Cintita on sati

[Sam Vara]

Bhikkhu Cintita has produced a really clear account of "mindfulness" and what's gone wrong with the definitions, and more importantly, why:

https://bhikkhucintita.wordpress.com/20 ... islabeled/

It's part of his general series on Satipatthana.

[nirodh27]

Thanks for sharing, this reconstruction have a lot of merit I think.

This reminds me of the discussion between Bryan Levman and Analayo about the meaning that sati have gained and how it is important to put back remembrance/keeping in mind/memory in the understanding of the word when we read the suttas.

Putting smṛti back into sati (Putting remembrance back into mindfulness)
Bryan Levman

Abstract

The word sati today is usually translated as “mindfulness”, despite the fact that it is derived from the Old Indic word smṛti meaning “remembrance”, “memory”, and “tradition”. Some scholars even distinguish between the two words as different in meaning, suggesting that sati usually refers to present awareness in the Pali scriptures, not to the past, as the word smṛti does. Since the Buddha was familiar with the Brahmanical teachings, including the six Vedāṅgas (linguistic analysis, etymology, etc.) which are part of the smṛti tradition, it is unlikely that he would have used the vernacular form of the word (sati) in a way inconsistent with its heritage. This article argues that the word sati incorporates the meaning of “memory” and “remembrance” in much of its usage in both the suttas and the commentary, and suggests that without the memory component, the notion of mindfulness cannot be properly understood or applied, as mindfulness requires memory for its effectiveness. Although sati is a polysemous word whose semantic field extends beyond mere memory (with overtones of mindfulness, wisdom, awareness, restraint, equanimity, etc.), the notion of memory is central to the denotative and connotative core of the word.

Nyanaponika (I remember that I've partly translated and summarized/syntetized one of his books in italian - edit: to study it and for friends) and the Burmese method really influenced the understanding of mindfulness in the west and the word is lost, the Vipassana practice also called Mindfulness meditation (I should make more distinctions here, but I think that is clear enough) has his uses and benefits, but it had relinquished the word (which would actually be the perfect word) and will continue to relinquish it for a long time. Remembrance and retention (90% of the time refers to the teachings or the allure,danger,escape) are the words that I think that are mostly good to describe Sati as used in the suttas.

This is Nyanaponika (which I've read somewhere that he influenced Analayo):

Therefore, Right Mindfulness starts at the beginning. In employing the method of Bare Attention, it goes back to the seed state of things. Applied to the activity of mind this means: observation reverts to the very first phase of the process of perception when mind is in a purely receptive state.

Bare attention consists in a bare and exact registering of the object. This is not as easy a task as it may appear, since it is not what we normally do, except when engaged in disinterested investigation. Normally man is not concerned with a disinterested knowledge of ‘things as they truly are’, but with ‘handling’ and judging them from the viewpoint of his self-interest, which may be wide or narrow, noble or low. He tacks labels to the things which form his physical and mental universe, and these labels mostly show clearly the impress of his self-interest and his limited vision. It is such an assemblage of labels in which he generally lives and which determines his actions and reactions.

In that condition, i.e. closely intertwined with subjective additions, the perception will sink into the store-house of memory. When recalled, by associative thinking, it will exert its distorting influence also on future perceptions of similar objects, as well as on the judgements, decisions, moods, etc., connected with them.
It is the task of Bare Attention to eliminate all those alien additions from the object proper that is then in the field of perception.

[mikenz66]

Bhikkhu Cintita has produced a really clear account of "mindfulness" and what's gone wrong with the definitions, ...

Thanks Sam Vara. Bhikkhu Cintita writes a lot of good stuff...

However, I think some of these discussions would require a little context:

... the Mahāsi method is based on the student’s own experience prior to theoretical explanation, convenient for the yogi who has little time for study, but contrary to tradition.

This may well be true when transplanted to western converts in secular settings, but I don't think it's accurate in the context that the various Burmese lay retreats were developed, where the students would already have a grounding in the Dhamma. And it certainly didn't apply in the context that I met these techniques (a local monastery).

There seems to be an impliation that if a retreat doens't have formal teaching it's not proper Dhamma practice. I'm skeptical of this, since my formative experience was retreats with no formal talks - just a chat with one of the monks after the evening chanting. My study was separate from retreats. Formal teachings on a retreat are, in my view, optional (and sometimes distracting). Interaction with someone who really knows their stuff is the key indispensible ingredient. And this brings up a deeper issue - that interaction can go off in all sorts of directions, with suggestions based on what the student is experiencing. So it's not straightforward to pin down a "technique", "approach", or "teaching" in such circumstances. I suspect that's why many commentators struggle to define such things. This, of course, is not a problem unique to Burmese approaches - trying to define an "Ajahn Chah Approach" is equally fraught with difficulty.

It's much easier to define such things for retreats with formal teaching structures, such as Goenka retreats, or typical western "insight" retreats.


Mike

[Sam Vara]

Bhikkhu Cintita has produced a really clear account of "mindfulness" and what's gone wrong with the definitions, ...

...

Thanks Mike, that's a useful correction.

[mikenz66]

Thanks Mike, that's a useful correction.

Ha, it's not my place to "correct" Ven Cintita, as I think he actually does acknowlege the difference between the the Burmese (and other) teachers and the definition of modern secular vipassana, for which Bhikkhu Cintita quotes Alan Wallace writing to Bhikkhu Bodhi:

“As you well know, in the current Vipassanā tradition as it has been widely propagated in the West, sati is more or less defined as ‘bare attention,’ or the moment-to-moment, nonjudgmental awareness of whatever arises in the present moment.

And, in his own words:

The disconnect is also appreciated in noting that “mindfulness” is consistently represented as passive or receptive, whereas sati is actively involved as a conditioning factor in the successful performance of particular tasks.

Ven Cintita would, presumably, appreciate Ven U Pandita's transcribed talks from a retreat at IMS in the early 80s :

Sati, mindfulness, is the first factor of enlightenment. “Mindfulness” has come to be the accepted translation of sati into English. However, this word has a kind of passive connotation which can be misleading. “Mindfulness” must be dynamic and confrontative. ...
http://aimwell.org/inthisverylife.html#Mindfulness

Ven U Pandita's exposition draws on Abhidhamma and Commentaries, so it may certainly be possible for some to disagree with his definitions. However, to imply that the Burmese teachers (and all modern teachers) would be satisfied with "moment-to-moment, nonjudgmental awareness of whatever arises in the present moment" would be laughably inaccurate. Ven U Pandita goes on to say:

... The kilesas cannot infiltrate this strong barrier of mindfulness. If mindfulness can be maintained for a significant period of time, the yogi can discover a great purity of mind because of the absence of kilesas. Protection from attack by the kilesas is a second aspect of the manifestation of mindfulness. When mindfulness is persistently and repeatedly activated, wisdom arises. There will be insight into the true nature of body and mind. Not only does the yogi realize the true experiential sensations of the rise and fall, but she or he also comprehends the individual characteristics of the various physical and mental phenomena happening inside herself or himself. ...

I'd also note that, in my understanding, Vens Mahasi, U Pandita, etc see sati as an enlightenment factor that (like samadhi, etc) arises from practice, not something that one just chooses to do. I suspect that is one of the important disconnects with the secular vipassana approach, where one is supposed to just magically "be mindful".


Mike

[robertk]

Bhikkhu Cintita has produced a really clear account of "mindfulness" and what's gone wrong with the definitions, and more importantly, why:

https://bhikkhucintita.wordpress.com/20 ... islabeled/

It's part of his general series on Satipatthana.

Thanks. As you can maybe guess I agree with a great deal of what he wrote

However I also disagree with some of what he wrote
For example his translation of sati as proficiency is not particularly helpful IMHO.
He is talking about sati mostly in relation to the 8 factored path.
Remember that only Samma-ditthi (right view) and Samma-sankappa (right thought) are classified under the wisdom section, and that sati, samadhi and viriya (energy) are in the concentration section.
Overall I prefer the old translations of 'awareness' and 'mindfulness' for sati. Even though I believe what many people call mindfulness and awareness is not actually the factor of samma-sati.

Also saññā, not a factor of the path, but still arising with those factors has the function of marking/remembering.

Nina van Gorkom writes with some information (that might supplement some of the quotes ven. Cintita included in his article) with regard to sanna and sati.
https://abhidhamma.org/wp-content/uploa ... dhamma.pdf
In Alone with Dhamma, Ch 2, no 6

Saññå which remembers the Dhamma is different from saññå which arises when
thinking of concepts. On account of what is seen we think with attachment
about events, people and things and are quite taken in by our thoughts.
However, gradually saññå can remember what we heard when listening to
Dhamma. Saññå arises with intellectual understanding of the Dhamma, it
remembers the terms and their meanings and when there is mindfulness saññå
can also remember characteristics of realities. Saññå which remembers the
Dhamma will be firmer so that it will become a proximate cause of
satipatthåna.

We read in the Expositor (I, Part IV, Chapter 1, 122) about mindfulness:
³... Mindfulness has "not floating away" as its characteristic,
unforgetfulness as its function, guarding, or the state of facing the
object, as its manifestation, firm remembrance (saññå) or application in
mindfulness as regards the body, etc., as proximate cause. It should be
regarded as a door-post from being firmly established in the object, and as
a door-keeper from guarding the door of the senses.²

I had read this text before but I had not yet considered all implications of
saññå¹s role. Considering the function of saññå helps us to understand why
listening to the Dhamma is most important. Saññå performs its function when
we listen to the Dhamma or read Suttas. If we are not passive listeners but
also understand what we hear or read, we shall not be forgetful. Saññå can
become a firm foundation for the arising of direct awareness of the dhammas
that appear. Another word for awareness is non-forgetfulness. We are often
forgetful of nåma and rúpa, but since we have listened and considered the
Dhamma there are conditions for remembrance of the Dhamma and this supports
sati.
It seems to us that dhammas last, at least for some time. We think of our
body as a whole that exists because of saññå that remembers it. In reality
there are rúpas arising and falling away all the time. When hardness appears
it seems to last, but in reality it falls away immediately and never
returns. We keep on remembering the hardness that has fallen away, but very
gradually, when paññå has been developed, there can be remembrance of
impermanence, aniccå saññå instead of remembrance of permanence, niccå
saññå. The clinging to the concept of self is so deeply rooted, but when
paññå has been developed to the stage of enlightenment of the sotåpanna,
there will be anattå saññå instead of attå saññå.

[sunnat]

A couple of Sutta stories to keep in mind are the instructions to the Kalamas and the one about the blind men and the elephant.

By direct experience each blind man could say what an elephant is like. Like a tree trunk, like a hose, like a brush, depending on which part they grasped. The silliness was that they then argued and fought amongst themselves. The failure is to see the whole elephant and recognise that each one was right.

Likewise, each is right here.

Depending on where one is on one’s path at times it is like this then at times it is like that. It’s never always only one or the other. The folly is to think otherwise.

There is the uninstructed, ignorant of that which can be known through insight meditation.

If fortunate, one day the Truth is heard and proper mindfulness is had. That moment, however short, is precious. Wholesome kamma is made so that at some future moment when the conditions are right the wholesome kamma resultant arises. Depending on conditions, that moment allows for the making of more wholesome kamma.

In this way it is not a choice but an inclination as to whether or not further wholesome kammas are made. The resultants are what some call memory with the mistaken notion that there is a person who chooses or wills the arising.

However, it is important that the instructions are repeated and reaffirmed, often with the application of concentration, again and again, in order to successfully go against the mundane stream until the new habit of mindfulness starts to dominate. It’s good to start relaxing into that mindfulness. Becoming less and less the doer and more the bare awareness.