Mahasi and Chah - differences in practice

I wanted to start this thread in order to look at some differences between the two practice styles that I called 'Mahasi and Chah'.

They are completely different in approach. Probably most here are coming from the Mahasi noting practice and as I don't have much experience with this, I may use terminology that can further confuse rather than clarify.

For example, if I say 'pay attention to the energy in the body', I am realizing that this is probably understood as 'note the energy in the body' when I actually mean something quite different.

The 2 practices are essentially 180 degrees apart from each other. If you go hiking in the mountains and come to an expansive view overlooking a lake - how would you want to experience it? Probably by just being with it, taking in the whole thing in a relaxed way. You don't have to note 'lake' or 'quiet', you just experience it - they are already there. Now if you are doing that then the mind can get sort of spacey and dreamy and you can go off into all kinds of things. The effort or concentration aspect is to be able to keep that open attention to the entire experience while at the same time not slipping off into day dreaming, etc.

The practice actually requires a great deal of attention - probably just as much as the noting practice - but a kind of attention that is quite different.

In the Suttas, they use the term 'whole body awareness'. Using this as your 'object' - you don't note it as in 'body, body, body' - this sets up a kind of observer -> observed tension. Instead, you allow yourself to sort of soak into it - much like you would the view of the lake.

You have to 'pay the price' as Kenneth says - here meaning that you have to be willing to drop the habit of noting and just sort of dwell with the experience. It is a willingness to trust in experience and kind of leap into the void as it requires you to drop any kind of separation between you and your experience. But you can't push that or make it happen or note leaping, leaping, etc. You always work with what is present and just allow it to be there. Keeping this attention and kind of becoming immersed in it - this takes a steady kind of attention that takes practice.

If I understand the noting practice, it is about noting whatever comes up - very quickly. So if you started noting just certain things, like the sensation of the body or the intention to relax, then you would actually miss many phenomena, which is the opposite of what the noting practice is trying to do. Also, if you are noting in the practice that I am describing, then you are creating a kind of tension which is the opposite of what the practice is trying to do.

It is a difficult shift to make. I have tried noting and it is very hard for me. There may be ways of mixing or alternating between the two practices that could be useful but first it requires a kind of mind-shift so that you are comfortable with what is required by each.

Thanks for this post!
What you described as Chah(?) is what I seem to naturally do throughout my day when practicing. Noting has been a struggle for me. I'm new and mostly ignorant about meditation, sorry for that. I'll definitely be checking this out. Feels like it legitimizes my natural inclination in practice.
Thanks again, and Happy New Year!!

Chuck, thank you. This is closer to what I have historically practiced than noting. Noting was always difficult, counter-intuitive and a struggle for me. It was easier to more or less just "be with" the arising and passing of phenomena. I could "see" that same stuff going on, just without the constant tension (that's what noting feels like to me) of having to follow every tiny sensory impulse, name it, then go to the next, and so on. Alternatively, I can "tune in" to various components of the sensory experience by way of what is, I think, a more Gestalt-ilke process.

Thanks RevElev, Chris.
In this business, ignorance is sometimes a gift But it tends to be hit and miss. People may be naturally inclined toward one style or the other. My own inclination was toward this one also.

Well, I especially liked your explanation of this particular style of practice (Chah) as helping one to de-emphasize or even eliminate the subject/object or observer/observed distinction.

On the flip side, this practice style is less easily described and explained in comparison to Mahasi noting and, as you have observed, the same terminology can be applied to both, then leading to confusion.

Though I use terms like relaxing, calming, etc. in my descriptions - this is the nature of how you train - not necessarily what dominates your experience. So this kind of language can be misleading.

If you try to tell someone how to cross a raging stream, you want to focus on how they can maintain a sure-footing - not on the surging current around them. The surging current is their immediate experience and giving more attention to it doesn't help with navigating through it.

All of the stress we experience in daily life is carried in the body. There is a leap of faith required to enter the body as I am describing because on some level we turn away from body experience - we are numb to it.

So the first thing you encounter is kind of a numbness and often once you open up to that you encounter pain. Sorry, but that's the nature of the thing. The numbness acts to cover the pain.

From this description it may seem that you would have to work through all your pain before encountering anything pleasant. This is not the case, but when you first start these things tend to dominate - then less and less as you keep practicing. I think one reason for this is that once you learn to relax into one pain - you have in a sense learned to relax into pain in general such that the next one that comes along doesn't have the same power and solidity.

What tends to happen- at least in my case - is experience kind of goes back and forth between pleasant and unpleasant. Tuning in to where the stress is - and relaxing around that -is the key to navigating. And even the pleasant has a subtler tension which will make itself known in its own time - there is no need to deconstruct the pleasant - the stress in it will surface on its own - that is when you let it go - a fairly natural response.

"If I understand the noting practice, it is about noting whatever comes up - very quickly. So if you started noting just certain things, like the sensation of the body or the intention to relax, then you would actually miss many phenomena, which is the opposite of what the noting practice is trying to do. Also, if you are noting in the practice that I am describing, then you are creating a kind of tension which is the opposite of what the practice is trying to do." ~Chuck

Noting doesn't have to be done "very quickly". There are many ways to practice noting, and the rapid fire version is just one of them. I've always used noting as a way to keep track of experience in a way that limits rumination. A continuity of mindfulness builds to the point where continuous noting isn't necessary at all. The point is to practice applying attention without falling into fantasy or constant reflection. In my opinion, noting is a good way of developing this skill. It's helpful sometimes, and not so helpful other times. Just another handy skill to add to one's repertoire.

-Jackson

You mentioned that your experience has been different then that described here with the 4 path model. Does Chah provide an alternate model of development or is it more like I understand Zen to be, either enlightened or not? I realize this may just be my western attraction to accomplishment, but I'm curious if the different method creates a different model.

"I'm curious if the different method creates a different model.
"

A 4 path model is used. But the definition is quite different. Different methods lead to different experience - which requires a different model to provide context to the experience and a framework for the methods. Something like that.

The 1st gear 4 path model views the paths as attainments - something you 'do'. And there are distinct qualities or aspects of that process that become apparent and are defined in the progress of insight.

Though we (Chah) experience the 4 paths, we do not experience the progress of insight (at least I didn't) nor do we experience the 4 paths in the same way. I have described some of this in the Mahasi and Chah thread.

Chah paths mark stages of letting go and as such the 10 fetters model (also a 4 path model) worked well for me. Thanissaro Bhikkhu (Thai Forest) uses this model also. The fetters that are cut at each path actually convey or point to the nature of the insight that is seen inside the 'blip' that is described in the Mahasi tradition - this is what makes it useful.

The Chah model uses language from the Suttas where as the Mahasi tradition uses the Visudhimagga. Just saying this can create all kinds of heated discussion. As I see it - if you go through the Chah style experience, the language of the Visudhimagga doesn't describe your experience and if you go through the Mahasi experience it does. And depending on which tradition you see as correct - regardless of experience - you will see the Suttas as standing firmly behind it. Whatever gets the job done - that's what I say.

It seems to me that the underlying theme is "attention to what's happening right now." Noting can be used to energize the mind and watch things very quickly, as Daniel advises in MCTB. See the 3Cs happening as quickly as you can in real time. This might be 30 times a second in a really concentrated A&P.

Or, you can use noting to gently keep the mind engaged in the current experience by ensuring that you notice at least one thing every (insert time period here). I like to say a note out loud with every exhalation when I do noting, which means that I notice at least one thing with each breath cycle -- even if it's the experience of surprise when my lungs are full of air and I realize that I lost the mindfulness after the previous note. But more commonly, the noting technique has helped me stay on track, and I've mindfully attended to several sensations. So I just say whichever one is most prominently being attended to when it's time to vocalize something.

If I do noting the first way, the way I learned it from MCTB, then I see lots of perceptual sampling beginning at the early A&P and continuing until I stop the practice. The insight stages unfold in clear order, and the mind is energized and awake. Except in Dissolution.

If I note the other way, then I don't see a perceptual framerate unless I look for it. The same goes for insight stages. So far as I can tell, the stages DO happen. I can look back at recordings made with a voice recorder and realize "Oh, I felt floaty and light there. Then a few minutes later I felt regretful, and my voice sounded somewhat mechanical. Then a few minutes later I was really irritated and my back and neck hurt a lot. Then I felt way better and there were some pulsations and tingles. Then the tingles moved to my skin, and I felt cold, lazy, and happy." First 5 insight stages -- but during the practice, I'm not aware of experiencing them.

The basic point I'm trying to make is that the differences between the two types of practice seem very closely tied to attitude. It seems that if you look for insight stages, they're there. If you don't, you may never experience them -- though I'm not currently convinced that they don't happen. I'm not usually aware of my heartbeat, but I'm convinced that those sensations are available to me any time I look for them. I experience insight stages the same way -- if I look for them, they're right there, operating just as advertised. If I don't, then cool! Let me tell you, passing through the Three Characteristics stage is way easier if I don't try to observe that back pain happening 5 times a second.

Now, the rest of this post is on how to make my silly pre-stream-entry talk falsifiable. Feel free to ignore if you don't want to test it out.

Whenever I'm feeling pleasant during noting meditation, I can stop the noting and do pure samatha. That triggers jhana, and that jhana correlates with the insight stage I was at -- even if I've been doing the Chah-inspired noting technique, and I had no idea what insight stage I was at.

But maybe I'm really just doing Mahasi vipassana with a Chah attitude. So Chuck, next time you're meditating and you encounter pleasant content, you might try switching your technique to pure concentration without investigation. Do you encounter a specific jhana? (Check the First Gear section of this website for suggestions on how to meditate using the pure samatha technique, if you usually combine samatha and vipassana together. I naturally tend to combine them, and I can assure you that the Deeper into Jhana page and the Q&A on Shamatha page both have helpful advice to learn to differentiate the two techniques.)

Now, if you tell me that you don't experience any content in meditation, this will turn really interesting =)

"But maybe I'm really just doing Mahasi vipassana with a Chah attitude. "

Hi JAdamG,
Yes, I think so. Let me explain in another way - because what I am describing is not a gentle form of noting practice. There is an example in the Suttas - when Buddha recalls "once, when my father the Sakyan was working, and I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, then '” quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful mental qualities '” I entered & remained in the first jhana...".

This is the kind of approach I am talking about here. Remember as a kid laying back in the tall grass on a spring day? You didn't have to note it, your experience is all around you - it's soaking into you- you just rest in it. This is the seed.

My Chi Gong teacher taught us to just relax and feel the chi in the body. He said that at first you might feel it in any number of ways - warm, cool, fuzzy, tingly - you might feel it in one part and not another - how ever you feel it - that's just fine. If you approach these sensations as if you were a child laying back in the grass - then that is it - that's the technique.

My starting point on this material is that there are these two very different ways in which the stages of awakening (paths) are experienced. I have not met anyone that has experienced them in the Mahasi style that was not using the noting practice as defined in that tradition. Where as I have seen several accounts of Chah style from different practices. For example: Bernadette Roberts (Christian), Adyashanti (Zen initially), Richard (now of AF), and myself.

There is something unique about the noting practice which brings the progress of insight into view and ones level of concentration and how it is focused could account for that. But this does not explain why one practicing Chah style sees into the blip (so to speak) at Stream Entry (for example) while the Mahasi practioner does not.

Here is another way of thinking about it. If you place your hand in a bowl of cool water, you do not need to note the sensations in order to be aware of them. Noting, or directing your attention to it, creates a kind of separation or tension. Another way is to allow your awareness to become immersed (so to speak) in the coolness - this immersion is what takes the place of the noting (as far as not getting lost). It is not something we are used to doing consciously although we do it often when reading a good book or watching a movie. But in these examples, we no longer have awareness of the process - it is more trance like.

In order for awareness to become immersed like this, it has to hold the object very lightly. Instead of noting the sensations in order to stay with them, the technique is to relax the mind and body whenever something starts to draw you away. This process allows you to see subtler levels of tension - the play of consciousness - and this leads to insight - understanding how that tension is happening. But you don't need to look for it or analyze it intellectually - it will be experientially evident.

How's this for an incomplete, maybe inept, analogy:

If you are able to read music and you read the printed music of a piece while listening to it you will see all the technical details while you hear the music. You will notice all the transitions of chords and keys, see the process itself play out on the printed page with all the gory details. You will process the music at that level, "know" it as notes on a page, as process. You may not experience the Gestalt of the music so much but you will certainly "know" the map of that piece of music. (Mahasi)

On the other hand, if you sit back and just listen to the music, let it surround and engulf you, likewise you will experience all the same details of the notes, the chords, the keys, but in a "felt" manner. You can do that without having to, or even being able to, read the music. In this way you will experience the Gestalt of the music and "know" it but you will not see the map, the notes themselves, in a technical manner. (Chah)

Either listening style is about the very same piece of music but the choice of style of listening itself causes a different experience.

"How's this for an incomplete, maybe inept, analogy:"

Chris,
I like the sound of it! Thank you.

Chris,
Thanks, that analogy helps me a lot.
Now the big question(for me). My experiences aren't really matching up with what is presented here or in MCTB anymore, which now makes sense to me. They did, up to DN, but I've gone back to breath and open awareness meditation and seem to no longer be on the map. My practice is open, light and easy, when I should be suffering my arse off, apparently. But how do I know if I'm doing this right without a map to check my progress? No teachers nearby either. This concern is mostly out of not wanting to spend years getting nowhere. I think I'm progressing well, but what the hell do I know?

That is an awesome analogy Chris--applicable to a lot of differing approach to the terrain. Very nice to have you posting again!

Yours,
Mark

Just wanted to bump this thread. This practice seems to be becoming more popular on the site and I think this thread has some useful info.

Not sure it matters in the Chah style, or that it wont matter to the meditator at the time, but what can you say about how the jhanas are experienced in Chah mode?

"what can you say about how the jhanas are experienced in Chah mode?

"

A good place to get a sense of how the sutta-based practices differ from the commentarial practices are with the sutta readings by Bhante Vimalaramsi. His readings include a great deal of experiential information and practice tips. He describes in detail the qualities of the jhanas, how they are developed, and how they are used. As he comes from a vipassana background, he also talks about how this practice differs from the vipassana and jhana practices found in the commentaries. Two talks to start with:

a reading of MN 111 (in this talk he is using metta to develop jhana):
www.dhammasukha.org/Study/recent.htm#S-MN-111-ANA-100328.mp3

a reading of MN 118:
www.dhammasukha.org/Study/breath.htm

If you have a sense of the energy in the body then Thanissaro Bhikkhu (accesstoinsight.org) is a good source for sutta-based jhana using this as the object. But he does not have a vipassana background (that I know of) and so the above talks are better for learning the differences. You can find his talks at dhammatalks.org and a starter set at:

www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/BasicsCollec...asicsCollection.html

CheleK,
Thank you Very much for the links. I've read the "reading of MN 118" and found it to be easily one of the best dhamma readings I've found on the interwebs. Practical, insightful and grounded in the Sutta's, not just opinion. Highly recommended. Thanks again.