Vipassanā Technique Revisited

[mikenz66]

Greetings Mike,

Probably what some describe as "choiceless awareness" which by which they mean not having any particular intention about what to observe. It's not uncommon, and apparently Shikantaza is similar, as we've discussed here before somewhere.

If you read some of the Mahasi-related teachers, you'll find they see this choiceless wareness as something one naturally progresses to, where the particular objects of attention are dropped after a time and whatever arises is observed. It's something that can come naturally on a retreat when calm and mindfulness have been developed.

Is that what is called "secondary object" in the normal course of events.

Metta,
Paul.

My take on basics of the Mahasi approach is that one uses a "primary" or "gounding" object, such as rise/fall of abdomen, breath, touch points, walking, etc to build up mindfulness and calm, but if something else comes up one pays attention to that instead. A sound, for example. This is a "secondary object". It's those secondary objects where things get interesting, as the initial attention on them is unintentional.

What I'm calling choiceless awareness is when there is no need for a primary object. One is calm enough that one is content to just observe whatever comes up. So in that sense everything is now secondary (unintentional) objects.


Mike

[Volo]

As I see it, the suttas tell you how to see, whereas techniques tell you what to do in order to see.

I'm quite confident it's possible to find a lot of suttas, which are about "what to do", including also those dealing with vipassana. The first, which comes to my mind is Ānāpānasati sutta.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mike,

Thanks for confirming that.

So, if you were doing that, and then some sound arose, would you focus in on the sound, to the exclusion of other things? Because if so, I'm having a difficult time understanding how that is choiceless... since to place attention (manasikara) somewhere is a choice...

Metta,
Paul.

[Spiny Norman]

Greetings Spiny,

I'm not seeing a clear distinction between "how to see" and "what to do".

For example the AN4.126 passage above involves looking at ("regarding") the phenomena asociated with the aggregates in a particular way. But isn't that particular way of looking itself a method or technique?

To put it another way, isn't practice based on certain principles or assumptions (like the 3 marks), which necessarily involve a certain way of looking at things?
Doesn't it involve paying attention with a purpose, looking at/for particular qualities?

It is and does, yes. Again, I think I outlined this in quite a lot of detail on page one...

But perhaps I could flip the question and ask that if that's how it is, then what is, and why is there, a Goenka technique, a Mahasi technique and so on?

And what is it to not use one of these post-sutta techniques?

Metta,
Paul.

Isn't Nanananda's approach also "post-sutta"? Aren't all our modern approaches "post-sutta" in this sense?

It seems to be a matter of interpretation, trying to understand what the suttas really intend in relation to methods of practice.
It seems like the various methods around now emphasise different aspects of sutta methods. It's not so much whether they are "right", but whether they are sufficiently comprehensive, or correctly targeted.

What in broad terms would an authentic sutta insight practice look like, in your opinion?

[Spiny Norman]

As I see it, the suttas tell you how to see, whereas techniques tell you what to do in order to see.

I'm quite confident it's possible to find a lot of suttas, which are about "what to do", including also those dealing with vipassana. The first, which comes to my mind is Ānāpānasati sutta.

Satipatthana is also quite specific in terms of method. Though perhaps not specific enough, given the number of different approaches we see.

[Spiny Norman]

Greetings Mike,

Probably what some describe as "choiceless awareness" which by which they mean not having any particular intention about what to observe. It's not uncommon, and apparently Shikantaza is similar, as we've discussed here before somewhere.

If you read some of the Mahasi-related teachers, you'll find they see this choiceless wareness as something one naturally progresses to, where the particular objects of attention are dropped after a time and whatever arises is observed. It's something that can come naturally on a retreat when calm and mindfulness have been developed.

Is that what is called "secondary object" in the normal course of events.

Metta,
Paul.

My take on basics of the Mahasi approach is that one uses a "primary" or "gounding" object, such as rise/fall of abdomen, breath, touch points, walking, etc to build up mindfulness and calm, but if something else comes up one pays attention to that instead. A sound, for example. This is a "secondary object". It's those secondary objects where things get interesting, as the initial attention on them is unintentional.

What I'm calling choiceless awareness is when there is no need for a primary object. One is calm enough that one is content to just observe whatever comes up. So in that sense everything is now secondary (unintentional) objects.


Mike

I've never really understood the "choiceless awareness" thing. It seems like just letting attention go where it wants, which doesn't seem much different to "normal life".
Or is the idea to notice how attention moves around?

[mikenz66]

Greetings Mike,

Thanks for confirming that.

So, if you were doing that, and then some sound arose, would you focus in on the sound, to the exclusion of other things? Because if so, I'm having a difficult time understanding how that is choiceless... since to place attention (manasikara) somewhere is a choice...

Metta,
Paul.

Well, it's a lot less choiceful than focussing on something.

But you're right, there are always choices going on. You can't avoid that. But you can notice them and learn from them. That's what I see as the point.

Now, this is the delusion. This is the ignorance. What,
then, is the insight that helps one to unravel this state of affairs? It
is the understanding of the conditioned nature of consciousness –
that consciousness arises dependent on conditions. Even that
insight emerges through a refined way of attending. That is, by
accelerating the mental noting in such a way as not to get caught
in the net of perception or saññā. In other words, to stop short at
bare awareness. It is by such a technique that one can get an
insight into the back stage workings of consciousness. For
instance, the insight that the eye-consciousness arises dependent
on eye and forms and that the very discrimination between the
two ends is eye-consciousnsess, which is the middle. ...

Mike

[retrofuturist]

Greetings again Volo,

As I see it, the suttas tell you how to see, whereas techniques tell you what to do in order to see.

I'm quite confident it's possible to find a lot of suttas, which are about "what to do", including also those dealing with vipassana. The first, which comes to my mind is Ānāpānasati sutta.

Well, yes... I would call the "16 steps" of the Ānāpānasati Sutta a technique, if applied consecutively, but it's worth noting that those 16 steps are about samatha, not vipassana. I think there are probably lots of techniques, Buddhist or otherwise, for achieving samatha.

Whilst the subsequent parts of the Ānāpānasati Sutta are about vipassana, I wouldn't call those aspects a technique.

Metta,
Paul.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Spiny,

Isn't Nanananda's approach also "post-sutta"? Aren't all our modern approaches "post-sutta" in this sense?

What is the Nanananda approach? Aside from the meditation instructions Mike mentioned earlier, his works appear simply about clarifying the suttas and their meaning, by challenging and stripping back some of the commentarial interpretations which had gained prominence over time. I see ven. Nanavira doing a similar sort of thing, albeit in a slightly different way.

What in broad terms would an authentic sutta insight practice look like, in your opinion?

Cultivating the perception of dukkhata, the perception of aniccata, the perception of anattata, and/or the perception of sunnata.

As discussed previously, I think there's also lots of scope for paticcasamuppada to be used to comprehend arising and the arisen.

Metta,
Paul.

[Volo]

Well, yes... I would call the "16 steps" of the Ānāpānasati Sutta a technique, if applied consecutively, but it's worth noting that those 16 steps are about samatha, not vipassana. I think there are probably lots of techniques, Buddhist or otherwise, for achieving samatha.

Whilst the subsequent parts of the Ānāpānasati Sutta are about vipassana, I wouldn't call those aspects a technique.

I disagree that 16 steps is a samatha practice. I don't think there are many people who sees them this way. At most it is said that there is a way to practice the first tetrade so that it becomes a samatha.

[Srilankaputra]

challenging and stripping back some of the commentarial interpretations which had gained prominence over time.

Hi,

Can you give a brief overview of the commentarial interpretations you find questionable pertaining to the topic?

[mikenz66]

What is the Nanananda approach? Aside from the meditation instructions Mike mentioned earlier, his works appear simply about clarifying the suttas and their meaning, by challenging and stripping back some of the commentarial interpretations which had gained prominence over time.

He has a somewhat different interpretation of dependent origination (though remember that the Theravada commentaries also have a single mind moment model), but he does make use of various commentarial concepts, such as the progress of insight. I don't think it would be accurate to call his approach a "sutta only" one.

His multiple meditation books are Mahasi based, That was the approach of the forest monastery (Nissarana Vanaya ) where he gave the Nibbana Sermons , with the encouragement of the Abbot Ven. Ñāṇārāma, who he had re-ordained under. You might notice that he stops mentioning "The Great Preceptor" towards the end, as Ven. Ñāṇārāma was ill. Ven Nanananda moved on after he died (1992 I think).

An interesting factoid is that he was first ordained (after having a job as a Pali lecturer for a few years) in the company of Robert Smith, AKA Sāmanera Bodhesako /Ven. Vinayadhara/Ven. Ñāṇasuci, who was a key figure in publishing Ven Nanavira's writings.


Mike

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Srilankaputra,

Can you give a brief overview of the commentarial interpretations you find questionable pertaining to the topic?

Pertaining to this topic specifically, nothing, since the Burmese Vipassana techniques are not in the commentaries... they are a much more recent invention.

Metta,
Paul.

[Volo]

What is the Nanananda approach? Aside from the meditation instructions Mike mentioned earlier, his works appear simply about clarifying the suttas and their meaning, by challenging and stripping back some of the commentarial interpretations which had gained prominence over time.

So, Ven Ñanananda's approach is "clarifying", but what commentaries do is "interpretations"? His "Concept and reality" is clearly an interpretation (i haven't read his other books): he simply (re)defines some of pali terms, without providing evidences for his (re)definitions. So, at very least it is an interpretation, not a clarification, and interpretation from the 20th century. If commentaries are late, than it is later than late.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Volo,

So, Ven Ñanananda's approach is "clarifying", but what commentaries do is "interpretations"? His "Concept and reality" is clearly an interpretation (i haven't read his other books): he simply (re)defines some of pali terms, without providing evidences for his (re)definitions. So, at very least it is an interpretation, not a clarification, and interpretation from the 20th century. If commentaries are late, than it is later than late.

Sure, I'm not here to argue about who composed an exegesis or an eisegesis.

You keep on going down rabbit holes utterly disconnected from the topic of "technique"

Metta,
Paul.