Satipathhana v. Anapanasati

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Satipathhana v. Anapanasati

Post by Spiny Norman »

Is anyone able / willing to describe in a nutshell what the difference is between the approach described in these 2 suttas? A significant point of divergence seems to be that the 4th foundation in Satipatthana is concerned with mindfulness of mental objects, as compared to contemplation of impermanence etc in the 4th tetrad of Anapanasati.
Or are the differences much more fundamental?

P
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Reductor
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:52 am
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: Satipathhana v. Anapanasati

Post by Reductor »

The sattipathana describes a more conceptual form of contemplation while anapanasati describes a much more 'absolute' form of contemplation - that is, there is little room for conceptualization.

They can be mutually helpful. Anapanasati to calm the mind, then a focused contempation of a sattipathana execercise. I find that contemplation of the 32 parts, after an initial period of breathing, can yield surprising levels of deeper concentration and understanding. Or they can be done in reverse, starting with the 32 parts to bring calm before going to the breath.

IMO it is not that useful to place these two forms of meditation into little 'boxes'. To do so cuts off a lot of productive avenues for calm and insight coming from implementing a combination of them.
Kenshou
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: Satipathhana v. Anapanasati

Post by Kenshou »

And also, there happens to be a section of the Anapanasati sutta itself dedicated to showing how the development of anapanasati can develop satipatthana, too.
User avatar
jcsuperstar
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:15 am
Location: alaska
Contact:

Re: Satipathhana v. Anapanasati

Post by jcsuperstar »

according to the Buddha anapanasati is satipatthana
"This is how mindfulness of in-&-out breathing is developed & pursued so as to bring the four frames of reference to their culmination.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

and if you read the satipatthana sutta the instructions for practicing are pretty much exactly as in the anapanasati sutta
"There is the case where a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building — sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out.

"Breathing in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. Or breathing in short, he discerns that he is breathing in short; or breathing out short, he discerns that he is breathing out short. He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the entire body and to breathe out sensitive to the entire body. He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication and to breathe out calming bodily fabrication. Just as a skilled turner or his apprentice, when making a long turn, discerns that he is making a long turn, or when making a short turn discerns that he is making a short turn; in the same way the monk, when breathing in long, discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out short, he discerns that he is breathing out short... He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication, and to breathe out calming bodily fabrication.

"In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or externally on the body in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the body in & of itself. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the body, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the body, or on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to the body. Or his mindfulness that 'There is a body' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ

the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Satipathhana v. Anapanasati

Post by Spiny Norman »

thereductor wrote:The sattipathana describes a more conceptual form of contemplation while anapanasati describes a much more 'absolute' form of contemplation - that is, there is little room for conceptualization.
Interesting observation - could you say a bit more about what you mean by "absolute" form of contemplation - you mean more experiential?

P
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Satipathhana v. Anapanasati

Post by Spiny Norman »

thereductor wrote: IMO it is not that useful to place these two forms of meditation into little 'boxes'. To do so cuts off a lot of productive avenues for calm and insight coming from implementing a combination of them.
I'm not sure how well these 2 approaches actually combine though. It feels to me like the method is basically different.

P
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Sobeh
Posts: 329
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:35 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, US
Contact:

Re: Satipathhana v. Anapanasati

Post by Sobeh »

I always got the impression that the Satipatthana was rather a template; anapanasati and kayagatasati both "fulfill" satipatthana, which means there is a method whereby in all four postures sammasati can be practiced, but otherwise the Satipatthana Sutta is itself not a useful teaching on meditation, but rather a useful measure of various meditation teachings. In other words, if I am taught a meditation that does not fulfill satipatthana, then I ought to discard the meditation as being less useful to me than anapana-/kayagata-sati, since those fulfill it perfectly.
Reductor
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:52 am
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: Satipathhana v. Anapanasati

Post by Reductor »

porpoise wrote: Interesting observation - could you say a bit more about what you mean by "absolute" form of contemplation - you mean more experiential?

P

I'm not sure how well these 2 approaches actually combine though. It feels to me like the method is basically different.

P
Well, I'm not the greatest communicator on the forum, so pardon my word choices. :tongue:

I called anapanasati more 'absolute' in that there is much less mental activity and that the meditation is an observation of a self maintaining object.

Compare this to the 32 part contemplation. In the 32 parts contemplation you have to mentally call each part to mind and maintain the mental impression. The object is mentally crafted by the meditator rather then always present and simply observed. This process is even more pronounced with the 9 charnel ground contemplations, for example.

I see the satipatthana (MN 10) as more of a summary/collection of the various lines of contemplations taught by the Buddha. When any of them are taken up by the meditator they can be used to observe one or more frames of reference.

Also keep in mind that anapanasati is included under the BODY foundation. If the Buddha meant for the satipatthana and anapanasati to be taken up separately then such an inclusion would be very perplexing.

"...a bhikkhu should, in addition, maintain in being these four things. Loathsomeness (as the repulsive aspect of the body) should be maintained in being for the purpose of abandoning lust; loving-kindness for the purpose of abandoning ill will; mindfulness of breathing for the purpose of cutting off discursive thoughts; perception of impermanence for the purpose of eliminating the conceit "I am."
Udana 4:1

Here the Buddha recommends two objects from the BODY foundation in the same exhortation. In this case they serve different function and are mutually supportive. A similar list is found in MN 62, directed at the Buddha's son.

As others have noted, anapanasati is said to fulfill the four foundations. It is not the only line of contemplation outside of MN10 that does that. In MN 140 the Buddha discusses at length the development of insight in relation to Elements, Feeling and Mind, relating them all the the Truth and release. It is a pretty interesting development.

Anyway, I'm rattling on here so I'll stop.

I would invite any of the satipatthana experts to chime in.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Satipathhana v. Anapanasati

Post by Spiny Norman »

Sobeh wrote:I always got the impression that the Satipatthana was rather a template; anapanasati and kayagatasati both "fulfill" satipatthana, which means there is a method whereby in all four postures sammasati can be practiced, but otherwise the Satipatthana Sutta is itself not a useful teaching on meditation, but rather a useful measure of various meditation teachings.
Interesting view. I sometimes wonder whether Satipatthana is basically a series of exercises for maintaining mindfulness, rather than a template for meditation.

P
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Satipathhana v. Anapanasati

Post by Spiny Norman »

thereductor wrote:
porpoise wrote: Also keep in mind that anapanasati is included under the BODY foundation. If the Buddha meant for the satipatthana and anapanasati to be taken up separately then such an inclusion would be very perplexing.
For sure. But I'm trying to compare the overall method described in the Satipatthana Sutta with the overall method described in the Anapanasati Sutta. To me the first seems more concerned with mindfulness, the second more concerned with samadhi. I think both methods can be used as a basis for insight but would appreciate your views on this.

P
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Satipathhana v. Anapanasati

Post by Spiny Norman »

thereductor wrote:
porpoise wrote: In MN 140 the Buddha discusses at length the development of insight in relation to Elements, Feeling and Mind, relating them all the the Truth and release. It is a pretty interesting development.
Yes, I've had some experience of that. It seems quite conceptual though.

P
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Reductor
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:52 am
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: Satipathhana v. Anapanasati

Post by Reductor »

porpoise wrote: For sure. But I'm trying to compare the overall method described in the Satipatthana Sutta with the overall method described in the Anapanasati Sutta. To me the first seems more concerned with mindfulness, the second more concerned with samadhi. I think both methods can be used as a basis for insight but would appreciate your views on this.

P
If you find it helpful to assign general mindfulness to the methods of satipatthana and samadhi to the method of anapanasati, then go for it. But I find that the difference between a general state of mindfulness and that of samadhi is only in degree. In a generalized state of sati the attention moves here and there between objects of the sense bases. Samadhi also has sati, but the attention becomes fixed on a much smaller subset of objects.

Same components are involved in both activities, the difference lies in how they are used.

So, can mindfulness of the posture yield samadhi? I feel that it can if practiced often. If that is found to be the case, then what does that do to your distinction?

Now, can anapanasati and satipatthana both yield insight? Yes, I would say so. In both cases the four frames of reference are being attended to by mindfulness and alertness, and in both cases the meditator must be "ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world." MN10 and MN118.
"There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings... mind... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world." MN10

"Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of great fruit, of great benefit. Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, brings the four frames of reference to their culmination. The four frames of reference, when developed & pursued, bring the seven factors for awakening to their culmination. The seven factors for awakening, when developed & pursued, bring clear knowing & release to their culmination." MN118
Both MN10 and MN118 require the mind to make use of the same faculties, if slightly differently. If you do assign MN10 the designation 'generalized sati' and MN118 as 'samadhi' then can they can both be said to yield insight? Yes, although the exact means differ.
"In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or externally on the body in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the body in & of itself. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the body, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the body, or on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to the body. Or his mindfulness that 'There is a body' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself. [and phrase is then repeated for each frame]
....

Now, if anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for seven years, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of clinging/sustenance — non-return.
compare the bolded parts of the above to those below:
[13] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on inconstancy.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on inconstancy.' [14] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on dispassion [literally, fading].' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on dispassion.' [15] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on cessation.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on cessation.' [16] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on relinquishment.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on relinquishment.'

...

This is how the seven factors for awakening are developed & pursued so as to bring clear knowing & release to their culmination.

In the quote directly above keep in mind that anapanasati is said (in MN118) to bring the four frames to fulfillment, which brings the seven factors to fulfillment.

All this suggest to me anapanasati and satipatthana yield the same results and the emphasis in both the insight stage of satipatthana and anapanasati is the changing nature of the frames of reference. To be sure, the minutest details laid out in MN10 can be seen as differing from MN118, but in both cases the trend is to stablize the mind and then be aware of change (arising and passing away as in MN10 or inconstancy in MN118). In both cases the return on effort is knowledge and release.

As a final note on the use of samadhi for insight:
The Blessed One said, "Monks, Sariputta is wise, of great discernment, deep discernment, wide... joyous... rapid... quick... penetrating discernment. For half a month, Sariputta clearly saw insight[1] into mental qualities one after another. This is what occurred to Sariputta through insight into mental qualities one after another:

"There was the case where Sariputta — quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities — entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. Whatever qualities there are in the first jhana — directed thought, evaluation, rapture, pleasure, singleness of mind, contact, feeling, perception, intention, consciousness,[2] desire, decision, persistence, mindfulness, equanimity, & attention — he ferreted them out one after another. Known to him they arose, known to him they remained, known to him they subsided. He discerned, 'So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.' He remained unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those qualities, independent, detached, released, dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers. He discerned that 'There is a further escape,' and pursuing it there really was for him.
MN 111

Please compare the emboldened parts above to the final steps of anapanasati.

Now, I am not completely dense, however. I know that when you speak of mindfulness you are referencing that very movement of attention that the satipatthana seems to allow. Correct? My point is anapanasati as in MN118 is an elaboration of an exercise prescribed in MN10.. it is not truly distinct from satipatthana. If this notion of 'this is satipatthana and this is something else altogether' then we fail to see how this general mindfulness and the strong samadhi of anapanasati are mutually supportive.

Does any of this address, in any way, your inquiry?

Sometimes I lose the plot, so to speak. ;)

To address you comment about MN140 seeming pretty 'conceptual' I would counter that all of what the Buddha sounds conceptual. If he didn't conceptualize it for his audience, then how could he have taught it. However, the seeing of the truth is not conceptual at the time, but becomes 'conceptual' in the sense that the practitioners views change in line with what is seen. From then on he refers to this view when interacting with the world.

Have a good day.
Kenshou
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: Satipathhana v. Anapanasati

Post by Kenshou »

MN 111

Please compare the emboldened parts above to the final steps of anapanasati.
Oh dang, I never made that connection. Neat.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Satipathhana v. Anapanasati

Post by Spiny Norman »

[quote="thereductor] To be sure, the minutest details laid out in MN10 can be seen as differing from MN118, but in both cases the trend is to stablize the mind and then be aware of change (arising and passing away as in MN10 or inconstancy in MN118). In both cases the return on effort is knowledge and release.

[/quote]

Thanks for your full reply. :smile:
The description of the 4 frames of reference in MN118 looked to me quite different from the way they're described in MN10, however I'll go back and look more closely. I've been using MN10 as a basis for ( meditation ) practice for about a year, and found it a useful support to general mindfulness. More recently I've been looking at the method in MN118 and trying to understand the commonalites and differences with MN10. All this will hopefully become clearer after a period of practicing in the MN118 way. :smile:

P
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Satipathhana v. Anapanasati

Post by Cittasanto »

hi
Each of the 16 steps in MN118 are grouped into fours and corespond to the four tetrads of satipatthana, the teachings are different in as much as they are focusing on means to practice these tetrads, to the fullest extent in specific context, however, they correspond directly with each other, and can be used in unison to practice, Anapanasati is actually telling us what to follow in the tetrads of the satipatthana (within the 16 steps part atleast,) satipatthana is telling us that everything that is present should be looked at in a specific way in order to understand and let go of it.

as for the arising and passing away/inconsistency wordings in the different suttas, these are the same thing. anicca, everything that arises, passes away, all things are not sure, inconsistent, unreliable, changing, mortal - not immortal, conditioned.

anyway not sure I will be able to get back on for a little while so hope this helped.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Post Reply