retrofuturist wrote:The commentary to the sutta isn't (that's more like one millennium),
Translated by Buddhagosa from much older material according to the tradition. But that's another story...
retrofuturist wrote:but the concept of a 'technique' is a 20th century phenomenon. Well, according to Ven Sujato at least (skip to 1:53)...
Well, if' you're going to bring in Ven Sujato, he famously dismisses much of the Satipatthana Sutta as later additions... http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 66&start=0
Even if one thinks that he goes rather too far to prove his point about concentration vs insight, it may not be wise to pin one's practise on one particular Sutta, when there are many related Suttas in the Cannon.
However, I think we agree that there are four foundations. The other Theravada (and other tradition) suttas do have the four foundations (e.g. see the Satipatthana-samyutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/index.html#sn47
suttas, such as http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn47/sn47.040.than.html
) but not all the sub-categories.
Attempting to go back to the topic: In terms of "technique" I think most teachers would broadly agree with Ven Sujato. Certainly Patrick Kearny and others who teach teach in the Mahasi Style say basically the same thing: A relatively simple, standard technique is something that is not necessary when one has access to a personal teacher, who would help the student select meditation subjects etc, with relationships as described in the Visuddhimagga, for example.
On the other hand, this following-a-particular-approach thing works well in the sense that whatever comes up for me on retreats is clearly (from their comments and counter-questions) what my teachers have experienced, and are expecting, so it's straightforward for them to give advice.