Breath meditation is one of the timeless classics of buddhist practice. MN 118 is dedicated to it, and so many teachers have their own spin on it. Together with other ‘classics’ of Buddhism though, it caused me a lot of headache (at which point you can rightly claim ‘man, you got way to much headache with the teachings!’)
My problem with with MN 118 has been mainly that I first didn’t understand it. And when I understood a little bit, I realized that it is a blueprint for the whole development - from casually knowing the length of the breath up until nirodha. And I found it weird that the sutta would string all those stages together without warning signs.
And today I thought, wait a minute, we know pretty sure that the Buddha practiced anapana, there are too many references throughout the suttas. But where do we actually find the practice in detail? Turns out, not at too many places:
DN 22 - MN 10 - MN 62 - MN 118 - MN 119 - AN 10.60 - and Anapanasamyutta SN 54.1, 10, 11, 13
It’s not too far fetched to say that DN 22, MN 10, MN 118 and MN 119 stem from one pool of material - we have the two satipatthana suttas, and the similarly sounding anapana- and kayagatasati suttas
MN 62 is another such ‘meditation’ sutta where so many methods are collected at one place. The context is weird though, and who rightly distrusts the confusing story finds confirmation in Bh. Analayo’s discussion of the chinese parallel that points to many irregularities. This sutta seems to be assembled from other material.
AN 10.60, again a ‘meditation’ catalog, with many sannas.
Basically all of those suttas’ originality has been contested, but I don’t know if has been really proven. My own reasons are admittedly more vague, but still valid to me:
- I usually expect to find main doctrinal topics in the Anguttara (e.g. the ‘bloated corpse theme’ can be found six times), since it’s such a varied collection of material. Only one occurrence of the anapanassati practice in the assembly list of AN 10.60 raises (my) questions
- The cryptic practice of anapanassati is described in all the same stereotypical way. This unfortunate feature of the suttas makes me think that the material comes from a single source that in the best case suffered from the loss of explanatory details, and in the worst assembled the material from other sources.
- I have to admit that I don’t understand the Samyutta Nikaya. Maybe it shouldn’t surprise me that the anapanassati practice is only to be found in the Anapana Samyutta. But even the term ‘Ānāpānassati’ appears only once (SN 46.66) before its own samyutta. And here I get a deja-vu from my little research on ariya, where the term ‘Four Noble Truths’ in the Samyutta basically only appears in 56. Saccasamyutta (with two exceptions). The editors couldn’t have put all the suttas that in any way mentioned ‘Four Noble Truths’ into that samyutta… Anyway, I don’t get it
My shaky conclusion for now is this: There was an anapanassati practice, the suttas mention it, not a terrible lot though:
- 1x in the Digha, 4x in the Majjima, 9x in the Anguttara, 5x in the Samyutta
- The actual practice is cryptic and without context unintelligible
- I would say this points to one uncertain source
- …and that either the practice was very general (for example focus on one’s prana / life energy) or that the details went lost
And again I am perplexed: Why do we have the countless mentions of brahmins, brahma, devas, nagas, good rebirth etc. and so little about the actual meditation practice that should lead us to our goal?! (exceptions: asubha & anatta)
What do you guys think about anapana and the meditation issue?