[Nibbid83]

Dear Lal,

I see you have edited your response to add a P.S., claiming my previous points are “without substance” while stating you will explain them “in the future.” Dismissing arguments you cannot answer is not a refutation. For the public record, you have completely abandoned four fatal contradictions to your system:

1. MN 10: The Charnel Ground meditations explicitly requiring human anatomy (destroying your premise that all sections of Kāyānupassanā must apply to Brahmas).

2. SN 54.11: The fully awakened Buddha practicing Ānāpānasati for three months (destroying the premise that it merely means subduing hindrances).

3. MN 62: The Buddha explicitly instructing Rāhula in breath meditation to reach final liberation (destroying your claim that it never leads to magga phala).

4. MN 36: The severe physical pain caused by stopping assāsa-passāsa (which you failed to explain if it is merely a non-physical mechanism).

Let us address your new P.S. directly. In an attempt to escape the Abhidhammic category error I pointed out in MN 44, you backpedaled your definition: “I did not state ‘assāsa-passāsa’ here means ‘subduing mental defilements’. Rather, pañca nīvaraṇa suppression happens via assāsa-passāsa.”

Lal, changing your wording from “is” to “via” does not save your premise. If assāsa-passāsa is the mechanism (which you define as “taking in good and rejecting bad”), that mechanism is Right Effort (sammā vāyāma). Right Effort is still a mental factor (cetasika) belonging to the mind (citta). Yet Dhammadinnā explicitly states assāsa-passāsa is bound up with the physical body (kāyappaṭibaddhā). You have not solved the category error; you merely shifted it to another mental factor.

Furthermore, this leads you straight back into the inescapable trap of MN 36. If this ‘mechanism’ is a non-physical mental action, I ask you for the final time: Why did stopping it through his nose and mouth cause the Ascetic Gotama deafening noises and extreme physical agony? You cannot escape this contradiction.

Now, since you said you are trying “one more time,” let me resolve your confusion regarding Pali idioms in MN 118, which actually stems from a very simple misunderstanding of classical Pali grammar.

1. What is the ‘other kāya‘ (Kāyesu kāyaññatarāhaṁ)? Is there another body within the physical body? No, there is no “other hidden body” inside the physical body here. Your confusion stems from misunderstanding the Pali word aññatara.

Let us break down the grammar: Kāyesu kāyaññatarāhaṁ = kāyesu (among the bodies/bodily phenomena, locative plural) + kāya (body/group) + aññataraṃ (a certain one / one of) + ahaṃ (I).

In Pali, aññatara is an indefinite pronoun meaning “a certain one” or “one of a group” (e.g., aññataro bhikkhu means “a certain monk,” not “another monk inside a monk”). Furthermore, the word kāya literally means a “collection” or “group.”

Therefore, the Buddha is saying: “I tell you, monks, that this—in-breathing and out-breathing—is a certain bodily process [collection] among the bodily processes [collections].”

Why does the Buddha say this? Because he is justifying why watching the breath counts as watching the physical body. The physical breath is the Wind Element (vāyo-dhātu), which is a subset of physical matter (rūpa). By observing the physical breath, you are legitimately observing one specific physical process among all the physical processes of the body. There is no mystery here.

2. What is meant by kāye kāyānupassī there? It does not mean looking at a “soul-body” inside a “meat-body.” It is a standard Pali idiom meaning “contemplating the body strictly as a body.”

When the Sutta says kāye kāyānupassī (observing the body in the body), it is an instruction to isolate the object of meditation. You observe the physical body merely as a physical body—not as “me,” not as “mine,” not as “a man,” not as “a woman,” and not confusing it with your feelings (vedanā) or mind states (citta). You look at the body strictly in and of itself.

This is exactly why the next section says vedanāsu vedanānupassī (observing feelings in feelings). Does this mean there is “another hidden feeling inside a feeling”? No. It means observing a feeling strictly as a feeling, without attaching a “self” to it.

A Bird’s-Eye View Summary for the Readers You stated you want to “try one more time” and explain things “in the future.” You are completely free to do so. However, as I am now stepping away from this specific thread, I want to leave earnest readers and practitioners with a clear, bird’s-eye view of the two paradigms presented here:

• Methodology: The classical orthodox approach relies on objective Pali grammar and structural cross-referencing within the Tipitaka (letting the Buddha define his own terms, like in MN 44). The “Pure Dhamma” approach relies on subjective “phonetic unpacking” which, by your own admission earlier in this thread, lacks any objective criterion of falsifiability.

• Context vs. Doctrinal Absolutism: The orthodox approach recognizes that the Buddha was a brilliant teacher who tailored specific meditation subjects (Kammaṭṭhāna) to the physical realities of his students. When teaching human beings, he used objects available to humans, such as the physical breath or the observation of a decaying body in a charnel ground. The “Pure Dhamma” approach, on the other hand, attempts to force a single, abstract definition onto every text, ignoring whom the Buddha was addressing. This leads to logical absurdities: the attempt to prove that bodiless gods (Brahmas) must practice mindfulness of the physical body ends in complete helplessness when faced with MN 36. If the ‘breath’ were merely a mental mechanism, stopping it could not have caused the Buddha extreme physical agony and splitting headaches. It is physical reality, not phonetic speculation, that is the ultimate test of correctly understanding the Dhamma.

• The Depth of Practice: Classical Ānāpānasati (MN 118) is a profound, structured progression that uses the physical breath as an observable anchor to eventually achieve deep Vipassanā (directly seeing the arising and passing away of phenomena). Reducing this specific 16-step meditation to a generic instruction of “rejecting the bad and taking in the good” flattens the rich, step-by-step mechanics the Buddha so carefully laid out.

I leave this thread fully satisfied that the orthodox understanding of the Buddha’s original terminology remains structurally sound, grammatically correct, and logically coherent across the entire Tipitaka, without any need for phonetic redefinitions.

Thank you for the exchange, Lal. May you be well and happy.

With metta,

Nibbid83

[Nibbid83]

Dear Saurabh,

Thank you for your very kind words. I am genuinely glad that you are enjoying the discussion and finding it thought-provoking. Public debates like this are ultimately for the benefit of earnest seekers and readers like yourself.

I want to briefly address your observation regarding my use of Tipitaka definitions, as you raised a very profound epistemological point. You suggested that I might be using the Buddha’s definitions in a “totally unique way based on my personal internal belief system.”

Actually, the exact opposite is true. The method I am using is neither unique nor personal; it is standard, objective textual analysis.

When I look at a term like kāya saṅkhāra in the Ānāpānasati Sutta (MN 118), I do not consult my “internal belief system” to figure out what it means. Instead, I search the Tipitaka to see if the Buddha explicitly defined it elsewhere in the same context. I find that in MN 44, the Buddha explicitly defines it as the physical in-and-out breath. Applying the Buddha’s own definition from MN 44 directly to MN 118 is not a “personal belief” — it is simply letting the Tipitaka explain the Tipitaka.

A “personal belief system” is required only when someone brings an external rule—like redefining Pali words based on phonetic sound splitting (e.g., assāsa = taking in good)—which is not defined anywhere in the Suttas, and forces it onto the text.

That is the crucial difference we are debating here: drawing meaning out of the text using its own cross-references (objective), versus reading one’s own meaning into the text (subjective).

Thank you again for sharing your perspective respectfully. I appreciate your presence in this thread, and like you, I look forward to Lal’s response to the specific Sutta points!

With metta,

Nibbid83

[Nibbid83]

Dear Lal,

Thank you for this response. You have just made a critical admission regarding MN 36, and in attempting to resolve the contradictions it creates for your system, you have exposed a fundamental misunderstanding of how Satipaṭṭhāna structurally works.

Let us address your points strictly through logic and the Tipitaka:

1. The “Homonym” Excuse (MN 36 vs. MN 44) You admitted that in MN 36, assāsa-passāsa means the physical breath (hence the physical agony). But you claim that in MN 44, the exact same compound word suddenly means “subduing mental defilements,” comparing it to the English word “right.”

Lal, the context in MN 44 is not different; it is identical. In MN 44, Dhammadinnā explains why assāsa-passāsa is the bodily formation: “Assāsapassāsā kho, āvuso visākha, kāyikā ete dhammā kāyappaṭibaddhā…” (Because they are physical/of the body, bound up with the body).

If, as you claim, assāsa-passāsa here means “subduing mental defilements” (pañcanīvaraṇa), you have just committed a massive Abhidhammic category error. Mental defilements belong to the mental aggregate (saṅkhāra khandha / citta). Why would the Buddha classify the subduing of mental defilements as a bodily formation (kāya saṅkhāra), while classifying perception and feeling (saññā and vedanā) as the mental formation (citta saṅkhāra) in that exact same Sutta? Your phonetic redefinition breaks the entire structural triad of kāya, vacī, and citta saṅkhāra. You are forcing a definition onto the text simply to save your theory.

2. The Brahma Question and the Structure of Satipaṭṭhāna You asked a revealing question: “If that is the case, how would a Brahma attain a magga phala without engaging in Kāyānupassanā?”

The answer is elementary Dhamma: By engaging in Vedanānupassanā, Cittānupassanā, or Dhammānupassanā.

The Buddha taught Four Foundations of Mindfulness because beings have different temperaments and faculties. They are four doors to the same room. You do not need to walk through all four doors simultaneously. A Brahma, lacking a physical body, contemplates the mind (Citta) and phenomena (Dhamma).

You claim that every part of the Mahā Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta must apply equally to Brahmas. Let me prove to you how logically flawed this is: A core section of Kāyānupassanā is the Nine Charnel Ground contemplations (Navasīvathikā)—observing a corpse swollen, blue, and rotting.

Lal, do Brahmas go to charnel grounds? Are there bloated, rotting corpses in the Rūpa Loka? No. Does this mean the Mahā Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta is “wrong”? No. It means that specific sections of Kāyānupassanā are explicitly designed for human beings with gross, decaying physical anatomy. Buddha Dhamma is universal, but specific meditation techniques (Kammaṭṭhāna) are tailored to the physical reality of the practitioner.

3. “No instance in the Tipitaka?” You asked why give breathing such prominence if there is no instance of it leading to magga phala in the Tipitaka.

There is the ultimate instance: The Buddha himself. On the night of his awakening, having rejected the breathless meditation of MN 36, he used the physical breath (Ānāpānasati) to enter the Jhānas, which culminated in his Arahantship. Furthermore, in the Icchānaṅgala Sutta (SN 54.11), the Buddha explicitly states he spent his three-month rains retreat dwelling in Ānāpānasati. Why would the fully awakened Buddha spend three months “subduing the five hindrances” (pañcanīvaraṇa) when he had already permanently eradicated them at the root? He was observing the physical breath as a dwelling in peace (vihāra), because the physical breath exists until Parinibbāna.

Conclusion: By admitting assāsa-passāsa means physical breath when it causes pain, but claiming it means “mental defilements” when it is used in meditation, you are practicing ad-hoc translation. By assuming Brahmas must practice Kāyānupassanā, you ignore the other three foundations of mindfulness. And by ignoring the charnel ground meditations, you ignore that Suttas are adapted to the audience.

The classical translation holds up perfectly across all Suttas without needing special pleading.

With respect,

Nibbid83

[Nibbid83]

Dear Lal,

It is not “ingrained wrong views” to notice when a participant completely abandons the Sutta being discussed because it falsifies their definition.

Notice what just happened: I asked you how your phonetic system explains the severe physical pain the Ascetic Gotama felt when he stopped his assāsapassāse in the Mahāsaccaka Sutta (MN 36). Instead of answering, you ignored the Sutta entirely, changed the subject to cosmology (Devas and Brahmas), and repeated a false premise that I had explicitly corrected in my very last message.

Let us resolve your “contradiction” immediately so we can return to the text:

1. The Strawman Returns You claim my core assumption is: “(iii) Without getting started with Kāyānupassanā (as defined above), one cannot attain any magga phala.”

Lal, please re-read point #1 of my previous message. I explicitly wrote: “Correction: This is factually incorrect, and it is not what I said… the Suttas are filled with individuals attaining the Sotapanna stage simply by hearing the Dhamma (paratoghosa)… Formal physical breath meditation is not the only starting point.“

You are manufacturing a contradiction by arguing against a position I explicitly denied holding just a few hours ago.

2. The Brahma / Deva “Contradiction” There is no contradiction; there is only context. The Ānāpānasati Sutta (MN 118) and Mahā Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta (MN 10) were explicitly addressed to human monks (Bhikkhus) who possess gross physical bodies, lungs, and physical breath. The Buddha gave them a meditation anchor suited to their human faculties.

When the Brahmas and Devas attended the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, how did they attain magga phala? They attained it precisely the way I described in my previous post: by listening to the Dhamma (paratoghosa), applying wise attention to the Four Noble Truths, and directly realizing Dhammānupassanā. They did not need to sit cross-legged and watch a physical breath they do not possess, because they used the mind and phenomena (Citta and Dhamma) as their anchor.

Claiming that assāsa-passāsa cannot mean physical breath for human monks because Brahmas don’t breathe is like claiming that the Buddha’s instruction to “walk mindfully” (gacchanto gacchāmīti pajānāti) cannot mean physical walking because Brahmas float. The Buddha teaches according to the specific faculties of the beings present.

3. The Unanswered Question (MN 36) Now that I have resolved your cosmological “contradiction” and reminded you that I never claimed breath is the only way to magga phala, you can no longer avoid the fatal flaw in your definition.

I will ask you again, directly, about the Mahāsaccaka Sutta (MN 36):

When the Ascetic Gotama stopped his assāsapassāse (“mukhato ca nāsato ca assāsapassāse uparundhiṃ” – “I stopped the in-breaths and the out-breaths through my mouth and nose”), the Sutta states it caused roaring winds in his head and terrible, agonizing physical pain.

If assāsa and passāsa mean subduing mental defilements or “taking in good / rejecting bad,” why did stopping them through his nose and mouth cause the Buddha extreme physical agony?

If you cannot explain this physical pain without contradicting the Tipitaka, your phonetic redefinition of assāsa-passāsa is objectively falsified. I look forward to your direct answer regarding MN 36.

With respect,

Nibbid83

[Nibbid83]

Dear Lal,

Let’s set aside rhetorical games about “backing off” or “realizing errors.” Correcting your absolute, mutually exclusive summaries is not backing off; it is maintaining doctrinal precision. My position has not shifted a single millimeter.

Let me address your points directly, because they perfectly highlight the fatal flaw of the “phonetic unpacking” method you are trying to use.

1. The “Meaning” of Breathing You asked: “What is the need to give ‘breathing’ such prominence?” Because the physical breath is the only bodily function that is completely continuous, always present in the “here and now,” and uniquely situated on the border between the autonomic nervous system and conscious will. It is the perfect anchor for developing samādhi. Furthermore, your claim that no one attained magga phala starting with breath meditation is directly refuted by the Buddha himself in the Mahā Rāhulovāda Sutta (MN 62), where he explicitly instructs Rāhula to develop Ānāpānasati to reach the ultimate culmination of insight. The fact that the Dhamma can also be realized through hearing (paratoghosa) does not invalidate the explicit, step-by-step meditative mechanics the Buddha laid out in MN 118 for monks going to the forest.

2. Avoiding Physical Anatomy (Kāyānupassanā) You quoted my paragraph about kesā, lomā, nakhā, dantā, taco (hair, nails, teeth, skin), but noticeably offered zero explanation for it. If, as you claim, Kāyānupassanā has nothing to do with the physical body, how does your system explain the Buddha explicitly instructing monks to contemplate a physical tooth (dantā) or a fingernail (nakhā)? Are you going to “phonetically unpack” a fingernail to mean a mental defilement? The Suttas explicitly describe the physical body; trying to force an abstract, mental definition onto gross physical anatomy breaks the internal consistency of the Tipitaka.

3. The Definition of Assāsa and Passāsa You stated: “The problem is with translating it [Assāsa-passāsa] as: ‘In-breathing and out-breathing’.”

This is the exact moment your phonetic redefinition completely collapses against the wider Tipitaka. If assāsa and passāsa do not mean physical in-breathing and out-breathing, let us look at the Mahāsaccaka Sutta (MN 36).

In MN 36, the ascetic Gotama describes his severe ascetic practices before his awakening. He states that he practiced “breathless meditation” (appāṇakaṃ jhānaṃ):

“I stopped the in-breaths and out-breaths through my mouth and nose.” (So kho ahaṃ, aggivessana, mukhato ca nāsato ca assāsapassāse uparundhiṃ).

When he stopped his assāsapassāse, the Sutta says it caused roaring winds in his head and terrible, agonizing physical pain.

Lal, please answer this directly: If assāsa and passāsa mean taking in good things and discarding bad things (or subduing mental defilements), why did stopping them cause the Buddha physical agony, deafening noise in his ears, and extreme physical suffering? The answer is obvious: Assāsapassāse literally means the physical breath. When you physically hold your breath through your mouth and nose, it causes physical pain. Your non-physical redefinition of these words completely fails in this context, destroying the consistency you claim your system has.

Conclusion: Once again, you rely entirely on saying “the translation is wrong” without objective proof, replacing historical meaning with your own subjective interpretation. When tested against MN 36 (holding the breath) and MN 10 (anatomical parts), your definitions create massive contradictions. I look forward to hearing how you explain the physical pain of holding the assāsapassāse through the mouth and nose in MN 36.

With respect, 

Nibbid83

[Nibbid83]

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

[Nibbid83]

Dear Lal,

Safe travels. I look forward to continuing our discussion.

First, I must briefly address your statement: “It is not the method of how one reaches conclusions that matters; what matters is whether one has understood the material.”

From a logical standpoint, this is circular reasoning. Methodology is the only way we can objectively verify if someone has actually understood the material, rather than merely imagining they have. If methodology is irrelevant, then anyone can claim their personal interpretation is the “true meaning,” and we have no objective way to distinguish genuine insight from imagination. However, I will leave this point for the forum readers to consider.

Moving on to your doctrinal questions regarding Kāyānupassanā and kāya saṅkhāra. Since you requested consistency across the Suttas, I will not give you my personal opinion; I will give you the Buddha’s explicit Tipitaka definitions.

1. “What do you contemplate when doing Kāyānupassanā? What is involved in it?” Kāyānupassanā (contemplation of the body) involves objectively observing the physical body and its processes as they are, without attaching a sense of “self” to them. According to the Mahā Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta (MN 10 / DN 22), this specifically includes the observation of:

• The process of breathing (Ānāpāna)

• Physical postures (walking, standing, sitting, lying down)

• Clear comprehension in daily physical activities (Sampajañña)

• The 32 physical parts of the body (hair, nails, teeth, skin, etc.)

• The four physical elements (earth, water, fire, wind)

• The decay of a corpse in a charnel ground.

2. “What are “the bodily formations (kāya saṅkhāra)“? Please give some examples.” In the specific context of meditation and breathing, we do not need to guess what kāya saṅkhāra is, because the Buddha explicitly defined it in the Cūḷavedalla Sutta (MN 44).

When Visākha asks the exact same question you just asked: “But, lady, what are bodily formations?” (Katamo panāyye, kāyasaṅkhāroti?), the Arahant nun Dhammadinnā replies (and the Buddha later completely endorses her exact words):

• “In-breathing and out-breathing, friend Visākha, are bodily formations.” (Assāsapassāsā kho, āvuso visākha, kāyasaṅkhāro).

Visākha then asks why they are bodily formations. She replies:

• “In-breathing and out-breathing are bodily, these are states bound up with the body; that is why in-breathing and out-breathing are bodily formations.”

Therefore, in the context of the first tetrad of Ānāpānasati (MN 118), when the practitioner trains to “tranquilize the bodily formation” (passambhayaṃ kāyasaṅkhāraṃ), they are doing exactly what MN 44 describes: calming the physical in-and-out breath until it becomes profoundly subtle, which in turn tranquilizes the physical body, leading to samādhi.

This explanation is fully internally consistent with MN 118, completely consistent with MN 44, and consistent with the Mahā Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta (MN 10).

I look forward to your reply.

With respect,

Nibbid83

[Nibbid83]

Dear Lal,

There are no “two types” of paths, nor are they competing methods. Your question presents a false dichotomy, one that the Buddha himself explicitly resolves in the exact same Sutta we are discussing.

The Anapanasati Sutta (MN 118) clearly explains that Anapanasati is the specific meditative technique used to fulfill the broader framework of Satipatthana. They are not a redundant repetition; one is the practical application of the other.

As the Buddha explicitly details in MN 118:

• When a practitioner fulfills the 1st tetrad of Anapanasati (steps 1-4), they fulfill Kāyānupassanā (contemplation of the body).

• When they fulfill the 2nd tetrad (steps 5-8), they fulfill Vedanānupassanā (contemplation of feelings).

• When they fulfill the 3rd tetrad (steps 9-12), they fulfill Cittānupassanā (contemplation of the mind).

• When they fulfill the 4th tetrad (steps 13-16), they fulfill Dhammānupassanā (contemplation of phenomena).

In short: Satipatthana is the overarching structural framework, and Anapanasati is the comprehensive meditative vehicle that drives the practitioner through that entire framework. Practicing all 16 steps of Anapanasati is the practice of the four foundations of Satipatthana.

So, once again, I have directly answered your doctrinal question using the historically verifiable words of the Tipitaka.

However, I noticed that you completely ignored the critical methodological question I asked in my previous post. I will reiterate it, as it is the absolute foundation of any intellectually honest debate.

You explicitly admitted that your “phonetic unpacking” method has no objective criterion of falsifiability (“There is no such thing”), and that it relies purely on your subjective understanding of Pali sounds.

1. If your method by definition cannot be independently tested or proven wrong, how does the “Pure Dhamma” system structurally differ from an unfalsifiable theological system or personal mysticism?

2. If we are to discuss the Dhamma as an observable, objective truth (ehipassiko), we must have a shared epistemology that does not rely exclusively on one person’s untestable, subjective redefinitions. On what objective grounds should an independent seeker accept your specific phonetic interpretations over the historically verified record?

I look forward to your explanation on this specific methodological point, rather than another doctrinal quiz.

With respect,

Nibbid83

[Nibbid83]

Dear Lal,

I appreciate your directness. The reason my previous explanation resembles what can easily be found in a standard search is that it represents the orthodox, historically and linguistically corroborated understanding of the Tipitaka.

To answer your direct question: Yes.

The Tipitaka explicitly states that Satipatthana is the direct path (ekayano maggo) to purification and realization. Strictly speaking, however, attaining the Sotapanna stage requires the arising of Right View (Sammā Diṭṭhi), which is traditionally triggered by hearing the true Dhamma (paratoghosa) and applying wise attention (yoniso manasikara). Satipatthana is the engine of this practice.

You asked how the 16 steps of Anapanasati lead to magga phala. I will not write a lengthy essay, but I will point directly to the mechanism detailed by the Buddha in the Anapanasati Sutta (MN 118):

• Steps 1-4 (Kāyānupassanā): Mindful breathing anchors the mind and fulfills the contemplation of the body.
• Steps 5-12 (Vedanā and Citta): As the mind settles, one observes feelings and the state of mind, fulfilling the second and third foundations.
• Steps 13-16 (Dhammānupassanā): This is where your assumption that breath meditation is “just Hindu Samatha” is explicitly refuted by the Sutta text. Steps 13-16 unequivocally require Vipassana: contemplating impermanence (aniccānupassī), fading away (virāgānupassī), cessation (nirodhānupassī), and relinquishment (paṭinissaggānupassī).
• The Culmination: MN 118 explicitly states that fulfilling the four foundations of Satipatthana brings the Seven Factors of Awakening (Bojjhanga) to perfection. Perfecting the Bojjhanga leads directly to true knowledge and liberation (Vijjā and Vimutti—i.e., magga phala).

This works because the physical breath is used initially only as a real-time, observable anchor to develop Samatha (tranquility), and then the mind transitions to Vipassana (insight).

Now, having answered your question and outlined the mechanism based directly on the Suttas, I must return to the critical methodological admission you made regarding your phonetic unpacking method:

“There is no such thing [as falsifiability]. I use the meanings of Pali words, as I understand them.”

Since you openly admit that your entire system relies solely on your personal, subjective understanding of Pali sounds and explicitly reject an objective criterion of falsifiability:

1. How does the “Pure Dhamma” system structurally differ from an unfalsifiable theological system or subjective mysticism?
2. Why should an independent researcher reject the historically verified record (such as the MN 118 progression outlined above) in favor of your specific phonetic interpretations, when your method by definition cannot be independently tested or proven wrong?

Thank you for this discussion, as it has very precisely highlighted this crucial epistemological divide between our approaches.

With respect,
Nibbid83

[Nibbid83]

Dear cubibobi,

Thank you for bringing this up. Your perspective is beautifully articulated, and I completely agree with your core premise: Buddha Dhamma is indeed deeply personal, and the ultimate test of its efficacy is experiential. You are absolutely right to invoke the Kalama Sutta. The reduction of raga, dosa, and moha in one’s own mind is the true pragmatic measure of any practice.

However, from an analytical standpoint, we must make a very clear distinction between two different domains: Psychological Utility (what works for you) and Historical/Linguistic Accuracy (what a specific word meant 2500 years ago).

Let me use an analogy: Imagine someone misreads an ancient medical text, but by making that mistake, they accidentally discover a new exercise that cures their back pain. The cure is very real, and the exercise is highly beneficial! But their translation of the text remains factually incorrect.

When a Dhamma teacher uses “phonetic unpacking” to redefine a Pali word, and a student finds that new definition helpful in reducing their anger, that is wonderful. It proves the concept has psychological utility. But it does not prove that this is what the Pali word originally meant. This is why I asked about objective verification. If we use subjective spiritual attainment (magga phala) as our only metric for accurate translation, we run into an unsolvable problem. If Person A claims they reached magga phala using standard linguistics, and Person B claims they reached it using Waharaka Thero’s phonetic method—and both methods rely on fundamentally opposed definitions of the same words—how does an outside observer know who is right about the Pali language? We cannot look inside their minds to verify their enlightenment.

Furthermore, while your perspective is wonderfully inclusive (“both paths are valid if they work”), it is important to note that this is not the premise of “Pure Dhamma.” This site operates on the explicit premise that standard linguistics and traditional interpretations (like those of Buddhaghosa) are systematically flawed and actively prevent people from reaching magga phala.

If one system claims the other is factually broken, we cannot simply say “both are true.” We have to look at the foundational tools they use to construct their arguments. That is why I asked my questions regarding the rules of evidence.

Thank you again for your thoughtful contribution. It highlights the crucial balance between the personal practice of Dhamma and the objective study of its historical texts.

With metta,

Nibbid83

1 user thanked author for this post.

cubibobi

[Nibbid83]

Lal wrote:

I do not understand your prerequisites.

“What is the criterion of falsifiability for your phonetic “unpacking” method?”

• There is no such thing. I use the meanings of Pali words, as I understand them. 

“If we disregard standard linguistics, how does an outside observer objectively verify your translation of a word over someone else’s subjective interpretation?”

• You can use whatever linguistics you want. 

__________

Please explain your 16 steps. Remember, the whole idea is that someone reading it should be able to understand what you are saying. 

Dear Lal,

Thank you for your honesty. Your statement: “There is no such thing [as falsifiability]. I use the meanings of Pali words, as I understand them,” is the exact clarification I was looking for.

By explicitly confirming that your method relies purely on your subjective understanding and possesses no independent criterion of falsifiability, you have answered my core question. It confirms that “Pure Dhamma” operates as a personal, subjective framework of interpretation rather than an objectively verifiable methodological or linguistic system. Since we operate on fundamentally incompatible epistemological grounds (verifiable linguistics vs. personal intuition), debating specific words is indeed unnecessary.

However, since you asked for the traditional 16 steps of Anapanasati (and to assure you I am not dodging the question), here is the brief outline of how it progresses far beyond just “watching the breath at the nostrils” to fulfill the four Satipatthanas, as understood by the broader Buddhist and academic consensus:

1. Kāyānupassanā (First Tetrad): Using the physical breath (long/short) as a primary anchor to tranquilize the bodily formations (kāyasaṅkhāra).
2. Vedanānupassanā (Second Tetrad): Moving from the physical to the experiential. Generating rapture (pīti) and pleasure (sukha), and then tranquilizing these mental formations (cittasaṅkhāra).
3. Cittānupassanā (Third Tetrad): Observing the mind itself—experiencing the mind, gladdening it, concentrating it, and releasing it.
4. Dhammānupassanā (Fourth Tetrad): The cognitive breakthrough. Contemplating impermanence (anicca), fading away (virāga), cessation (nirodha), and relinquishment (paṭinissagga).

The initial focus on the physical breath is merely a stabilizing tool (samatha) that scales into deep cognitive insight (vipassana) into the nature of phenomena, leading toward magga phala.

I understand that you will disagree with the definitions of these terms (like anicca, citta, or sankhara) based on your phonetic method. But since you have graciously clarified that your definitions are based on “how you understand them” rather than falsifiable linguistic parameters, there is no need for us to argue over whose dictionary is “right.”

Thank you for the time you took to engage with me. It has been incredibly helpful in understanding the foundational premises of your site. I wish you all the best in your continued practice and writings.

Best regards,

Nibbid83

[Nibbid83]

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:

1. What is the criterion of falsifiability for your phonetic “unpacking” method?
2. 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

[Nibbid83]

Dear Lal,

Thank you for the prompt reply. I am perfectly happy to keep points 2 and 4 separate if you prefer.

You asked me two direct questions:

1. How can “anapanasati” (if interpreted as breath meditation) lead to Arahanthood?
2. Is “anicca” in the Tipiṭaka the exact same as “anitya” in Sanskrit?

I am fully prepared to answer both of these questions in detail, referencing historical context, comparative linguistics, and the texts themselves. However, your questions actually perfectly illustrate the exact methodological problem I raised in my previous message—a problem you bypassed in your reply.

Before I present my evidence regarding anapanasati or anicca/anitya, we must establish what constitutes “valid evidence” in this discussion.

If I answer your questions using standard Pali-English dictionaries, academic etymology, and conventional historical grammar to explain these terms, will you accept those tools as valid instruments of evidence? Or will you reject my explanation precisely because it relies on standard linguistics rather than the Waharaka phonetic/Sadda method?

If your answer is that standard dictionaries are invalid, then my answering your questions is a futile exercise. We would simply be arguing over the definitions of words where you act as the sole judge, jury, and dictionary.

This brings us right back to the two questions from my previous message, which remain unanswered and are the absolute prerequisite before we debate specific words:

1. What is the criterion of falsifiability for the phonetic “unpacking” method you use?
2. If we disregard standard linguistics, how does an independent outside observer objectively verify your translation of a word over someone else’s subjective phonetic interpretation?

I cannot meaningfully answer your questions about anicca or breath meditation until we agree on the tools used to measure their meaning. Once you clarify how your method is falsifiable and how we verify definitions without standard dictionaries, I will gladly dive into the specific evidence regarding your questions.

Best regards,
Nibbid83

[Nibbid83]

Dear Lal,

Thank you for your clear, comprehensive, and courteous reply. I greatly appreciate your openness and willingness to clarify these matters. Allow me to address all four points to keep our discussion substantively cohesive.

Re 1. The geographical issue and the “Waharaka movement” Thank you for this unequivocal clarification. I am glad you are distancing yourself from the theory of the Buddha’s Sri Lankan origins—this allows us to focus on the essence of the Dhamma rather than historical revisionism. I also understand your position as an independent researcher who draws on the discoveries of Waharaka Thero without forming a formalized “movement.” We have complete clarity here.

Re 3. Freedom of choice and interpretation I agree with you a hundred percent. Everyone has the right to their own inquiries and to draw their own conclusions. My intention is not to impose anything, but rather to rigorously examine the methodology upon which these findings are based.

Re 2 & 4. The prohibition of Sanskrit and evidence from the Tipiṭaka I have taken the liberty of combining these two points because, from an analytical perspective, they represent a single, shared methodological problem.

You encourage me to present evidence from the Tipiṭaka (e.g., regarding breath meditation), declaring your willingness to change your position. The problem is that such a debate would hit a logical dead end. We do not differ on what is written in the Tipiṭaka, but rather on how it should be translated.

I could quote the Ānāpānasati Sutta or refer to word roots in traditional Pali dictionaries, but since you reject these dictionaries (favoring the phonetic/Sadda method), you would preemptively reject my evidence as well. This creates what is known as a closed hermeneutical loop.

Regarding the prohibition against using the Vedic language (Chandasa)—from a historical perspective, this rule (Cullavagga V.33.1) was intended to protect the teachings from being locked into the elitist, rigid metrical form of the Brahmins, ensuring they remained accessible in local dialects (sakāya niruttiyā). However, this does not mean that modern comparative linguistics (which studies the evolution of Indo-Aryan languages) loses its value as a tool for uncovering the historical meaning of words.

By rejecting standard linguistics, you rely on the method of phonetic “unpacking” of meanings (as in words like anicca or saṅ), a method pioneered by Waharaka Thero. My core questions to you as a researcher are therefore:

1. What is the criterion of falsifiability for this method? If two different meditators “unpack” the sound vibrations of the Magadhi language in two completely different ways, how do we objectively verify which of them is correct?
2. If we reject historical linguistics, do we not run the risk that anyone can define words from the Tipiṭaka to fit their own subjective thesis, making the entire system completely unverifiable from the outside?

I am not looking for a confrontation here, but rather trying to understand the error-correction mechanism within your methodology. If linguistics is not the arbiter, what is—and how can an independent researcher utilize it?

With respect for your work and dedication,
Nibbid83

[Nibbid83]

Christian wrote:

You still need to “listen” to someone either thru audio or audio-video who understand Dhamma. It works on whole different level then

Somewhere already on the forum, and I think it was Mr. Lal who referred to the issue of this “need to listen” and it was that the message itself, which comes from Ariya, is important and can be read as well, what matters is understanding and implementation in practice. This issue of listening strictly may come from a time where there was a problem with access to print, it appears as some kind of superstition, or something of the caliber of a “ritual” – just a thing by force, a dogma of some kind. I have access to PureDhamma content, and I don’t think that by reading it and putting it into practice I am at a disadvantage to those who understand English enough to catch every important nuance and benefit from it.

 

[Author]

Posts