mikenz66 wrote:It's a distinction I've demonstrated by quoting suttas...
Teasing out subtle descriptive distinctions is to think
about the Dhamma; incorporating Dhammic descriptions into one's experiential frameworks, up to and including overwriting pre-existing experiential frameworks with Dhammic frameworks, is to think
with it such that "the mind becomes concentrated, his corruptions are abandoned, he picks up that sign" as a cook picks up the subtle preferences of his king or royal minister (per SN 47.8).
In this latter sense, bhavana uses the satipatthana categories... not ones such as those to which your phrase, above, refers. Piling on descriptive layers
a priori in this way strikes me as papañca-saññā-sankhā.
Perhaps it would be fruitful to examine the fourth tetrad of anapanasati, in this light, in order to see if this distinction is explicitly tendered as a methodology.
tiltbillings wrote:...what people do, specifically as a practice, using the suttas as a guide.
Anapanasati, in my case. It comes highly recommended...