Hello, friend
I don’t think I know any sutta about mindfulness of breathing which would be of some interest, but while it looks like we approach to the Dhamma differently, you are quite open-minded, so I try to describe also my understanding of so called samadhi and its relation with right view, which definitely is not in agreement with HH ideas about samadhi.
Generally any kind of samadhi which has direct relation with arising of the right view, has to take into account doctrine of anatta, since there is nothing directly liberating per se in the 8 attainments, avijja can survive all of them.
breathing happens – it isn’t mine.
Pessoa
I sit down in a room, quiet and half dark and watch the act of breathing—the bodily sensation of air touching the tip of the nose: I experience sensing the bodily sensation at an interval of space. I can place the bodily sensation in space as sensed from the direction in which I am. But when I follow that direction back and look for the “I,” then I am no longer there but in another place. I have no place in space. I see and sense space and the “things” in it from a place where I am not. Space is complete without “I” and there is no room for “I” in space at all. This I call the inner vertigo. Nanamoli Thera
The emphasis should be put on anatta. But now, really Ven Nanavira got it wrong, when he translated samadhi as concentration?
I don’t think so. I don’t want to convince you, nor to prove anything to you, just to offer different view on what samadhi is. While I can’t describe it as Nanavira’s view, I am certain that he haven’t seen samadhi as relaxed composure of mind.
Definitely I must say, that Ven Nyanamoli is a man of integrity, as he lives so he teaches, but I dare to say Venerable Ñanavira would agree with me, that living in small space with entire pack of dogs, doesn’t provide suitable conditions for mental concentration and absorbtion. Perhaps ven Nyanamoli also would agree with this, but since he doesn’t see samadhi as intense mental concentration, he was able to live sometimes with four dogs if not more, on very limited space. And dogs really absorb one’s own attention. This is of course no problem, when samadhi is as it is described by HH.
So I am not sure whether Ven Nanavira seen the Sutta↓ as an ideal description of mental concentration:
“Bhikkhus, suppose that on hearing, ‘The most beautiful girl of the land! The most beautiful girl of the land!’ a great crowd of people would assemble. Now that most beautiful girl of the land would dance exquisitely and sing exquisitely. On hearing, ‘The most beautiful girl of the land is dancing! The most beautiful girl of the land is singing!’ an even larger crowd of people would assemble.
Then a man would come along, wishing to live, not wishing to die, wishing for happiness, averse to suffering. Someone would say to him: ‘Good man, you must carry around this bowl of oil filled to the brim between the crowd and the most beautiful girl of the land. A man with a drawn sword will be following right behind you, and wherever you spill even a little of it, right there he will fell your head.’
“What do you think, bhikkhus, would that man stop attending to that bowl of oil and out of negligence turn his attention outwards?”
“No, venerable sir.”“I have made up this simile, bhikkhus, in order to convey a meaning. This here is the meaning: ‘The bowl of oil filled to the brim’: this is a designation for mindfulness directed to the body. Therefore, bhikkhus, you should train yourselves thus: ‘We will develop and cultivate mindfulness directed to the body, make it our vehicle, make it our basis, stabilize it, exercise ourselves in it, and fully perfect it.’ Thus, bhikkhus, should you train yourselves.”
SN 47: 20
Whether such intensity is always neccesery and this sutta provide general standard for mental concentration* - I am not sure that Ven Nanavira would agree. *Additional remark, as Buddha’s follower perhaps you aren’t really very interested in survival in space and time, but I hope you will not project your attitude on common man, who quite clearly sees things differently, wants to survive, and who would attend to “the bowl” not merely with composed mind, but with great intensity and focused attention.
Whatever Ven Nanavira was about SN 47: 20, samadhi according to him requires absence of any outside disturbances:
I myself have practised fairly continuously for one year, and then (after amoebiasis had crippled my capacity for practice) spasmodically for about fourteen years, and I am quite familiar with the low-level results of this practice. There is a gradual and increasing experience of calm and tranquillity as the object of meditation (in my case, the in- and out-breaths) becomes clearer and more definite, and at the same time distracting thoughts about other matters become less. (If one does turn one’s attention to such matters, they are seen much more clearly and steadily than at normal times.) As one proceeds, one’s capacity for practice increases, and one may be able to continue (with interruptions for meals, etc.) for many hours; and also one positively dislikes any outside interruption, and necessary breaks are most unwelcome. L 126
If you spend some time in solitude, you would know that company of animals, specially dogs may be useful for developing metta, or neutral in the case you just want to remind mindful, but most certainly it is rather absorbing and distracting, and it is exactly the reason why monks who love animals, nevertheless have traditional views on what samadhi is, don’t like animals in their kutis.
To repeat, I just provide you with certain different understanding of how samadhi should be seen.
In that particular approach, it is wrong to speak about “signs” of mind as I have seen in one of HH articles. Pluar form isn’t justified. Why?
What you know, all you know as mind objects, derived from 5- sensory data. But mind as such is unknown directly, at least in normal experience. No doubt there is certain mental space in which all objects appear, but when Suttas say about breathing and experiencing one’s mind, it describes more advanced state, inaccessible to the beginner:
“He trains thus: ‘I shall breathe in experiencing the mind’; he trains thus: ‘I shall breathe out experiencing the mind.
Unfortunately I have no Sutta to prove my understanding, but fortunately, as I said, in no way I want to convince you, just merely provide alternative vison of what samadhi is. And I hope to receive some merit from it, regardless potential readers agreement or disagreement with it.
Cittassa nimittam should be understood (in my understanding) literally, you just grasp the sign of what mind is.
How? As I see it, if your approach to samadhi is based on description provided by Master Eckhart you would naturally, after some time grasped it. Now, I assume that you are intelligent enough to dismiss such description, just because you thought it over, and found it unacceptable, and not because Master Eckhart was Christian, or even worse, a mystic. Just to neutralise little bit cognitive dissonance, Heidegger was interested in Master Eckhart, and some modern Indian philosopher recognised him as the greatest European philosopher. Of course not many modern philosophers would agree. Nevertheless what is important to understand is our existential situation: mind of common man is distracted by sensory experience and our efforts of concentration should be directed to withdrawal of it from sensory experience, we know many things, but not what mind is.
“Friend, what can be known by purified mind-consciousness released from the five faculties?”“Friend, by purified mind-consciousness released from the five faculties the base of infinite space can be known thus: ‘Space is infinite’; the base of infinite consciousness can be known thus: ‘Consciousness is infinite’; and the base of nothingness can be known thus: ‘There is nothing.′”
Now, this is of course very high state of mind withdrawal, - sensory experience is absent, but you should know at least that it can be attained not just out of nothing, but gradually by total withdrawal of one’s interest in sensory experience which requires rather intense effort of concentration or unification of mind, previously distracted by sensory experience.
these five faculties each have a separate field, a separate domain, and do not experience each other’s field and domain, that is, the eye faculty, the ear faculty, the nose faculty, the tongue faculty, and the body faculty. Now these five faculties, each having a separate field, a separate domain, not experiencing each other’s field and domain, have mind as their resort, and mind experiences their fields and domains. MN 43
Here Master Eckhart repeats what I was stated, of course term “soul” here stands for mind:
Through this presented image, the soul approaches creatures - an image being something that the soul makes of (external) objects with her own powers. Whether it is a stone, a horse, a man, or anything else that she wants to know, she gets out the image of it that she has already taken in, and is thus enabled to unite herself with it.
But for a man to receive an image in this way, it must of necessity enter from without through the senses. In consequence, there is nothing so unknown to the soul as herself. Accordingly, one master says that the soul can neither create nor obtain an image of herself.
Therefore she has no way of knowing herself, for images all enter through the senses, and hence she can have no image of herself. And so she knows all other things, but not herself. Of nothing does she know so little as of herself, for want of mediation.
And here my favourite description of what aim and proper attitude of samadhi is, again “soul” stands for mind:
But the soul is scattered abroad among her powers and dissipated in the action of each: the power of sight in the eye, the power of hearing in the ear, the power of tasting in the tongue - thus her ability to work inwardly is enfeebled, for a scattered power is imperfect. So, for her inward work to be effective, she must call in all her powers and gather them together from the diversity of things to a single inward activity. St. Augustine says the soul is rather where she loves than where she gives life to the body. For example, there was once a pagan master who was devoted to an art, that of mathematics, to which he had devoted all his powers. He was sitting by the embers, making calculations and practicing this art, when a man came along who drew a sword and, not knowing that it was the master, said, ‘Quick, tell me your name or I’ll kill you!’ The master was too absorbed to see or hear the foe or to catch what he said: he was unable to utter a word, even to say, ‘My name is so-and-so.’ And so the enemy, having cried out several times and got no answer, cut off his head.
And this was to acquire a mere natural science. How much more then should we withdraw from all things in order to concentrate all our powers on perceiving and knowing the one infinite, uncreated, eternal truth! To this end, then, assemble all your powers, all your senses, your entire mind and memory; direct them into the ground where your treasure lies buried. But if this is to happen, realize that you must drop all other works - you must come to an unknowing, if you would find it.
Ven Nanadipa wasn’t master of jhanas, but he claimed to experienced the state of concentration attained due to reading Suttas. According to proposed vision of things as they are, it is quite natural. It is important to have enormous interest in one subject so mind is totally absorbed in it. If you read Suttas in order to understand certain point, thinking isn’t problem, as long as nothing else isn’t of any interest to you.
While the following description is not strictly related with samadhi I think it shows well required attitude:
What is wanted is a man who will argue a single point, and go on arguing it until the matter is clear to him, because he sees that everything else depends upon it. With such a person communication (i.e., of truth that edifies) can take place. Nanavira Thera
Precisely the same attitude is described in zen tradition, you receive certain kongan, problem to solve, in our tradition it can be replaced by desire to understand dependent arising. Unfortunately most people as soon as they become monks, have a strong desire to teach about dependent arising, despite the fact they know that they aren’t ariyas, it is a great mystery, not wholly grasped by me. Nevertheless one condition for attainment of concentration should be obvious: one must be ernest, one must clearly see that one doesn’t understand certain things, and one must have a strong desire to change this situation.
Another example from zen tradition is the cat who watches place where mouse is hidden. Attention of such cat is so focused that even if you move slowly his body to different position, his eyes still be focused on the hole. Of course we can have justified ethical objections regarding cat motivation, but for didactic reasons this example well describes what unification of mind is. As you undoubtedly observe, it much resembles SN 47: 20.
Now coming back to cittassa nimittam. Even if your primary focus is thinking about Dhamma - attempts to understand dependent arising for example - if you are able to sustain such focused attention, you will observe that at certain point mind just cannot work anymore, and gaps between thoughts starts to appear. As I understand HH teaching such gaps aren’t valuable at all. But even if you previously had such idea, you would be guided by pain / pleasure principle, you will enjoy such gaps and try to extend them. And as I see, the gaps between thoughts is what Sutta describes as cittassa nimittam, since thoughts appear always precisely on this silent background of mind, previously ignored. And this is the reason why ven Nanavira uses singular “sign”.
But recognition of the silent background of mind as cittassa nimittam is a temporary experience and in fact can be attain by outsiders. There is no such division as Buddhist jhanas and outsiders jhanas.
“Here, Udāyin, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the first jhāna…With the stilling of applied and sustained thought, he enters upon and abides in the second jhāna…in the third jhāna…This is the practical way to realise an exclusively pleasant world.”“Venerable sir, that is not the practical way to realise an exclusively pleasant world; at that point an exclusively pleasant world has already been realised.”“Udāyin, at that point an exclusively pleasant world has not yet been realised; that is only the practical way to realise an exclusively pleasant world.”
When this was said, the wanderer Sakuludāyin’s assembly made an uproar, saying very loudly and noisily: “We are lost along with our own teachers’ doctrines! We are lost along with our own teachers’ doctrines! We know nothing higher than that!” MN 79
Sakuludāyin and his grup is quite well aware that there is such thing as the third jhana, and they have no any objections regarding what constitutes it.
No doubt jhanas are much more sublime experience than common sensory experience, but division regarding practicing jhanas is not Buddhist’s / outsider jhanas, but that any kind of experience including jhanas are interpreted by puthujjana with terms “I” and “mine”.
So while cittassa nimittam will appear spontaneously in anyone who makes appropriate effort, without knowledge about anatta doctrine, it may eventually transform itself into jhanas, while in the case of Buddha’s follower sudden shift may happen and what previously was temporal recognition will remain perpetually available although due to greed, hate and delusion intensity of this “experience” may vary.
Since I define cittassa nimittam as recognition of silent background of mind, I am naturally satisfied with sister Vajjira description of sotapati: “losing dimension of thoughts”. Now, it doesn’t mean that mind is always empty of thoughts, but that this silent background is known. And precisely this knowledge gives the standard of the right view, where any experience - and any experience is temporal - however exciting and pleasant may seem, sooner or later will turn out to be disappointing, and so the pleasure of neutral feeling, connected with changelles peaceful presence of it, more and more visible and the truth that we not so much experience suffering but rather suffer experience, becomes more and more obvious. And this is the reason why sotāpanna is independent and don’t need any knowledge of Suttas whatsoever; and contrary to certain opinion does not need to be born again in the Buddhist country. Of course acquaintance with Suttas would probably speed up his progress, but this is another story.
Some good monks insist that nibbana is also experience, but this is misunderstanding. Even sotapati isn’t in fact experience, but rather absence of certain experiences which were present in puthujjana. Any experience is temporal, so there is always disappearing of what has arisen, but recognition of the silent background isn’t in fact beginning of something new, but recognition of what is timelessly present and following stages of awakening don’t change it, but merely due to diminishing states of greed, hate and delusion what is timelessly present is more and more visible and finally, with total absence of ignorance is described by Suttas as descend into the voidness.
If one really insists on describing nibbana as experience, perhaps: “it is an experience of not experiencing the states of greed, hate and delusion” is acceptable.
Another thing which is connected with idea of concentration which isn’t appreciated by ven Nyanamoli. I have seen, although haven’t read carefully topic, where there is discussed his attitude towards so called practice of being here and now.
The problem is while no doubt presently it is very popular teaching, the most famous proponent of it, I believe, is Eckhart Tolle. It is very easy to teach… But while it is very easy to teach, really die to the past and to the future is rather difficult, and this is a good recommendation for such practice, since what is difficult to do is usually the thing which has to be done 
.
Less humorously, we have MN 131 - 134, as well few other Suttas, as that below, which encourages such attitude:
“And how is living alone perfected in detail? Here, Thera, what is past is left behind, what is future is renounced, and lust and desire for the selfhood acquired in the present is quite put away. That is how living alone is perfected in detail.”
So the Blessed One said. The Sublime One having said this, the Master said further:
A sagely all-transcender, an all-knower,
Unsullied in all things, renouncing all,
By craving’s ceasing freed: him do I call
A man who lives alone and to perfection.
SN. 21:10
Notion “I am” is derived from identification with impermanent things, when this identification is allowed to remain unchecked, we think about ourselves as persons (sakkaya) living in the world.
So we take for granted that we have past and future. But what is waiting for us in future, if not old age and death? Being person, living in the world, in other words is the state of dukkha.
But when things which have past and future are seen as anatta, the state of being (bhava) starts to be seen as dependently arisen on present condition, namely ignorance. And so, dying to past and future is just logical practice the consequence of properly understood doctrine of anatta.
Obviously present is also anatta, but at least direct experience is always now, while past and future require cooperation of mind, (memory of past, expectations of future) and so are not only more easily to abandon -you just don’t think about them - but also abandoning them should be enough for abandoning of sakkayaditthi. To insist: “I am this or that” requires to have a past and future or duration, while sekkha “I am” may remain as present.
So it is a great mistake to dismiss such practice as described in MN 131, just because presently it enjoys popularity, and also quite likely even their proponents may not understand properly it consequences. And consequences are simply mortal for personality (sakkaya), without past and future person cannot survive:
M> : Your order is what gives you pleasure and disorder is what gives you pain.
Q: You may put it that way, but do not tell me that the two are one. Talk to me in my own language — the language of an individual in search of happiness. I do not want to be misled by non-dualistic talks.
M: What makes you believe that you are a separate individual?
Q: I behave as an individual. I function on my own. I consider myself primarily, and others only in relation to myself. In short, I am busy with myself.
M: Well, go on being busy with yourself. On what business have you come here?
Q: On my old business of making myself safe and happy. I confess I have not been too successful. I am neither safe nor happy. Therefore, you find me here. This place is new to me, but my reason for coming here is old: the search for safe happiness, happy safety. So far I did not find it. Can you help me?
M: What was never lost can never be found. Your very search for safety and joy keeps you away from them. Stop searching, cease losing. The disease is simple and the remedy equally simple. It is your mind only that makes you insecure and unhappy. Anticipation makes you insecure, memory — unhappy. Stop misusing your mind and all will be well with you. You need not set it right — it will set itself right, as soon as you give up all concern with the past and the future and live entirely in the now.
Q: **But the now has no dimension. I shall become a nobody, a nothing! **
**> **
> M: Exactly. As nothing and nobody you are safe and happy. You can have the experience for the asking. Just try.
It is worth of notice that usually we are, based on doctrine of anatta, trying to die to past and future. But it works also the other way round, without any deeper understanding of doctrine of anatta, but dying to past and future we automatically develop such understanding, of course if we are determined and ernest enough to persist in such practice.
It is rather an important point of disagreement, since I tend to describe such attitude as yoniso manisakara, one of the two conditions for the arising of the right view:
“This is how he attends unwisely: ‘Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what did I become in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I become in the future?’
MN 2
With let go of the past and future :
Let the past be, let the future be. Let a wise man come, one who is honest and sincere, a man of rectitude. I instruct him, I teach him the Dhamma in such a way that by practising as instructed he will soon know and see for himself: ‘Thus, indeed, there rightly comes to be liberation from the bond, that is, from the bond of ignorance.’ MN 80
the present structure of the state of being (bhava) can be seen as dependently arisen on ignorance, and so while in sekha still there is present conceit “I am” views about past and future, which ultimately are possible only in presence of sakkayaditthi, are absent:
When, bhikkhus, a noble disciple has clearly seen with correct wisdom as it really is this dependent origination and these dependently arisen phenomena, it is impossible that he will run back into the past, thinking: ‘Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what did I become in the past?’ Or that he will run forward into the future, thinking: ‘Will I exist in the future? Will I not exist in the future? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future? Having been what, what will I become in the future?’ Or that he will now be inwardly confused about the present thus: ‘Do I exist? Do I not exist? What am I? How am I? This being—where has it come from, and where will it go?’
“For what reason [is this impossible]? Because, bhikkhus, the noble disciple has clearly seen with correct wisdom as it really is this dependent origination and these dependently arisen phenomena.” SN 22: 20
So to repeat once again: any kind of formal practice, for example mindfulness of breathing, to be effective, has to be supported by doctrine of anatta. Or just it has to be practiced in the light of MN 131 - 134, since such approach in itself is able to remove sakkayaditthi when done properly.
And unification of mind also benefits from dying to past and future:
“
Here, bhikkhus, some recluse or brahmin, with the relinquishing of views about the past and the future and through complete lack of resolve upon the fetters of sensual pleasure, enters upon and abides in the rapture of seclusion …
MN 102
While Sutta describes wrong views, we can see that jhanas really appear with abandoning of past and future.
Or in Brahmajala:
“In the first case, bhikkhus, some recluse or a brahmin, by means of ardor, endeavor, application, diligence, and right reflection, attains to such a degree of mental concentration that with his mind thus concentrated, [purified, clarified, unblemished, devoid of corruptions], he recollects his numerous past lives:…
right reflection is mentioned, normally I don’t use Pali, but I think it stands for yoniso manisakara.
In other words encouraging disciples to be now and here, and die to the past and the future is a good teaching, it supports arising of right view and unification of the mind , and so it should not be ignored, much less criticized.
When we understand this, we understand that following observation isn’t merely enjoyable pun, but an attempt at so called indirect communication:
Odd that “now here” is “nowhere.”
Nanamoli Thera
State of being requires localisation: All being is limited and particularized—if I am at all, I am in a spatial world." Nanavira Thera
What of course involves time. Living now and here kills time and delocalises us from the world:
‘I was’ is not for me, not for me is ‘I shall be’;
Determinations will un-be: therein what place for sighs?
Pure arising of things, pure series of determinants –
For one who sees this as it is, chieftain, there is no fear.
Theragāthā 715, 716
