[quote=“LXNDR, post:4, topic:3255”]
as far as your question is concerned, according to one reading i’m aware of, observing these phenomena a meditator sees them alone and not the ‘self’ or ‘him/herself’ or parts of the ‘self’ in them…grammatical features of the phrase may even be reminiscent of the Buddha’s advice to Bahiya (Ud 1.10) and Malunkyaputta (SN 35.95)[/quote]
I find the above interpretation valuable, which I assume makes the phrase: “contemplating kaya as kaya” (rather than as ‘self’), which is also consistent with MN 10, which states:
Or his mindfulness that ‘There is a body’ is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance.
[quote=“Erik_ODonnell, post:5, topic:3255”]
If you look at MN118, you have:
[The Buddha:] I say that this is a certain body among the bodies, namely, in-breathing and out-breathing.[/quote]
To me, this is also a valid & valuable interpretation. However, a reason why this may not apply is this phrase with ‘aññatarāhaṃ’ (‘one of a certain number’) is not continued in each of the respective satipatthana, which respectively are:
Kāyesu kāyaññatarāhaṃ bhikkhave, evaṃ vadāmī: yadidaṃ assāsapassāsā.
I tell you that this — the in-&-out breath — is classed as a body [group] among bodies [groups]…
Vedanāsu vedanaññatarāhaṃ bhikkhave, evaṃ vadāmi: yadidaṃ assāsapassāsānaṃ sādhukaṃ manasikāraṃ.
I tell you that this — [from] close attention to in-&-out breaths — is a certain feeling among feelings
Nāhaṃ bhikkhave, muṭṭhassatissa asampajānassa ānāpānasatibhāvanaṃ vadāmi
I don’t say that there is mindfulness of in-&-out breathing in one of confused mindfulness and no alertness…
So yaṃ taṃ abhijjhādomanassānaṃ pahānaṃ taṃ paññāya disvā sādhukaṃ ajjhupekkhitā hoti.
He who sees clearly with discernment the abandoning of greed & distress is one who oversees with equanimity…
For me, the phrase: “a certain body among the bodies, namely, in-breathing and out-breathing” applies to step 3, which I translate as experiencing “all bodies” (‘all bodies’ being the conditioning inter-relationship between nama-kaya, breath-kaya & rupa-kaya) rather than as experiencing the “whole body” (which in Pali I assume would be ‘kevala-kaya’ instead of ‘sabba-kaya’). The word ‘sabba’ is generally translated as ‘all’ rather than ‘whole’ (‘kevala’).
The above said, the Thai scholar monk Bhikkhu Budddhadasa translated ‘sabba kaya’ to mean ‘all bodies’ however, contrary to my personal preference, translated ‘kāye kāyānupassī’ as ‘contemplating body in bodies’.
I personally think the translation: ‘contemplating bodies as bodies’ is more aligned with the spirit of the (anatta-based) teachings, such as found in MN 1.
Having directly known air as air , he does not conceive himself as air , he does not conceive himself in air, he does not conceive himself apart from air, he does not conceive air to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in air. Why is that? Because he has fully understood it, I say. MN 1