Insight meditation and the Satipatthana sutta

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by Gem

It begins with calm mindedness because a calm mind will attend in a focused, penetrating way. Resting on the gross and solid level of the immediate experience, and feeling the finer details that make up the that overall solidity - dividing the initial feeling into its constituents by feeling out the finer details of the sensation. It follows that such an endeavor is training the mind to be able to perceive on a subtler level that was previously possible.

Apologies, Gem, for so many off topic posts.

To contribute more productively to this thread, I would say that in my limited (and somewhat abject) experience, meditation is fundamental to insight. Without determined meditation (whether that is in retreats or home practice) it is unlikely that meditation will yield the results of Buddhist practice.

At the beginning, there is much need for samadhi - and this is the benefit of diligent practice. It is not easy to "overcome" or quieten the mind and its habits down, therefore, there is much reverse treading (or rather, more accurately, passive, alert awareness) required in order to get a base level of seeing.

Once stream entrants have seen the flow, meditation is just starting in earnest.

A calm mind is not requisite for practice because ultimately insight penetrates it all; having said that, yes, I cannot imagine that the Adepts do not have calmness but I believe that comes from an actual cessation/quietude of the common mind rather than trying to stay calm amidst the clamor or avoiding unpleasant feelings. There is a subtle, but very significant, difference therein.

For meditators, continued cultivation of meditation naturally yields much more samadhi - stability and quietude of mind - in this expanse, vision is much stronger and so the students have a chance of seeing the dhammas at play. i.e. Yes, the student is ideally poised to be "seeing", rather than simply thinking/feeling without awareness. This is why meditation cultivation is often at the baseline of every Buddhist tradition without fail. It is necessary to cultivate the samadhi and the insight/Truth.

For this reason, I agree that whilst calm mind is important, later on, it is not the only place Buddhism has its strengths. Buddhism is an all weather, all road religion.

My 2c.

BT

[Gem]

Originally Posted by blossomingtree

Wrong word - right.



The Sutras are the same - except one is the longer version and has the Four Noble Truths included.

I think legend has it that Gotama made two different sermons, a longer one and a shorter one, and these are recorded in two different suttas.

Here is the Access to Insight link which is a succint translation:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html

It seems you provided the shorter discourse again, but with the translator's commentary. Personally I'm not fussed, longer, shorter, one translation or another, all are good.

Both versions are practically oriented, and not philosophical per se. YMMV.

I will read your discussions on it with others as I am interested in these topics. Thank you.

BT

Yes the satipatthana is the practical 'way to meditate' in regards to mindfulness, insight meditation, or vipassana (rose by other names). Different schools have read the sutta differently, and teach variations of the practice. There are obvious contradictions in these variations, so scholars discuss the finer intricacies, as catsqotl mentioned in the case of Sayadaw's approach.

People can quote or paraphrase Sayadaw as though it's 'right practice' because Sayadaw is a great teacher, but another great teacher, like my teachers for example, would say stop doing that. The meditation student will become confused, one says do this and the next one says don't do it. Hence there is no way of obeying both these teachers - which one is right and which one is wrong?

In the martial arts it is the same. Tae Kwon Do students attend my school and the grand master starts to correct even their most basic stance. If I went to train in Tae Kwon Do, the master would correct me, even though I stand correctly according to my own school. As you can see, I'm not talking black and white. I'm talking grey areas. Of course the masters of martial arts will give sound guidance to their students, just as my meditation teachers gave sound guidance, but even on an anatomical level, I can perform the kick 'correctly', and my peer also performs it correctly, yet due to the differences in our individual anatomy, these kicks are executed very much in the same way, but they appear quite differently. I still have to to find my own groove even with the guidance of the grand master. When I actually feel the full force of power, only then do I know for myself that the motion of the kick is 'right motion'.

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by Gem

I think legend has it that Gotama made two different sermons, a longer one and a shorter one, and these are recorded in two different suttas.

Of course you are correct - i.e. whatever you say, Gem.

Originally Posted by Gem

Yes the satipatthana is the practical 'way to meditate' in regards to mindfulness, insight meditation, or vipassana (rose by other names). Different schools have read the sutta differently, and teach variations of the practice. There are obvious contradictions in these variations, so scholars discuss the finer intricacies, as catsqotl mentioned in the case of Sayadaw's approach.

catsquotl's point was broader than that, in my reading. YMMV.

Originally Posted by Gem

People can quote or paraphrase Sayadaw as though it's 'right practice' because Sayadaw is a great teacher, but another great teacher, like my teachers for example, would say stop doing that. The meditation student will become confused, one says do this and the next one says don't do it. Hence there is no way of obeying both these teachers - which one is right and which one is wrong?

In the martial arts it is the same. Tae Kwon Do students attend my school and the grand master starts to correct even their most basic stance. If I went to train in Tae Kwon Do, the master would correct me, even though I stand correctly according to my own school. As you can see, I'm not talking black and white. I'm talking grey areas. Of course the masters of martial arts will give sound guidance to their students, just as my meditation teachers gave sound guidance, but even on an anatomical level, I can perform the kick 'correctly', and my peer also performs it correctly, yet due to the differences in our individual anatomy, these kicks are executed very much in the same way, but they appear quite differently. I still have to to find my own groove even with the guidance of the grand master. When I actually feel the full force of power, only then do I know for myself that the motion of the kick is 'right motion'.

Um ... I don't believe that anyone has said that the practice is not in the detail, and no-one has said to follow different teachings/traditions.

Buddhism is eminently experiential based and that is exactly how the Buddha set up his teachings and the course of his Dharma.

There are real deal Masters/Adepts in this field, just not on this forum, and that includes you and me.

BT

[Gem]

Originally Posted by blossomingtree

Of course you are correct - i.e. whatever you say, Gem.

I'm pretty sure it is correct, but not because I say so.

catsquotl's point was broader than that, in my reading. YMMV.

I think he also said that despite the critisism, the technique showed results, and that's why it became widespread.

Um ... I don't believe that anyone has said that the practice is not in the detail

Exactly. I merely suggest that it is.

and no-one has said to follow different teachings/traditions.

I only point out that there are various interpretations of the sutta, and people practice differently because of those variances in interpretation.

Buddhism is eminently experiential based and that is exactly how the Buddha set up his teachings and the course of his Dharma.

Exactamondo.

There are real deal Masters/Adepts in this field, just not on this forum, and that includes you and me.

BT

Well, I'm just some guy on the internet who does a bit of meditation. Nothing special going on here.

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by Gem

I'm pretty sure it is correct, but not because I say so.

>

The Buddha delivered the discourse to an assembly of monks at Kammassadharma, a market town of the Kuru people in northwest India near modern Delhi.

It seems likely that he discussed practices mentioned in the sutra many times in other places during his forty-five year teaching career.

Three early versions are known. What is considered the primary sutra is the Pali Satipatthana Sutta (number 10 in the Majjhiman Nikaya) and Mahasatipatthana Sutta (number 20 in the Digha Nikaya), which are exactly the same, except the latter has added text at the end on the Four Noble Truths (these are the short and long Pali forms).

Either one or the other of these texts is considered Version One of the three available versions and possibly the discourse delivered by the Buddha at Kammassadharma; it is said to have been first written down on palm leafs in Sri Lanka in c.100 BCE.

http://mnzencenter.org/pdf/MindfulnessSutra.pdf

Maha indicates "Greater" or Extended - it is used commonly in Buddhist sutra titles.

The Maha Sattipatthana Sutra is essentially the same as the Sattipatthana Sutra - it is an extended version with the Four Noble Truths appended. Both reference the Buddha's sermon (as also described above).

Neither version is philosophical (which is very obvious), the Sutra is a practice guide laid out by the Buddha and used extensively in the Theravadan School of Buddhism.

The Maha-satipatthana is in the Digha Nakaya series and the Satipatthana listed in the Majjhima Nikaya - you can see here the words are the same. Some versions use more commentary and extended elaboration but the essence remains the same.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipi...22.0.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipi....010.than.html

(The Maha has the Four Noble Truths appended, as said to you multiple times.)

Both are eminently practice based, and not philosophical by any means.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu's own footnote on the Satipatthana Sutra:

For an elaboration on the four noble truths see DN 22 (Maha-Satipatthana Sutra), which is otherwise identical to this sutta.

Feel free to pivot "woolly in the woods" style

Originally Posted by Gem

Well, I'm just some guy on the internet who does a bit of meditation. Nothing special going on here.

Not only that, but with quite a few misinterpretations of Buddhist practice and results - in other threads you have argued that there is no reason to believe the teachings and care little for the tradition of Buddhism.

I will say (once again ) that the funny thing about the teachings is the experiential outcomes are the same for the Buddhist Masters/Adepts (sort of like martial arts mastery) - and this is where you differ.

It's an interesting proposition - of course everyone uses discernment and tries things for themselves. This is the whole basis of this religion. Buddhism is not labored with intense belief systems and this is the way Gautama set out his teachings so there is no contradiction with self-determination, discernment, and Buddhist practice/faith. "Know for yourself" "Cessation of dukkha in this lifetime" - this is Gautama's kind invitation to anyone.

However, just as in martial arts, the instructions are there, as is the experiential outcome. Just because a person can't break the brick in half, it doesn't mean that the teachings are not reliable or that listening to Bruce Lee's instructions and standards is incorrect - it just means the student is wherever they are, which is all good, but still not at the Mastery level.

In Buddhism, the depths are significantly more nuanced, and as always nibbana, enlightenment and true inner peace (not conditioned/conditional) is the standard.

Still, respect worthy for the practice.

Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu.

BT

[sky]

Originally Posted by Gem

I think legend has it that Gotama made two different sermons, a longer one and a shorter one, and these are recorded in two different suttas.

They are both the same Gem except for the txt's at the end of the Maha- ( longer ) regarding the Four Noble Truths.
You are right that there are two different Suttas and I wonder if they come from different times that Buddha was teaching to the masses and he felt some needed extra help understanding the Four Noble Truths hence the extras on the Maha-

[Gem]

Originally Posted by sky123

Originally Posted by Gem

I think legend has it that Gotama made two different sermons, a longer one and a shorter one, and these are recorded in two different suttas.

They are both the same Gem except for the txt's at the end of the Maha- ( longer ) regarding the Four Noble Truths.
You are right that there are two different Suttas and I wonder if they come from different times that Buddha was teaching to the masses and he felt some needed extra help understanding the Four Noble Truths hence the extras on the Maha-

Not sure of the historical details other than there were two separate sermons, hence two separate suttas. I'm under the impression that the Maha Satipatthana was first, and the shorter satipatthana was a later discourse. Not too sure. I don't know if there is any clear chronology of discourses in the Pali Canon.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by blossomingtree

>



Maha indicates "Greater" or Extended - it is used commonly in Buddhist sutra titles.

Exactly.

The Maha Sattipatthana Sutra is essentially the same as the Sattipatthana Sutra - it is an extended version with the Four Noble Truths appended. Both reference the Buddha's sermon (as also described above).

I think they were the same basic discourse given at two different times, one being much longer, but I'm not sure. I don't know if anyone is sure.

Neither version is philosophical (which is very obvious), the Sutra is a practice guide laid out by the Buddha and used extensively in the Theravadan School of Buddhism.

True.

The Maha-satipatthana is in the Digha Nakaya series and the Satipatthana listed in the Majjhima Nikaya -

I see. I had never heard of Digha Nakaya series or Majjhima Nikaya, and have no idea what they are.

you can see here the words are the same. Some versions use more commentary and extended elaboration but the essence remains the same.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipi...22.0.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipi....010.than.html

Yes, it doesn't matter much which version or translation we refer to.

(The Maha has the Four Noble Truths appended, as said to you multiple times.)

It seems more elaborate apart from the 4NT appendage, but it's not important. Any preferred format is good enough.

Both are eminently practice based, and not philosophical by any means.

Indeed, it's a practical discourse on the 'way to meditate'.

Feel free to pivo

t "woolly in the woods" style

Not only that, but with quite a few misinterpretations of Buddhist practice and results - in other threads you have argued that there is no reason to believe the teachings and care little for the tradition of Buddhism.

None of that is important in the sense that people who give no importance to Buddhism and know next to nothing about it are in no way lesser in wisdom.

I will say (once again ) that the funny thing about the teachings is the experiential outcomes are the same for the Buddhist Masters/Adepts (sort of like martial arts mastery) - and this is where you differ.

It's an interesting proposition - of course everyone uses discernment and tries things for themselves. This is the whole basis of this religion.

Yes. That is also what I have been saying.

Buddhism is not labored with intense belief systems and this is the way Gautama set out his teachings so there is no contradiction with self-determination, discernment, and Buddhist practice/faith. "Know for yourself" "Cessation of dukkha in this lifetime" - this is Gautama's kind invitation to anyone.

Exactly.

However, just as in martial arts, the instructions are there, as is the experiential outcome. Just because a person can't break the brick in half, it doesn't mean that the teachings are not reliable or that listening to Bruce Lee's instructions and standards is incorrect - it just means the student is wherever they are, which is all good, but still not at the Mastery level.

Precisely.

In Buddhism, the depths are significantly more nuanced, and as always nibbana, enlightenment and true inner peace (not conditioned/conditional) is the standard.

Still, respect worthy for the practice.

Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu.

BT

Yes. Saddu saddu.

Well this thread has taken a slight detour it seems.
It has become rather philosophical despite the wish for it not to..

So I am still interested in how exactly the Sattipatanna Sutta is practiced by you guys.
If we take it a paragraph at the time and reach the end of the middle length discourse we can take the final paragraphs from the Long discourse..

A translation and commentary I am rather fon of is the following.
Analayo-Satipatthana-The-Direct-Path-to-Realization-pdf

As for abiding in dhammas.
In Jospeph Goldstien's rather large treaty (found here)

He talks about the 4 foundations of mindfullness as abiding in them. Like laying/ being in a pasture. You abide within one of them mindfully, Diligent, Clearly knowing and free from desire and discontent.

So you abide in the pasture of the body, mindfully, Diligent, Clearly knowing and free from desire and discontent.
Or abide in the feelings/vedanna, mindfully, Diligent, Clearly knowing and free from desire and discontent.
Or abide in Citta/mind, mindfully, Diligent, Clearly knowing and free from desire and discontent.
Or abide in dhammas/mindstates, mindfully, Diligent, Clearly knowing and free from desire and discontent.

In my experience what the Satipatthana points to is to penetrate the samatha states and see reality as it really is.
So wherever you find yourself. You can only be inside/abide in one of 4 pastures.
In those pastures you can realize all there is to realize in order to be free from suffering

In terms of practice.
Usually my practice consists of 30 minutes walking meditation followed by 30 minutes of sitting.
I try to make a mental note of my direct experience at least every second or so.
While walking I tend to stay in the realm of body. noting the movements as they happen. If my mind drifts I note the drifting if I can catch it or the dhamma where it ended up in.
When I leave the pasture of the body I usually make a note of the vedana I experience there.

When sitting I am inclined to not at a slower pace. The rise and fall of my belly is usually slower than once per second. Other than that I try to note all 4 abidings as they happen.

Sometimes I try to take the satipatthana as a layout. Where I take a more active stance in pointing my attention through the body, to feelings, to mind, to dhamma's.
Although helpful at times that feels rather forced so I do this only on occasion. I think it's triggered by doubt. But am not sure yet.

With Love
Eelco

[sky]

Quote Gem.... I see. I had never heard of Digha Nakaya series or Majjhima Nikaya, and have no idea what they are.

Nikiyas are collections/volumes in the Sutta Pitaka which is one of the three baskets that compose the Pali Tipitaka in Theravada Buddhism..