Stephen Snyder claims to pass on Pa Auk's method, but does not mention conceptual breathing. How is this possible?

[DeadBuddha]

In their very good book "Practicing the Jhânas", Tina Rasmussen and Stephen Snyder claim to be transmitting Pa Auk Sayadaw's technique for attaining the jhânas. And they clearly seem to have the authority since Pa Auk Sayadaw prefaced their book, and he wrote that they have both attained the mastery of the 8 jhânas.

However, Pa Auk often talks about conceptual breathing. Pa Auk explains that it is fundamental not to focus on the physical breath (that is the breath that we feel as rubbing and sliding on the skin, and that we feel as rising and falling). He says that rather than focusing on the physical breath, we should focus on the conceptual breath (this is the breath that we feel as solid and still, and which does not rub and slide on the skin).

Yet, in the book Practicing the Jhânas, there is no mention of this idea of conceptual breathing. And at no point does it say that one should not concentrate on the physical breath.

I don't understand it.

Thanks in advance

[Goofaholix]

He says that rather than focusing on the physical breath, we should focus on the conceptual breath (this is the breath that we feel as solid and still, and which does not rub and slide on the skin).

I think the problem here is that you have interpreted it as if there were two different breaths, there is only one breath and the difference is in the aspects of it that one pays attention to.

I'm not familiar with this book but I suspect they don't use the term conceptual breath because people find it confusing, they've probably used different words to point to paying attention to the breath as a whole rather than the changing physical sensations of the breath,

[DeadBuddha]

Thank you for your answer.

I understand conceptual breathing and physical breathing as two distinct components of breathing. In other words, I understand that breathing is composed of physical breathing and conceptual breathing.

And in the book, I'm sure at no point do the authors advise not to focus on the physical characteristics of breathing (particles, cold, hot, etc.). Yes, it's really weird. As you say, it's possible that they wanted to avoid confusing the readers. But it confuses me ahah.

[Goofaholix]

I understand conceptual breathing and physical breathing as two distinct components of breathing. In other words, I understand that breathing is composed of physical breathing and conceptual breathing.

I'm not sure where you got this idea of conceptual breathing from, do you have a quote? Every physical experience we are aware of has a mental aspect, yes, its good to be aware of this if you are practicing insight meditation but this is not what Sayadaw is talking about here. He is simply talking about not breaking down the experience of breathing into its various changing physical characteristics and not contemplating the dhammic characteristics...

This article has more explanation https://americanmonk.org/concept-meditation/

From Sayadaw http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/know-see.pdf

Do not pay attention to the individual characteristics (sabhàva-lakkhaõa), general characteristics (samma¤¤alakkhaõa) or colour of the nimitta (sign of concentration).
The individual characteristics are the characteristics of
the four elements in the breath: hardness, roughness,
flowing, heat, supporting, pushing, etc. The general
characteristics are the impermanent (anicca), suffering
(dukkha), or non-self (anattà) characteristics of the breath.
This means do not note ‘in, out, impermanent’, or ‘in,
out, suffering’, or ‘in, out, non-self’. Simply be aware of
the in-and-out breath as a concept.
The concept of the breath is the object of mindfulness-of-breathing. It is this object you must concentrate
on to develop concentration.

[DeadBuddha]

I understand conceptual breathing and physical breathing as two distinct components of breathing. In other words, I understand that breathing is composed of physical breathing and conceptual breathing.

I'm not sure where you got this idea of conceptual breathing from, do you have a quote? Every physical experience we are aware of has a mental aspect, yes, its good to be aware of this if you are practicing insight meditation but this is not what Sayadaw is talking about here. He is simply talking about not breaking down the experience of breathing into its various changing physical characteristics and not contemplating the dhammic characteristics...

This article has more explanation https://americanmonk.org/concept-meditation/

From Sayadaw http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/know-see.pdf

Do not pay attention to the individual characteristics (sabhàva-lakkhaõa), general characteristics (samma¤¤alakkhaõa) or colour of the nimitta (sign of concentration).
The individual characteristics are the characteristics of
the four elements in the breath: hardness, roughness,
flowing, heat, supporting, pushing, etc. The general
characteristics are the impermanent (anicca), suffering
(dukkha), or non-self (anattà) characteristics of the breath.
This means do not note ‘in, out, impermanent’, or ‘in,
out, suffering’, or ‘in, out, non-self’. Simply be aware of
the in-and-out breath as a concept.
The concept of the breath is the object of mindfulness-of-breathing. It is this object you must concentrate
on to develop concentration.

At the end of your quote he says that we should focus on conceptual breathing. Therefore, this conceptual breathing is opposed to the physical breathing (made of particles). So conceptual breathing is a more homogeneous thing. Unfortunately, in the quote, he does not define it so explicitly. But Pannananda does by saying that it is homogeneous, solid and immobile

[Goofaholix]

At the end of your quote he says that we should focus on conceptual breathing. Therefore, this conceptual breathing is opposed to the physical breathing (made of particles). So conceptual breathing is a more homogeneous thing. Unfortunately, in the quote, he does not define it so explicitly. But Pannananda does by saying that it is homogeneous, solid and immobile

He doesn't say that though, he says concept of breath, changing it to conceptual breathing makes it sound like a different kind of breathing which I think muddies the waters.

The Ven Subhuti article above makes it clear what is meant by concept of the breath, I believe Ajahn Brahm uses it in the same way.

I found A Companion Volume To Brief Discussion On Ānāpānasati(mindfulness Of Breath) By Paññananda which is what I think you are referring to. He uses the term conceptual breathing throughout and also mass of breath interchangeably. Flicking through instances where he uses these terms I find pretty dense and pretty confusing at to what he is talking about, I don't think it would be a good idea for western teachers to try and teach it in this way.

Then when he uses the term homogenous he seems more in agreement with my understanding...

"By cognizing the mass of breath/ still conceptual breath as 'merely one homogeneous solid thing..."

[DeadBuddha]

He doesn't say that though, he says concept of breath, changing it to conceptual breathing makes it sound like a different kind of breathing which I think muddies the waters.

Yes, he is talking about "conceptual breathing". By "conceptual breathing" I mean exactly the same thing (the meaning that i put behind these phrases is exactly the same).

I found A Companion Volume To Brief Discussion On Ānāpānasati(mindfulness Of Breath) By Paññananda which is what I think you are referring to.

Yes.

Then when he uses the term homogenous he seems more in agreement with my understanding...

If what he is saying is similar to what you are saying, then we are both saying the same thing, because the sentence you quoted is exactly what I am talking about.

[florencepugh]

I think the authors may have chosen not to include the concept of conceptual breathing in their book for various reasons, such as wanting to simplify the technique or avoiding potential confusion for readers. contexto