Meanings of sati undebunkable once and for all

[beeblebrox]

Here it is very clear that samma-sati is a presence of the mind applied to what happens in the present moment in body, feeling, mind and mental phenomena.

How do you keep this from falling into eternalism? As far as I can see, the Buddha never framed it in this way.

[tiltbillings]

Here it is very clear that samma-sati is a presence of the mind applied to what happens in the present moment in body, feeling, mind and mental phenomena.

How do you keep this from falling into eternalism? As far as I can see, the Buddha never framed it in this way.

Ud 1.10 PTS: Ud 6
Bahiya Sutta: About Bahiya
translated from the Pali by
John D. Ireland
© 1998–2009
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .irel.html

[b] …

"Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.

"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."

[beeblebrox]

Exactly, Tiltbillings... there is nothing about the "present moment." It wasn't framed it in that way.

[tiltbillings]

Exactly, Tiltbillings... there is nothing about the "present moment." It wasn't framed it in that way.

You might be reading more into "present moment" than is intended.

[daverupa]

In my understanding you are being mislead by the posts of Nana and Dmytro and the quotations of late dubious litterature they contain.

Well, of the five sources Ñāṇa cited earlier, one was a dictionary, one was from the abhidhammapiṭaka, and three were from the Saṃyutta Nikāya. Do you consider the Saṃyutta Nikāya late and dubious?

(I actually somewhat disagree with how the Satipaṭṭhānavibhaṅga defines sampajāna in this context, preferring to use other Saṃyutta Nikāya passages such as:

And how, O monks, is a monk clearly comprehending? He applies clear comprehension in going forward and going back; in looking straight on and in looking elsewhere; in bending and in stretching (his limbs); in wearing the robes and carrying the alms bowl; in eating, drinking, chewing and savoring; in obeying the calls of nature; in walking, standing sitting, falling asleep, waking, speaking and being silent — in all that he applies clear comprehension. So, monks, is a monk clearly comprehending.

In any event, it seems to me that the Saṃyutta altogether disagrees with your strenuous attempts at ossifying a bifurcation of these aspects of sati.)

Whichever way you understand sati intellectually I suggest you set it aside and you focus only on the practice of anapanassati intensively for a long time. Then all your doubts will fade away, and that's the only way.

And how long have I been practicing ānāpānasati? Encompassing my mind with your mind, are you?

[beeblebrox]

Exactly, Tiltbillings... there is nothing about the "present moment." It wasn't framed it in that way.

You might be reading more into "present moment" than is intended.

Probably not... here are some quotations:

SN 22.95

Monks, suppose that a large glob of foam were floating down this Ganges River, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a glob of foam? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any form that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in form? [And so on for other aggregates... including the perception of past, future, and present.]

SN 22.79

"Thus an instructed disciple of the noble ones reflects in this way: 'I am now being chewed up by form. But in the past I was also chewed up by form in the same way I am now being chewed up by present form. And if I delight in future form, then in the future I will be chewed up by form in the same way I am now being chewed up by present form.' Having reflected in this way, he becomes indifferent to past form, does not delight in future form, and is practicing for the sake of disenchantment, dispassion, and cessation with regard to present form. [and so on for other aggregates...]

SN 22.48

The Blessed One said, "Now what, monks, are the five clinging-aggregates?

"Whatever form is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: That is called the form clinging-aggregate." [And so on for other aggregates...]

And this is a nice one:

Snp 4.10 - Purabheda Sutta

"Seeing how,
behaving how,
is one said to be
at peace?

Gotama, tell me about
— when asked about —
the ultimate person."

The Buddha:

"Free from craving
before the break-up
[of the body],
independent of before
& the end,
not classified in between,
no yearning is his.

Un- angered,
un- startled,
un- boastful,
un- anxious,
giving counsel unruffled,
he is a sage,
his speech under control.

Free from attachment with regard to the future,
not sorrowing over the past,
he sees seclusion in the midst of sensory contacts.
He can't be led in terms of views.

Withdrawn, un-
deceitful, not
stingy, not
miserly, not
insolent, in-
offensive,
he doesn't engage
in divisive speech.

Not intoxicated with enticements,
nor given to pride,
he's gentle, quick-witted,
beyond conviction & dispassion.

Not in hopes of material gain
does he take on the training;
when without material gain
he isn't upset.

Unobstructed by craving,
he doesn't through craving
hunger for flavors.

Equanimous — always — mindful,
he doesn't conceive himself as
equal,
superior,
inferior,
in the world.
No swellings of pride
are his.

Whose dependencies
don't exist when,
on knowing the Dhamma,
he's in-
dependent;
in whom no craving is found
for becoming or not-:
he is said
to be at peace,
un-intent
on sensual pleasures,
with nothing at all
to tie him down:
one who's crossed over attachment.

He has no children
cattle,
fields,
land.
In him you can't pin down
what's embraced
or rejected.
He has no yearning
for that which people run-of-the-mill
or priests & contemplatives
might blame —
which is why
he is unperturbed
with regard to their words.

His greed gone,
not miserly,
the sage
doesn't speak of himself
as among those who are higher,
equal,
or lower.
He, conjuring-free,
doesn't submit to conjuring,
to the cycling of time.

For whom
nothing in the world
is his own,
who doesn't grieve
over what is not,
who doesn't enter into
doctrines
phenomena:
he is said
to be at peace."

[tiltbillings]

Probably not... here are some quotations:

Let us back up a bit; what exactly do you think "present moment" means?

[beeblebrox]

It's more to do with the way Dukkhanirodha seems to think it means... as something that excludes remembrance. It has nothing to do with the way you or the vipassana masters view it. (I'll be without computer for a while.)

[Sekha]

"present moment" is not that important. It was to contrast with "recollection of the past"

I fully agree with B. Analayo's definition "presence of the mind".

I have to leave all the discussions behind to dedicate myself to the practice. So I won't be able to answer any critics any more

[Sekha]

I am just dropping the topic as I am about to get off the connected world.

I had the following thought regarding the reason why people want to interpret sati as 'remembrance':

At the initial stage of practice, the mind is constantly loosing the object and one has to remember as often as possible to refocus on the object. And the people who are not undertaking the gradual path (see here) properly can hardly move to any higher stage. So for those people, that is the only experience of meditation they have and since they interpret the instructions of the Buddha in reference to their own experience, they tend to mistake the effort to bring back the mind to the object for meaning sati.

But this is not even sati. It is just the prerequisite stage to be completed before being able to be endowed with sati. If they cleanded up their daily life from all the activities that stir up their agitation, as for example participating actively to this forum, if they practiced more seriously for longer perdiods of time and if they got their mind clean enough, they could experience the next stage. Of course, this is not easy and spending time here is not helping.

There comes a time when the mind notices that the object was lost within a second. Then, within a fraction of second. And eventually, the mind remains fixed on the object, so there is no need to 'remember' to refocus on it. Further there comes a stage where one is so much focused on the object, on the arising and passing of phenomena within the object, that the object becomes the only existing thing in the world, one forgets about meditation, forgets about being a human being, one forgets about anything that was heard or said before, only focused on the present phenomena within the object. This is what I take to mean absorption in the object. And no one can say that there is no more sati in this case. Sati is more present than ever.

So this explains why interpreting sati as 'remembrance' is not consistant with levels of practice higher than the initial stage, and this is why meditation teachers such as Goenka or Pa Auk interpret sati as "mindfulness" and not as 'remembrance' in the context of the practice. And those who do not practice properly are highly liable to misinterpret the instructions given in the suttas. If on top of that they try to spread their wrong views, they are misrepresenting the Buddha and his teaching, they harm themselves and all those who, having read them, take up their wrong views.

[Alex123]

There comes a time when the mind notices that the object was lost within a second. Then, within a fraction of second. And eventually, the mind remains fixed on the object, so there is no need to 'remember' to refocus on it.

One needs to remember to keep the mind fixed on subject of meditation and remember to bring it back when the mind wanders off. When the mind wondered off, it forgot what it should have remembered. So sati includes remembrance.