Anapanasati feedback

[Adutiya]

You’ve done a great job of making things concise and easy to grasp and follow along. You did pretty well in the way you handled parimukha too.

Here are a few suggestions that are pretty glaring to me:

“…direct our attention to what’s there, right in front of us, that is, the present moment.”

The term or concept of present moment is not found in the suttas.

How Early Buddhism differs from Theravada: a checklist

Buy a print copy of this article as a booklet from Lulu.com. (Purchase price pays for printing and shipping, and a small royalty goes to Santi Forest Monastery.) How Early Buddhism Differs From Theravada Available as PDF, printable as A5 early_vs_theravada.pdf (140.9 KB) also as an EPUB. early_vs_theravada.epub (293.1 KB) There’s even a cover! [early_cover] This is a handy summary of some major points of distinction between Early Buddhism and Theravada. Let’s clarify what we mean by…

and

Possibly More Suitable Translations of Popular Pali Words

This is an explanation of sati according to modern teachers, but it’s not really what sati means in the suttas. For starters, there’s no concept of “present moment” in the suttas . I know, right! “Awareness” in the sense of “all-round perception of context” is closer to sampajañña, which I translate as “situational awareness”. Asanga, perhaps the greatest of the ancient Indian commentators, defined sati thusly: What is mindfulness? The non-forgetting by the mind of the [previousl…

“…the first object of mindfulness and four for each of the three following objects.”

The term or the concept of objects of minfulness or mind objects is not found anywhere in the suttas. Venerable Sujato says:

@sujato

The suttas do not use the word “object” at all. The whole point of the word “object” is that it signifies things that exist “objectively” relative to the observer. But a “sight” for example, does not: a specific sight is only seen by that observer in that moment, never before or after. Even if another person sees the same “thing” i.e. the same “object”, the “sight” they have is different.

In Buddhism, sense experience is always relational. Visual perception arises with the eye, a stimulus for the eye, and eye consciousness. These things exist in relation with each oher. Eg. if you move the position of the eye, the “sight” will also change.

For these reasons, it is always best to avoid the word “object” in early Buddhism (unless talking about material objects, etc.)

and

@sujato

mind objects

Modern Theravada speaks of “objects”, an English rendering of the Pali term ārammaṇa. This is especially common when speaking of the sixth sense base, that of which the mind is aware. In the EBTs this is dhamma, in modern Theravada it is often dhammārammaṇa, translated as “mind object”.

However, ārammaṇa is never found in the sense of “object” in the EBTs. It is always used in the sense of “reliance, support”. Nor is there any other term used in this way; I translated the entire four Pali nikāyas without ever once using the concept of a “mind object”.

Philosophically, an “object” is problematic because it implies something that exists “objectively”. What could an “object” be, if not something that exists “out there” independent of the observing mind? The purpose of the Buddha’s teachings on cognition is to undermine any such conception, speaking only of experiences that arise in a process of mutual interdependence.

See also sabhāva or “inherent existence”.

The seven steps to awakening (satta bojjhaṅgā) are:

1. Calling to mind the liberating truth (sati) ?
2. Contemplating it (dhammavicaya)
3. Experiencing enthusiasm (vīriya) ?
4. Experiencing joy (pīti)
5. Experiencing tranquility (passaddhi)
6. Experiencing stability (samādhi) ?
7. Experiencing sacred indifference (upekkhā) ?

I would recommend defining terms according to what the suttas say, particularly sati and samadhi so that your readers don’t become confused.

I hope your efforts help people!