"".. you can begin to evaluate methods more effectively from the point of view of the following question: how into changing your experience are you? How into exploring altered states are you, and how into liberation are you? Because if you're just into liberation, then there may be extremely minimalist methods which can carry you ...""
Hi Jake.
This set of criterion makes a lot of sense. However, I'm pretty sure the ego always feels that its primary objective is liberation, so a lot of honesty and discrimination is required, seems to me, before we accept any assumed answer to those questions. The method Tina and Steve outline is pretty much straight from the Visuddhimagga, and definitely is an intense path if taken to fruition--within the Theravada tradition itself there certainly are more minimalist methods, such as the so-called "dry insight" approach. One thing that should be pointed out: Both Tina and Steve did open-presence meditation of the type that is predominant in the West for 30-odd years before becoming students of Pa Auk Sayadaw. Steve was very into both Dzogchen and Zen. As Kenneth points out, the near enemy of some developmental approaches might well be over-striving or, as you suggest, a preference for altered states. But minimalist approaches, too, have near enemies: One can accept the notion of buddha nature, for example, as a faith statement and just kind of space out . I have a conceptual understanding of anicca, but a hardcore Mahasi-style yogi might have an experiential realization of this that leads to freedom --in actuality. It was tough for Tina and Steve to give a good overview of their approach, given the time constraints they were working with in these podcasts. In their longer and much more slowed down talks, they emphasize balancing factors such as surrender, purification, feminine receptiveness and the notion of jhana, not as a goal, but as a byproduct of developing a peaceful, one-pointed mind.
