you have pointed out many relevant issues. This thinking would be mine sort of a few months ago, 37 factors of Awakening was key for me, before I figured out RIGHT Samma Sati and Samma Samadhi. But in a way these are all linked. The 37 begins with Satipatthana. and ends with Bojjhangas and 4 Noble Truths but later I found there is no beginning or end. In every one of those, the other factors are present. For instance in the Bojjangas, the first factor is mindfulness, Samma Sati. second factor is Dhamma vicaya, i.e. investigating all the factors. Iddhi Pada one of 37, it weaves in across every step. Energy, the vigor, the faith and all that jazz. It all blends into one. You are smart enough, and figured out the essential, Spend some time with Polak, he has generously left his mark on the web. It is a hard read him, if you have not struggled with all the jhanas⊠which I did. It is like Polak is at the PhD level, and oneâs struggle with the jhanas, is like the first few years in college. That PhD is fully worth it. The one main thing I did not agree with, he seemed to reject all the suttas that had formless meditations in them. I do not think so. I think some intruder on a later day, sandwiched these into those suttas. Of course I think MN 111, is the biggest crime that some Abhidhammika committed. Why did he feed these words into the mouth of
Sariputta? to make it more authentic?
Once you understand, it is a bit like splitting head. But at one point in Sutta Nipata Buddha says, splitting ignorance is something like splitting head. Many headaches.
It is not an easy walk. But you will undertake it, only when you know âThat all this is sufferingâ and truly so, and also when youâve understood that anything else you do is like âFeeding on your own sonâs fleshâ
As for your trying to draw a line between concentration and mindfulness, I did that too. But now I know better, concentration is an Upanisad influence. Buddhaâs teaching is about mindfulness. Have you spent much time with Atthakavagga and Parayanavagga? Please do. Try spending time with Alexander Wynne, and tell me your thoughts afterwards.
Yes the canon by itself ⊠the right meditation is a mystery, that is why we need Polak, and Wynne. But the truth is I could not get anywhere without relying on Buddhaghosaâs Expositor. He gets a bad rap just because⊠it is too much to get into. the translator of Visuddhimagga Ven. Nanamoli (I adore him), wrote one must not toss the baby with the bathwaterâŠ
I agree with many things you say. To me the key finally became that one sutta in the Samyutta Nikaya i.e. 47.42. and MN 18 with the help of Malukyaputa and Bahia and also Attthakavagga and ParayanavaggaâŠ
Have a glorious Day!
PS not sure that I addressed all you asked, but writing wears me out. I am never sure whether I am sticking to Right speech all the way. Forgive me if I have not.
PSS Yes I did not address the link between Samma Sati and Samma Samadhi, but will do so, on another day.
Hi,
I think this conversation has gone on to the wrong footing. If there is any dependence at all there will be agitation.
I think possibly the confusion lies in the difference between what you and Ven Analayo calls an object. Which I was trying to understand but you didnât answer the question asked above.
When you say, consciousness has to be freed from all objects do you mean that any delighting any grasping after the object have to be got rid of or all objects of consciousness has to be got rid of in toto?
As to your comment about existence and none existence about consciousness. I think the suttas are pretty clear, when origination of consciousness is discerned, âdoesnt-existâ does not apply. When cessation of consciousness is discerned âexistâ does not apply. If you were meaning this I agree with you
Interesting food for thought! Some of that sounds a bit on the advanced side for me at this point! 
On the Atthakavagga and Parayanavagga, have gone through the Sutta Nipata before and very much liked it, but it has been a while (I actually have the relatively new Bhikkhu Bodhi translation of it and must get around to reading that). On Polak and Wynne, I think Iâve read bits and pieces of both here and there. I may investigate them a bit more and see what I make of their writings. Anyway, thanks for all that, appreciated. Have a glorious day yourself (or maybe night, depending on the time zone)! 
I didnât understand the preceding, but the following works for me to inform my practice of Satipatthana and Jhana and beyond. 
AN4.171:1.1: âMendicants, as long as thereâs a body, the intention that gives rise to bodily action causes pleasure and pain to arise in oneself. As long as thereâs a voice, the intention that gives rise to verbal action causes pleasure and pain to arise in oneself. As long as thereâs a mind, the intention that gives rise to mental action causes pleasure and pain to arise in oneself. But these only apply when conditioned by ignorance. By oneself one makes the choice that gives rise to bodily, verbal, and mental action, conditioned by which that pleasure and pain arise in oneself. Or else others make the choice ⊠One consciously makes the choice ⊠Or else one unconsciously makes the choice ⊠Ignorance is included in all these things.
AN4.171:5.2: But when ignorance fades away and ceases with nothing left over, there is no body and no voice and no mind, conditioned by which that pleasure and pain arise in oneself. There is no field, no ground, no scope, and no basis, conditioned by which that pleasure and pain arise in oneself.
SuaimhneasâŠwrote [quote=âsuaimhneas, post:16, topic:15672â]
The stock definition of right concentration is the four jhanas.
[/quote] true, but English is not ideal in this case. Does not Right Samadhi instead of right concentration make a whole lot of sense, in terms of what is taking place? Samadhi is a dynamic activity, concentration sounds like a stationary activity, focussing on one thing.
Lankaputra wrote I think this conversation has gone on to the wrong footing. If there is any dependence at all there will be agitation.
Wrong footing? I apologise, I did not intend to, when did I mention a dependence?
You wrote
I think possibly the confusion lies in the difference between what you and Ven Analayo calls an object. Which I was trying to understand but you didnât answer the question asked above.
Let me clarify Ven. Analayo relies on the two main Satipatthana suttas, which are called âelegant fakesâ by some scholars. It is a long story, and I like that story. My current understanding on Satipattthana is based on SN 47.42. The sutta speaks about deconstruction of consciousness. Analayoâs scheme does not. If Analayoâs teaching make sense to you, then my understanding will not make sense to you. However I am willing to discuss SN 47. 42 with you on another day.
You wrote
When you say, consciousness has to be freed from all objects do you mean that any delighting any grasping after the object have to be got rid of or all objects of consciousness has to be got rid of in toto?
Again to make the story short, If you follow instructions of MN 18, âbare cognitionâ what is there to delight of? It speaks of a transformed cognition, that should be the goal of our meditation, whether it is Satipatthana or Samma samadhi.
In this post my intention was to alert others of what Iâve become aware of. I thought it was pretty cool, but perhaps others are not ready to hear about this kind of thinking. Dhamma is a tricky thing, if you get hold of it at the wrong end, it can be unforgiving.
Last night I listened to a Dependent origination talk by Ven Sujato⊠it is the 3rd episode published on Feb 7/2020. In the middle of the video, he talks about a man walking on a path, man notices a piece of truth, bends and picks it up. Mara and Buddha are watching this guy, Mara smiles, Buddha asks "Mara why are you smiling ". Mara says "in a couple more steps, he will make a view out of it".
In the business of Dhamma, a sense of humor is helpful.
Be well!
Please carry on! I think you have said some very important things. I agree with them (except your theories on Buddhist history and Sutta composition). But what you are saying has been expressed by other teachers, if you have the humility to give them due consideration. In essence what you are saying is what Ajahn Chah or Ajahn Brahm calls âletting goâ. Which is already expressed in the Satipatthana Sutta
They meditate independent, not grasping at anything in the world.
anissito ca viharati, na ca kiñci loke upÄdiyati.
MN10
But, I am curious to converse further with you about it(as a friend). If you can start off by answering my question on MN18, would much appreciate. At your leisure of course.
While the guidelines expressly ask that the Discussions Topics are based in EBTâs rather than personal practice, we know it can be useful to discuss practice issues. However, we ask that these conversations are done via the Personal Messages facility rather than as public topic posts. This way you are free to explore personal practice issues without constraint 
Remember, PMâs can be used by groups of people, so all individuals who are interested can participate
As always it is a question of balance 
but in general, the substantive part of the Discussion needs to be EBT based, and the guidelines also make it clear that discussion of attainments is not appropriate on this site.
For any further elaboration please donât hesitate to ask
Metta
Lankaputra wrote Pl carry on
To respond to him⊠OK let me back track, as for humility, when i chose to participate, it was simply as an acknowledgment of the great work Sujato has done over the last so many years. I found him during the lockdown. I wanted him to know, how he inspires the silent public.
The âhumility factor?â it is very hard for anyone to go into the issues of popular buddhism, the moment one speaks up, there are many that confront the person for speaking up. For instance Burmese meditation, Sujato made a video on it. He is like the Royal elephant that went to war, not caring whether he would get killed. Some loved it, some hated him for that gumption.
I had been struggling to make sense of Buddhist meditation for several years, and finally I did. Once I did, I found out, Sujato more or less had come to the same conclusions many years ago. Why did I not find him then? Well perhaps one learns better by struggling, rather than have oneâs parents do the homework for them. Karma has its own reasons. As for Ajhan Chah and Ajhan Brahm, I would not give them credit for whatever I say.
As for âletting goâ every therapist says this to the patient. Ajhan Chah was wonderful, but I did not find right buddhist meditation (4 buddhist jhanas through him), in his writing. Pl bring me a quote of him that praises the 4 jhanas or the Satipathanas as in SN 47.42. However for the latter I would give credit to Vasubandhuâs Abhidhmmakosa. I had already given credit to Sarvastavadins for this in the main post, and mentioned how Theravadins failed at Satipatthana.
As for Ajhan Brahm, I know he is Sujatoâs teacher. With all due respect Sujato himself said in one of the talks, a student does not need to be like a teacher, he said âit is complicatedâ. I totally understood, He is entirely different from Brahms. I had listened to Brahms 10 years ago, and he did not inspire me, but Sujato did. Need I say more?
I do not take any credit for the things I say, as for the history you do not believe. Pl read Johannes Bronkhorst, He is a frigging great scholar. Some Theravadins have a way of saying âWe donât trust themâ or some demeaning thing like âThey are of a different brandâ If I give credit to anyone it would be these, below
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_La_Vallée-Poussin
or the writings of J. Polack,
or the many publications of Alexander Wynne. His Youtube postings are beyond amazing. That someone dared to give such a gift without being asked???
I hated some of the things, Wynne said at the beginning, and then I realized I simply hated him, for he was getting rid of my misconceptions. He basically thrashed Satipathana, the way Analayo presented it.
Now I am thankful for hating him, for the hate turned to love.
Dear Lankaputra I have limited time each day. I shall not disappoint you over time. Will answer all your questions. Just to clarify, Iâve nothing but humility. How could anyone be otherwise facing the dilemma of Samsara, as death sits looming over all of us.
âDo not waste a single momentâ this is âour words to theeâ Buddha had said even as he was dying, But he did not die, did he?
With love
Moderator wrote ⊠âStick to EBTâ
I feel what I write fits Early Buddhist teachings, the four jhanas and Satipatthana. Do you feel otherwise?
I was trying to remove the many misconceptions regarding early buddhism. If you feel that my comments are otherwise, pl point out, and I shall gracefully bow out.
With love
Your Pardon! This is your thread, I donât have to do anything. Itâs up to you to demonstrate your conclusions with clear references from the EBTs.
As you wish!
In the midst of these gale force winds of opinion, I stand somewhat buffeted and confused. Quoting others doesnât help me since I study the EBTs. I do appreciate advice that helps me understand the EBTs. But advice that doesnât fit in my brain is useless to me. The EBTs are very carefully crafted to be short and to the point. They elaborate via subtle changes reinforced by repetition. And this is why I would appreciate an EBT reference and quotes so that I can see and study for myself.
Please quote exact EBT verses that illustrate your perspective. It would help me a lot. The references to Analayo, Wynne and others are secondary to me. They arenât the EBTsâthey just discuss them. The original SN47.42 post was VERY helpful. I havenât been able to follow the rest in any way that helps my practice.
And if you canât find the exact quote, Iâll be happy to help search for it so that we can discuss it together.
All of these statements are about the point I was making earlier. There are many paths/doors into understanding the Dhamma. You found yours, others will have completely different routes they will find - the âkeyâ and the way to find the key varies for each person dependent on the past and present causes and conditions. Sometimes the very same teaching, but reviewed many years later, can be the key, now that ones own causes and conditions have altered and one can suddenly see⊠
It is about hearing the right words at the right time⊠etc
As you so eloquently point out each person, and teacher, are different in their minute personal journey, the keys that unlocked things for them, and hence methods of teaching. One of the main reasons for focusing on EBTâs is because over the millenia, the emphasis moved away from what the Buddha taught, to the teachings and opinions of others⊠It is easy to see how streams of thought evolved away from what the Buddha taught over time.
This site is about bringing back the focus onto the words of the Buddha - What he taught, and all the methods he used to teach it. This was to fill the enormous gap of accessibility to the original teachings, the Buddha Dhamma.
As such, we ask that people focus on the Suttas as the basis to compare and contrast other teachings.
Ultimately the aim of this site (SuttaCentral with this forum as support) is not about âteaching the Dhammaâ, but to make the Buddha Dhamma accessible to all (free access world wide, in as many languages as possible). This resource can then be used in their own practice. As such, this is a scholarly rather than a practice forum, though the two are very closely linked.
We ask participants that the integrity of the purpose for this site is upheld, while providing mechanisms such as PMâs to discuss other aspects. Just in case this isnât clear - this isnât a debate about whether this is a good way for the site to operate, it is part of the Terms of Service
Much Mudita for your practice
Metta
This highly complex inter-relationship between all factors and elements described by the Buddha is really hard to comprehend - enormous scope. One of the words Bhante Sujato used in translation to describe this relationship was âfractalâ This was one of the âkeysâ that helped solidify the elusive relationships for me⊠But with great apologies, I canât remember the sutta text⊠But here are some links that may be of interest if this resonates for anyone
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/search?q=fractal
The first in the list is an essay on the Nikkayas by Bhante Sujato and is a fabulous exposition
I just wanted to add something to what Viveka said. Even understanding is not something that we can claim as our own. It is conditioned by past and present conditions. Certainly, if one were to become angry or agitated, even Dhamma that was clear before will become unclear. And who knows how far the past conditions stretch back. May be you saw the Blessed one or may be you were a Deva or a Brahma. But if one is not an Ariya even this understanding has the nature of falling away⊠This is the danger. So let us not waste time trying to prove ourselves but rather lets help each other on our journey.
Metta!
The sutta, SN47.42, about the arising and cessation of the four stations/establishments of mindfulness, seems to have close connection with the concept of the four nutriments (ahara), which are linked in some significant way with the teaching of âarising by causal conditionâ. The four nutriments are:
Material nutriment (kabalimkara-ahara), contact nutriment (phassa-ahara), mental volition nutriment (manosancetana-ahara), and consciousness nutriment (vinnana-ahara). See SN 12.11-2, 63-64 (cf. pp. 202-204, in Choong Mun-keat, The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism).
This might be relevent to this topic;
the Blessed Oneâs teaching of the
dependent origination is fourfold, namely, (i) from the beginning; or (ii) from the
middle up to the end; and (iii) from the end; or (iv) from the middle down to the
beginning. It is like four creeper-gatherersâ ways of seizing a creeper.(i) For just as one of four men gathering creepers sees only the root of the
creeper first, and after cutting it at the root, he pulls it all out and takes it away
and uses it, so the Blessed One teaches the dependent origination from the
beginning up to the end thus: âSo, bhikkhus, with ignorance as condition there
are formations; ⊠with birth as condition ageing-and-deathâ(ii) Just as another of the four men sees the middle of the creeper first, and
after cutting it in the middle, he pulls out only the upper part and takes it away
and uses it, so the Blessed One teaches it from the middle up to the end thus:âWhen he is delighted with, welcomes, remains committed to that feeling, then
delight arises in him. Delight in feelings is clinging. With his clinging as
condition there is becoming; with becoming as condition, birthâ(iii) Just as another of the four men sees the tip of the creeper first, and
seizing the tip, he follows it down to the root and takes all of it away and uses it,
so the Blessed One teaches it from the end down to the beginning thus: ââWith
birth as condition, ageing-and-death,â so it was said. But is there ageing-and-
death with birth as condition, or not, or how is it here?âThere is ageing-and-
death with birth as condition, so we think, venerable sir. âWith becoming
as condition, birth,â so it was said ⊠âWith ignorance as condition there are
formations,â so it was said. But are there formations with ignorance as condition,
or not, or how is it here?âThere are formations with ignorance as condition, so
we think, venerable sirâ .(iv) Just as one of the four men sees only the middle of the creeper first, and
after cutting it in the middle and tracing it down as far as the root, he takes it
away and uses it, so the Blessed One teaches it from the middle down to the
beginning thus: âAnd these four nutriments, bhikkhus: what is their source?
What is their origin? From what are they born? By what are they produced?
These four nutriments have craving as their source, craving as their origin, they
are born from craving, produced by craving. Craving: what is its source? âŠ
Feeling: ⊠Contact: ⊠The sixfold base: ⊠Mentality-materiality: âŠ
Consciousness: ⊠Formations: what is their source? ⊠By what are they
produced? Formations have ignorance as their source ⊠they are ⊠produced
by ignoranceâ
(visuddhimagga)
I was going to come back to elucidate a little bit further, but it is so nice to see some of you are already there
For me it is not even about proving oneself, or ones idiosyncratic way into the teachings, rather the acknowledgement that there are many ways to understanding - as has been mentioned in above posts.
The EBTs are a UNIQUE and whole system for understanding and then moving beyond the suffering in Samsara.
Skilled teachers, Ariyas and even Arahants and Arahant teachers only have a part of the picture. It is ONLY the fully enlightened, fully perfected Buddha who sees it ALL as it really is without delusion. All the aspects, parts, causes and conditions. He has given many teachings (84,000 ?) All to speak to individuals at different stages with different conditions etc. As such, the best instructions come from the one who has seen and understood it all - not just parts of the picture. Even an Arahant doesnât see the whole picture⊠What did Buddha say⊠âwhat is greater, this handful of leaves or all the leaves in the all the forests⊠I only teach what is requiredâ - just a handful of leaves.
By providing access to the complete teachings of the Buddha, the chance that one will find the right set of âkeysâ to liberate understanding and to overcome delusion is the highest. By limiting oneself ones opportunities for progress are limited. Of course one can be âluckyâ (causes and conditions) and stumble across exactly the perfect key⊠but not very likely⊠And the likelihood that your key is also my key⊠pretty small
There is no right way to get to the destination⊠there are many ways⊠but they all fit into the Noble 8 fold path, the 4 Noble truths and the Buddhas many teachings, examples, frameworks and similies, all illustrate these things from many different perspectives.
May everybodyâs study and effort on the path lead to liberation. May we all be good Kalyanamittas on the path 
Now back to the teachings 
Yes.
The complete teachings of the Buddha, in terms of the formation of early Buddhist texts, are found in SN/SA, particularly the sutra-anga portion. This finding is according to the scholar-monk, Yin Shun (see pp. 7-11, Choong Mun-keat, The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism).