What is (not) in the Saṃyukta Āgama

[llt]

Awhile ago when I was searching for information on ānāpāna within the āgamas, I was grepping away as usual, and I saw that with just one exception (SA 746), references to ānāpāna were found in just one fascicle of the text, and even within just one group of texts, SA 801-815.

At this point I started to become curious. What does this mean about the compilation of the Saṃyukta Āgama? I still don’t know, but at least ānāpānasmṛti had its own saṃyukta, and a place within the sūtra aṅga, so it must have been fairly early and considered a major practice by at least some people in the community.

Then I got to the (probably late) SA 809, which is warning about impurity meditations and instead advising ānāpāna. So I thought, are impurity meditations even taught in the Saṃyukta Āgama? They certainly have no saṃyukta (as ānāpāna has). So I searched around, and while there are a few scattered sūtras, it looks like they were either late additions or extremely marginal. The fullest treatment of these practices is in SA 1165, which is in the saṃyukta for the Six Entrances.

What about the Brahmavihāras? I searched through the Saṃyukta Āgama, and found exactly five instances, all repetitions of the same stock formula of spiritual accomplishments:

初禪、第二禪、第三禪、第四禪，慈、悲、喜、捨，空入處、識入處、無所有入處、非想非非想入處具足住

… first dhyāna, second dhyāna, third dhyāna, fourth dhyāna; kindness, compassion, joy, abandoning; the realm of infinite space, the realm of infinite consciousness, the realm of nothingness, the realm of neither perception nor non-perception…

Nowhere in the Saṃyukta Āgama (to the best of my knowledge) is anyone advised to practice them, or taught how to practice them, or anything about their benefits. Kindness (慈) and compassion (悲) are very widely found throughout the collection, but not in the list of practices that form the Brahmavihāras (慈、悲、喜、捨). There are also no references to “Four Brahmavihāras,” i.e. “四梵住” and “brahmavihāra” (梵住) appears only as a synonym for “noble abiding” and “divine abiding.”

Meditation on the elements? While the elements appear frequently throughout the SA, when it comes to meditation we are mainly just told not to grasp them.

Then there is the list of four practices to cultivate. For example, ānāpāna to sever thoughts, meditation on impurity to sever desires, etc. This list is found only one time, in SA 815, so it is likely not part of the original collection. The lone statement that ānāpāna is cultivated to sever thoughts, however, is found quite frequently throughout SA 801-815.

Meditation on the thirty-two marks of the Buddha is not found in the SA either (no big surprise). In fact the Buddha does not appear to have thirty-two marks in this collection.

So with all of this, we might ask: what meditations can we know were actually important and central within the Saṃyukta Āgama at the time of its compilation? From what I have seen so far, it appears that abstract meditations on the skandhas, etc., as impermanent, suffering, empty, not self, etc., were very important.

The Four Bases of Mindfulness are also referenced very frequently throughout the text. For meditation, the two most referenced frameworks appear to be the Four Bases of Mindfulness and the Seven Factors of Bodhi. The Bodhi factor of “mindfulness” is also canonically defined to be the Four Bases of Mindfulness.

But taking the above into account, these Four Bases of Mindfulness would probably be more like those in SA 605-639, not like those very elaborate formulations in the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta, in which an entire host of other practices are made to conform to, and fulfill, the Four Bases of Mindfulness.

[daverupa]

[quote=“llt, post:1, topic:2922”]
So with all of this, we might ask: what meditations can we know were actually important and central within the Saṃyukta Āgama at the time of its compilation? From what I have seen so far, it appears that abstract meditations on the skandhas, etc., as impermanent, suffering, empty, not self, etc., were very important.

…For meditation, the two most referenced frameworks appear to be the (simple) Four Bases of Mindfulness and the Seven Factors of Bodhi. The Bodhi factor of “mindfulness” is also canonically defined to be the Four Bases of Mindfulness.[/quote]

This is about the shape of my own conclusions on the matter, as well. Nice to see a convergence here.

I suspect that we have a lot of wanderer samadhi in the texts, and of course modern New Age folk, corporate folk, secular folk, Buddhist folk, et al all have a wild assortment of practices.

So I wonder, just how much can be brought into alignment with sammasati? What can count as sammasamadhi?

Probably a lot more than is on offer in the early texts, and of course with those methods & others there are ways to get any such effort wrong as well as right (though some will be off target altogether, such as Creator Deity prayer, magick spells, shamanism…).

(And, with respect to the Brahmaviharas, for a long while now I’ve used the Sedaka Sutta’s framework instead, which is more suitable given my predilections.)

It’s an essential topic to investigate, it seems to me.

@llt

abstract meditations

This would need unpacking, however.

[llt]

@daverupa

So I wonder, just how much can be brought into alignment with sammasati? What can count as sammasamadhi?

I would imagine that meditations leading to the Four Dhyānas must “work” for reaching correct samādhi. But correct mindfulness is defined as the Four Bases of Mindfulness.

Here is an interesting issue. The EA and AN have ten forms of mindfulness. But since correct mindfulness is defined as the Four Bases of Mindfulness, how do practices such as mindfulness of devas, or mindfulness of the Sangha, fit into that? Can they fit into that?

In the SA and SN, we are told to know and fully understand the body, etc., and know them as they really are. Can you be doing that if you are visualizing a dismembered corpse? Is that really the reality of your own body at that moment?

And if the theory behind the Four Bases of Mindfulness is different than that of impurity meditations and ānāpāna, then what is the exact relationship between these practices?

[Erika_ODonnell]

Really interesting thread! I’m surprised at the lack of brahmavihara in the SA.

In the Pali canon at least, the four BV’s seem to mostly be taught to brahmans, they seem to always be asking the Buddha about the path to Brahma.

I have a feeling sometimes that the Buddha is rebranding the four jhanas as the four BV’s as a skillful teaching for brahmans and monastics who were formerly from that tradition.

Maybe in the absence of any brahmanical tradition, the BV stuff just didn’t make that much sense to the SA translators, and it was simply dropped?

In the SA and SN, we are told to know and fully understand the body, etc., and know them as they really are. Can you be doing that if you are visualizing a dismembered corpse? Is that really the reality of your own body at that moment?

I would say yes, because the body is already in the process of rotting.

Like a banana left out in the sun, it takes some time before it starts to shrivel and shrink and turn brown, but the process started the moment it was picked off the tree.

The reality of the body is that it is wholly unsatisfactory in every way; it’s inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. Visualizing a dismembered corpse actually brings that point across quite nicely, in my opinion.

[seniya]

@llt

Here is an interesting issue. The EA and AN have ten forms of mindfulness. But since correct mindfulness is defined as the Four Bases of Mindfulness, how do practices such as mindfulness of devas, or mindfulness of the Sangha, fit into that? Can they fit into that?

IMO, the word “sati” and “anussati” is different meaning although these are from the same root. “Anussati” is frequently translated as “recollection” or “remembrance/recommemoration” as contrast from “sati” which is translated as “mindfulness”

[LXNDR]

@llt

Here is an interesting issue. The EA and AN have ten forms of mindfulness. But since correct mindfulness is defined as the Four Bases of Mindfulness, how do practices such as mindfulness of devas, or mindfulness of the Sangha, fit into that? Can they fit into that?

@seniya

IMO, the word “sati” and “anussati” is different meaning although these are from the same root. “Anussati” is frequently translated as “recollection” or “remembrance/recommemoration” as contrast from “sati” which is translated as “mindfulness”

could it be that in the Agamas they’re translated identically?

[llt]

They are probably both translated as nian (念), although the terminology varies a bit throughout the collections and even within them. This term has a broad range of meanings in the āgamas, unfortunately. But maybe that also tells us something about their interpretation (Guṇabhadra, etc.).

[seniya]

Hmmm, I see, so the Chinese translators translate both “sati” and “anussati” as nian (念)

[redmuntjac]

@llt

Kindness (慈) and compassion (悲) are very widely found throughout the collection, but not in the list of practices that form the Brahmavihāras (慈、悲、喜、捨)

Indeed. In SA567, for instance, only metta was described as a practice of “apramana” (無量三昧), unlike it’s counterpart in SN41.7 where karuna, mudita, and upekkha were added. Thus I suspect the practice of apramana was focused on metta at early times.

@llt

But taking the above into account, these Four Bases of Mindfulness would probably be more like those in SA 605-639, not like those very elaborate formulations in the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta, in which an entire host of other practices are made to conform to, and fulfill, the Four Bases of Mindfulness.

I was impressed by Bhante Sujato’s extensive comparative study in search of the original Satipatthana Sutta in his book “A History of Mindfulness”.

But I agree with you that the satipatthana in MN10 and MN119 are most likely composite sutta which fitted different practices into the four establishments of mindfulness. Still, as a firm believer of master Yin Shun’s anga theory (sutta-anga within SA/SN being the earliest among navanga-sasana), I doubted how could the SA/SN elaborate so little on the four establishments of mindfulness (as in SA 605-639)? Could the origin of satipatthana be traceable to some arguably earlier formulae scattered throughout the scripture?

This hypothesis did not disappoint me! And here’s what I found:

“Satipatthana as taught in the samyukta agama/samyutta nikaya”:

• Kayagatasati (住身念處) was closely linked to guarding the six senses (Indriyesu Guttadvara), although they may differ slightly in essence.

• "When a mendicant has developed and cultivated mindfulness of the body, their eye doesn’t pull towards pleasant sights, and isn’t put off by unpleasant sights. Their ear … nose … tongue … body … " SN35.247

• 若善修習身念處，有念、不念色，見可愛色則不生著，不可愛色則不生厭；耳聲、鼻香、舌味、身觸、意法，於可意法則不求欲，不可意法則不生厭。是故，比丘！當勤修習，多住身念處。" [SA1171]

• "正身自重，一其心念，不顧聲色，攝持一切心法，住身念處。"SA623 (=SN47.20). Interestingly, SN47.20 has not included the four establishments of mindfulness. I think SN 47.20 has preserved this sutta’s original appearance.

• “Take a mendicant who sees a sight with the eye. If it’s pleasant they don’t hold on to it, and if it’s unpleasant they don’t dislike it. They live with mindfulness of the body established and a limitless heart.” (SN 35.244)

• 多聞聖弟子亦復如是，若依聚落城邑而住，晨朝著衣持鉢，入村乞食，善護其身，善執其心，正念安住、正念而行、正念明目、正念觀察。SA1173

• 不苦不樂捨心住，正念、正智。SA240 [SN47.49]

• 若比丘樂受貪使已斷、已知，苦受恚使已斷、已知，不苦不樂受癡使已斷、已知者，是名比丘斷除愛欲縛、去諸結，慢無間等，究竟苦邊。SA468 [sn36.3]

• "云何為比丘勤攝心住？若比丘已生惡不善法當斷，生欲、方便，精進攝心。未生惡不善法不令起，未生善法令生，已生善法令住不忘，修習增滿，生欲、方便，精勤攝心，是名比丘勤攝心住。SA622

• In SA810 (SN54.13), anapanasati was summarized using the four establishments of mindfulness. Where 法念住 observing dhamma referred to impermanence, giving up, non-craving, cessation (and not seven factors of awakening as suggested in MN10)

(I just randomly quoted some sources here. Will update them soon…)

Could it be possible that these are what the four establishments of mindfulness actually referring to?

[josephzizys]

The jhanas? Been a minute since i interrogated SA, but surely the jhanas are the definitive meditation technique throughout the nikaya-agama “common core”?

[llt]

One of the main themes in the Samyukta Agama throughout is that mindfulness leads to samadhi. Right Mindfulness is defined as the Four Bases of Mindfulness. Right Samadhi is defined as the Four Dhyanas. This relationship between mindfulness and samadhi is found all across the collection: in the Five Roots, Five Powers, five steps to samadhi, Seven Factors of Bodhi, Eightfold Noble Path, and in the sutras on Anapana, etc. Things that are found repeatedly throughout a collection are more likely to be core formulations rather than later additions.

The Four Dhyanas have no samyukta of their own in the Samyukta Agama. I don’t think they are conceived of as a separate technique or practice. They are mainly presented as an eventual outcome of mindfulness. The Seven Factors of Bodhi, etc., describe sequences going from mindfulness to samadhi. Some of their more significant appearances of the Four Dhyanas in the Samyukta Agama are embedded in the Vedana Samyukta.

[josephzizys]

@llt

This relationship between mindfulness and samadhi is found all across the collection: in the Five Roots, Five Powers, five steps to samadhi, Seven Factors of Bodhi, Eightfold Noble Path, and in the sutras on Anapana, etc. Things that are found repeatedly throughout a collection are more likely to be core formulations rather than later additions.

I would say it is not found in the common core of D where sati is ‘mere’ recollectedness and the hinderences are presented as the stage of practice preceding jhana, I would argue that this can also be seen in M and perhaps even S, as a sequence known and accepted to be earlier than the cattaro satipaththana.

[llt]

Most of the evidence currently seems to point to SA / SN as being the earliest collection. There is relatively little meditative content in the DA / DN, as far as I know, less in the DA than in the DN. But if some well-substantiated theory establishing the DA / DN as early were to come along, that would be interesting.

[josephzizys]

It is interesting! I am making another thread to summarise it