Dukkhanirodha wrote:Can you explain then how it would make sense that the ability to recollect the past would be developped by observing the reality of the body and mind in the present moment, otherwise than by the way explained in the twofold definition I gave above (see immediately previous post)?
Sati (remembrance) means either recollection of past events, or remembrance in the present. In the context of Satipatthana, it's remembrance in the present.
and can you explain how then you understand "remembrance in the present" as being fundamentally different from "awareness in the present"?
Dukkhanirodha wrote:and that your views are in contradiction with those of at least two of the greatest meditation teachers we have today: Pa Auk Sayadaw and SN Goenka (for the latter I can easily provide the proof).
I would appreciate if you would provide the definition of 'sati' by Ven. Pa Auk Sayadaw and S N Goenka.
There are certain passages in the Buddha’s discourses where sati has the meaning of "memory." (Dīgha-nikāya: VRI I. 411; II. 374; PTS I. 180; II. 292). This is especially true when he refers to the special ability of remembering past lives which is developed by means of the practice of the jhānas (deep absorption concentration). But in the context of Satipaṭṭhāna, the practice of Vipassana, leading not to the jhānas but to purification of mind, sati can only be understood to mean awareness of the present moment rather than a memory of the past (or a dream of the future).
For Pa Auk there is probably no particular definition given by him. As stated above, he uses the word "mindfulness" to translate sati in the context of meditation practice and that seems to be good enough for him.
Dukkhanirodha wrote:I also bring under your attention that you have still not provided a satisfactory response to the contextual analysis I proposed.
This answer looks very much like an attempt to drown the fish. (...)
I consider my answer highly relevant and reliable, since it comes from the Theravada tradition itself.
It seems you grant a lot of credit to the late Theravada tradition. I don't see any valid ground for this. Rather, the only thing I consider as highly relevant and reliable is right practice with aroused effort for a long time.
Canki sutta (MN 95) wrote:'something may be fully accepted by oral tradition, and yet it may be empty, hollow, and false'
Sandaka Sutta (MN 76) wrote:when 'some teacher is a traditionalist, one who regards oral tradition as truth, he teaches a Dhamma by oral tradition, by legends handed down, by what has come down in scriptures, but when a teacher is a traditionalist, one who regards oral tradition as truth, some is well remembered and some is wrongly remembered, some is true and some is otherwise'.
Dmytro wrote:If you will provide a precise explanation of this passage from the suttas themselves, I will appreciate it.
I have already provided it to you quite some time ago. viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10583&start=20#p161171
litterally I understand 'parimukhaṃ satiṃ upaṭṭhapetvā' as 'setting the presence of the mind at the moustache area'
and I repeat again: you are not able to provide a proper translation of 'parimukhaṃ satiṃ upaṭṭhapetvā' since it would look like:
'setting the recollection/remembrance at the moustache area'
Dukkhanirodha wrote:All sixteen talks had been prepared in English, and then read in English by the Sayadaw
So I am afraid you are forced to admit that it happens that you are wrong
I admit that I have mistaken, in that the talks were prepared in English.
Nevertheless, the usage of the term 'mindfulness' is strongly dictated by the Western Buddhist traditions. Very few people dared to use different term for 'sati'. So the usage of the term 'mindfulness' proves very little.
I think i will stop trying to argue with you because you openly refuse to admit the evidence, which reveals your lack of intellectual honesty. Pa Auk sayadaw does accept mindfulness as a valid translation of sati into english, workable in the context of the practice. It proves that your views are in contradiction with those of the greatest meditation teachers, and that the interpretation of sati as "mindfulness" is backed-up by them.
This is not a playground for anyone to show off their erudition. We are discussing the precious teaching we got from 2600 back in time and we have to be very careful about each of our declarations since there is a danger to mislead the readers of our posts.