No. While Dmytro is to be commended for his efforts here, what is obvious in the responses counter to his position is that sati, all by itself, is a richly nuanced word and "remembrance" by itself, without significant qualifications or allowances of its nuances, does not cover it for sati. If you read through this thread, which is not too long that it cannot be easily done, you can see that, especially, ironically enough, with some of the references Dmytro quotes, such as Gethin and Jakes, and such quotes as: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=4299&start=20#p205438polarbuddha101 wrote:tiltbillings wrote:But, alas, "remembering" just does not really adequately cover the whole of sati as it is actually used in the text, unless one is willing to start to broaden the meaning of "remembering" to give it the qualities of sati as found in the suttas.
Would you agree that remembrance combined with clear awareness covers the whole meaning of sati as found in the texts?
And a few more point raised above:
Much of what you are asking here, as the links show, has already been dealt with in this thread.Basically, what are the factors of sati as found in the suttas according to you? Because I think that what you consider to be sati I consider to be sati and sampajanna and that this may in fact be the only difference but I could be wrong so please elaborate if you would.