Now that i think about it, perhaps “heavy” and “light” would be best: it’s idiomatic, and converys the “coarseness” aspect better. “Deep” breath sounds good, shallow bad, which is the opposite of the intention …
4 Likes
There’s context too. If one is walking to the foot of a tree or a secluded hut before sitting down, one’s breath will still be conditioned by the previous walking exertion. Then will gradually settle down as one needs less and less oxygen.
I really like the Buddha’s analogy for calming thoughts where he talks about realizing one is running?, then decides to walk, then to stand, then sit, and finally lie down; perfect simile. I think this relates to the gradual calming (of body, breath, mind) in ānāpāna, and perhaps specifically to the calming of thoughts as @llt has pointed out in her great āgama studies.
1 Like
I think this is why several translations stuck with “long or short”, being literal in this case is less risky of readers reading in implied good or bad. i’m not trying to argue for one or way or the other, it may be more consistent for you (on the whole sutta collection) to do idiomatic translations if you’ve been doing it for everything else.
1 Like
That is true, at the same time important fundamental building blocks like the standard 4 jhanas formula and 16 steps of anapanasati, i’m positive the Buddha would have thought about it very carefully, chose his words carefully, and over the 45 year teaching period made adjustments if people were getting confused.
looking at the EBT parallels, you can see many lineages where taking “kaya” literally as body was normal, and verified to work in practice by arahants. Ajahn Lee, Arahant Upatissa (Vimuttimagga), all followed step 3 in sixteen steps as “kaya = anatomical body”.
in this case, i strongly believe it’s important to translate “kaya” in a way that keeps 16 steps of anapansati and jhana versatile, and not locked into a narrow exclusive path like visuddhimagga does.
if Ajahn Brahm were to say, “i think this way of interpreting 16 steps is the best way, although the EBT seems to allow for other interpretations”, then there’s no problem. but as i remember from his book “meditation, bliss, beyond”, he takes a more dogmatic stance closer in spirit to vism. with regard to 16 steps anapana, following a strict interpretation of step 3 with kaya=breath ONLY, NOT anatomical body. Taking a hard stance like that invalidates Ajahn Lee’s straightforward ockham’s razor EBT reading, and Arahant upatissa in vimt.
so reiterating again, while i agree with what you say above, certain key words that are fundamental building blocks ARE important and have to be scrutinized carefully. When in doubt, it’s better to choose a translation that keeps the Jhana tent wide and open.
there are other interesting points you brought up i would like to respond to but will postpone for now (probably indefinitely) due to limited time. i truly appreciate your participation on these forums and look forward to learning more from you. Many thanks also for your work on translating vinaya and making it freely available!
3 Likes
Since we were discussing the meaning of bodily formations, and the definition given by Kamabhu as the breath, I should mention that I think this definition is not fully accurate, or at least not complete.
- Kamabhu says that bodily formations are breathing because they are related to breathing, but this is not a convincing argument. Just because one thing is related to another, does not mean that the two are the same.
- According to the basic theories of karma, the samskaras should be intimately related to past actions, but the breath can change on a whim according to factors that have nothing to do with karma. For example, if someone sneezes, or controls his or her own breathing.
- If the third step of anapana is just being mindful of the breath, then that is no different than the second step, in which the breath has already become subtle. The same goes for the fourth step. If the breath has already become subtle in the second step, then there is no need for all sorts of other terminology about the body and its formations.
- Bodily formations are referred to in other sutras in the agamas as being either virtuous or non-virtuous. The same goes for verbal and mental formations. Breath as it goes to and from the nostrils cannot be either virtuous or non-virtuous in any meaningful way.
- According to various Indian yogic theories of practice, the breath enters and leaves the body, but the element of wind also moves throughout the body as what might be called its basic animating principle. In Hinduism, this is alternately referred to as prana or wind. Buddhist theories of the body also hold that the element of wind moves throughout the body. Hence, we need to account for this and consider the element of wind on a more subtle level than just what goes in and out of the nose, lungs, etc.
Hence, I tend to think of bodily formations as the element of wind within the body, as well as whatever might condition the element of wind to be set in motion according to one’s past actions, which may be meaningfully virtuous or non-virtuous.
2 Likes
By this logic neither can the inert physical body in meditation be virtuous or non-virtuous, right?
By another logic, and maybe this is a stretch, passadhi (tranquility) is one of the Enlightenment factors and could be considered a virtuous state in that sense — the opposite of tranquility could be considered non-virtuous.
Right Speech is gentle not harsh, I would think that likewise the body and breath being so closely related to mental states could be considered at least contributing to virtue.
This is a good point. Although I should start by clarifying that the ānāpāna sutta, per some of our previous discussions, clearly makes the in-breath &-out-breath (2 winds of several listed in suttas on the vāyus/winds) the central focus — being repeated for all 16 steps.
I like experimenting with this understanding of kāya though (and I assume you mean something like vyāna vāyu) as a middle ground between the physical-body camp and the breath-body camp, it’s not quite either really. Maybe it could also explain how it would be possible to have an awareness of the body and bliss at even the 3rd jhāna, if jhāna itself is something quite secluded from sensual pleasures (obviously excluding the anatomical body).
According to the understanding of the body given in the EBT’s, the physical body is not inert, and it is related to karma (being part of the five skandhas). At a minimum, we can consider the elements of earth, water, fire, and wind. The element of wind is not just breathed in, but it is always present in the body, and its nature is that of movement.
Even from the perspective of modern science, when we consider breathing, this is not something limited to the major organs of the respiratory system, like the lungs. When we breathe in oxygen, that oxygen is actually transported throughout the entire body. When we breathe out carbon dioxide, that carbon dioxide actually comes from all parts of the body. In that way, the entire body breaths, and this is all related to the body and mind.
That exchange of gases is happening all throughout the body, and it affects (and is affected by) the health of the body and mind. After breathing through the nose becomes too subtle to detect, there is still the “breath” inside the body that is moving and functioning.
1 Like
Ok, perhaps I should have said “relatively” inert.
If we’re sticking with the wind interpretation, shouldn’t the movement be calmed or lessened in the meditation?
Yea, this is how I think khumbaka (stopping the breath) is understood in a lot of these haṭha yogic texts that talk about “holding” the breath for several hours.
It seems reasonable to expect that it would be, in light of the progression of the first four stages from coarse to subtle. Unfortunately I don’t see many EBT sutra tie-ins on this point, or at least ones that don’t require a substantial amount of interpretation.
Right, it may be technically breath suspension, but determining this for certain would be a matter for researchers. It isn’t a particularly difficult experiment, but basically nobody does research on these matters. An alternative would be for practitioners themselves to obtain the equipment and do some research themselves, but I doubt the interest is there at this time.
2 Likes
here’s an official standard definition of wind element in theravada EBT, in MN 62. in breath and out breath are included as part of the def.
- Wind-property
“katamā ca, rāhula, vāyo-dhātu?
"{And} what, ******, (is the) wind-property?
vāyo-dhātu siyā ajjhattikā,
(the) wind-property may-be-either internal
siyā bāhirā.
or external.
katamā ca, rāhula, ajjhattikā vāyo-dhātu?
{And} what, ******, (is the) internal wind-property?
yaṃ ajjhattaṃ paccattaṃ
Anything internal, belonging to oneself,
vāyo vāyogataṃ upādinnaṃ,
that’s wind, windy, & sustained:
seyyathidaṃ —
such-as-these:
uddhaṅgamā vātā,
up-going winds,
adhogamā vātā,
down-going winds,
kucchisayā vātā,
stomach winds,
koṭṭhāsayā vātā,
intestinal winds,
aṅgam-aṅgā-(a)nusārino vātā,
{winds that} {course through}-parts-[and more]-parts [of the body],
assāso passāso,
in-breathing (and) out-breathing,
iti yaṃ vā panaññampi kiñci ajjhattaṃ paccattaṃ
or anything else internal, within oneself,
vāyo vāyogataṃ upādinnaṃ —
that’s wind, windy, & sustained:
ayaṃ vuccati, rāhula, ajjhattikā vāyo-dhātu.
This is called (the) internal wind-property.
in SN 54.7, no shaking and trembling of the body while monk is sitting doing anapanasati. when vism. and vimt. talks about step f4 of 16 steps, calming kaya sankhara, it must be referring to this sutta. although in this sutta, there isn’t an explicit use of “kaya sankhara” term. anyone know where in EBT it is made explicit, if at all?
“idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu araññagato vā rukkhamūlagato vā suññāgāragato vā nisīdati pallaṅkaṃ ābhujitvā ujuṃ kāyaṃ paṇidhāya parimukhaṃ satiṃ upaṭṭhapetvā. so satova assasati, satova passasati … pe … ‘paṭinissaggānupassī assasissāmī’ti sikkhati, ‘paṭinissaggānupassī passasissāmī’ti sikkhati. evaṃ bhāvite ca kho, bhikkhave, ānāpānassatisamādhimhi evaṃ bahulīkate neva kāyassa iñjitattaṃ vā hoti phanditattaṃ vā, na cittassa iñjitattaṃ vā hoti phanditattaṃ vā”ti. sattamaṃ.
2 Likes
This kind of breath suspension is definitely a different idea than what was reportedly a Jain technique of (actually) holding the breath as in MN36:
“loud sound of winds coming out from my earholes”
“violent winds cut through my head”
“violent pains in my head”
“violent winds carved up my belly”
“there was a violent burning in my body”
Compare this to David Blaine’s account of his breath hold record:
“tingling sensations in fingers and toes”
“ringing in my ears”
“pains all over my chest”
In many ways I think David Blaine is less of a magician and more of a modern day yogi, though the lines between those two roles have definitely been blurred throughout history.
2 Likes
I am considering these for kāya
- Body
- Body+Breath (volume down | volume up scenerio) follows with
Breath+Body (volume up | volume down) - Breath(reflection)+slightly bright experience mostly topdown (somewhat overlaping of perceptions but not nimitta object, this is the part that some meditator misled them self as attaining rupa jhana)
And the last part of kāya as - Reflection on object; in anapanasati sutta that would be both body and breath; “nowhere” to be found; what is left only reflection.
End of the third is the divergent point, either continue with samatha (with ‘dynamic’ vitakka-vicara transformation by taking a specific meditation object) or dive into discernment.
Anapanasati has to be connected to other specific samatha training or non-samatha discernment, and the word that provide such link in stage 4 is likely to be the last kāya as reflection when certain degree of clarity is attained.
Fwik, at stage 4 (of non-samatha) sound can be heard, mind does think in a subtle way but it is not rupa jhana. Body is not felt, but can feels it when you intentionally look for it!
Hey Sylvester,
I’ve had a chance to circle back to your comments here and finally review them a little more closely:
The portion you bolded presents an interesting premise to run with. Would you have it then that among what are not absent are form of (flesh-)body, consciousness of body, perception of body, feeling of body and volition towards body? And, for example, would this mean that one in jhāna can feel the butt that sits on the ground but not the ground that the butt sits on?
We have from MN 137:
‘The six internal bases should be understood.’ So it was said. And with reference to what was this said? There are the eye-base, the ear-base, the nose-base, the tongue-base, the body-base, and the mind-base. So it was with reference to this that it was said: ‘The six internal bases should be understood.’
Could it be that kāyanupassana is essentially the fulfilment of the fifth in this list of things to be understood?
Here, even if we take -viññeyyā to be the verb of each clause, due to the peculiar word order, we’d still be left with all six remaining adjectives following the substantive—ie a nexus either way.
Hi Chan
In my estimation, even those things are absent. Now, I’m not going to go all Yogacara and speculate on the ontic status of the external fields prior to contact. But it is interesting to know that even if the internal and external fields meet, there is no contact without attention : MN 28. My interpretation at this point is that the jhanas are bereft of the kaamaa, not in the sense that either of the internal or external 5 senses fields are absent, but because attention is drawn to the rapture and pleasure. When that happens, there is no contact based on the kaamaa. Without such contact, how can there be any Aggregate based on such kaamaa?
Rev MN 137, I’m not sure how you see the connection between the mindfulness refrain to “dwell as a body contemplator with reference to the body” with MN 137’s injunction to understand. Could you explain?
3 Likes
Here’s how I might begin to syncretize the whole thing. It’s a bit of a sketch (and a stretch), so there’s wont to be holes, strictly speaking.
In defining the saṅkhārākkhandha, we have from SN 22.57 and elsewhere groups of -sañcetana for each of the six external āyatanā. And so I might here take a basic understanding that the things for which there is -sañcetana are things with which there can be contact.
Now curiously, for only two of the internal āyatanā do we find the compound form -sañcetana employed, the one other than manas of the ahāra manosañcetana being kāya, only found in SN 12.25 & AN 4.171. In fact, SN 12.25 opens the discussion of kāyasañcetana prompted by a question on what causes pleasure and pain, to which the answer given is contact. This is of course natural since even nirāmisa vedanā would have to be conditioned by contact.
But contact with what?
In taking this further, we might divide the rūpakkhandha into two, those in kāmaloka and those in rūpaloka. And in fact, in SN 22.57, we find a unique bit of dependent-origination that goes “āhārasamudayā rūpasamudayo” (here again resisting any ontic speculations).
Putting it all together, perhaps here is where the kāya that is manomaya becomes quite relevant. That it is kāyasañcetana (of kāye kāyanupassī) fueled by manosañcetana that makes a kāya that is not defined by external impingement but rather filled from the inside. Whether the kāya of jhāna is mental or physical, what is clear from DN 2 is that it is possible for it to be partial or whole, and I find it rather difficult to understand how this could be understood without some kind of spacial component to the kāya that is filled with pītisukha (which I’d want to take as tappurisa rather than dvanda, btw, with pīti as internal kāyāyatana of contact, sukha as resultant vedana) etc.
And we might take it even further that perhaps then the internal āyatanā are a gateway of sorts to dibba analogues (cf. Skt: adhy-ātman), and even further then that “perceptions of diversity” that are transcended for the arūpaloka are including these divine, non-kāmic perceptions of diversity which are to be found in jhāna.
2 Likes
Hee hee. You could have taken the shortcut offered by MN 28 and its MA parallel, that contact at the mind can also yield the Form Aggregate.
I’m having serious reservations about reading nānattassaññā as a genitive tappurisa when in MN 128, we hear that this is a defilement that obstructs entry into jhana. I prefer to read it as an ablative tappurisa - ie perceptions from diversity. This would fit in nicely with Ajahn @Brahmali 's argument that the Form Aggregate in jhana carries echoes of diversity.
As for the manomaya kaya, I’ve written elsewhere that from DN 9 we know that this kaya means attapaṭilābha (acquisition of self). In fact, this sense of kaya as being a referent to the reflexive meaning of atta (himself), is the best reading for sakkaya, kayena, kayika etc. Even the PTS takes the kaya similes to refer to this sense of “he permeates himself”.
Could you elaborate on your point re SN 12.25?
Apologies for the messy post from my phone.
2 Likes
Oh right. I’ll call it the karma of past ontic speculations surrounding that line from SN 22.57.
Back to the drawing board for me on this phrase.
The key point I’d want to make here is that the series of actions “abhisandeti parisandeti paripūreti parippharati” seems infinitely more workable in four dimensions as opposed to just the one time dimension.
I think the point I’m shooting for overall, in short, is that the feeling of sensing a given part of the body should not be considered as part of the external phoṭṭhabbāyatana, but rather those feelings should be considered as part of the internal kāyāyatana.
For this I take kāyasañcetana to be distinct from phoṭṭhabbasañcetana in that the latter is in fact an extension of an impure manosañcetana (MN 43). When I feel the ground at my foot, it’s my mind attending to that pressure, whereas when I attend to the foot itself from the inside, this is identical to the activity that is the precursor to moving it.
I mention the intro to the particular sutta to highlight the premise that the things for which there is -sañcetana are things with which there can be contact by pointing to the rare topic of the three modes of -sañcetana being raised somewhat abruptly here after an answer that emphasizes contact.
(With thanks as usual for the opportunity to organize these ideas like this)
1 Like
Thanks, Chan, for your elaboration.
Re -
For this I take kāyasañcetana to be distinct from phoṭṭhabbasañcetana …
I think this is quite a novel perspective. I guess I’m more comfy in taking the sañcetana classification as being 3-fold, ie body, speech and mind as mediators/outlets of kamma. I’ve not seen a 6-fold classification applied in the suttas as outlets of kamma/volition as the 6 typically “functions” upstream of contact.
1 Like
That’s a great way to frame it and perhaps we might find some sense of this happening at MN 28’s “tajjo samannāhāro”
MN 28
Yato ca kho, āvuso, ajjhattikañceva cakkhuṃ aparibhinnaṃ hoti, bāhirā ca rūpā āpāthaṃ āgacchanti, tajjo ca samannāhāro hoti.
cf. MN 43
Mano paṭisaraṇaṃ, mano ca nesaṃ gocaravisayaṃ paccanubhotī.
And perhaps to throw another idea out here, maybe the more ubiquitous DO chain that begins with avijja is the one that governs the case where “[manosañcetana] āhārasamudayā rūpasamudayo”, the external [nāma]rūpa arises, while the DO chain of DN 15 that begins with nāmarūpa is the one that governs the persistence of nāmarūpa vis-a-vis the 6 sañcetanas, ie as part of the nāma quintet. 
?
Edit: (cf. Dhātu Saṃyutta SN 14, eg SN 14.9 as corroboration of nāmarūpa-initiated chain)
1 Like
You’ll be happy to know that tajja samannāhāra is parsed by the Comy to mean “attention” (that one in nama). The Agama parallel also has “attention”. A good chap on DW also helpfully pointed out that the verb form of samannāhāra is always found tied up with the verb form of manasikara.
As for the source of rupa, sometimes we need to distinguish the suttas’ contexts. There’s one in SN 22 that posits that the source of the Form Aggregate is form, while the source of the other 4 Aggregates is contact. I would read SN 22.57 in a manner consistent with the one I cited and take that nutriment to refer to “form”.
Although DN 15 does mess around with us by positing namarupa to have at least 2 senses - the cosmological (rebirth) and the psycho-linguistic (pathways of designation)…
2 Likes