Hi Retro,
I can see why you are uncomfortable with Soma Thera's suggestions. It does seem like he is absolutizing the the satipatthana somewhat, cleaving what is really a multi-faceted practice into self-contained units. But, for the sake of argument, I'd suggest that we can nevertheless interpret his suggestions more openly. Again, I will rely on Bhikkhu Analayo's readings.
In your earlier post, you mentioned that you are primarily taking issue with how Soma Thera insist that one starts with whatever matches one's disposition. You gave three reasons why you didn't agree with him:
retrofuturist wrote:1.) the earlier steps help sharpen the mind for the later steps
I certainly think that one needs to sharpen the mind before one can gain any deep insight. But I don't think that one needs to follow the sequence delineated in the sutta in order to sharpen the mind. As Analayo suggests with the figure of the cones, each satipatthana is capable of cultivating the same four qualities [I'll use the English terms rather than Pali] of 'diligence', 'clear knowing', 'mindfulness' and 'equanimity'. The aim of any one of the satipatthana is too lead one to the insights mention in the 'refrain' of the sutta (the bit that is repeated after each satipatthana): 'internal & external', 'arising & passing', 'knowledge & awareness', 'independent & detached'.
retrofuturist wrote:2.) Each step reveals more penetrative insight than the last
To the extent the Analayo's argument mentioned above is valid, we cannot then really say that each step leads to more penetrative insight than the last. Other than having different objects of contemplation, each satipatthana requires the same qualities and is directed towards the same insights. Analayo does concede that,
'The contemplations in the Satipatthana Sutta progress from gross to subtle aspects of experience.' But he also mentions,
'It should be kept in mind, however, that that this discourse represents a theoretical model of satipatthana, not a case study. In actual practice, the different contemplation described in the discourse can be combined in a variety of ways and it would be a misunderstanding to take the progression in the discourse as prescribing the only possible sequence for the development of satipatthana.'
retrofuturist wrote:3) I don't think the Buddha was offering them up as a platter of options, rather a cohesive program.
In light of the previous two responses, I would have to disagree with you on this point. I agree that we should be careful about treating the satipatthanas as a platter of options where we are free to 'mix-n-match'. But I think to treat as a cohesive program is to risk tying it down too tightly. Again, I find Analayo's diagram of the flower instructive. He suggested that,
'From awareness of the main object of meditation, the dynamics of contemplation can at any given moment lead to any of the other satipatthana exercises, and then revert to the main object.' This reading suggests that one does indeed need to proceed systematically by starting with one of the satipatthana--so we cannot accurately say that it is a 'platter of options.' But because the contemplation can give rise at any moment to any other satipatthana exercises, the systematic approach only applies to a
certain extent, that is,
the 'system' is really an open and porous one--so we cannot accurately say that is a 'cohesive program' either.