We find different practices in the sutta, many of them are -sati or -saññā
And I wonder if there is a logical difference between the two, for example if -saññā involves in some way a ‘creation of an object’ in our mind, and -sati is rather a recollection of something we have experienced or known? could we for example speak of ānāpānassaññā - why not? marana is the only item that appears in both lists.
Here is a (maybe not complete?) list for both from the suttas (some appear in many other places of course…)
saññā (perceptions, or maybe better _con_ceptions)
SN 46.67 conception of the not-beautiful: Asubhasaññā
SN 46.68 conception of death: Maraṇasaññā
SN 46.71 Aniccasaññā (impermanence)
SN 46.72 Anicce dukkhasaññā (dukkha in impermanence)
SN 46.73 Dukkhe anattasaññā (non-self in dukkha)
AN 10.238 …anattasaññā (nonself), āhāre paṭikūlasaññā (repulsiveness of food), sabbaloke anabhiratasaññā (nondelight in all the world), aṭṭhikasaññā (skeleton), puḷavakasaññā (worm-infested corpse), vinīlakasaññā (livid corpse), vipubbakasaññā (festering corpse), vicchiddakasaññā (fissured corpse), uddhumātakasaññā (bloated corpse)
AN 10.60 … ādīnavasaññā (danger), pahānasaññā (abandoning), virāgasaññā (dispassion), nirodhasaññā (cessation)… sabbasaṅkhāresu anicchāsaññā (impermanence in all sankhara)
sati (memories? recollections? concentrations?)
AN 1.296 - AN 1.305 (we find the exact same order in the vissudhimagga…)
Buddhānussati, Dhammānussati, saṅghānussati
sīlānussati (virtue)
cāgānussati (generosity)
devatānussati (devas)
ānāpānassati (breath)
maraṇassati (death)
kāyagatāsati (directed to the body)
upasamānussati (calmness)
saññā as perception appears to be more pertaining to phenomena perceptible through sense organs, whereas sati is mostly connected with activity of the mind unrelated to immediate perception
so we would think judging from the word ‘saññā’ but this can’t be really true. The breath is something that is accessible all the time, whereas death or a bloated corpse seems just not to be around when I need it Even if death was more present back in the days you could hardly find a fresh corpse in the village monastery whenever you wanted to do corpse contemplation. There must have been an imaginary aspect to it. The same with the 32 body parts. How do you perceive repulsiveness of food without ‘adding’ to the perception? saññā doesn’t force us to understand it as sense perception. Coming from sam+jna it’s very open to higher cognitive functions as well…
that’s why i used such qualifiers as more and mostly
however usage of the word sanna in connection with corpse contemplation may suggest that it originally was meant to be performed with actual corpse in sight and of course there’s nothing to suggest that it’s to be performed in the monastery
the -sanna practice may imply presence of the real time concurrent sensory experience like in the case of āhāre paṭikūlasaññā whereas the sati practice may not necessarily require such
I think this thread is an excellent discussion topic.
That said, your interpretation of ‘anapanasati’ to mean ‘mindfulness of breathing’ may not be accurate or complete (despite the widespread use of this translation).
‘Mindfulness’ means ‘to remember’, ‘recollect’ or ‘keep in mind’ rather than to ‘cognise’ or ‘perceive’ therefore the term ‘anapanasati’ may mean a lot more than simply ‘watching breathing’.
For example, in the sutta, the term used for watching, observing or contemplating is ‘anuppasi’ rather than ‘sati’. On the most crude level of practise, the mind remembers (sati) to observe (anupassi) the breathing.
There is nothing in the term ‘anapanasati’ or the instruction to predicate the use of the word ‘of’. ‘Anapanasati’ may possibly mean ‘mindfulness when breathing’ or ‘mindfulness with breathing’.
Hm, but in kāyagatāsati we also just concentrate on a specific aspect of the body, right? still, kayagatasaññā would sound weird, I just can’t grasp why
‘Kayagatasaññā’ sounds OK if the task is the perceive the body, such as contemplating corpses.
Kāyagatāsati is the same as anapanasati. Much more is going on that just watching the body or breathing because, to practise well, the mind must remember to employ many other dhammas apart from only watching.
For example, if you try to watch the breathing or body with craving, the mind’s effort & energy will be unbalanced & unclear and the meditation will not progress smoothly.
Therefore, mindfulness is used to balance effort, to let go of craving, to bring wisdom (sampajjana) to overcome hindrances, to abandon wrong views, to let go of clinging to rapture, etc.
Mindfulness is used in many ways apart from concentrating on the object. Mindfulness must bring wisdom (panna) to experience, which is called sampajjana (clear comprehension; ready applied active wisdom).
Therefore, the complete meditation teaching about mindfulness is as follows:
And what is the faculty of mindfulness? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, is mindful, highly meticulous, remembering & able to call to mind even things that were done & said long ago. He remains focused on (ānupassī) the body in & of itself — ardent (ātāpī), clearly comprehending (sampajāno) & mindful (satimā) — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves… the mind in & of itself… dhammas in & of themselves — ardent, clearly comprehending & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. This is called the faculty of mindfulness. Indriya-vibhanga Sutta
Fortunately we have many hints about the functions of sati in the suttas. It’s still not as transparent as I wish it was (for example the tension between ‘memory’ and ‘mindfulness’), but it’s solvable in practice. Are there nice descriptions like this for saññā as well?[quote=“Mkoll, post:9, topic:3087”]
You might be interested in Mindfulness in Early Buddhism by Tse-Fu Kuan
[/quote]
Thanks! I looked into it and am glad it offers many suggestions. I’ll have to read more into it still…
Do you think the following works? saññā would be the fixed premise and background or coloring of my perception. Practicing aniccasaññā I would start to perceive anicca in all objects. sati would be the object of my perception, under the exclusion of other objects, possibly leading to jhana.
[quote=“Gabriel, post:10, topic:3087”]
Fortunately we have many hints about the functions of sati in the suttas. It’s still not as transparent as I wish it was (for example the tension between ‘memory’ and ‘mindfulness’), but it’s solvable in practice. [/quote]
The Maha-Cattarisaka Sutta (MN 117) has what I regard to be the best description of how mindfulness works.
One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one’s right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort & right mindfulness — run & circle around right view. MN 117
It is quite easy to say “it’s solvable in practice” but, generally, one’s views about mindfulness will determine the quality of one’s practise.
Ajahn Brahm’s book Mindfulness, Bliss & Beyond emphasises keeping the mind in a state of ‘letting go’. Doing this requires mindfulness, as described in MN 117 (keeping right view in the mind). In the Commentaries, mindfulness is described as the ‘gatekeeper’.
“What is sammasati? Sati means to bear in mind or bring to mind. Sati is the state of recollecting, the state of remembering, the state of non-fading, the state of non-forgetting. Sati means the sati that is a Spiritual Faculty, the sati that is a Spiritual Power, Sammasati, the Sati that is an Enlightenment Factor, that which is a Path Factor and that which is related to the Path. This is what is called sammasati.” [Vbh.105, 286]
the functioning of sati is often compared to that of a gatekeeper, whose job is to keep his eyes on the people passing in and out, regulating affairs by permitting entrance and egress to those for whom it is proper and forbidding it to those for whom it is not.
It’s characteristic that we drift into a discussion about sati, because as frequent the mention of saññā is in the suttas, we don’t have an actual idea how it was actually practiced, am I right? I mean ok, I want to practice maranasaññā for example. I sit down, and then what? do I imagine people dying one by one? do I imagine how I am old and frail, the heart stops beating and then a blank? do I remember the dead bird on the street I saw? or is it rather ‘resonating’ the thought ‘everything that lives must die’ - so do I work with concrete images or concepts?..
same with aniccasaññā - where do we get a good idea how to practice it? I still have the suspicion that what is called ‘vipassana’ nowadays is actually the practice of aniccasaññā.
i’m not sure they should be practised as formal sitting meditation, although this method isn’t ruled out, but rather as themes constantly born in mind (remembered) through the lens of which experiences are viewed, assessed and judged, as constituents of a mind frame
AN 8.74 and AN 6.20 outline an approximate procedure or routine
AN 10.60 gives definition of aniccasanna, and it indeed involves seclusion
I myself have also always wondered what the practice of aniccasaññā is (it is listed as a preliminary practise in MN 118). I do not know what it is but I doubt it is the the same as vipassana. My guess is aniccasaññā is a combination of both direct seeing, analytical thinking, wise reflection & mental noting. Where as, in my understanding, vipassana is 100% direct seeing. However, I could be wrong. Maybe someone can comment on aniccasaññā (since it is now my bedtime). Good night from where I am.
[quote=“Gabriel, post:10, topic:3087, full:true”][quote=“Mkoll, post:9, topic:3087”]
You might be interested in Mindfulness in Early Buddhism by Tse-Fu Kuan
[/quote]
Thanks! I looked into it and am glad it offers many suggestions. I’ll have to read more into it still…
Do you think the following works? saññā would be the fixed premise and background or coloring of my perception. Practicing aniccasaññā I would start to perceive anicca in all objects. sati would be the object of my perception, under the exclusion of other objects, possibly leading to jhana.
[/quote]
You’re welcome.
I don’t know if that works. I would say that the kind of sati you’re describing would only be possible in formal meditation. A person can’t function in daily life unless they’re mindful of many objects. I think we’re to be cultivating sati-sampajañña in all postures (MN 10).
Even if death was more present back in the days you could hardly find a fresh corpse in the village monastery whenever you wanted to do corpse contemplation. There must have been an imaginary aspect to it. The same with the 32 body parts. How do you perceive repulsiveness of food without ‘adding’ to the perception? saññā doesn’t force us to understand it as sense perception. Coming from sam+jna it’s very open to higher cognitive functions as well…