The Nature of Mindfulness

and
Its Role in Buddhist Meditation

A Correspondence between B. Alan Wallace and the Venerable Bhikkhu Bodhi
Winter, 2006


AW 1: Dear Bhante,

I would first like to tell you how much I respect and appreciate the wonderful work
you have done in translating the Buddhas words and clarifying them for the modern
world. You are truly an inspiration.

The reason I am writing you now is to ask you about the meaning of sati in authoritative,
pre-twentieth-century P!li/Therav!da sources. As you well know, in the current
Vipassana tradition as it has been widely propagated in the West, sati is more or less
defined as bare attention, or the moment-to-moment, nonjudgmental awareness of
whatever arises in the present moment. There is no doubt that the cultivation of such
mindfulness is very helpful, but, strangely enough, I have found no evidence in
traditional P!li, Sanskrit, or Tibetan sources to support this definition of sati (sm!ti, dran
pa). Having looked in the Nik!yas, the Milindapaha, Visuddhimagga, Abhidharmako"a,
Abhidharmasamuccaya, and various Tibetan Buddhist texts, I find that they are all in
general agreement with this definition from Buddhaghosa:

By means of it they [i.e., other mental processes] remember, or it itself remembers,
or it is simply just remembering, thus it is sati. Its characteristic is not floating;
its property is not losing; its manifestation is guarding or the state of being face to face
with an object; its basis is strong noting or the close applications of mindfulness of the
body and so on. It should be seen as like a post due to its state of being set in the object,
and as like a gatekeeper because it guards the gate of the eye and so on.
(Visuddhimagga, XIV, 141)

And this one from N!gasena:

Sati has the has both the characteristic of calling to mind and the characteristic
of taking hold. He explained further, sati, when it arises, calls to mind
wholesome and unwholesome tendencies, with faults and faultless, inferior and refined,
dark and pure, together with their counterparts; sati, when it arises, follows
the courses of beneficial and unbeneficial tendencies: these tendencies are beneficial,
these unbeneficial; these tendencies are helpful, these unhelpful. Thus, one who
practices yoga rejects unbeneficial tendencies and cultivates beneficial tendencies.
(Milindapaha 37-38)

Not to mention this from the Buddha himself:

2
And what monks, is the faculty of sati? Here, monks, the noble disciple has sati,
he is endowed with perfect sati and intellect, he is one who remembers, who recollects
what was done and said long before. (Sa"yutta-Nik!ya V 197-8)

But nowhere have I found any authoritative source that equates sati with bare attention.

Of course this passage from Ud!na is well known and often cited: In the seen
there is only the seen; in the heard, there is only the heard; in the sensed, there
is only the sensed; in the mentally perceived, there is only the mentally perceived.
But this does not suggest that sati is equivalent with such bare attention, only
that such attention is one valuable application of sati.

With your great erudition in the P!li canon and Theravada commentarial literature,
would you kindly let me know of authoritative sources that do equate sati with bare
attention, and if so how they relate to the sources I have cited above?

Apart from the issue of definitions alone, I am concerned that Buddhist vipassan!
practice is not only being radically simplified for the general lay public (some
would say dumbed down), but that it is being misrepresented in such
a way that the rich teachings (in theory & practice) of the Satipa##h!nasutta
are being overlooked or marginalized.

Again, I defer to your much greater knowledge of the P!li literature and am eager
to learn from you. By the way, Im delighted to read that you were ordained by the
Ven. Balangoda Ananda Maitreya, under whom I also trained for a few months in 1980.
This was a rare privilege, and I have ever since regarded him as my primary teacher
of Theravada Buddhism.

Respectfully yours,
B. Alan Wallace


AW 2: Dear Ven. Bodhi,

Thank you so much for your gracious and detailed response to my inquiry about sati. Ive
learned a lot from your account, but it also inspires me to follow up on your comments so
that I can continue to clarify my understanding.

BB 1: Dear Alan,

Thank you for your email. I have heard much of your work, too, and in fact, years ago, I
had read aloud your book, Choosing Reality, to the German monk Ven. Nyanaponika,
whom I had the privilege of living with and caring for during the last ten years of his life.
During his last four years he was almost blind and thus, in the evenings, I would read
aloud to him for about an hour, and your book was one of the books that I read for him. I
3
would also record the books I read so he could listen to them again during the day, and
thus, I believe, he heard your book twice.

AW 2: Im honored that the Ven. Nyanaponika found it worthwhile to listen to the
reading of my book, and that you took the time to read it for him. I first began to
seriously study and practice Dharma while living in Germany in 1970-71, and his book
The Heart of Buddhist Meditation was the most instructive manual I came across to guide
me in meditation. So I remain indebted to him, like so many other Western students of
Buddhadharma.

BB 1: We had also been indirectly connected in a conversation, over twenty years ago,
concerning the benefits of the monastic life. Roger Wheeler was the one who connected
us. He had sent me a tape you made, c. 1983, in which, on one side, you criticized
Christopher Titmuss for his view that Dharma is all about practice and has nothing to do
with views, and on the other side Stephen Batchelor for his view that monasticism will
necessarily play a marginal role in the development of Western Buddhism. I appreciated
your positions on both sides of the tape. Often, when I met a Western monk who inclined
towards Titmusss view, I would play side A of the tape for him; when I met one who
leaned towards Batchelors view, I would play side B.

AW 2: Im delighted that I could be of some service to you in upholding the theory and
practice of the Dharma. I still hold to the views I expressed then, showing how
tenaciously I cling to my opinions!

BB 1: I didnt know that you had some connection with my dear ordination teacher Ven.
Ananda Maitreya. I saw Ven. Ananda Maitreya just a month before his death, in June
1998, which was only two months short of his 102
nd
birthday. His mind was completely
clear and his body was fit and full of energy. He could walk well without any need for a
walking stick. He gave a monk-friend of mine and myself a splendid talk on insight
meditation. He had just returned from a trip to Taiwan, Thailand, and Singapore. His only
complaint was of persistent phlegm in the lungs. It turned out that this phlegm was the
beginning of pneumonia. About a week after I met him we heard that he was admitted to
the hospital. From this point on his condition deteriorated until he passed away on July
18
th
. At the time of his funeral the entire road from Colombo to Balangoda, along which
his casket passed, was lined with yellow flags honoring him, and the town of Balangoda
itself was a blaze of yellow and orange banners with inscriptions praising him. He was
given a state funeral and thousands upon thousands of people came to pay their last
respects to him. It was deeply moving.

AW 2: I wish I could have witnessed this stirring event. I heard that he was one of the
Theravada elders who greeted the Dalai Lama when he first came to India for the
Buddha-jayanti in 1957. This made me feel especially close to him, for I received my full
ordination from HH the Dalai Lama in 1975. I spent just a few months under the Ven.
Ananda Maitreyas guidance at his home temple in Udamulla in 1981. There were only
two other Western students there with him, and I felt the great privilege of being in his
presence and being trained by him in retreat as I practiced samatha.
4

BB 2: Sri Nandaramaya in Udamulla was my ordination temple, and home temple, during
the first two and a half years of my life as a monk. I suppose you were staying in the
German kuti, the sturdy spacious kuti built for a German monk named Kondaa who
was there when I arrived in early November 1972. This was located on a small spur
beneath the mound on which the Bodhi tree and Buddha hall were situated. Ven. Ananda
Maitreyas kuti, at the time, was on the top of the hill on the other side of the pansala (the
main temple), and my kuti was beneath his on the slope of the same hill. When I visited
the temple after my return to Sri Lanka in 1982, I went to see my old kuti, but all that was
left was an impression on the ground where the foundation had stood. The kuti had been
built of dried mud and straw, so it could not withstand the fury of the elements. I wonder
who the two Western students were that stayed with him in 1981. When I visited in 1982,
the MNT was overseas (in England or the U.S.) and there werent any Westerners at the
temple. Ven. Nandas!ra was there (I knew him as a young novice) and he has been in
charge of the temple since the MNTs passing.

BB 1: Now for your question. If this were a court of law, I might have to excuse myself,
since the expression bare attention was, I believe, coined by Ven. Nyanaponika, whom
I regard as my closest kaly!!amitta in my life as a monk. But since this is only a
correspondence, I wont hesitate to defend its use, not out of feelings of loyalty towards
the great elder, but because I believe that it does accurately represent one aspect of sati. I
should add that Ven. Nyanaponika himself did not regard bare attention as capturing
the complete significance of satipa""h!na, but as representing only one phase, the initial
phase, in the meditative development of right mindfulness. He held that in the proper
practice of right mindfulness, sati has to be integrated with sampajaa, clear
comprehension, and it is only when these two work together that right mindfulness can
fulfill its intended purpose.

AW 2: Ah, this is very interesting. On the basis of my studies, I can easily accept the
assertion that bare attention represents one aspect, or application, of sati, and that it
represents an initial phase in the development of right mindfulness.

BB 1: Now for the meaning of sati: You no doubt are aware that in Indian psychology
generally, apart from Buddhism, Skt sm#ti means memory. In attempting to find a
terminology adequate to his own system, the Buddha necessarily had to draw upon the
vocabulary available to him. For some reason, he picked up this word sm#ti, or in P!li
sati (presumably the same in other Middle Indo Aryan dialects), and gave it a new
meaning congruent with his own system of psychology and meditation. Strangely, in the
definition of the satindriya at SN 48:9, we find the definition cast in terms of the old
meaning of memory (as you quote it). But if one looks in the next sutta, SN 48:10, one
finds two definitions of the satindriya superimposed: first comes the one in terms of
memory, then comes the stock formula for the practice of the four satipa""h!nas. This
suggests that the Buddha, or (more likely) the compilers of the texts, werent satisfied
with the simple definition in terms of memory but felt compelled to supplement it with a
definition that brings out its meaning in the context of Buddhist contemplative practice.
Then, in the next sutta (48:11), the question is raised: What is the faculty of
5
mindfulness? And the answer is given: The mindfulness that one obtains on the basis of
the four satipa##h!nas. Here, mindfulness as memory doesnt seem appropriate at all.

AW 2: Quite so.

BB 1: The definition that you give from the Visuddhimagga, as you cite it, is somewhat
biased by the translation. If one looks at the P!li, one will see that all the Vism does,
actually, is take the noun sati and define it by way of verbs and action nouns related to
the same substantive noun: saranti t!ya, saya$ v! sarati, sara!amattam eva v! es! ti
sati. This could just as well have been rendered: By it they are mindful; or it itself is
mindful; or it is just being mindful: thus it is mindfulness. This definition would be just
as fitting--in relation to the practice of meditation even more fitting--than the one in terms
of remembering.

AW: This is very illuminatingthank you!

BB 1: My arguments have still been fairly indirect, but I now want to propose a more
direct solution to this problem. There is one word often used in relation to sati which, I
think, gives evidence of an attempt to ascribe a new meaning to the old word. This word
is P!li upa""h!na (Skt upast!na). The word is closely connected with sati, and indeed the
best known compound involving sati is comprised of sati and this word: satipa""h!na (in
my notes to the Connected Discourses of the Buddha I present reasons for preferring a
derivation of the compound from sati + upa""h!na to a derivation from sati + pa""h!na;
Skt in fact has sm#tyupasth!na). The word upa""h!na has the sense of presence, standing
near, attendance upon. It seems this word was chosen because it conveys the impact that
the practice of sati has upon its objective domain: it makes the objective domain present
to the mind, makes it stand near the mind, makes it appear clearly before the mind. One
might even ascribe upa""h!na to the subjective rather than the objective side of the
experience: it is the minds activity of attending to the object, the awareness of the object.
Upa""h!na can also mean setting up, and this is what one does with mindfulness. One
who is mindful is described as upa""hitassati: one with mindfulness set up. The
meditator who has assumed the right meditation posture sets up mindfulness before
him (parimukha$ satim upa""hapetv!).

AW 2: If you equate sati with (1) the minds activity of attending to the object or (2) to
the awareness of the object, I find it difficult to distinguish it from (1) attention, or mental
engagement (Skt manask!ra), and from (2) consciousness, or awareness (Skt vij!na).
Consider the following description of sati:

Sati, when it arises, calls to mind wholesome and unwholesome tendencies, with faults
and faultless, inferior and refined, dark and pure, together with their counterparts. Sati,
when it arises, follows the courses of beneficial and unbeneficial tendencies: these
tendencies are beneficial, these unbeneficial; these tendencies are helpful, these
unhelpful. [Milindapaha 3738]

6
Here the explanation of sati is far more than taking the noun sati and defining it by way
of verbs and action nouns related to the same substantive noun. Prior to the exercise of
the mental factors of sampajaa and pa!, sati appears in the above account to express
a kind of discerning awareness that distinguishes between wholesome and unwholesome
tendencies, preparing the yogi to cultivate the former and abandon the latter. One of the
most disturbing trends Ive seen in the modern Vipassana tradition is a kind of ethical
neutrality that acknowledges no significant difference between wholesome and
unwholesome mental states and rejects any attempt to favor one kind of mental process
over another. Nonjudgmentally accept every aspect of yourself is a refrain Ive heard
time and again, and on multiple levels this is fundamentally at variance with the whole of
the Buddhas teachings.

BB 2: Im puzzled by the definition of sati in the Milindapaha. I havent come across
such a definition in the suttas, though the Atthas!lin#, the commentary to the first book of
the Abhidhamma, quotes this very passage as illustrating the meaning of sati. This
explanation of sati, on the other hand, seems to correspond very closely to an explanation
of yoniso manasik!ra, careful attention, in its role as the nutriment for the arising of
the discrimination of phenomena factor of enlightenment (dhammavicaya-
sambojjha%ga):

There are, monks, wholesome and unwholesome mental states, blamable
and blameless mental states, inferior and superior states, dark and bright
mental states with their counterparts: frequently giving careful attention to
them is the nutriment for the arising of the unarisen enlightenment factor
of discrimination of mental states and for the fulfillment by development
of the arisen enlightenment factor of discrimination of mental states.

In case you wonder what the sutta has to say about the nutriment for the arising
and fulfillment of the mindfulness enlightenment factor, the answer is somewhat
ambiguous:

There are, bhikkhus, things that are the basis for the enlightenment factor
of mindfulness: frequently giving careful attention to them is the nutriment
for the arising of the unarisen enlightenment factor of mindfulness and for
the fulfilment by development of the arisen enlightenment factor of
mindfulness.

Sati should be distinguished from manasik!ra, which, in the P!li Abhidhamma, is
understood to be the mental function that steers the mind towards an object. It is
explained as advertence to an object. Its characteristic is making run, its function
is to connect the associated states upon the object, its manifestation is the
directing towards the object, it should be seen as the charioteer of the associated
states because of conducting them towards the object (so s!ra!alakkha!o,
sampayutt!na$ !ramma!e sampayojanaraso, !ramma!!bhimukhabh!va-
paccupa""h!no, sakh!rakkhandhapariy!panno. ramma!apa"ip!dakattena
sampayutt!na$ s!rathi viya da""habbo). In other contexts manasik!ra seems to
have a different meaning, similar to reflection or consideration (as in yoniso
manasik!ra). But as a particular mental factor, it is the factor that directs the mind
to the object.
7

This is what the Atthas!lin# has to say about the faculty of sati (apart from
quoting Mil):

It is a faculty in the sense of exercising dominance by overcoming
forgetfulness. Or it is a faculty in that it exercises rulership in the
characteristic of presence (upa""h!nalakkha!e). Mindfulness itself as a faculty
is the faculty of mindfulness. But this has the characteristic of non-
superficiality (apil!panalakkha!!) and the characteristic of taking up
(upagga!hanalakkha!!). ... [Here comes a simile of the treasurer and the
king, followed by the quote from Milindapaha.] ... Another method:
Mindfulness has the characteristic of non-superficiality, the function of not-
forgeting, the manifestation as guarding, or manifestation as confrontation
with the objective domain (visay!bhimukh#bh!va). Its proximate cause is firm
perception, or its proximate cause is the establishment of mindfulness of the
body and so forth (= all four satipa##h!nas). It should be regarded like a post
because of being firmly established in the object; and like a doorman because
of guarding the doors of the senses.

The word translated as non-superficiality (apil!panat!) is explained in the
commentaries to mean literally non-floating in the sense of entering deeply
into its object. It is said that whereas a mind without mindfulness floats on the
surface of its object the way a gourd floats on water, mindfulness sinks into its
object the way a stone placed on the surface of water sinks to the bottom (from
the Dhammasa$ga%i M!la##k!).

I understand your exasperation with the tendency, in the neo-Vipassana
movement, to adopt (as you put it) a kind of ethical neutrality that
acknowledges no significant difference between wholesome and unwholesome
mental states and rejects any attempt to favor one kind of mental process over
another. I agree this is quite foreign to the whole tenor of the Buddhas teaching.
In fact, I doubt very much that there is such a thing as bare attention in the
sense of mindfulness completely devoid of ethical evaluation and purposive
direction. In the actual development of right mindfulness, as I understand it,
samm! sati must always be guided in right view, steered by right intention,
grounded in the three ethical factors, and cultivated in conjunction with samm!
v!y!ma, right effort; right effort necessarily presupposes the distinction of mental
states into the unwholesome and the wholesome.

I recall that when Ven. Nyanaponika would read statements about bare attention as
interpreted by some of the neo-Vipassana teachers, he would sometimes shake his head
and say, in effect, But thats not what I meant at all! I remember many years ago I
meditated at the Insight Meditation Society in Barre. At the end of the corridor where I
did walking meditation there was a sign that read, Allow whatever arises. Whenever I
walked towards the sign and it came into my field of vision, I would always think of the
Buddhas saying, Here, a monk does not tolerate an arisen thought of sensual desire ...
ill-will ... cruelty ... or any other arisen unwholesome state, but abandons it, eliminates it,
and completely dispels it. I was tempted to replace the sign there with one that had this
saying, but fortunately I resisted the temptation. If I had been discovered, I might have
been expelled.
8

AW 2: As you probably know, among Buddhist traditions, I am most familiar with
Tibetan Buddhism, which follows the Sanskrit sm#tyupasth!na, translating this literally
as dran pa nye bar gzhag pa, for which the literal English literal translation is the close
application of mindfulness. The sense of this, as I understand it, is that the sati one
develops in the practice of sam!dhi is then applied in the vipassan! practices of the four
sm#tyupasth!na. Is this incompatible with the P!li tradition?

BB 2: In the P!li tradition it could be said that sam!dhi is developed on the basis of the
four satipa##h!nas, at least selectively. In one text (MN 44), the four satipa##h!nas are
called the sam!dhinimitta, which I think means the bases of sam!dhi (not nimittas in
the sense of the visualized objects, such as the kasi%a-nimittas). Certain meditation
subjects among the satipa##h!nas can be seen as avenues to sam!dhi, e.g., mindfulness of
breathing and the meditation on the parts of the body. One who adopts this approach to
sam!dhi will also have to employ, in the early stages, the dhamm!nupassan! exercise of
being aware of the five hindrances, their presence, absence, and the means to prevent
them from arising. One can use sati within the above-mentioned subjects to develop
powerful sam!dhi, to the level of jh!na, and then take up the practice of vipassan! by
moving into the dhamm!nupassan! phase of contemplating the five aggregates, their
arising and passing away. In this way, one practices satipa##h!na in a style that uses
samatha as preliminary to the development of vipassan!. Alternatively, one can begin
with sati extended over the four satipa##h!nas, perhaps using !n!p!nasati as a root
object, but letting the mindfulness take in any object that presents itself through any
sense base. Once the concentration becomes moderately strong, one can focus upon the
contemplation of the four elements, and from there move into the contemplation of the
five aggregates. By this route one moves into the vipassan!-knowledges more quickly,
but without the benefit of the strong sam!dhi developed in the former approach. The
former approach is said to be that of the samathay!nika, one who uses samatha as a
vehicle for the practice. The latter is that of the vipassan!y!nika, or
suddhavipassan!y!nika, one who uses bare insight as the vehicle.

BB 1: There is a work called the Pa"isambhid!magga, an analytical text of the Therav!da
school that was composed sometime during the Abhidhamma period but found its way
into the Sutta Pi#aka (probably because it uses a non-Abhidharmic method of exegesis).
In this work, the different dhammas are analyzed according to their characteristic
qualities. The quality that is used to characterize sati, again and again, is upa""h!na. Here
is one typical passage from among many, this one on the indriyas:

Saddhindriya$ dhammo, viriyindriya$ dhammo, satindriya! dhammo,
sam!dhindriya$ dhammo, paindriya$ dhammo. Adhimokkha""ho attho,
paggaha""ho attho, upa""h!na""ho attho, avikkhepa""ho attho, dassana""ho attho.

The faith faculty is a dhamma, the energy faculty is a dhamma, the mindfulness faculty
is a dhamma, the concentration faculty is a dhamma, the wisdom faculty is a dhamma.
Their respective meanings are: the meaning of resolution, the meaning of exertion, the
meaning of presence, the meaning of non-distraction, the meaning of seeing.
9

Thus we see that in this period, the expositors sought to define the faculty of mindfulness
by way of upa""h!na because mindfulness makes the object present to the mind, or
because mindfulness is the act of attending to the object, the awareness of the object.

AW 2: Might an alternate reading of the same phrase, upa""h!na""ho attho be that sati has
the meaning of close application? This is how I would read the equivalent phrase in
Tibetan. Im surprised that in the above text, sam!dhi is said to have the meaning of non-
distraction, for in the Sanskrit sources Ive seen, non-distraction is more commonly
associated with mindfulness. The Abhidharmasamuccaya, for instance, defines
mindfulness as the non-forgetfulness of the mind with respect to a familiar object,
having the function of non-distraction. And the Abhidharmko"a defines it as not losing
the object of the mind.

BB 2: The Dhammasa$ga%i M!la##k! explains upa""h!na, in relation to sati, thus (this is
an attempt at verbal etymology): Having approached (upagantv!) as an object what was
done long ago and so forth, it is a position/station ("h!na = Skt sth!na); or it is the non-
letting go of an object. The Pa#isambhid!magga-A##hakath! says: Upa""h!na means
standing firmly having arrived at the object (upa""h!na""ho ti !ramma!a$ upecca
pati""h!na""ho). From this, we can deduce that these commentaries see sati as involving
firm presence of mind in relation to the object, and this firm presence entails a capacity
for clear recollection of past experiences.

I did a search on avikkhepa, non-distraction, through the canon and commentaries. I find
the word occurs on several occasions in the canon, but without explanation. It is paired
with paggaha, which means exertion, and is considered a synonym for viriya, so the two
can be taken to represent the pair of concentration and energy. Avikkhepa occurs very
often in later works included in the canon, the Niddesa and the Pa#isambhid!magga.
These two works represent the distinctive Therav!din exegetical system, in a very early
phase, and here avikkhepa is clearly included within a set of synonyms for sam!dhi. Im
wondering if there might not be a simple semantic problem here, since Therav!da
commentaries also explain sati as non-forgetfulness with regard to the object
(asammosana), or as the guarding (!rakkha) of the object, and this would be conducive
to non-distraction, which is the sam!dhi that arises from continuous application of sati.

BB 1: Turning to sutta texts, although we dont find a formal definition of sati in terms of
bare attention, if we consider how sati is to be practiced, we would find considerable
support for this idea. Take as an example the very beginning of the section on
mindfulness of breathing in the Satipa##h!na Sutta (identical with the instructions on
mindfulness of breathing elsewhere). When the meditator sits down, holds his body erect,
and establishes mindfulness in front of him, just mindful he breathes in, mindful he
breathes out (sato va assasati sato passasati). Now here mindfulness could not mean
remembering, i.e., just remembering, he breathes in, remembering, he breathes out.
That is exactly what he is not supposed to be doing, i.e., he shouldnt allow his mind to
drift away among memories of the past. In the following description of the exercise, it is
said that when a monk breathes in and out long he knows, I breathe in and out long,
10
and so for short breaths, etc. Here, the key word is paj!n!ti, one knows. This suggests
the presence of pa! (the noun related to paj!n!ti), but I dont think at this point pa!
is present as the wisdom that penetrates the true characteristics of phenomena. This is
simply a bare cognition of the quality of the breath. Mindfulness, as bare attention, makes
the quality of the breath present to the meditators mind--this is upa""h!na--and then a
very simple cognition of the quality takes place registering that quality: this is indicated
by paj!n!ti. Mindfulness, though operating in a simple mode as bare attention, doesnt
occur alone, in isolation from other mental functions. One such mental function with
which it is conjoined is sampajaa, and here we might say that sampajaa operates as
the simple knowing of the quality of the breath. In commentarial terms, this would be
gocara-sampajaa, clear comprehension of the meditation object.

AW 2: I agree with you that in the samatha practice of mindfulness of breathing in
preparation for the vipassan! practices of satipa""h!na, pa! is not present as the
wisdom that penetrates the true characteristics of phenomena. Rather, sati is closely
applied (upa""h!na) to the breathing for the sake of developing sam!dhi, not pa!.
Thereafter, it is discerningly applied to the body and so on with the intent to penetrate the
true characteristics of those phenomena.

I believe there may be a significant difference between the P!li and Sanskrit Buddhist
meanings of sampajaa and its Sanskrit equivalent. The Bodhicary!vat!ra, for
example, states, In brief, this alone is the definition of introspection: the repeated
examination of the state of ones body and mind. [V: 108.] But some P!li sources suggest
a similar meaning: No excitation concerning these five cords of sensual pleasure arises
in me on any occasion, then he understands: Desire and lust for the five cords of sensual
pleasure are abandoned in me. In this way he has introspection of that. [Majjhima
Nik!ya 122, 15]. I believe sati is sufficient for simply knowing of the quality of the
breath, as indicated in the above citation from the Milindapaha.

BB 2: As to $!ntidevas use of the word, I would have to take a look at the section on
sampraja!ya in Sik&!samuccaya, which I have back in New Jersey, but only in English
translation. I couldnt get the Sanskrit original (issued in the now rare Mithila Institute
series of Buddhist Skt texts). Did you consult this? Sometimes single lines of verse are
not sufficient to draw major conclusions.

But even in the P!li suttas we find different explanations of sampajaa. In many suttas
we find it explained as exercising sampajaa in the various activities: When going
forward and returning, when looking up and looking to the side, when bending and
stretching, etc. This corresponds to $!ntidevas introspection regarding the state of ones
body. Then we find: And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu exercise clear comprehension?
Here, bhikkhus, for a bhikkhu feelings are understood as they arise, understood as they
remain present, understood as they pass away. Thoughts are understood as they arise,
understood as they remain present, understood as they pass away. Perceptions are
understood as they arise, understood as they remain present, understood as they pass
away. It is in this way, bhikkhus, that a bhikkhu exercises clear comprehension (SN
47:35). This corresponds to $!ntidevas introspection regarding the state of ones mind.
11

AW 3: I havent consulted Sik&!samuccaya in this regard, only the Sanskrit and Tibetan
versions of the Bodhicary!vat!ra.

BB 1: In the later exercises, say in the contemplation of the five hindrances under
dhamm!nupassan!, I would say that it is mindfulness as bare attention that is being
exercised when one knows the presence (or absence) of sensual desire, ill will, and so
forth. When mindfulness in this function has performed its work, then pa! steps in to
exercise the more prominent role of understanding how the hindrances arise, how they
are abandoned, and how they can be prevented from arising in the future.

AW 2: In the Satipa##h!na Sutta I have the impression that sati and pa! function
concurrently, rather than sequentially. As one closely applies mindfulness to the
examination of the elements of origination, presence, and dissolution of various
phenomena, mindfulness, I believe, has the function of calling to mind and following
the course of these events (cf. Milindapaha) without distraction, while pa! has the
function of penetrating their characteristics. Is that interpretation compatible with the
authoritative commentaries?

BB 2: It is certainly the case that sati and pa! can function concurrently. I think in the
earlier stages sati prepares the way for pa! (though pa! would also be present in the
form of right view and as an incipient understanding), but once the opening occurs for
pa! to operate as the direct insight into the true characteristics of phenomena, sati
continues alongside it.

BB 1: In the general instructions that accompany each of the four satipa""h!nas in the
sutta, it is said, Here, a monk dwells contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly
comprehending, and mindful (satim!), having subdued longing and dejection in regard to
the world (and so for feelings, etc.). What can mindfulness be here? Not memory of the
past, but clear awareness of the present, full attention to the present. I think within the
individual exercises described in the sutta, at certain points mindfulness as bare
attention takes on a dominant role, and then, when the object attended to comes clearly
into focus, bare attention becomes supplemented by wise attention, which culminates
in pa!. This occurs when the object is scrutinized and comprehended by means of
sampajaa, particularly (among the four types of sampajaa described by the
commentaries) by means of asammoha-sampaja!, clear comprehension as non-
delusion.

AW 2: For the four satipa""h!nas, Ive seen a slightly different translation of the above
passage, namely, a monk dwells contemplating the body as the body, which I believe
makes more sense. But if this translation is valid, the mindfulness being applied here is
not bare, but is rather enriched with a sound understanding of the classes of phenomena
one is examining and of the Buddhist views expounded in the Satipa##h!na Sutta. Its
quite true that in these practices one should not slip into memories of the past, but,
frankly, I dont see how a meditator can apply bare attention to all the body parts that are
listed in the teachings on mindfulness of the body. Surely one must call on ones powers
12
of imagination and not just bare attention to call to mind specific vital organs and other
more subtle elements of the body.

BB 2: I would question the translation of k!ye k!y!nupass# viharati as he dwells
contemplating the body as a body. I think that idea would have been expressed
differently. Nevertheless, to contemplate the body in the body requires a sharper exercise
of discernment even than to contemplate the body as a body. At this point Im not sure
that bare attention would be a satisfactory expression to use to characterize mindfulness
as it is applied in such exercises as contemplation of the thirty-two parts, the elements,
and the decay of the body contemplations. It seems more satisfactory in relation to the
system taught by Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw, which begins with observation of the rise and
fall of the abdomen, and then extends noting to anything that occurs within ones
immediate experience. So I would say bare attention (which must be understood as a
metaphorical term, since no attention is ever truly bare of elements of direction and
evaluation) is dominant in certain practices and in certain phases of complex systems of
practice; reflective attention--sati working in conjunction with vitakka and vic!ra, is
more prominent in other exercises (the preparatory phases of the 32 parts, the four
elements meditation, the charnel ground meditations); and integrated wise attention--
sati conjoined with pa!--becomes more prominent.

BB 1: In conclusion, I would say that the suttas do not give us a formal definition of sati
that enables us to clearly differentiate it from sati as memory, but rather an operational
demonstration that indicates, in practical terms, how its role in Buddhist meditative
practice differs from that of memory. Certain definitions (as in the example of the
satindriya) show that the two are not entirely distinct, and thus it would be an interesting
theme for inquiry how a word originally meaning memory came to mean attention to
the present. Perhaps the root idea is that to be mindful means to remember to pay
attention to what is occurring in ones immediate experience rather than to allow the
mind to drift away under the dominion of stray thoughts and tumultuous emotions.

AW 2: Rather than translating sati as memory, I think it is more accurate to render it as
recollection or remembering. In light of the Buddhist view of cognition consisting of
a continuum of finite mind-moments, sati entails an ongoing process of remember to
remember the object of interest, without forgetfulness (the opposite of recollection). That
object may lie in the past, thus conforming to our common notion of memory, which the
Buddha acknowledged when he declared that sati recollects what was done and said long
before [Sa$yutta-Nik!ya V 197-8]. Or the object of sati may lie in the present, as in the
cases youve cited. I believe it might even lie in the future, for example, when we
remember to do something in the future. This has been called prospective memory, and
I suspect it is also covered by the term sati. This would link the pre-Buddhist meaning of
sm#ti to the ways sati is used in Buddhism.

BB 2: I think your explanation of remembering provides the link between sati in the
sense of remembering what was said and done long ago and sati as presence in mind
regarding ones present experience. But the words remembering and remembrance
have become so closely associated, in English, with memory of the past that I dont think
13
they would succeed as actual translations of sati. Recollection works as a translation of
anussati, which, of course, is anu + sati.

BB 1: I dont think that admitting sati to mean bare attention commits one to a
dumbing down of satipa""h!na practice. It is true that on the contemporary American
Dharma scene, satipa""h!na practice has undergone a shift in emphasis, or, more
precisely, a change in function. In classical Therav!da Buddhism (and, more widely, in
all classical Buddhist practice) the practice of satipa""h!na, in order to be samm! sati,
right mindfulness, has to occur in the context of the full Noble Eightfold Path; that is, it
has to be preceded and guided by right view and motivated by right intentions, not to
mention that it should be associated with the three ethical factors of the path.

AW 2: When we map the Noble Eightfold Path onto the three trainings, my
understanding is that right effort, mindfulness, and sam!dhi are the triad in support of
sam!dhi, while right view and right thought are developed in support of pa!. Do I have
that wrong?

BB 2: First of all, I should state that I recently realized that the common way of dividing
up the eight factors of the Noble Eightfold Path into three categories--repeated so often in
popular books on Buddhism (including some that I wrote in my days of juvenile
innocence)--occurs only once in the four main Nik!yas. Moreover, this one occurrence is
in a sutta spoken by the bhikkhuni Dhammadinn!, not in one spoken by the Buddha.
True, the discourse is said to have been subsequently approved by the Buddha, but it
wasnt spoken by him; and this method of imprimatur could be the way the Sangha
sought to authorize a text composed sometime after the parinibb!na, as I suspect is the
case with this one. I now prefer to take the eightfold path as an organic whole. We might
be able to isolate the three ethical factors, but the contemplative ones, I believe, should all
be taken together, without segregating them rigidly into distinct sam!dhi and pa!
groups. Particularly with samm! v!y!ma and samm! sati: I believe these run along both
tracks: sam!dhi and pa!. In the Satipa##h!na-sa"yutta we find enough suttas that
emphasize the role of satipa##h!na in leading to pa!, not merely to sam!dhi. One
example:

Bhikkhus, those bhikkhus who are newly ordained, not long gone forth, recently
come to this Dhamma and Discipline, should be exhorted, settled, and established by
you in the development of the four establishments of mindfulness. What four?
`Come, friends, dwell contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly
comprehending, unified, with limpid mind, concentrated, with one-pointed mind, in
order to know the body as it really is. Dwell contemplating feelings in feelings ... in
order to know feelings as they really are. Dwell contemplating mind in mind ... in
order to know mind as it really is. Dwell contemplating phenomena in phenomena ...
in order to know phenomena as they really are.
Bhikkhus, those bhikkhus who are trainees [stream-enterers, etc.], who have not
attained their minds ideal, who dwell aspiring for the unsurpassed security from
bondage: they too dwell contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly
comprehending, unified, with limpid mind, concentrated, with one-pointed mind, in
order to fully understand the body as it really is. They too dwell contemplating
feelings in feelings ... in order to fully understand feelings as they really are. They too
14
dwell contemplating mind in mind ... in order to fully understand mind as it really is.
They too dwell contemplating phenomena in phenomena ... in order to fully
understand phenomena as they really are.

The four satipa##h!nas seem to be a complete system of practice (based upon
samm!di##hi and s#la, of course) that can lead all the way to the final goal:

Bhikkhus, there are these four establishments of mindfulness. What four? Here,
bhikkhus, a bhikkhu dwells contemplating the body in the body feelings in
feelings mind in mind phenomena in phenomena, ardent, clearly
comprehending, mindful, having removed covetousness and displeasure in regard to
the world.
When, bhikkhus, these four establishments of mindfulness have been developed
and cultivated, one of two fruits may be expected: either final knowledge in this very
life or, if there is a residue of clinging, the state of nonreturning.

BB 1: Moreover, to be complete satipa""h!na should be a combination of sati, energy
(!t!p ! viriya), and clear comprehension (sampaj!no! pa! in its elementary roles).
Contemporary teachers seldom emphasize right view, or reinterpret right view to make it
fit in comfortably with our modernistic modes of understanding; and the attitudes
involved in right intentions, particularly those involving a recognition of the vicious
nature of sa"s!ra and a turn towards release, hardly figure at all. Rather, the practice of
mindfulness is undertaken as a way to enable people to enhance their appreciation of the
present, to be more fully in the here and now, to accept more completely and totally the
world with all its vicissitudes and uncertainties. Thus we get books like Wherever You
Are, There You Are (which I havent read, I know only the title) or even Thich Nhat
Hanhs idea of enjoying an orange while one mindfully eats it. In a way, this is almost the
converse of the classical function of sati, which is to induce disenchantment with the
here and now. One can see how mindfulness practice could acquire this function as a
means to help people overcome the sense of alienation from direct experience that set in
as a consequence of the industrial and technological age, with its stress on the conceptual
mastery of nature and its subjugation of the natural world to human purposes. But
correcting this error might not justify the loss of the purpose originally intended by the
Buddha and transmitted within the Buddhist tradition.

AW 2: I heartily agree with all the points you make in the above paragraph. In the
sources you cite, Buddhism has been reduced to a kind of therapy to make sa"s!ra more
enjoyable, rather than a system of theory and practice designed to liberate us from
sa"s!ra, including all mental afflictions. I am intent on resisting this degradation of the
whole Buddhist tradition, and I sense that you share this sentiment.

BB 2: I share the sentiment, but it might be the case that in this present age we should
take the attitude: The Tath!gata has no closed fist of a teacher, interpreting this
statement to mean that we should let others take from Buddhism what they find useful for
secular purposes: If psychotherapists can draw upon Buddhist mindfulness practice to
help people with mental problems, and this helps the patients: fine. If pain clinicians find
Buddhist practice helps patients afflicted with severe pain: fine. If peace activists are
inspired by Buddhist ideals of loving-kindness and compassion, and they court the
15
friendship of the Dalai Lama: fine. If a businessman says the secret to his success in
business lies in his Zen practice (or Vipassana practice), and he uses his success to further
practice generosity and set a good example to others: fine. If a surgeon draws her
inspiration from an image of the Buddha as the universal physician, fine. The problem
for me only arises when such people say, This is the Dhamma; this is what it all boils
down to: how to be fully here in the present. In my mind, this way of thinking hasnt yet
even seen the door of the Dhamma.

AW 3: I couldnt agree more!

AW 4: To tie up one loose end, as I commented earlier, insofar as sati is equated with
bare attention, or as the minds activity of attending to the object, the awareness of the
object, as you put it, I find it implausible that this mental activity is by nature
wholesome, like the other mental factors in that list. Can you tell me the Abhidhamma
definition of sati in the context of wholesome mental factors?

BB 4: No problem to try to tie up this loose end. First, I used the phrase the minds
activity of attending to the object, the awareness of the object as an attempt to make
sense of the word upa""h!na, which is used in works like the Pa#isambhid!magga and
the commentaries to draw out the significance of sati. It wasnt a direct gloss on sati
itself.

As a wholesome mental factor, sati is consistently explained in the same way as in the
quotation from Vism XIV 141 (with the forms saranti, sarati, sara!a, simply cognates of
sati). So I dont have any new definition of sati to offer. But I hope that I can explain how
sati, as bare attention, can function as a wholesome mental factor. When I use the
word awareness or attention to render upa""h!na, as representing sati in this role
(which is just my hypothesis), this awareness is quite different from ordinary
consciousness (vi!!a), and this attention is different from manasik!ra, the mental
factor that performs the function of adverting to an object or selecting features of the
objective field for closer focus. Sati, as bare attention, is never completely bare. When
practiced in the full context of the noble eightfold path (even the path-practice of a
worldling) it is, or should be, embraced by other factors of the path, most notably by right
view, right motivation, and right effort (factors 1, 2, and 6); it is already supported by the
three morality factors (3, 4, 5). As Ven. Nyanaponika first used the expression, sati is
bare in that it is shorn of our usual emotional reactions, evaluations, judgments,
conceptual overlays, etc., and is intended to lay bare the experienced object as clearly as
possible.

We should remember that sati, in the context of satipa##h!na practice, is always practiced
as part of ananupassan!, and this word helps to bring out the role of sati. We usually
translate anupassan! as contemplation, thus k!y!nupassan! as contemplation of
the body, but this might be somewhat misleading. It might be more accurate, and more
literal, to translate it as observation. The word is made up of a prefix anu which
suggests repetition, and passan!, which means seeing, viewing. So sati is part of a
process that involves a close, repetitive observation of the object.
16

Several factors enter into anupassan!. According to the satipa##h!na refrain, these are
energy (!t!p#, ardent), clear comprehension (sampaj!no), and mindfulness (satim!).
Energy contributes the strength to fulfill the practice, but it is mindfulness that brings the
object into the field of observation, and in many exercises (though not all) it does so
simply through the act of attending to the object over and over, as simply as possible, and
of attending to each object that presents itself on the successive occasions of experience.
Mindfulness, as bare attention, is thus a key element in the process of adopting an
observational stance towards ones own experience.

Mindfulness, as bare attention, however, isnt just floating loosely in a void. In a
meditative situation it will be anchored in a primary object, such as in-breathing and out-
breathing, or the rise and fall of the abdomen. But whenever some other phenomenon
arises and floats into the field of awareness, the meditator is advised to simply note it,
without reacting to it, and then to bring the mind back to the primary object. If any
reactions take place, such as enjoying the distracting object or feeling irritated by it, one
should note the enjoyment or irritation, and again return to the primary object.

Thus, if you have trouble seeing mindfulnessas bare attentionas a wholesome mental
factor because it isnt remembering ones wholesome qualities or attending to
bodhipakkhiya dhammas, the same problem could be posed in terms of mindfulness of
breathing. A skeptic might say: Yeah, I can see loving-kindness meditation, or
compassion meditation, as a wholesome state, but mindfulness of breathing, why, youre
doing nothing but following your breath in and out. What could be especially
wholesome about that?

In the practice of bare attention, as used in the dry insight system of vipassan!,
mindfulness is used to note whatever is occurring on successive occasions of
experience. As this is practiced continuously, over extended periods of time, the
mindfulness builds up momentum. By means of this momentum, it is able to bring the
field of experience into increasingly finer focus, until one can tune into the precise
factors constituting any occasion of experience and distinguish them according to their
place among the five aggregates. In this way, mindfulness paves the way for the
discriminative understanding of the constituted nature of experience, allowing pa! to
move in and discern the threads that make up the complex experiential occasion.

Then because one is attending to the unfolding of experience sequentially across
occasions of experience, the characteristic comes into sharp focus. One can see how each
event occurs and vanishes, followed by the next event, which occurs and vanishes,
followed by the next event, which occurs and vanishes. As concentration grows stronger,
this ability to focus upon the arising and passing of events becomes more refined, so that
it seems one is perceiving the arising and passing of cognitive events in terms of
nanoseconds. Again, this uncovers, even more starkly, the characteristic of
impermanence, and from there one can move on to the characteristics of dukkha and
anatta.

17
Of course, one who gains the jh!nas, and then uses the concentration of the jh!na to focus
on the procession of experience, has even more powerful resources for gaining direct
perception of the radical truth of impermanence. But even this must begin with some
degree of bare attention to immediate experience.

AW 5: Im glad to have this clarification, for its quite a different description of bare
attention than is usually given in the modern Vipassana tradition and in the accounts of
mindfulness one finds in psychology based thereon. I note, however, that you dont
include right thought in the noble factors that embrace mindfulness. But it seems to me
that it is as critical to effective practice as any of the other factors of the path. But as soon
as right thought is conjoined with mindfulness, its not really so bare after all.

I admit that I do still have trouble seeing mindfulnessas bare attentionas a wholesome
mental factor, not because it isnt remembering ones wholesome qualities, but because I
dont believe bare attention necessarily leads to liberation. For example, I can easily
imagine a Green Beret sharpshooter practicing mindfulness of breathing in order to be a
better sniper. The Green Berets motivation might be to serve and protect his country, so
his practice wouldnt necessarily be contaminated by gross hatred or craving.
Nevertheless, I dont believe his mind would necessarily be in a wholesome state while
mindfully attending to his breath. Another person might practice bare mindfulness in
order to improve his chess game or play better tennis. Likewise, a rabbit sitting quietly in
a field might on occasion be resting in bare attention, vigilantly mindful of its
environment, but that wouldnt imply that its moving toward liberation by means of a
wholesome mental state. I believe motivation is crucial. For ones mind to be wholesome,
one doesnt necessarily have to bring to mind wholesome qualities or attend to
bodhipakkhiya dhammas. I believe the kind of mindfulness defined earlier by N!gasena
is quite clearly a wholesome mind-state, for its evidently oriented toward the purification
of the mind.

I guess my underlying concern is that when sati is glossed a bare mindfulness, this can
easily be (and often is) interpreted to mean that right thought and right view do not need
to be cultivated separately, nor is there any need to study the suttas and commentaries. A
lot of Buddhist meditators nowadays believe that studying Dharma is a waste of time, and
Ive heard a number of them refer to Buddhist theory as clap-trap and mumbo-
jumbo, and theyre eager to strip Buddhist meditation of its Buddhist roots so that it is
unconstrained by dogma. No doubt, Buddhists are as prone to dogma as are followers
of other religious traditions as well as scientists. But when sati is equated with bare
attention, an implication for many people is that Buddhist theory is irrelevant: you can
realize all that needs to be realized simply by being mindful, without judgment, from
moment to moment to whatever arises. If that were all vipassan! is, the Buddha could
have saved his breath. One dhamma talk after his enlightenment would have been
sufficient.

I fully agree with your concluding statement that one must begin with some degree of
bare attention to immediate experience. But it seems to me that the practice of
mindfulness in general and vipassan! in particular entails a good deal more than that.
18

BB 5: I believe I already covered the qualms expressed in AW 4 with the following
words in BB 4:

Sati, as bare attention, is never completely bare. When practiced in the full context of
the noble eightfold path (even the path-practice of a worldling) it is, or should be,
embraced by other factors of the path, most notably by right view, right motivation, and
right effort (factors 1, 2, and 6); it is already supported by the three morality factors (3, 4,
5).

You were worried that I had missed out on right thought, and further on in your letter you
expressed concern about the need for proper motivation; but the factor often translated as
right thought, samm! sa%kappa, is what I have here translated right motivation (it is
elsewhere translated right intention). Im not sure how the Tibetan translations render
the second path factor, but the P!li term suggests the purposive, motivational element in
thought, rather than the cognitive, which is covered by right view. In my understanding,
without right view or right intention, one could be practicing bare mindfulness, and yet
that bare mindfulness is unlikely to develop into samm! sati, right
mindfulness. Similarly, one could be practicing mindfulness of breathing, or
contemplation of bodily sensations, or loving-kindness meditation, or perhaps even
reflective meditation on the Four Noble Truths and dependent origination as applicable to
this present life alone (no trespassing into unverifiable past and future lives), and these
practices, while being wholesome, would still be deficient as Dharma practices.

AW 6: Ah, what an excellent translation of the P!li term samm! sa%kappa! The Tibetan
term for right thought, on the other hand, is yang dag pa'i rtog pa, which is glossed as
engaging with the meaning of the teachings in the sutras and so on. The Tibetan term
for right view is yang dag pa'i lta ba, which is glossed as the discerning awareness of
how one perceives ultimate reality with non-conceptual, primordial consciousness. The
P!li term for right thought may indeed be covered by right view, but the
corresponding Tibetan terms have a somewhat different connotation.

BB 5: A counter-question: Could a student of Madhyamaka, without accepting karma and
rebirth, undertake the Madhyamaka meditations on emptiness? Arent there
contemporary Westerners who are following this approach? I think Ive heard of students
of Tibetan Buddhism learning dzogchen and yet remaining agnostic about the issue of
karma and past and future lives. The question is whether such meditation practices,
without mundane right view, without right intention towards any world-transcending
goal, could lead to profound insights and world-transcending realizations. I would be
skeptical, but leaving aside those who petulantly refuse to assent to Buddhist teachings,
what if someone takes up the practice as a purely empirical experiment, engaging it with
full earnestness, could they achieve profound realizations (if not world-transcending
ones)? I dont know ... which is not to say that under normal conditions I would endorse
this approach. Rather I would recommend a follower of the Dharma to adopt a balanced
approach that integrates study and practice, conceptual understanding and meditative
experience.
19

AW 6: Although there certainly are contemporary Westerners undertaking Madhyamaka
meditations on emptiness without accepting karma and rebirth, in many cases I believe
they also trying to meditate on emptiness without any sound basis in study and critical
reflection. And the result of such ungrounded practice, I have found, is that such novices
often slip into various forms of nihilism. Having engaged in a simplistic wholes-and-parts
analysis of the self, they conclude the self doesnt exist at all, and some people extend
this extreme conclusion to all phenomena. In some cases, this leads the misguided
meditator to refute causality, including both causal patterns or regularities discovered by
scientists as well as the natural laws of karma discovered by the Buddha. According to
the Madhyamaka tradition, such an abandonment of relative truth, including the laws of
karma in the context of rebirth, is tantamount to turning the medicine of the Middle Way
view into poison.

Nowadays, the practice of Dzogchen has also become popular among some Westerners,
and unfortunately, such meditation is often taught without the rich context of the
Dzogchen view and conduct. When this happens, Dzogchen is reduced to bare attention,
but this by itself is a pale facsimile of genuine Dzogchen practice. Theres a common,
populist tendency in the contemporary dissemination of Buddhism to overlook or dismiss
the importance of sustained theoretical and ethical training that traditionally preceded
intensive meditation in the Therav!da, Zen, and Tibetan Buddhist traditions. Naturally,
very few people have the will and ability to engage in such professional training, but its
misleading for people to be taught radically simplified versions of these meditative
traditions and come away with the impression that this is all there is to them. Many
Western Buddhists today reject Buddhist assertions of rebirth and karma, falsely claiming
that the Buddha just picked up these beliefs from his cultural environment, while
remaining skeptical about them himself. If such Buddhists were to achieve the jh!nas,
they might be able to put the Buddhist assertions to the test of experience. But most are
satisfied with lay practice in the dry insight system of vipassan! and never get around
to rigorous, sustained training in the jh!nas, which leaves them high and dry with respect
to personal insight into past lives. Buddhists have the potential to revolutionize the
scientific understanding of consciousness, but only if we emphasize professional training
in Buddhist theory and practice, and not years on end of novice practice.

Could someone achieve profound realizations by taking up such practice as a purely
empirical experiment, engaging it with full earnestness? This is a good empirical
question. I expect that if they kept pure ethical discipline, cultivated a meaningful,
altruistic motivation, and devoted themselves to meditation with confidence in the
practice, in the teacher, and in themselves, they might indeed achieve profound
realizations. Whatever degree of confidence one may have in the Buddhas teachings, I
wholeheartedly with your recommendation that a follower of the Dharma adopt a
balanced approach that integrates study and practice, conceptual understanding and
meditative experience. This is the time-tested approach, and within the brief span of a
human life, this, to my mind, is the most meaningful and effective way to devote oneself
to the path of liberation.

20
AW 6: I have carefully read through your long, erudite, and insightful responses to all my
questions, and Im deeply grateful that you took the time to do so in what is undoubtedly
a very busy schedule. You have answered all my questions, dispelled my uncertainty,
and for this I offer my warm and sincere thanks. If theres any way I can repay your
kindness in the future, I hope you will not hesitate to ask.

Finally, a request: might I have your permission to share our recent correspondence with
a few friends who are interested in these matters?

BB 5: Thank you very much for this email and for the one I received yesterday in which
you arranged our correspondence into the proper sequence. This makes it much easier to
follow the exchange of ideas.

Please feel free to share the correspondence with anyone who is interested.

Again, with best wishes,

Bhikkhu Bodhi

With all good wishes,
Alan