Anapanasati, and more questions

[Gabriel]

@Gabriel_L

What stops us from allowing for the 16 steps to have been simply a formalization of what he developed once leaving behind the austerities, and lead him to be the first this age in dispelling completely ignorance with regards to the four noble truths?

Just on a textual basis I see a few possibilities:

• The Bodhisatta practiced some form of anapanassati to discover and deepen the sukha-jhanas - he might have known other jhanas before, e.g. appāṇaka jhāna, but only with the samma-samadhi-jhanas he found his right path. So there was already a kusala anapanassati before his bodhi that was independent of the 16-stages.

• If he later taught anapanassati in 16 stages, maybe as a didactic tool to incorporate other dhamma as well, then at least a good deal of description, explanation and context went lost - in 40 years of teaching there must have been more to the 16 stages than just the list of stages.

• Or, after his bodhi he continued to teach anapanassati as he first practiced it, we don’t know how, but not in the 16 stages, probably in a much simpler way. Then, after the Buddha, but before the edition of the suttas, a scholastic doctrinal interpretation of anapanassati would have come up, to relate the previously simple meditation to other aspects of the dhamma, e.g. samadhi and satipatthana. The result would have been the current 16 stages.

• Or, the anyway thin evidence that he was practicing anapanassati before his bodhi is inaccurate, and he taught it only afterwards. Also in this case, either a good deal of explanation is lost, or the 16 stages are a post-Buddha effort to make different aspects of the dhamma congruent.

[Gabriel_L]

@Gabriel

there must have been more to the 16 stages than just the list of stages.

Well, that is something I don’t really bother to consider at all. What was kept through the oral transmission and is found accross the Nikayas and Agamas is very sufficient and clear enough for anyone benefit from it. On the rest of your considerations, I reckon I better leave the conversation. This sort of speculation does not ring any bell in me (I try but it does not!) .

I thank you for the opportunity of manifesting here my personal appreciation of anapanasati as a contemplative practice that has all elements I was taught to expect in something that would have come from the Buddha:

• It is based on something which is directly visible, our breath, and has the potential to finally opening our eyes to what we never see: our minds.
• Its development and results are immediate , atemporal, it can be tried and at any moment cultivated by anyone alive and breathing, and the description of its results is as valid as it was back 2,500 years ago.
• The 16 steps and 4 tetrads its cultivation is based on point to a gradual process of discovery through stillness born of pleasure and gladness of heart, truly inviting one to come and see how the Buddha himself found a long lost way to end suffering here and now.
• It is applicable in the sense it is enough for the fulfillment of the factors of awakening and perfection of the fourfold path factor of right presence / mindfulness.
• Last but not least, its benefits are to be personally experienced.

[SCMatt]

@Gabriel

With jhanas, the 8-fold path and many other dhammas we at least have some similes, with the 16-steps-anapanassati - nothing.

But there is a simile in DN22:

Just as, monks, a clever turner or turner’s apprentice while making a long turn knows “I am making a long turn”, or, while making a short turn knows “I am making a short turn”, just so, monks, a monk while breathing in long, knows “I am breathing in long”, or, while breathing out long, he knows “I am breathing out long”; or, while breathing in short, he knows “I am breathing in short”, or, while breathing out short, he knows “I am breathing out short”.

and the Pāḷi MN10:

It is like a skilled carpenter or carpenter’s apprentice: when making a deep cut they would clearly know ‘I am making a deep cut’, and when making a shallow cut they would clearly know ‘I am making a shallow cut’.

In the same way, when a monastic is breathing in deep they clearly know ‘I am breathing in deep’; breathing out deep they clearly know ‘I am breathing out deep’.

Breathing in shallow they clearly know ‘I am breathing in shallow’; breathing out shallow they clearly know ‘I am breathing out shallow’.

@Gabriel

Also ānāpāna is supposed to stop thoughts - normally it’s quite the opposite when people try to concentrate on the breath.

In general, I think the preliminaries or preparations can often be passed over. I also think that maybe we can sometimes read in too cursory a way. In other words, ok, I read the 16 steps, it took 5 minutes, now what? This is how it was for me first reading the suttas, like… that’s it? Kinda frustrating, but I think there is more depth on closer examination. Especially with meditation instructions like this, I like to imagine what it would have been like if there were no written records and we had to memorize, by heart, the teaching we would use to practice. How succint would it be? How much more weight would each word carry?

I would recommend checking out @llt 's ānāpāna āgama studies if you haven’t already, there’s a lot about preliminaries and benefits there:
http://lapislazulitexts.com/articles/anapanasmrti_in_the_agamas

Also, Ajahn Brahm’s “Basic Method of Meditation”:
https://www.dhammaloka.org.au/files/pdf/Ajahn%20Brahm%20-%20The%20Basic%20Method%20of%20Meditation.pdf

On the theme of stillness and quiet, here are some preliminaries/preparations I’d like to outline (from more external to more internal):

• ethical behavior
• a secluded, peaceful, quiet environment
• balance in the physical posture
• calming bodily formation (subtle bodily movements)
• presence, mindfulness on the present
• non-elaborative mindfulness of the breath
• calming the (body of) breath
• giving up subtle desire and aversion towards the world

.

• (brought about by) ethical behavior
  Like @Gabriel_L has pointed out, ethical or virtuous practice can bring about a fundamental peacefulness and is foundational to the path and everything contained within it.

• a secluded, peaceful, quiet environment
  araññagato vā rukkhamūlagato vā suññāgāragato
  Having gone to the jungle/forest, the foot of a tree, an empty hut; the point here I think is a quiet and peaceful place. It should be obvious that it’s kinda hard to meditate in the middle of a city sidewalk. There is some relationship between the environment and our mental state; this is about setting the right external conditions. Just three words but they point to a very important factor to take into consideration.

• balance in the physical posture
  nisīdati pallaṅkaṃ ābhujitvā ujuṃ kāyaṃ
  Sitting down cross-legged making the spine straight.
  This one I think gets ignored far too often. Slouching can cause bodily pain not very conducive to meditation. I think there is furthermore a correspondence between the mind and body, having a well-balanced, well-composed body (emphasized in the vinaya) is naturally conducive to similar mind-states. The various yogic traditions and Northern Buddhisms tend to give this a lot more emphasis. There is a great deal of subtlty that can go into a well-balanced sitting posture, and I think this can very helpful for meditation.

• calming bodily formation (subtle bodily movements)
  Stillness of the body is mentioned as a specific quality of ānāpāna in SN54.7:

And, monastics, of what samadhi is it that is cultivated and increased with neither moving nor fidgeting of the body, with neither moving nor fidgeting of the mind?

Monastics, it is the samādhi of the mindfulness of breathing (ānāpānasatisamādhi) that is cultivated and increased with neither moving nor fidgeting of the body, with neither moving nor fidgeting of the mind.

This is the only meditation I know of that specifically calls for stillness of the body.

Breath meditation is recommended for stilling the thoughts in both the nikāyas and āgamas. Calming and stilling really seem to be predominant themes in ānāpāna.

• presence, mindfulness on the present
  paṇidhāya parimukhaṃ satiṃ upaṭṭhapetvā
  Having established mindfulness/presence to the fore. Ok, there’s a lot of controversy over parimukaṃ. Personally, after the monastics I trust, I think this is referring to the ‘fore’ as in the foreground of the mind. “It’s on the tip of my tongue”, “right on the nose”, “the tail end” are English expressions that don’t literally refer to body parts but use them metaphorically and I think that’s what’s going on here. So this is the usage of sati as meaning ‘presence’ or ‘awareness in the present’. Ajahn Brahm goes into more detail about how this is an unconcern for the past or future, and much more detail on what sati means here.

SN54.6 also has an ānāpāna that is not fully developed, and might be considered preliminary:

Having abandoned sensual desire for past sensual pleasures, lord, having done away with sensual desire for future sensual pleasures, and having thoroughly subdued perceptions of irritation with regard to internal & external events, I breathe in mindfully and breathe out mindfully.

• non-elaborative mindfulness of the breath
  dīghaṃ passasāmī’ti pajānāti, etc. (the first 2 steps)
  Closely tied to the previous point, and more elaborated in Ajahn Brahm’s book. I think ‘pajānati’ is key here, ‘clearly knowing’ is a mental quality beyond thought. This isn’t noting, it’s knowing. Knowing is direct, intuitive, without words or stories.

• calming the (body of) breath
  In my own current understanding as outlined, we can have a calming of the physical body (sn54.7) and a calming of the breath, why not?

Because the 16 steps now are all about assasanto passasanto (in and out breathing), and because the breath body is a “body/collection among bodies/collections”, I think the 3rd and 4th steps have to do with the breath body.

Personally, the way that I practice, I don’t go beyond the first tetrad. I focus more on the preliminaries, and I figure that the second tetrad will arise naturally when the rest of the conditions are right.

@Gabriel

Plus, the unresolved question of what āna + apāna actually means - certainly not our post-modern physiological understanding of it.

I wouldn’t worry too much about this. It’s just a title imo. Nowhere does āna or apāna occur in the instructions, instead words clearly meaning in-breath and out-breath are used.

In another sense though, it could be that this title emphasizes the pleasant and life-affirming quality of this meditation (prāṇa as life-force). As Bhante Sujāto points out in “A Swift Pair”, we have meditations on the death-principle (maraṇa, asubha, etc.) and meditations on the life-principle (ānāpāna). Commonly, people have understood life to have a significant “first breath” and “last breath”, breath in many cultures is a defining property of life.

Hope this helps!

[Gabriel]

Thanks for the detailed comments!

@SCMatt

a simile in DN22

Yes, this is the kind of simile that I would have expected. It’s such a curious section though! Here body/breath meditation is just: long and short and experiencing (+tranquilizing) the whole body.

Long/short have a simile, ‘the whole body’ doesn’t. If we had the full 16 stages here, the sutta-style might have continued with similes for each step - is it a shame, or is this short form the original, hm…

@SCMatt

I think the preliminaries or preparations can often be passed over.

Agree completely, also with @Gabriel_L. Yet this is true for every meditation or bhavana. Anapanassati is explicitly mentioned as a method to stop the thoughts, and neither with others nor on myself I see that working, whereas other meditations do that more effectively (for example experiencing the whole body) - that’s why I figured that we miss some links here that would describe at which point the thinking stops - at the long-short breath already? or the whole body experience? or only at nirodha?

@SCMatt

This is the only meditation I know of that specifically calls for stillness of the body.

Please note that probably anejja (as in the arupas) goes back to the same verb that is used here, iñjati. MN 125 expresses the non-moving of this practice with a drastic simile.

When the elephant is being trained in the task of imperturbability, he does not move his forelegs or his hindlegs; he does not move his forequarters or his hindquarters; he does not move his head, ears, tusks, tail, or trunk. The king’s elephant is able to endure blows from spears, blows from swords, blows from arrows, blows from other beings, and the thundering sounds of drums, kettledrums, trumpets, and tomtoms.

Since the non-moving aspect is here practically in the name, whereas the non-moving in anapanassati is solely in the SN sutta, I would count the non-moving to anejja…

@SCMatt

It’s just a title imo. Nowhere does āna or apāna occur in the instructions, instead words clearly meaning in-breath and out-breath are used.

That is an interesting incongruence indeed. We have the title ‘anapana’ as a meditation, but when it comes to the actual process we find ‘assasati’ - maybe ‘assāsapassāsassati’ sounded too much like a tongue-twister

Btw personally I also leave it at the first tetrad… Thanks again!

[Suravira]

@Gabriel

That is an interesting incongruence indeed. We have the title ‘anapana’ as a meditation, but when it comes to the actual process we find ‘assasati’ - maybe ‘assāsapassāsassati’ sounded too much like a tongue-twister

It’s alliterative - the tetrads are wonderful to chant, all the sibilants are intended to sound like breathing. I imagine the title was added later.

But I have found it a fantastic preparative practice to actually chant the tetrads at the start of my sit. There is something about chanting that collects the body and mind and helps the settling process. And then having the instructions really memorized and in your body helps you stick with them without so much self-directing thinking.

I think in the old days people did not need so many directions as we do today - maybe they were more comfortable feeling their way.

[Gabriel]

The sound is probably really an aspect I don’t have enough in mind - it makes me remember how in my few sanskrit semesters I was fascinated by the sandhis and how the whole language changes to sound well.

@Suravira

I think in the old days people did not need so many directions as we do today

I’m not so sure about that. Also today (e.g. in the Thai forest tradition) there have been teachers who weren’t talking much. And in the suttas we sometimes have interlocutors that just go on and on. There have been learned brahmins and rulers back then as well, and the intellectual mind needs to be convinced.

We have a very basic problem on top of that I’m afraid. When we are far abroad and meet people from our culture there is on a certain level an instant understanding - we know in which limits to behave, what we can talk about and how to do it. And this is not something you can put in words, or teach someone from a totally different culture. This is what Ramanujan called ‘a pool of signifiers’:

such an area has a pool of signifiers (like a gene pool), signifiers that include plots, characters, names, geography, incidents, and relationships. Oral, written, and performance traditions, phrases, proverbs, and even sneers carry allusions… (quoted in Hiltebeitel, _Reading the Fifth Ved_a)

Prāna or the breath belong in this category; these terms don’t hang in the air, they are tied to a net of meaning and references that is evident in the late vedic period. To recover the meanings that a native speaker of that time wouldn’t bother explicating is difficult work, but I think it has to be done in order to even get close to an understanding.

[yogakkhemi]

Mudita everyone.
I have been reading this forum for quite a while now - and I appreciate the quality of its content.
English is not my first language, so I hope not to damage the prose, while passing along some additional musing.

I must admit that anapanasati is my ducky. This is why I allow myself to enter the conversation.

I see anapanasati as an “insideful” dwelling in the tetrad that are kāya, vedanā, citta and dhamma.
A progression, that is explained at the end of each tetrad in SN 54.13; namely:

1. Kaya:

---

"I call this a certain kind of body (kāyaññatarāhaṃ), Ananda, that is, breathing in and breathing out.
Kāyaññatarāhaṃ, ānanda, etaṃ vadāmi, yadidaṃ - assāsapassāsaṃ."

Therefore, dwelling in the breath (in/out - assāsa/passāsā - ānā/pāna) is dwelling (cf. viharati) in the body.

2. Vedanā:

---

"I call this a certain kind of feeling (vedanāññatarāhaṃ), Ananda, that is, an intellect-made (manasikāraṃ) breathing in and breathing out.
Vedanāññatarāhaṃ, ānanda, etaṃ vadāmi, yadidaṃ - assāsapassāsānaṃ sādhukaṃ manasikāraṃ."

Therefore the intellect-made ānā/pāna is (becomes) a feeling. And dwelling in, discerning (pajanati) this intellect-made feeling is dwelling in vedanā.

3. Citta:

---

Here one must refer to SN 41.6 (SA 568) for the macro-approach of citta; namely:
“Perceiving and feeling is done with the citta, they are things bound up with the citta”.
“Saññā ca vedanā ca cetasikā ete dhammā cittapaṭibaddhā.”

Therefore, at the macro level (paṭiccasamuppāda,) citta is about feeling and perception.

And we must refer to SN 47.42 (SA 609) for its micro-approach; namely:
“With the origination of nāmarūpa there is the origination of citta.”
“Nāmarūpasamudayā cittassa samudayo”
Here the micro-expression of citta is done by the arising of Nāma (sense-consciousness, contact, feeling, perception and manasikara) + Rūpa (the four great elements (mahābhūtāna rūpa), and the forms derived from them (upādāya)) - see definition of Nāma-Rūpa in SN 12.1-2 (SA 298)) -
Here, nāma is “extended” to mano and phassa.

Therefore dwelling in citta, in the case of anapanasati, is about the perception of this intellect-made feeling derived from the in & out breath(#2).

Significant note:
While SN 12.2 defines Nāma as feeling (vedanā), perception (saññā), intention (cetanā), contact (phassa), and intellect-producing (manasikāra) - SA 298 defines Nāma as feeling (受 - shòu - sensation), perception (想 - xiǎng - ideation), intention (行 - xíng - practical), and consciousness (識 - shí - knowledge).
In other words, SA considers the scope of Nāma, as operating strictly in the NāmaRupā nidāna (with its establishment of consciousness in the khandhas - see SN 12.39 & SN 22.3) [macro level] - while SN considers the scope of Nāma, as an “extended” (descended - cf. avakkanti) NāmaRūpa, that operates within saḷāyatana + the phassa & vedanā nidānas [micro level] - Namely an “extended” Nāma that operates in satta.

4. Dhamma

---

To put it simply, dwelling in dhamma is contemplating (anupassi) the “intellect-making since the origin” - the “yoniso manasikara” of the all process. From the assāsapassāsa to the full phenomena.

Ānāpānasati is the pañña (discernment) of the making of a all phenomena - step by step.

Seven factors of enlightenment (Satta Sambojjhaṅge)

Enters the Seven factors of enlightenment (Satta Sambojjhaṅge).

The enlightenment factor of Mindfulness is just about having preserved the recollection of the Teaching, through this dwelling in the tetrad.

The enlightenment factor of Investigation of Phenomena (dhammavicaya sambojjhaṅgo), just about investigating the latter dhamma.

Ensues the Enlightenment factors of energy, rapture, serenity and concentration, and equanimity that derive naturally (in cascade) from this investigation of the dhamma.
That is to say:

• "While he discriminates (vicinati) the phenomena/dhamma with discernment, goes about (vicarati), and engages into investigating it (parivīmaṃsamāpajjati), there is firm and unshaken energy. "
  Yasmiṃ samaye ānanda, bhikkhuno taṃ dhammaṃ paññāya pavicanato pavicarato parivīmaṃsamāpajjato āraddhaṃ hoti viriyaṃ asallīnaṃ,
• When his energy is firm, there arises in him a rapture free from sensual desire (spiritual).
  Yasmiṃ samaye ānanda, bhikkhuno āraddhaviriyassa uppajjati pīti nirāmisā,
• For one whose mind is uplifted by rapture the body becomes tranquil (serene) and the mind becomes tranquil.
  Yasmiṃ samaye ānanda, bhikkhuno pītimanassa kāyopi passambhati, cittampi passambhati,
• Serenity of body and pleasure of mind (sukhino cittaṃ) brings concentration in him.
  Yasmiṃ samaye ānanda, bhikkhuno passaddhakāyassa sukhino cittaṃ samādhiyati,
• With a well concentrated mind, there is equanimity.
  Yasmiṃ samaye ānanda, bhikkhu tathā samāhitaṃ cittaṃ sādhukaṃ ajjhupekkhitā hoti.

---

Once the enlightenment factors have been applied to each one of the tetrad - one after the other - a meditator is quite ripe to enter plainly the deconstructive job of the Jhanas.

My take.
Mudita.

[Brahmali]

@llt

In general, for Buddhist texts from India, when one text is much longer than another, the longer one has been expanded.

What I had in mind was explicit contractions or explicit references for how to expand the sutta. I have noticed when reading Ven. Analayo’s translation of the Samyuktāgama that suttas sometimes tell you to “expanded as before”, or something to that effect. The Pali is normally contracted in a different way, that is , by saying peyyala, “etc” . Here is an example from the second sutta of the Samyuktāgama : “Just as with giving right attention to impermanence, in the same way also for dukkha, emptiness and not-self”.

@llt

With a text like SA 815, in which its closest parallel is several times as long, and includes so many other materials, it’s hard for me to say that it’s a simple parallel. Some of the framing materials and the introduction are certainly similar, though.

Have you had a look at Ven. Analayo’s study of this sutta? It should only take you five minutes to read it. It’s only a few pages. It’s available here. If he has made any mistakes, it would be great if you would point it out. I should perhaps add that this study is his PhD thesis, and so it will have been reviewed by top scholars.

@llt

I think generally for a monk in the Theravada tradition, there is a great investment in the historical authenticity of the Pali Canon, and tying it to a historical Buddha.

I think anyone who is seriously interested in Buddhism should be interested in what is the earliest expression of these teachings and should not be tied too strongly to any particular tradition. It is not about the authenticity of the Pali canon, but about the authenticity of one’s practice.

Perhaps you underestimate the critical faculties of monastics. I have no interest in pursuing a practice which does not lead anywhere and thereby waste my time. It is absolutely essential to be clear-eyed about the nature of these teaching, so as to make the best possible decisions on how to live one’s life.

In my opinion, it is no easy matter to decide who is most biased in this case.

[llt]

This review of MN 118 and SA 815 illustrates my point. The main emphasis is on how the two texts are similar, and how they agree—mainly, how they are parallels. Even when differences are found, they are the obvious differences in formulas. When SA 815 does not include certain materials, they are quickly substituted in from completely different texts.

Moreover, the author does not question the references to the Brahmaviharas and to Impurity Contemplation. The Brahmaviharas are referenced a very tiny number of times in the SA, but they are never taught in the SA, nor are they even called Brahmaviharas. Impurity Contemplation is mentioned several times, but the tiny amount of scattered material suggests that it was likewise not an original part of the SA. These are major features of the SA that are different from the MA, but I don’t see any attempt to investigate issues like this.

Several times the author states that MN 118 “and its parallel” consider the 16 stages of anapana to be mapped onto the Four Bases of Mindfulness. However, if you look at SA 815, there is no mention of the Four Bases of Mindfulness whatsoever, nor even mention of the sixteen stages. Instead, a small footnote mentions that the text is being supplemented by a completely different one, SA 810, which is quite unique within the Anapana Samyukta. Again, what parallel text are we studying?

MN 118 is known best for its instructions on anapana, but SA 815 mainly enumerates the benefits of anapana, and does not even teach the practice. When we say that SA 815 is a parallel to MN 118, that is true, but it is only a partial parallel. It is a parallel mainly in the sense that some of the framing materials of MN 118 are similar to the main text of SA 815.

I know that monastics can (and do) produce quality studies and great investigations into Buddhist texts (e.g. A History of Mindfulness). In my personal opinion, it seems like Bhikkhu Analayo’s studies smooth over substantial differences that a scholar should report and investigate. When one text can be so easily substituted for another, sometimes flying across time and space, then there is something wrong with the methodology.

[Gabriel_L]

@llt

Impurity Contemplation is mentioned several times, but the tiny amount of scattered material suggests that it was likewise not an original part of the SA.

Is Impurity Contemplation here equivalent to the Perception of non-Beauty (aka recollection of the body parts / organs? ).

[Gabriel_L]

@Gabriel this is the transcript of the dhamma talk I referred to earlier in this topic:
intro-indo-op-080127-et.pdf (69.2 KB)

The mp3 can be found in this link:

[Gabriel]

Thanks! I especially like the beginning where he takes the instruction literally, it’s surely one of the better instructions I’ve seen. It emphasizes the joy, gladness and tranquility that should accompany every good samadhi-meditation (or maybe all meditation until the upekkha-high).

Yet, it’s a helpful interpretation of the text - and like the speaker points out - based on decades of practicing. My question is not far away from that, just has a different focus: If we had an excellent critical understanding of the anapanassati-related suttas (with all the variants, connotations, corruptions etc.) what would we necessarily conclude as the right pratice? What would be left without a possible clear sutta-based understanding?

For example the question where to observe the breath - at the tip of the nose? nowhere specifically? we had a detailed discussion about it here. A careful conclusion here was that the pali editors created a connection between anapanassati and parimukha, whereas the chinese and sanskrit editors didn’t. So on that point we can’t practice according to the suttas because we simply don’t know how it was originally meant to be. And wherever we can’t know we really need to go back to our teachers and our own understanding…

[Mkoll]

My thought is that the lack of details in given techniques from the suttas, such as anapanasati, is deliberate. They have few details because we need to figure out the details for ourselves via trial and error. The specifics in what works for one mind will be different from another.

Why are there so many potential meditation subjects and skillful perceptions in the suttas? One reason is that there are so many different minds. If there were some precise technique that worked for everybody, every time, the Buddha would have known it and taught it.

[yogakkhemi]

Thich Nhat Hanh’s (?) Chinese-English translations of SA 803/10/15.

Mudita

[yogakkhemi]

@Gabriel

For example the question where to observe the breath - at the tip of the nose? nowhere specifically? … So on and so forth …

There is a strong advice in SN 54.13, in the section about training to be sensitive to, satisfying, steadying & liberating the citta, that deals with the need to have a strong sati (recollection of the Teaching)

I say, Ananda that there is no development of concentration by mindfulness of breathing for one whose sati is not called up (muṭṭha/forgotten), and who lacks discernment.
Nāhaṃ, ānanda, muṭṭhassatissa asampajānassa ānāpānassatisamādhibhāvanṃ vadāmi.

There seems to be two steps in Sati, the recollection of the Dhamma - 1. the need to protect the Teaching, by recollecting it, through the dwelling in the tetrad - 2. the need to put sati in front, as a line of defence.

The first step:

Namely protecting the recollection of the Dhamma, by dwelling in the four tetrads, might (and I know this is unusual,) be explained by satipa + (ṭ)ṭhāna.

√Pa, in Pali, is described as adjective (“drinking”) in this little dictionary of roots:
Link
But it has also the meaning of “guarding” in Sanskrit.
Link
पा pā or प pa ifc. m. f. who guards, who protects.
nṛpa [«who protects men»] king.
We find such an occurence in the Pali, with janādhipa (a king - lit: protecting ¶ living creatures (janā) with wisdom (dhi)).

A woman child, 0 king, may prove
Even a better offspring than a male
Itthīpi hi ekacciyā,
seyyā posa janādhipa
SN 3.16

Also, satinepakkena in SN 48.9 has this meaning of “protecting”.

“And what, bhikkhus, is the faculty of mindfulness? Here, bhikkhus, the noble disciple is mindful, possessing supreme mindfulness and discretion (note: “mindfulness and discretion” or “protection in sati”), one who remembers and recollects what was done and said long ago.”
“Idha, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako satimā hoti paramena satinepakkena samannāgato cirakatampi cirabhāsitampi saritā anussaritā”
(Bodhi)

The PTS has for definition of nepakka: [fr．nipaka] prudence，discrimination，carefulness - [from Sanskrit nipa].
In the Monier-Williams: Link
You should have the following definitions:
निपा [ nipā ] to guard or protect from (abl.) ; to observe , watch over, to protect , guard , govern.
निप [ nipa ] [ ni-pa ] m. f. n. protecting.

To summarize, it seems plausible that, grammatically speaking, √pa might, in fine compositi, be the adjective base of pa: guarding, protecting.
Satipa(ṭ)ṭhāna = the place protecting the recollection of the Dhamma (or abiding, protecting the recollection of the Teaching - if the latter is grammatically feasible).
Cattāro satipaṭṭhāne = the four places protecting the recollection of the Teaching.
Meaning that by dwelling in the tetrad, we protect the remembrance of the Dhamma.

It is, friend, when these four establishments of mindfulness are not developed and cultivated that the true Dhamma declines.
SN 47.23

The second step:

Is to be found here:
Link
Namely that sati (the recollection of the Teaching,) is “gatekeeping” the internal spheres of senses (ajjhatikāni āyatanāni), so as to preserve the body and its four great elements.

What is mukha in “parimukhaṃ satiṃ upaṭṭhapetvā” (setting mindfulness to the fore)?
We might have, once again, to turn towards the Sanskrit.
Link
“front d’une armée” means an “army front”.
“ājimukha” means “first line in a battle”, for instance.

Pari has the same meaning in Sanskrit than in Pali; viz. “about”.
=> Parimukha could well mean: “about (in the area of) the front (line)”.
Not a battle front though; just a “gatekeeping”.

So, as far as answering your question:

For example the question where to observe the breath - at the tip of the nose? nowhere specifically?

I would say that observing it as breath (and what it [wisely] can do - as in [“build from the origin”],) should suffice, I suppose.

[Gabriel]

@yogakkhemi

This is why I allow myself to enter the conversation.

I’m glad you do! We work on our own views while working on others’ :)[quote=“yogakkhemi, post:27, topic:4054”]
kāyaññatarāhaṃ
[/quote]

Piya Tan translates here ‘all kinds of’, or ‘another’. In MN 118 it’s kāyesu kāyaññatarāhaṃ, i.e.
In-the-body is another/a/a certain body, i.e. in-and-out-breath…

The formula is terse and obviously difficult to interpret. The different range of translations shows that in itself it’s not fully explaining, that we have to put some interpretation in[quote=“yogakkhemi, post:27, topic:4054”]
discerning (pajanati) this intellect-made feeling is dwelling in vedanā.
[/quote]

also a difficult translation I feel. To translate mano/manas as ‘intellect’, especially here, is too narrow. I have not found yet a satisfactory analysis of mano, viññāna, and citta in the suttas, even though some people tried. But I would suggest to take it as the more general ‘mind’ here.

@yogakkhemi

Therefore, at the macro level (paṭiccasamuppāda,) citta is about feeling and perception.

and again a difficult assumption. When it comes to mano, viññāna, and citta single suttas that highlight specific aspects are not enough to define them…

@yogakkhemi

पा pā or प pa ifc. m. f. who guards, who protects.

As the Sanskrit equivalent I have found स्मृत्युपस्थान smṛtyupasthāna, i.e. the prefix would be ‘upa’ rather than ‘pa’. Do you have another source?

I’m no exception in trying to make sense of difficult suttas/passages. I would just be careful not to develop a too idiosyncratic reading. Does your reading lead you to a very different understanding of the practice of anapanassati?

[yogakkhemi]

I would say that both interpretations are converging towards the same goal anyway - namely: protecting something.

In the first case:
स्थान sthāna: link abiding with a sense of standing firmly.
उपस्थान upasthāna: link abiding with a sense of standing firmly, in the proximity of.
स्मृत्युपस्थान smṛtyupasthāna link - although translated as “earnest thought” on the MW; smṛty as compound for smṛti, has the meaning of the “sacred texts” that are not revealed (as opposed to śruti).
Therefore, smṛtyupasthāna would literarly take the meaning of “dwelling (as in standing firmly - being present) in the proximity of the Teaching (Dhamma)” - if we take upasthāna as the present participle of upa-sthā.

In the second case:
In Sanskrit for instance, “apānapa”, means “guarding the vital air (apāna)”.
So although, as far as I know, there is no entry in the Sanskrit dictionaries for “protecting the sṃrti” - sṃrtipa; it is not an impossible opening.

And I should again refer to SN 47.23; which shows how important it is, to dwell (viharati) in the tetrad, so as to preserve (protect) the recollection of the Dhamma - In other words, being very close to recollecting the Teaching, by dwelling in the tetrad:

It is, friend, when these four establishments of mindfulness are not developed and cultivated that the true Dhamma declines.

So, “protecting the Dhamma”(satipa) or “being present next to it” ([u]paṭṭhāna) - does not make a big difference.
The important thing is to preserve the Teaching - then - to put that preserved, (and present) Dhamma in front (mukha,) as a “gatekeeper”, when meditating on the breath - or any other meditation, if they are of any significance.

Again:

I say, Ananda that there is no development of concentration by mindfulness of breathing for one whose sati is “not called up” (muṭṭha/forgotten), and who lacks discernment (asampajāna). SN 54.13

@Gabriel

Does your reading lead you to a very different understanding of the practice of anapanassati?

Reading and practice.

Mudita.

[Brahmali]

Thanks for taking the time to go through it. This means we can be a bit more hands on.

@llt

Moreover, the author does not question the references to the Brahmaviharas and to Impurity Contemplation.

Fair enough. From my point of view an important point here is that this not part of what I would call the main teaching of this sutta. It is more like the narrative background. I think it is quite likely that this narrative may have been expanded a bit in the Pali, but I cannot see that this has any practical consequences for how ānāpāsati should be practised.

@llt

Instead, a small footnote mentions that the text is being supplemented by a completely different one, SA 810, which is quite unique within the Anapana Samyukta. Again, what parallel text are we studying?

This is worth bringing up with Ven. Analayo. I am interested myself in the basis on which he brings in SA 810. I don’t know, but I suspect there is a good reason for this. In my experience he is quite careful in how he proceeds.

@llt

When one text can be so easily substituted for another, sometimes flying across time and space, then there is something wrong with the methodology.

This is a serious charge. I think it is worthwhile investigating this a bit further before we come to such a conclusion.

[Linda]

For anyone interested, Ven Anālayo has a chapter about the Ānāpanasati sutta (as well as another chapter on the Satipaṭṭthāna sutta) in this book. Unfortunately only preview sections are freely availabe.

[llt]

@Brahmali

This is a serious charge. I think it is worthwhile investigating this a bit further before we come to such a conclusion.

In my opinion, it should be not be considered as such. People should be completely free to disagree about methodologies, or come to different conclusions. There should be a certain amount of discourse and debate, and that’s normal.