Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

twelph wrote:Is this the wrong way to look at it?

twelph wrote:Is there any information in the Suttas that mention this type of practice?

MN 10 wrote:"Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.' Or breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the entire body.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the entire body.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.' Just as a skilled turner or his apprentice, when making a long turn, discerns, 'I am making a long turn,' or when making a short turn discerns, 'I am making a short turn'; in the same way the monk, when breathing in long, discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long' ... He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.'

MN 44 wrote:"But what are bodily fabrications? What are verbal fabrications? What are mental fabrications?"

"In-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. Directed thought & evaluation are verbal fabrications. Perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications."

"But why are in-&-out breaths bodily fabrications? Why are directed thought & evaluation verbal fabrications? Why are perceptions & feelings mental fabrications?"

"In-&-out breaths are bodily; these are things tied up with the body. That's why in-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. Having first directed one's thoughts and made an evaluation, one then breaks out into speech. That's why directed thought & evaluation are verbal fabrications. Perceptions & feelings are mental; these are things tied up with the mind. That's why perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications."

twelph wrote:The whole idea of wanting to manipulate the breathe to get rid of unpleasant feelings, and to create momentary pleasure seems to stem from greed and aversion. Is this the wrong way to look at it? Is there any information in the Suttas that mention this type of practice?

Then, when the breath is calm and you've been refreshed by feelings of ease and stillness, you're ready to look at the mind itself. You don't leave the breath, though. You adjust your attention slightly so that you're watching the mind as it stays with the breath. Here the Buddha recommends three areas for experimentation: Notice how to gladden the mind when it needs gladdening, how to steady it when it needs steadying, and how to release it from its attachments and burdens when it's ready for release.

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

twelph wrote:Is this the wrong way to look at it?

Yes.

twelph wrote:Is there any information in the Suttas that mention this type of practice?

Follow specifically that which I have bolded...

MN 10 wrote:"Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.' Or breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the entire body.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the entire body.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.' Just as a skilled turner or his apprentice, when making a long turn, discerns, 'I am making a long turn,' or when making a short turn discerns, 'I am making a short turn'; in the same way the monk, when breathing in long, discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long' ... He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.'

MN 44 wrote:"But what are bodily fabrications? What are verbal fabrications? What are mental fabrications?"

"In-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. Directed thought & evaluation are verbal fabrications. Perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications."

"But why are in-&-out breaths bodily fabrications? Why are directed thought & evaluation verbal fabrications? Why are perceptions & feelings mental fabrications?"

"In-&-out breaths are bodily; these are things tied up with the body. That's why in-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. Having first directed one's thoughts and made an evaluation, one then breaks out into speech. That's why directed thought & evaluation are verbal fabrications. Perceptions & feelings are mental; these are things tied up with the mind. That's why perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications."

Metta,
Retro.

Goofaholix wrote:

twelph wrote:The whole idea of wanting to manipulate the breathe to get rid of unpleasant feelings, and to create momentary pleasure seems to stem from greed and aversion. Is this the wrong way to look at it? Is there any information in the Suttas that mention this type of practice?

Is it really manipulating the breath? Perhaps you could post a quote, the talks I've read/heard though are about using the breath to gladden the mind before undertaking the work of insight practice.

From http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ffort.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Then, when the breath is calm and you've been refreshed by feelings of ease and stillness, you're ready to look at the mind itself. You don't leave the breath, though. You adjust your attention slightly so that you're watching the mind as it stays with the breath. Here the Buddha recommends three areas for experimentation: Notice how to gladden the mind when it needs gladdening, how to steady it when it needs steadying, and how to release it from its attachments and burdens when it's ready for release.

I don't think this is inconsistant with the anapanasati sutta, nor some other Thai based teachers, but it is inconsistant with the Bumese approach I guess

Having the breath as a way of training yourself to be kind to
yourself is an important aspect of developing goodwill: It helps you realize that
you really do have a role in shaping your present experience, starting with the
breath and then moving into other areas of the present. There’s nobody forcing
you to breathe in an uncomfortable way, or in a way that puts yourself to sleep,
or in a way that gets you anxious and on edge. And yet we allow these things to
happen because we’re distracted, often about things that are really none of our
business. But the breath is something that really is your responsibility. Nobody
else can breathe for you. And nobody else can tell you what kind of breathing is
going to be comfortable. You have to pay attention yourself.

twelph wrote:When first learning to meditate many years ago, the teachers I studied under all had a clear rule about not trying to control the breathe. Within this past year I have started to really bunker down and study the teachings of my favorite modern teachers, namely Gil Fronsdal, Sayadaw U Tejaniya, and Thanissaro Bikkhu. While I greatly enjoy Thanissaro's Pali references in the majority of his work, I seem to have an aversion to his style of meditation that he talks about in most of his dhamma talks and compiled essays.The whole idea of wanting to manipulate the breathe to get rid of unpleasant feelings, and to create momentary pleasure seems to stem from greed and aversion. Is this the wrong way to look at it? Is there any information in the Suttas that mention this type of practice?

Goofaholix wrote: I don't think this is inconsistant with the anapanasati sutta, nor some other Thai based teachers, but it is inconsistant with the Burmese approach I guess

mikenz66 wrote:And it's rather obvious from personal experience that manipulating the breath can produce a change in mood.

twelph wrote:When first learning to meditate many years ago, the teachers I studied under all had a clear rule about not trying to control the breathe. Within this past year I have started to really bunker down and study the teachings of my favorite modern teachers, namely Gil Fronsdal, Sayadaw U Tejaniya, and Thanissaro Bikkhu. While I greatly enjoy Thanissaro's Pali references in the majority of his work, I seem to have an aversion to his style of meditation that he talks about in most of his dhamma talks and compiled essays.The whole idea of wanting to manipulate the breathe to get rid of unpleasant feelings, and to create momentary pleasure seems to stem from greed and aversion. Is this the wrong way to look at it? Is there any information in the Suttas that mention this type of practice?

tiltbillings wrote:The problem is that it is easy to manipulate the breath and one's mental states to quash what is unwanted, unpleasant, as if not having unpleasant thoughts and emotions is the goal, and it is all too easy to "cultivate" seemingly wholsesome states. Manipulating the breath is a matter choice and the question is what is behind that choice.

MN 19 wrote:The Blessed One said, "Monks, before my self-awakening, when I was still just an unawakened Bodhisatta, the thought occurred to me: 'Why don't I keep dividing my thinking into two sorts?' So I made thinking imbued with sensuality, thinking imbued with ill will, & thinking imbued with harmfulness one sort, and thinking imbued with renunciation, thinking imbued with non-ill will, & thinking imbued with harmlessness another sort.

"And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued with sensuality arose. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with sensuality has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding.'

"As I noticed that it leads to my own affliction, it subsided. As I noticed that it leads to the affliction of others... to the affliction of both... it obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding, it subsided. Whenever thinking imbued with sensuality had arisen, I simply abandoned it, destroyed it, dispelled it, wiped it out of existence.

"And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued with ill will arose. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with ill will has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding.'

"As I noticed that it leads to my own affliction, it subsided. As I noticed that it leads to the affliction of others... to the affliction of both... it obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding, it subsided. Whenever thinking imbued with ill will had arisen, I simply abandoned it, destroyed it, dispelled it, wiped it out of existence."

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

tiltbillings wrote:The problem is that it is easy to manipulate the breath and one's mental states to quash what is unwanted, unpleasant, as if not having unpleasant thoughts and emotions is the goal, and it is all too easy to "cultivate" seemingly wholsesome states. Manipulating the breath is a matter choice and the question is what is behind that choice.

Self honesty in this is paramount...

tiltbillings wrote:Which is, of course, far easier said than done.

tiltbillings wrote:

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

tiltbillings wrote:The problem is that it is easy to manipulate the breath and one's mental states to quash what is unwanted, unpleasant, as if not having unpleasant thoughts and emotions is the goal, and it is all too easy to "cultivate" seemingly wholsesome states. Manipulating the breath is a matter choice and the question is what is behind that choice.

Self honesty in this is paramount...

Which is, of course, far easier said than done.

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,

tiltbillings wrote:Which is, of course, far easier said than done.

I think one's personality type (e.g. Meyers-Briggs) might play a factor in how natural this level of self-transparency and internal consistency of intention is.

Regardless of the degree of difficulty involved, I think it's an indispensible factor in the spiritual quest, and may well be why Right Intention (Samma Sankappa) follows smack bang after Right View in the Noble Eightfold Path.

Metta,
Retro.