If in ancient times, when Indians came into contact with the Greeks, the Dhamma did not need to be represented as plausible or desirable in order for the Greeks to appreciate it, then now, when Buddhism has begun to advance in the West, we can say that a quasi-language of Dhamma has already been formed, which in its simultaneous intention to be easy and scientific, has all the signs of a secondary origin both in relation to the language of the suttas and in relation to the language of Western philosophy.
I do not feel confident in understanding the Canon, since I do not know the Pali language, but when I open a Pali dictionary, I see that the translation of some authors is very arbitrary and very far from the original.
In order to understand Buddhism, it must be understood in its own terms and its own cultural context. The language in the suttas is very precise, verified and there is nothing superfluous or accidental in it.
The most central term in this new Dhamma language is Mindfulness and when it is used it is often done in disregard to the Canon and with the pathos of ritual or initiation.
Epistemologically Sati is a Sanskrit word Smṛti. Generally Smṛti means the remembered tradition of Hindu texts. So by the origin Sati means remembered tradition.
Sati cannot be translated into one word, since it has several meanings and for a simple understanding of them one must hold in memory all at once, which is impossible if the comprehender does not have the experience denoted by this word.
Sati Sati (f.) [Vedic smṛti: see etym. under sarati2] memory, recognition, consciousness, D i.180; ii.292; Miln 77-80; intentness of mind, wakefulness of mind, mindfulness, alertness, lucidity of mind, self-possession, conscience, self-consciousness The Pali Text Society's Pali-English dictionary
Sati is the contemplation of the true reality of phenomena by placing them correctly in the context of the Teaching or the Tradition in which they acquire adequate meaning.
And the more accurately you can find the appropriate ideas/words for your experience, true from any perspective, the better your understanding is.
The Western cognitive paradigm is designed in such a way that the highest knowledge is the most abstract and purified from ambiguity. Therefore the Western reader strives for generalization, erasing details or searching for ultimate foundations. And from Buddhist perspective such a paradigm is itself contaminated with layers of ignorance.
In Buddhism, the ideal of knowledge is knowledge obtained from the direct experience of contemplating a unique phenomenon, so that this phenomenon acquires a real and universal form of knowledge.
Can you expand on this? I’m not really sure what you mean by this. Are you referring to seminars on mindfulness for the public, secular approaches to Buddhism focusing on mindfulness, self-help books on mindfulness, academia in the West?
That kind of contradicts itself. How can you tell if it is arbitrary and very far from the original then?
I’ve seen sati being rendered as “recollection” - that might be closer to the Sanskrit term. I can’t really comment on this because I simply don’t know. If sati is synonymous with the Sanskrit term is another question.
I can’t follow your general line of argument, though. That words may have several meanings is a commonplace. Translators (at least the ones that take their job seriously) are usually highly trained and skilled. Yes, polysemy can be very tricky and there is a lot of debate going on as to how to render certain terms. And translating from Sanskrit or Pali inevitably entails bridging concepts/ideas/objects/professions - you name it - not found in the target language or a society’s “knowledge of the world”. But the job needs to be done 
I am familiar with the approximate content of secular Buddhism and with the mindfulness seminars, but I meant the very traditional teachers. I don’t think it is right to talk about them directly, without their participation, so I preferred to describe the problem, because it is too complex to blame each of the teachers.
As for academia, I found Richard Gombrich’s book, How Buddhism Began, as a very precious. The researches on comparing Chinese and Pali texts, or dating texts, cannot be overestimated.
You can gain knowledge not only from the language itself, which has long been a bookish language, but comparing and analysing translations that could be applied to meditative experience. I do not assume what I do not understand. Sometimes I am wondering what many of teachers’ confidence is based on, what makes them feel that they have knowledge and where is the criterion for this knowledge? I also really don’t like a convention, where neither feedback nor dialogue nor disputes are encouraged outside from predetermined form of ritual. I can only say that this is the most distant position from the ancient Indian tradition.
To avoid being unfounded, I will give examples.
Ajahn Brahm
“And so today I am going to talk about Mindfulness, exactly what it is and how it is practiced and what the results are. First of all I would like to mention that there are two parts of Mindfulness. The first concept is alertness, the clarity of consciousness, and the second concept of Mindfulness is what I like to call remembering instructions, it is the aspect that covers the degree of wisdom and understanding. But first of all, what most people understand about Mindfulness, attention, alertness is just the ability to know, and that needs to be explained in deeper depths because sometimes what we think of knowing can be confusing. First of all, the degree of understanding, the degree of knowing, the degree of attention vary enormously, and part of our practice of meditation is developing the ability to know. The alertness of the mind is what we called the first aspect of Mindfulness”.
That mindfulness has two parts is a demonstration of a formulation that does not correspond to the suttas. Allertness is a necessary condition for any perfection and is not necessary for understanding the uniqueness of mindfulness. If alertness were a part of Mindfulness, then Mindfulness and Situational Awareness would not be spoken of as a pair in Numbered Discourses 8.81. 9. Mindfulness.
Mindfulness and Situational Awareness
1.1“Mendicants, when there is no mindfulness and situational awareness, one who lacks mindfulness and situational awareness has destroyed a vital condition for conscience and prudence".
"Bhikkhu Bodhi defines mindfulness (the term sati in Pali) as “the mental ability to pay attention to physical or mental events that occur in the present moment”.
The mental ability to pay attention is also present in disordered people without any recollections. This definition is so broad and also do not correspond to suttas.
And here is his translation of the sutta which has a completely different.
“And how, bhikkhus, is a bhikkhu mindful? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu dwells contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having removed covetousness and displeasure in regard to the world. He dwells contemplating feelings in feelings … mind in mind … phenomena in phenomena, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having removed covetousness and displeasure in regard to the world. It is in this way, bhikkhus, that a bhikkhu is mindful".
Here’s another description of mindfulness from Saṁyutta Nikāya that doesn’t fit well with common expectations.
Connected Discourses on the Establishments of Mindfulness
“47.10. The Bhikkhunis’ QuarterHe reflects thus: ‘The purpose for the sake of which I directed my mind has been achieved. Let me now withdraw it.’ So he withdraws the mind and does not think or examine. He understands: ‘Without thought and examination, internally mindful, I am happy.’”
Also the sutta from Medium Discourses 81, Mindfulness of Body paints a definite picture what mindfulness is.
It is necessary to keep in mind that in Ancient India the human body was understood as a microcosmic manifestation of the macrocosmic universe, containing rivers, mountains and so on.
It is not simply question of accuracy in translation in order to understand Dhamma, you need to develop sensitivity to how the ancient Indians perceived the world.
P.S. I am very sorry that my response to you was delayed due to circumstances. I sincerely appreciate your interest and answer.
Thanks for the response. I think I understand better now what you mean but I still don’t necessarily agree with your findings.
Agreed. I can only comment on Bikkhu Bodhi as I’m somewhat familiar with his works and I can say that he really is quite sensitive to cultural embeddings of the teachings in general and a well- respected translator and scholar.
He wrote an essay on the term mindfulness: “What does mindfulness really mean. A canonical perspective”. In the abstract he states that the term originally meant “memory” but that the Buddha took up this word and used it in a different sense to convey his teachings.
This makes sense because we are no longer talking about smṛti in a Hindu/Vedic context.
That said, sati has different layers of meaning in the Canon and within the suttas as well and there is an ongoing debate on how to translate the term properly.
At one point (when teaching or writing about sati) - one has to make a decision as to how to render the term for the standard listener/reader: giving lenghty explanations on the word and it’s background, provide some information but not going into too much detail or render it to a catchy single-word that might not convey all its connotations. What is best depends on the situation ( the reader’s/listener’s abilities and background knowledge, the teacher’s skill, the goal of the the talk etc.)
I am very glad that you disagree with me because it helps me to improve my understanding.
As far as I know true respect in academia is when you are challenged, and no one embarrassed to make comments based on authority.
In reality when you make a choice that affects your life, you will not refer to authorities, but will act as you see with your own eyes.
Often when such debates take place, I get the impression that people are talking about something other than the topic. For any position there is a limited set of alternatives, affirmation, denial, their combinations and recombinations, to which some semblance of meaning glues. During human history, all these positions are very well elaborated and it is impossible to add anything original or new to them. And I think that the problem of the lack of suitable words in Western culture is exaggerated, since the language of Western philosophy has sufficient means to convey almost any meaning.
It goes without saying, that one cannot put an equal sign between the Vedic and Buddhist terms, but one must understand that Buddha did not create a special language, although India had a brilliant culture of recording the most complex concepts with minimal, precise means, but chose the proto-language Pali to convey his teaching. No one doubts that the proto-language Pali was not invented by Buddha, but many are sure that the language of Dhamma, which is the fundamental principle of reality (by definition) given to us, was newborn.