Re: insight meditation society and joy of living

Erin
This is a good question and not so easy to answer as there are many teachers who teach at IMS and their different styles of teaching vary considerably. However, given that I lived and practice there for many years and spent time in Burma practicing in the Mahasi method of Theravada vipassana, I would make the following comments.
From my experience most schools of Theravada vipassana place great emphasis on the object of awareness and specifically examining one’s experience to see the three characteristics, or marks, of all experience, impermanence (anicca), unsatisfactoriness (dukkha), and non-self (anatta), or what I prefer to call not-self. This is true for most methods that come from Burma or Sri Lanka. There is a very different approach in the Thai forest tradition.
Seeing clearly these characteristics is key to developing insight and attaining stages of enlightenment. Much more could be said about that, but I don’t see the need to here.
Mingyur Rinpoche on the other hand starts with ‘open awareness’, or shamatha without abject. He shows us how awareness is the basis of meditation. It is ever present, innate and part of our basic goodness. He then goes onto skillfully teach us how to use any experience as support for our awareness. The emphasis is always on awareness, not the object or its characteristics.
This is important because recognizing awareness in any or all situations, even short times, many times as he is fond of saying, is an important preparation for the recognition of nature of mind, our true nature, the ultimate goal, recognizing our buddha nature.
That is the main difference as I see it. In this way the Theravada method can be considered a causal vehicle and the Mahamudra method a resultant vehicle. Of course a lot more could be said, but I feel that is enough for now.
Edwin