The Satipatthana Sutta a forgery?

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
Post Reply
suttametta
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 2:55 pm

Re: The Satipatthana Sutta a forgery?

Post by suttametta »

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.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: The Satipatthana Sutta a forgery?

Post by daverupa »

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.

:soap:
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
suttametta
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 2:55 pm

Re: The Satipatthana Sutta a forgery?

Post by suttametta »

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.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: The Satipatthana Sutta a forgery?

Post by daverupa »

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.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
suttametta
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 2:55 pm

Re: The Satipatthana Sutta a forgery?

Post by suttametta »

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.
User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 4016
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: The Satipatthana Sutta a forgery?

Post by Mr Man »

daverupa wrote:
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.
I think that you may be interpreting this in a too literal manner. I don't think conclusions can or should be inferred in this way. :)
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The Satipatthana Sutta a forgery?

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Dave,
daverupa wrote:That many aspects of satipatthana seem to be Upanisadic methods is fairly clear;
Which aspects are those? I don't recall anything in the Satipatthana Sutta (and Samyutta) that isn't mentioned in numerous suttas all over the canon (mindfulness and clear comprehension in all activities, body, repulsiveness, breath, elements, feelings, mind states, mind objects, hindrances, aggregates, sense bases, enlightenment factors, noble truths...).

It may well be that the Satipatthana Sutta has had a lot of material collected from other suttas, but that sort of thing seems common in all Nikayas.

:anjali:
Mike
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: The Satipatthana Sutta a forgery?

Post by daverupa »

Unfortunately, a detailed response seems to require a thoroughgoing review of current Early Buddhism literature (Wynne, Hamilton, Vetter, Bronkhorst, and others as well), and a forum post is inadequate to the task. Additionally, mileage may vary with respect to perceived evidential strength.

:broke:

I simply want to indicate, in this subforum in particular, that the Nikayas are not homogenous; they reflect a long period of routinization, and this long before Theravada even existed. Therefore, the Theravada tradition is best seen as one attempt at understanding Early Buddhism; there were possibly as many as 15 other scholastic attempts, perhaps more, and the historical accidents which saw the survival of Theravada are not enough to recommend their particular exegesis in toto, especially when modern approaches have seen some success in correcting hitherto unrecognized mistakes.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The Satipatthana Sutta a forgery?

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Dave,

Well, could you (or someone else) just give us a clue or a specific reference? I'm genuinely perplexed, since I don't recall ever seeing an argument that the Satipatthana Sutta contained Upanishadic influence.

:anjali:
Mike
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: The Satipatthana Sutta a forgery?

Post by Sylvester »

daverupa wrote:
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.

Ah ha! Looks like you've been dipping into the Wynne honeypot. Or perhaps the Brahm honeypot? :tongue:

Something that is often overlooked in MN 26 is its unusual way of reporting the declarations of Alara and Udaka. The verb declared(s)/pavedesi(eti) occurs 8 times in the sutta, all of which report actual declarations. Taking the report on the encounter with Alara, they are (using the ATI translation) -
Tassa mayhaṃ, bhikkhave, etadahosi— ‘na kho āḷāro kālāmo imaṃ dhammaṃ kevalaṃ saddhāmattakena sayaṃ abhiññā sacchikatvā upasampajja viharāmīti pavedeti; addhā āḷāro kālāmo imaṃ dhammaṃ jānaṃ passaṃ viharatī’ti.

I thought: 'It isn't through mere conviction alone that Alara Kalama declares, "I have entered & dwell in this Dhamma, having realized it for myself through direct knowledge." Certainly he dwells knowing & seeing this Dhamma.
Atha khvāhaṃ, bhikkhave, yena āḷāro kālāmo tenupasaṅkamiṃ; upasaṅkamitvā āḷāraṃ kālāmaṃ etadavocaṃ— ‘kittāvatā no, āvuso kālāma, imaṃ dhammaṃ sayaṃ abhiññā sacchikatvā upasampajja viharāmīti pavedesī’ti? Evaṃ vutte, bhikkhave, āḷāro kālāmo ākiñcaññāyatanaṃ pavedesi.

So I went to him and said, 'To what extent do you declare that you have entered & dwell in this Dhamma?' When this was said, he declared the dimension of nothingness.
Notice how the Buddha/redactors did not privilege Alara's declaration of Nothingness as "Nothingness", unlike the earlier declaration (marked with the iti clitic). It's almost as if the sutta goes out of its way to deny the truth value of Alara's declaration. Likewise for the Udaka narrative. Was this omission of the clitic accidental or deliberate? It looks quite deliberate that in 6 of the 8 declarations, they are privileged with the iti clitic. The excluded 2 do not look like accidental omissions to me.

What's odd also is the Buddha's recollection of whatever he attained under these 2 teachers as "tassa dhammassa" (that dhamma (that was declared in the preceding relative clause - yaṃ dhammaṃ rāmo sayaṃ abhiññā sacchikatvā upasampajja viharāmīti pavedesi). He did not identify these attainments by their names at all.

I'm offering these as an alternative to Wynne's arguments that the formless attainments were not a legitimate pursuit and that the redactors were wrong from a very early period of Buddhism to have included them. If I'm correct, these clues in MN 26 would suggest that whatever it was that Alara or Udaka declared to be, they were not the arupa attainments that gain prominence in the suttas.
User avatar
piotr
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Khettadesa

Re: The Satipatthana Sutta a forgery?

Post by piotr »

:goodpost:

This cuts short some of Polak's speculations in “Reexaming Jhāna” aswell. It seems to me that most of what he calls ‘internal discrepancies’ in Sutta-piṭaka are easily solved if one strives for the simplest explainations while examining the text. I often have a feeling that Ockham's razor is put aside when I read hypotheses of some scholars…
Bhagavaṃmūlakā no, bhante, dhammā...
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: The Satipatthana Sutta a forgery?

Post by daverupa »

Sylvester wrote:Ah ha! Looks like you've been dipping into the Wynne honeypot. Or perhaps the Brahm honeypot? :tongue:
Well actually, MN 125, in particular the fact that it seems to draw a parallel between satipatthana and first jhana.

Anapanasati is (an example of) first jhana's vitakka/vicara; by practicing with both and then with vicara alone, one ends up able to practice without either - which is second jhana.

Something along these lines.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: The Satipatthana Sutta a forgery?

Post by daverupa »

mikenz66 wrote:Well, could you (or someone else) just give us a clue or a specific reference? I'm genuinely perplexed, since I don't recall ever seeing an argument that the Satipatthana Sutta contained Upanishadic influence.
There are a number of works which gesticulate in this direction:

The Two Traditions Of Meditation In Ancient India by Johannes Bronkhorst
The Ideas and Meditative Practices of Early Buddhism by Tilmann Vetter
The Origin of Buddhist Meditation by Alexander Wynne
Early Buddhism: a new approach : the I of the beholder by Sue Hamilton
Early Buddhist Metaphysics: The Making Of A Philosophical Tradition by Noa Ronkin

Additionally, a number of papers in the Early Buddhism Resources section relate to the issue.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The Satipatthana Sutta a forgery?

Post by tiltbillings »

daverupa wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:Well, could you (or someone else) just give us a clue or a specific reference? I'm genuinely perplexed, since I don't recall ever seeing an argument that the Satipatthana Sutta contained Upanishadic influence.
There are a number of works which gesticulate in this direction:

The Two Traditions Of Meditation In Ancient India by Johannes Bronkhorst
The Ideas and Meditative Practices of Early Buddhism by Tilmann Vetter
The Origin of Buddhist Meditation by Alexander Wynne
Early Buddhism: a new approach : the I of the beholder by Sue Hamilton
Early Buddhist Metaphysics: The Making Of A Philosophical Tradition by Noa Ronkin

Additionally, a number of papers in the Early Buddhism Resources section relate to the issue.
Image

And what do these gesticulating works actually have to say that gesticulates to a Upanishadic influence on the Satipatthana Sutta?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The Satipatthana Sutta a forgery?

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Dave,

Since I've looked at a number of papers and haven't seen this Upanashadic claim about Satipatthana in particular, I still find this an odd statement, but of course I have not read everything available.
Just one quote would be useful...

Of course, I'm quite aware of discussions about Upanashadic references in the suttas, but you seem to be talking about Upanashadic ideas replacing what the Buddha actually taught, right?


:anjali:
Mike
Post Reply