Ñāṇa wrote:Dukkhanirodha wrote:
sati: the term has two meanings which, although apparently opposed are actually related:
1) awareness, attention, mindfulness, fact of being clearly conscious/ vigilant. It is one of the seven bojjhaṅgas, said to be the most important because the other six are to be developed along with it. The standard defintion of sammā-sati, given for example at SN 45.8, actually consists of the description of the four satipaṭṭhānas. Sati is one of the five spiritual indriyas and the five balas. Sati as one of the five balas is defined at AN 5.14.
2) memory, recollection. This aspect of sati is actually also covered by the definition given at AN 5.14.
These two meanings are related in the sense that an awareness supported by the collectedness of concentration is a necessary condition to get proper perception and understanding of what is happening in the present moment, which enables an easy recollection at a later time of what precisely was happening, of what was said, what was done at a prior moment, even a long time before.
http://www.suttapitaka.net/glossary.html#sati" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ñāṇa wrote:This is a good example of the now rather common conflation of sati and sampajañña.
Sorry but there is no basis for this assertion of yours.
Of course there is. Both according to the Vibhaṅga as well as SN 47.35. Sati is not synonymous with sampajañña and sampajañña is not synonymous with sati.
ok, I misunderstood your statement. So, yes there is conflation of sati and sampajañña. And this comes from the suttas. I have tried to find a definition of sampajañña which would be independant from the one of sati, but I came up with the conclusion that sampajañña is nearly always associated with sati. I don't see anything wrong here, nor anything worthy to be discussed about.
Ñāṇa wrote:
Dukkhanirodha wrote:1) You are not to-the-point. We are not discussing the meaning of these three words, only the meaning of sati
All the Pāli sources I've provided give the meaning of sati.
Whatever. My point was that I was discussing a very precise question and you came with all that material which was only partly relevant to the discussion, hence my statement. Again, nothing worthy of being discussed here.
Ñāṇa wrote:
Dukkhanirodha wrote:2) Apparently you did not understand what Dmytro meant in his sentence 'The "observing" (anupassana) in the satipatthana definition relates to sampajanna, and not to sati', because it refers to earlier messages you are not bearing in mind.
I did understand, and already provided a link to a bilingual version of the
Satipaṭṭhānavibhaṅga in an earlier post. I was hopeful that you would take it upon yourself to do some leg work and study these ancient Pāli source materials.
ok, I was wrong in this point #2, and I apologize. I also admit that I don't have the time to read all the posts, so I am also partly participating to the attitude I was just condemning (I don't slip in the conversation of others though). But at the same time, it may be considered polite to make the effort of providing proper links in each of your statements.
Ñāṇa wrote:
Dukkhanirodha wrote:4) If I take the definition of sati as given in the english translation of the Vibhanga you provided, it seems that I agree with it, since it defines it as meaning both recollection (of the past, apparently) and mindfulness (of the present, apparently). So there is no point in your trying to be "against" what I am saying here.
5) similarly, I agree with the points you make in your other quotations, where sati means either recollection or mindfulness. Which makes me wonder if you are really trying to demonstrate anything.
Your failure to appreciate the subtleties of what is under discussion is your issue and no one else's.
This attack is baseless. I said: 'If I take the definition of sati as
given in the english translation of the Vibhanga you provided,
it seems that I agree with it'. So my "failure" to appreciate the subtleties of the discussion was due to the fact that I didn't have the original text at my disposal and no time to look for it, and I had already expressed the probability of this eventuality. Anyway, we are getting personal here and drifting far away from the subject.
Ñāṇa wrote:
Dukkhanirodha wrote:Ñāṇa wrote:When we see this level of accord among the suttas, the canonical abhidhamma texts, and the early para-canonical treatises, then there is no reason to dismiss what they are saying. Rather, it's incumbent upon us to reassess our own opinions on the matter.
Irrelevant.
Actually, it's quite relevant whether you acknowledge its relevance or not. The Pāli Tipiṭaka is a better and more authoritative source than your opinions.
[/quote]
ok, then please explain me in which way the definition of sati I quoted above :
sati: the term has two meanings which, although apparently opposed are actually related:
1) awareness, attention, mindfulness, fact of being clearly conscious/ vigilant. It is one of the seven bojjhaṅgas, said to be the most important because the other six are to be developed along with it. The standard defintion of sammā-sati, given for example at SN 45.8, actually consists of the description of the four satipaṭṭhānas. Sati is one of the five spiritual indriyas and the five balas. Sati as one of the five balas is defined at AN 5.14.
2) memory, recollection. This aspect of sati is actually also covered by the definition given at AN 5.14.
These two meanings are related in the sense that an awareness supported by the collectedness of concentration is a necessary condition to get proper perception and understanding of what is happening in the present moment, which enables an easy recollection at a later time of what precisely was happening, of what was said, what was done at a prior moment, even a long time before.
is in contradiction with any of your quotations, and how your "being against" what I am saying makes any sense.