Long Breath/Short Breath: Control Breath or Natural Breath?

[Dhammanando]

Thanks to Vince for posting this.. We were having a conversation on another site and I made the point that I had never heard of Buddhist teachers advising students to control their breath.

Among modern teachers control of breath was taught by Sunlun Sayadaw in Burma, by Nai Boonman in Thailand, and by Boonman's student Lance Cousins (and other Samatha Trust teachers) in England. It is of course a minority approach, but it's out there nonetheless.

I suspect that there has either been a mistranslation of the Pali verses or a differing view held by certain teachers/schools.

I think it's more likely the latter. The ancient Mahavihara Theravadin texts contain no explicit statement supporting either opinion, no matter how they're translated. The one text that does take sides is the Vimuttimagga, thought to be a composition of the Abhayagiri Vihara, wherein there is an explicit prescription for natural breathing.

[tiltbillings]

Trying to let the breath be natural may result in overlooking subtle or habitual forms of control of the breath and may encourage the arising of sloth and torpor. Trying to control the breath may result in cultivation of inappropriate attention and may encourage the arising of restlessness or sensual desire. Rather than the division of "control or natural" perhaps evaluating attention and intention in terms of the five hindrances and the seven factors of awakening would be a fruitful approach (such as described in SN 46.51). Evaluating the resolves that arise in terms of MN 19 may be useful as well. The fourfold division of Right Effort may be useful to consider in this regard as well, as it is neither universally effort for arising nor universally effort for abandonment. "Control" could be understood to tend towards effort for the arising and non-arising of states, and "natural" could be understood to tend towards effort for the maintenance and abandoning of states.

This is your line of thought on the matter?

[tiltbillings]

Thanks to Vince for posting this.. We were having a conversation on another site and I made the point that I had never heard of Buddhist teachers advising students to control their breath.

Among modern teachers control of breath was taught by Sunlun Sayadaw in Burma

As I understand the Sunlun method, as outlined in the article by Sunlun Sayadaw in Kornfield's LIVING BUDDHIST MASTERS, the breath control (rapid, heavy breathing) was used to develop concentration, then it was followed by pretty standard mindfulness practice.

For a fair period of time I did a somewhat modified version, doing the heavy breathing in and out for 30 to 45 mins, and when the bell rang, stopped the heavy breathing going to a natural, uncontrolled breathing. Unquestionably, the heavy breathing for that period of time requires and develops considerable concentration, and it just blows right out of one's head extraneous thoughts. When the mindfulness practice starts, the mind is very quiet, focused, and attentive. It works well, especially when distracted or sleepy.

[culaavuso]

Trying to let the breath be natural may result in overlooking subtle or habitual forms of control of the breath and may encourage the arising of sloth and torpor. Trying to control the breath may result in cultivation of inappropriate attention and may encourage the arising of restlessness or sensual desire. Rather than the division of "control or natural" perhaps evaluating attention and intention in terms of the five hindrances and the seven factors of awakening would be a fruitful approach (such as described in SN 46.51). Evaluating the resolves that arise in terms of MN 19 may be useful as well. The fourfold division of Right Effort may be useful to consider in this regard as well, as it is neither universally effort for arising nor universally effort for abandonment. "Control" could be understood to tend towards effort for the arising and non-arising of states, and "natural" could be understood to tend towards effort for the maintenance and abandoning of states.

This is your line of thought on the matter?

This was what occurred to me earlier when making the post, although the last sentence appears to have suffered an error due to haste while posting. It would probably be more accurate to say that "control" may be understood as tending towards effort for arising of unarisen states and abandoning of arisen states while "natural" may be understood to tend towards effort for the maintenance of arisen states and the non-arising of unarisen states. Thus it seems that saying categorically to exert control or to permit the natural continuation of the preexisting momentum in all circumstances may not be ideal. Developing the mindfulness and awareness of what is happening in terms of cause and effect along with the discernment to identify skillful and unskillful fabrications seems to be beneficial.

The same notion could be viewed through the terms of SN 46.53. Focusing on the "natural breath" seems to cultivate calm as a factor of awakening, which is not equally beneficial on all occasions. SN 46.53 explains that when the mind is sluggish that is the wrong time to develop calm as a factor of awakening.

[Yogicfire]

Thanks to Vince for posting this.. We were having a conversation on another site and I made the point that I had never heard of Buddhist teachers advising students to control their breath.

Among modern teachers control of breath was taught by Sunlun Sayadaw in Burma

As I understand the Sunlun method, as outlined in the article by Sunlun Sayadaw in Kornfield's LIVING BUDDHIST MASTERS, the breath control (rapid, heavy breathing) was used to develop concentration, then it was followed by pretty standard mindfulness practice.

For a fair period of time I did a somewhat modified version, doing the heavy breathing in and out for 30 to 45 mins, and when the bell rang, stopped the heavy breathing going to a natural, uncontrolled breathing. Unquestionably, the heavy breathing for that period of time requires and develops considerable concentration, and it just blows right out of one's head extraneous thoughts. When the mindfulness practice starts, the mind is very quiet, focused, and attentive. It works well, especially when distracted or sleepy.

Yes, you are outlining how I basically have always understood 'controlled breathing' or pranayama to be correctly implemented. It has been used in Indian yogic practice for a long time for example, but, the key point is it hasn't been understood to be part of meditation (dhyana) itself. The way you are describing it above is as a preliminary stage to what you next call 'mindfulness practice'. In that sense I completely agree that it is a good preliminary activity to meditation proper.

The other point I would say is that I don't see how a volitional act like controlling the breath can be understood to be part of mindful meditation. It seems to be something of an oxymoron to me!

[VinceField]

the key point is it hasn't been understood to be part of meditation (dhyana) itself. The way you are describing it above is as a preliminary stage to what you next call 'mindfulness practice'. In that sense I completely agree that it is a good preliminary activity to meditation proper.

Can you provide a quote from any source claiming that controlling the breath isn't understood to be part of meditation itself in Buddhism? The teachings that I provided in the OP from Buddhadasa, Thanissaro, and Ajahn Lee show that breath manipulation is indeed understood to be a part of meditation, a very important part in fact.

Perhaps you have a limited definition of meditation. There are a plethora of different methods that can equally be defined as "meditation proper," including intentional breathing. Have you ever heard of Metta meditation? It's a completely fabricated experience, but this does not make it any less of a meditation.

The other point I would say is that I don't see how a volitional act like controlling the breath can be understood to be part of mindful meditation. It seems to be something of an oxymoron to me!

Perhaps this teaching can shed some light on the matter:

Mindfulness, however, is also taught together with another quality that I mentioned just now,
which is sampajañña. This is related to your alertness to what you’re doing, your own actions.
When you do something, you’re alert to what you’re doing. At the same time, you’re alert to the
results.

So you’ve got a combination of two things here under the word “mindfulness”: you’re keeping
the breath in mind and you also keep in mind that there are certain tasks to be done while you’re
focused on the breath. Under alertness you’re watching whether you’re actually doing those
tasks, and at the same time checking to see the results. As for the tasks, there are sixteen steps in
all, and beginning with step number three, you start training yourself. What this means is that
there’s going to be an intentional element to the steps of the practice.

There’s a sutta that I appended on the back here [SN 54.6, the Arittha Sutta]—you can look at
it later—where the Buddha essentially asks the monks, “How many of you are practicing
mindfulness of breathing?” and this one monk says “I am.” And the Buddha asks him “How do
you do that?” And the monk says “Well, I put aside all thoughts of desire and aversion related to
the past and the future, and focus just on being mindful of the breath as it comes in, mindful of
the breath as it goes out.” And the Buddha says, “There is that kind of mindfulness of breathing,”
but that’s not the way he taught it. It’s not just being in the present. Then he goes ahead and lists
the sixteen steps of breath meditation. In each one there’s an element of being aware of the
breath, keeping the breath in mind, and also keeping in mind that you’re going to do something
intentional, in conjunction with the breath. So this might expand your notion of what
mindfulness means. Many of us have been taught that mindfulness means acceptance of the
present, bare awareness of the present, without any agendas, total equanimity, nonreactivity. But
the way the Buddha teaches it, it’s more keeping a task in mind.

From Thanissaro Bhikkhu: The Breath: A Vehicle for Liberation

More relevant quotes from Thanissaro:

...the mind is primarily active in its approach to experience. Discernment, too, has to be active in
understanding where the processes of the mind are skillful and unskillful in the shape they
give to things. Discernment doesn’t come just from watching passively as things arise and
pass away in your experience. It also has to see why they arise and why they pass away. To
do this, it has to experiment—trying to make skillful qualities arise and unskillful qualities
pass away—to see which causes are connected to which effects.

Regarding the Anapanasati Sutta:

Beginning with step number three though, there is a new phrase: you train yourself. In other
words, you become intent, you’re going to do something intentionally. This is where you begin to
see that the development of mindfulness is not just bare awareness, it’s not just acceptance of
whatever happens. You’re training yourself, you’ve got an agenda, you’ve got something in mind
that you’re going to, and this is what you’re going to keep in mind.

In my own words, one does not have to be passive to be mindful. One can be mindful during every intention and action throughout the day, and this includes during meditation. There is little point to mindfulness practice if one is not mindful of their own intentions and actions, and their results. The idea here is to be mindful of the ways in which one can give rise to wholesome states, and mindful of the ways in which one can eliminate unwholesome states. This is completely in line with Buddhist teachings, no oxymoron here amigo.

Take care

[mikenz66]

Hi culaavuso,

It would probably be more accurate to say that "control" may be understood as tending towards effort for arising of unarisen states and abandoning of arisen states while "natural" may be understood to tend towards effort for the maintenance of arisen states and the non-arising of unarisen states. Thus it seems that saying categorically to exert control or to permit the natural continuation of the preexisting momentum in all circumstances may not be ideal. Developing the mindfulness and awareness of what is happening in terms of cause and effect along with the discernment to identify skillful and unskillful fabrications seems to be beneficial.

Thanks for that.

Any Buddhist meditation practice is designed to make some sort of progress (more calm, more insight., etc.). Some approaches are more up-front about manipulation (of breath or whatever). Others start off with "just observing" or "bare attention" as a preparation for making changes. Dismissing the former as "too manipulative", or the latter as "not teaching right effort" misses the point that they are all designed to make changes.


Mike

[Dhammanando]

The other point I would say is that I don't see how a volitional act like controlling the breath can be understood to be part of mindful meditation. It seems to be something of an oxymoron to me!

Why do you say that?

The objects of mindfulness in the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta's account of kāyānupassanā include such volitional objects as: walking, standing, sitting, lying down, going out, coming back, looking at something, looking away from something, bending and extending one’s limbs, carrying one’s outer robe, upper robe and bowl, eating, drinking, chewing, tasting, urinating, defecating, talking, and remaining silent.

[Sylvester]

[*] Breath may be understood as a result of intention even when secluded from sensual desire (MN 44, SN 22.57 ,& MN 111)
[*] The cessation of certain intentions is stated to bring about the cessation of breathing, appearing to make it a result of choice (MN 44, SN 22.57, & SN 36.11)

Hi culaavuso

Hmm, this brings us right back to the controversy of the meaning of at least 2 major divisions of saṅkhāra - the MN 44 types, versus the SN 12 types.

The MN 44 types appear to be the passive types of being "constructed", whereas the standard SN 12 types are the active "constructors". For the latter, the terminology pointing towards intention is to be found in verbs such as abhisaṅkharoti and abhi­sañ­ceteti (SN 12.25 and 12.51).

However, the active sense of intentions/volitions being the hallmark of the MN 44 types of saṅkhāra is not apparent to me. I would grant that the speech formation has a potential link to intention, given that it comes about "vitakketvā vicāretvā" (having vitakketi, having vicāreti). We might interpret vitakketi and vicāreti as manifestations of vitakka and vicāra, ie as intentions (per SN 12.25). Yet the breath as kāyasaṅkhāra is not defined in this manner, nor is cittasaṅkhāra. I suspect that MN 44's formations have really nothing to do with SN 12.25's three types of intentions, even if both models share the same word saṅkhāra.

You wouldn't be following Ven Nanavira on this, perchance?

As for MN 111, I think it is really impossible to treat this as being part of EBT. Given its listing of states in each of the jhanas, I would say that it likely postdates the Pali Abhidhamma and had begun employing the pakiṇṇaka cetasika structure that was developed much later (unless of course we explain away MN 111's accounting for chanda and adhimokkha as being a borrowing from the Sarvastivadin commentary Abhidharmadipa: Karunadasa p.99 n.2). Plus, the presence of equanimity in the first 2 jhanas contradicts a standard Nikaya and Agama meme that 2 no different feelings can be felt concurrently. Pīti makes a strange bedfellow with upekkhā. The only sensible way to account for this without MN 111 contradicting the suttas is to accept that the upekkhā in MN 111 is not a feeling, but tatramajjhattatā (equipoise/equanimity) from the Abhidhammic schema of "beautiful mental factors".

Trying to let the breath be natural may result in overlooking subtle or habitual forms of control of the breath and may encourage the arising of sloth and torpor. Trying to control the breath may result in cultivation of inappropriate attention and may encourage the arising of restlessness or sensual desire. Rather than the division of "control or natural" perhaps evaluating attention and intention in terms of the five hindrances and the seven factors of awakening would be a fruitful approach (such as described in SN 46.51). Evaluating the resolves that arise in terms of MN 19 may be useful as well. The fourfold division of Right Effort may be useful to consider in this regard as well, as it is neither universally effort for arising nor universally effort for abandonment. "Control" could be understood to tend towards effort for the arising and non-arising of states, and "natural" could be understood to tend towards effort for the maintenance and abandoning of states.

This was what occurred to me earlier when making the post, although the last sentence appears to have suffered an error due to haste while posting. It would probably be more accurate to say that "control" may be understood as tending towards effort for arising of unarisen states and abandoning of arisen states while "natural" may be understood to tend towards effort for the maintenance of arisen states and the non-arising of unarisen states. Thus it seems that saying categorically to exert control or to permit the natural continuation of the preexisting momentum in all circumstances may not be ideal. Developing the mindfulness and awareness of what is happening in terms of cause and effect along with the discernment to identify skillful and unskillful fabrications seems to be beneficial.

The same notion could be viewed through the terms of SN 46.53. Focusing on the "natural breath" seems to cultivate calm as a factor of awakening, which is not equally beneficial on all occasions. SN 46.53 explains that when the mind is sluggish that is the wrong time to develop calm as a factor of awakening.

I think it's a fair point that you make, but I would interpret SN 46.53 a little differently. It just says that at times of sluggishness, it is appropriate to develop discrimination, persistence and rapture. But, the connection between these 3 Awakening Factors with the controlled breath does not seem readily apparent.

I think whether the breath is rapid or calm, what qualifies as the samatha property of mindfulness of the breath is the type of awareness that arises, rather than the effort put into making any particular form of breath.

[Yogicfire]

Vince, you seem to constantly go in circles concerning some of these matters. You know what references I am using! In the commentary that you quoted at the start by Ven Ariyadhamma that I supplied it is very clear that natural breathing is the way presented and not controlled breathing. We have also established that the controlled breathing method is in fact the minority view, as well as some suggestions of mistranslations. You seem to get rather angry and just ignore all of this in public and private correspondence.

I don't think in this case we have to be too philosophical about it. Natural breathing is not controlled breathing and vice versa. How can both be acceptable when Ven Ariyadhamma is talking explicitly about anapanasati? Let's be very clear about this!

I have given some insight into my experience with the Indian traditions (from whence most of these practices originated) and tried to add some context!

I think that there are certain valid reasons why controlled breathing should not be considered as 'meditation proper' and I have tried to share these.. Is it really a problem to be honest and say that there is something not quite right about this perspective or practice? Maybe on the forums it comes over more intensely but essentially we are talking about being honest as well as open-minded.

Finally, yes, mindfulness can expand to all kinds of everyday activities. I was talking specifically about sitting meditation itself.

[VinceField]

Vince, you seem to constantly go in circles concerning some of these matters. You know what references I am using! In the commentary that you quoted at the start by Ven Ariyadhamma that I supplied it is very clear that natural breathing is the way presented and not controlled breathing.

I simply responded to the ideas you presented here with what I believe to be valid points. Regarding your reference, Ven Ariyadhamma never states in that commentary that controlled breathing is not understood to be part of meditation, he only states that it is not to be used for the practice of Anapanasati. Do you see the difference? You seem to hold the belief that breath manipulation is not a method of meditation at all, so I simply asked what sources you got this idea from. Ariyadhamma is not one such source according to that commentary.

We have also established that the controlled breathing method is in fact the minority view, as well as some suggestions of mistranslations. You seem to get rather angry and just ignore all of this in public and private correspondence.

I'm sorry that you believe I am angry, although I would challenge you to find any kind of harsh speech or unfriendly tone in my writing that would indicate this. I am rather equanimous about this, and certainly have no ill will towards you my friend. I only ignore what is irrelevant.

Natural breathing is not controlled breathing and vice versa. How can both be acceptable when Ven Ariyadhamma is talking explicitly about anapanasati? Let's be very clear about this!

You seem to indicate that Ven Ariyadhamma is some kind of ultimate deciding force on the issue. What makes his interpretation more valid than any other bhikkhu?

I think that there are certain valid reasons why controlled breathing should not be considered as 'meditation proper' and I have tried to share these..

I fail to recall this, other than your statement that it is similar to Pranayama which is a preliminary practice to meditation. Can you please share some more valid reasons?

Is it really a problem to be honest and say that there is something not quite right about this perspective or practice? Maybe on the forums it comes over more intensely but essentially we are talking about being honest as well as open-minded.

Well, aside from one or two posters on this thread, it seems to be a consensus here that neither method is necessarily more or less valid than the other, especially with regards to the sutta's instructions, as the sutta makes no indication as to which method to implore. Holding the interpretation of one bhikkhu as more valid than the interpretation of other bhikkhus simply because it is in agreement with your conditioned beliefs may be a mistaken approach.

Being honest and open-minded on your part would mean to give the other method in question an honest try and to admit that Ven Ariyadhamma is not necessarily any better or worse than any other bhikkhu offering their interpretations and instructions. I have practiced both controlled and natural breath meditation so I have my own insight into the benefits of each method. I also recognize that most teachers have their own particular methods and strategies for cultivating wholesome states and carrying out the Buddha's instructions, and it is not so much a matter of which teacher or method is more or less valid, but more a matter of which strategy works for the particular individual based on their particular inclinations and temperaments. Even the Buddha taught that it's not a one-size-fits-all matter when it comes to strategies for the practice.

It is your virtue that will affect your own practice and progress, so whether you take a more honest and open-minded approach along the lines that I indicated above bears no reflection on me, although I do wish the best for you and so I am offering my view to help you towards that goal.

Finally, yes, mindfulness can expand to all kinds of everyday activities. I was talking specifically about sitting meditation itself.

If you read the three excerpts of the teachings by Thanissaro Bhikkhu that I shared in my last post, you would see that he is speaking specifically about sitting meditation and how mindfulness is to be combined with intention and action, as per the Buddha's instructions.

Take care

[Yogicfire]

I will leave it to the Pali experts to tease out the exact meanings as I don't think you or I are probably qualified to state one way or another. I understand it is something of a contentious issue but the consensus seems to be that controlled breathing is not part of anapanasati. Yes, there may be other views on this but they are in the minority. This can all be seen in this very thread.

Controlled breathing is one good method of 'enlivening' the body and it has been used for centuries. But, in the Indian sources it is never seen to be part of dhyana. It is a preliminary stage which is known as pranayama. When you look at the majority of Buddhist writings on anapanasati you see not only no mention of controlled breathing but as I have mentioned an explicit explanation in a Sutta commentary not to control the breath..

At the beginning of our conversation on this topic on another site I said that I had never heard of Buddhist teachers teaching anyone to control the breath. To be absolutely truthful I see nothing to change my mind after reading and contributing to this thread. What else can I say?

Obviously, I am not trying to look down on your practice but one should be honest as well in terms of what has been taught and what is in the texts (and a proper comparison of the texts).

The key, key point for me is whether controlled breathing is part of meditation (dhyana) or not. Perhaps the distinctions become blurred because you could do breathing exercises and then meditate in one sitting.. It could be argued that it is really a semantic issue. However, I have some thoughts that there are clear reasons why controlled breathing should not be considered part of mindfulness meditation - mainly to do with natural awareness and the bringing about of calm abiding.

I have said enough on this thread and will let others discern what they will! I can understand just not agree with your position on this, Vince! Happy holidays!

[daverupa]

Could each of you share the particular method you implore for tackling the first two steps? Do you intentionally breath long and short breaths, or do you just breath naturally and discern the length of each in comparison with the others?

Not really in comparison with 'the others', but just in comparison with the last one. In this, the span of attention comes to be a mindful present-&-near-past, ideal for observing conditionality at work. Taking this span of attention to step three brings many sorts of activities into view, and step four relaxes that, rendering a high vantage point.

[VinceField]

the consensus seems to be that controlled breathing is not part of anapanasati. Yes, there may be other views on this but they are in the minority. This can all be seen in this very thread.

And yet none of this invalidates the practice of breath manipulation as a method of meditation.

Controlled breathing is one good method of 'enlivening' the body and it has been used for centuries. But, in the Indian sources it is never seen to be part of dhyana. It is a preliminary stage which is known as pranayama.

A bit irrelevant, as we are coming from a Buddhist perspective.

When you look at the majority of Buddhist writings on anapanasati you see not only no mention of controlled breathing but as I have mentioned an explicit explanation in a Sutta commentary not to control the breath..

Again, none of this invalidates the practice of breath manipulation. The sutta makes no mention of natural breathing either. We are dealing in interpretations, not facts.

At the beginning of our conversation on this topic on another site I said that I had never heard of Buddhist teachers teaching anyone to control the breath. To be absolutely truthful I see nothing to change my mind after reading and contributing to this thread.

That's strange. I provided teachings from three different Bhikkhus specifically instructing breath control, and Ven. Dhammanando provided several more Buddhist teachers who teach this method. If this doesn't indicate to you that some Buddhist teachers do in fact teach this method, then, respectfully, perhaps you have bigger issues to tackle than your anti-breath control campaign.

Obviously, I am not trying to look down on your practice but one should be honest as well in terms of what has been taught and what is in the texts (and a proper comparison of the texts).

So, let's be honest. We have established the indisputable fact that both breath control and natural breathing methods are taught by different teachers. Sylvester has stated that the sutta's Pali terminology indicates natural breathing for the first two steps of Anapanasati, although his analysis seems to indicate that this is also not entirely clear. But even if it were clear that the breath was to be natural for the first two steps of Anapanasati, this in no way invalidates the practice of breath control meditation as a means of cultivating wholesome states and eliminating unwholesome states as can be found in the teachings that I referenced in this thread.

The key, key point for me is whether controlled breathing is part of meditation (dhyana) or not.

Please refer to the several teachings that I quoted which make this point rather clear.

Again, without first hand experience and insight into the matter, your views are essentially nothing more than conditioned assumptions. Buddhism is the acquisition of wisdom through experience and insight. With all the talk about honesty, the most honest approach would be to release your tight grasp on your current view and try the practice yourself.

[VinceField]

Could each of you share the particular method you implore for tackling the first two steps? Do you intentionally breath long and short breaths, or do you just breath naturally and discern the length of each in comparison with the others?

Not really in comparison with 'the others', but just in comparison with the last one. In this, the span of attention comes to be a mindful present-&-near-past, ideal for observing conditionality at work. Taking this span of attention to step three brings many sorts of activities into view, and step four relaxes that, rendering a high vantage point.

Thanks for the response.

I usually frame the comparison in terms of what the length of an average long breath and short breath is for me, so when I am analyzing each breath I am not actually comparing it to a past breath, but rather framing it in terms of my idea or my past experience of what a long and short breath is and how much longer or shorter it seems to be compared to the average. I'll give your way a try. Thanks again.