?" for our hypothetical beginner.

If our beginner is working towards stream entry, then we have a clear system for helping them get there, and the modus operandi is to objectify your experience. Not think about your experience, or tell stories about it, but continuously see what's going on and disembed from it, to use Kenneth Folk's language. Personally, I would amend Rowan's instructions and say note as much as possible throughout the day, and scaffold that with as much formal sitting as you have time for.

I'm not saying that investigating motivations or expectations is unimportant. It's very important, and will come under scrutiny under the more basic (less abstract) parts of experience have been seen with some clarity, which likely means equanimity. But in the mean time, our beginner needs every bit of help they can get to stay on the lower levels of the ladder of abstraction (Kenneth Folk language again) rather than their thoughts about it. For that, "did you note it?" is more helpful than turning the question around.

really well said nadav!

" Some people find technique-based practices not at all suitable right from the start."-- I resemble that remark, Ona; that pretty much sums up my character, my approach, and the limitations to my contributions here.

Not to justify myself, just to take a sober look at the quirks of my personality, which was formed struggling to find my OWN way, my OWN purposes. And not to be subordinated to the purposes of others, which were intrusively apparent to me from a very early age. The way I articulated it was "not wanting to be anyone's trained seal-- for ANY amount of fish."

That's the grain of salt to consider in what I say: encouragement to develop confidence: +. Vehement skepticism about maps and systems: -.

shargrol wrote: I often dwelled in an equanimity-like state, which was very healing, but it wasn't well grounded. I had none of the early nana insights that come from noting practice.

This is very interesting! So, it's possible to climb up the ladder (what is it with me and ladders today?) quickly via self-inquiry or concentration practice and bypass the lower rungs. This seems desirable, but is not nearly as valuable divorced from the context of everything that's "supposed" to come before it (especially the difficult parts). Hence, the goal is not just to get to arrive at the point where you are equanimous, but to get there through a thorough investigation--clear seeing--of everything that's not equanimous. And why the full backstory and sequence of events is needed for dharma diagnosis on the progress of insight, more than just "everything is great" or "nothing bothers me."

I appreciate that comment, Kate. It's too tempting to pigeonhole everyone into our own understanding of how this thing works or what worked for us. I was thinking about that when I said "If our beginner is working towards stream entry..." For me, once I learned about the progress of insight and stream entry and noting, there was obvious appeal. I knew that's what I wanted to do, and I knew how I should go around doing it: by noting, and putting everything else aside (jhanas, the witness, breath awareness) *for the time being.* If my teacher had asked me to investigate my motivations at that point, that would've sent me spinning without getting anything done.

But it would be a mistake to assume that same approach can be expected or is required in every case. Still, I think the important directive is to pay attention to what's going on now, and now, and now, and now. Whatever facilitates that is A Good Thing.

Yes, I now think that's the case, ie bypassing nanas. I could be wrong of course, but that's my sense of it.

In Kenneth's words, third gear is always available. What I'm tempted to add is unfortunately, that makes it too attractive to beginners who want to be instantly spiritually "right". Also unfortunately, it is too tall of a gear most of the time to make any progress. It really comes into it's own, as a method for making progress, when there isn't much resistance to move.

I was very much like Kate, didn't want to be anyone's trained seal. I had done breath meditation ad nauseum as a teenager, probably leading to an A&P and being a dark night yogi. "Who am I?" seemed more advanced, more cutting to what was essential in identity. Early in doing it I reached many fairly mystical open states, later in doing it I fell into an angry form of nihilism, full of a volatile mix of pride and self loathing.

What I never did was get real feedback from another human, despite living in a town with lots of options. That probably was my biggest and most costly mistake, in terms of my life lived.

I think that inquiry, like other strategies, can be co-opted and turned into a game of "if I repeat this question over and over I can make my mind go into a weird state." That's not awakening, and it's not investigation either, it's more like generating an altered state. Well used, inquiry seems (to me) to be simply a tool for investigation. What is this? and variations thereof.

shargrol wrote: ....
What I never did was get real feedback from another human, despite living in a town with lots of options. That probably was my biggest and most costly mistake, in terms of my life lived.

Might one presume that was because you were in a stage of life where you didn't want any feedback?

Ona Kiser wrote:

shargrol wrote: ....
What I never did was get real feedback from another human, despite living in a town with lots of options. That probably was my biggest and most costly mistake, in terms of my life lived.

Might one presume that was because you were in a stage of life where you didn't want any feedback?

And might I add that it may not have been a mistake? There is a ripening/ maturation process that goes on far below our usual awareness; we really have no idea what experiences and information-- on a personal, individual basis-- that process requires, or how it works.

It's a kind of psychic metabolism, and we don't have such an informed idea about how our merely physiological metabolism works. If we did, Monsanto would not be in business.

I think both Ona and Kate are right!

On one hand, I was a independent kid living on his own, so I didn't want to place myself under any authority... On the other hand, I really was looking for an adult to look up to, was generally disgusted with adult behavior, and I couldn't stand the thought of being betrayed/misguided by a spiritual teacher, so I was kinda protecting that heartfelt spark, if you know what I mean.

That said, I really do think that I would have been better served by "going toward" this area of interest, and doing so in the world, seeking fellow travelers and teachers, not just self-teaching through reading. But I do understand why many people, probably many of the so-called lurkers on meditation boards, don't want to go out and find a teacher. It can be a bit scary to expose that heartfelt spark to the wind... but now in hindsight, I don't think it blows out as easily as I thought at the time.