MN.10 and The body in the body.

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism

MN.10 and The body in the body.

Postby vinasp » Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:37 pm

Hi everyone,

The Satipatthana Sutta, The Foundation of Mindfulness MN.10

In the Middle Length Discourses, Bhikkhu Bodhi tranlates a certain sentence
as follows:

" What are the four? Here bhikkhus, a bhikkhu abides contemplating the
body as a body, ardent, fully aware, and mindful, having put away
covetousness and grief for the world." [ page 145 ]

What is of interest to me here is the phrase : " ... the body as a body."
Are we certain that this is the correct translation?

Regards, Vincent.
vinasp
 
Posts: 1213
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: MN.10 and The body in the body.

Postby chownah » Mon Jan 16, 2012 1:55 am

Vinasp asked:
Are we certain that this is the correct translation?

I guess there are two ways to approach this. The first is linguistic....have the translators understood the Pali language well enought to create a precise and accurate rendering in English? The second is congruence of meaning....have the interpretors understood the meaning of the message intended and expressed in the Pali language and have they crafted a message with the same meanilng in the English language?

Of course these two approaches influence each other.......but I think that it is good to understand when people post whether they are focusing on the translation or the interpretation. A good question to ask is whether it seems that a person has their personal interpretation of a text already formulated (i.e. they have already formulated a view about the meaning) and they then tend to translate using their view as a mask to eliminate possibilities which disagree or as a template to inclulde only those possibilities which agree.

More specific to your question....the meaning of this phrase and the Sutta containing it has been discussed alot before so you might find some useful information already assembled in other topics.....but I am looking forward to seeing what the new voices (and the old ones as well) have to say about it now.
chownah
Edit: Having posted this I lost conficence in my understanding of the words "translate" and "interpret" so I went to the net and looked around and found that my meanings for them are not the usual ones in use. To clarify what I mean it might be good to replace my usages of "translate" with the term "transliterate" although my intended meaning is somewhere between the two. My idea is that my usage of "translate" is meant to indicate an emphasis on recreating the same words in English and my usage of "interpret" is meant to indicate an emphasis on recreating the same meaning in English.
For an example I will paraphrase the term "I love cookies". The problem word here is "love". If one does not fully understand what is meant by "I love cookies" one might think that I am infatuated with cookies and they might paraphrase (translate) this as "I have amorous attentions toward cookies". If one does fully understand what is meant by "I love cookies they are more likely to paraphrase (interpret) it as "I like cookies".
Hope this clarifies my intended meaning.
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2639
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: MN.10 and The body in the body.

Postby vinasp » Mon Jan 16, 2012 2:17 am

Hi chownah, everyone,

In Thus Have I Heard, the Long Discourses of the Buddha, by Maurice Walshe,
he translates as follows:

" What are the four? Here, monks, a monk abides contemplating body
as body, (631) ardent, clearly aware and mindful, ..."

Note 631 reads:

" Kaye kayanupassi viharati : lit.'contemplating the body in the body',
and with similar repetitive formulations for the other three
'foundations'. ..."

The note continues by quoting an explanation by a commentator.

Walshe translates as 'body as the body' instead of the literal meaning.
Does anyone know of any translations which use the literal phrase 'the
body in the body'?

Regards, Vincent.
vinasp
 
Posts: 1213
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: MN.10 and The body in the body.

Postby Cittasanto » Mon Jan 16, 2012 2:49 am

Translatord differ in how they translate based on several things, from personal preference to wording, or grammar, to there take on the validity of the commentaries, or philosophical understanding of the teachings, or there preference in regard to the philosophical model they use to understand the teachings, but do these translations really say anything different?
essentially no, they are saying "this is the way this reference is so contemplate it as such"!

I translate this line in two different ways

Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu kāye kāyānupassī viharati,
“Mendicants, in this existence, ‘a meditator abides contemplating the body as just a body,

or

Iti ajjhattaṃ vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati,
You should also abide contemplating the body as a collection of parts regarding yourselves (internally,) or

and my footnote to the first

An alternative translation of ‘kāye kāyānupassī viharati, etc.,’ maybe ‘abide contemplating the body in the body, etc.,’ which indicates that it is only, the specific reference being used that is the object, not another reference such as feelings, mental qualities, or mental phenomena. However, both translations indicate that it is just reference being referenced, not a male, female, ones own body… rather simply what it is, as it is.
A third alternative is given within the text, which I believe to be in-keeping with the 'insight' aspect, rather than the 'tranquillity' aspect reflected here.

The second translation is from the insight refrain within the body section and the first from the introduction, and both are essentially saying the same thing just the emphasis on the style of practice has changed because the actual section is obviously referring to a development of insight rather than the stock phrase of the introduction which could be used as a basis of practice for either but I felt having a more tranquillity slant more appropriate, as the phrase implies more to me this in the context, but this is just my personal interpretation, not that of the vast majority in regard to phraseology.

The words are known well enough and to some extent known through existing use within language (Thai and Sri Lankan languages (at least) are influenced by Pali or use pali words although in some cases the meaning has adapted through time) it is quite feasable to understand what is being said accurately, but the best way to be certain is to study the language itself there are a great many study books and courses which would be of assistance to this!
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5740
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: MN.10 and The body in the body.

Postby retrofuturist » Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:10 am

Greetings,

I think whatever answer or approach one comes up with, it would need to be compatible also with the "internal" vs "external" vs "internally & externally" refrain that occurs in this sutta too.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14650
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: MN.10 and The body in the body.

Postby santa100 » Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:57 am

Footnotes from Nyanasatta Thera (ref: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nysa.html )

1. The repetition of the phrases 'contemplating the body in the body,' 'feelings in feelings,' etc. is meant to impress upon the meditator the importance of remaining aware whether, in the sustained attention directed upon a single chosen object, one is still keeping to it, and has not strayed into the field of another contemplation. For instance, when contemplating any bodily process, a meditator may unwittingly be side-tracked into a consideration of his feelings connected with that bodily process. He should then be clearly aware that he has left his original subject, and is engaged in the contemplation of feeling

4. 'Internally': contemplating his own breathing; 'externally': contemplating another's breathing; 'internally and externally': contemplating one's own and another's breathing, alternately, with uninterrupted attention. In the beginning one pays attention to one's own breathing only, and it is only in advanced stages that for the sake of practicing insight, one by inference at times pays attention also to another person's process of breathing.
santa100
 
Posts: 1518
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: MN.10 and The body in the body.

Postby ground » Mon Jan 16, 2012 4:53 am

Be it "the body as a body" or the "body in the body" it refers to "merely the body" or "the thusness of the body" without fabrications

does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is not seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is not seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, but he does not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair over its change & alteration.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html


The same holds true for "others" (referred to as "external") ... there is no perception of "beings" or "persons" but of "mere bodies"


Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: MN.10 and The body in the body.

Postby chownah » Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:09 am

4. 'Internally': contemplating his own breathing; 'externally': contemplating another's breathing; 'internally and externally': contemplating one's own and another's breathing, alternately, with uninterrupted attention. In the beginning one pays attention to one's own breathing only, and it is only in advanced stages that for the sake of practicing insight, one by inference at times pays attention also to another person's process of breathing.

It may be good to note that in this Sutta this contemplating is being done by a monk who has gone into seclusion....that is the monk will be alone if following the Buddha's description. For some this means that the "exernal" breathing does not refer to another person's breathing while some consider it to mean that it in fact is another person's breathing but it is contemplated psychicly, and yet other's consider it to mean that the meditator might conceive of his/her body "from the inside" and "from the outside" or conceive of the body as being either internal to the focus of contemplation or to be external to the focus of contemplation or being both internal and external to the focus of contemplation....and there are other interpratations as well I guess......like for instance one might come to experience the "self" as being detached from experience and thus be thought of as being another entity and external to experience and thus describe it as an external body.....I guess.....
Also note that it seems like the concept of the external body is not necessary and is only one possible way to contemplate the body in the body as evidenced by this portion of the same sutta:

Thus he lives contemplating the body in the body internally, or he lives contemplating the body in the body externally, or he lives contemplating the body in the body internally and externally.[4] He lives contemplating origination factors[5] in the body, or he lives contemplating dissolution factors[6] in the body, or he lives contemplating origination-and-dissolution factors[7] in the body. Or his mindfulness is established with the thought: "The body exists,"[8] to the extent necessary just for knowledge and mindfulness, and he lives detached,[9] and clings to nothing in the world. Thus also, monks, a monk lives contemplating the body in the body.

It seems to me that there are several different approaches mentioned here and the external body seems to be important to only two of them....I guess..... but don't know for sure.....
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2639
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: MN.10 and The body in the body.

Postby ground » Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:23 am

You may also interprete "internal" as meaning something like dwelling in the "experience from within" and "external" as meaning something like "analytically objectivying". In this way "experience from within" can only refer to oneself while "analytically objectivying" can refer to both oneself and others.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: MN.10 and The body in the body.

Postby vinasp » Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:38 am

Hi everyone,

I think I see what this "internal body" is. The problem is finding the right
words to talk about it.

Everyone has a model of the world, and a model of their body. Without these
we would not be able to understand the world or act in an effective way.

This model is natural and harmless. But it can also be extended to include
misconceptions which result in suffering.

It is the extension which includes the misconceptions which needs to be
seen and understood.

I do not know if I should refer to this model as conceptual.

Ever since I first read the Satipatthana Sutta, I was puzzled as to how
awareness of the body would help to bring about enlightenment.

Now, it seems that it was never saying that at all. It was saying that one
should contemplate the internal ( conceptual? ) model of ones body.

Because that is where the misconceptions are.

I need to think about this. The idea is a new one for me, it came as a result
of some recent posts on another thread.

When discourses talk about there being "no eye", "no forms" and so on, I
speculated that they mean that the misconception of the eye, and the
misconception of forms, have ceased.

But these misconceptions do not exist on their own, they are part of a larger
model which is made of such misconceptions, hence an "internal" body.

Actually, an internal model of ones body and mind situated "inside" another
model of the external world.

Any criticism, suggestions or comments are most welcome.

Regards, Vincent.
vinasp
 
Posts: 1213
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: MN.10 and The body in the body.

Postby chownah » Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:49 am

Vinasp,
a comment
Instead of thinking that we have a model of the world maybe considering the Loka Suttas and the The All Sutta it would be better to consider that our entire experience of the world is a model.....and that really we have no way of knowing what it is modeling except to look at the model.....we create a model, call it the world, and then look at our model to try to determine what it is modeling. My view is that it is this process that we need to come to understand and not the contents of the model....I guess....but don't know for sure....just one view out of many....
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2639
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: MN.10 and The body in the body.

Postby Cittasanto » Mon Jan 16, 2012 9:52 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

I think whatever answer or approach one comes up with, it would need to be compatible also with the "internal" vs "external" vs "internally & externally" refrain that occurs in this sutta too.

Metta,
Retro. :)


my thoughts here are if it can be applied to one i.e. internal as the 32parts of oneself, then it could be applied in the same way to the external (another) the attention is just directed outwardly, and both would be a reflection on the similarity between the two.
but on the other hand if it is the internal aspect of the body as the whole body i.e. the third aspect of anapanasati
sabbakāyapaṭisaṃvedī passasissāmī ti sikkhati;
you should train yourselves experiencing (becoming sensitive to) the whole body with the out-breath;

then the same rule applies. the difference mainly being how general the observation is.

but reading this now and reading chownahs post reminding me of the all, I suppose it could be viewed in light of that within the different tetrads as
internal external
eye forms,
ear sounds,
nose aromas,
tongue flavours,
body tactile sensations,
intellect ideas

internal & external as shown and both being how they interact the meeting of the two or contact??

it can also be seen in an interpersonal way and applied to the sila division of the path, as Gregory Krahmer does.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5740
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: MN.10 and The body in the body.

Postby Sam Vara » Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:30 am

Retro's point that

"whatever answer or approach one comes up with, it would need to be compatible also with the "internal" vs "external" vs "internally & externally" refrain that occurs in this sutta too."

is a very important one, and I would like to hear more about how people see this. It might need to get dumped in a different thread.

Conceiving of the "internal" and "external" aspects of a body is possible, if we sort out what it refers to. It might mean the viscera and muscles as opposed to the skin; the sensations of the body as opposed to our conception of it; or the meditator's body as opposed to the bodies of others, either seen or recalled.

In the case of the other foundations of mindfulness which we are also required to focus upon, however, this seems less possible. For feelings, mind, and mental contents, there is no spatial inside and outside as there is for all bodies. The experience of some mental states would appear to be harder to differentiate from the conception of such states. And the mental states of others are (unless we talk in terms of inferences derived from their bodies and behaviours) inaccessible to me and most of those I know.

So any help as to the understanding of "internal"/"external" which is both meaningful and consistent across all four foundations?
User avatar
Sam Vara
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm

Re: MN.10 and The body in the body.

Postby Brizzy » Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:51 am

Ven. Sariputta saw Ven. Rahula sitting at the foot of a tree, his legs folded crosswise, his body held erect, & with mindfulness set to the fore. On seeing him, he said to him, "Rahula, develop the meditation[2] of mindfulness of in-&-out breathing. The meditation of mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of great fruit, of great benefit."

Then Ven. Rahula, emerging from his seclusion in the late afternoon, went to the Blessed One and, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to him, "How, lord, is mindfulness of in-&-out breathing to be developed & pursued so as to be of great fruit, of great benefit?"

"Rahula, {any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.' There are these five properties, Rahula. Which five? The earth property, the water property, the fire property, the wind property, & the space property.

"And what is the earth property? The earth property can be either internal or external. What is the internal earth property?}[3] Anything internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid, & sustained [by craving]: head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, membranes, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, contents of the stomach, feces, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid, and sustained: This is called the internal earth property. Now both the internal earth property & the external earth property are simply earth property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the earth property and makes the earth property fade from the mind.


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.062.than.html
Ignorance is an intentional act.
Brizzy
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:58 am

Re: MN.10 and The body in the body.

Postby Cittasanto » Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:46 pm

Brizzy wrote:
Ven. Sariputta saw Ven. Rahula sitting at the foot of a tree, his legs folded crosswise, his body held erect, & with mindfulness set to the fore. On seeing him, he said to him, "Rahula, develop the meditation[2] of mindfulness of in-&-out breathing. The meditation of mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of great fruit, of great benefit."

Then Ven. Rahula, emerging from his seclusion in the late afternoon, went to the Blessed One and, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to him, "How, lord, is mindfulness of in-&-out breathing to be developed & pursued so as to be of great fruit, of great benefit?"

"Rahula, {any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.' There are these five properties, Rahula. Which five? The earth property, the water property, the fire property, the wind property, & the space property.

"And what is the earth property? The earth property can be either internal or external. What is the internal earth property?}[3] Anything internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid, & sustained [by craving]: head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, membranes, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, contents of the stomach, feces, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid, and sustained: This is called the internal earth property. Now both the internal earth property & the external earth property are simply earth property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the earth property and makes the earth property fade from the mind.


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.062.than.html


This quote is interesting in the internal external analysis refering to the elements,
The pali words also carry another connotation to them not just as earth wind fire ...
maha-satipatthana sutta MN22 wrote:paṭhavīdhātu āpodhātu tejodhātu vāyodhātū” ti.
the element of solidity (earth,) the element of cohesion (water,) the element of heat (fire,) the element of movement (wind.)”

paṭhavī = solidity; earth.
paṭhavīdhātu = the element of earth/solidity
āpa = water; liquid. (In some spds. it becomes àpo).
āpodhātu = the element of cohesion/water
teja = (mano-group), heat; radiance; glory; power. (This becomes tejo in cpds.)
tejodhātu = the element of heat/power
vāya = (mano-group), the wind; air. See vàyo.the form taken by vàya (in cpds.)
vàyodhàtu = the element of mobility/wind.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5740
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: MN.10 and The body in the body.

Postby vinasp » Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:43 pm

Hi everyone,

INTERNAL/ EXTERNAL

These are used in a special sense in the Satipatthana Sutta.

External means the actual thing, so "external body" means awareness of
the actual body.

Internal means the conceptual understanding of something, so "internal body"
means awareness of the conceptual understanding of the body.

The phrase "body in body" refers to either or both.

Regards, Vincent.
vinasp
 
Posts: 1213
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: MN.10 and The body in the body.

Postby Brizzy » Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:11 am

vinasp wrote:Hi everyone,

INTERNAL/ EXTERNAL

These are used in a special sense in the Satipatthana Sutta.

External means the actual thing, so "external body" means awareness of
the actual body.

Internal means the conceptual understanding of something, so "internal body"
means awareness of the conceptual understanding of the body.

The phrase "body in body" refers to either or both.

Regards, Vincent.


Hi,

Is there any textual (sutta) basis for the above. I have given a textual basis for one possibility of what internal & external may mean.

Metta

:smile:
Ignorance is an intentional act.
Brizzy
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:58 am

Re: MN.10 and The body in the body.

Postby vinasp » Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:08 am

Hi Brizzy,

Any textual (sutta) basis for my suggestion?

No, not that I am aware of, it was just a wild guess.

Regards, Vincent.
vinasp
 
Posts: 1213
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: MN.10 and The body in the body.

Postby chownah » Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:06 pm

vinasp,
I hope you take this as a kindly suggestion but it would be good if you could differentiate between what is a wild guess on your part and what is a statement declaring something to be a fact. For instance in the post the Brizzy asks about I really didn't have a clue that you were offering a wild guess with no scriptural support. I'm glad that Brizzy asked and you replied because I was getting ready to do a rather long and pointless post based on what I thought were your assertions but which turn out to be just wild guesses.
Just a suggestion.
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2639
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: MN.10 and The body in the body.

Postby Sam Vara » Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:28 pm

Vinasp:

Any textual (sutta) basis for my suggestion?

No, not that I am aware of, it was just a wild guess.


Wild guess it might be, but it got me thinking. It has the virtue of being simultaneously intelligible and applicable to all four of the foundations of mindfulness as itemised in the Sutta.

As my earlier post on this thread points out, this issue is a bit of a stumbling block for me. What can "internal/external" mean, as applied to body, feelings, mind, and mental content alike? There might be textual support for other interpretations, but I have not as yet been able to make much sense of any of them.

So thank you.
User avatar
Sam Vara
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm

Next

Return to General Theravāda discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests