How do YOU meditate?

[pitithefool]

[2. Focus on a single spot until you aren't getting distracted and can stay with the object for a long them, then switch your attention to a pleasant feeling somewhere in the body and take that up as the object. The pleasure will grow until you're completely enveloped in it. (Leigh Brasington)

I have work in the morning so i can only give a brief response tonight, but I wanted to say that Leigh Brasington even admits that what he teaches isn’t strictly the same Jhana as the Buddha. I’ll have to dig out the quote.

I'll try and track that down too because I definitely remember him saying that. I actually have a copy of Right Concentration downstairs lol

[DooDoot]

How do YOU meditate?

Try to give up the YOU. Meditate without the "YOU".

[Ceisiwr]

I want to ask you then, what is the difference between Sanna and Vinnana? In my view, perception can and does occur both apart from and in conjuction with consciousness. A lot of perception occurs without our awareness it's the factor that organizes and interprets information, whereas consciousness is awareness either at the senses or the mind. Is this not in line with the canon's definition?

Viññāṇa is the initial awareness, vedanā is the hedonic tone of that percept whilst sañña is the conceptualising/designation/labelling of it.

This screams convolution to me for two reasons:

First is that the kayagatasati sutta everywhere else uses the term kaya to refer to the physical body, then immediately jumps into the description of the jhanas using the same term and without redefining.

Does kāya always mean physical body? Does it ever mean the physical body at all? This is the question. Certainly in English "body" can have different meanings. For example, we can say "a body of water" or "the student body". Even within the upaniṣadam we can see this, where "Ātman" can mean the eternal Self or "body". It seems the same is true for Pāli, for example "nāmakāya" or even "nikāya". If we read MN 119 in conjunction with MN 43, which states that the physical body can only experience touch, then it becomes difficult to read:

"He permeates & pervades, suffuses & fills this very body with the rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal."

as referring to the physical body, and so it becomes easier to read it as referring to the nāmakāya. In other words, it is the mind which is filled with rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. Rapture and pleasure are, after all, types of vedanā. Vedanā belongs to nāma, which is an aspect of the mind. This then supports the view that within jhāna there is no experience of the 5 senses. To argue the opposite would go against MN 43. You would also have to show that "body" here means the physical body, without relying on the circular reasoning of it must mean the physical body because it says "body".

[confusedlayman]

How do YOU meditate?

Try to give up the YOU. Meditate without the "YOU".

Rubbish.. if there is no You, why you should meditate .. for whom? only arhant can meditate without ego I think

[pitithefool]

Rubbish.. if there is no You, why you should meditate .. for whom? only arhant can meditate without ego I think

Buddha never said there is no self, nor did he say there is a self. We are to view all phenomena as not-self until we become liberated, after which the mind is beyond such things.

[DooDoot]

Rubbish.. if there is no You, why you should meditate .. for whom? only arhant can meditate without ego I think

Sorry but the "you" does not meditate. It is intention the establishes the mind and consciousness that experiences objects. Intention and consciousness are not the self. The 'self' is a thought created by thought. The more 'self' in the mind, the less clear the consciousness that meditates.

[pitithefool]

Sorry but the "you" does not meditate. It is intention the establishes the mind and consciousness that experiences objects. Intention and consciousness are not the self. The 'self' is a thought created by thought. The more 'self' in the mind, the less clear the consciousness that meditates.

Indeed it is not you that meditates. Rather, it is the five aggregates that meditates.

[pitithefool]

Does kāya always mean physical body? Does it ever mean the physical body at all? This is the question. Certainly in English "body" can have different meanings. For example, we can say "a body of water" or "the student body". Even within the upaniṣadam we can see this, where "Ātman" can mean the eternal Self or "body". It seems the same is true for Pāli, for example "nāmakāya" or even "nikāya". If we read MN 119 in conjunction with MN 43, which states that the physical body can only experience touch, then it becomes difficult to read:

as referring to the physical body, and so it becomes easier to read it as referring to the nāmakāya. In other words, it is the mind which is filled with rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. Rapture and pleasure are, after all, types of vedanā. Vedanā belongs to nāma, which is an aspect of the mind. This then supports the view that within jhāna there is no experience of the 5 senses. To argue the opposite would go against MN 43. You would also have to show that "body" here means the physical body, without relying on the circular reasoning of it must mean the physical body because it says "body".

These are some very good points here. However I still think it's ok to read MN119 as either physical body or namakaya, and I might even argue that it should be read as both.

As to the term kaya feferring to physical body, in DN 22 and MN 119, these sections would be very awkward to read as anything but the physical body:

"Furthermore, when walking, the monk discerns, 'I am walking.' When standing, he discerns, 'I am standing.' When sitting, he discerns, 'I am sitting.' When lying down, he discerns, 'I am lying down.' Or however his body is disposed, that is how he discerns it. And as he remains thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, any memories & resolves related to the household life are abandoned, and with their abandoning his mind gathers & settles inwardly, grows unified & centered. This is how a monk develops mindfulness immersed in the body."

"Furthermore, when going forward & returning, he makes himself fully alert; when looking toward & looking away... when bending & extending his limbs... when carrying his outer cloak, his upper robe & his bowl... when eating, drinking, chewing, & savoring... when urinating & defecating... when walking, standing, sitting, falling asleep, waking up, talking, & remaining silent, he makes himself fully alert. And as he remains thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, any memories & resolves related to the household life are abandoned, and with their abandoning his mind gathers & settles inwardly, grows unified & centered. This is how a monk develops mindfulness immersed in the body."

"Furthermore, the monk reflects on this very body from the soles of the feet on up, from the crown of the head on down, surrounded by skin and full of various kinds of unclean things: 'In this body there are head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, gorge, feces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, skin-oil, saliva, mucus, fluid in the joints, urine.' Just as if a sack with openings at both ends were full of various kinds of grain — wheat, rice, mung beans, kidney beans, sesame seeds, husked rice — and a man with good eyesight, pouring it out, were to reflect, 'This is wheat. This is rice. These are mung beans. These are kidney beans. These are sesame seeds. This is husked rice'; in the same way, the monk reflects on this very body from the soles of the feet on up, from the crown of the head on down, surrounded by skin and full of various kinds of unclean things: 'In this body there are head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, gorge, feces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, skin-oil, saliva, mucus, fluid in the joints, urine.' And as he remains thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, any memories & resolves related to the household life are abandoned, and with their abandoning his mind gathers & settles inwardly, grows unified & centered. This is how a monk develops mindfulness immersed in the body."

"Furthermore, the monk contemplates this very body — however it stands, however it is disposed — in terms of properties: 'In this body there is the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, & the wind property.' Just as a skilled butcher or his apprentice, having killed a cow, would sit at a crossroads cutting it up into pieces, the monk contemplates this very body — however it stands, however it is disposed — in terms of properties: 'In this body there is the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, & the wind property.' And as he remains thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, any memories & resolves related to the household life are abandoned, and with their abandoning his mind gathers & settles inwardly, grows unified & centered. This is how a monk develops mindfulness immersed in the body."

"Furthermore, as if he were to see a corpse cast away in a charnel ground — one day, two days, three days dead — bloated, livid, & festering, he applies it to this very body, 'This body, too: Such is its nature, such is its future, such its unavoidable fate'...

"Or again, as if he were to see a corpse cast away in a charnel ground, picked at by crows, vultures, & hawks, by dogs, hyenas, & various other creatures... a skeleton smeared with flesh & blood, connected with tendons... a fleshless skeleton smeared with blood, connected with tendons... a skeleton without flesh or blood, connected with tendons... bones detached from their tendons, scattered in all directions — here a hand bone, there a foot bone, here a shin bone, there a thigh bone, here a hip bone, there a back bone, here a rib, there a breast bone, here a shoulder bone, there a neck bone, here a jaw bone, there a tooth, here a skull... the bones whitened, somewhat like the color of shells... piled up, more than a year old... decomposed into a powder: He applies it to this very body, 'This body, too: Such is its nature, such is its future, such its unavoidable fate."

"And as he remains thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, any memories & resolves related to the household life are abandoned, and with their abandoning his mind gathers & settles inwardly, grows unified & centered. This is how a monk develops mindfulness immersed in the body."

I also want to point out that these sections constitute the vast majority of MN 119 and the entirety of DN22's section on mindfulness of the body with the exception of the first tetrad of anapanasati, which is the current matter of contention. In fact, the only sections that may not refer specifically to the physical body in these suttas would be the descriptions of the first tetrad of anapanasati and the description of the four jhanas. The bathman, lake, lotus bond and cloth similes in the jhana explanation are compelling to me because if we take anapanasati to mean something like pranayama, like Thanissaro and Ajahn Lee do, reading as physical body makes perfect sense.

The main reason I would argue against reading the jhana and anapanasati descriptions is the fact that it's apparently possible to enter jhana in a pretty huge number of ways, some of which (like Thanissaro's) use the physical body and some of which like kasinas and anapana in the VSM, do not, and I have every reason to believe those to be valid method's as well. In cases other than Than Geoff's method, it makes more sense to read kaya as namakaya.

Also, the term kaya is used in an interesting way in the kayasakkhi sutta AN 9.43 in which one is said to be "touching with his body" the meditative attainments, but in this particular instance I think it's probably best read metaphorically as this also refers to the formless attainments.

So in summary, Both DN 22's section on mindfulness of body and pretty much the entirety of MN 119 almost unambiguously refer to the physical body. Since the only sections that may not read kaya as physical body are the two in question here (anapanasati and the jhana descriptions of MN119), I think it's safe to read as physical body, especially if we read and practice anapanasati as something like wind energy or pranayama, in which case the description of jhana at MN 119 is extremely apt.

I might go as far to say that the above evidence may point to Anapanasati specifcally referring to something like breath energy meditation, and that the description found in the VSM might be better labelled as air kasina meditation.

[Ceisiwr]

These are some very good points here. However I still think it's ok to read MN119 as either physical body or namakaya, and I might even argue that it should be read as both.

If we restrict ourselves to the jhāna pericope in MN 119 a reading of "physical body" is still difficult due to each āyatana being restricted to their respective ranges. I don't see anyway to get around this bar the nāmakāya. What do you propose?

As to the term kaya feferring to physical body, in DN 22 and MN 119, these sections would be very awkward to read as anything but the physical body

If we look at the word "kāya" it barely shows up in the pre-Buddhist literature, which means it is likely an innovation of the Buddha. Pāṇini takes it's root to be √ ci:

चि √ci
- to arrange in order
- heap up
- pile up
- construct
- to collect
- gather together
- accumulate
- acquire for one's self

What is interesting is that the root sounds awful similar to how the aggregates are described, in terms of "heaping up", "constructed" or "accumulated" etc. If we take "kāya" to mean "a collection" or "that with parts" then, it seems to me, kāya refers more to the 5 aggregates as a whole rather than the physical body per se, for which, as I have mentioned, we have the more definitive word "sarīra" (śarīra in Sanskrit):

शरीर (śarīra)
- the body
- bodily frame
- solid parts of the body (pl. the bones)
- any solid body (opp. to [ udaka ] )

Roots for śarīra are given as either being √śri or √śṝ :

श्रि √śri
- support or supporter

शॄ √śṝ
- that which is easily destroyed or dissolved

Its interesting that when looking at the 5 aggregates we find "rūpakhandha" rather than "kāya". I suspect that the 5 aggregates are actually a subset of kāya, with rūpakhandha being the image of the body (sarīra) at contact. Other ways in which kāya means "collection" or "that with parts":

asurakāya - an assembly of Asuras (AN 3.37, DN 18, DN 19, DN 21, DN 24, DN 33)

balakāya - a collection of strength, an army (AN 3.14, AN 5.133, AN 5.136, AN 6.54, SN 2.23, SN 3.18, MN 92, DN 26)

brahmakāyika - One who is part of the entourage of Brahma (AN 3.70, AN 4.123, AN 4.125, AN 6.10, AN 6.25, AN 7.44, AN 7.52, AN 7.56, AN 7.69, AN 8.35, AN 9.24, AN 11.11, SN 56.11, MN 31, MN 42, DN 11, DN 15, DN 33, DN 34)

devanikāya - an assembly of devas (AN 2.36, AN 4.191, AN 5.206, AN 7.40, AN 8.29, AN 8.64, AN 9.72, AN 10.14, SN 35.241, MN 16, MN 127, DN 14, DN 20, DN 33, DN 34)

mahājanakāya - a group of people (AN 4.244, AN 8.8, SN 3.10, SN 7.14, SN 35.244, SN 42.6, SN 45.160, SN 47.20, SN 52.8, SN 56.41, MN 77, MN 86, DN 14, DN 16)

hatthikāya - a group of elephants / assakāya - a group of cavalry / rathakāya - a group of chariots / pattikāya - a group of foot soldiers (AN 5.139, SN 3.5, SN 3.15, MN 82)

(I should say I've taken this list from a topic at SuttaCentral)

So, to go back to your point we could read MN 119 and DN 22 less in terms of the physical body and more as an instruction to be aware of all of the aggregates during daily activities, with the exception being the charnel grounds contemplation and parts of the body which focus on one aspect of the kāya. Naturally the other 3 Satipaṭṭhāna then take their own individual aspects of this collection.

The main reason I would argue against reading the jhana and anapanasati descriptions is the fact that it's apparently possible to enter jhana in a pretty huge number of ways, some of which (like Thanissaro's) use the physical body and some of which like kasinas and anapana in the VSM, do not, and I have every reason to believe those to be valid method's as well. In cases other than Than Geoff's method, it makes more sense to read kaya as namakaya.

I don't quite understand your objection here? Using a different object of meditation doesn't mean there will be an experience of the physical body, or diverse perceptions, when in jhāna.

Also, the term kaya is used in an interesting way in the kayasakkhi sutta AN 9.43 in which one is said to be "touching with his body" the meditative attainments, but in this particular instance I think it's probably best read metaphorically as this also refers to the formless attainments.

I see no reason to read it as a metaphor. It is obviously referring to, once again, the nāmakāya since nibbāna is cognised at the mind base.

I might go as far to say that the above evidence may point to Anapanasati specifcally referring to something like breath energy meditation, and that the description found in the VSM might be better labelled as air kasina meditation.

I would say that ānāpānasati is an air kasiṇa exercise. I suspect all objects of mediation that lead into jhāna are a form of kasiṇa.

"One person perceives the air kasiṇa above, below, across, undivided, measureless."

[pitithefool]

If we restrict ourselves to the jhāna pericope in MN 119 a reading of "physical body" is still difficult due to each āyatana being restricted to their respective ranges. I don't see anyway to get around this bar the nāmakāya. What do you propose?

Good point again. However, the salayatana also mentions that the the body as a sense organ as "kayatana". I agree with you but the reading as english "body" makes sense here if we're holding the view that anapanasati is a form of breath work that involves the physical body. Also, the reading here that jhanas are "rupajhana" would also make sense with us being able to enter jhana on sight objects, like kasina. I will give you the point though, since in the end, our object in meditation is still a perception of the body or other "form" object, and is not necessarily the form itself.

If we look at the word "kāya" it barely shows up in the pre-Buddhist literature, which means it is likely an innovation of the Buddha. Pāṇini takes it's root to be √ ci:

That's okay. In the way that we read the satipatthana sutta, and the cited parts of MN119, the term kaya is still used to refer specifically to the physical body regardless of its etymological history. Barring exceptions for meter and timing, we would expect both the anapanasati sutta as well as MN119 and DN22 to use the term namakaya if it were that important to make the distinction.

So, to go back to your point we could read MN 119 and DN 22 less in terms of the physical body and more as an instruction to be aware of all of the aggregates during daily activities, with the exception being the charnel grounds contemplation and parts of the body which focus on one aspect of the kāya. Naturally the other 3 Satipaṭṭhāna then take their own individual aspects of this collection.

This is ok BUT DN22 covers the topic of six sense bases, 5 aggregates, etc. in the Dhamma category, wheras the body section of satipatthana asks us to analyze our own physical body (again using the term kaya without modifiers) in terms of postures, 32 body parts, 4 elements and 9 charnel grounds observations.

I don't quite understand your objection here? Using a different object of meditation doesn't mean there will be an experience of the physical body, or diverse perceptions, when in jhāna.

Not really that much of an objection here, it's more of a nuance to the way in which we perceive an object as a function of time while in meditation. We do perceive the physical body when using anapanasati, even when we restrict the place of our attention to say the anapana spot or just below the navel, it's really only when are concentration becomes stronger that the object is no longer the spot itself but rather the perception and feelings of it. I think this may be part of the reason that the description of jhana at MN 119 just uses the term "kaya" is because in practice, especially with anapanasati, the two terms will apply at different times.

I see no reason to read it as a metaphor. It is obviously referring to, once again, the nāmakāya since nibbāna is cognised at the mind base.

Kindof, I think that reading is right but maybe a different translation could be "personal witness" instead of "body witness". You see where I'm going with this?
\

I would say that ānāpānasati is an air kasiṇa exercise. I suspect all objects of mediation that lead into jhāna are a form of kasiṇa.

"One person perceives the air kasiṇa above, below, across, undivided, measureless."

I agree. This is an interesting point because this still applies to Thanissaro's method. In the VSM, we're restricting the size of the kasina to the anapana spot after which expansion occurs during the merging process, whereas is thanissaro's we start wherever on the body we need to and the sign of the air kasina expands to fill the physical body and the entirety of our awareness. I really think they end up in the same place though, with a single perception, but I also still think that kaya should be read in this conext as body is in english english because doing so would cover the entirety of possibilities for objects and starting points for concentration.

I guess another thing that may be causing us to choose one or the other is how the canon treats samadhi versus how the vsm treats it. The canon seems to make no distinction between access concentration and the first jhana, and in access concentration, our object is still the breath, but in full absorption, there is only a single perception. I think if we follow the VSM's jhana definitions then yes, we must read kaya as namakaya, but if we aren't making a distinction between "access concentration" and "first jhana" as the sutta pitaka treats it, then both terms would apply.

I want to make a point here and that's that I still don't really think it matters all that much how we read it given that the formless attainments are pretty dang hard to misinterpret. Even if we are using the interpretation of physical body up to the fourth jhana, we are still going into the dimension of infinite space and leaving behind any perception of the body or anything else. At that point, can we really say that it makes a difference?

[Ceisiwr]

Good point again. However, the salayatana also mentions that the the body as a sense organ as "kayatana".

Does āyatana mean "sense organ"? I'm not so convinced.

आयतन (Āyatana)
- resting place
- support
- seat
- place
- home
- house
- abode

It is said then there are 6 Āyatana:

1. Cakkhāyatanaṃ
2. Sotāyatanaṃ
3. Ghānāyatanaṃ
4. Jivhāyatanaṃ
5. Kāyāyatanaṃ
6. Manāyatanaṃ

1. Cakkhu
According to Monier-Williams Sanskrit Dictionary (the dictionary I have been using throughout) we find:

Cakṣu (चक्षु)
- the eye

Yet, when we look at the Proto-Indo-European root we find:

√kʷeḱ
- To see
- To look

In the suttas we very often find the following:

"The arising and vanishing of the eye is evident,
Cakkhussa uppādopi vayopi paññāyati."

MN 148

Or

“Mendicant, if someone meditates observing rise and fall in the eye faculty, they grow disillusioned with the eye faculty.
“Cakkhundriye ce, bhikkhu, udayabbayānupassī viharanto cakkhundriye nibbindati … pe …"

SN 35.154

Now, does it even make sense to say one dwells observing the "rise and fall" of the eye, be it eye or eye faculty? I would submit it does not. It does however make sense if we translate cakkhu in accordance with its Proto-Indo-European root of "kʷeḱ", that is to say "vision". For the physical "eye" the suttas use "akkhi" from the sanskrit "ákṣi":

akṣi (अक्षि)
- the eye
- the number two

This is the same meaning we find in the PIE root:

√h₃ókʷs
- the eye

I would repeat the same arguments for the other sense bases. In relation to Kāya, I suspect "Kāyāyatanaṃ" refers to both the mental body (nāmakāya) and the aggregates as whole and is thus closely bound with the 2 kinds of contact we see in DN15, which in turn is related to the distinction between kāyikañca & cetasikañca seen in SN 36.6.

we would expect both the anapanasati sutta as well as MN119 and DN22 to use the term namakaya if it were that important to make the distinction.

Unless of course the audience at the time new what was included within "Kāya".

This is ok BUT DN22 covers the topic of six sense bases, 5 aggregates, etc. in the Dhamma category, wheras the body section of satipatthana asks us to analyze our own physical body (again using the term kaya without modifiers) in terms of postures, 32 body parts, 4 elements and 9 charnel grounds observations.

The Dhamma category is simply that which needs to be contemplated to either enter jhāna or what needs to be contemplated after it. Satipaṭṭhāna is really about providing the foundation for jhāna and what to do after.

Kindof, I think that reading is right but maybe a different translation could be "personal witness" instead of "body witness". You see where I'm going with this?

I think body witness gets it right, since it is known via the body.

I agree. This is an interesting point because this still applies to Thanissaro's method.

I'll have to take your word for it. I've not really read much of his work.

I want to make a point here and that's that I still don't really think it matters all that much how we read it given that the formless attainments are pretty dang hard to misinterpret. Even if we are using the interpretation of physical body up to the fourth jhana, we are still going into the dimension of infinite space and leaving behind any perception of the body or anything else. At that point, can we really say that it makes a difference?

All I would say here is that the formless transcend rūpa, but rūpa does not mean "the body" or "matter".

[DooDoot]

These are some very good points here. However I still think it's ok to read MN119 as either physical body or namakaya, and I might even argue that it should be read as both.

As to the term kaya referring to physical body, in DN 22 and MN 119, these sections would be very awkward to read as anything but the physical body:

There are at least two kaya: nama-kaya and rupa-kaya. That part of DN 22 that refers to rupa-kaya does not negate MN 119 referring to nama-kaya.

In summary, there are lofty practitioners who have declared there is no awareness of the physical body in jhana. It is not for a "groundling" to argue about the view from the top of a mountain. This is part from taking refuge in the Triple Gem to be a 100% Theravada Buddhist. Don't argue with the Noble Sangha that informs you you are overestimating your experience.

28. Just as one upon the summit of a mountain beholds the groundlings, even so when the wise man casts away heedlessness by heedfulness and ascends the high tower of wisdom, this sorrowless sage beholds the sorrowing and foolish multitude.

Dhammapada

we would expect both the anapanasati sutta as well as MN119 and DN22 to use the term namakaya if it were that important to make the distinction.

But the anapanasati sutta does include "namakaya"; as said by the commentary Paṭisambhidāmagga about step 3. The following perfect logic will be difficult for a groundling with a mind full of stubborn brainwashed opinions to sublimely comprehend & accept.

1. In step 7 & 8 of anapanasati, the buddha used the terms "experiencing & calming cittasankhara'.

2. The above being so, it is expected for steps 3 & 4, the Buddha should have used the terms "experiencing & calming kayasankhara'.

3. But the Buddha only used "calming kaysankhara" for step 4.

4. For step 3, the Buddha used the term "experiencing sabba kaya".

5. In Anapanasati Sutta, the Buddha said "the breath is a body (kaya) among other bodies".

6. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu argued step 3 means "experiencing all bodies" because "sabba" generally means "all" rather than "whole". The Pali word generally used for "whole" is "kevala".

7. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu thus argued "sabba kaya" means two bodies: the breath body and the physical body and said this meant "experiencing the kayasankhara".

8. However, Buddhadasa Bhikkhu was obviously wrong because if step 3 meant experiencing kayasankhara, then, as I originally said, the Buddha would have used the phrase in step 3, just like in step 7, of "experiencing kayasankhara".

9. As Buddhadasa Bhikkhu suggested, step 3 does mean "experiencing all bodies", as the Paṭisambhidāmagga has explained.

10. But the meaning of "experiencing all bodies" means experiencing three bodies, namely, the nama-kaya, breath-kaya and rupa-kaya.

11. In short, step 3 of anapanasati is experiencing how the state of mind conditions/influences the state of the breath; which in turn conditions/influences the state of the body; which in tern influences the state of the mind, etc, etc, etc

12. For example, if the mind is without craving & other unwholesome states, the breath calms and becomes long, smooth and refined; then the physical body also becomes relaxed comfortable, feels good, free of stress.

13. Any practitioner that has practised clearly & well should understand how the mind, breath & body influence eachother.

14. This is the meaning of step 3, namely, "experiencing all bodies", which includes experiencing the nama-kaya.

15. But i guess instead of delighting & bowing at the above perfect reasoning, you will probably cling to Thanissaro or some other demigod & argue until blue in the face.

(44) Others will misapprehend according to their individual views, hold on to them tenaciously and not easily discard them; we shall not misapprehend according to individual views nor hold on to them tenaciously, but shall discard them with ease — thus effacement can be done.

MN 8

16. In summary, step 3 of anapanasati is "experiencing all bodies", even though 99.9% of Buddhists will disagree about this.

[pitithefool]

10. But the meaning of "experiencing all bodies" means experiencing three bodies, namely, the nama-kaya, breath-kaya and rupa-kaya.

So you agree with me then? LOL

I'm still skeptical, because every time a refutation that DN22 or MN 119 meaning namaya kaya is brought up, it involves commentary or visuddhimagga reference. Y'all kindof seem to be of the opinion that sutta pitaka is not good enough or doesn't provide sufficient evidence on its own, which is why we keep having to referencing commentaries and later Pali works.

In the view that MN119 does mean physical body and that jhana is a state of whole-body awareness, no further explanation is needed now complex and contrived interpretations written long after the Buddha died.

My question is why are we seeming to be placing the commentaries and the later pali works on a higher level than the sutta pitaka? Why do we deify the commentators and Buddhagosa over the Buddha himself?

[Ceisiwr]

My question is why are we seeming to be placing the commentaries and the later pali works on a higher level than the sutta pitaka? Why do we deify the commentators and Buddhagosa over the Buddha himself?

I hope you would notice that I haven’t once relied upon the Abhidhamma or the commentaries. In comparison, Ven. Thanisarro does via his use of “secluded from sensual pleasures”.

In the view that MN119 does mean physical body and that jhana is a state of whole-body awareness, no further explanation is needed now complex and contrived interpretations written long after the Buddha died.

Yet saññāmanasikārā are a hindrance.

[DooDoot]

10. But the meaning of "experiencing all bodies" means experiencing three bodies, namely, the nama-kaya, breath-kaya and rupa-kaya.

So you agree with me then? LOL

I didn't read you post the above but, if you did , congratulations.

I'm still skeptical, because every time a refutation that DN22 or MN 119 meaning namaya kaya is brought up, it involves commentary or visuddhimagga reference. Y'all kindof seem to be of the opinion that sutta pitaka is not good enough or doesn't provide sufficient evidence on its own, which is why we keep having to referencing commentaries and later Pali works.

Anapanasati Sutta says rapture is experienced with experiencing breathing.

The suttas say the first jhana only has five factors, which does not include the breathing.

SN 36.11 appears to say (after the predominant rapture & happiness objects cease), there is no awareness of breathing in the 4th jhana.

Therefore, the impression is the Anapanasati Sutta described a fruition that is not yet on the level of jhana.

Some monks and meditators who generally reject the commentaries & Visuddhimagga do not reject the commentary teaching of the three levels of concentration, namely, preparatory, neighbourhood & attainment concentration.

The commentary doctrine of three levels of concentration supports the view Anapanasati is not yet jhana.

The SN suttas that refer to the Buddha practising Anapanasati use the term "concentration from Anapanasati", as though Anapanasati was a preliminary practise for the Buddha's jhana concentration.

In summary, monks such as Ajahn Buddhadasa and Brahm said either directly or indirectly there is no awareness of breathing in jhana.

In the view that MN119 does mean physical body and that jhana is a state of whole-body awareness, no further explanation is needed now complex and contrived interpretations written long after the Buddha died.

Addressed above.

My question is why are we seeming to be placing the commentaries and the later pali works on a higher level than the sutta pitaka? Why do we deify the commentators and Buddhagosa over the Buddha himself?

Its unlikely the Buddha ever spoke MN 10 and DN 22. Buddhadasa criticised them. Sujato called them a "hoax" ("Piltdown Sutta"). As for MN 119, its also questionable due its relatively unique language although not fatally flawed like MN 10 and DN 22. While i have little time for the commentators and Buddhaghosa, MN 119 and its metaphors has never resonated with me. Per Ajahn Brahm, while in the 1st jhana, there is some letting go activity of mind (increasing the bliss) stopping the mind getting overly interested in the bliss (which diminishes the bliss), the MN 119 metaphors sound too overactive to me; even though Ajahn Brahm does refer to them in his book when making his "pro-nama-kaya" argument. I personally have never taken an interest in them. For me, the "bath-soap" metaphor sounds more to apply to just before jhana, when the physical is being cultivated but on a very very subtle level.