Talk:Satipatthana

Untitled
Someone injected commercial links! Needs to be fixed.

Merger
In keeping with merger guidelines on Wikipedia, I propose that Mindfulness be merged into Satipatthana, because although it contains great contributive non-redundant information, the concept of mindfulness and Satipatthana are considered in Bhuddism to be the same. Please feel free to post here or on my talk page if any comments. Parsh (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't it spelled "Buddhism?"


 * Conditional support I would accept this on the condition that the automatic article page when a user looks for the article "Mindfulness" be changed into the current disambiguation page. The disambiguation page can link to Satipatthana, Mindfulness (psychology), and elsewhere. --Pine✉ 22:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a good idea. I will wait for other input to give more users a chance to chime in, but I certainly agree with your suggestion. Parsh (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have given it a few weeks, and it seems we are the only two to have commented on the issue. If anyone else has anything else to say, please comment here. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page, although it would be best to keep the central dialogue here. Thanks. Ramwithaxe (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Opposed The initial supposition for this change -- that "mindfulness" and "satipatthana" are the same -- is simply incorrect. It is true that "mindfulness" is a traditional translation of the Pali word "sati"; but, once you add the suffix "patthana" or "upatthana" to "sati," we are no longer talking just about mindfulness/awareness, but about a specific framework for establishing mindfulness described in the Pali Canon, practiced by Theravadin and vipassana adherents, and different from other mindfulness-generating or -requiring meditation techniques (such as anussati, which is explicitly mentioned in the current "Mindfulness" article).  Admittedly, this current article's lede could have been read in a way that equates "mindfulness" with "sati-pathana"; I've tried to change this with recent updates to the article.  So, given that "satipatthana" is a specific, traditional, widespread technique for gaining "sati" ("mindfulness"); I think it might be beneficial to add a summary paragraph about "satipatthana" to the "Mindfulness" article (e.g., above the current "Ten forms" section); but, they should no more be merged than an article on "Tree" with one on "Oak" or "Pine." - Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Opposed I agree. Mindfulness has been abstracted into the vernacular vocabulary. People discuss it without the trappings of Buddhism. Surely a vernacular definition will soon arise that does not quite conform to the Buddhist definition and does not refer to Buddhism, at least not respectfully. BTW, many Buddhists object to it being called a "religion." It has no gods, the Buddha himself was quite mortal and is now quite dead, and although it does not discourage belief in supernatural phenomena, neither does it encourage it. -- User:Gene Fellner 16 January 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 13:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Opposed I just noticed the merger template at the top of this page. I strongly agree with the arguments presented above in opposition to the merger, and I think the merger template should be removed, since almost six months have passed with no action. The terms sati and satipaṭṭhāna are distinct enough, and important enough, to deserve separate articles. Gene Fellner's argument above is good, but he ignores the fact that the Mindfulness article specifically refers to the Buddhist concept sati, and the Mindfulness (psychology) article refers to the vernacular and psychological uses of the term (such as Ellen Langer's use of the term, which I love, but which is quite distinct from the Buddhist use). To Larry Rosenfeld's excellent explanation above, I would add that the teaching of satipaṭṭhāna (in the Sanskrit form smṛtyupasthāna) is important to many Mahāyāna practitioners as well. See, for example, the page on the four applications of mindfulness at Rigpa Wiki. The arguments against merger are very strong and the arguments in favor are weak. Should I go ahead and remove the merger template? Porelbiencomun (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Opposed. Mindfulness and the foundations practices are not the same thing, and deserve separate treatment.  There should be no merger, but if there were, this article should be merged into the mindfulness article.  The Mindfulness article is much better than this one, and "mindfulness" is an term familiar to most educated readers of English.  Pali and Sanskrit terms known to almost no English speakers are poor choices for article names.   I strongly agree that the merger template should be removed.

Foundation versus establishment, and the reification of mindfulness
I'm editing this article, and notice that there is a subtle reification of mindfulness as interpreted by the Vipassana movement, namely as bare attention and a quality in itself. Satipatthana was presented as the "foundations of mindfulness," that is, the practices or objects of mindfulness leading to mindfulness itself. A correct interpretation stresses the establishment of mindfulness, and the aim, which is to stay aware of mental states and of the wholesome dharmas. A subtle shift in shift in emphasis, which changes the meaning considerably! Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   05:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * people use mindfulness to refer to (Satipatthana -සතිපට්ටාන).but meaning of mindfulness is an effort to be careful not to do the wrong thing and doing right thing.(Satipatthana -සතිපට්ටාන) has 3 words ,(සති +උප+ටාන,Sathi+Upa+tana). (සති- sati) means attention .(උප, Upa) means inside.(ටාන,tana) means to place. So,(Satipatthana -සතිපට්ටාන) means " to place the attention inside". that is "introspection". this has been elaborated further by Buddha in (anapaana sathi sutta- අනාපාන සති සුත්‍රය).--  Rs  Ekanayake  19:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Satipatthana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160106235934/http://www.tathagata.org/archive/audio/DhammaClass/Satipatthana/SatiClass.html to http://www.tathagata.org/archive/audio/DhammaClass/Satipatthana/SatiClass.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Process-orientation
don't lose sight of the process-orientation of the modern understanding of satipatthana. Mindfulness is not established as a goal an sich, even less are 'the four satipatthanas' meditation-'objects' to 'attain' mindfulness. It's rather the opposite: mindfulness is established, and then 'applied' to these four 'domains', leading to a wholesome state of mind, that is, from the five hindrances to the seven factors of awamening. It's not like you apply a tecnique to attain samatha; mindfulness results in alertness, not giving in to unwholesome urges; jhana somehow describes the same process. And keep in mind what Polak argues: the 'four domains' are a later interpretation and misunderstanding; what it really is about is this process of being mindfull, letting go, and release. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  20:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, this very same progression is seen in the very structure of the four satipatthanas themselves, culminating in the seven factors of awakening at the tail end of the fourth satipatthana. Also, I'm not sure I would say mindfulness is established first (somehow independent of the four satipatthanas) and then it is applied to them, rather I would say the four satipatthanas are simply four ways of applying mindfulness i.e. four "applications [upatthana] of mindfulness [sati]". ☸Javierfv1212☸


 * I'll change it again. "Deep meditative absorption" is the key phrase; all those recent publications argue that jhana is not about deep meditative absorption, but about luminous awareness. Also, it's not only about 'bare awareness' and gaining vipassana too; that's also a misunderstanding, a simplification. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  20:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Scholasticism, I forgot that word. There's a lot of scholasticism, hence the misunderstandi gs those 'revisionists' point to. Harmonizing the tradition is not necessarily the same as understanding it. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  20:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

In Theravada
I've moved the Theravada-section upwards; I think it gives further introduction to the four 'foundations', and makes that section better understandable. Also in connection to my remarks on 'process-view'; this view is also articulated in the Theravada-section. See how this works out. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  17:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Sati is not remember
Sati is keeping conscious on the wholesome's object, to avoid unwholesome. The wholesome are 21 minds and 38 mind-factors. The wholesome's objects are 4 Satipatthana or 21 pabba.

Sampajanna is the perfect understanding in various perspective of the wholesome object.