Using common sense and reasoning to conclude step 3 of breath meditation is talking about the physical body

General discussion of issues related to Theravada Meditation, e.g. meditation postures, developing a regular sitting practice, skillfully relating to difficulties and hindrances, etc.
BrokenBones
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:20 am

Re: Using common sense and reasoning to conclude step 3 of breath meditation is talking about the physical body

Post by BrokenBones »

Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 11:57 pm
Alex123 wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 11:54 pm re: "Body of breath". What exactly is that? It doesn't make any sense unless it refers to the physical body. There is no such thing as breathing without the body. Breathing exists because there is air, nose, mouth, lungs, diaphragm, all the muscles responsible for respiration, the heart that is working, arteries, capillaries, etc etc.
Think of it like you would a body of water, or a student body.
To think of it like that would be to make the Buddha a poor and deceptive teacher.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Using common sense and reasoning to conclude step 3 of breath meditation is talking about the physical body

Post by Ceisiwr »

BrokenBones wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 11:46 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 11:57 pm
Alex123 wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 11:54 pm re: "Body of breath". What exactly is that? It doesn't make any sense unless it refers to the physical body. There is no such thing as breathing without the body. Breathing exists because there is air, nose, mouth, lungs, diaphragm, all the muscles responsible for respiration, the heart that is working, arteries, capillaries, etc etc.
Think of it like you would a body of water, or a student body.
To think of it like that would be to make the Buddha a poor and deceptive teacher.
Not really, it just means he used language the same way we do. We don’t need to define “student body” because every English speakers knows what it means already.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
BrokenBones
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:20 am

Re: Using common sense and reasoning to conclude step 3 of breath meditation is talking about the physical body

Post by BrokenBones »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 11:54 pm
BrokenBones wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 11:46 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 11:57 pm

Think of it like you would a body of water, or a student body.
To think of it like that would be to make the Buddha a poor and deceptive teacher.
Not really, it just means he used language the same way we do. We don’t need to define “student body” because every English speakers knows what it means already.
But we know what a student body is... what the heck is a body of breath other than physical?
The breath exists dependent on the body... no body = no breath... but then you've got all that commentarial guff about conceptual and non conceptual. I despair at some of the linguistic gymnastics that surround the Buddha's straight teachings.

Body & mind are symbiotic... even modern science confirms this... the Buddha was a bit more knowledgeable.


Square pegs and round holes shouldn't be attempted just to prop up a view.
BrokenBones
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:20 am

Re: Using common sense and reasoning to conclude step 3 of breath meditation is talking about the physical body

Post by BrokenBones »

I sometimes get the sense that there exists an exotic form of body dysmorphic disorder in certain approaches to meditation... the body is there... get to know it.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Using common sense and reasoning to conclude step 3 of breath meditation is talking about the physical body

Post by Alex123 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 11:54 pm Not really, it just means he used language the same way we do. We don’t need to define “student body” because every English speakers knows what it means already.
But how often do we say "student body", instead of something clearer like "group of students", or "class of students"?

Why go about it in such a circular, distant, vague way in the sutta that was supposed to be technical and direct? Why couldn't the suttas just clearly say in pali that one is aware of the "entire breath" instead of talking about a bodily fabrication.

IMHO.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Using common sense and reasoning to conclude step 3 of breath meditation is talking about the physical body

Post by Ceisiwr »

Alex123 wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 7:25 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 11:54 pm Not really, it just means he used language the same way we do. We don’t need to define “student body” because every English speakers knows what it means already.
But how often do we say "student body", instead of something clearer like "group of students", or "class of students"?

Why go about it in such a circular, distant, vague way in the sutta that was supposed to be technical and direct? Why couldn't the suttas just clearly say in pali that one is aware of the "entire breath" instead of talking about a bodily fabrication.

IMHO.
Depends really. You hear it quite often in university, other places not so much. We also have "a body of water" and so on. We could say "group of students" which is another way of saying "body". Kāya of course also meaning "group" or "collection". There is another word in Pāli for the physical body. It's called sarīra. That always means your physical hard body. With Kāya, it depends on the context really. Sometimes it means the hard physical body. Other times it means just the physical sense organ of the body, which isn't what we mean by our "body" in English. That is a more Buddhist technical term. Other times it means all 5 aggregates, and so doesn't mean just the physical body there but more the whole person and other times still it means other types of "bodies". The mental-body, metaphysical substances and so on. Thankfully though, the sutta in question is quite clear since it clarifies what it means by "body"

"I say that this is a certain body among the bodies, namely, in-breathing and out-breathing. That is why on that occasion a bhikkhu abides contemplating an aspect of the body, ardent, fully aware, and mindful, having put away covetousness and grief for the world."

It's quite clear to me then that we are aware of the whole body of breath, rather than the whole physical body.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Using common sense and reasoning to conclude step 3 of breath meditation is talking about the physical body

Post by Ceisiwr »

BrokenBones wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 12:33 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 11:54 pm
BrokenBones wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 11:46 pm

To think of it like that would be to make the Buddha a poor and deceptive teacher.
Not really, it just means he used language the same way we do. We don’t need to define “student body” because every English speakers knows what it means already.
But we know what a student body is... what the heck is a body of breath other than physical?
The breath exists dependent on the body... no body = no breath... but then you've got all that commentarial guff about conceptual and non conceptual. I despair at some of the linguistic gymnastics that surround the Buddha's straight teachings.

Body & mind are symbiotic... even modern science confirms this... the Buddha was a bit more knowledgeable.


Square pegs and round holes shouldn't be attempted just to prop up a view.
Yes we do, because we know the context. Sadly, we are removed from the context of the Buddha's time and have to analyse it in a bit more depth. In relation to this sutta though, we know what body to be aware of. Its the breath.

"I say that this is a certain body among the bodies, namely, in-breathing and out-breathing. That is why on that occasion a bhikkhu abides contemplating an aspect of the body, ardent, fully aware, and mindful, having put away covetousness and grief for the world."

:shrug:
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
BrokenBones
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:20 am

Re: Using common sense and reasoning to conclude step 3 of breath meditation is talking about the physical body

Post by BrokenBones »

A related issue are the jhana similes. We have people equating 'from head to toe' as somehow relating to the body of mind instead of the actual body... unreal.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Using common sense and reasoning to conclude step 3 of breath meditation is talking about the physical body

Post by Ceisiwr »

BrokenBones wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 10:44 pm A related issue are the jhana similes. We have people equating 'from head to toe' as somehow relating to the body of mind instead of the actual body... unreal.
In the commentaries and sub-commentaries, when there is success at sense-restraint and over coming the hindrances (due to energy) mental rapture arises. This then leads to the tranquillity of feeling, perception & intention (due to not following pleasure or aversion at the sense bases, thanks to energy and rapture). When there is that tranquillity, spiritual (mental) rapture and spiritual (mental) sukha arises. This then drenches the whole physical body (the sub-commentaries make this clear via the use of the word "sarīra") due to production of "exquisite" rūpa generated by the mind. This sukha then lays the foundation for samādhi, such as access or absorption. The tranquillity, rapture and sukha are all mental. They have physical effects, and these are still experienced in access concentration, but are not experienced in absorption proper. From the sub-commentary to the Sāmaññaphalasutta (the section dealing with the Jhāna similes).
225.Pāmojjaṃ nāma taruṇapīti, sā kathañcipi tuṭṭhāvatthāti āha ‘‘pāmojjaṃ jāyatīti tuṭṭhākāro jāyatī’’ti. Tuṭṭhassāti okkantikabhāvappattāya pītiyā vasena tuṭṭhassa. Attano savipphārikatāya, attasamuṭṭhānapaṇītarūpuppattiyā ca sakalasarīraṃ khobhayamānā pharaṇalakkhaṇā pīti jāyati. Pītisahitaṃ pīti uttarapadalopena, kiṃ pana taṃ ? Mano. Pīti mano etassāti pītimano, tassa pītimanassa. Tayidaṃ atthamattameva dassento ‘‘pītisampayuttacittassā’’ti āha. Kāyoti idha arūpakalāpo adhippeto, na vedanādikkhandhattayamevāti āha ‘‘nāmakāyo passambhatī’’ti, passaddhidvayassa pītivasenettha passambhanaṃ adhippetaṃ. Vigatadarathoti pahīnauddhaccādikilesadaratho. Vuttappakārāya pubbabhāgabhāvanāya vasena cetasikasukhaṃ paṭisaṃvedentoyeva taṃsamuṭṭhānapaṇītarūpaphuṭṭhasarīratāya kāyikampi sukhaṃ vedetīti āha ‘‘kāyikampi cetasikampi sukhaṃ vedayatī’’ti. Imināti ‘‘sukhaṃ paṭisaṃvedetī’’ti evaṃ vuttena. Saṃkilesapakkhato nikkhantattā, paṭhamajjhānapakkhikattā ca nekkhammasukhena. Sukhitassāti sukhino.

Paṭhamajjhānakathāvaṇṇanā

226. ‘‘Cittaṃ samādhiyatī’’ti etena upacāravasenapi appanāvasenapi cittassa samādhānaṃ kathitaṃ. Evaṃ sante ‘‘so vivicceva kāmehī’’tiādikā desanā kimatthiyāti āha ‘‘so vivicceva kāmehi…pe… vutta’’nti. Tattha uparivisesadassanatthanti paṭhamajjhānādiuparivattabbavisesadassanatthaṃ. Na hi upacārasamādhisamadhigamena vinā paṭhamajjhānādiviseso samadhigantuṃ sakkā. Pāmojjuppādādīhi kāraṇaparamparā dutiyajjhānādisamadhigamepi icchitabbāva paṭipadāñāṇadassanavisuddhi viya dutiyamaggādisamadhigameti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Tassa samādhinoti ‘‘sukhino cittaṃ samādhiyatī’’ti evaṃ sādhāraṇavasena vutto yo appanālakkhaṇo, tassa samādhino. Pabhedadassanatthanti dutiyajjhānādivibhāgassa ceva abhiññādivibhāgassa ca pabhedadassanatthaṃ. Karo vuccati pupphasambhavaṃ gabbhāsaye karīyatīti katvā, karato jāto kāyo karajakāyo, tadupasanissayo catusantatirūpasamudāyo. Kāmaṃ nāmakāyopi vivekajena pītisukhena tathāladdhupakāro, ‘‘abhisandetī’’tiādivacanato pana rūpakāyo idhādhippetoti āha ‘‘imaṃ karajakāya’’nti. Abhisandetīti abhisandanaṃ karoti. Taṃ pana jhānamayena pītisukhena karajakāyassa tintabhāvāpādanaṃ, sabbatthakameva lūkhabhāvāpanayananti āha ‘‘temetī’’tiādi, tayidaṃ abhisandanaṃ atthato yathāvuttapītisukhasamuṭṭhānehi paṇītarūpehi kāyassa parippharaṇaṃ daṭṭhabbaṃ. ‘‘Parisandetī’’tiādīsupi eseva nayo. Sabbaṃ etassa atthīti sabbavā, tassa sabbāvato. Avayavāvayavisambandhe avayavini sāmivacananti avayavīvisayo sabba-saddo, tasmā vuttaṃ ‘‘sabbakoṭṭhāsavato’’ti. Aphuṭaṃnāma na hoti yattha yattha kammajarūpaṃ, tattha tattha cittajarūpassa abhibyāpanato. Tenāha ‘‘upādinnakasantatī’’tiādi.
https://tipitaka.org/romn/

Mentally generated rūpa is, as far as I'm aware, an Abhidhamma term. It might sound strange to us, but really its their way of explaining how mental dhammas such as rapture and sukha can cause effects in the physical body. The Sautrāntika also tried to explain it with their Abhidharma, but for them the physical body is filled with sukha due to a unique form of the wind element which pervades the body during meditation. I think it's somewhat similar to the Theravādin explanation.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Using common sense and reasoning to conclude step 3 of breath meditation is talking about the physical body

Post by Alex123 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 8:24 pm Depends really. You hear it quite often in university, other places not so much.
This isn't University. This is about preservation of the Greatest Teaching. Part of that preservation is making sure that it is correctly understood for future generations that might not know pali idioms or cultural specifics of your time.

We also have "a body of water" and so on. We could say "group of students" which is another way of saying "body". Kāya of course also meaning "group" or "collection". There is another word in Pāli for the physical body. It's called sarīra.
Kaya is used in the context of satipatthana which is developed through Anapanasati.
That always means your physical hard body. With Kāya, it depends on the context really.
Right. Context is satipatthana (kaya, vedana, citta, dhamma). Does kaya mean "body of breath" here? No.
Do you see the confusion? Why should it be expected that a word used in proper context mean something other than what it says?

Following your logic we could ALWAYS reinterpret the Teaching to serve one's views by simply stretching the meaning of words.

Sometimes it means the hard physical body. Other times it means just the physical sense organ of the body, which isn't what we mean by our "body" in English. That is a more Buddhist technical term. Other times it means all 5 aggregates, and so doesn't mean just the physical body there but more the whole person and other times still it means other types of "bodies". The mental-body, metaphysical substances and so on. Thankfully though, the sutta in question is quite clear since it clarifies what it means by "body"
The context is satipatthana where it means the sort of body that is made of flesh, pus, urine, bones, and can decompose in the cemetery.
"I say that this is a certain body among the bodies, namely, in-breathing and out-breathing. That is why on that occasion a bhikkhu abides contemplating an aspect of the body, ardent, fully aware, and mindful, having put away covetousness and grief for the world."

It's quite clear to me then that we are aware of the whole body of breath, rather than the whole physical body.
You are aware of that breath THROUGH the respiration of the physical body. To speak precisely, you can't be aware of the breath itself. You are aware of tactile sensations, bodily feelings and the sounds that the act of breathing does. That requires the physical body.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Using common sense and reasoning to conclude step 3 of breath meditation is talking about the physical body

Post by Alex123 »

BrokenBones wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 10:44 pm A related issue are the jhana similes. We have people equating 'from head to toe' as somehow relating to the body of mind instead of the actual body... unreal.
Yes, you are absolutely right.

Ceisiwr,
In the kayagatasati sutta (notice: it is kaya not sariragatasati)
where it talks about jhanas it uses physical similes. I am nothing compared to the Buddha, and don't have super deep absorption attainments, but I could easily come up with more clearer similes if the Jhanas were super hard absorption states.


Here for example the 4th Jhana simile:
he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither-pleasure-nor-pain. He sits, permeating the body with a pure, bright awareness. Just as if a man were sitting covered from head to foot with a white cloth so that there would be no part of his body to which the white cloth did not extend; even so, the monk sits, permeating the body with a pure, bright awareness.
MN119
Here the body isn't "body of breath", so why should it be limited to that in anapanasati? The physical body isn't called sarira either.

Furthermore, try to substitute mental body for the physical body. What do you get?
"mental body... covered from head to foot with a white cloth... "
:namaste:
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Using common sense and reasoning to conclude step 3 of breath meditation is talking about the physical body

Post by Ceisiwr »

Alex123 wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 11:29 pm
This isn't University. This is about preservation of the Greatest Teaching. Part of that preservation is making sure that it is correctly understood for future generations that might not know pali idioms or cultural specifics of your time.
Indeed.

Kaya is used in the context of satipatthana which is developed through Anapanasati.
Yes, which in that context means the breath. The breath being an aspect of the body, which is what mindfulness of the body in Satipaṭṭhāna is all about. You take an aspect of the body to meditate on. That can be it's foul aspects, or its elemental aspects, or of its nature to decay or it can be the breath.
Right. Context is satipatthana (kaya, vedana, citta, dhamma). Does kaya mean "body of breath" here? No.
Do you see the confusion? Why should it be expected that a word used in proper context mean something other than what it says?

Following your logic we could ALWAYS reinterpret the Teaching to serve one's views by simply stretching the meaning of words.
I can see your confusion, yes. You seem to think mindfulness of the body in satipaṭṭhāna is being mindful of, well, it's not quite clear actually. If you look at the Satipaṭṭhāna sutta, you see that mindfulness of the body means taking different aspects of it as a point of meditation. It doesn't mean you simultaneously meditate on all of them at once; foulness, repulsive, elemental, breath etc.
The context is satipatthana where it means the sort of body that is made of flesh, pus, urine, bones, and can decompose in the cemetery.
It is referring to the physical body there, yes. As I said above, you take an aspect of it to meditate upon.
You are aware of that breath THROUGH the respiration of the physical body. To speak precisely, you can't be aware of the breath itself. You are aware of tactile sensations, bodily feelings and the sounds that the act of breathing does. That requires the physical body.
In mindfulness of breathing we take the breath as an aspect of the body to meditate upon. How do we know we are breathing? Through contact, which is why we focus at the nose or upper lip or some other location where the air strikes the body. If you do want to get technical about it, in Abhidhamma terms we are only aware of the elements when we contact the "breath" since, ultimately, the "breath" doesn't exist. That would be a more insight based practice though rather than samatha. That's if we want to get technical, of course. In more simple terms, at the level of conventional reality too in the Abhidhamma, we just become aware of the breath whilst breathing in and out, where it contacts (for how else would you know about it?).
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Using common sense and reasoning to conclude step 3 of breath meditation is talking about the physical body

Post by Ceisiwr »

Alex123 wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 11:39 pm
BrokenBones wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 10:44 pm A related issue are the jhana similes. We have people equating 'from head to toe' as somehow relating to the body of mind instead of the actual body... unreal.
Yes, you are absolutely right.

Ceisiwr,
In the kayagatasati sutta (notice: it is kaya not sariragatasati)
where it talks about jhanas it uses physical similes. I am nothing compared to the Buddha, and don't have super deep absorption attainments, but I could easily come up with more clearer similes if the Jhanas were super hard absorption states.


Here for example the 4th Jhana simile:
he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither-pleasure-nor-pain. He sits, permeating the body with a pure, bright awareness. Just as if a man were sitting covered from head to foot with a white cloth so that there would be no part of his body to which the white cloth did not extend; even so, the monk sits, permeating the body with a pure, bright awareness.
MN119
Here the body isn't "body of breath", so why should it be limited to that in anapanasati? The physical body isn't called sarira either.

Furthermore, try to substitute mental body for the physical body. What do you get?
"mental body... covered from head to foot with a white cloth... "
:namaste:
These are the sort of replies you get from people who haven't really bothered to learn the traditional view, or understood it. I've outlined it above for BrokenBones. There are of course other more modern views on the similes, such as what you find with Sujato and others over at SuttaCentral. Interestingly, there is a parallel to them that doesn't frame them as physical experiences at all, but rather more mental in nature. Regardless, I'm happy with the traditional one.
Here the body isn't "body of breath", so why should it be limited to that in anapanasati? The physical body isn't called sarira either.
Because in mindfulness of breathing the breath is the aspect of the body you focus on, which is why the Buddha said the following

"I say that this is a certain body among the bodies, namely, in-breathing and out-breathing. That is why on that occasion a bhikkhu abides contemplating an aspect of the body, ardent, fully aware, and mindful, having put away covetousness and grief for the world."

He actually states that one is doing mindfulness of the body whilst doing mindfulness of breathing, because the breath is a "body" amongst the bodies. It's an aspect of the physical body, thus being a Satipaṭṭhāna exercise.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Using common sense and reasoning to conclude step 3 of breath meditation is talking about the physical body

Post by Ceisiwr »

Alex123 wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 11:39 pm The physical body isn't called sarira either.
Sarīra means the literal concrete and material body.
sarīra
neuter

the (physical) body DN.i.157; MN.i.157; SN.iv.286; AN.i.50; AN.ii.41; AN.iii.57 sq., AN.iii.323 sq. AN.iv.190. Snp verse 478, Snp verse 584; Dhp.151; Mnd.181; Ja.i.394 (six blemishes); Ja.ii.31; antimasarīra one who wears his last body, an Anāgāmin Snp verse 624; SN.i.210; Dhp.400.
a dead body, a corpse DN.ii.141, DN.ii.164; MN.iii.91.
the bones DN.ii.164.
relics Vv.63, Vv.32; Vv-a.269.
https://suttacentral.net/define/sar%C4%ABra

The suttas use both sarīra & kāya. Sarīra always means the physical body, whilst kāya is more context specific.
In the kayagatasati sutta (notice: it is kaya not sariragatasati)
Yes, but there kāya means the same thing as sarīra. Perhaps a bit more nuanced, since it refers to different aspects of the body. Perhaps why kāya was used instead there, since it is referring to different physical "groups".
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Using common sense and reasoning to conclude step 3 of breath meditation is talking about the physical body

Post by Alex123 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 11:44 pm These are the sort of replies you get from people who haven't really bothered to learn the traditional view, or understood it.
I go with the suttas first.

Because in mindfulness of breathing the breath is the aspect of the body you focus on, which is why the Buddha said the following
Anapanasati is mostly 4 satipatthanas. The breath, by itself, plays a much smaller role. First 2 steps out of 16 directly deal with it. 3rd step deals with it through the medium of the body (how else?). So at most, breathing is 3 out of 16 steps. The other 13 steps you focus on other 3 satipatthanas with each in/out breath.
"I say that this is a certain body among the bodies, namely, in-breathing and out-breathing.
And that certain body is breathing in and breathing out.
Post Reply