When to go back to Anapana from Vipassana?

[ChrisB87]

Dear Meditators,

I have been practicing Anapana and Vipassana meditation for some time now.

My question is basically this: when should i go back to practicing Anapana? (If Vipassana seems to being going well, should i just continue with that only?)

Thanks

[rockyysdt]

Hi Chris.

Can you describe what your Anapanasiti practice & your Vipassana practice are?

I thought Anapanasiti = or is a subset of Vipassana.

Perhaps you mean Samatha or deep calming meditation?

[ChrisB87]

Anapanasati - remaining aware of the incoming breath and outgoing breath to develop Samadhi. (yes, practiced before Vipassana)

Thanks

Edited March 30, 2014 by ChrisB87

[fabianfred]

Anapana being concentration will get you to the Jhanas but without Vipassana you will not get the wisdom to reach Nibanna....do both.

[weary]

Anapanasati - remaining aware of the incoming breath and outgoing breath to develop Samadhi. (yes, practiced before Vipassana)

Thanks

Sounds like you are looking at this from the Goenka angle, in which anapanasati with the focus on the nostril/upper lip area is used in preparation for investigating physical sensations in bodily sweeps.

I think Fred comes (mainly) from the Mahasi Sayadaw (through Ajahn Sirimangalo) tradition, which, briefly, uses the method of placing a factual verbal label on each experience, from the very start of meditation practice.

In this model, whenever the attention is diverted from the anchor, mindfulness follows, sticking a label to the experience in mind at present, and mindfulness then returns attention to the anchor, which for sitting meditation is (at first) the physical sensation of the in-breath and out-breath in the abdomen, but later extended with various 'touch points' located on the body. For walking meditation, the anchor is the various stages of movement in each foot.

So Mahasi vipassana is essentially a practice of increasing clarity in noting experiences, and during the noting, using a verbal label.

If I have understood things correctly, then perhaps the above points on the difference could be helpful to keep in mind for the discussion.

I think if you have seen good results in your life from Goenka practice, there is no reason to deviate to using another method - just keep doing whatever it is you were instructed to do at your previous retreat.

If you feel that Goenka practice is somehow lacking despite having tried it for long time, it could be a good idea to try another method instead (but I would discuss this with a Goenka teacher first - they should be able to analyze your practice better since they are familiar with their own system).

[ChrisB87]

Thanks for the advices

Yes, it is "the Goenka style" i practice. I understand i should practice both, but i don't know how much time to allocate to each and when (if at all) i should switch back to Anapana. At the courses they tell you, "once you can maintain unbroken concentration of the breath then you are ready fir Vipassana", but does that mean if i have achieved that much Samadhi should i never go back ti it and just practice Vipassana? I feel benefits from both. More practical benefits from Anapana, but deeper and more lasting benefits from Vipassana.

But i suppose, if the awareness of sensation is undisturbed then that too is developing Samadhi, right? And the sensation is typically subtler than the breath anyway, so maybe i will develop the same concentration from continuous awareness of sensation just the same as continuous awareness of breath.

Any more insights?

[weary]

The question is, do they mean during each session or more in general? This I do not know as I do not have personal experience of Goenka.

Speculatively, it would seem to make sense to me that this applies to each sitting, i.e. first you reach a state of unbroken concentration (also known as access concentration, upacarasamadhi) during your sitting, and once at that stage, you start to engage in vipassana.

[Brucenkhamen]

I just finished a course yesterday so his instructions are clear in my mind, mind you I'd follow a similar approach as well if I were doing another technique like Mahasi for example.

Basically you should do anapana at the beginning of the sitting and just see how the mind is, if it's calm and stable then switch to vipassana. If the mind later feels agitated then go back to anapana. Basically it doesn't matter which you do though it's better to do vipassana when the mind is capable of it rather than falling back on anapana in those circumstances just because it's easy.

I like to think of it like a camera lens, sometimes it's better to focus on a small area, sometimes a wider area, but it's just the same lens and generally you get a better picture when focussing on a wider area.

[Sheryl]

Thanks for the advices

Yes, it is "the Goenka style" i practice. I understand i should practice both, but i don't know how much time to allocate to each and when (if at all) i should switch back to Anapana. At the courses they tell you, "once you can maintain unbroken concentration of the breath then you are ready fir Vipassana", but does that mean if i have achieved that much Samadhi should i never go back ti it and just practice Vipassana? I feel benefits from both. More practical benefits from Anapana, but deeper and more lasting benefits from Vipassana.

But i suppose, if the awareness of sensation is undisturbed then that too is developing Samadhi, right? And the sensation is typically subtler than the breath anyway, so maybe i will develop the same concentration from continuous awareness of sensation just the same as continuous awareness of breath.

Any more insights?

I'm practising in the same tradition.

Personally, I always start each sitting with Anapana for as long as it takes to get the sensation of the breath above the lip crystal clear. That might be just a second, or a minute, or many minutes, even half an hour...whatever. As soon as I can feel it clearly, I go to Vipassana, but switch back to Anapana whenver i need to i.e. if I find my concentration is getting weak or my mind too agitated.

Actually the line between the two is not that distinct since Anapana itself takes you to an awareness sensations, the main differnece (for this technique) being that you limit the area of awareness to one spot rather than feeling the whole body.

I typically switch briefly back to Anapana so several times during a sitting but it does very much depend on what's going on.

[rockyysdt]

Actually the line between the two is not that distinct since Anapana itself takes you to an awareness sensations, the main differnece (for this technique) being that you limit the area of awareness to one spot rather than feeling the whole body.

I typically switch briefly back to Anapana so several times during a sitting but it does very much depend on what's going on.

I'm confused.

Is Anapanasiti, & Anapana the same thing?

How can one practice Anapanasiti over a short time?

Anapanasiti:

1. First Tetrad: Contemplation of the Body (kāya)
   1. Discerning the in and out breathing
   2. Discerning long or short breaths
   3. Experiencing the whole body (sabbakāaya)
   4. Calming bodily formations
2. Second Tetrad: Contemplation of the Feeling (vedanā)
   1. Being sensitive to rapture (pīti)^[11]
   2. Being sensitive to pleasure (sukha)
   3. Being sensitive to mental fabrication (citta-saṃskāra)
   4. Calming mental fabrication
3. Third Tetrad: Contemplation of the Mind (citta)
   1. Being sensitive to the mind
   2. Satisfying the mind
   3. Steadying the mind
   4. Releasing the mind
4. Fourth Tetrad: Contemplation of the Mental Objects (dhammā)
   1. Dwelling on impermanence
   2. Dwelling on dispassion
   3. Dwelling on cessation
   4. Dwelling on relinquishment

Edited April 8, 2014 by rockyysdt

[Brucenkhamen]

I'm confused.

Is Anapanasiti, & Anapana the same thing?

They are not the same thing. Anapana is a much simplified version, just observing the sensations of the breath and other sensations at the nostrils as a way of sharpening concentration before doing the vipassana body sweeping technique.

[rockyysdt]

I'm confused.

Is Anapanasiti, & Anapana the same thing?

They are not the same thing. Anapana is a much simplified version, just observing the sensations of the breath and other sensations at the nostrils as a way of sharpening concentration before doing the vipassana body sweeping technique.

Sounds like the first tetrad.

One thing a Monk of many years taught that following the breath beyond the nostrils and all the way in to the sternum, observing the point between the in breath & the out breath (gate), and following it all the way out was most important and was the difference to his success in the practice.

[Sheryl]

To my understanding, anapana and anapansati are the same thing.

This is all from the Mahasatipattana Sutta. The four tetrads referred to above are the 4 aspects/foundations of Satipattana (cultivation of Sati, also referred to by some as mindfulness) described in that Sutta.

Anapana as a technique is clearly described under the kayanapassana (1st tetrad) although there is also mention there of Vipassana in terms of feeling the entire body while breathing in and out.

Vipassana as a technique then comes in more clearly under Vedananupassana.

And the last 2 - mind and mental contents - in my experience come about as byproducts of both Anapana and Vipassana. The instructions under those sections are not (to my reading) specific meditation techniques so much as how to handle/relate to the awareness that automatically arises in the course of the practice. Some of what is there is related to "right view" and "right understanding".

At least this is how the tradition I practice in understands it and also what I understand based on my readings of the Sutta and my practice. But there is some difference in understanding/interpretation of this Sutta between different traditions of Vipassana.

[rockyysdt]

To my understanding, anapana and anapansati are the same thing.

This is all from the Mahasatipattana Sutta. The four tetrads referred to above are the 4 aspects/foundations of Satipattana (cultivation of Sati, also referred to by some as mindfulness) described in that Sutta.

Anapana as a technique is clearly described under the kayanapassana (1st tetrad) although there is also mention there of Vipassana in terms of feeling the entire body while breathing in and out.

Vipassana as a technique then comes in more clearly under Vedananupassana.

And the last 2 - mind and mental contents - in my experience come about as byproducts of both Anapana and Vipassana. The instructions under those sections are not (to my reading) specific meditation techniques so much as how to handle/relate to the awareness that automatically arises in the course of the practice. Some of what is there is related to "right view" and "right understanding".

At least this is how the tradition I practice in understands it and also what I understand based on my readings of the Sutta and my practice. But there is some difference in understanding/interpretation of this Sutta between different traditions of Vipassana.

So, to understand the discussion what is meant by switching from Anapana to Vipassana?

As I thought Anapanasiti covers it all (breathing, mind, & body).

I also thought that Vipassana covers the subject of insight meditation which in part is achieved by practicing Anapanasiti.

So to say "switching from Anapana to Vipassana" doesn't make sense to me.

I could understand "switching from observing the breath, to observing the body", but then, even that doesn't make sense to me.

Ultimately my best Mindfulness practice is to use both awareness of breath & awareness of body as my anchor to Mindfulness.

The practice is to eventually have awareness of breath, of body, of thoughts, of feelings, & of ones interaction to the outside world.

When one becomes aware that Mindfulness has ceased, refocus on the breath and body (anchor) restoring mindfulness and then expand it again to encompass thoughts, feelings and the external.

A continuous loop, using the breath/body as the anchor.

Edited April 9, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

Hi Rocky. Let me ask you a simple question using your words.

So you practice to eventually have awareness of breath, of body, of thoughts, of feelings, and of ones interaction to the outside world.

Then what?

[rockyysdt]

Hi Rocky. Let me ask you a simple question using your words.

So you practice to eventually have awareness of breath, of body, of thoughts, of feelings, and of ones interaction to the outside world.

Then what?

Hopefully insight will occur.

Guides will be invaluable as one achieves milestones.

[trd]

And what is your understanding of what insight means in this context. Insight of what exactly?

[rockyysdt]

And what is your understanding of what insight means in this context. Insight of what exactly?

Insight of the way things really are as described in the four noble truths.

That the ego is a construct and that by experiencing ones real essence (cannot be verbalized) one gains insight.

Then, being free from ego allows liberation from greed, aversion & delusion.

Insight can be gained at many levels, from the quite coarse (obvious) and down to ongoing subtler levels.

Many lack awareness of any kind and are prisoners of their beliefs.

Edited April 9, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

And what is your understanding of what insight means in this context. Insight of what exactly?

Insight of the way things really are as described in the four noble truths.

That the ego is a construct and that by experiencing ones real essence (cannot be verbalized) one gains insight.

Then, being free from ego allows liberation from greed, aversion & delusion.

That's a good answer. All I would add to that in terms of practice is this.

If one puts the attention on breath, body and thoughts, then the mind is focussed on that which is other than what it is. What mind is in terms of its real nature is silent awareness. It is unconditioned. Mind as the egoic expression of thought and wrong identification with body and external world is the obstacle to finding out what is your true nature. So as you say, ego is a construct and it is the practise of transcending the mind and reaching the one pointedness of samadhi that is the goal. Tools such as using breath, mantra etc, can facilitate that process. The biggest mistake that most people make is in thinking that the conceptual mind has a role to play in spiritual growth.

[rockyysdt]

And what is your understanding of what insight means in this context. Insight of what exactly?

Insight of the way things really are as described in the four noble truths.

That the ego is a construct and that by experiencing ones real essence (cannot be verbalized) one gains insight.

Then, being free from ego allows liberation from greed, aversion & delusion.

That's a good answer. All I would add to that in terms of practice is this.

If one puts the attention on breath, body and thoughts, then the mind is focussed on that which is other than what it is. What mind is in terms of its real nature is silent awareness. It is unconditioned. Mind as the egoic expression of thought and wrong identification with body and external world is the obstacle to finding out what is your true nature. So as you say, ego is a construct and it is the practise of transcending the mind and reaching the one pointedness of samadhi that is the goal. Tools such as using breath, mantra etc, can facilitate that process. The biggest mistake that most people make is in thinking that the conceptual mind has a role to play in spiritual growth.

Thanks trd.

Reading "silent awareness" momentarily connects me to glimpses of such experience.

I agree with you.

To date my attention to breathe, body, mind, feelings and the external has served to create an observer which witnesses my conditioning.

Many are prisoners within the invisible walls of their beliefs and conditioning.

My mindfulness allows me to observe these invisible walls and to better know how I react, respond, and feel given life situations and events.

Also focus on awareness of body assists in identifying tension and allows me to release it.

Focus on breath allows me to identify its effect on mind and body and to identify and adopt a comfortably long uncontrolled breath.

Focus on both breathe and body allows me to learn that:

Tense body and shortened breath leads to rampant thought.

Long comfortable uncontrolled breath and relaxed body eases the mind and assists in achieving single pointedness of samadhi.

Achieving mindfulness of body and breath is ones anchor, allowing one to return to the present.

Edited April 9, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

Good stuff Rocky.

In my view these distinctions between anapana, vipassana and shamatha are not very relevant or important, but may suit some at the beginners stage of practice.

Breath is really important. When the mind is settled, the breath automatically becomes shallower or may stop completely for a while, I wouldn't say long or short is really the issue here. There is also a merging of the inward and outward motions of breath so that one is not really aware of the change of direction. It becomes so smooth so as to become imperceptible. If that happens it's a very good sign.

The other way to deal with breath is by doing it the other way around by using specific techniques called pranayama which will be familiar in yoga circles. Some are quite physically vigorous. These breathing exercises will quieten the breath first and therefore the mind will follow, but this is a much inferior practice to what you are doing.

[Sheryl]

So, to understand the discussion what is meant by switching from Anapana to Vipassana?

As I thought Anapanasiti covers it all (breathing, mind, & body).

I also thought that Vipassana covers the subject of insight meditation which in part is achieved by practicing Anapanasiti.

So to say "switching from Anapana to Vipassana" doesn't make sense to me.

I could understand "switching from observing the breath, to observing the body", but then, even that doesn't make sense to me.

Ultimately my best Mindfulness practice is to use both awareness of breath & awareness of body as my anchor to Mindfulness.....

Anapanasati means, literally, mindfulness of the breath, and only that.Though in the course of being aware of the breath one will naturally develop some awareness of the mind and mental contents.

Vipassana means insight meditation and there are several different techniques taught for that. All of them that i know of make use of Anapana in some form. In some techniques Anapana is a sort of anchor, the main thing that is done and then as other sensations arise, or sounds are heard or whatever, then the attention shifts to that, and in between, back to the breath. Sounds like this may be what you practice which is why the question doesn't make sense to you.

In the technique of Vipassana that the OP practices, it is different. Anapana is used to sharpen the mind/develop concentration and then the attention is shifted to sensations in the body which are felt through a deliberate and systematic sweeping of the entire body (rather than just focusing where sensations seem to be present -- the idea being to feel not only the very obvious bodily sensations but subtle ones, even down to a cellular level). Although the whole technique, inclusive of the use of Anapana to develop concentration (and also intermittently, when needed, to help clam the mind if it is too agitated), is indeed Vipassana, in casual usage people practicing it refer to the sweeping of the body with awareness of body sensations along with an effort not to react to them as "Vipassana', so he is asking about when, in that sort of practice, to revert back to awareness of breath.

[trd]

The problem with all of this is that as long as you keep talking about awareness of breath or awareness of body, you are simply reinforcing and perpetuating the subject/object relationship. Words like concentration don't help because that suggests some kind of effort to keep focussed on an object. Meditation is not about maintaining this duality of mind/object experience. It is about developing the direct discrimination of knowing the separateness of awareness and mind by transcending the duality. It is when mental activity becomes subdued that we can truly say that meditation begins as a choiceless state of pure awareness.

The most direct way is to simply turn the attention back to the primary thought, the sense of I amness, of simple knowingness and abide there. But human nature, or should I say the ego, being what it is in the constant pursuit of experience and attachment, prefers complexity to feed its hunger for experience. You are asking the ego to extinguish itself and it won't give up without a fight. These complicated and detailed explanations in Buddhist meditation practices are most unhelpful. There is only one obstacle to freedom and that is the mind.

[Sheryl]

Why would referring to awareness awareness reinforce duality?

I think we all understand that by awareness what is being sought is what is variously called "bare attention" "choiceless observation" etc etc. and, of course, that a main aim of practice is the direct experience/understanding of anatta.

I haven't found instructions about maintaining awareness etc to lead me to have a sense of subject/object duality, quite the opposite.

Ultimately any words of explanation are imperfect since what they are trying top describe is experiential, not conceptual. They can lead to some confusion even when used among people practicing in the exact same tradition (and will almost surely do so when used between people practicing in different traditions), but they are all we have when trying to communicate to others.

OP - going back to your question and some of the confusion in the ensuing discussion, it is very helpful to take the "Satipattana" course for old students in this tradition as the discourses go through the Mahatipattana discourse word for word and thoroughly explain it, including good discussion of points where the understanding of this tradition differs from that of some others and why. Which in turn helps clarify the differences within techniques that are all called Vipassana and makes it easier to communicate with people practicing other traditions of it. All schools of Vipassana are based on this crucial Sutta, differences in technique generally hinge around understanding of just a few key Pali words.

Of course aside from actual differences of technique -- some of which are really only relevant to the early stages of practice -- there are also differences in how things are taught/explained, which can also be confusing - a good reason not to change teachers more often than one really has good reason to.

[trd]

Sorry to be pedantic Sheryl, but you need to read my post again. As you say, words are inadequate, but it's important to be as accurate as one can.

I referred to choiceless awareness. You said that what is being sought is choiceless observation. Observation requires a knower and an object to be known. This is duality. Awareness by itself is only subject. It knows itself only. This is what needs to be sought, although even the word "sought" is inappropriate because that in itself is a duality and it implies you are going on a journey from one place to another, when in fact you just need to be here now.

In your third paragraph you say that the practice of maintaining awareness does not lead you to have a sense of duality, quite the opposite. That is good. There is nothing wrong with your practice, but it is important to understand the mechanics of what is happening so as to deepen your experience.

What do you mean by maintaining awareness. You are always aware. You are aware of swimming in the ocean. You are aware of cooking a meal. You are aware of the fragrance of a flower. It is this that is the choiceless observation you refer to. In the waking state of consciousness, thoughts appear and disappear in an apparent random and spontaneous way as the mind engages with the senses and external world. An entity called Sheryl claims these experiences as the doer of action.

But in meditation we want to break this ignorance. So we are not seeking choiceless observation. That makes no sense. Instead of letting these random thoughts take you from one sensation to another, we intentionally put the attention on one thing. This is not a choiceless act. That one thing can be breath, body or a mantra etc. That intentional act then leads to an automatic quietening of the mind. It is important to realise that there is no choice being made to reduce the activity and fluctuations of thought. We are not making a choice to make the mind quiet. We are simply, effortlessly and innocently putting the attention on one thought and the quietening is happening because this is your natural state. It might not seem like it until the veil of ignorance is removed. But given the opportunity, the mind wants to go there.

The mind is always experiencing a dual state. What is mind? Mind is just a bundle of thoughts. The mind cannot experience a non dual state of pure awareness because the non dual state is not an experience, because an experience requires a subject and object to have what we call an experience so it is not non dual. The mind is that which experiences.

In terms of practice, the mind can only go back as far as the primary "I" thought. Prior to that is the goal of pure unbounded awareness. What meditation does is to subdue the mind so that it becomes one pointed. This is samadhi. This is truly choiceless. Practice over time will establish and solidify this state until it becomes permanently established leading to complete peace of mind.

[ChrisB87]

Thanks to everyone participating in this discussion. Many different (but helpful) perspectives.

Sorry, i haven't been active in this conversation myself the past month. I was out in Isaan without internet access.

I am going to try to put some advice here into practice and see what happens.