Technique question on noting doubles, triples, and quads

I was playing today with noting doubles and triplets. This has always been extremely challenging for me, so much so that I haven't pursued it very often, and usually give up fairly quickly.

It occurred to me that perhaps I've misunderstood the technique.

When noting a triplet, for example, is each note supposed to relate to the same triggering sensation, or are the notes simply done in order, and do not necessarily refer to the same trigger?

I can see where each method can have benefits, but I'm curious as to what the original intent was, and also what people actually do.

Done in order, not necessarily for the same trigger. Whatever you are experiencing in real time is what you are basing your noting on. Typically the first 2 are usually related, but the mind-state and thoughts are often, if not usually, independent for me.

"Done in order, not necessarily for the same trigger. Whatever you are experiencing in real time is what you are basing your noting on. Typically the first 2 are usually related, but the mind-state and thoughts are often, if not usually, independent for me."

Tends to be exactly like that for me too.
I heard on a recording with Kenneth that he tends to note 1&2 fairly quickly together.
But I doubt that doing it another way, say for unrelated triggers or further apart in time is "wrong" as long as you are present.
I actually slow down if I just automatically attach for instance "unpleasant" to "pain" so I get to notice if it really was unpleasant

Same for me. Mostly duples are related: sensation and the corresponding vedana. If I'm feeling aversion or desire in relation to it I might note that too, e.g., itching-unpleasant-aversion if there's unpleasant itching and I wish it would go away.

"I actually slow down if I just automatically attach for instance "unpleasant" to "pain" so I get to notice if it really was unpleasant
"

That's interesting. I often feel like the current vedana is neutral even regarding pain or itching etc. Sometimes something is clearly unpleasant, like shame or anxiety. I used to think predominance of neutral might come from going to a number of retreats when I was younger and learning to surrender to &/or welcome pain as a strong concentration or investigation object. But then I read once, pretty sure, where Kenneth said neutral just might not be looking closely enough, that underneath neutral might actually be subtle pleasant or unpleasant, or maybe it was preference or aversion. To my level of discernment (or lack of it) it doesn't automatically seem like pain is unpleasant. What do you find, meekan, when you check that out?

Another possibility is, I heard Sharon Salzberg once say that vedanas correspond to personality types. Some people are predominantly aversion/anger types, others preference/greed/clinging types, and others ignorance types which = neutral

Whether I Feel equanimous to an itch or I feel aversion, it always seems unpleasant. I know a pain is not nice even when I don't react to it. Pain is never neutral forr me. Something like pressure can be neutral some times, unpleasant at others.

If it's axiomatic that pain is unpleasant I think meekan was
pointing out that could lead to noting on automatic. So, I was
interested in what he said about noticing whether it was
really unpleasant. Sometimes with mild, unthreatening pain,
I don't succeed in finding a clear, stand-alone unpleasantness
to note. But I'll try checking that out more closely.

"Another possibility is, I heard Sharon Salzberg once say that vedanas correspond to personality types. Some people are predominantly aversion/anger types, others preference/greed/clinging types, and others ignorance types which = neutral "

Kachappa, I'm guessing that Sharon wasn't talking about vedana there. Vedana is a kind of natural fact that arises along with each sensation. So any given sensation in any given moment is either pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. Personality types, on the other hand, are said to correspond to the three "unwholesome roots" of lobha (greed), dosa (aversion, anger), and moha (delusion, dullness). Notice that although vedana is just "the way it is" each time it arises, your reaction to it, i.e., your mind state, will vary according to conditions. So in one moment you may react to an unpleasant sensation with aversion while in another moment you may react to an equally unpleasant sensation with equanimity.

"That's interesting. I often feel like the current vedana is neutral even regarding pain or itching etc. Sometimes something is clearly unpleasant, like shame or anxiety. I used to think predominance of neutral might come from going to a number of retreats when I was younger and learning to surrender to &/or welcome pain as a strong concentration or investigation object. But then I read once, pretty sure, where Kenneth said neutral just might not be looking closely enough, that underneath neutral might actually be subtle pleasant or unpleasant, or maybe it was preference or aversion. To my level of discernment (or lack of it) it doesn't automatically seem like pain is unpleasant. What do you find, meekan, when you check that out?"

I hope I understand your question..?
What I think sometimes happens is that I really notice a bodily sensation, but I have attached for instance "unpleasant" to it so many times I start saying it like an automaton. Almost as if the pair "pain-unpleasant" has become an expression.

What I do then is just slow down, to find that which I believe Kenneth speaks about in post 8.
Sometimes a pain can be sort of neutral. This doesn't mean that my intellectual understanding of pain is different, just that the tone I attach to it at that moment.
So it's an effort to go from automatic to present.
Hope it makes sense?

Same here: it took me a while to really give doubles, triplets, quads a decent try, but since a couple of weeks I find quads really helpful. Mind states used to go by unnoticed a lot before and I'm still stalling there often before noting that as "investigation".

I agree with the others about noting what is actually present in stead of relating each note to the same trigger.

The past days I pay close attention to what my meditation "needs", sometimes it's quads, sometimes it's random noting. Have fun!

"Vedana is a kind of natural fact that arises along with each sensation. So any given sensation in any given moment is either pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. Personality types, on the other hand, are said to correspond to the three "unwholesome roots" of lobha (greed), dosa (aversion, anger), and moha (delusion, dullness). Notice that although vedana is just "the way it is" each time it arises, your reaction to it, i.e., your mind state, will vary according to conditions. So in one moment you may react to an unpleasant sensation with aversion while in another moment you may react to an equally unpleasant sensation with equanimity."

Thanks, Kenneth. Been in motels and airports for work but tried checking this out more questioningly, less assuming. Didn't realize before how much I was doing the doubles part by rote.

"Whether I Feel equanimous to an itch or I feel aversion, it always seems unpleasant. I know a pain is not nice even when I don't react to it. Pain is never neutral forr me. Something like pressure can be neutral some times, unpleasant at others. "

Thanks, mumuwu. Tried checking this out lately and it seems for me there is a (low) threshold where a minor, passing pain might be on the neutral side instead of unpleasant. Did notice, though, that sometimes when vedana seems neutral, the pain apparently triggers subtle tension somewhere in the body. Sounds like what meekan said in 9 is close to my current perception of vedana. Actually sometimes when I label pain "neutral" it's pinning a label on absence of pleasant or unpleasant. I can't find a neutral thing aside from the pain and the mind state or thought.

As per the folks above, most of the time I don't refer to the same trigger. Sometimes they DO come from the same trigger, and that can be informative. Or I can find that a mind state associated with a given sensation has already changed by the time I've noted the sensation and the vedana.

Sometimes, more in the spirit of general investigation than of strict noting, I reverse order. I note a mind state, then I inquire: "How can I tell that I have this mind state?" As it has worked out so far, I always have to look to sensation for the answer to that question...