Dear Lal,
Thank you for your response. However, you have bypassed the foundational questions of our discussion and instead presented a classic logical fallacy known as a Strawman argument.
You stated: “Here, one uses only breath meditation, i.e., focus on the rising and falling of the breath through the nostrils. Please explain how it can first lead to the Sotapanna stage…”
If Anapanasati were solely about watching the physical air at the nostrils, you would be absolutely correct—it could not lead to Arahanthood. But no serious scholar or practitioner claims that. The Ānāpānasati Sutta (MN 118) clearly details 16 stages. Focusing on the physical breath is merely the anchor for the first tetrad (Kāyānupassanā). The practice then progresses to contemplating feelings (vedanā), the mind (citta), and finally mental objects (dhammā)—specifically contemplating impermanence (anicca), fading away (virāga), cessation (nirodha), and relinquishment (paṭinissagga).
To reduce this profound 16-step cognitive framework to “only focusing on the rising and falling of the breath” is an extreme oversimplification designed to be easily knocked down.
But here is why I will not detail the exact mechanics of these 16 steps right now: Even if I explain how stage 13 (contemplating anicca) leads toward magga phala, we will immediately hit the wall that you just ignored in my previous message. You will simply say: “Your explanation is wrong because ‘anicca’ does not mean impermanence; it means the inability to maintain things to one’s liking, based on my phonetic unpacking of the Magadhi language.”
Do you see the problem? You are asking me to play a game of chess while reserving the right to change how the pieces move whenever it suits you.
I wrote to you asking how an independent researcher is supposed to verify your specific definitions. I asked two direct questions:
- What is the criterion of falsifiability for your phonetic “unpacking” method?
- If we disregard standard linguistics, how does an outside observer objectively verify your translation of a word over someone else’s subjective interpretation?
You completely ignored these questions.
If your method cannot be objectively falsified, and if you refuse to establish shared rules of evidence, then we are not having a debate. You are simply asking me to step into a closed system where you are the sole authority on what words mean.
I am ready to explain the 16 steps of Anapanasati and how they fulfill Satipatthana. But first, please address the methodological questions from my previous post. How do we verify your translations without standard dictionaries?
Best regards,
Nibbid83