This chapter and the next two are devoted to an examination of the “definition” part of the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta. This “definition”, which occurs also in other discourses as the standard way of defining right mindfulness (sammā sati), describes essential aspects of satipaṭṭhāna practice and therefore forms a key to understanding how the meditation techniques listed in the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta are to be undertaken. The passage in question reads:
Here, monks, in regard to the body a monk abides contemplating the body, diligent, clearly knowing, and mindful, free from desires and discontent in regard to the world.
In regard to feelings he abides contemplating feelings, diligent, clearly knowing, and mindful, free from desires and discontent in regard to the world.
In regard to the mind he abides contemplating the mind, diligent, clearly knowing, and mindful, free from desires and discontent in regard to the world.
In regard to dhammas he abides contemplating dhammas, diligent, clearly knowing, and mindful, free from desires and discontent in regard to the world.1
In this chapter I will first take a look at the expression “contemplating” (anupassī) and consider why the objects of this contemplation are mentioned twice (for example, in regard to the body, one is to contemplate the body). I will then explore the significance of the first two qualities mentioned in the “definition”: “diligent” (ātāpī) and “clearly knowing” (sampajāna). The remaining qualities, mindfulness and the absence of desires and discontent, will be the subjects of Chapters III and IV.
The “definition” of right mindfulness is concerned with “contemplating”. The corresponding Pāli verb anupassati can be derived from the verb “to see”, passati, and the emphatic prefix anu, so that anupassati means “to repeatedly look at”, that is, “to contemplate” or “to closely observe”.2 The discourses often speak of contemplation in order to describe a particular way of meditation, an examination of the observed object from a particular viewpoint. In the case of the body, for example, such observation can involve contemplating the body as impermanent (aniccānupassī, vayānupassī), and therefore as something which does not yield lasting satisfaction (dukkhānupassī); or as unattractive (asubhānupassī) and not-self (anattānupassī), and therefore as something to let go of (paṭinissaggānupassī).3
These various forms of contemplation emphasize how the object is to be perceived. That is, as used in the discourses “contemplation” implies that particular features of the object are to be given prominence, such as its impermanence, or its selfless nature. In the present context, however, the feature to be contemplated appears to be the same as the object of contemplation. Literally translated, one “contemplates body in body”, or “feelings in feelings”, etc.4 This slightly peculiar expression requires further consideration.
Taking the first satipaṭṭhāna as an example, the instructions are: “in regard to the body abide contemplating the body”. Here, the first instance of “body” can be understood in the light of the satipaṭṭhāna “refrain”. The “refrain” explains that to contemplate the body applies to internal and external bodies.5 According to the commentaries, “internal” and “external” here represent one’s own and another person’s body.6 On this understanding, the first instance of “body” (in the locative case) could be translated as “where one’s own or another’s body is concerned”, or “in regard to one’s own or another’s body”, delineating the compass of this satipaṭṭhāna.
For the second instance of “body”, the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta offers detailed specifications: to contemplate “body” can be undertaken by contemplating the breath, or the postures of the body, or activities of the body, or the anatomical constitution of the body, or the four elementary qualities of the body, or the decomposition of the body after death. Thus the second occurrence of “body” stands for a particular aspect from the general area of contemplation, a “sub-body” in the “overall body”, so to speak.7
The satipaṭṭhāna “refrain” also contains additional information about the significance of “contemplation” in the present context. The same term is used, with the specification that the “arising” and the “passing away” of phenomena is the focus of contemplation.8 That is, to speak of contemplation in the present context refers to directing awareness to the body and in particular to a specific feature of it, namely its impermanent nature.
In drawing from other parts of the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta, one can thus expand the somewhat puzzling instruction: “in the body abide contemplating the body” to read: “in regard to your own body or the bodies of others, direct awareness to its (or their) impermanent nature evident in different aspects of the body, such as the process of breathing, or its postures and activities, or its anatomical constitution, or its elementary qualities, or its decay at death.”
According to the commentaries, the repetition of the object of contemplation also indicates emphasis, implying that the object of contemplation should be considered simply as perceived by the senses, and in particular without taking it to be “I” or “mine”.9 In this way the repetition – body in body – underlines the importance of direct experience, as opposed to mere intellectual reflection.10 One should let the body speak for itself, so to say, disclosing its true nature to the scrutiny of the meditator.
II.2 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF BEING DILIGENT (ĀTĀPṬ)
According to the “definition”, the practice of satipaṭṭhāna requires the establishment of four particular mental qualities (cf. Fig. 2.1 below), which can be taken to represent the mental faculties of energy, wisdom, mindfulness, and concentration.11
diligent
ātāpī
clearly knowing
sampajāna
mindful
(sati)
free from desires and discontent
(vineyya abhijjhādomanassa)
The first of these four is the quality of diligence. The term diligent (ātāpī) is related to the word tapas, which connotes self-mortification and ascetic practices. The use of such vocabulary is surprising, since the Buddha did not consider self-mortification to be conducive to the realization of Nibbāna.12 To better understand the Buddha’s position, the historical context should be considered.
A substantial number of wandering ascetics in ancient India regarded self-mortification as the model path to purification. Jain and Ājīvikā ascetics considered death by ritual suicide to be the ideal expression of successful realization.13 Commonly accepted means for spiritual development were prolonged fasting, exposure to extremes of temperature, and the adoption of particularly painful postures.14 Although the Buddha did not categorically reject such practices in their entirety,15 he openly criticized the belief that self-mortification was necessary for realization.16
Before his awakening, the Buddha himself had been influenced by the belief that spiritual purification requires self-mortification.17 Based on this mistaken belief, he had pursued ascetic practices to considerable extremes, without being able to realize awakening in this way.18 He found ultimately that awakening does not depend on mere asceticism, but requires mental development, in particular the development of sati.19
Therefore, the form of “asceticism” the Buddha later taught was predominantly a mental one, characterized by a firm opposition to unwholesome thoughts and tendencies.20 In an intriguing statement found in the discourses, the cultivation of the awakening factors is referred to as the highest form of exertion.21 Such subtler forms of “austerity” did not easily receive recognition by contemporary ascetics, and on several occasions the Buddha and his followers were ridiculed for their seemingly easy-going attitude.22
Another point worth considering is that in ancient India there were a variety of deterministic and fatalistic teachings.23 In contrast, the Buddha emphasized commitment and effort as essential requirements for achieving realization. According to him, only by way of desire, effort, and personal commitment can desirelessness be realized.24 Effort, as an expression of wholesome desire, leads along the path until with full realization all desire will be abandoned.25 In this context, the Buddha at times reinterpreted expressions commonly used within ascetic circles to express his own position.26 The quality of being diligent (ātāpī) in the satipaṭṭhāna context appears to be one such instance.
A different example of rather forceful vocabulary can be found in those passages in which the Buddha described his firm resolution prior to awakening: “let my flesh and blood dry up, I will not give up”,27 or “I will not change my posture unless realization has been gained”.28 Concerning the resolve to refrain from changing posture, it needs to be kept in mind that the Buddha was able to achieve deep meditative absorption, so he could sit for long periods of time in the same posture without pain.29 Thus what these expressions point to is not so much the endurance of a painful sitting posture as a strong and unwavering commitment.30 Similar expressions are used by some of his disciples on the brink of realization.31 Since the breakthrough to realization can only take place in a balanced state of mind, it might be best not to take these expressions too literally.
In a similar way, the expression “diligent” (ātāpī) might not have carried the same literal connotations for the Buddha as it did for his more ascetically-inclined contemporaries. In fact, in the Kāyagatāsati Sutta diligent (ātāpī) comes up in relation to experiencing the bliss of absorption.32 Similarly, in a passage from the Indriya Saṃyutta the quality of diligence is combined with pleasant feelings, mental and physical.33 In these instances, “diligent” has clearly lost any relation to self-mortification and its concomitant physical pain.
Since both deficiency of effort and excessive tension can obstruct one’s progress,34 the quality of “diligence” is best understood as a balanced but sustained application of energy.35 Such balanced endeavour avoids, on the one hand, passive submission to “destiny”, a higher will, or personal idiosyncrasies, and on the other, excessive effort, self-assertive striving, and self-inflicted suffering in the name of a higher goal.
The Buddha once compared the balanced effort needed for proper progress to the tuning of a lute, whose strings should be neither too tight nor too loose.36 This comparison of mental cultivation to the tuning of a musical instrument illustrates the well-adjusted effort and sensitivity required for the development of the mind.37 The notion of a “middle path” of wise balance, avoiding the extremes of excessive and insufficient effort, has of course been one of the Buddha’s central teachings since the time of his first discourse.38 It was this balanced “middle path” approach, avoiding the two extremes of stagnation and excessive striving, which had enabled him to gain awakening.39
The practical implications of being “diligent” can best be illustrated with two maxims from the discourses, both of which use the word diligent (ātāpī): “right now is the time to practise diligently”, and “you yourself have to practise with diligence.”40 Similar connotations underlie the occurrence of the quality of “diligence” in those passages that describe the serious commitment of a monk who retires into seclusion for intensive practice after having received a brief instruction from the Buddha.41
Applying these nuances to satipaṭṭhāna, to be “diligent” then amounts to keeping up one’s contemplation with balanced but dedicated continuity, returning to the object of meditation as soon as it is lost.42
II.3 CLEARLY KNOWING (SAMPAJĀNA)
The second of the four mental qualities mentioned in the “definition” is sampajāna, a present participle of the verb sampajānāti. Sampajānāti can be divided into pajānāti (he or she knows) and the prefix saṃ (together), which often serves an intensifying function in Pāli compounds.43 Thus sam-pajānāti stands for an intensified form of knowing, for “clearly knowing”.44
The range of meaning of “clearly knowing” (sampajāna) can be conveniently illustrated by briefly surveying some of its occurrences in the discourses. In a discourse found in the Dīgha Nikāya, clearly knowing stands for consciously experiencing one’s own life as an embryo in a womb, including the event of being born.45 In the Majjhima Nikāya one finds clearly knowing representing the presence of deliberateness, when one “deliberately” speaks a falsehood.46 In a passage from the Saṃyutta Nikāya, clearly knowing refers to awareness of the impermanent nature of feelings and thoughts.47 A discourse in the Aṅguttara Nikāya recommends clear knowledge (sampajañña) for overcoming unwholesomeness and establishing wholesomeness.48 Finally, the Itivuttaka relates clearly knowing to following the advice of a good friend.49
A common denominator suggested by these examples selected from all five Nikāyas is the ability to fully grasp or comprehend what is taking place. Such clear knowledge can in turn lead to the development of wisdom (paññā). According to the Abhidhamma, clear knowledge does in fact already represent the presence of wisdom.50 Considered from an etymological viewpoint, this suggestion is convincing, since paññā and (sam-)pajānāti are closely related. But a close examination of the above examples suggests that clearly knowing (sampajāna) does not necessarily imply the presence of wisdom (paññā). When one utters a falsehood, for example, one might clearly know one’s speech to be a lie, but one does not speak the falsehood “with wisdom”. Similarly, while it is remarkable enough to be clearly aware of one’s embryonic development in the womb, to do so does not require wisdom. Thus, though clear knowing might lead to the development of wisdom, in itself it only connotes “to clearly know” what is happening.
In the satipaṭṭhāna instructions, the presence of such clear knowledge is alluded to by the frequently recurring expression “he knows” (pajānāti), which is found in most of the practical instructions. Similar to clearly knowing, the expression “he knows” (pajānāti) at times refers to rather basic forms of knowing, while in other instances it connotes more sophisticated types of understanding. In the context of satipaṭṭhāna, the range of what a meditator “knows” includes, for example, identifying a long breath as long, or recognizing one’s physical posture.51 But with the later satipaṭṭhāna contemplations, the meditator’s task of knowing evolves until it comes to include the presence of discriminative understanding, such as when one is to understand the arising of a fetter in dependence on a sense door and its respective object.52 This evolution culminates in knowing the four noble truths “as they actually are”, a penetrative type of deep understanding for which again the expression “he knows” is used.53 Thus both the expression “he knows” (pajānāti) and the quality of “clearly knowing” (sampajāna) can range from basic forms of knowing to deep discriminative understanding.
II.4 MINDFULNESS AND CLEAR KNOWLEDGE
Clearly knowing, apart from being listed in the “definition” part of the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta, is mentioned again under the first satipaṭṭhāna, with regard to a set of bodily activities.54 Expositions of the gradual path of training usually refer to such clear knowing in regard to bodily activities with the compound satisampajañña, “mindfulness and clear knowledge”.55 On further perusing the discourses one finds that this combination of mindfulness with clear knowledge (or clearly knowing) is employed in a wide variety of contexts, paralleling the above documented flexible usage of clearly knowing on its own.
The Buddha, for instance, taught his disciples, went to sleep, endured an illness, relinquished his life-principle, and prepared for death – each time endowed with mindfulness and clear knowledge.56 Even in his previous life he was already in possession of mindfulness and clear knowledge when he arose in heaven, stayed there, passed away from there, and entered his mother’s womb.57
Mindfulness and clear knowledge also contribute towards improving one’s ethical conduct and overcoming sensuality.58 In the context of meditation, mindfulness and clear knowledge can refer to contemplating feelings and thoughts; they can mark a high level of equanimity in the context of perceptual training; or they can take part in overcoming sloth-and-torpor.59 Mindfulness and clear knowledge become particularly prominent during the third meditative absorption (jhāna), where the presence of both is required to avoid a relapse into the intense joy (pīti) experienced during the second absorption.60
This broad variety of occurrences demonstrates that the combination of mindfulness with clear knowledge is often used in a general manner to refer to awareness and knowledge, without being restricted to its specific use as clearly knowing bodily activities in the gradual path scheme or in the satipaṭṭhāna context of body contemplation.
Such cooperation of mindfulness with clear knowledge, which according to the “definition” is required for all satipaṭṭhāna contemplations, points to the need to combine mindful observation of phenomena with an intelligent processing of the observed data. Thus “to clearly know” can be taken to represent the “illuminating” or “awakening” aspect of contemplation. Understood in this way, clear knowledge has the task of processing the input gathered by mindful observation, and thereby leads to the arising of wisdom.61
These qualities of clear knowledge and mindfulness thus remind one of the development of “knowledge” and “vision” of reality (yathābhūtañāṇadassana). According to the Buddha, to both “know” and “see” are necessary conditions for the realization of Nibbāna.62 It might not be too far-fetched to relate such growth of knowledge (ñāṇa) to the quality of clearly knowing (sampajāna), and the accompanying aspect of “vision” (dassana) to the activity of watching represented by mindfulness (sati).
More remains to be said about this quality of clear knowledge.63 In order to do this, however, some additional ground has to be covered, such as examining in more detail the implications of sati, which I will do in Chapter III.