What does it mean "to dwell contemplating body in body... etc"?

Q & A
12

In the saṃyukta on the Four Bases of Mindfulness, contemplating the body as the body is never connected with the breath. The only sūtras that make this claim are those that are associated with ānāpāna. In the SA / SN, the saṃyukta for the Four Bases of Mindfulness describes the Four Bases of Mindfulness only as abstract contemplations, and never as ānāpāna, impurity contemplations, etc.

In my opinion, those are later additions that were basically “bolted on” to the Four Bases of Mindfulness, probably because the Four Bases of Mindfulness were considered the orthodox form of mindfulness that everyone agreed was definitely Buddhism. Mindfulness in the SA / SN is generally said to be summed up as the Four Bases of Mindfulness, and mindfulness is also repeated a number of times in the 37 dharmas conducive to Bodhi.

Also, the āgamas do not generally translate the phrase as “body in the body,” or anything like it. They translate it more like “body as the body,” or “body, body.” In this stock phrase, I don’t see any implication that there is a body inside another body, like a subtle body.

That is not to say that esoteric anatomy is irrelevant to early Buddhism, but just that it doesn’t take this form. As far as I can tell, the subtle body in early Buddhism is best represented in terms of the skandhas and the elements.

3 Likes
13

@Deeele, to me it seems that the best way to understand satipattahana is to use the suttas themselves. From MN118:

When mindfulness of breathing is developed and cultivated, it fulfils the four foundations of mindfulness.

If mindfulness of breathing fulfills the FFoMs, it must be because through it one contemplates ‘body in body’, ‘feelings in feelings’, ‘mind in mind’ and ‘dhammas in dhammas’ (whatever this means).

If you look at the four paragraphs that describe the pracrice of mindfulness of breathing, the first is about the physical breath, the second about feelings, the third about the mind and the fourth about dhammas.

So, IMO, mindfulness of breathing goes through all the FFoMs when done properly. If the FFoMs are abstract, then mindfulness of breathing is an application - a practical example of how to apply the theory.

Bhante @Sujato also did a comparative study of the different satipatthana suttas, where he showed that a lot of the contemplations in the Pali Canon version of the sutta are missing in others.

I think the editors of the Pali suttas, over time, tacked onto MN 10 more things that they considered to be a body contemplation, feeling contemplation, mind contemplation and dhamma contemplation. (i.e. they tacked on the examples of how to apply the theory)

So IMO, abstract satipatthana is the theory, and then you have all the applications of that that theory; breath, postures, asubha, etc. these are all ways to practice satipatthana.

But IIRC, only asubha is in all the satipatthana suttas, and breath meditation is explicitly said to fulfill the FFoMs, so they are the best bets perhaps.

I can’t recall whether Bhante Sujato also made these points, so maybe I am just presenting his findings as my own opinon. You’ve been warned :slight_smile:

1 Like
14

Thank you Erik.

For me, the first paragraph is not only about the breath but also about how the state of mind influences the breath & the physical body and the mind itself in return (lesson 3). It is also about knowing the state of mind or method that calms the breath (lesson 4). I draw your attention to consider for yourself the meaning of the phrase: “She trains herself” used in every lesson starting from lesson 3. For me, this phrase: "He trains himself"means three trainings (sikkha) are present, namely, higher morality, higher concentration & higher wisdom. In other words, there must be more than mere concentration operating (as occurs in lessons 1 & 2). For me, the mind must see how the mind, breath & body are inter-related to the arising of & reduction of suffering.

Similarly, the 2nd paragraph appears to be not only about experiencing rapture (lesson 5) & happiness (lesson 6) but also about experiencing how rapture & happiness condition (sankhara) the mind (lesson 7; experiencing the citta sankhara). For example, rapture may cause the mind to be disturbed, attached, greedy or fearful towards the rapture; or to even lose concentration; or even believe oneself to be God or a Buddha;or to simply have delight or awe. Rapture (piti) can cause delusions to arise, where as happiness (sukha) makes the mind (citta) feel content. This is why vedana (feelings) are the ‘citta sankhara’ (MN 44 also). Knowing sankhara (conditioning) is part of these lessons; as well as knowing how to calm rapture (lesson 8).

Similarly, the 4th paragraph appears not only about continuously experiencing impermanence (lesson 13) but also about the effect this has on the mind, namely, resulting in dispassion (viraga; lesson 14); quenching of suffering (nirodha; lesson 15); & giving up (patinissaga; lesson 16).

I personally can’t see the value of merely knowing the breath, feelings or mental states. For me, practise must always relate to the mind & reducing/ending (mental) suffering.

Regards :slight_smile:

3 Likes
15

I am so sorry the explanation I gave above does not apply to “body in body”. But it applies to “sabbakaya patisamvedi”. Again I am sorry for the mistake.
With Metta

16

Perhaps it refers to the experience of “embodiment”? A lot of times we can live up in our heads, so to speak, kind of ignoring the body.

Also, do any of you think manomaya kāya has any relevance to the discussion here? While the mind-made body occurs in a totally different context, that is very clearly meant to be a body (even endowed with sense faculties) amongst the bodies.

1 Like
17

No worries !

With Metta

18

Regarding the phrase ‘kāye kāyānupassī viharati’, I have been made aware that Bhikkhu Bodhi considers a literal translation to be “He dwells as a body-contemplator in relation to the body.” But that he does not choose that because it is awkward in English. However, does this not give a very different meaning?

The reasoning I have heard is that ‘kāye’ is not a spacial locative, and ‘anupassī’ of ‘kāyānupassī’ is not a verb - anupassī being the nominative singular of anupassin. The only verb here is ‘viharati’.

So basically, put in normal English, does this not just mean that the person is ‘contemplating the body’? As a ‘body-contemplator’ would?

Is this whole idea of ‘body in the body’ not just an invented confusion caused by English mistranslation?

I would be keen to hear people’s thoughts on this.

2 Likes
19

Thank you .

20

I didn’t get any response here about the grammar point I mentioned above, so I have made a new topic of it, to be found here: Kāye in ‘kāye kāyānupassī viharati’ not spacial locative - no such thing as ‘body in the body’

21

I like it :slightly_smiling_face:. While only guessing, my translation from kindergarten Pali class is:

“the bhikkhu dwells (viharati) as a contemplater (ānupassī) of bodies (kāyā) in the body (kāye)”.

This seems to conform with MN 118, which states:

Kāyesu kāyaññatarāhaṃ, bhikkhave, evaṃ vadāmi yadidaṃ—assāsapassāsā

I tell you, monks, that this — the in-&-out breath — is classed as a body (kāya) among bodies (kāyesu)

:seedling:

22

Hi all,

When this topic comes up people always focus on “kāye kāyānupassī viharati”, which makes things a bit difficult because of the much wider meaning the Pali word kaya has than the English word body. When I was translating this passage it all became quite clear to me when I came to the vedana:

vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati

Vedanāsu is plural here. If you then also know that the locative case (translatable with “in”) can also mean “among” (just as Deeele pointed out in MN118) the translation becomes quite easy: he contemplates on a feeling amongst (all possible) feelings.

Vedana is not very often used in the plural as far as I’m aware. For example the vedana-aggregate is always singular as it is not one specific feeling, but feeling in general. If the sentence would want to say that one contemplates feeling as feeling (to be without self or whatever) then I would very much expect the singular. Likewise, if one would be a “feeling-meditator with respect to feeling” the singular would be more natural. The plural is really quite illustrative, showing that one picks one feeling, or even one aspect of that feeling, among ‘all feelings’ and focuses on that.

So similary with kaya, one focusses on one aspect of the body (ie the breath, its nature to die, etc). I would translate the phrase as “he meditates on an aspect of the body”. Sort of combining anupassi and viharati into one verb, which I think is OK because viharati doesn’t mean very much, often used like the English verb “to be”.

Metta!
Sunyo

5 Likes
23

MN 118 appears to only contemplate on pleasant feelings in the 2nd tetrad.

This idea about “all possible feelings” appears to be heavily influenced by MN 10.

What about ‘feelings-meditator?’

The difference between vedana & kaya is ‘kaya’ is naturally plural, namely, meaning “group”
or “collection”, even though this ‘group’ is often spoken of as singular, namely, ‘the group’.

Again, this appears heavily influenced by MN 10.

MN 118 appears to only contemplate on the pleasant feelings that naturally & inevitably arise from calming the breathing, namely, rapture (piti) & happiness (sukkha).

While MN 118 appears to be the more authentic sutta, I think a definitive translation must match both MN 118 & MN 10.

In other words, it is probably OK to use a different translation for practical purposes for MN 10 and MN 118, respectively, however we probably should avoid getting dogmatic about what the translation most truly is.

If that was so, would not the Pali be similar to stage 3, namely, “sabbaveda­nāpaṭi­saṃ­vedī”? :neutral_face:

Again, MN 10 & MN 118 are vastly different suttas despite each sutta sharing the common phrases that are the subject of this topic.

You seem to be imputing MN 10 onto MN 118, which is obviously dhammically inappropriate.

The Pali is ‘sabba­kā­yapaṭi­saṃ­vedī’. ‘Sabba’, according to its predominate use, means “all” rather than “one” (ekka) or “whole” (kevala). Therefore, ‘sabba­kā­yapaṭi­saṃ­vedī’ appears to refer to experiencing all of the different ‘kaya’ (such as nama, rupa & breath kaya) at the same time within the ‘kaya’ (‘group’; ‘collection’) & how they interrelate or intercondition eachother.

Please keep in mind Buddhist practise is about understanding suffering & its cessation therefore training (sikkhati) in meditation should probably require more than just observing objects. It should probably ideally observe how such objects contribute to suffering & peace.

SN 12.2 appears to explain ‘death’ (‘marana’) occurs to ‘a being’ (‘satta’) therefore it seems doubtful the breath ‘dies’. In Pali, the word for the breath passing appears to be ‘atthaṅgamo’ (in AN 4.41) or ‘vaya­dham­mā­nu­passī’ (in MN 10) rather than ‘marana’. It seems DN 11 argues the air-element does not cease without remainder.

Again, this view here appear to be heavily influenced by MN 10, for which doubts about its authenticity have been posted elsewhere. While I do not doubt MN 10 is a very useful for helping to develop mindfulness in respect to different aspects of the body & experience, when it comes to developing the Noble Path, including jhana, the field of meditation is much more limited or narrow, as described in MN 118.

OK. As requested. :penguin:

24

Again, this appears heavily influenced by MN 10.

It may appear so, but it isn’t. The phrase in question occurs in a great many suttas, usually in the narrower context of the four satipatthanas as in SN45.8 for example. The longer contexts such as MN118 and MN10 can be seen as exceptions and they shouldn’t determine the interpretation if we can do without. Of course the translation must work in them too, but I did not really base my opinion on either of them, since the shorter contexts you find so much more often.

And the locative case is unmistakable in all cases. (eg vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati ) The “part of the whole” locative (partitive locative) is quite common and does make a lot of sense here. It is used in phrases such as tassaṃ parisāyaṃ koci "a certain one among the assembly*. As Wijasekara points out this locative can have the function of selection of one amongst many. He says: “specification (i.e. selection or separation) the loc. or the gen. can optionally be used.” (Goolge “syntax of the pali cases” to find this excellent work.)

The locative does not carry the meaning of “as”. So “the body as the body” is not possible. I think the ablative may have that meaning. Wijasekara will tell you, but I must admit I have read only very little of it.

Then does the partitive work in the bigger contexts? Yes, it does. In MN118 you don’t just focus on feeling in general, but on a specific feeling such as piti or sukha. And you don’t focus on dhamma in general but on a specific thing such as impermanence or fading away. MN10 as DN22 mention many more possible feelings and possibilities for the other three satipatthanas, but the principle is the same: you don’t focus on all of them at once but on a specific one.

If that was so, would not the Pali be similar to stage 3, namely, “sabbaveda­nāpaṭi­saṃ­vedī”? :neutral_face:

I see no reason why it should. There’s always more than one way to say the same thing.

Please keep in mind Buddhist practise is about understanding suffering & its cessation therefore training (sikkhati) in meditation should probably require more than just observing objects. It should probably ideally observe how such objects contribute to suffering & peace.
I’m not refuting this not does the suggested interpretation exclude it, but satipatthana is broader than that.

it seems doubtful the breath ‘dies’.
I was talking about the body. The breath and death are both aspect of the body.

I hope this clarifies things.

With metta,
Sunyo

3 Likes
25

Not really. However, it goes beyond the purpose of the thread. I restarted the thread to simply express my new understanding about “locatives”.

However, it may not explicitly refute the “as” assertions since “contemplating bodies in the body” still may have a vipassana nuance, in that the meditator does not contemplate ‘self’ in the body.

Regards. :seedling:

26

What about:
breathing in & out in when inhaling
and brething in & out when exhaling.
The all breath while brething in and the all breath while breathing out?

sabbakaya (the all breath) while breathing in
sabbakaya while breathing out

27

“Body as the body” would make more sense to me. I take it to mean focusing exclusively on one frame of reference at a time.

1 Like
28

Again, why should one consider contemplating body (aka breath) in the body as, for instance an in and out breath in an in breath?
(see previous post)
First, because breath is a feeling.
What is meant here is to feel the feeling of both an in and an out breath in an in breath. The same holds for the out breath (viz, to feel the feeling of the in, then the feeling of an out breath within an out breath.
This is why the first step in anapanasati is to know the particularity of each breath (viz, their “feeling”).
Secondly, because this is also about" flow", as in SN 52.1.
If one search for the proper root of samudaya, one should find that udeti (ud+eti of root i) has to do with “flow”. Here, collectively, or synergetically with sam (samudeti).

May I add that in SN52. 1, patikula does not mean “repulsive” as in other suttas, but instead it means “against the current”, as in AV (Atharva Veda).
The second part of SN 52.1 becomes:
"if he wishes: 'may I dwell the Against-the-flow in the In_the-flow, he dwells perceiving the Against_the_flow therein.

Breath is not just “breathing” through the nose or the mouth. It is about feeling and flow.
How could breath be through the nose in sankhara nidana?

29

I was listening to one of his talks, and I came across that passage which I thought I would share with you for your reference. The exact phrase Ajahn Brahm said is as follows:

“This is the idiom of Pali: to repeat words. [For example] you brick clean bricks, you teeth brush your teeth. In Pali language, there is always repetition. [If you don’t recognize this, it] adds another meaning into the English [translation] which is not there in the original…The most common example is in the famous Satipatthana Sutta…sometimes people say the first Satipatthana Sutta is to contemplate body as body which is ridiculous. It’s wrong. It’s bad Pali. You just contemplate body…anytime they say “body in the body,” you are missing the point: You are just contemplating body…no more than that. It’s just a peculiarity of Pali to repeat words where in English you only say it once.”

This paragraph is stated at around the 62:15 mark in his talk on MN13 Mahadukkhakkhanda Sutta - Discourse on the Mass of Suffering | Ajahn Brahmavamso | 11-02-2007 available at https://www.podbean.com/ei/pb-fi2t8-e712cc

Commensurate with this, I’ve noticed that some translators have chosen instead to only use the phrase “body” (instead of “body in the body” or “body as body”) ; this is what Bhante Sujato does here SuttaCentral and Thanissaro Bhikkhu uses “body in & of itself” here Anapanasati Sutta: Mindfulness of Breathing

I think this is an interesting perspective and is a reasonable approach to consider because it avoids confusion.

2 Likes
30

The word . “anupassana” as per VRI publications in book on Satipatthana by Goenkaji, means continuosly, from moment to moment.
Kayanupassi based on this would be observing the body from moment to moment continuosly.
As far as the repetition of word “kaye kayanupassi”, the same pattern is used in vedanāsu vedanānupassī… citte cittānupassī… dhammesu dhammānupassī.
It may be observing the body (kaye) and the other contemplation factors in Vipassana from moment to moment. It is a unique feature of the language to integregate the verb with the object to create a specific verb which is more descriptive.Based on this, the interpretation , body within body may not be applicable
Metta🙏🏻

31

To contemplate one has to first direct attention to whatever is to be contemplated. In this sense, “kaye kayanupassi” means paying attention to the body and then contemplate its true nature - impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and not self nature.
The same is true for other three contemplations IMHO.
With Metta