This sounds kind of “external”, but I assume it applies internally as well?
Analayo writes:
This broad variety of occurrences demonstrates that the combination of mindfulness with clear knowledge is often used in a general manner to refer to awareness and knowledge, without being restricted to its specific use as clearly knowing bodily activities in the gradual path scheme or in the satipaììhãna context of body contemplation.
Such cooperation of mindfulness with clear knowledge, which according to the “definition” is required for all satipaììhãna contemplations, points to the need to combine mindful observation of phenomena with an intelligent processing of the observed data. Thus “to clearly know” can be taken to represent the “illuminating” or “awakening” aspect of contemplation. Understood in this way, clear knowledge has the task of processing the input gathered by mindful observation, and thereby leads to the arising of wisdom.
2 Likes
In AN 5.14, we have a definition for the power of mindfulness:
In AN 5.15, we have:
In SN 48.9, we have a definition for the faculty of mindfulness:
And in SN 48.11, we have:
It seems that when the suttas talk about mindfulness as a power or a faculty, it’s talking about the noble ones. Sati itselt seems to just mean alertness, clearmindedness.
I’m not sure this necessarily implies that there are two different kinds of mindfulness, perhaps it’s more a matter of degree.
I may just be speculating, but I get the sense that when using language like indriya/“faculties” in the context of “spiritual” development there is a clear reference to the usage of indriya found elsewhere in the context of the lower bodily sense faculties/organs (sight, hearing, etc.). There are five lower senses and there are five spiritual faculties. It seems to me the meaning is that as the lower senses are restrained/guarded, the reliance on them dropping away, one following the Dhamma would instead rely on “senses” more aligned with spiritual development. So sati although being developed and indeed present in an earlier stage, becomes a higher “sense faculty” of the well-developed person.
I’m not sure if the case made above ^ (5 spiritual faculties = transformed lower sense faculties) holds any water. Could a similar case be made for 4 spiritual powers = ?
Isn’t sati as ‘mindfulness’ confusing you guys? You collected so many quotes with “one who remembers and recollects”… sati simply isn’t mindfulness in this vipassana-ish sense we got used to. i understand that people won’t take ‘memory’ or ‘concentration’ but then at least we could simply use ‘sati’. we got used to ‘samadhi’ as well and it’s much more flexible to future understandings - we’re not translators after all - except @raivo 
1 Like
I’m not a translator either. I’ve just dabbled in it a bit because I find it helps to internalize the Teaching and often brings up important questions concerning topics that seem pretty clear at first glance.
1 Like
Sujato suggested ‘retention’, which I agree with.
Say you have a job in the army as a sniper. Every time a person is walking in the street of a town your army is occupying, you must shoot & kill that person, be they man, woman or child. To perform this task you require mindfulness. Instead of practising compassion & non-harming towards people, your duty is to kill them. This duty requires ‘mindfulness’ (‘sati’), namely, remembering to do you job rather than dozing off or letting compassion control your mind. This mindfulness is called ‘wrong mindfulness’ (‘miccha sati’).
It is not alertness & clear-mindedness but remembering to be alert & clear-minded. Alertness & clear-mindedness are the results of mindfulness rather than mindfulness itself.
We can examine our own mind when we do a task to examine what mindfulness really is. For example, if we must study for an examination but there is also a TV show we want to watch, it is mindfulness that remembers or keeps in mind the task we must do & generates the wisdom thought: “I cannot watch TV now; I must study for the exam”.
The Blessed One said, “Suppose, monks, that a large crowd of people comes thronging together, saying, ‘The beauty queen! The beauty queen!’ And suppose that the beauty queen is highly accomplished at singing & dancing, so that an even greater crowd comes thronging, saying, ‘The beauty queen is singing! The beauty queen is dancing!’ Then a man comes along, desiring life & shrinking from death, desiring pleasure & abhorring pain. They say to him, ‘Now look here, mister. You must take this bowl filled to the brim with oil and carry it on your head in between the great crowd & the beauty queen. A man with a raised sword will follow right behind you, and wherever you spill even a drop of oil, right there will he cut off your head.’ Now what do you think, monks: Will that man, not paying attention to the bowl of oil, let himself get distracted outside?”
SN 47.20
~~
"One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one’s right mindfulness…
"One is mindful to abandon wrong resolve & to enter & remain in right resolve: This is one’s right mindfulness…
"One is mindful to abandon wrong speech & to enter & remain in right speech: This is one’s right mindfulness…
"One is mindful to abandon wrong action & to enter & remain in right action: This is one’s right mindfulness…
“One is mindful to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter & remain in right livelihood: This is one’s right mindfulness…”
MN 117
2 Likes
I didn’t mean to imply there are two different kinds on mindfulness, just that perhaps not every aspect of the mindfulness of a noble one must be (as strongly) present in the mindfulness of a worldling. So I agree about it being a matter of degree.
After some more sutta reading, I do find a strong connection between retention and sustained awareness, like Bhante Sujato said, and I don’t think it’s very easy to clearly separate the two meanings from each-other or sati from sampajañña and even wisdom and some other faculties often seem to be in the mix.
It’s pretty crazy how broad the concepts behind words get and how relative they are to other concepts when you start to dig into them deeper. Finding a suitable word to describe a certain concept is like trying to figure out what the green part of an apple tastes like.
1 Like
Say we must used a magnifying glass to light a fire. We must keep/uphold the magnifying glass at a certain angle to the sun & to the fuel so the light can converge onto the fuel and ignite it.
For me, what keeps holding the magnifying in the right place is ‘mindfulness’. Where as the light converging/uniting/concentrating through the magnifying glass is ‘samadhi’.
Thus, mindfulness is a ‘support’ for ‘samadhi’ rather than samadhi itself since what concentrates is the citta, such as in the term ‘citta ekaggatta’.
The Blessed One said: “Now what, monks, is noble (ariyo) right (sammā) concentration (samādhi) with its supports & requisite conditions? Any singleness (ekaggatā) of mind (cittassa) equipped with these seven factors — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort & right mindfulness — is called noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions”.
MN 117
1 Like
[quote=“raivo, post:23, topic:3184”]
In AN 5.14, we have a definition for the power of mindfulness:
[quote=“raivo, post:23, topic:3184”]
In SN 48.9, we have a definition for the faculty of mindfulness:
these two are one and the same, the difference is only in the translation of satinepakkena as either mindfulness and alertness or mindfulness and discretion
i think in this thread we tentatively established that noble disciple (ariyasāvako) is anyone who follows the Dhamma, it may only require one small clarification as to whether it only refers to monastics or to lay practitioners as well
1 Like
I like the English term ‘discretion’.
I personally do not like Thanissaro’s translation ‘alertness’ since it lacks the ‘wisdom’ aspect of ‘sampajanna’. The old-fashioned ‘clear-comprehension’ or ‘comprehends readily’ is good enough for me.
My understanding of the old-fashioned distinction is that ‘sati’ is part of the concentration (samadhi) faculty and ‘sampajanna’ is part of the wisdom (panna) faculty.
To me, the English term ‘alertness’ sounds like concentration rather than wisdom.
1 Like
if i may correct you the word used in the compound in those quotations is nepakka
the rendering of alertness in AN 5.14 belongs to Ven Bodhi, but it isn’t true to its dictionary meaning of prudence, discrimination, carefulness
the rendering discretion is also his
the result of either inconsistency or of change in his views on suitable equivalents
Sorry, I had to tend to my nephew earlier and cut my post short. What I was aiming at, was this:
Just a few suttas after SN 48.9 (SN 48.12-18), the Buddha says (no time to type them here) that the arahant has completed and fulfilled the five faculties and if they are weaker than that, one is a nonreturner, still weaker, a once-returner … up to Dhamma-follower and faith-follower.
In SN 48.18, the Buddha says:
And Bhikkhu Bodhis note on this passage says (I’m paraphrasing a little) that while in this sutta these faculties are restricted to those at the minimum level of path-attainer, the Pali tradition beginning with the Abhidhamma, regards them as general wholesome capacities also possessed by worldlings.
1 Like
oh, if by nobles you meant all these levels, not just ariyapuggala, then i’ve misconstrued your statement
To me, it’s quite possible that “remembering what we must do” is more a part of wisdom than mindfulness and mindfulness (as not being distracted or being clearminded and focused) just enables that wisdom to shine forth.
Also the simile in SN 47.20 could be about the level or intensity of (right) mindfulness, not about it’s characteristics.
And I really don’t mean to destroy the last part of the post I’m responding to, but I seem to remember perhaps an Ajahn Brahmali talk or something where he said there’s something fishy about MN 117. I could be totally wrong about this.
No problem Raivo. Just keep searching.
In my experience, the description of the operation of ‘mindfulness’ in MN 117 is an important distinction from the ordinary interpretations about ‘mindfulness’. When I first read it, I was so pleased to read a description of ‘sati’ that conformed with my own (pre-existing) view.
In my experience, practising ‘mindfulness’ following MN 117 or, alternately, the ‘ordinary interpretations’, results in a large divergence in methodology & thus results. I know which method I have chosen.
I would suggest many suttas are likely to not be the actual words of the Buddha. This in itself does not negate the dhammic validity of what is written in them; just as Ajahn Brahmali not being the Buddha himself does not explicitly negate the dhammic validity of words of Ajahn Brahmali. Thus MN 118 ends as follows:
Bhikkhus, if any recluse or brahmin thinks that this Dhamma discourse on the Great Forty should be censured and rejected, then there are ten legitimate deductions from his assertions that would provide grounds for censuring him here and now. If that worthy one censures right view, then he would honour and praise those recluses and brahmins who are of wrong view. If that worthy one censures right intention, then he would honour and praise those recluses and brahmins who are of wrong intention. If that worthy one censures right speech… right action…right livelihood…right effort…right mindfulness…right concentration…right knowledge…right deliverance, then he would honour and praise those recluses and brahmins who are of wrong deliverance. If any recluse or brahmin thinks that this Dhamma discourse on the Great Forty should be censured and rejected, then these are ten legitimate deductions from his assertions that would provide grounds for censuring him here and now.
Sorry but I would like to remind us all to avoid not throwing the baby with the bathwater when it comes to the MN117.
As per the commentaries, in the early Sangha this was a crucial part of any bhikkhu curriculum and the way it presents a gradual causation / foundation for the path to mature and flourish is very useful for anyone who wants to make sense of his/her practice of the Dhamma.
In other words, I think it is not right to just discard it because it makes use of Abhidhammic pedagogy. It is indeed a very pretentious thing.
All in all, there must have been a genuine and good reason for Abhidhamma to have been compiled and preserved. If we completely lost our ability to make sense of it, the fault is on us and not on those who came up with it.
Indeed, I think this is a nice topic for discussion and study: what might have been the good reasons for the creation of the Abhidhamma?
1 Like
Bhante, what about this in AN 4.30:
It could be due to Bhikkhu Bodhis translation choices, but from this it seems to me that sammasati is more about not being confused / having clarity of mind and sammasamadhi about the mind not wandering off.
I’ve come across this muddle-mindedness as an antonym for mindfulness (or perhaps established mindfulness) in a few suttas, AN 8.30 is an example:
Your thoughts on the original Pali would be greatly appreciated…
4 Likes