Satipatthana: instructions for Vipassana?

[alan]

I would not recommend Analyo's book to anyone who still has basic questions about the purpose of concentration and its relevance in any meditative practice.

[ground]

As far as I know, satipatthana cover nama-rupa

Unless you were talking of Nibbana...

That is true, the four foundations of satipatthana cover nama-rupa. But how is nama-rupa "covered"? By means of what is called "sati". And that term has different meaning aspects even in the context of satipatthana.

sati is a cetasika, so it is part of satipatthana as well.

right "a cetasika" but 1st "cetasika" is just another term and 2nd "a cetasika" may imply "one specific particular" which is not the case considering the different meanings the term "sati" may have and does have even in the context of satipatthana (as shown by B. Analayo).


Kind regards

[dhamma follower]

We are back again to my first question. what is sati aware of apart from satipatthana?

you mentioned awareness of the choosen object, and later defined it as sati.

sati is a cetasika, so it is part of satipatthana as well.

Regards,

I suggest you read B. Analayos book. He lists various meanings the term "sati" has in the suttas and comments on the relevance of these meanings in the context of satipatthana.

When we here are speaking about "sati" we may have very different meaning aspects in our minds and thus we may be talking at cross purposes.

I have been referring to "sati" as monitoring faculty in the context of concentration or attainment of samadhi.


Kind regards

I have read the book some time ago, still I fail to see how it makes your point bellow:

I see. My thought was that sati that leads to sammasamadhi cannot be other than samma but is not necessarily satipatthana.

you seem to have stated here that there are other objects of sati than satipatthana or there exists another kind of sati altogether that can also be samma sati.

It is very strange.

regards,
-

[chownah]

If sati is not aware of body, feelings, mind, and mind objects, what else it is aware of?

dhamma follower,
Seems like there might be a misunderstanding here about the meaning of this question. Are you meaning that whatever object is taken for sati that object must be from one of the four categories namely body, feelings, mind, or mind objects?.....or.....are you saying that sati can only contemplate body in and of itself, feelings in and of itself, mind in and of itself, or mind objects in and of itself?

Example: If you are meaning that all objects of sati come from one of the four categories then for instance I could take the thought of an apple as the object of sati and it would be represented as a mind object. If you are meaning that sati only contemplates body in and of itself, or feelings in and of itself, or mind in and of itself, or mind objects in and of itself then sati could not contemplate an apple because it is not any of these four in and of themselves.

Put another way....are you saying that sati can only take the concept of "mind object" as an object or are you saying that sati can take any particular instance of a mind object as its object?....similarly for "body", "feelings", and "mind".
chownah

[ground]

I have read the book some time ago, still I fail to see how it makes your point bellow:

I see. My thought was that sati that leads to sammasamadhi cannot be other than samma but is not necessarily satipatthana.

you seem to have stated here that there are other objects of sati than satipatthana or there exists another kind of sati altogether that can also be samma sati.

It is very strange.

regards,
-

Don't get upset about a thought of mine. What I wanted to express is that sati (other than that in satipatthana) that entails sammasamadhi in the context of the path is "good" or "right". I did not want to negate the conventional definition of the "registered" term "samma sati" given in the suttas.
your "other objects of sati than satipatthana" does not appear to be precise since satipatthana not only refers to objects but also refers to a method of how to deal with these objects.


Kind regards

[Jack]

Hi
sammasati (i.e the 4 satipatthana)

What's the use of just discovering the 1st truth other than to stir motivation to get out of there? The satipatthanas cover all 4 truth.

I think the 1st Noble Truth involves both noticing dukkha in one's life and learning to relate to this dukkha in a skillful way. That is, being with it without filters, not turning away and not defining one's "self" by it. Just in itself I think the 1st NT is a valuable teaching.

jack

[manas]

I will invite the pundits to explain this further, as I'm not very scholarly and am still a beginner in the Buddha's teaching, but I think we really need to stop translating sati as 'mindfulness' altogether, and just refer to it as 'recollection' or 'remembrance' which I've read is a more accurate description. I'm sorry I don't have the energy to hunt down where I read it.

As far as 'knowing' or 'perceiving' the breath goes, 'pajanati' which would appear to derive from 'sampajanna' seems to refer to this...maybe the 'knowing' or awareness itself is sampajanna ('clear comprehension?), and the quality of recollection, of remembering where you are and what you are doing, is sati...? sati and sampajanna work together, but they have distinct funtions, yes?

I invite some clarification here...but I think that the way we translate these terms, as Enlish speakers, influences how we understand them, and our practice, for better or for worse.

[ancientbuddhism]

I will invite the pundits to explain this further, as I'm not very scholarly and am still a beginner in the Buddha's teaching, but I think we really need to stop translating sati as 'mindfulness' altogether, and just refer to it as 'recollection' or 'remembrance' which I've read is a more accurate description. I'm sorry I don't have the energy to hunt down where I read it.

As far as 'knowing' or 'perceiving' the breath goes, 'pajanati' which would appear to derive from 'sampajanna' seems to refer to this...maybe the 'knowing' or awareness itself is sampajanna ('clear comprehension?), and the quality of recollection, of remembering where you are and what you are doing, is sati...? sati and sampajanna work together, but they have distinct funtions, yes?

I invite some clarification here...but I think that the way we translate these terms, as Enlish speakers, influences how we understand them, and our practice, for better or for worse.

In Ānāpānasati/Satipaṭṭhāna work, sati is part of the reflexive determination to stay on-task with the object of contemplation. We find this in the Ānāpānasati Sutta where in the setting up of practice the practitioner is advised to keep mindfulness set forward while mindfully breathing in and out (parimukhaṃ satiṃ upaṭṭhapetvā so satova assasati, sato passasati). We find a strengthening of this definition of sati in the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta where the task of sati is connected with ātāpa (ardour or intense endeavor) and sampajāna (clear-knowing). Here sati and ātāpa keeps one on-task with the object of contemplation, and sampajāna (clear-knowing, which is a further refinement of direct-knowing in pajānāti) examines everything rising and falling with that object with passive examination as we read in the refrain of insight of this sutta:

"Thus he lives contemplating the body in the body internally, or he lives contemplating the body in the body externally, or he lives contemplating the body in the body internally and externally. He lives contemplating origination-things in the body, or he lives contemplating dissolution-things in the body, or he lives contemplating origination-and-dissolution-things in the body. Or indeed his mindfulness is established with the thought: 'The body exists,' to the extent necessary just for knowledge and remembrance, and he lives independent and clings to naught in the world."

...as examination of the satipaṭṭhānas' progress.

[danieLion]

I will invite the pundits to explain this further, as I'm not very scholarly and am still a beginner in the Buddha's teaching, but I think we really need to stop translating sati as 'mindfulness' altogether, and just refer to it as 'recollection' or 'remembrance' which I've read is a more accurate description. I'm sorry I don't have the energy to hunt down where I read it.

Sounds like something Thanissaro Bhikkhu wrote, and Gombrich bemoans "mindfulness" for sati as ridiculous in a footnote in What the Buddha Taught. I prefer "awareness" to "mindfulness."

Blame it on TNH!
DL

[PeterB]

Wales just bursts with hands on courses in Vipassana.

[daverupa]

Wales just bursts with hands on courses in Vipassana.

I pictured cartoon whales exploding when they put their fins on a Vipassana flyer.



Language is interesting.

[ancientbuddhism]

I will invite the pundits to explain this further, as I'm not very scholarly and am still a beginner in the Buddha's teaching, but I think we really need to stop translating sati as 'mindfulness' altogether, and just refer to it as 'recollection' or 'remembrance' which I've read is a more accurate description. I'm sorry I don't have the energy to hunt down where I read it.

Sounds like something Thanissaro Bhikkhu wrote, and Gombrich bemoans "mindfulness" for sati as ridiculous in a footnote in What the Buddha Taught. I prefer "awareness" to "mindfulness."

Blame it on TNH!
DL

I think the problem lies not so much in a tit for tat on whether mindfulness, awareness or recollection is the better fit for sati, but rather to look at how the contemplative dynamic utilizes sati and sampajāna to develop contemplative knowledge. These terms represent a broader context than a word for word translation will communicate.

Part of the cause of these misunderstandings is the source of information one places their trust in. I often meet so-called vipassanā practitioners, who even after years of effort still think ‘mindfulness’ is in itself vipassanā, or are otherwise generally ignorant of the tenets of Dhamma, all under the guidance of 'certified' teachers.

[dhamma follower]

If sati is not aware of body, feelings, mind, and mind objects, what else it is aware of?

dhamma follower,
Seems like there might be a misunderstanding here about the meaning of this question. Are you meaning that whatever object is taken for sati that object must be from one of the four categories namely body, feelings, mind, or mind objects?
chownah

Yes, and Nibanna...

This question was asked in the context someone seemed to be saying that there can be other objects for sati than the objects implied in satipatthana.

Regards,

[daverupa]

This question was asked in the context someone seemed to be saying that there can be other objects for sati than the objects implied in satipatthana.

Seems likely.

Others will have wrong mindfulness; we shall have right mindfulness here — thus effacement can be done.

[ground]

If sati is not aware of body, feelings, mind, and mind objects, what else it is aware of?

dhamma follower,
Seems like there might be a misunderstanding here about the meaning of this question. Are you meaning that whatever object is taken for sati that object must be from one of the four categories namely body, feelings, mind, or mind objects?
chownah

Yes, and Nibanna...

This question was asked in the context someone seemed to be saying that there can be other objects for sati than the objects implied in satipatthana.

Regards,

There cannot be other objects than those dependently arising in the sphere of the All but the method of how to approach these is not necessarily that of satipatthana even in the context of applying sati to attain samma samadhi. Therefore to equate the term "sati" which has a variety of meanings with the term "satipatthana" is baseless.
That samadhi is only called "samma samadhi" in the context of one who has the understanding arising from satipatthana is another and a different aspect.


Kind regards