Cut to the chase

"The teachers I happened to connect with both taught choiceless awareness. It sure seemed to have worked for them and some of their students, but I didn't develop much insight or concentraion considering that I put a few years into it. When I read Shinzen Young saying that Zen students can spend years spacing out, I thought "uh oh!". Tried Noting and it seemed immediately effective. I had learned to sit still for a long time and relax but it probably would have helped me at least if I'd learned to meditate!"

I had the exact same experience--when Shinzen talked about spacing out, I knew instantly that this is what I'd been doing for years and years. MCTB opened my eyes even more. I had developed enough concentration through choiceless awareness to rest in what Sayadaw U Pandita called a pleasant, hypnogogic state--taking a break. Isn't this what meditation is about for so many people? This is not a comment about Mark, because he has some specific difficulties around noting that are more complex, but I'm certain that my initial resistance to the technique had two causes: laziness, and an unwillingness to disturb the pleasant, hypnogogic state by allowing thinking of any kind to enter the equation.
Not doing outright samadhi practice, the yogi does not build strong concentration. Not doing any vipassana, there is no investigation of experience. That's a formula for stagnation, in the name of "being with whatever arises."

I think noting is the same as "choiceless awarenss" -- you are just noting the stuff you are being choicelesly aware of. And, increasing your chances of not missing anything.

"I think noting is the same as "choiceless awarenss" -- you are just noting the stuff you are being choicelesly aware of. And, increasing your chances of not missing anything."

Maybe that's the key--there are people who do choiceless awareness properly (they're actually paying attention) and there are people who space out (hypnogogic state). However, investigation implies a choice, which is why vipassana students are told to look at what is predominant among the objects of awareness. So I'm not entirely sure that noting and choiceless awareness are quite the same thing. I used to try to do as little as humanly possible--observation without any observer--and I've heard Zen teachers give this instruction explicitly. That seems very different from Mahasi-style noting, with its emphasis on effort. But I have a tendency to use choiceless awareness and shikantaza or "just sitting" as synonyms, which I believe is incorrect as choiceless awareness is a term used in Western Vipassana. Hmmm....

"
Maybe my problem is a unique one, because of epic samantha practice over many years I have this kalinkha samadhi thing happenin bigtime, so when I do the Mahasi method of clasification I feel like I am trying to merge onto a freeway with cars and semis wizzing by bumper-to-bumper at a 100mph, and it's my task to get in behind each vehicle and see which state each licence plate comes from. To deal with this it's my instinct to get a list of the state names and memorize them first so I can pick out each one at a glance.
"

Hi Mark,
So what you are actually saying is your concentration is almost too strong, and the sensations coming thick and fast are overwhelming. So far as problems go, high concentration is quite a good one to have, though that dosn't make your difficulty less pressing.

I also practised Samatha for a few years before starting the insight thing but not for anything as long as you did. When I switched over to noting, all I did was to watch the breath at the stomach, noting rising rising rising, then falling falling falling, trying to catch as many discrete points in the movement as possible. I'm sure this is outlined somewhere in the MTCTOTB. This was enough to get me into crazy A&P kundalindi shaking stuff. Then I switched to body sensations, visuals sounds thoughts but without verbally labelling them. Now I've tried 4 foundations labelling for about a week I can see the previous approach had been letting subtle thoughts and images go unnoticed so I'm going to try and carry on with the full on labelling system.

So my idea is maybe you could start simple and then build up in complexity as you gain more experience of noting stuff. Ways to simplify -
*Drop the verbal, just note on a sensate level
*Just note one of the four foundations per sit, for instance beforehand you decide 'this time I'll note thoughts.
CONT

*Simplify a la Shinzen Young, into just 3 or 4 catagories, Feel Image Talk, or to stick with the 4 foundations, thought, Image, body (pressure?) mindstates (emotion?). Well I'm not sure about those catagories but you get the idea.
* The simplest is just to watch one particular body sensation such as the breath, or visuals.

So a kind of 4 subgears for first gear, if 4 foundations is too much, drop to picking one foundation and noting all sensations in that, if thats still too intense drop to just the foundation label 'thinking' or 'Talk'. Then the lowest rung is super zoomed in to one sensation coming and going. Start off with verbal labelling then ease off that if your brain gets overloaded.

And keep practising the full 4 foundations in your day to day life, where your concentration will not be so high so it should be much easier to keep up the noting.

This just came to me while reading your post, feel free to ignore it if it dosn't make sense to you. And trust your gut instinct, in my experience it's nearly always right.

"Maybe that's the key--there are people who do choiceless awareness properly (they're actually paying attention) and there are people who space out (hypnogogic state). However, investigation implies a choice, which is why vipassana students are told to look at what is predominant among the objects of awareness. So I'm not entirely sure that noting and choiceless awareness are quite the same thing. I used to try to do as little as humanly possible--observation without any observer--and I've heard Zen teachers give this instruction explicitly. That seems very different from Mahasi-style noting, with its emphasis on effort. But I have a tendency to use choiceless awareness and shikantaza or "just sitting" as synonyms, which I believe is incorrect as choiceless awareness is a term used in Western Vipassana. Hmmm...."

all these practices require effort. choiceless awareness (CA) will only bring insight if one is making the same all-out continuous effort to not miss anything that noting vipassasa requires

"Maybe that's the key--there are people who do choiceless awareness properly (they're actually paying attention) and there are people who space out (hypnogogic state)."

It always seemed counter intuitive to me to use labels to get beyond concepts. So noting hasn't seemed very theoretically or aesthetically attractive. But whenever I actually tried it, it was obvious it was doing something. I'd try being silently aware of an object, then I'd try labeling it and labeling had some palpable extra anti-velcro to it, especially with self-image type objects. That made me feel like my brain could only do insight with training wheels. Kenneth's objectification explanation and music scales analogy helped settle that. By now I'm just sold on that it works.

I think that's right, mpavoreal. Anything that forces the mind to push out an object, to turn what otherwise might be taken innately as "me" or otherwise not seen objectively, is what will work. As I said before, I cannot do the classic noting technique of mentally "saying" the thing. forming the word, what have you. For whatever reason it just does not work, but I CAN note things mentally, turning what was innate into something overt, and objectify that way. The process is pretty much the same.

(... hoping Kenneth doesn't come by and slap me upside the head...)

" By now I'm just sold on that it works."

That is, it works for me at this point on the path ...

"assuming mastery is possible for the individual practicing the technique, but that's another issue
Jackson"

Jackson I'd love to hear an elaboration on this

You've gone a lot further with it than I have, cmarti. So, you've obviously found what works for you. (My name is Mark, that's just my gmail address.) I'm grateful that there is enough of a toolkit to find something that matches one's capabilities. Something that is amazing about "full on" noting, with labeling in my case, is that it seems to provide so much scaffolding that with enough effort even someone with attention deficit challenges can't help but progress. AND the scaffolding doesn't actually seem to slow things up. Maybe need to switch to scales analogy here. But it seems like diligently sticking with the labeling has led to experiencing pretty continuous rapid noting for the first time. Not what you'd expect from scaffolding.

Mark, that's how it is supposed to work. I'm not a very good role model for this

I remember Tarin talking about a rapid noting technique that he described as, I think, to just very quickly "hit" the object with your mind. That's it -- no vocabulary required but the thing gets objectified adequately nonetheless.
Does that make sense, to "hit" it? Makes sense to me. it's like turning on the light to make the cockroaches scurry away. The roaches are hit by the light and are seen at just that moment.
when used with really fast vibrations it's like one's mind is vibrating in synch.

"I remember Tarin talking about a rapid noting technique that he described as, I think, to just very quickly "hit" the object with your mind. That's it -- no vocabulary required but the thing gets objectified adequately nonetheless.
"

I'll try that, sounds interesting, thanks. Seems good to expand the toolkit.

"As I said before, I cannot do the classic noting technique of mentally "saying" the thing. forming the word, what have you. For whatever reason it just does not work, but I CAN note things mentally, turning what was innate into something overt, and objectify that way. The process is pretty much the same."

There is noting and then there is labeling. You can note without labeling, but I don't see how you can label without noting. I find myself labeling less these days, and noting is becoming almost second nature. However, when times are tough, labeling is VERY helpful.

For the beginners, I would recommend the labeling. Otherwise, the mind has a tendency to pretend to note when in fact it is not. Labeling ensures you are noting.

Matt

What I see here are a lot of complaints that this can be cumbersome, bulky, and so on. But think how cumbersome, bulky, and unnatural we were when we first began to walk, write our name, or ride a bike. Now, it seems so natural. It only seems unnatural because it goes against our ingrained habits.

"I remember Tarin talking about a rapid noting technique that he described as, I think, to just very quickly "hit" the object with your mind. That's it -- no vocabulary required but the thing gets objectified adequately nonetheless.
Does that make sense, to "hit" it? Makes sense to me. it's like turning on the light to make the cockroaches scurry away. The roaches are hit by the light and are seen at just that moment.
when used with really fast vibrations it's like one's mind is vibrating in synch. "

You need to be fairly grounded, in my opinion, before you play around with rapid noting. Rapid noting can literally dissolve the world, which can be very confusing and disorienting. It can feel like a panic attack. Plus, in my experience, an energy rush tends to come with it. Disorientation + energy = possible disaster unless you are fairly grounded.

PS: I'm not suggesting you guys are beginners, but beginners often read stuff like this and run off crazily.

"You need to be fairly grounded, in my opinion, before you play around with rapid noting. Rapid noting can literally dissolve the world, which can be very confusing and disorienting. It can feel like a panic attack. Plus, in my experience, an energy rush tends to come with it. Disorientation + energy = possible disaster unless you are fairly grounded.

PS: I'm not suggesting you guys are beginners, but beginners often read stuff like this and run off crazily. "

Odd, I've never experienced anything like that.
Are you saying that there is some kind of danger to noting when fast stuff is being noted? What kind of disaster can happen?
For me, the more detailed I note, the faster I note, the brighter and more "real" the world around me starts to appear. I feel more grounded, more connected to a larger, safer, mind --an experience I think of when Chris talks about a "larger container."
Anyway, with this technique we note precisely what is happening as it is happening and what is happening can be very little (just rising and falling) or a lot (fast vibrations). I don't think we should alter our technique and avoid faster moving objects out of some fear of panic. This is real, serious, and hardcore and we need to be able to take a LOT of leaps of faith, you know?

"Odd, I've never experienced anything like that.
Are you saying that there is some kind of danger to noting when fast stuff is being noted? What kind of disaster can happen?
For me, the more detailed I note, the faster I note, the brighter and more "real" the world around me starts to appear. I feel more grounded, more connected to a larger, safer, mind --an experience I think of when Chris talks about a "larger container."
Anyway, with this technique we note precisely what is happening as it is happening and what is happening can be very little (just rising and falling) or a lot (fast vibrations). I don't think we should alter our technique and avoid faster moving objects out of some fear of panic. This is real, serious, and hardcore and we need to be able to take a LOT of leaps of faith, you know? "

I'm sure you will. It's commonly described. As to safety, I've had an interesting discussion on the old DhO page where people knew many people who ruined their lives and psyches with practice. Personally, I've not ruined my life, but I can easily see how it could happen.

I'm not saying that fast noting isn't a good thing--- it can be. When the world dissolved, you realize directly many important things. There is a time and a place for it. I'm just saying you need to be pretty well grounded. Running out of the dark into bright light will make you blind. But doing so gradually allows your eyes to adjust.

Practice is basically you performing brain surgery on yourself. Over time, your body-mind begins to perform differently. In a way, its much like martial artists breaking their old bones to regrow them stronger. Breaking too much, too fast will lead to disaster.

cont.

Practices that used to be given over time, in a monastic or other controlled setting, are now freely available online. We have people who in a month or so of getting high declare themselves to be spiritually evolved. Simply put, it takes time for a body to grow. It takes time to break down and dissolve those old habit patterns. Uncontrolled, rapid growth in the biological world creates a cancer or environmental imbalance. I'm just saying that its better to take your time, practice with patience. You don't become a genius overnight in any other endeavor--- I don't think spirituality is any different.

Matt

"Anything that forces the mind to push out an object, to turn what otherwise might be taken innately as "me" or otherwise not seen objectively, is what will work."
"

That's very clear, Chris. Thanks!

"Are you aware of the subtle mind states like, boredom, confusion, anticipation, intention, satisfaction, curiosity, the feelings of "I", the images of "I" blipping in and out rapidly?

I found with just bare awareness, I was missing these. When I started noting, these started becoming objectified more and more. Especially, the sensations and images that were read as "I". "

Thanks. Sometimes - not all of them, all the time. A friend of mine's recently had a chat with Kenneth about this and related issues - it sounded like the input from Kenneth about noting was very useful, so I might well follow suit, if he's up for it.

" You don't have to have equanimity. You just have to note anxiety or confusion. Do you see how insisting upon equanimity is just an extra step? You don't have to be clear. Note dullness. You can't afford all those in-between steps if you hope to be enlightened in this lifetime. "

Kenneth,
I was having a discussion about this with a friend and was wondering if you could explain this further.

What do you mean by "equanimity is just an extra step"?

Hi Yadid,

Sometimes there is equanimity and sometimes there isn't. We don't want to have to wait until equanimity arises before we can be awake. We want to be awake in anger or fear or lust or shame or equanimity or love. Awakeness is not dependent upon your mind state. It's not dependent upon anything.

If we were to make equanimity a pre-requisite for enlightenment, we'd spend most of our lives waiting around for equanimity to show up so that we could be happy. You want to be free in heaven and free in hell. One way to be free is to note.

In a moment of noting anger, you are free of it. It's intuitively obvious that the anger being noted is not you. That doesn't mean the anger won't arise again. These momentary mind states that span the entire range of human emotions will continue to arise throughout your life. That's good; mind states are part and parcel of the human experience and they are not the enemy. The problem comes when we confuse experience with self. The solution is to see things clearly as they arise, in which case everything that happens is seen as an object arising and passing away within the field of experience. This includes the sense that "this is happening to me;" even the sense of self is seen as just another object arising within the field of experience, referring back to no one.

There is a phase of practice called Knowledge of Equanimity. You will cycle through it and in and out of it throughout your life. Equanimity is just another thing that can happen. It is not the goal. The goal is the happiness that is not dependent upon conditions, and that happiness is available now, with or without equanimity. That's what I mean when I say that equanimity is just another step, just another thing "I" have to have.

Metta,

Kenneth

@Mark_VanWhy

a practical suggestion for vocabulary:

thesaurus.com/Roget-Outline-Top.html

I find this useful, because one can be confident it has full scope as far as the english language is capable of expressing, and one can drill down to as many finer distinctions as one wants...also it contextualises ones own experience as one small-ish slice of what is possible to note.

However it should be said I still find myself struggling for words to describe inner experiences...struggle, struggle (nailed that one)

"Hi Yadid,

Sometimes there is equanimity and sometimes there isn't. We don't want to have to wait until equanimity arises before we can be awake. We want to be awake in anger or fear or lust or shame or equanimity or love. Awakeness is not dependent upon your mind state. It's not dependent upon anything.

If we were to make equanimity a pre-requisite for enlightenment, we'd spend most of our lives waiting around for equanimity to show up so that we could be happy. You want to be free in heaven and free in hell. One way to be free is to note.

In a moment of noting anger, you are free of it. It's intuitively obvious that the anger being noted is not you. That doesn't mean the anger won't arise again. These momentary mind states that span the entire range of human emotions will continue to arise throughout your life. That's good; mind states are part and parcel of the human experience and they are not the enemy. The problem comes when we confuse experience with self. The solution is to see things clearly as they arise, in which case everything that happens is seen as an object arising and passing away within the field of experience. This includes the sense that "this is happening to me;" even the sense of self is seen as just another object arising within the field of experience, referring back to no one.

There is a phase of practice called Knowledge of Equanimity. You will cycle through it and in and out of it throughout your life. Equanimity is just another thing that can happen. It is not the goal. The goal is the happiness that is not dependent upon conditions, and that happiness is available now, with or without equanimity. That's what I mean when I say that equanimity is just another step, just another thing "I" have to have.

Metta,

Kenneth"

palabra