Just attend to whatever is rising and passing away.pilgrim wrote:When I face a situation, am I supposed to look for a corresponding sensation somewhere on my body?
I just returned from a Goenka retreat and am trying to understand better. I remember one of his discourses advised one to be aware of sensations on the body as a proxy to watch mind states. How does that work? If someone shouts at me, am I supposed to look for sensations on my body?Ben wrote: Just attend to whatever is rising and passing away.
For me, as a student of SN Goenka, I attend to the dominant sensations that are rising and falling at that time.
kind regards,
Ben
The connection between mental and physical is usually very obvious if you look for it, and is very common advice, not only from Buddhist teachers. When you feel angry you can probably notice tightness in the chest, flushed face, etc. It can often be helpful to focus on those sensations, rather then the mental proliferation that is causing the anger.pilgrim wrote:So how do I apply this experience in real life? When I face a situation, am I supposed to look for a corresponding sensation somewhere on my body? That doesn't seem practical.
I think this is good advice. The observation of sensation is indeed a proxy for the observation of the mind. One step removed from the proliferating mental content, and our ingrained habit of identifying with our mental contents, it is easier to observe sensation then mind and mental contents - particularly when faced with difficult situations. As you know, mind and body are intimately linked. Body is conditioned by mind and mind by body. We can notice this ourselves when during anger our heart rate quickens and our breath becomes faster and more shallow. Lustful thoughts cause other physical and somasomatic changes to the body. My own experience has been that certain mental states and thought processes correspond with different types of vedana. Gross and compounded states such as strong emotions are composed of the four primary dhammas and different types of sensations occur within and on the body while one is experiencing one of these composed (emotional) events. In time, you will notice this yourself.pilgrim wrote:I just returned from a Goenka retreat and am trying to understand better. I remember one of his discourses advised one to be aware of sensations on the body as a proxy to watch mind states. How does that work? If someone shouts at me, am I supposed to look for sensations on my body?Ben wrote: Just attend to whatever is rising and passing away.
For me, as a student of SN Goenka, I attend to the dominant sensations that are rising and falling at that time.
kind regards,
Ben
it would be wise for him to follow the motto of work while you work, play while you play. There is no need for him to be activating the experience of Anicca all the time. It should suffice if this could be confined to a regular period, or periods, set apart in the day or night for the purpose. During this time, at least, an attempt must be made to keep the attention focused inside the body, with awareness devoted exclusively to Anicca; that is to say, his awareness of Anicca should go on from moment to moment so continuously as not to allow for the interpolation of any discursive or distracting thoughts which are definitely detrimental to progress.
I think there's more than one sense of the term "sankhara" in the canon (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%85kh%C4%81ra" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;), and Goenka's use of the term fits in more closely with the active form, with respect to creating volitional formations.Manachi wrote:Hi all,
I just returned from my first 10 day Vipassana course (of SN Goenka). One aspect that confused me was the way in which the term "Sankhara" was used.
#1 I had previously always understood the word Sankhara to basically mean any mental formation or mental construct.
#2 But the way it is used in Goenka's teachings is quite different. He refers to a Sankhara is a 'reaction' and that any Sankhara generated is effectively a 'credit or debit' to the individual, according to whether the action is good or bad. Basically he teaches that you want to try and remove "all the stack of Sankharas" that are accumulated. I had never ever heard the term being used like this, and in fact it didn't sound quite right to me. The entire goal of his teaching is effectively to "reduce the stack of sankharas".
If you consider the phrase 'Annica Vata Sankhara" this makes sense with the definition #1 (("Impermanent, alas, are all formations") but not so much with #2. If "Sankharas" are impermanent (which they clearly are), why would you have a stack of them that you have to actively remove?
This causes great confusion to me and a little bit of concern. As I'm sure you can tell I'm still a beginner, but I was hoping someone could please help clarify? It would be much appreciated.
