porpoise wrote:For sure. But I'm trying to compare the overall method described in the Satipatthana Sutta with the overall method described in the Anapanasati Sutta. To me the first seems more concerned with mindfulness, the second more concerned with samadhi. I think both methods can be used as a basis for insight but would appreciate your views on this.
If you find it helpful to assign general mindfulness to the methods of satipatthana and samadhi to the method of anapanasati, then go for it. But I find that the difference between a general state of mindfulness and that of samadhi is only in degree. In a generalized state of sati the attention moves here and there between objects of the sense bases. Samadhi also has sati, but the attention becomes fixed on a much smaller subset of objects.
Same components are involved in both activities, the difference lies in how they are used.
So, can mindfulness of the posture yield samadhi? I feel that it can if practiced often. If that is found to be the case, then what does that do to your distinction?
Now, can anapanasati and satipatthana both yield insight? Yes, I would say so. In both cases the four frames of reference are being attended to by mindfulness and alertness, and in both cases the meditator must be "ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world." MN10 and MN118.
"There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings... mind... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world." MN10
"Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of great fruit, of great benefit. Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, brings the four frames of reference to their culmination. The four frames of reference, when developed & pursued, bring the seven factors for awakening to their culmination. The seven factors for awakening, when developed & pursued, bring clear knowing & release to their culmination." MN118
Both MN10 and MN118 require the mind to make use of the same faculties, if slightly differently. If you do assign MN10 the designation 'generalized sati' and MN118 as 'samadhi' then can they can both be said to yield insight? Yes, although the exact means differ.
"In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or externally on the body in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the body in & of itself. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the body, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the body, or on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to the body. Or his mindfulness that 'There is a body' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself. [and phrase is then repeated for each frame]
Now, if anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for seven years, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of clinging/sustenance — non-return.
compare the bolded parts of the above to those below:
 He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on inconstancy.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on inconstancy.'  He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on dispassion [literally, fading].' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on dispassion.'  He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on cessation.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on cessation.'  He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on relinquishment.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on relinquishment.'
This is how the seven factors for awakening are developed & pursued so as to bring clear knowing & release to their culmination.
In the quote directly above keep in mind that anapanasati is said (in MN118) to bring the four frames to fulfillment, which brings the seven factors to fulfillment.
All this suggest to me anapanasati and satipatthana yield the same results and the emphasis in both the insight stage of satipatthana and anapanasati is the changing nature of the frames of reference. To be sure, the minutest details laid out in MN10 can be seen as differing from MN118, but in both cases the trend is to stablize the mind and then be aware of change (arising and passing away as in MN10 or inconstancy in MN118). In both cases the return on effort is knowledge and release.
As a final note on the use of samadhi for insight:
The Blessed One said, "Monks, Sariputta is wise, of great discernment, deep discernment, wide... joyous... rapid... quick... penetrating discernment. For half a month, Sariputta clearly saw insight into mental qualities one after another. This is what occurred to Sariputta through insight into mental qualities one after another:
"There was the case where Sariputta — quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities — entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. Whatever qualities there are in the first jhana — directed thought, evaluation, rapture, pleasure, singleness of mind, contact, feeling, perception, intention, consciousness, desire, decision, persistence, mindfulness, equanimity, & attention — he ferreted them out one after another. Known to him they arose, known to him they remained, known to him they subsided. He discerned, 'So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.' He remained unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those qualities, independent, detached, released, dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers. He discerned that 'There is a further escape,' and pursuing it there really was for him.
Please compare the emboldened parts above to the final steps of anapanasati.
Now, I am not completely dense, however. I know that when you speak of mindfulness you are referencing that very movement of attention that the satipatthana seems to allow. Correct? My point is anapanasati as in MN118 is an elaboration of an exercise prescribed in MN10.. it is not truly distinct from satipatthana. If this notion of 'this is satipatthana and this is something else altogether' then we fail to see how this general mindfulness and the strong samadhi of anapanasati are mutually supportive.
Does any of this address, in any way, your inquiry?
Sometimes I lose the plot, so to speak.
To address you comment about MN140 seeming pretty 'conceptual' I would counter that all of what the Buddha sounds conceptual. If he didn't conceptualize it for his audience, then how could he have taught it. However, the seeing
of the truth is not conceptual at the time, but becomes 'conceptual' in the sense that the practitioners views change in line with what is seen. From then on he refers to this view when interacting with the world.
Have a good day.