MN.10 and The body in the body.

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

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

Post by vinasp »

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.
Brizzy
Posts: 138
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:58 am

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

Post by Brizzy »

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.
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

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

Post by vinasp »

Hi Brizzy,

Any textual (sutta) basis for my suggestion?

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

Regards, Vincent.
chownah
Posts: 9265
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

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

Post by chownah »

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
User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 8323
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

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

Post by Sam Vara »

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.
Brizzy
Posts: 138
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:58 am

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

Post by Brizzy »

This is just my take on things - In seated meditation one doesn't actually experience the 'outers' one just recollects their existence.
Other people have thoughts/feelings/emotions = outer
You have thoughts/feelings/emotions = inner
You have a body (earth/fire/water/air) = inner
These elements exist outside of you = outer

There is no valid reason to consider that there is an I - it is all just bodies/feelings/thoughts/emotions.

Metta

:smile:
Ignorance is an intentional act.
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

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

Post by vinasp »

Hi Chownah,

You are right. I should have made it perfectly clear in that post
that it was just a guess. Thanks for correcting me.

Regards, Vincent.
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

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

Post by Sylvester »

I'm told that in phrases such as "kāye kāyānupassī", the locative case of the object of the verb serves as an intensifier of the verb. The locative of kāya is not really indicating a spatial location for the verb, but acts as the locative of reference.

One possible way to translate this would be "body-watching with reference to the body". The intensifier thus excludes other objects from falling into the purview of that verb.

This comes close to Ven Nanasatta's explanation.
Post Reply