Wow, I asked for some feedback and I really got it. There are a lot of issues here, and I’ll try to address the main ones.
Maybe so, but tracing individual texts back to the Buddha seems quite speculative. What we do know is that the SA was first compiled at the First Buddhist Council, so earlier than the others. While we tend to think conventionally that the āgamas / nikāyas are homogeneous, not varying much in content, I am a bit skeptical about this. I think even within collections, there are differences in style, vocabulary, and ideas that represent different editors or redactors.
[quote=“Brahmali, post:18, topic:2868”]
I would prefer a translation such as “the four applications of mindfulness”, or even “the four focuses of mindfulness”. The purpose of satipaṭṭhāna, as you point out further down, is samādhi, not mindfulness per se.[/quote]
In some of these cases, the Chinese translations have already interpreted the term. In this case the term chosen basically means a locus or position, as one might stand in. I prefer sticking to the interpretations of the original translation if I can, because that preserves the historical interpretation made by Guṇabhadra, etc.
I know this type of language will inevitably step on some toes (sorry), but I think it is useful in the sense that it allows us to investigate the texts on their own terms. I prefer to think of Buddhist texts in terms of the groups and traditions that formulated them. When everything is attributed to the Buddha himself, we have no real need to consider differences in literary form, vocabulary, ideas, chronology, etc.
I agree it is not a very Buddhist idea, but that in itself is interesting. If I’m not mistaken, the Pali term refers to a drink that bestows godhood and immortality. The Chinese term similarly refers to the ambrosial drink that turns an ordinary person into a Daoist immortal.
Thanks, I’ve gone back and forth on this issue. Outside the Pali tradition, the term is interpreted in a number of different ways, such as pliancy, or lightness and ease.
There are some other divergent interpretations like this. For example, the seventh Bodhi Factor is often called “equanimity” when translated from Pali, but the Chinese term used means something more like “abandonment.” These may represent different interpretations of the original term. In that case, I try to preserve that other interpretation.
At least in the SA, it occurs in many contexts without any mention of the dhyānas. For example, in SA 636, the hindrances are abandoned before practicing the Four Bases of Mindfulness. If I remember correctly, it may also be done before practicing Mindfulness of the Tathāgata, as presented in the SA.
Yes, the Chinese term literally means “leak,” as in a leak of water, which also conforms to some of the other connotations of the term.
This is a good point, but within the collection, many concepts and practices are found not only within their own saṃyukta, but also in other saṃyuktas. This representation within the collection, or lack thereof, can tell us something about the position of these concepts and practices at the time of the compilation of the collection.