So, we don't control the breathing in anyway, or do we? We pay attention to the breathing at the back of one's throat, or just at the nostrils, or inside the nose, or with chest expansion and contraction, or with the sensation of the breathe filling up the body as one breathes in and out, or as one's breathes through the mouth, feeling the sensation on the lips or inside the mouth?ihrjordan wrote:But that's just it, there isn't a need to develop techniques "based on the suttas" when it specifically and concisely tells you how to meditate in those same suttasNow, there is the problem, isn't it? How we follow the descriptions is going to require that we develop techniques based upon our interpretations of the suttas in question.
Now if you ask me this doesn't leave much room for interpretation. It's as clear as day, so now why do we have "techniques" when it specifically tells us how to meditate right here....in the suttas..."from the Blessed one's own lips" as the Ven Aananda would say"Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, brings the four frames of reference to completion. The four frames of reference, when developed & pursued, bring the seven factors for Awakening to completion. The seven factors for Awakening, when developed & pursued, bring clear knowing & release to completion.
And since you are quoting MN 118, do we conceptually think this: He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to rapture.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to rapture.' ? Or not. And how does one breathe in and out being “sensitive to rapture? "Sensitive to rapture" is what exactly? Or He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on inconstancy.' Do that mean we need to be thinking about anicca as we breathe in and out? Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long' Do we manipulate the breath to breathe in long, or do we simply let the breathing happen and note if it is long or short? Seem opinions of modern teachers vary on these issues. And it really is not very clear. Apparently you know exactly what these instructions mean in detail, so do let us know.
So, you know what is what? Tell us what the internal/external means in the Satipatthana Sutta. Commentaries are not the last word, but just because they are commentaries that does not mean that the authors of them always got it wrong.Please refer to my above post, there isn't a need for interpretations when it's spelt out for you in the suttas, or do you consider the commentaries to be authoritative?That is utterly hilarious. We will just have problems based upon any number of interpretations developed in the 21st century.
You point is poorly taken. The Mahayana/Vajrayana traditions you are referring to here don’t make a distinction between vipassana and samatha, because they don’t they do not talk about these things, period (except for early Ch'an, maybe). The reality, of course that samatha is very much a part of the vipassana traditions. It is just that they do not advocate a focus on the jhanas, but keep in mind that the jhanas the they do not advocate are the type of jhanas found in the Visuddhimagga, though such jhanas are not absent in advanced practices. On the other hand it is recognized within the Mahasi Saydaw tradition that very high levels of samatha are achieved that are congruent with the jhanas as often described in the suttas.Btw Theravada is the only Buddhist tradition that has these "2 techniques of meditation" no other Buddhist sect makes this distinction of Vipassana or insight over here and Samatha and magical powers over here...Not Dzogchen not Ch'an not Zen...you get my point.
You are referring to jhana practice here when you say samatha? Have you tried cultivating jhana? For some people it is relatively easy, but for most, it is very, very difficult. What the Burmese traditions have done is open up the possibility of a serious meditative practice for the masses that does lead to insight.All the while because we now have two types of meditation we also have groups within sects, e.g. Mahasi and Goenka sects which basically try to claim a monopoly on Insight and make claims that state if you're not doing this tradition of meditation you are practicing Samatha, you might fly around for a little but won't gain release.
More research might not be a bad idea.doesn't work because it did show results but then decided to do some research and everything pointed to the conclusion I come with today.
Now it is just sadness at the conclusions drawn from too little actual information. You tell me what was being done for the last 2500 years concerning MN 118. Controlling the breathing, letting it move naturally, etc, etc?My question is: If Mahasi or Goenka is "Real Insight" then what were people doing before these techniques were invented? Anapanasati has been around for 2500 years and there was never a NEED in the first place to invent new techniques. Btw I'm glad I could make you laugh
In other words, the practitioners interprets the requirements anew. So, we have new interpretations of the suttas going on all the time, and from what we have seen of the sutta only people’s interpretations that can vary wildly as what a text means. So, it is okay that we control our breathing and it okay that we don't control our breathing, and it is okay that we try to develop jhana first, and it okay that we develop both insight and concentration together as the Burmese methods teach.According to my interpretations? The changes don't have to be from my interpretations? They should be from what the practitioner feels is a reasonable standard for him or herself to strive for and from their own honest critique on how there practice is progressing, and what they feel is necessary to give up, to the best of their ability.And what kind of changes in lifestyle are absolutely, completely totally required, according to your interpretation of the suttas??
And who said this? It is a rather hamhanded mischaracterization of the Burmese traditions.Persistent attempts have been made to diminish the significance of
samatha’s role in Buddhist meditation in the never-ending search for a
shortcut to happiness, so typical of our restless times. We are told that it is
difficult in fast-paced modern times to find the tranquility of jhāna; which
is obviously true, and yet it merely underscores how important serenity is
for us, here & now. It is precisely because our postmodern world stresses
the utility of analytical intelligence so excessively that the complementary
holistic qualities of serenity and joy are sorely needed.