Realisation of no self (anatta) would be canonically fit into vipssana meditation whereas mindfulness (sati) is something done for concentration practice
I did a lot of mindfulness sitting practice. We were specifically directed not to attempt concentration. There's more than one kind of mindfulness, and more than one kind of vipassana. I was mainly taught vipassana as something that arises naturally from shamatha; but I've been on courses where it was taught as a systematic exploration of the skhandas, to convince yourself that there is no self in the five skhandas.
I've also been to McMindfulness groups, where they blended shamatha-type mindfulness with guided vipassana meditation. It makes no sense to me, to teach vipassana divorced from the no-self doctrine, and all the abhidharma ideas about the skhandas and the different kinds of consciousness.
Shamatha is "calm abiding", which I think is what the McMindfulness crowd are trying to teach. It should really be treated as a sort of universal preliminary for most other types of meditation. But it's perfectly reasonable to treat shamatha as your main practice (as I did).
I was told that chöd is a specifically Tibetan practice; I don't know what it would be called in Sanskrit. It's a visualisation practice, in which you imagine chopping up your body and your senses, and make an offering of them. I've never tried it; I was told it's scary. I was also told it's sutrayana, although the visualisation makes it sound vajrayana. I guess chöd is a kind of vipassana?
> There's more than one kind of mindfulness, and more than one kind of vipassana
Definitely true, by itself sati/smrti is a hard-to-translate term.
> Shamatha is "calm abiding", which I think is what the McMindfulness crowd are trying to teach. It should really be treated as a sort of universal preliminary for most other types of meditation. But it's perfectly reasonable to treat shamatha as your main practice (as I did).
I am mostly focussing on some breathing mindfulness meditation and some metta, not much, but enough that I feel a calming effect, and I overall am trying to foster some 'buddhist values' in my life.
> I was told that chöd is a specifically Tibetan practice; I don't know what it would be called in Sanskrit. It's a visualisation practice, in which you imagine chopping up your body and your senses, and make an offering of them. I've never tried it; I was told it's scary. I was also told it's sutrayana, although the visualisation makes it sound vajrayana. I guess chöd is a kind of vipassana?
I heard of meditating on your 'own decaying body' definitely from a theravada context, but was overall warned that meditation objects from the imagination are more risky overall for psychological emergencies.
No idea what Bhante Vimalaramsi is. I used the term as a synonym for sravakayana; I think I probably used it incorrectly, it should probably include a lot of mahayana practice (because mahayana sutras). Maybe it just means "practices that don't depend on revealed teachings". At any rate, "not tantrayana".
Ah, Bhante Vimalaramsi is an american monk originally from the theravada tradition who IIRC uses Sutrayana for his take on what the Pali canon says, as he deviates from the theravada interpretation of the text.
