A Buddhist discussion forum on the Dhamma of Theravāda Buddhism
https://www.dhammawheel.com/
Maybe because it's right, and if I had the time to go hunting through the suttas, I could find even more to substantiate this position?
...with no basis whatsoever in the sutta or commentary that I'm aware of, nor that any of its advocates have been able to point to.
Yes, and your fondness of someone else's comments does not constitute a valid argument. If you have something which negates or provides a counter-argument to the sutta and commentary in my previous post, then by all means present it...
Then do so.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:00 am Greetings Javi,
Maybe because it's right, and if I had the time to go hunting through the suttas, I could find even more to substantiate this position?
No one claimed it was based on the suttas, only that it helped in establishing mindfulness and vigor, which would correspond to "establishing mindfulness to the fore" in the anapanasati
Since the quote you provided is about one of the sixteen steps, and not about "establishing mindfulness to the fore", it does not apply to this practice which is preliminary to those steps.Yes, and your fondness of someone else's comments does not constitute a valid argument. If you have something which negates or provides a counter-argument to the sutta and commentary in my previous post, then by all means present it...
Metta,
Paul.
If I have the time and inclination then I may... but if/when I do, I don't expect to hear any complaining about the continuation of the discussion.
... and both Zom and I have explained to you how that vigor (aka zeal) comes about... "Through zeal he breathes in a long in-breath more subtle than before reckoned as an extent".
Do you have any support for the inference that inflaming the bodily fabrication promotes the establishing and growth of mindfulness?
Retro wrote:Yes, and your fondness of someone else's comments does not constitute a valid argument. If you have something which negates or provides a counter-argument to the sutta and commentary in my previous post, then by all means present it...
If you like, but in the meantime the total count of textual sources you've provided to substantiate the benefits of deliberate inflammation of bodily fabrications remains firmly stuck at zero.Javi wrote:Since the quote you provided is about one of the sixteen steps, and not about "establishing mindfulness to the fore", it does not apply to this practice which is preliminary to those steps.
A point that has been made several times is that the "heavy breathing" is a preliminary practice lasting for a set period, and when that period ends one goes about one's meditative business with a mind that is concentrated, ardent, alert, and mindful. The mind is not "inflamed" during "heavy breathing" period, nor is it "inflamed" after. It is calm, pliable, concentrated, ardent, alert, and mindful.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:43 am
Similarly, in the suttas there is frequent mention of the act of tranquilizing the bodily formation...
Not once have I seen an instruction in the sutta or commentary which advises the meditator to inflame or aggravate the bodily formation with the breath. Have you?SN 54.10 wrote:He trains thus: 'Tranquilizing the bodily formation, I will breathe in';
He trains thus: 'Tranquilizing the bodily formation, I will breathe out';..."
Perhaps an advocate for such folly can point us in the direction of any scriptural support for this position? I would be incredibly interested to see something... anything...?
The only possible instance I can think of is one where the meditator who is on the verge of falling asleep is given a series of possible options by which to keep themselves awake... (AN 7.58) ... but even it does not recommend coarse breathing.
Yet they do speak of tranquillizing the bodily formation with the breath, and a preference for subtle breath over coarse breath... or are you denying the existence of such sutta instruction? Is there any doctrinal support for your position or is your opposition rooted instead in faith and conjecture?Javi wrote:As has been said before in this thread (and others), the suttas say nothing about controlling the breath.
Metta,
Paul.
Neither have I, and the concentrated breathing work certainly does not oppose the "instructions and objectives which follow it", and you and zom have asserted that is the case, but you have not shown it to be so. Quite to the contrary, it supports the instructions and objectives.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:24 am Greetings,
There are standard preliminary exercises in Theravada (e.g. recollection of the Buddha).
Never once have I heard of a preliminary exercise, the undertaking of which, is directly opposed to the instructions and objectives which follow it.
Good to see you back here sir tilt, hope you'll stick around
The problem is that the Sunlun method is poorly understood and does not fit some notions of how the Dhamma should be practiced.Mkoll wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:35 am I really don't understand this attacking of other people's anapanasati strategies. The purpose of it is to make the mind calm, clear, collected, and ripe for insight. If someone's breathing strategy is moving them in that direction (and only they could know), we should be happy for them, not pouncing on them.
Jeez.
"...but you have not shown it to be so."tiltbillings wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:30 am Quite to the contrary, it supports the instructions and objectives.
)That is your opinion, and my opinion is that there is zero evidence that it contravenes good Dhamma practice.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:41 am Greetings Tilt,"...but you have not shown it to be so."tiltbillings wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:30 am Quite to the contrary, it supports the instructions and objectives.
That's fine. I'm happy to regard it as your personal experience or as an article of faith on your part, but I dont intend to regard it as being in any way aligned to or compatible with traditional instructions, with zero evidence to support that contention.
Metta,
Paul.
If that's the best Dhammic substantiation that can be provided for such curious huffing, then I guess I have little to respond to.tiltbillings wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:46 am and mine opinion is that there is zero evidence that it contravenes good Dhamma practice.