“Satipaṭṭhāna” should be understood as the establishment or foundation of mindfulness — namely body, feeling, mind, and principles (dhamma). When mindfulness is firmly established in any one of these four foundations, right concentration arises first. Then the process of contemplation follows. This process requires deep stability and calm; only then can knowledge and vision arise — meaning direct insight, not a thinking process, but an experiential penetration through wisdom. Strong concentration is essential.
I’m trying to compare this explanation with Bhante @sujato’s annotations in DN22.
I don’t think Bhante’s contradicts it, but I feel that they are not the same.
This discourse is copied from MN10. The section on the four noble truths has been expanded with material mostly drawn from mn141. These discourses are the most influential texts for modern Theravada meditation, prompting countless modern commentaries. Comparative study of the several parallel versions reveals that this discourse, while comprised almost entirely of early material, was compiled in this form as one of the latest texts in the Pali suttas (see sn47.18 and note). | While mindfulness is always useful (sn46.53:15.4), the “establishment of mindfulness” (satipaṭṭhāna) refers especially to a conscious development of contemplative practices based on mindfulness, i.e. “mindfulness meditation”.
And Bhante’s explanation on the meaning of dhamma contradicts Ven P.A. Payutto:
Bhante’s:
“Principles” (dhammā) are the natural “systems” of cause and effect that underlie the “teachings”. The renderings “mind objects” or “mental qualities” are incorrect, as many of the things spoken of in this section are neither mind objects nor mental qualities. “Phenomena” is a possible translation, but the emphasis is not on the “appearance” of things, but on the “principles” governing their conditional relations.
[Contemplating dhamma with established mindfulness in order to see according to reality that it is merely dhamma, not beings, persons, selves, “us” or “them.” — Dhammānupassanā: contemplation of dhamma; mindfulness with regard to principles. That is, maintaining sāti together with clear comprehension of various dhamma — the five hindrances, the five aggregates, the twelve sense bases, the seven factors of awakening, and the four noble truths — by understanding what they are, how they are, whether they are present in oneself, how they arise, how they develop to fullness, and how they cease. Understand them according to what they truly are.]
His definitions of ธรรมารมณ์ dhammāramana:
อารมณ์คือธรรม, สิ่งที่ถูกรับรู้ทางใจ, สิ่งที่รู้ด้วยใจ, สิ่งที่ใจรู้สึกนึกคิด[Ārammaṇa is the dhamma; the object known by the mind, what is apprehended by the mind; what the mind experiences, feels, or thinks about.]
I feel like what Bhante Sujato and Ven Payutto are saying here are quite similar - in the larger block of text. Not so with regard to the second definition of dhammanupassana which is more referencing phenomena
In the first definition they’re both talking about the natural principles (in the first definition from P.A.Payutto).
I think this is a vital distinction and defines the experience of sati to be instructive and beneficial because it’s not filtered through levels of misunderstanding. I understand that Bhante Sujato is pointing out that using mind objects or mental qualities reflects the experience as a subjective perception and does not point to how things came to be, the point of dependent origination.
