In one of the sermons of the Pali Canon, Gautama the Buddha described “seven (types of) persons existing in the world”. Here are the first two “persons”, followed by an explanation of Gautama’s terminology:
And which, monks, is the person who is freed both ways? As to this, monks, some person is abiding, having apprehended with the person those peaceful Deliverances which are incorporeal having transcended material shapes; and having seen by means of wisdom (their) cankers are utterly destroyed. I, monks, do not say of this (person) that there is something to be done through diligence. What is the reason for this? It has been done by (them) through diligence, (they) could not become negligent.
And which, monks, is the person who is freed by means of intuitive wisdom? As to this, monks, some person is abiding without having apprehended with the person those peaceful Deliverances which are incorporeal having transcended material shapes; yet, having seen by means of wisdom (their) cankers are utterly destroyed. This, monks, is called the person who is freed by means of intuitive wisdom. I, monks, do not say of this (person) that there is something to be done through diligence. What is the reason for this? It has been done by (them) through diligence, (they) could not become negligent…
(MN 70; tr. Pali Text Society [PTS] vol. 2 pp 151-154; more on “The Deliverances”, DN 15, PTS vol. ii pp 68-69; pronouns replaced)
“Those peaceful Deliverances which are incorporeal having transcended material shapes” are the last five of nine states of concentration that Gautama regularly taught. He would generally describe a set of four “corporeal” concentrations, and then describe the set of five “incorporeal” concentrations.
“Corporeal” is defined in the Oxford dictionary as “relating to a person’s body”. The four corporeal concentrations can be said to relate to the body, in that they culminate in a cessation of habit and volition in the activity of the body. In particular, they culminate in a cessation of habit and volition in the activity of inhalation and exhalation.
About the five “peaceful Deliverances which are incorporeal having transcended material shapes”, Gautama said very little. My understanding is that they have to do with the experience of things that are beyond the range of the senses (MN 7, PTS vol. I p 48; SN 46.54, PTS vol. V p 100). According to Gautama, the “incorporeal” concentrations culminate in a cessation of habit and volition in the activity of the mind, in particular a cessation of habit and volition in the activity of feeling and perceiving.
The three “cankers” were said to be three cravings: “craving for the life of sense”, “craving for becoming”, and “craving for not-becoming” (DN 22; PTS vol. ii p 340). When the cankers are “destroyed”, the roots of the craving for sense-pleasures, the roots of the craving “to continue, to survive, to be” (tr. “bhava”, Bhikkyu Sujato), and the roots of the craving not “to be” (the craving for the ignorance of being) are destroyed.
I believe “freed both ways” refers to freedom both through “those peaceful Deliverances which are incorporeal having transcended material shapes” and through “intuitive wisdom”, though there are other interpretations in the literature.
Gautama went on to describe five additional “persons”, all of whom had “seen by means of wisdom”, but none of whom had completely destroyed the cankers. Consequently, they each had “something to be done through diligence”.*
There are schools of modern Buddhism that regard concentration as an ancillary practice, as a useful precursor to the attainment of insight. In his description of the second person above, Gautama acknowledged that there are indeed those who are “freed by means of intuitive wisdom”, without having apprehended “those peaceful Deliverances which are incorporeal…”.
Schools that emphasize the attainment of insight generally base their teaching on Gautama’s Satipatthana sermon (“Applications of Mindfulness” sermon, MN 10). In Satipatthana, concentration is mentioned only in passing, in a description of “the seven links in awakening”. The sermon calls for the comprehension of whether or not the link that is concentration has arisen, and for the comprehension of whether or not the link has come to completion (MN 10, tr. PTS p 80).
There is also, however, a Maha Satipatthana sermon (“Larger ‘Applications of Mindfulness’” sermon), and that sermon provides specifics of the four corporeal concentrations (DN 22; PTS vol ii p 345). The inclusion of the corporeal concentrations in Maha Satipatthana suggests that the “link in awakening that is concentration” of Satipatthana might come to completion with the attainment of the fourth concentration.
Gautama declared that observing the mindfulness of Satipatthana, even for as short a time as seven days and seven nights, could lead to a “profound knowledge”. That knowledge, like “intuitive wisdom”, implied the complete destruction of the cankers.
There is a lecture where Gautama described how, while abiding in the fourth concentration, he directed his mind to “the knowledge of the destruction of the cankers” (MN 4, tr. PTS p 29). That direction of mind, said Gautama, resulted in an understanding “as it really is” of what he called the four truths: the existence of suffering, the arising of suffering, the ceasing of suffering, and the path leading to the ceasing of suffering. Once he had understood the four truths, he directed his mind to an understanding “as it really is” of a similar four truths with regard to the cankers, and subsequently realized both freedom from the cankers and knowledge of that freedom.
Just as Gautama offered no details of concentration in Satipatthana, but did in Maha Satipatthana, he likewise offered no details of the four truths of suffering in Satipatthana, but did in Maha Satipatthana. In particular, he gave details of the fourth truth, the path that leads to the end of suffering.
The last element of that path was “right concentration” (DN 22; tr. PTS vol ii p 343 “right rapture”). For Gautama, “right concentration” meant “one-pointedness of mind”:
And what… is the (noble) right concentration with the causal associations, with the accompaniments? It is right view, right purpose, right speech, right action, right mode of livelihood, right endeavor, right mindfulness. Whatever one-pointedness of mind is accompanied by these seven components, this… is called the (noble) right concentration with the causal associations and the accompaniments.”
(MN III 117 tr. PTS vol III p 114; “noble” substituted for Ariyan; emphasis added)
The Buddhist community has taken “one-pointedness” to mean different things. One modern Theravadin teacher posits that the reference is to a singular object of attention:
A Pali sutta, MN 44, defines concentration as cittass’ek’aggatā, which is often translated as “one-pointedness of mind”: cittassa = “of the mind” or “of the heart,” eka = one, agga = point, -tā = -ness. MN 117 defines noble right concentration as any one-pointedness of mind supported by the first seven factors of the noble path, from right view through right mindfulness. MN 43 states further that one-pointedness is a factor of the first jhāna, the beginning level of right concentration.
From these passages, it has been argued that if one’s awareness in concentration or jhāna is truly one-pointed, it should be no larger than a point, which means that it would be incapable of thinking, of hearing sounds, or even of being aware of the physical body. However, this interpretation imposes too narrow a meaning on the word ek’aggatā, one that is foreign to the linguistic usage of the Pali Canon.
… (the teacher concludes: ) Show your lack of contempt for your meditation object by giving it your full attention and mastering concentration… Gather the mind around its one object.
(https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/CrossIndexed/Uncollected/MiscEssays/OnePointed160822.pdf, Thanissaro Bhikkyu; parenthetical added)
In my experience, “one-pointedness” has more to do with the self as a singular entity than with single-minded attention to a meditation object.
A teacher in modern India, Nisargadatta, described the self as “the consciousness in the body”:
You are not your body, but you are the consciousness in the body, because of which you have the awareness of “I am”. It is without words, just pure beingness.
(Gaitonde, Mohan [2017]. Self – Love: The Original Dream [Shri Nisargadatta Maharaj’s Direct Pointers to Reality])
The consciousness associated with “I am” is at one single location at any given moment.
Nisargadatta went on to say:
Meditation means you have to hold consciousness by itself. The consciousness should give attention to itself.
(ibid)
Zen teacher Koan Franz talked about the difference between attention to a meditation object, and attention to consciousness (“the base of consciousness”), as he discussed the meaning of the zazen instruction “place your mind here”:
So (in seated meditation), have your hands… palms up, thumbs touching, and there’s this common instruction: place your mind here. Different people interpret this differently. Some people will say this means to place your attention here, meaning to keep your attention on your hands. It’s a way of turning the lens to where you are in space so that you’re not looking out here and out here and out here. It’s the positive version, perhaps, of ‘navel gazing’.
The other way to understand this is to literally place your mind where your hands are–to relocate mind (let’s not say your mind) to your center of gravity, so that mind is operating from a place other than your brain. Some traditions take this very seriously, this idea of moving your consciousness around the body. I wouldn’t recommend dedicating your life to it, but as an experiment, I recommend trying it, sitting in this posture and trying to feel what it’s like to let your mind, to let the base of your consciousness, move away from your head. One thing you’ll find, or that I have found, at least, is that you can’t will it to happen, because you’re willing it from your head. To the extent that you can do it, it’s an act of letting go–and a fascinating one.
(“No Struggle [Zazen Yojinki, Part 6]”, by Koun Franz, from the “Nyoho Zen” site)
Franz suggested that the base of consciousness can move to a location in the body outside the head, through “an act of letting go”.
Gautama also spoke about letting go, in particular about “making self-surrender the object of thought”:
… making self-surrender the object of thought, (a person) lays hold of concentration, lays hold of one-pointedness.
(SN 48.10, tr. PTS vol. V p 174)
My advice would be to look for consciousness to move away from the head in the moments before falling asleep, then allow for that same freedom of movement in seated meditation.
Eihei Dogen, founder of the Soto school of Zen, wrote:
When you find your place where you are, practice occurs, actualizing the fundamental point.
(“Genjo Koan [Actualizing the Fundamental Point]”, tr. Tanahashi)
I’ve explained Dogen’s meaning:
Given a presence of mind that can “hold consciousness by itself”, activity in the body begins to coordinate by virtue of the sense of place associated with consciousness. A relationship between the free location of consciousness and activity in the body comes forward, and as that relationship comes forward, “practice occurs”. Through such practice, the placement of consciousness is manifested in the activity of the body.
Dogen continued:
When you find your way at this moment, practice occurs, actualizing the fundamental point…
(“Genjo Koan [Actualizing the Fundamental Point]”, tr. Tanahashi)
I’ve explained:
“When you find your way at this moment”, activity takes place solely by virtue of the free location of consciousness. A relationship between the freedom of consciousness and the automatic activity of the body comes forward, and as that relationship comes forward, practice occurs. Through such practice, the placement of consciousness is manifested as the activity of the body.
When activity of the body takes place solely by virtue of the free location of consciousness, habit and volition in the activity of inhalation and exhalation have ceased. That’s the hallmark of the fourth “corporeal” concentration.
Gautama described a suffusion of the body with “purity by the pureness of mind” in the fourth concentration:
Again, a (person), putting away ease… enters and abides in the fourth musing (concentration); seated, (one) suffuses (one’s) body with purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind so that there is not one particle of the body that is not pervaded with purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind. …
(AN 5.28, tr. PTS vol. III p 18-19; parentheticals paraphrase original).
Gautama made clear through his choice of words (“not one particle… that is not pervaded”) that the mind can remain one-pointed, even as the body is suffused with “purity by the pureness of mind”.
Gautama often referred to the corporeal concentrations, together with an overview of the body taken after the fourth, as “the five limbs” of concentration. My guess is that he generally practiced “the five limbs”, and only occasionally took up “those peaceful Deliverances which are incorporeal having transcended material shapes”.
The Satipatthana sermons are concerned primarily with details of “the four arisings of mindfulness”. The four are described as the arising of mindfulness of the body in the body, of the feelings in the feelings, of the mind in the mind, and of the states of mind in the states of mind.
Curiously, Gautama did not claim that the details he outlined in the Satipatthana sermons were the mindfulness that made up his daily life. Instead, he declared his own mindfulness to be “the intent concentration on in-breathing and out-breathing” (SN 54.12; tr. PTS vol. V p 289).
“The intent concentration” was composed of sixteen observations or contemplations, four in each of the arisings. Among the last four was:
Contemplating cessation I shall breathe in. Contemplating cessation I shall breathe out.
(SN 54.1; tr. PTS vol. V p 275-276; MN 118 “beholding stopping”)
The contemplation of “cessation” while breathing in and while breathing out is conducive to the cessation of habit and volition in inhalation and exhalation, particularly if there has been a recent experience of “the five limbs”.
Gautama declared the mindfulness of “the intent concentration on in-breathing and out-breathing” to be the “best of ways”, and his usual way of living in the rainy season (SN 54.11; PTS vol. V p 289).
I have summarized the actionable elements of “the intent concentration”:
1) Relax the activity of the body in inhalation and exhalation;
2) Find a feeling of ease and calm the senses connected with balance, in inhalation and exhalation;
3) Appreciate and detach from thought, in inhalation and exhalation;
4) Look to the free location of consciousness for the automatic activity of inhalation and exhalation.
(Applying the Pali Instructions)
Gautama never asserted a causal relationship between “one-pointedness of mind” and “the four arisings of mindfulness”. Indeed, at least one translator has rendered “the intent concentration on in-breathing and out-breathing” as “the (mind-)development that is mindfulness on in-breathing and out-breathing” (MN 118, tr. PTS vol. III p 124), a translation that removes the word “concentration” with its implied one-pointedness.
There is, however, a sermon where Gautama acknowledged that he always returned to one-pointedness after he spoke (MN 36, tr. PTS I p 303). That would imply that at least for Gautama, the arisings of mindfulness that made up his way of living did not take place apart from “one-pointedness of mind”.
There are many different schools of Buddhism. Nevertheless, I would guess that most respected Buddhist teachers experience “the five limbs” of concentration regularly (even though they may not describe their experience as such), and most practice a mindfulness very much like the mindfulness that made up Gautama’s way of living.
They do so in part because, as Gautama said, that mindfulness:
… if cultivated and made much of, is something peaceful and choice, something perfect in itself, and a pleasant way of living too.
(SN 54.9, tr. PTS SN vol. V p 285)
By Gautama’s own admission, enlightenment is not required to enjoy that “pleasant way of living”:
Formerly… before I myself was enlightened with the perfect wisdom, and was yet a Bodhisattva, I used generally to spend my time in this way of living.
(SN 54.8; tr. PTS vol. V p 280: “the Tathagatha’s way of life”, 289)
If a person can exhibit a mindfulness like Gautama’s without having become enlightened, and can have “seen by means of wisdom” without having completely destroyed the cankers, then how can one know who to trust as a teacher?
Gautama’s advice was to go by the words of the teacher rather than any claim to authority, to compare the instructions of a teacher to the sermons Gautama himself had given and to the rules of the order that Gautama himself had laid down (DN 16 PTS vol. ii pp 133-136).
Nevertheless, activity solely by virtue of the free location of consciousness, the hallmark of the fourth concentration, has been conveyed by demonstration in some branches of Buddhism for millennia. The transmission of a central part of the teaching through such conveyance, and the certification of that transmission by the presiding teacher, is regarded by some schools as the only guarantee of the authenticity of a teacher.
The teachers so authenticated have in many cases disappointed their students, when circumstances revealed that the teacher’s cankers had not been completely destroyed. Furthermore, some schools appear to have certified transmission without the conveyance that has kept the tradition alive, perhaps for the sake of the continuation of the school.
Gautama himself refused to name a successor (DN 16, PTS vol. ii p 107). In the days before his demise, he gave one final piece of advice to his followers about who to trust:
Look not for refuge to any one besides yourselves. And how… is (one) to be a lamp unto (oneself), a refuge unto (oneself), betaking (oneself) to no external refuge, holding fast to the Truth as a lamp, holding fast as a refuge to the Truth, looking not for refuge to any one besides (oneself)?
Herein, … (one) continues, as to the body, so to look upon the body that (one) remains strenuous, self-possessed, and mindful, having overcome both the hankering and the dejection common in the world. [And in the same way] as to feelings… mind… mental states, (one) continues so to look upon each that (one) remains strenuous, self-possessed, and mindful, having overcome both the hankering and the dejection common in the world.
(DN 16; tr. PTS Vol II p 108; Horner’s “body, feelings, mind, and mental states” substituted for Rhys Davids’ “body, feelings, moods, and ideas”)
I believe Gautama took it for granted that his audience understood the role of concentration in the mindfulness that he recommended, just as he took it for granted that his audience understood the role of “one-pointedness” in concentration.
As to who to trust, I can only say that the teachers who have benefited me the most were those who addressed, in one way or another, both “one-pointedness of mind” and “the four arisings of mindfulness”.
… tell me, what is the most essential place? How is effort applied?
(Yuanwu Keqin, “The Blue Cliff Record”, Case 55, tr. Cleary and Cleary)
*Gautama described the five additional “persons” as follows:
And which, monks, is the person who is a mental-realiser? As to this, monks, some person is abiding, having apprehended with the person those peaceful Deliverances which are incorporeal having transcended material shapes; and having seen by means of wisdom some (only) of his cankers are utterly destroyed…. This, monks, is called the person who is a mental-realiser. I, monks, say of this monk that there is something to be done through diligence….
And which, monks, is the person that has won to view? As to this, monks, some person is abiding without having apprehended with the person those peaceful Deliverances which are having transcended material shapes; yet having seen by means of wisdom some of his cankers are utterly destroyed, and those things that are proclaimed by the Tathagatha are fully seen by him through intuitive wisdom and fully practiced…. This, monks, is called the person who has won to view. I, monks, say of this monk that there is something to be done through diligence….
And which, monks, is the person who is freed by faith? As to this, monks, some person is abiding without having apprehended with the person those peaceful Deliverances which are having transcended material shapes; and having seen by means of wisdom some of his cankers are utterly destroyed, and his faith in the Tathagatha is settled, genuine, established. This, monks, is called the person who is freed by faith. I, monks, say of this monk that there is something to be done through diligence….
And which, monks, is the person who is striving for dhamma? As to this, monks, some person is abiding without having apprehended with the person those peaceful Deliverances which are having transcended material shapes; but although he has seen by means of wisdom his cankers are not (yet) utterly destroyed; and those things proclaimed by the Tathagatha are (only) moderately approved of by him by means of intuitive wisdom, although he has these states, namely the faculty of faith, the faculty of energy, the faculty of mindfulness, the faculty of concentration, the faculty of wisdom. This, monks, is called the person who is striving for dhamma. I, monks, say of this monk that there is something to be done through diligence….
And which, monks, is the person who is striving for faith? As to this, monks, some person is abiding without having apprehended with the person those peaceful Deliverances which are having transcended material shapes; yet, having seen by means of wisdom his cankers are not utterly destroyed; but if he has enough faith in the Tathagatha, enough regard, then he will have these things, that is to say, the faculty of faith, the faculty of energy, the faculty of mindfulness, the faculty of concentration, the faculty of wisdom. This, monks, is called the person who is striving after faith. I, monks, say of this monk that there is something to be done through diligence….
(MN 70 “Kitagirisutta”, tr. PTS 478-480 pp 151-154)