Your very helpful advice has been quite appreciated. I guess the model of Vipasana you refer to is:
"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."
Through hearing this brief explanation of the Dhamma from the Blessed One, the mind of Bahiya of the Bark-cloth right then and there was released from the effluents through lack of clinging/sustenance [to “I”, “mine”, “myself”].
I know the bare-attention model of Vipasana is probably based upon the cited paragraph. But I tend to interpret this paragraph as having no self-identification with / no clinging to the five aggregates and the sense objects (no "I-making" and "mine-making"). Please pay special attention to "the mind of Bahiya of the Bark-cloth right then and there was released from the effluents through lack of clinging/sustenance [to “I”, “mine”, “myself”]", no mention through bare-attention or non-subjectivity. I don't really want to start another round of dispute about this topic as my earlier post "Tathata/Tathagata interpretations Vs Mahayana Nirvana?" did in a way. At that time I didn't yet read the following teaching:
"Furthermore, Moggallana, should you train yourself: 'I will speak no confrontational speech.' That is how you should train yourself. When there is confrontational speech, a lot of discussion can be expected. When there is a lot of discussion, there is restlessness. One who is restless becomes unrestrained. Unrestrained, his mind is far from concentration." (AN 7_58)
But I want to be helpful to my dhamma friends, even though I'm only a beginner who knows very little indeed. I hope the friends following bare-attention vipasana won't be offended by my good will. I'm copying my previous post here for your reference:
"To my immature opinion, “Tathata” should probably better be used to penetrate the dependant origination, three characteristics and four noble truths (the Dharma Body of Tathagata), and to end the suffering by detachment to “self”. “Tathata” should probably not be interpreted and used just for obtaining a non-dualistic mind by non-subjectivity of things for the beginners —if used in this way, it could lead to no effort of the beginners for destroying assavas/defilements since assavas would be seen as neither good nor bad but rather void, and one would think s/he is already enlightened to the highest ultimate truth (which is an illusion).
The buddha has taught us to remove notion of “I” & “Mine” in order to remove our attachment to “self” and break the prison of “selfhood”, and finally uproot the assavas and defilements. His teachings are probably not meant to remove our subjective conceptualization and discrimination of all things, which is still necessary especially at the beginning of the practice, before one’s ultimate freedom, for abandoning assavas and defilements. As I understand, we should still have our heads to discriminate what to pursue and what not to pursue, but not the “swollen heads” soaked by “I” & “Mine”
I was kind of misled by the interpretation of "tathata" and "tathagata" into "as it truly is", and was going to try abandoning all subjective conception and discrimination of things, but the Buddha's suttas stopped me doing so and now I'm striving to remove my notion of self instead. I spent so much time on this topic, just want to help ..."