Just watch experiences or intervene?
I feel like this sums up the major difference between "dry insight" and other types of Theravada practices fairly well. Though technically, even in dry insight practice it's impossible not to intervene in experiences because even the act or intention of "just watching" is itself introducing an intention that will bring about a particular result.
Which of these two approaches seems more like what the Buddha taught? Did he teach people to just watch things arise and pass away, and to accept whatever experiences are coming up? Did he caution against having preferences, or wanting to control and shape experiences?
Or did he teach to intervene in our experiences to shape them and exert what control we can on them for the better? I heard Ajahn Geoff say in a talk recently that if we don't intervene in arisen experience, we can't learn. But I was trying to figure out why that is. Isn't quietly observing often a perfectly valid way to study and understand something? On the other hand, if we become too passive and commit to only watching and not intervening, can't that let a lot of hindrances and bad mental habits go unchecked and unchanged?
I've heard just watching will lead to letting go, but sometimes it feels more like it leads to giving up. And can't this giving up happen too early, and potentially make one stop and not reach the ultimate goal? Would the Buddha call either of these approaches unwise, or could both of them be correct in different situations?