James Baraz talk on Mahasi Sayadaw

www.dharmaseed.org/talks/?q=mahasi
This is interesting, to me at least. Lots of valuable material on the Mahasi technique with some good tips. As I guess is obvious by now I'm fascinated by the "mushroom culture" and am always trying to figure out when things are hidden and when they are not.
Baraz here does mention "the progress of insight" -- the basic "first gear" material -- but in a way kind of avoids giving any detail and doesn't seem to think it is a big deal, and even cautions that getting too caught up with it can make a person obsessed with "progress."

Thanks for posting these, Mike. I started listening to the U Vivekenanda talks.
Binary thinking is interesting. Sometimes I catch myself almost demonizing IMS. "It's not Kenneth or Daniel, so it must be the opposite of them."
IMS presents a lot of different viewpoints and teachers, especially for their retreatants.

Much appreciated MM, I have been laying low and practicing noting for the last few weeks. These talks may be a great supplement to that practice.

It's going well so far; I am very happy with noting, and placing trust in what Kenneth reccomends has been a great help!

jgrrove: I knkow what you mean. I think Kenneth or Daniel would've been "IMS-Spirit Rock" (and they really aren't too far from that culture based upon treachers, experiences, dharma brothers and sisters, retreat activities, etc) if it wasn't for the divergent influence of Bill Hamilton. I think that what is happening for so many people as a result of the teaching of Kenneth and Daniel wouldn't be possible without Hamilton's influence.

"I think that what is happening for so many people as a result of the teaching of Kenneth and Daniel wouldn't be possible without Hamilton's influence. "

Interesting point MM. I think that Bill Hamilton and Ven. U Vivekenanda must have some connection; I seem to recall that the forward of Bill's book has a short write up from U Vivekenanda. I think that's correct, I defitnely remember reading something from U V regarding B H.

I've been reading a lot about and by Mahasi this week. Clearly, he did not believe in treating his students like mushrooms. The path, the maps were always clearly defined by him and he didn't seem to have any problem with laying it all out and he seemed confident that progress was very doable for everyone.
My impression is, also, that most of the prominent Burmese vipasana teachers were similar.
So, what baffles me, then, is how all these Americans and Europeans went to Burma and studied under Mahasi or his students and then come back to their own country and all of a sudden develop this mushroom culture. I really don't get it.

"I've been reading a lot about and by Mahasi this week. Clearly, he did not believe in treating his students like mushrooms. The path, the maps were always clearly defined by him and he didn't seem to have any problem with laying it all out and he seemed confident that progress was very doable for everyone.
My impression is, also, that most of the prominent Burmese vipasana teachers were similar.
So, what baffles me, then, is how all these Americans and Europeans went to Burma and studied under Mahasi or his students and then come back to their own country and all of a sudden develop this mushroom culture. I really don't get it. "

One of the members of our little sitting group in Atlanta has been doing retreats and going to IMS periodically since 1975. He has been reading Kenneth's work a bit through the interviews on the Buddhist Geeks site. He said U Ba Khin would actually put his most advanced yogis in the front of the room! It seems that in Burma they don't have the problem of non-dual fundamentalism at all. There's a lot of talk about Buddhist exam scores, yogic attainment and so on. Sure, there have to be shadow sides to that, but I agree--the divergence is pretty stark.
Mark had some very illuminating stuff to say in one thread about some of the vinaya rules and how they might have contributed to the reticence. Burma's geographic proximity to the epicenter of early Buddhism might be part of it as well--the early, no-nonsense culture of attainment might have been preserved more completely as a result of this. Now, Nikolai talks about how even the Goenka people are very averse to talking about attainment. Isn't that an U Ba Khin lineage? Puzzling...

"Much appreciated MM, I have been laying low and practicing noting for the last few weeks. These talks may be a great supplement to that practice. "

That's awesome, Mark!

I wanted to ask a noting question based on what U Vivekenanda was saying near the end of his lecture. He's mentioned that each note consists of three parts:

1) The arising itself with is spontainous and requires no effort on the part of the meditatior.
2) The noting of the arising by the meditator (labeling)
3) Seeing the nature of the arising (which he said can be examined/understood in a huge avriety of ways: 4 elements, 4 foundations, 3C's, 5 Skhandas, ect).

I was just wondering about what he was saying; I have never heard noting describe in just that way (that each incident exists in 3 parts), also where exactly does the objectification and disembedding take place?