Mindfulness of defilements - gently accept or vanquish?

[Sylvester]

1. I have to confess i still don't get the dwellings bit. May i trouble you to dwell on it and elaborate? Are you saying that viharati is a verbal noun? That is unlikely, as a form is available in Pali to convey this.

It looked like "dwelling" was being used to mean a participial action -- nominalization of period of abiding, in this case a pondering / contemplating on a Sati=patthana, I guess -- and hence the reference to the verb vihati. Your critique seemed to take "dwelling" as the noun for a place of residing, a house, monastery, or whatnot (i.e. as you put it, vihara).

Ah, that's clearer now. As I was pointing out to TV, a "dwelling" as in a substantive noun would have been the upaṭṭhāna within the compound satipaṭṭhāna. We see it used adverbally as such -

parimukhaṃ satiṃ upaṭṭhapetvā

having established mindfulness to the fore

2a See the CPD entry

What's "CPD"? so I can look at it.

Here you go - http://pali.hum.ku.dk/cpd/

The Critical Pali Dictionary is a lovely tool, as it stratifies the lexicography of Pali words according to the Vinaya first, then the suttas, then the Abhidhamma, and then the post-canonical works.

2b You'll have to read the entire Timeless Model of PS thread for my arguments on grammatical grounds and textual grounds as to the meaning of the existential locative absolute used in This-That Conditionality. That reading circumvents all of the "association" limitations imposed by Hume's Fork on "cause" and "effect".

If I read that (where it is?) will you read the J. Pearl essay?

Pearl's work is not an essay - it's 400 pages! But having gone through L.G. Neuberg's review and reading Cap. 9 of the work, it appears to be a work directed at scientists and jurists. It deals with the inferential method called Induction, ie how probable was A the "cause" of B. Am I correct in this? If so, that will have little bearing on the non-scientific conception of "causation" that pre-occupied us in the Timeless Model thread, since that was a discussion of what must necessarily be true, instead of the scientific community's acceptance of what is probably true. I particularly like Example 2 in section 9.3.2 regarding the firing squad with 2 gunmen. The statistical dis-proof of Shooter A being a necessary condition, when Shooter B is a sufficient condition, can be contrasted to Example 4 in section 9.3.4 which established that a particular drug was the cause of death, because the probability of that drug being a necessary condition was 1. As statistics does not play a role in the suttas, I think it will be difficult to import Pearl's discussion into conversations on Dependant Arising. The view I expressed in the Timeless Model thread was that This-That Conditionality is a retrospective search for necessary conditions, leading to my disagreement with translations and interpretations such as Ven T's.

If by "association" you mean statistical association and probability, I would disagree that Buddhist causation is probabilistic, as the texts appear clear to me to be taking idappaccayatā to be certain (ie having a probability of 1), even if it is not strictly deterministic.

If you're still interested in wading into the said thread, here it is - http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=26072

3 -

Saddhassa hi, sāriputta, ariyasāvakassa ārad­dha­vīriyassa upaṭṭhi­tas­satino etaṃ pāṭikaṅkhaṃ yaṃ vos­saggā­rammaṇaṃ karitvā labhissati samādhiṃ, labhissati cittassa ekaggataṃ

I'll try to take that apart. Where's it from? I couldn't find it in the Pali (at SN 48.50) -- was the identification before correct (SN 48.50, and not SN 46.56 that was mentioned just prior)?

It's definitely there - https://suttacentral.net/pi/sn48.50. You popped into SN 48.58 by mistake.

[cjmacie]

2b You'll have to read the entire Timeless Model of PS thread for my arguments on grammatical grounds and textual grounds as to the meaning of the existential locative absolute used in This-That Conditionality. That reading circumvents all of the "association" limitations imposed by Hume's Fork on "cause" and "effect".

If I read that (where it is?) will you read the J. Pearl essay?

Pearl's work is not an essay - it's 400 pages! ...

As I think I specified, only the "Epilogue" -- just 28 pages, but a classic, broad-ranging historical and analytical overview; here's the PDF:
http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/BOOK-2K/causal ... ilogue.pdf

(I'll get the to the other sub-topics in time...)

[cjmacie]

Guarding and restraining the internal faculties; and denourishing the hindrances and nurturing the enlightenment factors, are not what I would call passive attitudes.

That does sound like a paraphrase of the canonical, so to speak, definition of Right Effort.

[cjmacie]

J. Pearl's writing…

As statistics does not play a role in the suttas, I think it will be difficult to import Pearl's discussion into conversations on Dependant Arising.

Seconding that. Pearl's perspective can rather shed some light on "causation" in the modern mind, factors of which probably condition the reader's interpretation of "cause" when read in a translation (into modern language and the connotations carried thereby). Recognizing our native language biases as filters (as well as being able to consider the Pali) has proven invaluable in my quest towards getting closer to what was intended.

The view I expressed in the Timeless Model thread was that This-That Conditionality is a retrospective search for necessary conditions, leading to my disagreement with translations and interpretations such as Ven T's.

Looking forward to checking that out.

If by "association" you mean statistical association and probability, I would disagree that Buddhist causation is probabilistic, as the texts appear clear to me to be taking idappaccayatā to be certain (ie having a probability of 1), even if it is not strictly deterministic.

By "association" I mean the sense embodied in classical Chinese medicine (roughly contemporary with the formulation of the Pali Canon) as to the plex of factors resulting in (and clear understanding of which is key to resolving) human "medical" dukkha (which was not limited to the physical) – where "…to be certain … even if not strictly deterministic" also fits well.

Statistics, as mind-game all-too-susceptible to "conformation bias" – Dr. John Ionnidis's writings have gone a long way, IMO, towards putting that in proper perspective.

[tiltbillings]

Guarding and restraining the internal faculties; and denourishing the hindrances and nurturing the enlightenment factors, are not what I would call passive attitudes.

That does sound like a paraphrase of the canonical, so to speak, definition of Right Effort.

And it is what is taught in the vipassana traditions.

[L.N.]

I am at a party right now. Nice people, good food.

Oh!, look at this wonderful little cake, the waitress is offering me. Am I going to grasp it?
Nah! I have already eaten wisely.
I have to be moderated with food, anyway. I have to control myself.
I'll let it go, mindfully.

Funny, at first I thought you were actually posting while at a party, and I thought, how thoughtful to respond even though he is busy.

From the perspective of mindfulness, when the waiter presents the wonderful little cake, my practice would be neither to accept nor decline. Depending on the stage of my practice, I may do the following: Watch what the waiter does. Is he persistent? Is he sweet, or is he rude? How long does he stick around? And then notice when he leaves.

Alternatively, I might do the following: Ignore the waiter and the cake, and attend instead to the breath.

From your posts here, it sounds as though your practice might be as follows: Say no to the waitress. Say no to the cake. Make efforts to control the situation so that the cake is taken away. Although now I am not sure, as you now frame the process as "let it go." Which to me seems gentle.

P.S.
I hope this is clearly stated; because English is not my native language; nor do I live in an English speaking country.

This explains a lot, thank you.

[ToVincent]

Guarding and restraining the internal faculties; and denourishing the hindrances and nurturing the enlightenment factors, are not what I would call passive attitudes.

That does sound like a paraphrase of the canonical, so to speak, definition of Right Effort.

That's a bit vague.
Would you have some references of the canonical, that this particular paraphrase is right effort?
I have this definition; but maybe you could provide us with something else.

Friends, what is right effort? Here, the bhikkhu arouses interest, puts forth effort and makes the mind spring forward. For the non arising of non-arisen evil thoughts of demerit, for the dispelling of arisen evil thoughts of demerit, for the arousing of non arisen thoughts of merit and for the non deluded establishment, development and completion of arisen thoughts of merit. This is called right effort.
MN 141

This definition is also a little bit vague, as far as my "paraphrase" is concerned; I mean as far as the hindrances especially, are concerned. Moreover, I see no enlightenment factors in that.

Anyway, when an hindrance comes in satipaṭṭhāna, where does it says not to act with it with right effort, in the canonical?
Does the noble eightfold path stops at mindfulness. Do we have to dispense with sammādiṭṭhi-right view, sammāsaṅkappo-right thought, sammāvācā-right speech, sammākammanto-right action, and sammā-ājīvo-right livelihood; because right effort has been done away with?
Do we have to dispense with right thought, once we have come up with right speech, for instance?
And can't we have still a bad thought; while we are working on right speech.

Again, MN 125 is clear about a mindfulness proper to the ("accomplished"?) removal of the preliminary hindrances; with I guess right effort involved.
Ātāpī (ardent), seems to deal with right effort also, considering its definition, in a sutta that is a purely Theravada one (as stated previouly in another post).

But why are there hindrances that pop up when you reach the dwelling in the dhammas (fourth tetrad)?
For what reason a thing comes up, if it has been thoroughly eradicated through the "accomplishment" of right effort, (or mindfulness as in MN 125)?

And why should you let them without restraint?
What would be the purpose of getting rid of the preliminary hindrances mindfully (like in MN 125), or with right effort; if it is to let them come back full speed; without intervention?
That is for me the epitome of a strange logic.

Anyway, I see that you don't read me; and that I will have to repeat myself endlessly.

Now, If you were to give me a good reason why I should let the hindrances, or even an unpleasant feeling, (like in the second tetrad), without intervening, that would be nice.

If it is just to tell me that there will be more of this bad feeling, as the anusayas will lie within me; I don't see the point.
It also goes for a pleasant feeling that would get more potent, with the ensuing anusaya of lust adding to it.
?!?!?

But I know one guy who would be interested in that outcome. That's for sure.

[ToVincent]

From your posts here, it sounds as though your practice might be as follows: Say no to the waitress. Say no to the cake. Make efforts to control the situation so that the cake is taken away.

Indeed, I would handle the pleasant feeling associated with the cake, with restraint, by refusing it, (if I have already eaten moderately before).
And I i had not yet eaten, I would restrain myself beyond the taste.
But that's my kamma.

Metta.

[mikenz66]

Guarding and restraining the internal faculties; and denourishing the hindrances and nurturing the enlightenment factors, are not what I would call passive attitudes.

That does sound like a paraphrase of the canonical, so to speak, definition of Right Effort.

That's a bit vague.
Would you have some references of the canonical, that this particular paraphrase is right effort?
I have this definition; but maybe you could provide us with something else.

Friends, what is right effort? Here, the bhikkhu arouses interest, puts forth effort and makes the mind spring forward. For the non arising of non-arisen evil thoughts of demerit, for the dispelling of arisen evil thoughts of demerit, for the arousing of non arisen thoughts of merit and for the non deluded establishment, development and completion of arisen thoughts of merit. This is called right effort.
MN 141

This definition is also a little bit vague, as far as my "paraphrase" is concerned; I mean as far as the hindrances especially, are concerned. Moreover, I see no enlightenment factors in that.

Anyway, when an hindrance comes in satipaṭṭhāna, where does it says not to act with it with right effort, in the canonical?
....

Perhaps the confusion is over the time scale. If one takes the view that such statements are all about "the here and now", that "timeless" means "immediate", and so on, then there will be a tendency to think that the dispelling has to happen immediately - we have to dispel the defilements NOW...

On the other hand, if one sees the dispelling as a long-term project, then spending some time investigating how such things arise and cease and so on will seem more like "right effort".


Mike

[ToVincent]

Perhaps the confusion is over the time scale. If one takes the view that such statements are all about "the here and now", that "timeless" means "immediate", and so on, then there will be a tendency to think that the dispelling has to happen immediately - we have to dispel the defilements NOW...

On the other hand, if one sees the dispelling as a long-term project, then spending some time investigating how such things arise and cease and so on will seem more like "right effort".

Hi,

Sorry, but that does not answer the question:
"Does satipaṭṭhāna involve no intervention (gentle acceptance); or does it involve vanquishing (guarding/restraining)?.


I see logic in:
Let something go; and then restrain it.
like in: "smoke these two packs of cigarettes; then stop smoking".

But I don't see any logic in:
Restrain something; then let it go.
Like in: "stop smoking; and then, smoke these two packs in a row".
That is ludicrous.

Unless you want to get addicted.
Which the entertainment and pharmaceutical industries (pleasure/pain) would certainly agree with.
But I don't think they kammas are intrinsically Buddhist.

You don't restrain pleasurable feelings with right effort (NOW or BEFORE or WHILE/ONGOING), to let them go full speed (with absolutely no restraint) later on.
There is no logic into that, if you have to get rid of the defilements (FETTER (samyojana) - HINDRANCE (nivarana) - TAINT (asava) - UNDERLYING TENDENCY (anusaya) - UNSKILLFUL MENTAL QUALITIES (akusalehi dhammehi)).


Moreover, the noble eightfold path is a progressive refinement, which goal is to get rid of all the defilements; the last ones being lobha, moha, dosa.
Why would the last but one process, be something so against that refinement process - Why would it be such a backward process?

The restraint which is an ongoing process, since link one of the Noble Eightfold Path; applies to the remnants of the defilements in satipaṭṭhana. Or at least to some lessened properties of the observed object.

It sounds more logical than something like this:
"well I have done all this work to stop smoking; but I am going to smoke these two packs in a row, now. Just to help me stop better.".

---

Moreover, in MN 18 & SN 54.13, [mindfulness of breathing (Ānāpānasati) - Dhammas' dwelling,] where there is no dwelling in the hindrances and the internal & external bases (sense spheres-ajjhattikabāhira āyatana), there is a training in the focus on dispassion, cessation and relinquishment. Before going, as it is done in satipaṭṭhāna, towards the dwelling in the seven enlightnment factors (bojjhaṅga).

Why relinquisment?

It is not because you are anupassiing the paṭinissagga (relinquishment) that there is no relinquishment going on. You could as well be contemplating/observing (anupassi) yourself lifting weight.
Is there no control in lifting weight?

Anyway, why rejection/renunciation/relinquishment if you are supposed to "gently accept" everything.
Another strange logic.

This theory of non-intervention does not hold at all.
And the reasons given are always so fuzzy; compared to the hard facts of the theory of restraint; which have dozens of hard facted truths in the suttas (with parallels), as above.
Read me again.
Please.

[santa100]

Not sure why "gently accept" and "vanquish" have to be mutually opposite approaches for they should both require right effort. They can be useful strategies in one's Dhamma toolbox. Just like at a battle front while facing a strong ferocious enemy army, 1 single line of defense simply won't cut it. Depending on the strong/weak points of the geography, the dynamic/situation on the ground, etc. there'd be time and place for exploring/reconnaissance, absorbing, and counterstrike. Do whatever is necessary for at the end of day, all that matters is the end result: has one able to successfully hold his ground and prevent the enemy from overwhelming his position? Similarly for the cake example, thru outright rejection, or gently accept and pass it on, or whatever...at the end of the day, it all comes down to: did that 500-calorie cake end up sitting inside one's belly?

[Sylvester]

I have this definition; but maybe you could provide us with something else.

Friends, what is right effort? Here, the bhikkhu arouses interest, puts forth effort and makes the mind spring forward. For the non arising of non-arisen evil thoughts of demerit, for the dispelling of arisen evil thoughts of demerit, for the arousing of non arisen thoughts of merit and for the non deluded establishment, development and completion of arisen thoughts of merit. This is called right effort.
MN 141

This definition is also a little bit vague, as far as my "paraphrase" is concerned; I mean as far as the hindrances especially, are concerned. Moreover, I see no enlightenment factors in that.

Anyway, when an hindrance comes in satipaṭṭhāna, where does it says not to act with it with right effort, in the canonical?

But where in the Satipaṭṭhānā Suttas does it say to apply Right Effort? If you're going to fall back on your ātāpī argument again, you're demanding that the suttas be understand by their English translations, instead of what ātāpī implies in Pali.

Let me ask you a simple question - does a Non-Returner keep "doing" Non-Return? Like ātāpī, the Non-Returner is described by another substantive noun in the nominative case, ie anāgāmī from the adjective anāgāmin (not returning). Persisting in misunderstanding this simple point in Pali and demanding that ātāpī implies exerting oneself in satipaṭṭhāna to destroy the defilements misses the point completely. An ātāpī (a person accomplished in ardency) is called as such, as he has already fulfilled the vineyya loke abhij­jhā­do­manas­saṃ qualification through sense-restraint. What is left for him to do when he has given up grief and covetousness with reference to the world is to establish mindfulness.

The suttas gives 4 loci where mindfulness is to be developed. But more importantly, we have this very important signpost in SN 46.51 on how to nourish the Awakening Factors and denourish the hindrances - yoniso­ma­nasikā­ra (attention that goes to the source). Where exactly in SN 46.51 is one supposed to get rid of the defilements, when it is enough to allow yoniso­ma­nasikā­ra to denourish them?

Does the noble eightfold path stops at mindfulness. Do we have to dispense with sammādiṭṭhi-right view, sammāsaṅkappo-right thought, sammāvācā-right speech, sammākammanto-right action, and sammā-ājīvo-right livelihood; because right effort has been done away with?
Do we have to dispense with right thought, once we have come up with right speech, for instance?
And can't we have still a bad thought; while we are working on right speech.

While you may find it incredible, parts of the Noble Eightfold Path will disappear as one gets into more refined practices. Eg

SN 36.11 - speech has ceased in 1st Jhana, let alone Right Speech
MN 78 - Right Intention has ceased in 2nd Jhana
DN 9 - even mental kamma has ceased in the Jhanas, as thinking and intending brings one crashing out of an attainment.
AN 3.101 - thoughts about the Dhamma must disappear, in order for one to be able to hold back the hindrances without will.

What's the big deal about Right Effort ceasing at the right time?

But why are there hindrances that pop up when you reach the dwelling in the dhammas (fourth tetrad)?
For what reason a thing comes up, if it has been thoroughly eradicated through the "accomplishment" of right effort, (or mindfulness as in MN 125)?

Because Right Effort can only eradicate certain types of gross roots. Just as in a Jhana, certain latent tendencies cannot anuseti (MN 44), in the same way, sense restraint can lead to the eradication of certains types of obsessions that are activated by the anusayas. But, applying Right Effort when one is trying to be established in mindfulness is simply nourishing the hindrance of ill-will. There is simply no way one can pretend that any form of intention or effort founded in extermination (instead of understanding and the brahmavihāras) is not the latent tendency of aversion anuseti-ing. Right Effort is essential, but beyond a certain point, it becomes part of a vicious cycle that feeds aversion.

And why should you let them without restraint?
What would be the purpose of getting rid of the preliminary hindrances mindfully (like in MN 125), or with right effort; if it is to let them come back full speed; without intervention?
That is for me the epitome of a strange logic.

Because you are using the wrong tools.

Now, If you were to give me a good reason why I should let the hindrances, or even an unpleasant feeling, (like in the second tetrad), without intervening, that would be nice.

Actually, all of the meditation teachers I know teach "bare attention" to mean "without craving", instead of "without intervention". Even being equanimous towards the hindrance is an intention, an intervention.

[ToVincent]

I have this definition; but maybe you could provide us with something else.

Friends, what is right effort? Here, the bhikkhu arouses interest, puts forth effort and makes the mind spring forward. For the non arising of non-arisen evil thoughts of demerit, for the dispelling of arisen evil thoughts of demerit, for the arousing of non arisen thoughts of merit and for the non deluded establishment, development and completion of arisen thoughts of merit. This is called right effort.
MN 141

This definition is also a little bit vague, as far as my "paraphrase" is concerned; I mean as far as the hindrances especially, are concerned. Moreover, I see no enlightenment factors in that.

Anyway, when an hindrance comes in satipaṭṭhāna, where does it says not to act with it with right effort, in the canonical?

But where in the Satipaṭṭhānā Suttas does it say to apply Right Effort? If you're going to fall back on your ātāpī argument again, you're demanding that the suttas be understand by their English translations, instead of what ātāpī implies in Pali.

Let me ask you a simple question - does a Non-Returner keep "doing" Non-Return? Like ātāpī, the Non-Returner is described by another substantive noun in the nominative case, ie anāgāmī from the adjective anāgāmin (not returning). Persisting in misunderstanding this simple point in Pali and demanding that ātāpī implies exerting oneself in satipaṭṭhāna to destroy the defilements misses the point completely. An ātāpī (a person accomplished in ardency) is called as such, as he has already fulfilled the vineyya loke abhij­jhā­do­manas­saṃ qualification through sense-restraint. What is left for him to do when he has given up grief and covetousness with reference to the world is to establish mindfulness.

The suttas gives 4 loci where mindfulness is to be developed. But more importantly, we have this very important signpost in SN 46.51 on how to nourish the Awakening Factors and denourish the hindrances - yoniso­ma­nasikā­ra (attention that goes to the source). Where exactly in SN 46.51 is one supposed to get rid of the defilements, when it is enough to allow yoniso­ma­nasikā­ra to denourish them?

Does the noble eightfold path stops at mindfulness. Do we have to dispense with sammādiṭṭhi-right view, sammāsaṅkappo-right thought, sammāvācā-right speech, sammākammanto-right action, and sammā-ājīvo-right livelihood; because right effort has been done away with?
Do we have to dispense with right thought, once we have come up with right speech, for instance?
And can't we have still a bad thought; while we are working on right speech.

While you may find it incredible, parts of the Noble Eightfold Path will disappear as one gets into more refined practices. Eg

SN 36.11 - speech has ceased in 1st Jhana, let alone Right Speech
MN 78 - Right Intention has ceased in 2nd Jhana
DN 9 - even mental kamma has ceased in the Jhanas, as thinking and intending brings one crashing out of an attainment.
AN 3.101 - thoughts about the Dhamma must disappear, in order for one to be able to hold back the hindrances without will.

What's the big deal about Right Effort ceasing at the right time?

But why are there hindrances that pop up when you reach the dwelling in the dhammas (fourth tetrad)?
For what reason a thing comes up, if it has been thoroughly eradicated through the "accomplishment" of right effort, (or mindfulness as in MN 125)?

Because Right Effort can only eradicate certain types of gross roots. Just as in a Jhana, certain latent tendencies cannot anuseti (MN 44), in the same way, sense restraint can lead to the eradication of certains types of obsessions that are activated by the anusayas. But, applying Right Effort when one is trying to be established in mindfulness is simply nourishing the hindrance of ill-will. There is simply no way one can pretend that any form of intention or effort founded in extermination (instead of understanding and the brahmavihāras) is not the latent tendency of aversion anuseti-ing. Right Effort is essential, but beyond a certain point, it becomes part of a vicious cycle that feeds aversion.

And why should you let them without restraint?
What would be the purpose of getting rid of the preliminary hindrances mindfully (like in MN 125), or with right effort; if it is to let them come back full speed; without intervention?
That is for me the epitome of a strange logic.

Because you are using the wrong tools.

Now, If you were to give me a good reason why I should let the hindrances, or even an unpleasant feeling, (like in the second tetrad), without intervening, that would be nice.

Actually, all of the meditation teachers I know teach "bare attention" to mean "without craving", instead of "without intervention". Even being equanimous towards the hindrance is an intention, an intervention.

Sure! if this is your kamma.

But don't misinterpret me.

"That" practice is not "my" practice.

[ToVincent]

Let's recap:

Some people say that you should not intervene in satipaṭṭhāna (MN 10).
However in the body dwelling it is said:
- calming bodily fabrication (passambhayaṃ kāyasaṅkhāraṃ)

In MN 18 and SN 54.13 (breath sati), the meditator is:
- calming mental fabrication (passambhayaṃ cittasaṅkhāraṃ)
- satisfying the mind (abhippamodayaṃ cittaṃ)
- steadying the mind (amādahaṃ cittaṃ)

In MN 10 & MN 119 (body sati),
- The (very important) perception of foulness Kāyānupassanā-paṭikūlamanasikārapabba ask that you look at each component (hair, teeth, nails,...). They are not just presenting themselves to you.
- Same thing for the (very important) analysis of the 4 elements Kāyānupassanā-dhātumanasikārapabba. They just don't jump at your face like that.
- Same thing for the (also very important) nine charnel ground contemplations
Kāyānupassanā-navasivathikapabba. The "as though he were to see a corpse" implies some willful imaginative power.

In MN 18 and SN 54.13 - but not in MN 10:
- The dwelling in feelings implies that:
There is **training** in breathing sensitive to rapture, to pleasure and mental processes; which implies a willful focus on each. And on calming the mental processes.

- The dwelling in Mind (citta) implies that:
There is a **training** in satisfying, steadying and releasing the mind.

- The dwelling in phenomena (dhamma) implies that:
There is **training** in breathing focusing on dispassion, cessation and relinquishment.
In MN 10, non-arisen hindrances that have arisen, do not get "dispelled" by the spiritus sanctus intervention; but by "pahāna-ting" them (pahāna = abandonment).
Same thing for the arisen bonds between the six internal and internal bases (sense spheres).
In MN 18 and SN 54.13, the seven factors of enlightenment ask for a development, and MN 10 speaks about perfecting them.

On the other hand, for instance, the anupassi (observation/contemplation) of the five aggregates ask for no effort or intervention at all. It is pure contemplation of their arising and fading (origin and disappearance).
Although I am not sure that the all MN 28 would not apply here.
The removal of desire and lust, the abandonment of desire and lust for these five aggregates affected by clinging is the cessation of suffering.
Yo imesu pañcasu upādānakkhandhesu chandarāgavinayo chandarāgappahānaṃ so dukkhanirodho’ti.


-----

I think that this should be enough to state that in satipaṭṭhāna, as well as in the other meditations, it is not just about to "gently accept" the things as they come.
There is "intention and effort founded" in calming, satisfying, steadying, focusing, discerning, selecting, ceasing, relinquishing, etc., instead of just "understanding and the brahmavihāras".

As far as the road of the brahmavihāras is concerned, I would read DN 19 very carefully; because "that" practice, does not seem to be "Buddha's" practice.
I have read and practiced Veda, and I do have a great respect for the "God of Love" (Brahma); but this path seems to be a very risky one, for those who haven't yet known thoroughly their previous lives.
And what's the use anyway in taking a longer and riskier path?

[ToVincent]

Suppose, bhikkhus, that in a wooded range there was a great low-lying marsh near which a large herd of deer lived. Then a man appeared desiring their ruin, harm, and bondage, and he closed off the safe and good path to be traveled joyfully, and he opened up a false path, and he put out a decoy and set up a dummy so that the large herd of deer might later come upon calamity, disaster, and loss. But another man came desiring their good, welfare, and protection, and he reopened the safe and good path that led to their happiness, and he closed off the false path, and he removed the decoy and destroyed the dummy, so that the large herd of deer might later come to growth, increase, and fulfilment.

Picking the sign of your own mind:
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn19/5-11

As I abided thus, diligent, ardent, and resolute, a thought of sensual desire arose in me. I understood thus: ‘This thought of sensual desire has arisen in me. This leads to my own affliction, to others’ affliction, and to the affliction of both; it obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna.’ When I considered: ‘This leads to my own affliction,’ it subsided in me; when I considered: ‘This leads to others’ affliction,’ it subsided in me; when I considered: ‘This leads to the affliction of both,’ it subsided in me; when I considered: ‘This obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna,’ it subsided in me. Whenever a thought of sensual desire arose in me, I abandoned it, removed it, did away with it.

Bhikkhus, when a bhikkhu is pursuing the higher mind (four jhanas), from time to time he should give attention to five signs. What are the five?
“Here, bhikkhus, when a bhikkhu is giving attention to some sign, and owing to that sign there arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion, then he should give attention to some other sign connected with what is wholesome. When he gives attention to some other sign connected with what is wholesome, then any evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion are abandoned in him and subside. With the abandoning of them his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated...
MN 20