I pictured cartoon whales exploding when they put their fins on a Vipassana flyer.PeterB wrote:Wales just bursts with hands on courses in Vipassana.
Language is interesting.
I pictured cartoon whales exploding when they put their fins on a Vipassana flyer.PeterB wrote:Wales just bursts with hands on courses in Vipassana.
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.danieLion wrote: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."manasikara wrote: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.
Blame it on TNH!
DL
Yes, and Nibanna...chownah wrote:dhamma follower,dhamma follower wrote:If sati is not aware of body, feelings, mind, and mind objects, what else it is aware of?
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
Seems likely.dhamma follower wrote: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.
MN 8 wrote:Others will have wrong mindfulness; we shall have right mindfulness here — thus effacement can be done.
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.dhamma follower wrote:Yes, and Nibanna...chownah wrote:dhamma follower,dhamma follower wrote:If sati is not aware of body, feelings, mind, and mind objects, what else it is aware of?
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
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,