Is General Smoking Allowed By Monks?

[Several]

Of all the destructive and horrific things that happen in this dying world it amazes me that many people still focus on smoking as being evil. Its like someone on the Titanic saying 'put that cigarette out' to one of the band. Regardless of our habits we all die anyway.

 

Quote: W.H.O.

• Tobacco kills up to half of its users.
• Tobacco kills nearly 6 million people each year, of whom more

  than 5 million are from direct tobacco use and more than 600 000 are

  nonsmokers exposed to second-hand smoke. Unless urgent action is taken,

  the annual death toll could rise to more than eight million by 2030.

• Nearly 80% of the world's one billion smokers live in low- and middle-income countries.
• Consumption of tobacco products is increasing globally, though it

  is decreasing in some high-income and upper middle-income countries

  .

As harm takes time, issues are not immediately apparent.

 

There are many levels at play. This is only one of them.

 

Another level is the compromise of the first 4 steps of Anapanasiti in ways one cannot even begin to appreciate.

 

Another is the example it sets for future followers.

 

Another is the attachment"" and its influence on "Ego".

 

Another its huge monetary cost to the community, resource sadly needed in other areas.

 

Another is its impact of Medical facilities impacting on the ability to perform other medical procedures.

 

Another is the considerable percentage of the wealth generated in tobacco sales devoted to developing ways to addict new users.

 

Another is the Kharma and its fruit, Vipaka generated from joint profits (Goverment tax/excise) generated from such enterprise.

 

One only need examine the "food reflection" read out at Wat Suan Mokkh before dining:

 

With wise reflection I eat this food

Not for play, not for intoxication

Not for fattening, not for beautification

Only to maintain this body

To stay alive and healthy

To support the spiritual way of life

Thus I let go of unpleasant feelings

And do not stir up new ones

Thereby the process of life goes on

Blameless, at ease, and in peace

 

I wonder which part of the act of smoking fulfills such values?

 

Could there be many other reasons we cannot even begin to understand due to our attachment to delusion and lacking awareness?

Sorry but I seriously doubt w.h.o statistics are accurate. Most likely compiled by a non-smoker zealot.

No compromise to anapanasati which is awareness of breathing, not breathing itself.

Future followers will make up their own minds.

Attachment to opinion has greater effect on ego.

Taxation paid on tobacco far outweighs the cost incurred by speculative amounts of damage. Driving a car is far worse.

Medical facilities are run like profit organisations, doctors do not even take the hippocratic oath anymore for insurance purposes, and I think you'll find a great number of patients are there due to their lifestyle choices.

Tobacco is legal and every industry on earth does everything it can to promote their cause, for good or bad. Mostly bad.

Kamma affects every unenlightened being. Again, driving a car is a far more damaging exercise than smoking, entire industries are dependant upon it.

Buddhadassa oversimplified Buddhism to make it more 'scientific' and palatable to the modern mind.

Smoking is allowed for monks as, despite contrived rationalisations to the contrary, it and other things did not exist in the time of the Buddha so he could not have prohibited them.

Aversion or attachment to smoking will inhibit progress.

[Several]

Also cocaine and tobacco have been found in egyptian mummies dating back at least 3000 years. They had been imbibed. So it isn't impossible that Buddha smoked, though I reckon it was only when he was cremated.

[rockyysdt]

I hope you didn't take it as a personal attack Sev.

I must become more mindful when it comes to Rightful Speech.

Even if one is correct there is a time and place one should express oneself.

Knowing the human condition our conditioning is clear and set.

Being an unenlightened being I will say that I am truly sorry you carry such views.

Much can be said about statistics.

Specific number don't matter.

Halve the figures and you remain with horrendous outcomes.

I work in a lower socio economic pocket as described by WHO.

My Uncle tried giving up but confided, he like it far too much.

They found him dead, slumped by his bed, drowned in lung fluid build up from advanced Emphysema.

My Auntie died 10 years ago, smoking right to the end. She would walk around with an oxygen bottle strapped to a trolly. She suffered immense pain towards the end. Her contemporaries are still alive with many more years left in their lives.

A forum member reported he was in a bad way but would fight it. They removed his larynx and other parts. He lasted 3 more months.

There are 5 customers I service who carry oxygen trollies around with them as they struggle through life. Another speaks to me with an electronic device he holds over the hole in his throat (larynx removed). He is quietly hopeful.

My sister, who believes roll your own tobacco is healthier because it is natural continues to smoke without filters. She is quite thin despite eating fatty meals. Her aerobic capacity is extremely compromised. She refuses to acknowledge a problem, but I suspect atleast 50% of her lung air sacks have been affected by early Emphysema. I suffer knowing she travels on the same path as her auntie.

I won't quote statistics to you however my empathy towards my fellow man cries with their suffering (Karuna).

Edited June 12, 2013 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

No compromise to anapanasati which is awareness of breathing, not breathing itself.

Future followers will make up their own minds.

Attachment to opinion has greater effect on ego.

Taxation paid on tobacco far outweighs the cost incurred by speculative amounts of damage. Driving a car is far worse.

Medical facilities are run like profit organisations, doctors do not even take the hippocratic oath anymore for insurance purposes, and I think you'll find a great number of patients are there due to their lifestyle choices.

Tobacco is legal and every industry on earth does everything it can to promote their cause, for good or bad. Mostly bad.

Kamma affects every unenlightened being. Again, driving a car is a far more damaging exercise than smoking, entire industries are dependant upon it.

Buddhadassa oversimplified Buddhism to make it more 'scientific' and palatable to the modern mind.

Smoking is allowed for monks as, despite contrived rationalisations to the contrary, it and other things did not exist in the time of the Buddha so he could not have prohibited them.

Aversion or attachment to smoking will inhibit progress.

My understanding is that investigation of the breath (short and long) assists one to then develop and become aware of their longest natural breath.

Once one develops their long natural breath concentration begins to develop.

It's developing this optimal breath that eventually bears fruit.

The healthy state of ones body is paramount and integral to practice.

Compromised lungs can only harm ones potential.

The body cannot live without mind and the mind requires a body.

Both are vital.

A Monk with 20 years practice in anapanasiti recently taught me that humans generally breath shallowly. He further indicated thast the first 3 steps on anapansiti is investigating the breath (not meditation). It is a practice of Pranayama (breathing). He further indicated that by breathing correctly (natural long breath) one functions in a superior way and paves the path to step 4, meditation.

Do you believe that lungs affected by Emphysema or compromised in related ways can yield the benefit of improved breathing as would another with healthy lungs?

How can one practice effective breathing if they suffer from Emphysema or with compromised lungs?

I was also curious. Who is there who walks this earth who can authorize Bikkhus/Bikkunis to smoke?

Edited June 12, 2013 by rockyysdt

[Several]

The same as the one who can prohibit it. No one.

Anapanasati is not pranayama, they are seperate things. Pranayama is a yogic practice to control breath and constrict muscles (banda locks) so as to accumulate prana (chi, energy). Anapanasati is mindfulness of the breath. Whether it is long or short is irrelevant, it is mindfulness of the phenomenon that is key, to develop concentration.

[rockyysdt]

The same as the one who can prohibit it. No one.

Anapanasati is not pranayama, they are seperate things. Pranayama is a yogic practice to control breath and constrict muscles (banda locks) so as to accumulate prana (chi, energy). Anapanasati is mindfulness of the breath. Whether it is long or short is irrelevant, it is mindfulness of the phenomenon that is key, to develop concentration.

You may have misinterpreted what I indicated Sev.

I indicated that the first three steps of Anapanasati were pranayama.

Investigation of breath, but not pranayama fully.

Once one develops regularly achieving the ideal long natural breath meditation can begin.

It is mot only awareness but concentration.

Key elements of course is following the breath and guarding it once things take off.

The relevance of long and short is to gain experience of their affect and to develop the ideal breath.

The other vital component is a healthy body with which to achieve these physical acts.

[Several]

And not all smokers have health problems. A healthy body can assist progress, but is not vital to it. One can still be aware of breath if drowning. It will kill you but you can still be aware of it. Also, just to nitpick, oxygen is highly toxic. Heavy prolonged breathing can cause intoxication. Oxidisation is highly destructive. More so than nicotine. There is nothing that is not killing us in this world. The UV from the sun, the chemical cocktail you breathe from moment to moment, the genetically manipulated food you're mindfully munching on. If smoking were banned globally tomorrow, there would arise a new crusade the following day, and that would be equally futile. Tilting at windmills. Smoking is not prohibited for monks. It is not the great evil it is portrayed to be. Clinging to things is.

[rockyysdt]

The same as the one who can prohibit it. No one.

l guess it is irrelevant what rules organisations adopt.

In the end anyone who smokes ends up only deluding themselves.

[rockyysdt]

And not all smokers have health problems. A healthy body can assist progress, but is not vital to it. One can still be aware of breath if drowning. It will kill you but you can still be aware of it. Also, just to nitpick, oxygen is highly toxic. Heavy prolonged breathing can cause intoxication. Oxidisation is highly destructive. More so than nicotine. There is nothing that is not killing us in this world. The UV from the sun, the chemical cocktail you breathe from moment to moment, the genetically manipulated food you're mindfully munching on. If smoking were banned globally tomorrow, there would arise a new crusade the following day, and that would be equally futile. Tilting at windmills. Smoking is not prohibited for monks. It is not the great evil it is portrayed to be. Clinging to things is.

You are appear fixed on your stance about the safety of smoking.

Your points seem to revolve around minimisation rather than directly tackling the point.

Too much oxygen might be harmful, but Anapanasati is about the longest comfortable breath, not the longest.

After concentration kicks in the breath actually reduces to very tiny short breaths.

We are not talking about going through life breathing as deeply as we can.

The first step involves investigating the long breath.

The third step is developing the longest most comfortable natural breath.

It's about learning to breathe properly.

Edited June 12, 2013 by rockyysdt

[Several]

The anti-somking parade is as full of liars as the tobacco companies. Thats an unavoidable truth rather than a fixation.

Mahasatipattana sutta does not, as far as I recall, mention an 'ideal' breath which sounds like a contrivance. Your physiological state determines the depth and rate of breathing at any given time. It is mindfulness of this that counts rather than lung capacity.

[Several]

I actually find the opposite to your friend. I had to unlearn pranayama to arrive at natural breathing or there was always an element of conrtol involved. Simply allowing it to flow and observing that action. Its not a criticism, just diffrrent strokes for different folks.

[Several]

The same as the one who can prohibit it. No one.

 

l guess it is irrelevant what rules organisations adopt.

 

In the end anyone who smokes ends up only deluding themselves.

Not 100% sure this is the cause of delusion. Believing the mass media and popular opinion however certainly result in it.

[Several]

I hope you didn't take it as a personal attack Sev.

 

 I must become more mindful when it comes to Rightful Speech.

Even if one is correct there is a time and place one should express oneself.

 

Knowing the human condition our conditioning is clear and set.

 

Being an unenlightened being I will say that I am truly sorry you carry such views.

 

Much can be said about statistics.

 

Specific number don't matter.

Halve the figures and you remain with horrendous outcomes.

 

I work in a lower socio economic pocket as described by WHO.

 

My Uncle tried giving up but confided, he like it far too much.

They found him dead, slumped by his bed, drowned in lung fluid build up from advanced Emphysema.

 

My Auntie died 10 years ago, smoking right to the end. She would walk around with an oxygen bottle strapped to a trolly. She suffered immense pain towards the end. Her contemporaries are still alive with many more years left in their lives.

 

A forum member reported he was in a bad way but would fight it. They removed his larynx and other parts. He lasted 3 more months.

 

There are 5 customers I service who carry oxygen trollies around with them as they struggle through life. Another speaks to me with an electronic device he holds over the hole in his throat (larynx removed). He is quietly hopeful.

 

My sister, who believes roll your own tobacco is healthier because it is natural continues to smoke without filters. She is quite thin despite eating fatty meals. Her aerobic capacity is extremely compromised. She refuses to acknowledge a problem, but I suspect atleast 50% of her lung air sacks have been affected by early Emphysema. I suffer knowing she travels on the same path as her auntie.

 

I won't quote statistics to you however my empathy towards my fellow man cries with their suffering (Karuna).

I understand that proximity to the results of smoking are horrific. I have been around the medical profession in various capacities and I sympathise with you. I've also seen people destroy themselves senselessly. From experience its alcohol that trumps the smoking in this case though. Far more damaging to self and others, but not wanting to belittle what you have endured I'll leave it at that.

[muythai2013]

I know monks can smoke because we nearly all did it, what more is there to say.

I don't care if tobacco was from America, every culture smoked something, not just tobacco and Buddha did smoke.

sit in denial if you like but he smoked.

[muythai2013]

Tobacco was unknown in ancient India but people did inhale smoke for medical and recreational purposes. According to the Suśruta Cikitsā, an ancient treatise on medicine, inhaling smoke is good as a purgative, a cure for tiredness, depression, throat and nose problems and is also beneficial for pregnant women. Certain herbs were burned and the smoke sniffed in through a small metal tube (dhūmanetti). The Buddha subscribed to this kind of smoke therapy and allowed monks and nuns to have smoking tubes, although some people apparently considered them to be a luxury.

Cigarettes (dhūmavaṭṭi) smoked for enjoyment were made by grinding cardamom, saffron, sandalwood and aloe wood into a fine paste and moulding it over a reed so that it was about 15 centimetres long and with the thickness of a thumb. When the paste was dry, the reed was removed and the resulting cigarette was smeared with clarified butter or sandalwood oil before being ignited. These cigarettes were probably far less harmful than the modern ones. Another ancient medical work, the Caraka Saṃhitā, recommends sitting in an upright but comfortable posture while smoking, taking three puffs at a time and inhaling through both the mouth and nostrils but exhaling only through nostrils.

While smoking has a very negative effect on the body, it has little or no effect on consciousness and thus, from the Buddhist perspective, has no moral significance. A person can be kind, generous and honest and yet smoke. Thus, although smoking is inadvisable from the point of view of physical health it is not contrary to the fifth precept.

Smoking is very common in all Buddhists lands although in 2005 Bhutan was the first country in the world to ban it. In Burma, Thailand and Cambodia monks commonly smoke, but in Sri Lanka it is considered unacceptable for them to do so, although it is often done in private. However, Sri Lankan monks are allowed to chew tobacco.

[camerata]

What the Vinaya says is that the Buddha allowed monks to inhale herbal fumes for medicinal purposes. We don't know if he did it himself. However, this is very different from inhaling nicotine for pleasure, which is what we mean by "smoking" in present times. Nicotine results in addiction and constant craving, which presumably wasn't the case with medicinal herbs.

[Several]

Recurring craving. The desire for a cigarette only lasts as long as it takes to smoke one and occurs when you would generally have one. Nothing causes constant craving. Everything being impermanent and all that.

[bankei]

There is a current trend throughout thailand to reduce smoking in public areas. Temples have often taken up this and along with encouraging people to give up booze. Some make it a no smoking zone so perhaps a monk might be surreptitious about a quick drag.

It is not considered to break the fifth precept as it is not intoxicating leading to loss of control or mindfulness. It is an addiction ,however, and any good Buddhist should be trying to reduce attachments, especially to sensual pleasures, and since smoking is wasteful and harmful....

Many old monks still chew betel as older people still do...again....a habit... but not a sin...since it harms only the user.

Fred... I just am passing by and saw your comment. Just want to let you know that smoking is breaking the precept#3.

<deleted>?

Abramachariya veramani sikkhampadam samadiyami?

"Abrahmachariya" means refraining from sex!

[uptheos]

Tobacco was unknown in ancient India but people did inhale smoke for medical and recreational purposes. According to the Suśruta Cikitsā, an ancient treatise on medicine, inhaling smoke is good as a purgative, a cure for tiredness, depression, throat and nose problems and is also beneficial for pregnant women. Certain herbs were burned and the smoke sniffed in through a small metal tube (dhūmanetti). The Buddha subscribed to this kind of smoke therapy and allowed monks and nuns to have smoking tubes, although some people apparently considered them to be a luxury.

Cigarettes (dhūmavaṭṭi) smoked for enjoyment were made by grinding cardamom, saffron, sandalwood and aloe wood into a fine paste and moulding it over a reed so that it was about 15 centimetres long and with the thickness of a thumb. When the paste was dry, the reed was removed and the resulting cigarette was smeared with clarified butter or sandalwood oil before being ignited. These cigarettes were probably far less harmful than the modern ones. Another ancient medical work, the Caraka Saṃhitā, recommends sitting in an upright but comfortable posture while smoking, taking three puffs at a time and inhaling through both the mouth and nostrils but exhaling only through nostrils.

While smoking has a very negative effect on the body, it has little or no effect on consciousness and thus, from the Buddhist perspective, has no moral significance. A person can be kind, generous and honest and yet smoke. Thus, although smoking is inadvisable from the point of view of physical health it is not contrary to the fifth precept.

Smoking is very common in all Buddhists lands although in 2005 Bhutan was the first country in the world to ban it. In Burma, Thailand and Cambodia monks commonly smoke, but in Sri Lanka it is considered unacceptable for them to do so, although it is often done in private. However, Sri Lankan monks are allowed to chew tobacco.

And your source is http://www.buddhisma2z.com/content.php?id=387

You must have forgotten to quote it.

Edited June 14, 2013 by uptheos

[rockyysdt]

Recurring craving. The desire for a cigarette only lasts as long as it takes to smoke one and occurs when you would generally have one. Nothing causes constant craving. Everything being impermanent and all that.

My understanding as that the craving is twofold, being both physical and psychological.

Psychologically, when one is stressed emotionally or otherwise, one turns to smoking.

Also, physiologically, one also turns to smoking due to the physical/chemical addiction.

There is not an on/off point from the state of "gratified" to "craving".

One increasingly becomes less gratified and simultaneously their craving increases.

It is a cycle of diminishing/increasing with a diminishing period of balance.

This is completely out of kilter with a notion of long periods of meditation, where deep levels of concentration are sought.

Long term it is also about decensitization.

This is the opposite of awareness which is what we seek to grow.

Anyone with any level of awareness would give up the habit.

Most are oblivious to their aerobic state, let alone their reduced ability to breathe as well as the secondary and tertiary damage which will arise.

It all happens over a long period of time.

A lack of outward signs of illness is naive in terms of what is happening at the molecular or other levels.

If Bikkhu/Bikkhunis lives are shaped to support a spiritual practice, to live a simple and meditative life, in order to attain the state of Nirvana, the question should be:

"What purpose is smoking to a Bikkhu/Bikkhuni, and how does it aid in their quest?

Edited June 14, 2013 by rockyysdt

[Several]

Cor. Long response. I'm just talking from personal experience, if in a place where I cannot puff I don't even think about it. As for being detrimental to meditation, if the thought arises its just another thought no more or less than any other. I find having an itch more distracting. Not being rude but everything you say sounds like very well researched and documented evidence from people with no experience. As to your final question, it serves no purpose other than an excuse to escape the company of others. The value of that depends on the company.

[hotrod4098]

i saw a wife go to the temple and take food to her husband who a monk for 4 years..

he came out and is leading a married life with her..just like nothing happened

[rockyysdt]

Cor. Long response. I'm just talking from personal experience, if in a place where I cannot puff I don't even think about it. As for being detrimental to meditation, if the thought arises its just another thought no more or less than any other. I find having an itch more distracting. Not being rude but everything you say sounds like very well researched and documented evidence from people with no experience. As to your final question, it serves no purpose other than an excuse to escape the company of others. The value of that depends on the company.

I'm mindful of the "rightful speech" code I aired in another post recently and hope my posting on this subject does not offend as this is not my purpose.

I also understand that our "l", "me", ëgo" is associated with personal belief/conditioning.

When our belief/conditioning as challenged then some may takes this as an attack on us (l am my beliefs/conditioning - which we no to be illusion).

Are you a smoker and does this color your judgment?

Can you use one persons experience from which to deduce the experience of 1 billion smokers?

Also going back to the OP title, it s established that no specific precept bans smoking, 'however isn't it obvious such practice goes against non specific precepts, general code, and everything a Bikkhu stands for, and that Ajahns or Abbots with any level of awareness should make it clear to their Monks that such behavior is unacceptable?

Edited June 14, 2013 by rockyysdt

[Several]

Things you have said do not agree with my experience and I cannot speak for others. I say the exact same things when I do not smoke. Which one of us has our judgment coloured by belief?

[rockyysdt]

Things you have said do not agree with my experience and I cannot speak for others. I say the exact same things when I do not smoke. Which one of us has our judgment coloured by belief?

Statistically speaking, if you are speaking from your own experience, then your personal conclusion represents an insignificant sample from which to make any conclusion.

There may be no specific precept relating to smoking, for possibly a number of technical reasons however:

52. Tickling with the fingers is to be confessed. & 53. The act of playing in the water is to be confessed. suggest that Monks don't pursue activities involving fun nor pleasure.

This suggests that smoking for pleasure is unacceptable. If one dfoesn't smoke for pleasure why else would one pursue this habit?

Also how does a fully ordained Monk procure cigarettes?

Have they a non verbal communication with one seeking merit, to slip a packet into the alms bowl.

If this is the case, choosing or placing an order for alms gifts is an offence.

If the Monk receives more cigarettes that can be smoked before midday, must he share his alms gifts with others and give away what cannot be consumed on that day?

How else can a Monk procure cigarettes.

Does he place an order to his lay helper and how does such an order meet his requirement to simply sustain his body and not for play, or intoxication or other?

If money is expended to procure cigarettes, how can a Monk allow diversion of such resource, better spent on worthy charity.

When a Monk smokes to what purpose does he pursue this practice?

There is belief and there is truth.

Knowing conditioning, and rightful speech I am displaying signs of attachment.

I suppose it is a fine line between attachment and expression.

I know you are firm regarding your position and nothing I can say will change this.

This is an example why achieving Awakening in our lives is so difficult.

I do have attachment to mental stimulation, just as do the majority of Forum members, otherwise we would be spending our time in practice or per suing Metta & Karuna.

Technically, what is it about the points I have put forward which are not valid other than they oppose your beliefs?

Is there anything about smoking which is negative?

NB: One can argue too much attachment devoted to one subject.

On the other hand THAI VISA Forum is well read by many and can be very influential. Many can walk away feeling comfortable maintaining an insidious habit due to supportive posts.

Which raises another question.

Can publicly promoting a habit by minimizing it's health consequences by way of belief lead to Kharma and Vipaka?

Is cigarette smoking which is an optional activity (unnecessary to life) worth the health consequences?

Edited June 15, 2013 by rockyysdt

[steinghan]

My understanding is that investigation of the breath (short and long) assists one to then develop and become aware of their longest natural breath.

Once one develops their long natural breath concentration begins to develop.

It's developing this optimal breath that eventually bears fruit.

....

A Monk with 20 years practice in anapanasiti recently taught me that humans generally breath shallowly. He further indicated thast the first 3 steps on anapansiti is investigating the breath (not meditation). It is a practice of Pranayama (breathing). He further indicated that by breathing correctly (natural long breath) one functions in a superior way and paves the path to step 4, meditation.

Anapanasati is not pranayama, they are seperate things. Pranayama is a yogic practice to control breath and constrict muscles (banda locks) so as to accumulate prana (chi, energy). Anapanasati is mindfulness of the breath. Whether it is long or short is irrelevant, it is mindfulness of the phenomenon that is key, to develop concentration.

This reply may not be quite appropriate in a thread which is mainly about smoking, and I'm more concerned about the way anapanasati - as i know it - is being somewhat misrepresented in the thread. And after all - this is the buddhist forum so assumedly buddhist meditation will be of interest for a portion of the viewers while those actually seeking advice on smoking-hazards assumedly would visit the health-forums.

In the above quotes I'm fully with Several with regards to anapanasati. As for smoking, well sucking concentrated airpolution down into one's lungs - and even pay for it - is a rather foolish thing to voluntarily do. However, I prefer to stay out of this discussion because most smokers have heard it all a million times before and one more version of the preachings is more likely to just make them close their eyes, ears and mind even tighter and thus is at least as likely to have an adverse effect as the slight chance that the preachings may make someone see the light.

As someone who has been a smoker from he was 11 until well up into his fifties, I can confirm that there is much more to the psychological story than persons who have been non-smokers all their life can possibly understand. During the last 30 years (at least) of my smoker career I tried to quit an uncountable number of times and also had lots of pauses of several days, several weeks or several months and once even managed to stay clear for more than 2 years. To stop smoking is the easy part - the difficult part is to not start again. The problem is that the urge for a puff keeps on popping up from time to time. As time goes by there'll gradually be longer and longer between the urges which gradually become weaker and weaker so eventually one may end up as liberated in every practical sense. However, it does require time to go by and there'll be lots of chances for the urge to popup and catch one off guard before one is truly off the hook.

After having taken up Buddhadasas variant of anapanasati meditation about 6-7 years ago, I have now been off the hook for several years. Meditation doesn't prevent the smoking-urges from popping up now and then, but meditation has developed the mental tools needed to ward them off before they take control over the mind just like meditation helps handling all other defilements which may pop up and set the mind off in an unwholesome direction.

Several doesn't go much into details, but the few things he says concur well with my understanding and experiences of the matters. Rockyysdt goes more into details, but his version is pretty much in opposition to how I understand anapanasati as explained by Buddhadhasa as well as a number of other Thai or Western ajarns of the Thai forest tradition. I understand from other threads that Rocky has attended several retreats on Suan Mohk, which I thought introduced anapanasati as it was taught by Buddhadhasa and published e.g. in "Mindfulness with Breathing".

I have never been to Suan Mohk, but said book in Santikaro's widely known translation as well as another less known collection of Buddhadasa talks on anapanasati, have served as my meditation manuals for many years. All I can say is that if the teachers at Suan Mohk now teach anapanasati meditation as expessed by Rocky, then they have moved away from Buddhadhasa teachings as expressed in the mentioned books.

As Several says: Anapanasati has nothing to do with pranayama in the normal meaning of that word. They are more like direct opposites. Anapanasati - and particularly steps 1 and 2 are about being mindful about the breath at it is - and just that. Pranayama is a strict regimen of breath control: breathe in exactly this many seconds, hold your breath this many seconds, breathe out this many seconds, keep breath out this many seconds a.s.o. - Surely, in anapanasati beginners may need to apply a bit of gentle volition to the breath as to make it short or long, but this slight control isn't comparable to the strict regimen of pranayama by any stretch. It isn't really part of the mindfulness, neither - it's more an aid for the meditator until he gets more established in his practice at which time it doesn't matter how the breath is and in fact the breath will eventually change its duration, textture etc. by itself - and as is best - as meditation progresses.

Concentration - as it normally is understood - is also not just confined to the later stages of anapanasati but is pretty much present already in the first steps where one strives to have the breath - and only the breath - in mind. As all practitioning meditators know, that isn't as simple as it sounds. All kinds of thoughts, urges or emotions keep popping up and may trigger lenghty travels into huge, imaginary thought worlds. The actual process of meditation at the first steps of anapanasati is to keep on bringing the mind back to the breath. This very phenomeon - having a chosen object to which the mind is continually brought back to whenever it strays - is as clearcut an example of applied concentration as can be. Surely, concentration - as well as well as the objects - get more and more refined as meditation progresses.

The third step is developing the longest most comfortable natural breath.

It's about learning to breathe properly.

No it isn't! - The third step is about expanding the mindfullnes to include the whole body. Somewhere I have seen a simile where the first three steps are compared to a lit candle in an otherwise dark room. In steps 1 and 2 the mind is focused (as best as one can) on the flame and its behaviour - and only this. In step 3 the mind still remains focused on the flame but one is also aware of what else is in the room.

Once one develops regularly achieving the ideal long natural breath meditation can begin.

It is mot only awareness but concentration.

Key elements of course is following the breath and guarding it once things take off.

The relevance of long and short is to gain experience of their affect and to develop the ideal breath.

I must admit, I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here. However, there is no such thing as an "ideal breath" to be developed before the higher stages of anapanasati can be experienced. Step four is about calming the breath (and thereby also the body) - i.e. make it more subtle and perhaps even barely detectable - it's not about making it short or long, it's about letting the breath regulate itself without being disturbed by a disturbed mind. In step 5 various raptures (piti) may occur. Raptures are some sort of mental excitement which also may have physical symptons. Let's say the meditator is in a state where the breath is very calm, long and slow. What will happen when such a mental excitement occur? - The same thing that usual happens when one gets exciteted for some reason - one breathes faster, shorter and perhaps heavier, the body gets ready to act etc. The task for the meditor is then to sort of calm down things again by means of what he learned in the earlier steps.

Conversely there also are the phenomena of "sloth and turpor" -as it is called - which may occur e.g if the mind gets too calm without anything going on in it. Then one may attempt to arouse energy simply by making the breath shorter and perhaps a bit heavier. Thus, the breath is a process which will contunually change character throughout the whole meditation - be it by itself or by a bit of gentle volition - as the mind experiences the various defilements or other "mind-events". No such thing as an ideal breath, good for all and everything.

If anyone should want to investigate further - don't get confused by TV-posters, go directly to a proper source - for example:

http://buddhasociety.com/online-books/anapanasati-mindfulness-with-breathing-buddhadasa-bhikkhu-1-3

Edited June 15, 2013 by steinghan

[Several]

Things you have said do not agree with my experience and I cannot speak for others. I say the exact same things when I do not smoke. Which one of us has our judgment coloured by belief?

 

Statistically speaking, if you are speaking from your own experience, then your personal conclusion represents an insignificant  sample from which to make any conclusion.

 

 

There may be no specific precept relating to smoking, for possibly a number of technical reasons however:

 

52. Tickling with the fingers is to be confessed. & 53. The act of playing in the water is to be confessed. suggest that Monks don't pursue activities involving fun nor pleasure.

 

This suggests that smoking for pleasure is unacceptable. If one dfoesn't smoke for pleasure why else would one pursue this habit?

 

Also how does a fully ordained Monk procure cigarettes?

Have they a non verbal communication with one seeking merit, to slip a packet into the alms bowl.

If this is the case, choosing or placing an order for alms gifts is an offence.

 

If the Monk receives more cigarettes that can be smoked before midday, must he share his alms gifts with others and give away what cannot be consumed on that day?

 

How else can a Monk procure cigarettes.

Does he place an order to his lay helper and how does such an order meet his requirement to simply sustain his body and not for play, or intoxication or other?

 

If money is expended to procure cigarettes, how can a Monk allow diversion of such resource, better spent on worthy charity.

 

When a Monk smokes to what purpose does he pursue this practice?

 

 

There is belief and there is truth.

Knowing conditioning, and rightful speech I am displaying signs of attachment.

 

I suppose it is a fine line between attachment and expression.

 

I know you are firm regarding your position and nothing I can say will change this.

This is an example why achieving Awakening in our lives is so difficult.

 

I do have attachment to mental stimulation, just as do the majority of Forum members, otherwise we would be spending our time in practice or per suing Metta & Karuna.

 

Technically, what is it about the points I have put forward which are not valid other than they oppose your beliefs?

 

Is there anything about smoking which is negative?

 

 

NB: One can argue too much attachment devoted to one subject.

     On the other hand THAI VISA Forum is well read by many and can be very influential. Many can walk away feeling comfortable maintaining an insidious habit due to supportive posts.

 

Which raises another question.

 

Can publicly promoting a habit by minimizing it's health consequences by way of belief lead to Kharma and Vipaka?

 

Is cigarette smoking which is an optional activity (unnecessary to life)  worth the health consequences?

Hey, I don't think smoking is big or clever. I'm not promoting it at all. The only position I am firm on is pursuing the truth, not pronouncing a belief. And yes I have been given cigarettes by the carton, even when people knew I was trying to quit. And I have been told by senior monks not to bother trying to quit as I've given up everything else in life and we might as well have something (not that I agree). My personal experience in relation to myself is obviously a far more accurate measure than trumped up statistics. Isn't it you who frequently quotes about everything being discoverable in this fathom long body? Where do I find the latest statistics in here? And bringing up Vinaya about tickling is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Rest assured that I will one day quit the nasty habit, but I will defend to the hilt peoples right to engage in it (as long as it is legal) from zealots. As I said in my first post, there are far more insidious things in this world we need to deal with. Ask anyone in a warzone if they mind you smoking. I'm off to have one right now.

[rockyysdt]

I agree with you S.

The source of ones learning is a challenging issue.

I thank you for your insight and personal experience on the depth of addiction smokers encounter.

I wish to point out that I am not against ones personal choice or liberty to smoke.

The debate as smoking" vs "ordained Monks".

Your description of the strangle hold one may find themselves in, wrestling with their addiction is something which must be eventually dealt with for an ordained Monk to successfully traverse the path that has been chosen.

Either feed the addiction until one is strong enough through dharma practice to take the step, or, with the involvement and management of the Abbot, engage in some kind of program.

Again, we are talking about Bikkhu's and smoking not non ordained citizens.

The reason why I tie the practice of anapanasiti into this thread (smoking and Monks) is that successful anapanasiti and smoking are diametrically opposed.

Tan Dhammavidu, an English Monk, resident in a forest setting at Wat Suan Mokkh for the last 20 or more years has devoted this time to studying and translating many of the late Ajahn Buddhadasa's works.

Tan Dhammavidu specialises in giving seven one hour lectures on Dharma and Anapanasiti, as taught by the late Ajahn Buddhadasa.

I have attended 4 series of his lecture, the last one concluding this month (July 2013).

I find your post on the version you present interesting and will attempt to explore several sources to unearth the true original teaching.

I'll attempt to be more detailed about what Tan Dhammavidu teaches.

Firstly he sticks to the first tetrad (steps 1 to 4).

It is assumed one has some understanding of the 4 noble truths and established an appropriate posture.

He makes it clear that Buddhadasa teaches that before one attempts to settle on Mindfulness of the breath one must investigate breath and its affect on ones body/mind.

Step 1. Investigate the long breath.

Learn everything about the long breath and its affects (generally calming).

In order to do this one must impose a level of control.

We control various long breaths until we know these well.

Step 2. Investigate the short breath.

Learn all there is to know on short breath (or even stopped breath).

Learn how this causes anxiety, stress, and much tension.

This step can be accomplished in a much shorter period of time than step 1.

Both are basically pranayama as there is no meditation, brea the is controlled,and what one is doing is learning the affect of long and short breath, no more no less. They are preludes to facilitate step 3.

Step 3. Using your experience on breath investigation, settle on the most comfortable natural (uncontrolled) long breath. Simply be mindful of this breath in the following way. Chase the inward breath. This means to follow the flow of air, firstly passing the tip of the nose, up the nasal passages, visually down the windpipe, and observe as it expands the chest cavity and ultimately as it pushes down on the diaphragm. Then observe the out breath being mindful of the areas in reverse and ultimately out through the nostrils.

There are two imperatives, firstly, it is not sufficient merely to observe breath at the nostrils, and secondly one must take particular notice of the point at which the in breath finishes and the out breath begins (diaphragm or gate).

If you lose mindfulness and become engaged in random thought, when you realise, don't be harsh with yourself, this is normal. Simply return to the breath in a gentle manner.

Step 4. When you notice concentration developing, break with the chasing of the breath and commence guarding the breath. Guarding means observ ing at the nostrils (in and out). As this develops one will notice a rapid shortening of breath. Breath can become very short and rapid. As concentration deepens states of Piti and Sukha can be experienced. If one remains mindful of the breath during this period such states can feel timeless and span varying lengths of time.

Tan Dhammavidu professed his desire not to read others books and just follow blindly.

He studied the Thai language for the purposes of personally translating Ajahn Buddhadasa's works from Thai into English and thus learn what was actually being taught.

This was the very same principal followed by Ajahn Buddhadasa.

Not content with following interpretation, just because "this is how it has always been done, he went back and studied early texts for himself.

We appear to have conflicting views on what Anapanasiti (a core practice taught by the Buddha) is.

As Dharma dictates, we must find out for ourselves and be truly satisfied which practice is true dharma.

I'm keen to learn your actual sources.

If it's the link you posted, the key here is, "who translated it?".

Ajahn Buddhadasa could not speak nor write in English.

His original works are either written or recorded in the Thai language.

Edited June 15, 2013 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

I'm truly sorry for your addiction Sev.

I do care.

I fully understand and will bow out.

[rockyysdt]

Hi S

Steinhan says:

As Several says: Anapanasati has nothing to do with pranayama in the normal meaning of that word. They are more like direct opposites. Anapanasati - and particularly steps 1 and 2 are about being mindful about the breath at it is - and just that.

pranayama is strict regimen of breath control: breathe in exactly this many seconds, hold your breath this many seconds, breathe out this many seconds, keep breath out this many seconds a.s.o

Why does your own source disagree with you?

quote:

We must learn how to observe in more detail, that is, to observe the reaction or influence of the different kinds of breathing.

What reactions do they cause, how do they influence our awareness?

How uncomfortable breaths differ .

We must know the variations in the reactions to and influences of these various properties of the breath, of these qualities that influence our awareness, our sensitivity, our mind.

It even teaches how to facilitate control of the breathe:

quote:

There is a way for us to regulate the breath in these beginning steps in order to make it longer or shorter.

We can lengthen or shorten them using this special training technique.

We do not have to use it all the time. It is just a little experiment we can use from time to time in order to regulate the breath or to get to know it better.

A cursory view of your source doesn't deviate in any from what I was saying other than it is far more detailed and explicit. You must understand that I wasn't attempting to teach anapanasiti in its entirety.

The Sanskrit meaning of Pranayama = extension of the breath. no more no less, which fits in completely with investigation of breath in anapanasiti.

Edited June 15, 2013 by rockyysdt