Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

[Assaji]

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 how is that different from what Ven Analayo has put forth?

Ven. Analayo writes that in the context of Satipatthana, 'sati' isn't related to memory, but means instead "present moment awareness", "bare attention", etc.

Does not answer my question, nor does it help when you take what Ven Analayo has to say out of it full context.

OK, I will rephrase. I wrote that in the context of Satipatthana, sati is remembrance, i.e. is related to memory. Ven. Analayo writes that in this context, 'sati' isn't related to memory. That's the difference.

[Ben]

This might be of interest:

The mental factor "mindfulness" (sati-cetasika), called diversely satipatthàna, satindriya, sati-bala, sammà-sati magganga, this is Sati-sambojjhanga, the Enlightenment-factor "Mindfulness".

-- Bodhipakkhiya-dhamma Dipani, Ledi Sayadaw, http://www.noblepath.info/recommended_b ... ayadaw.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

kind regards,

Ben

[tiltbillings]

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 how is that different from what Ven Analayo has put forth?

Ven. Analayo writes that in the context of Satipatthana, 'sati' isn't related to memory, but means instead "present moment awareness", "bare attention", etc.

Does not answer my question, nor does it help when you take what Ven Analayo has to say out of it full context.

OK, I will rephrase. I wrote that in the context of Satipatthana, sati is remembrance, i.e. is related to memory. Ven. Analayo writes that in this context, 'sati' isn't related to memory. That's the difference.

Okay, thanks, and in this I'll go with Ven Analayo. He makes a better case.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tilt,

Okay, then what is the "relentless tyranny of the empirical consciousness?" And this -- 'That is, the "myth of the given"' -- means what? While these expressions may mean something to you two, they very may not mean anything to others reading this, which is to say, then, the response does not answer the question in the context it was asked.

How about this (as a rough approximation, which I'll allow Geoff to improve on).... it's the taking of that which is experienced as being objectively real, rather than rightly seeing whatever is experienced as a fabrication. Put another way, it relates to not correctly seeing the whirlpool/vortex that exists between consciousness and name-and-form, and therefore falsely assuming that the sense-consciousness has not been cognitively fashioned with respect to nama-rupa. Thus, in the context of vipassana/satipatthana, it pertains to not recognising that the very object you are "perceiving" is in fact a 'mind-made' fabrication, which came to be on account of that nama-rupa <> vinnana relationship. It does not exist as an experienced and conditioned phenomena with the three characteristics, outside of that nama-rupa/vinnana context.

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

Greetings Tilt,

Okay, then what is the "relentless tyranny of the empirical consciousness?" And this -- 'That is, the "myth of the given"' -- means what? While these expressions may mean something to you two, they very may not mean anything to others reading this, which is to say, then, the response does not answer the question in the context it was asked.

How about this (as a rough approximation, which I'll allow Geoff to improve on).... it's the taking of that which is experienced as being objectively real, rather than rightly seeing whatever is experienced as a fabrication. Put another way, it relates to not correctly seeing the whirlpool/vortex that exists between consciousness and name-and-form, and therefore assuming that the consciousness has not been fashioned with respect to nama-rupa.

Metta,
Retro.

I certainly do not know of any Buddhist meditation practice that advocates taking what is experienced as objectively real, but is seeing the conditioned rise and fall of the mind/body (inclusive of "consciousness") process is a nice way of seeing that there is no thing upon which to stand, also, in time, that there is no standee.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tilt,

I certainly do not know of any Buddhist meditation practice that advocates....

Non-sequitir defence.

This line of enquiry came up in response to your question, "So, where in all of this are we free of conceptual structuring, papañca?", which I assume you have now answered as per your post immediately above (though I'm not sure we regard nama-rupa the same way).

It is not about defend or attack.

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

Greetings Tilt,

I certainly do not know of any Buddhist meditation practice that advocates

Non-sequitir defence.

This line of enquiry came up in response to your questions "So, where in all of this are we free of conceptual structuring, papañca?", which I assume you have now answered (though I'm not sure we regard nama-rupa the same way)

Metta,
Retro.

I can assure that how ever I regard nama-rupa, it is the correct way.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tilt,

I can assure that how ever I regard nama-rupa, it is the correct way.

... and I am equally sure that that is how you will continue to regard it.

Metta,
Retro.

[Nyana]

You seem to be implying that apologetics is not a good thing, but like anything it depends.

Of course.

As far as my protest and complaints go, they certainly are a valid response to the those who are, to use your word, unconcerned about accurately portraying the Burmese vipassana traditions.

I was speaking of a lack of interest in Burmese vipassanā in general. If one isn't tied to the thought-world of the Vissudhimagga, then Burmese vipassanā doesn't really have much to offer that's especially interesting or important.

[Nyana]

I certainly do not know of any Buddhist meditation practice that advocates taking what is experienced as objectively real....

This is either a disingenuous statement or you are uninformed (or misinformed) about the Vipassanā meditation traditions which are based upon the view presented in the Visuddhimagga and further elaborated in post-Visuddhimagga commentaries.

[Sekha]

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"?

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.

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.

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.

'something may be fully accepted by oral tradition, and yet it may be empty, hollow, and false'

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'.

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. http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 20#p161171" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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'

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.

[dhamma follower]

Hi Dhamma Follower,

Similarly, the definition of 'sati' through four satipatthanas dosnt mean that the definition of "remembrance" (sati) is "being focused" (anupassana).

Hi Dmytro,

I didn't say that sati was "being focused". What i said was that sati doesn't only mean to remember to distinguish the wholesome from the unwholesome, but also means remembering ( i'd call it recording, actually) the working of the five khandas as they arise. It is not so much about the remembrance aspect of sati, but about the object of this "remembrance" .

Without this "recording" of the arising of different dhammas here and now, how sampajana can come to know the characteristics of reality?

And as I've said in an earlier post, sati can only do recording of different dhammas in details when sampajana becomes stronger, and in turn, from what sati records about reality, sampajana increases.

This understanding, I think, is supported by the gradual order of subtleties as shown in the Mahasatipatthana.

This is the reason why sati-sampajana go in tandem in the Maha satipatthana sutta, I think.

Regards,

[dhamma follower]

Tilakkhana is not remembered, but understood by panna.

Again, the recognition of impermanence always relies on memory and is therefore always inferential. And since the recognition of unsatisfactoriness and the recognition of selflessness are based upon the recognition of impermanence they too are inferential.[/quote]

Hi Nana,

Would you provide textual support for this?

By Inferential, do you mean through a kind of mental process, no direct understanding?


Regards

[dhamma follower]

Sati functions to direct awareness away from the five strands of sensual pleasure and place.

The above seems to conflict with what we read here:

Bhikkhus, the bhikkhu following my Teaching knows[49] the mind accompanied by passion,[50] as 'Mind with passion'; he knows the mind unaccompanied by passion, as 'Mind without passion'; he also knows the mind accompanied by anger,[51] as 'Mind with anger'; he also knows the mind unaccompanied by anger, as 'Mind without anger'; he also knows the mind accompanied by bewilderment,[52] as 'Mind with bewilderment'; he also knows the mind unaccompanied by bewilderment, as 'Mind without bewilderment'; he also knows the indolent state of mind,[53] as 'Indolent state of mind'; he also knows the distracted state of mind,[54] as 'Distracted state of mind'; he also knows the developed state of mind,[55] as 'Developed state of mind'; he also knows the undeveloped state of mind,[56] as 'Undeveloped state of mind': he also knows the inferior state of mind, as 'Inferior state of mind'; he also knows the superior state of mind,[57] as 'Superior state of mind'; he also knows the mind in a state of concentration,[58] as 'Mind in a state of concentration'; he also knows the mind not in a state of concentration,[59] as 'Mind not in a state of concentration'; he also knows 'the liberated state of mind,[60] as 'Liberated state of mind'; he also knows the unliberated state of mind,[61] as 'Unliberated state of mind'.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .bpit.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Reagrds,

[beeblebrox]

and can you explain how then you understand "remembrance in the present" as being fundamentally different from "awareness in the present"?

I'm not Dmytro, but I'd like to jump in. As Nana pointed out, "awareness" is vinnana. The "consciousness" as it is used in the context of Dhamma always means an awareness of something. When you're conscious of something (whether deluded or not)... it's actually always in the present. How would you differentiate that from the definition of sati as an "awareness in the present"?

What does it mean to be "mindful"of something? What does that entail to you? To me, it means that you're holding something "in mind" as consistently as possible. This is what the word "remembrance" means. In the context of Dhamma, you're always mindful of the Buddha's teachings. You're mindful about doing your practice in the context of the Dhamma. That is "remembrance."

Also, I think another issue in here might have to do with time... some people seem to think that "remembrance" implies that one is dwelling in the past, and that the "mindfulness" implies that one is living in present. This kind of thinking is in error. There is actually no such thing as a "present moment"... it's all impermanence.

Trying to fixate oneself in the "present moment" is to risk grappling with eternalism. The "present moment" is to anicca in the same way that "self" is to anatta. For the longest time, I would be a bit confused why many people seem to want define the "mindfulness" as (solely) being aware of the present moment. If you actually paid attention to your practice, you can clearly see that it's an illusion. It's exactly the same as trying to find a "self".

Trying to cultivate the "awareness of the present moment" seems to be the same as trying to cultivate the awareness of "self". You're basically trying to see something that just isn't there. I guess that's maybe why these people want to define "mindfulness" in that way... they want to find some comfort by settling themselves into the "permanence" of the present moment. It's very subtle... and causes a lot of dukkha, as can be seen in this thread.

When you "remember" something, it always becomes a part of the "present moment" anyway. So what's the issue, really?