That is very helpful–thank you for sharing this. I watched a 2014 talk by Ajahn Brahm on the APS previously, but had not seen this 2004 talk. I listened to the segment you mentioned, and I agree he mentions that the APS is generally practiced step-by-step (linear), and that sometimes one can move through the steps fairly quickly. In my own practice, I have been finding this to be the best approach too. Calm the body, then calm feelings, then calm the mind, then open up to the dhamma (the fourth tetrad).
2 Likes
There are some things that happen best in a certain order. For example, from SN42.13, we have that immersion requires a tranquil body.
When the body is tranquil, they feel bliss.
And when blissful, the mind becomes immersed in samādhi.
Generally speaking, the memorization order is body, feeling, mind, principles and that order is restated in multiple suttas. So it’s much like a pilot’s preflight checklist. Pilot’s don’t skip around their checklists. They go in a consistent order to ensure completeness and avoid mistakes. Doing the same order each time builds up a consistency of practice that helps one discern subtle changes day to day.
I also use consistency in the same way with walking meditation listening to the suttas. Exactly the same path every day. This reinforces memory and understanding.
You can certainly experiment with random orders, but a systematic approach has benefits as well.
I still read it in a non-linear way: when the body is calm, joy is felt, and mind is composed(samadhi).
Rather than: calming the body, once calm, then you must become joyful and then immerse in samadhi.
It has to be put down in some order, and it is put that way because that is the description of the structural order in which those things appear i.e the mind is a much more general thing than form.
By understanding form, the other aggregates will also be automatically understood, because you cannot understand form without understanding the structure in which it arises. Likewise if you understand any one of the other aggregates, the respective others will be understood also.
Doing things systematically is useful, so as not to get confused, I agree, but a systematic approach in regard to things which one does not understand, means that one practices with ignorance and just confounds it.
In other words, if I take it for granted that I do not have the knowledge of a sotapanna , or believe that I have understood what the aggregates are from the start, then I continue to develop ignorance . However,if I try and understand the body with the idea that I do not actually know what the body is, then I can investigate it more carefully.
The body does not appear by itself, alone ( likewise with the other aggregates), it appears as part of a structure, the five aggregates and so knowing one, one knows them all, no matter which aggregate is understood first , so to speak.
A person may approach vipassana investigations through feelings first or mental states etc but either way the whole structure will be known if done correctly, from the first step of knowing that one is in fact ignorant of such things.
There is no progress without that initial authenticity, it is in a way the first step in the right direction.
Rather than assuming that one has already understood the five aggregates and now one must only just practice them in a particular order, or see them in the right ‘sequence’, which will magically transport one into Nibbana.
So in brief what I believe I am saying is:
By understanding the structural order of the aggregates,there is no need for a systematic approach in understanding them.
That they are placed/ written down in that order not because one must first practice with form and then practice with feeling etc but it is a description of the Structure of experience. We cannot separate an aggregate from the others and then investigate it.
These aggregates have appeared all at the same time, thus experience is. Without one there is not the others; " with this, this is". Seeing any one of the dependently arisen aggregates,one sees them all.
Form/body being understood means that one sees it’s dependent nature, one sees paticcasamupada principle, one sees the Dhamma, one is a sotapanna and no matter which aggregate or aspect of experience is then attended to, it will be attended rightly, thus in no long time one will become an arahant.
This is also what I was trying to convey in terms of anapanasati. One needs to understand or have right view in regard to the breath first, and not to breath in particular ways so to induce right view …eventually.
Having a tranquil body for example, doesn’t mean that one has wisdom, or that it will even lead to wisdom. A person high on heroin , or after a hard day of work etc can be quite relaxed and joyful and composed, but it’s all the wrong kind of relaxed joyful composure( not leading to Nibbana). Even if it’s in surroundings of a monastery or being done on a retreat.
Discerning/ knowing the body “rightly”, it is calmed,it is joyful, that discernment being attended to is composure/samadhi. Thus with right view,vipassana and samatha moving alongside each other.
That’s an odd phrasing–it almost implies that scientific research is invalid! 
But I think what you’re asserting is the validity of the intuitive approach over the blind plodding straightforward approach. I agree that relying on a systematic approach alone can be limited and slow. In fact, I do often rely on intuition for rapid traversal of an unknown space. However, I also switch back to systematic for exhaustive, thorough traversal of unknowns. They are actually compatible explorations that work well in combination. However, I’ve too often seen intuitive people give up in despair while systematic plodders chug along towards the goal. People who rely on intuition alone often get frustrated when intuition yields no solution. Because of this, I like to encourage a systematic approach knowing that those who wing it will do just fine when using both techniques.
2 Likes
Correct
No, not at all. I’m advocating an approach that involves understanding and discernment of what is actually experienced, not just doing whatever feels right.
For example: while I am writing this I can at the same time notice in the background that I am breathing. The intention to breath is there, I am not actively attending to it yet there it is, operating and I am still writing,thinking,perceiving , feeling…while breathing is still happening. If that breathing were to stop, everything else would stop also. My other actions and intentions are dependent on that breath which is out of my control (of course I could breath differently if I wanted to),but I cannot choose to not have breathing and continue living.
So while I am doing this writing, there is in the background that which is the ‘nutriment’ for this writing, the breathing.
The writing is dependent on the breathing, my act of writing is not even my own, in that sense.
Both actions and intentions are there at the same time, dependent on each other, seeing in this way reveals anicca,dukkha,and anatta. Since it is seeing the principle of paticcasamupada.
Seeing that principle is not intuitive because it’s apparent here and now, it’s not just an abstract concept. One doesn’t just feel or intuite that things are right, one discerns them rightly.
2 Likes
Interesting. I think perhaps we have slightly different working definitions of “intuition”.
My personal definition of intuition matches what you have described of awareness of breath as you type (same here). I reserve the word “impulse” for “doing what I feel”. I do not trust impulse. In other words I agree that mindful non-prescriptive exploration is the best for practice. Yet it is the scientific method that lends itself best to the sharing of replicable knowledge. To tell another “sit. meditate. be aware of your breath. experience the stillness.” is to define an experiment of replicable knowledge. It is prescriptive because it is literally a part of the prescription for ending suffering.
1 Like
The definition I have for intuition, from a dictionary:
: a natural ability or power that makes it possible to know something without any proof or evidence : a feeling that guides a person to act a certain way without fully understanding why
: something that is known or understood withoutproof or evidence.
In this sense, intuitive practice would be the wrong way to go because it’s impossible that one will uproot conceit by acting out of what one feels, or have the knowledge of Dhamma without seeing the principle of dependent origination as a real enduring phenomenon.
And the scientific method dictionary description:
: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
My dukkha is not an objective theory which is caused by an objective craving. I cannot seperate the two, or experiment with them. I am those things, so to speak. The scientific method is for an objective problem and not a subjective one, it excludes the observer or experimentor.
So I might watch the breath and try find out interesting facts about it, experiment with it, and sometimes I will be calm, sometimes agitatedor even create an interesting methodical game out of it etc but it is only Right breath meditation when it is seen through the principle of dependent origination, or to put it another way, when I see that ’ me,myself and i’ is presently and directly dependent on that present breath of which I am not.
Or its not about gathering ideas and concluding after that “yes, since there are atoms which make up my body therefore it’s impermanent and therefore it must not be mine” but
rather seeing presently that this body has arisen(and thus will cease), it is ‘there’, that I am also ‘here’ arisen and I have not arisen before or after the body, I am here with it at the same time and cannot conceive of a me without it. This direct dependence seen right here correctly is at the same time the knowledge of it, the understanding of it. He knows and sees.
One could prescribe a method but it will be taken as something you do that will sort things out for you, rather than making an effort to see and know presently paticcasamupada, one will do a technique so to magically transport one to understanding later on.
What I am saying in brief is that the right meditation or practice is done only when one understands paticcasamupada, and that there is no ’ right’ meditation before that and so prescribing a method or technique is pointless because it will be done without understanding PS.
Agreed. And how does one recognize a neutral feeling?
I use intuition. What do you do?
By feeling it. I don’t do anything.
If you ask yourself what you are feeling, then you will immediately know the answer because feeling is already there; if it were not there already then you could not ask the question in regard to what you already feel.
One might say ,“well I do not know what I feel”, and that is actually the description of neither pleasant nor unpleasant feeling.
There is no need to try and think(perceive) about it, or try to find it(perceive it), because it is only felt, and never perceived.
One can only re- cognise it because it is already there.
Feeling a feeling is evidence of a feeling and thus it is Known.
Intuition, as in the description - knowing something without proof; is simply assuming something, it remains a theory i.e knowing what feeling is without recognising feeling, means its not really THE knowledge.
We have a different definition of intuition then.
My definition lines up with your “By feeling it. I don’t do anything”
By “intuitive search”, I mean, feel for the unknown ignoring the sense of attraction/repulsion.
Thanks for clarifying your perspective. This will make it easier for me to discuss with others in the future. It appears that impulse and intuition can become entangled in defintion even though I prefer to distinguish. Impulse is Wrong View.
1 Like