Reply To: Validity of current interpretation of Satipatthana Sutta

#51025
pathfinder
Participant

Lal: “I don’t think we can take that translation seriously. What do you think?

I agree that it is not 100% correct. But I also believe that we cannot rule out observing the breath as a tool to gain insight. For example, one can observe that it is the body that automatically breathes, not the mind that is controlling it. Hence it will help you not take the body as my own. This is similar to the rest of the kaya section where we contemplate what happens to the body after death, what the body is actually made of. One can also observe the anicca and fleeting nature of each breath, rising and passing

Lal: As you pointed out, a small part of the Satipatthana Sutta is allocated to patikulamanasikāra pabba, dhātumanasikāra pabba, and navasivatika pabba (focused on the physical body.)

Length wise it is more than half of the kaya segment! In fact Iriyāpathapabbaṃ and Sampajānapabbaṃ are one of the shortest.

Lal: The word “kaya” (“collection of parts”) can mean the physical body as well as the panca upadanakkhandha (PUK) (commonly translated as “grasping five aggregates.”)

I agree that the word kaya has multiple meanings. However, why would the Buddha/ Arahant council use 2 different meanings of kaya in the same kayanupassana section, without clarifying that they are switching meanings? It spells a recipe for misunderstanding. If we take the later 3 sections to be at least half of kayanupassana, then observing what the body is made of, how the body is discarded, is an important part of kayanupassana.

Which is why I think an interpretation of the Ānāpānapabbaṃ can be observing how the breath arises, falls, with intention of the fleeting nature of each breath, and observe what cause it to arise and fall. Iriyāpathapabbaṃ can be observing how the body is like at every stationary posture, Sampajānapabbaṃ can be observing how the body is like at every movement (whether he is looking straight ahead or looking sideways, he does so with constant thorough understanding of impermanence; while he is bending or stretching, he does so with constant thorough understanding of impermanence;) – I do not think impermance is the right word, but at least there is some insight to be gained from observing how the body moves. Then we move on to Paṭikūlamanasikārapabbaṃ, Dhātumanasikārapabbaṃ and Navasivathikapabbaṃ, about what the body is made of and how it is discarded. Here is a proposed, consistent flow of intepreting kaya as the body

Lal: Satipatthana is definitely not about just observing.

  • It is about “being mindful” about how (i) the PUK arises, (ii) how vedana (and sanna) turn into “mind-made vedana” or “samphassa-ja-vedana“, (iii) how citta (thoughts) involving raga, dosa, moha arise, and (iv) making connections to above with Paticca Samuppada, anicca, dukkha, anatta, etc. (Of course, it also involves controlling one’s actions, speech, and thoughts based on that understanding.)

Yes, I agree with this. However I want to question the part on whether the focus is to gain insight on how all these things arise, rather than controlling actions speech and thoughts. From earlier discussion, it seems that this is not the focus.

Lal: Since vedana and citta are also included in PUK, kayanupassana actually includes how cittas arise with different types of vedana. As we know, PUK includes rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara, and vinnana. This is a deeper aspect that I will write about later.

Let’s say kaya does mean PUK in this context. It could be possible, but it seems doesnt seem structurally logical for the sutta. If we take the very first part of the sutta, to be to observe “how cittas arise with different types of vedana” , then the sutta already starts off with a complex and deep concept! Then it moves on a relatively simpler concept, eg observing what the body is made of and how it is discarded, and then a little more complex on how feelings arise, then more complex on how thoughts arise, and contemplation of the dhamma as the most complex. Suttas tend to go from easy concepts to complex ones as we read on, why throw in this complex concept encompassing everything at the start, and sudden drop in complexity, and then gradually increase in complexity again? Again, if we take kaya to be just the body, and we start by observing the breath first, then stationary postures, then actions, then what the body is made, how it is discarded, it is starting the sutta off easy and slowly increase in complexity.