Alternatively, the practice could also be intending a more reflective type of contemplation. Its practical implementation could take the form of attempting to sense the qualities represented by the four elements in one’s body, by way of noting solidity, cohesion, temperature, and motion. The actual modality of apperception of the elements is not further specified in any of the three parallel versions. This conveys a sense of inquiry or investigation to the exercise. Another minor difference occurs in the last of the three versions, stemming from the Ekottarika-āgama, which formulates the contemplation as a question. This gives the impression that the exercise is not confined to formal sitting meditation. An expansion of a reference to four elements could easily have happened during oral transmission of the discourses (Anālayo 2020), resulting in the addition of space and consciousness.Ī minor difference is that the Satipaṭṭhāna-sutta, the first version translated above, explicitly indicates that such practice can be done however the body is placed or disposed. The listing of the whole set of six elements, however, found regularly elsewhere among the early discourses, covers the mind in addition to matter and thus goes beyond contemplation of the body. In such a setting, the listing of four elements as an analysis of matter is quite appropriate. The last is clearly a misfit in the present context (Anālayo 2013b), which is concerned with contemplation of the body as distinct from the third establishment of mindfulness, contemplation of the mind. One contemplates : “Are there in this body the earth element, the water, the fire, and the wind element?”Ī significant difference occurs in the second of these three versions, stemming from the Madhyama-āgama, which in addition to the four elements mentions space and consciousness.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |