Insight isn't even half the battle

Catching subject title, right? I'll explain.

I noticed something interesting about the way my mind works today, and thought it would be fun to riff on.

There are times when an insight into the nature of experience arises, and what follows is a sense of freedom, or happiness, or peace, or something else I like. So far, so good. But...

Because the insight seemed to precede the opening, my mind tends to think the result is based on knowing something, or having some insight. So, as long as I know this fact, I can keep feeling this way. Sound familiar to any of you? It's like, "Oh, I finally get it! Phew! That's done now. Things are great."

So, I had a funny moment today where I realized that while the arising insight is a part of the causal matrix leading up to the experienced pleasant result, it's not the only factor. There are, for instance, ALL OF THE OTHER ASPECTS OF PRACTICE leading up to said insight. Why these are ignored, and the insight is given supreme weight in mind, is not clear to me. Maybe it's easier to just recall a fact than it is to practice the more complete path.

What I suspect is really occurring is that insight is arising to meet the other skillful qualities, intentions, and actions of the path, and that they all culminate in the beneficial and enjoyable result. At least that's how it seems to work for me right now.

Has anyone else noticed this kind of thing in their practice?

It has often seemed to me, Jackson, that we like to look back and create a storyline out of events, as if they happen in a nice linear way, featuring main characters and notable events. But that in doing so we a) get to feature ourselves as a main character (even a heroic character) in a way that can be interesting to investigate and b) create a sense of order, control, agency and linear time which can be interesting to investigate. Not sure that's related, but it came to mind.

That makes sense. When something good happens, we tend to forget the longer history and attribute the success to whatever we were doing immediately before it happened—and that becomes The Best Approach.

Thanks for your comments so far, everyone.

Chris, yes - I think it's critical for beginning practitioners to place some importance on insights. I wasn't trying to say otherwise.

If I could make my point more simply, it's that insights are important, but they are best held lightly. Also, I think it's helpful to understand that insights do not stand alone in terms of their power to transform. There are lots of important factors at work, and these deserve a lot of attention, too.

Said another way...

Perhaps early insights are like seeds, which require watering and nourishment from the very same processes that lead to the seed's genesis.

Those seeds grow into plants, and those plants eventually bear fruit on their own, and grow into a dense forest of delicious food that self-sustains...

Could be too flowery a picture :-/

I realize the general spirit of this topic has been showing through in my other contributions. I'm finding more ways to articulate it as it develops. Thanks for helping me sort it out, everyone.

Chris Marti wrote:

... insights are important, but they are best held lightly.

Jackson, there are insights that are key to the developmental process we follow through what is called "the process of insight." Some of those, I think you would agree, are absolutely critical to development. Maybe we can explore an example to illustrate this if we use the insight that there is no permanent self - anatta, or not-self. I find that to be a really powerful insight that comes in stages, not all at once, but over time gets deeper and gains more import as that process, the deepening, gets stronger. It begins as an intellectual understanding but at some point is more of a "felt" sense, an instinctual, habitual view. How does one hold this insight lightly when it can change our view as much as it does?

I think that "holding insights lightly" has further depths than just elevating the "product"-- insight-- over the "process" of arriving at them. Insights are subject to change, arising and passing away, like every other constructed conceptual "thing." I'm not saying that to bring anyone down-- because watching everything being breathed in and out of being, can be at least interesting and at best an odd kind of delightful. That's how it seems to me so far, anyway.

Maybe I'm just a slacker, but seeing that there IS no "top of the mountain" coincided with wondering why I ever wanted there to be one.

Good points, Chris. I agree with what you wrote above.

What I'm pointing to is a bit different, and - clearly - I've having a difficult time explaining it.

What I mean to say is that there have been times where I create too strong a link between a particular insight and an associated experience; as in, "Oh, now that I understand this, things have changed for the better!" But I think we all know it takes more than understanding to realize freedom.

I'll have more to say later. I have to tend to the bug

Chris-- you seem to be pointing to a disagreement; but I'm unable to discern what it is.

Thinking it over, I realized that I was "trying to help" Jackson flesh out this topic, which I find interesting. And, further, that there is something specific that tends to elicit a contribution from me: it is that question of "now what?" that comes after "successful practice."

My own explorations spiral around: " What is the irreducible, always-present heart of life/ awareness/ practice?"

Provisional answer: recognition itself, that palpable shock of knowing without a doubt: whether it is the flimsy nature of appearances, the intimate connection between self-and-other, or any other of the time-honored Great Insights. It is discovering you understand how to solve equations, rather than getting "the right answer" to the set problems on the test.

We all of us-- I'm assuming-- come to the point of finding sitting down and acing the test, yet again, kinda empty. What's that about? What now?

eta-- This is offered in the spirit of "Yes, AND..." rather than "Yes, but..."

This may be a side point, but I was struck by the language - which I've seen often before, just struck me this time - of penetrating the object. From memory, Daniel uses this a lot. Obviously it's a metaphor with certain associations, flavour etc, but putting that aside (not that it's not interesting for how we think of practice and what we're doing - the self penetrating the world) what do we mean by this? I would say that when my vipassana was 'going well,' I could clearly see, in real time and consistently, an object arise and pass away. This doesn't really seem like 'penetration.' Of course, sometimes what seems like a solid object will reveal itself as made up of various component parts (though I never got the 'pixels' or 'vibrations' thing) in which case the language might be somewhat more apt... thoughts?