Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Generally speaking, the different collections of suttas that were compiled and redacted by the various early Buddhist sects are similar enough in content that in practical terms they are teaching the same dhamma, regardless of the differences in how the pericopes are arranged.

Here's Tse-fu Kuan's English translations of the Chinese versions of the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta and the Kāyagatāsati Sutta, and his endnotes for both suttas:

Ñāṇa wrote:Generally speaking, the different collections of suttas that were compiled and redacted by the various early Buddhist sects are similar enough in content that in practical terms they are teaching the same dhamma, regardless of the differences in how the pericopes are arranged.

Here's Tse-fu Kuan's English translations of the Chinese versions of the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta and the Kāyagatāsati Sutta, and his endnotes for both suttas...

Hi Kare,

Kare wrote:I am not drawing any conclusions. I am just puzzled by what has been written in this thread, since much of it seems to be based on ignorance of a basic aspect of the Suttas. I leave it to others to conclude.

I'd rather say that some things which were written in this thread are based on ignorance of Sujāto work. It's obvious for me that he was/is aware of the structure of the suttas. And it's obvious too that he's not suggesting that the bits which constitute Satipatthāna Sutta are inauthentic. What Sujāto was trying to do was to show presumably how and why this fragments were organized in this specific manner; how they then are interpreted; and lastly how it influences the idea of Buddhist meditation.

piotr wrote:What Sujāto was trying to do was to show presumably how and why these fragments were organized in this specific manner; how they then are interpreted; and lastly how it influences the idea of Buddhist meditation.

Hi piotr,
How do we know it wasn't the other way around: Buddhist meditation influencing the specific manner of organization and interpretation(s) of the fragments?
Best,
Daniel

I don't think the Satipatthana Sutta is a forgery, but it does seem to contain quite an assortment of different practices some of which may have been added later.

danieLion wrote:

piotr wrote:What Sujāto was trying to do was to show presumably how and why these fragments were organized in this specific manner; how they then are interpreted; and lastly how it influences the idea of Buddhist meditation.

Hi piotr,
How do we know it wasn't the other way around: Buddhist meditation influencing the specific manner of organization and interpretation(s) of the fragments?
Best,
Daniel

This is probably the case with kasina, formless attainments, body foulness, etc. Possibly even anapanasati. The renunciate culture was rife with methodology, a process which hasn't got clear stages so much as long, transitioning histories.

piotr wrote:Hi Kare,

Kare wrote:I am not drawing any conclusions. I am just puzzled by what has been written in this thread, since much of it seems to be based on ignorance of a basic aspect of the Suttas. I leave it to others to conclude.

I'd rather say that some things which were written in this thread are based on ignorance of Sujāto work. It's obvious for me that he was/is aware of the structure of the suttas. And it's obvious too that he's not suggesting that the bits which constitute Satipatthāna Sutta are inauthentic. What Sujāto was trying to do was to show presumably how and why this fragments were organized in this specific manner; how they then are interpreted; and lastly how it influences the idea of Buddhist meditation.

Hi piotr

I have to agree.

Ajahn Sujato's work is not easy to digest, and it is not easy for the non-specialist to actually appreciate the finer points of Textual Criticism that he makes.

To this end, an investment in Ven Analayo's Comparative Study of the MN may help clarify. His book explains the critical methodologies used (shared with Ajahn Sujato) in far greater clarity, even if the casual reader may be bored to tears by the details of the differences between the 2 camps of critical studies.

If there are those who find Ajahn Sujato's thoughts on the said suttas heretical, I think they will be even more shocked to see Ven Analayo's conclusions about these texts, given his PhD thesis earlier.

Regardless of the "academic" outcomes of his research, he still has great, great regard for the texts' utility.

The reason Ajahn Sujato concentrated on this sutta for this type of analysis is because it is particularly venerated, in Sri Lanka and Burma especially, and described by a range of authors as the main teaching of the Buddha. Therefore it carries considerable authority and influence. He also suggests that the construction of this sutta with its repeated vipassana refrain and added material, rather than being an inoccuous aide memoir, in fact ends up being misleading and misrepresents what mindfulness is all about. Agree or disagree it is a well reasoned argument.

I think you would need to read his thoughtful analysis before blithely dismissing it. There is, I think, a condensed version of the analysis - Sylvester do you know the link?

I also think it is a very interesting question as to whether literary and historical analysis can get us closer to the original teachings of the Buddha or not. And whether this is even important.

Personally I think it is very important. While I do not think we can ever overcome all doubts about any particular passage or sutta, we do need some basis for embarking on the Buddhist path.

Isn't the whole world a forgery crafted by the unawakened mind? If the Satipatthana Sutta can help you look through this, then it surely should not be classified as fraud.

I don't think it's a question of whether it was a forgery, but whether it was a compilation used as a mnemonic device. But also whether some parts of the compilation lift non-buddhist elements.

suttametta wrote:lift non-buddhist elements.

This is really the crux of the issue; I presume that non-Buddhist meditational elements are less- or non-effective with respect to nibbana, which makes parsing them out a crucial concern. That many aspects of satipatthana seem to be Upanisadic methods is fairly clear; that jhana is solely unique to the Dhamma also seems apparent. It doesn't surprise me that at this late date we understand yoga more than jhana, given that jhana was a unique discovery of the Buddha, but it oughtn't to be acceptable to have the Buddha's last advice ("practice jhana") remain as hopelessly obscure as it is, nor should we be content to let yoga abide in the place where sammasamadhi once stood.

daverupa wrote: that jhana is solely unique to the Dhamma also seems apparent.

It is? I thought Buddha got the top two formless attainments (features of the fourth jhana) from Alara Kalama and Udaka Ramaputta. My understanding of what was exclusive to buddha was view of the person as khandhas, dependent origination and a way of entering jhana that was just by relaxing.

suttametta wrote:

daverupa wrote: that jhana is solely unique to the Dhamma also seems apparent.

It is? I thought Buddha got the top two formless attainments (features of the fourth jhana) from Alara Kalama and Udaka Ramaputta. My understanding of what was exclusive to buddha was view of the person as khandhas, dependent origination and a way of entering jhana that was just by relaxing.

The Buddha rejected those two attainments; then, at a later time, he recollected a childhood memory of first jhana.

Now, if the rupajhanas are necessary to develop prior to attaining the arupajhanas, as tradition would have it, then Alara and Udaka had rupajhana too. But then the Buddha would have recollected those teachings, and not had to recollect the unique childhood case. So those two attainments cannot be related to the fourth jhana, which was developed on the heels of the childhood case and not extrapolated from the formless attainments learned under those two teachers.

daverupa wrote:The Buddha rejected those two attainments; then, at a later time, he recollected a childhood memory of first jhana.

Now, if the rupajhanas are necessary to develop prior to attaining the arupajhanas, as tradition would have it, then Alara and Udaka had rupajhana too. But then the Buddha would have recollected those teachings, and not had to recollect the unique childhood case. So those two attainments cannot be related to the fourth jhana, which was developed on the heels of the childhood case and not extrapolated from the formless attainments learned under those two teachers.

This makes sense. Your previous comments on yoga are apropos, concentrating on mantras, visualizing, etc., fixating on physical postures, etc., as these have invaded Mahayana and Vajrayana do appear to all have pronounced Vedic/Tantric (non-buddhist) origins. Similarly, haunting graveyards, fixating on death, seems to be non-buddhist as well. The particular way of slipping into jhana in a relaxed way does indeed seem to be an authentic meditation invention of Buddha, one that seems to have been easily overlooked and dismissed by some. Also the way of attaining insight in a relaxed way by observing khandhas and DO seems to be authentically Buddhist. But lets no also forget so many of the simple methods of "release," i.e., kindness. The ethical behaviors leading to nibbana are very very buddhist.