Most of the instructions and experiences related to this practice seem to agree fairly well on how it is to be done. Further, from those readings, and a brief e-mail exchange with Jhanananda, and my experience so far, I believe my practice is beneficial with my current understanding.
However, more understanding is always good! Going to the original instructions in the suttas, we come across the following formulations:
- "One trains oneself to breathe in calming bodily agitation, and to breathe out calming bodily agitation."
- "One trains oneself to breathe in steadying the mind, and to breathe out steadying the mind."
Welcome, WilliamW, to the forum, and tank-you for posting your comments.
I agree with the above instructions as translated from the Pali Canon, because I have found that a practice of meditation that leads to a calm mind, and a still and relaxed body leads to deeper meditation.
- "One trains oneself to breathe in (mindful of) inconstancy, and to breathe out focusing on inconstancy."
However, I am not comfortable with 'inconstancy' here. I am not sure which sutta you are quoting from, or whose translation. As you may know I have spent a great deal of time and effort in a practice of meditation that leads to depth, as well as investigating the Pali canon in its original language, and how it is commonly translated; and I have found that there are so many gross errors in its more popular translations and interpretations that it has led me to believe that most of the translators, and Buddhist monks never spent any time or effort at all in a practice of meditation that leads to depth, nor spent any time or effort investigating the Pali canon in its original language, and how it is commonly translated. So, let us know which sutta you are quoting, and which translation, then we can dig deeper into what the sutta actually says, and not what some fraud who happens to prance around in the robes pretending to be a follower of Siddhartha Gautama's Noble Eightfold Path.
I suspect that this translation is from Thansaro and he is referring to 'anicca,' which is more commonly translated as 'impermanence.' If so, then I am more comfortable with 'impermanence' as a translation for 'anicca,' than I am with 'inconstancy,' because there simply is no need to reinvent the wheel here, and accept the common translation.
Whereas, Thansaro tends to go too far in his need to reinvent the wheel of translation while not adding anything substantive to its understanding in English; but only tends to confuse its understanding to the English speaking people who are interested in studying the dhamma, and wish to have a clear translation to work from.
Since you posted the link, then, I recognize it is indeed my translation, which I most probably extracted from numerous sources and provisionally accepted some translated terms that were less contentious for me at the time. I should examine which specific term is being translated as 'inconstancy,' and if it is indeed anicca, then correct that translation to 'impermanence.'
And so forth, with several different things related to breathing in or out. These are usually not explicitly mentioned in commentaries or guides. In truth, they have always confused me:
What, exactly, do these entail? Are these things to actively/consciously attempt when practicing anapanasati, or are these things that happen while practicing, or something between the two?
Since no contemplative school today in any country seems to have a clear understanding of the superior fruit of the contemplative life, and it seems most people who claim to practice meditation get next to nothing out of it more than if one were to simply take a nap, then I have had to accept that few teachers of meditation understand the value of deep meditation, so their instructions are almost always deeply flawed.
The most common flaw that I see in the teaching of meditation today, is that teaching tends to be far too cognitive. For instance, you mentioned how some teachers instruct meditation practitioners to attend much too mentally to their meditation object. One who has too tight a grip upon the meditation object is likely to never experience depth in meditation.
For success in the practice of meditation one has realize that the meditation object is not intended to be a destination, but a vehicle to a destination. The destination here is a metaphor for depth in meditation, which is experienced as an altered state of consciousness.
Regarding the list itself (sensitive, calming, steadying, releasing, etc), is it supposed to be simultaneous, or sequential?
This is a good question. My intention was not to imply that this is a sequential sequence, but something one endeavors to do, while practicing meditation. However, it just so happens that it is indeed sequential, but meant to be repeated over and over again, until the altered state of consciousness that is associated with depth in meditation arises, then one simply attends to the self-arising phenomena of the altered state of consciousness that is associated with depth in meditation, then one attends to all of this phenomena, while still endeavoring to maintain sensitivity, calmness, steadiness, and release from the activities of the mind.
I lean toward something like the "happen" (vs "active intention") interpretation, from my limited experience, for gently focusing upon the breath seems to lead naturally toward steadying and calming the mind, relaxing the body, etc.; and I cannot quite understand how one sets one's mind on the entrance of the breath and splits the attention toward these other goals. It seems counter-productive to developing concentration or one-pointedness.
This is why you ended up here, because you have enough insight, or critical thinking skill to understand what is needed; whereas, famous meditation teachers all over the world do not seem to have what it takes to understand the correct practice of meditation, because none of them have demonstrated that they understand depth in meditation, and the superior fruit that depth in meditation leads to.
On the other hand, the latter bits seem to indicate practices in the form of "one breathes in and out focused on [a series of topics, e.g. impermanence]"; this might suggest that all of the practices are meant to focus on topics along with, or even in place of, the breath (unless I have entirely misinterpreted, and it is not unlikely!).
What I get from the 4 sati suttas is to recognize that one need not waste vast amounts of time exploring all of the apparent exercises that those suttas seem to propose; but consider that if one technique does not work, then try another.
Reflecting upon concepts such as: Loving Kindness (metta)... Compassion (Karuna)...Sympathetic Joy (Mudita)...Equanimity (Upekkha)...[the perception of the] foulness [of the body]... the perception of inconstancy (impermanence (anicca)), can lead to success in depth for some, but most just get to depth via bare attention upon the breath. If so, then good, now just saturate one's self in that depth, and ride it to the greatest depth one can, and forget about all of the other methods and techniques.
Similarly, Bhante Vimalaramsi seems to think that one is supposed to relax and "tranquilize" the body on the in and out breaths, as, apparently(?), an element that needs to be consciously attended to, rather than as a direct consequence of focusing on the breath itself.
So... I'm not sure! Any thoughts on this matter are appreciated.
I agree with Vimalaramsi on few things; however, I happen to agree with him upon the significance of developing facility with deep relaxation as a core skill to develop for acquiring access to depth in meditation.
I look forward to reading more of what you have to say about the practice of deep meditation and its superior fruit.
