Dear Lal,
Thank you for the summary. However, I cannot accept your concluding list as the foundational baseline for our discussion, because it contains subtle but critical distortions of both my words and the Suttas. You have taken contextual mechanisms and turned them into absolute, mutually exclusive statements.
Let me precisely correct these points:
1. “Without starting with breathing (Ānāpāna)… attaining even the Sotapanna stage would not be possible.” Correction: This is factually incorrect, and it is not what I said. Ānāpānasati is one highly effective, comprehensive vehicle to fulfill Satipaṭṭhāna. However, the Suttas are filled with individuals attaining the Sotapanna stage simply by hearing the Dhamma (paratoghosa) and applying wise attention (yoniso manasikāra)—for example, Upatiṭṭha (Sāriputta) attaining it just by hearing a single verse from Assaji. Formal physical breath meditation is not the only starting point; as an anchor, one could just as well use the contemplation of elements, bodily postures, or even—which you should appreciate given your own system’s focus on ‘rejecting the bad and taking in the good’—the direct observation of the arising of mental defilements (kilesa) and the cultivation of wholesome states (kusala), which classically falls squarely under Cittānupassanā and Dhammānupassanā.
2. “Those necessary steps only involve contemplation of the physical body.” Correction: The object of observation is physical, but the contemplation itself is entirely mental. Kāyānupassanā requires the active mental application of mindfulness (sati), clear comprehension (sampajañña), and ardency (ātāpī). It is the mind purifying itself by observing the body. And to leave no room for creatively redefining ‘kāya’ here as merely an abstract ‘collection’ of mental factors, the Mahā Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta grounds this contemplation explicitly in gross physical anatomy: hair, nails, teeth, skin (kesā, lomā, nakhā, dantā, taco). Furthermore, the necessary steps to magga phala require progressing beyond this physical body into feelings, mind, and phenomena.
3. “Kāya saṅkhāra = In-breathing and out-breathing.” Correction: You must include context, otherwise you commit a category mistake. In the specific context of vital bodily functions and meditation (as explicitly defined by the Buddha in MN 44 and utilized in MN 118), kāya saṅkhāra is the in-and-out breath. However, the Pali language is highly contextual. In the context of action and Kamma (such as the three types of action: kāya saṅkhāra, vacī saṅkhāra, citta saṅkhāra), it means physical, intentional bodily action. I am stating this explicitly right now to preempt any attempt to take a specific meditative definition from MN 44 and inappropriately apply it to a completely different doctrinal context regarding Kamma.
4. Progression to Vipassanā Regarding steps 13-16, I agree that they require Vipassanā leading to magga phala through the realization of anicca, dukkha, and anatta. However, to be absolutely precise and to avoid the limitations of standard English translations (which I know you frequently critique), I define this progression strictly via the Tipitaka’s causal mechanism: directly seeing the continuous arising and passing away of phenomena (udayabbaya), which directly leads to the profound realization that such conditionally arisen phenomena cannot provide lasting satisfaction (dukkha) and cannot be ultimately controlled, maintained to one’s liking, or possessed (anatta).
In Summary: Now that I have clarified these baseline assumptions, we can move forward. But I must note for the record that, for the second time, you have completely ignored the foundational epistemological question.
You previously admitted that your method has no objective criterion of falsifiability and relies purely on how you personally understand Pali sounds. I will gladly participate in this Sutta discussion with you, but any observer reading this exchange must keep in mind that when you present your counter-arguments, by your own admission, they are based on a subjective, untestable phonetic system, whereas I am citing the explicit, contextual definitions provided by the Buddha in the Tipitaka.
Please proceed to your specific point regarding the Suttas.
With respect,
Nibbid83