The Buddha said:
"And what is the faculty of mindfulness? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, is mindful, highly meticulous, remembering & able to call to mind even things that were done & said long ago. He remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves... the mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. This is called the faculty of mindfulness."
 From the Indriya-Vibhanga sutta

It seems like sati is defined in two very different ways here. First it is difened as memory. It makes sense that being good at recalling information helps on the path to nibbana, since it helps you remember dhamma talks and things like that. Then it is defined as it usually is in the suttas, the ability to focus on the four foundations. These two seemingly different abilities must be somehow related to each other, since the same term, sati, is used for both of them. But how? To me they seem almost unrelated. The first is about recalling things from the past, the second about staying in the now, right? I suppose you don't need to have a great memory to rembember to stay with ones object of meditation. 

How about remembering/recalling/reminding to perform the actions that lead to freeing from moment to moment? If one did this for 7days straight isn't one to become an arahat according to some sutta reference I heard about on some dharma grapevine?

Something I have learned over the past year is that you really have to approach what is in the suttas with some caution. I am not sure if it applies here but here are some general thoughts:

the various schools of Buddhism over the millenia have adapted, altered, or accidently corrupted a number of suttas - not the majority by any means but enough that you have to consider this as a possibility.

When looking at a sutta now days I:

- see if what is stated in that sutta can also be found in others - this is a good indication of authenticity.

- see if that sutta has something similar in the chinese agamas. This can be done via sutta central - for your sutta go to http://suttacentral.net/sn48 and go down until you find sn 48.10. There you will see that there are no direct matches but there are some partial matches (that’s what the asterisk means) - SA 655, SA 658. Sadly neither of these have been translated but from the length of them it is clear that they are very different. There is a pop-up chinese->english dictionary that will allow you to get a sense of what these are saying. It takes some patience but I am getting reasonably good at picking through the main ideas on these short suttas. If you find a reasonable match in the agamas it pretty much means the sutta is authentic back to about 100-200 years after the Buddha or older as this is when the various schools started going there own way.

In  your case - it might be that this sutta has been fleshed out with later commentary. It does not have a good flow and seems quite choppy - like a victim of cut and paste. I would look to see if you can find other definitions in other suttas and see how they fit.

There is a good set of workshops on early buddhism and how the analysis of texts is carried out as regards authenticity over at http://www.dhammanet.org/dhammatalks/earlybuddhism

The second workshop is on text analysis while the fourth is on meditation as found in the early texts.

It's interesting though, I I've read the description of sati as memory in some other suttas and somewhere I read that in tibetan buddhism smrti usually means recollecting. Like for example recollecting what one has learned, something I guess is pretty important in the tibetan traditions since many of their meditation techniques is more like thought experiments rather than experiencing what is happening in the now (source: like all of the books written by the dalai lama, they made me really confused as to the definition of meditation since very few of the methods he writes about involves present moment awareness!)

Edit: HEY LOOK AT THIS
In the Anuruddha sutta, sati is describes ONLY as memory:
"'This Dhamma is for one whose mindfulness is established, not for one whose mindfulness is confused.' Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said? There is the case where a monk is mindful, highly meticulous, remembering & able to call to mind even things that were done & said long ago. 'This Dhamma is for one whose mindfulness is established, not for one whose mindfulness is confused.' Thus was it said. And with reference to this was it said.

What does that say about how to practice? And what does it have to do with the four foundations?

From some dharma talk by Gil Fronsdal I remember sati being both defined as "memory" and "to keep things in mind". Thus my interpretation of sati is basically "to remember to do the practice, moment to moment". That partly means remembering keeping all the lists (awakening factors, etc) in the back of your mind while meditating so that you can adjust and steer your meditation in the right direction, but also whenever your mind wanders (i.e. you forget to meditate), you remember that you were supposed to be meditating and return to your object.

In that light sati both meaning 'mindfulness' and 'memory' makes a reasonable amount of sense I think.

Cheers

Yes that makes some sense! Sounds like Thanissaros explanation. So it's kind of mental endurance and non-forgetfullness.

Doesn’t that one have a much nicer flow to it?

Oochdd: "to remember to do the practice, moment to moment". That partly means remembering keeping all the lists (awakening factors, etc) in the back of your mind while meditating so that you can adjust and steer your meditation in the right direction, but also whenever your mind wanders (i.e. you forget to meditate), you remember that you were supposed to be meditating and return to your object.

Yes, that sounds good to me.

If you read the satipatana carefully you will see that it is not talking about bare awareness. There are many things that one has to keep in mind, develop, and understand. The four foundations is not a practice but rather it defines wholesome or skillful mind states as opposed to unwholesome unskillful ones - this is stated in a number of places. What it means to fulfill the four foundations may be understood by practicing Anapanasati - it very clearly defines the role of the four foundations in that sutta.

Edit:
As an analogy, let’s say I tell you to follow the yellow brick road because that is the direct path to Oz. I am telling you how to know when you are on the road or off the road - not how to travel it (walk, horse, bike, etc).

Satipatana marks the road. Anapanasati describes the vehicle.

RE: Sati and memory
re: Chuck Kasmire (12/16/14 5:50 PM and 12/17/14 4:09 PM as a reply to Pål. )

Chuck's overview appears in general agreement with what my research has turned up.

Analayo's two books on Satipatthana present an in-depth survey comparing Pali with two Chinese Agama Canons (and some reference to Tibetan versions), tending to favor the 'bare' awareness, non-memory interpretation of sati.

Than-Geof's book 'Right Mindfulness' argues more or less the opposite. It actually seems like the two (Than-Geof and Analayo) are locked in a back-and-forth debate on this issue through their papers and books over the last decade or so.

Ajhan Sujato's 'A History of Mindfulness' argues, at great length, that anapanasati is the earlier (pre-sectarian and samatha-rooted) practice from G. Buddha, and satipatthana is a synthetic, somewhat later (sectarian, and focused on vipassana) creation of Therevada tradition. His book also compares, in depth,Therevadan Pali Canon with the Chinese agamas, plus some Tibetan sources; PLUS tracing parallel developments through what looks like all the literature of the succeeding and Mahayana sects; PLUS an introductory essay (ca 130 pages) outlining a grand theory of how to go about 'stratifying' the literature into historical stages and the principles of its evolution. An amazing book, but a monumental task to read.Sujato and Analayo differ in interpretation, but appear to work like colleagues, sharing back-and-forth research, translations on the various canons.

In addition, Alexander Wynne's research – in 'The Origin of Buddhist Meditation' and other papers – demonstrates careful philological study and comparison with Vedic sources as a tool for determining 'early' G.Buddha teachings, where one of the key issues is GB's use of sati.

The issue is clearly many-sided.

I guess I'll have to read Analayos work because I can't figure out one could possibly interpret sati as bare awereness after having read suttas like Anuruddha and Indriya-vibhanga

Why cling to Analayo? Have you ever considered the possiblity Analayo may be wrong?

Sati itself is not bare awareness however bare awareness may be a state of mind (in formal meditation) that occurs when sati is employed.

For example, when right speech is employed, sati is also employed.

The function of sati in the path applies to more than just formal meditation.

The operation of sati is best described in MN 117 (yet Analayo has gone to great efforts to debunk MN 117).

This video is on point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAWoQuw89Tc

I'm not clinging to Analayo, I just felt I needed to open up my mind and not just dismiss his interpretation directly, which was my spontaneous reaction.

you might find these links on translations of "sati" interesting - before literacy, people would remember by taking a mental note, that is, noting!

http://theravadin.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/mindfulness-is-not-sati/

http://theravadin.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/iti-and-sallakkheti/

RE: Sati and memory
re: Pål (12/19/14 6:07 PM as a reply to Chris J Macie. )
"I guess I'll have to read Analayos work because I can't figure out one could possibly interpret sati as bare awereness after having read suttas like Anuruddha and Indriya-vibhanga"

If you really want to see multiple sides of the issue, that could be worthwhile. While I don't find the leaning towards sati as 'bare' awareness convincing myself, Analayo's breadth of coverage of Sutta-s (and agama-s) provides an important learning experience. When I find points where my initial reaction is negative ("… that's wrong…"), it turns out to be worthwhile to take a deeper look at the argumentation, the evidence; to see how the sutta material can support other interpretations ("… that's a different viewpoint than mine (what I believe), but it has some justification…I can see how one could believe it…"). And on either side of the issue, the viewpoint is a belief in an interpretation. ANY statement that this or that (well-documented and argued) interpretation is wrong, that another (particularly MINE) is absolutely true, raises a strong suspicion that a viewpoint is being clung to, that deep-down there's an insecurity about it that has to be defended.

RE: Sati and memory
re: Nicky (12/19/14 10:13 PM as a reply to Pål. )
"Why cling to Analayo? Have you ever considered the possiblity Analayo may be wrong?"

Analayo's writings contain much important research, as also those of Sujato, Than-Geof, and many others. Each has particular viewpoints here and there with which they interpret what they find. In my own viewpoints (which evolve and change with further study and practice development) there's agreement and disagreement with some views / interpretations of each of these writers, but I'm always open to reading and considering their arguments, as each of them has considerably more depth and breadth of knowledge (and practice).

For instance, the teachings of Sayadaw Mahasi as to how to go about basic practice I find narrow and overly rigid, though they clearly work well for many people; but then when I read his deeper writings, there arises deep respect and awe, finding his command of Dhamma goes far beyond the limits of his didactic introductory practice system.

Every individual human being, from idiots to arahants, is conscious from an individual perspective, a viewpoint, that has limitations, and is in some respects (not necessarily all) subject to anicca, dukkha, and anatta.

In reading Analayo's two satipatthana books, I have spent much time carefully tracing his arguments on the nature and scope of sati, because I find the counter arguments (e.g. Than-Geof's or Sujato's) more convincing, i.e. useful. I could write a paper attempting to show weaknesses in his (Analayo's) reasoning, just as I could with respect to some interpretations that Than-Geof or Sujato teach. But that would seem a misuse of limited time; because their interpretations are not blantantly incompetent, and there's a lot more to study. The fact that certain interpretations are useful at the moment in practice doesn't require proving anything to anyone.

btw: thanks (Nicky) for the pointer to videos of Ajahn Jayasaro talks, which I find useful.

Bhante Vimalaramsi defines mindfullness as : "it’s remembering how to observe mind’s attention, the movements of mind’s attention from one thing to another, and seeing it impersonally, seeing it as a process." from Moving Dhamma Volume 1

Hi Pal,

I was reading the wikipedia article on this and thought of you.  Have you looked into the etymology of the word "sati"?  I've found this can be helpful figuring out the Buddha's intent for some of these things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_%28Buddhism%29

Sati, it seems, was generally used to mean attention.  We might say "pay attention" or "remember this" where they'd use sati. If you look at the suttas where the Buddha talks about remembering, the context seems to mean "pay attention to the extent that you could remember what is happening clearly at a later time."

If we take this further, anapanasati would mean something like "paying attention to breathing to the extent that it could be remembered clearly later on."

EDIT: This is good too - http://www.buddha-vacana.org/gloss.html#anapanassati  "awareness of respiration."

EDIT 2: Also http://www.buddha-vacana.org/gloss.html#sati

Thanks for the links! Yes that seems to be a useful definition. I have thought that sati might mean "not forgetting (the object of meditation)" which is the same as cobcentration. Then Samadhi is, as I have been suspecting, mistranslated as concentration and doesn't really have an english word for it. The Buddha himself definied samma samadhi as the four jhanas, attained through clearing the mind of the hindrances, which could be done through concentration (sati), but not necessarily (see the anuruddha sutta were it is saod that one who thinks spontaneously the thoughts of a great person can at will enter jhanas, for example).

Now I don't remember exactly where I read this, but the word "samadhi" shares a root with our word "same".  The breakdown I read explained samadhi as a state where everything seems the same, or the mind has an even sameness in disposition, stability of mind.  This lines up best with my experiences from when I was using close attention as my main meditation.  The jhanas seemed less like absorptions and more like a progression into a stable and concentrated mind.  First there is bliss, then there is comfort, then the mind is just at ease.  The Buddha always called the jhanas "calm abidings," which is confusing if they are only accessable as deep formless meditations (or even meditations requiring a still body with eyes closed).

Wait, where does the Buddha say samatha=jhana? Haven't seen that anywhere in the suttas.

I'm not sure what you mean.  I didn't suggest the Buddha said samatha = jhana...

In every description of the third and fourth jhanas there is this stock phrase used:

"He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.'"

I think this means, specifically, that these two jhanas can be carried with you. The Buddha also calls the fourth jhana "purity of mindfulness" which suggests that remaining in the fourth jhana during the day is samma-sati, right mindfulness. Anapanasati is used to attain samadhi and purify mindfulness, then this mindfulness is used in conjuction with right view and the four foundations (satipatthana) to investigate reality and attain liberation from suffering.

Makes sense but... Which kind of anapanasati? :|
they're all very different.

You might find this sutta helpful, Pal.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html

Ok I read that one once again more carefully until the jhana formula. What he is concentrating on is "mental qualities", which in this case means, skillful thoughts, or what? What are you trying to tell me? 

Btw, I really get the impression that the part that says skillfull thoughts should be abandoned  is a later addition. It doesn't make sense to me that unskillfull and skillfull thoughts should be treated in different ways if they both should be abandoned anyway. It doesn't seem consistent with the analogies either.

Something to notice - you have lots of faith in the suttas until they contradict your viewpoint, then it must be a later addition.    I'm not sure I can help you out. You're going to be mired in uncertanty until you dig yourself out. It's good you're developing a critical viewpoint. I'd say just put it to practice and see where it takes you.

If you're at all interested in personal experiences, I can tell you I've tried a lot of different methods. The one that always carries the most weight for me is one-pointed concentration while meditating, and letting go of stress during everyday life by contemplating the amount of control I have over things.

I was thinking about your name the other day. I think of the Tao as the way things happen. Recognizing no-self is the same as recognizing that everything is out of your control, just happening the way things happen, or recognizing that everything is the Tao. It's the part of the universe you don't have control over, and the self is the part of the universe you do have control over. So if all-tao is the other side of no-self, then the self is the "Not Tao." So it's a good name for yourself

re:JC (12/21/14 3:52 PM as a reply to Pål. )
"…you might find these links on translations of "sati" interesting - before literacy, people would remember by taking a mental note, that is, noting!
http://theravadin.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/mindfulness-is-not-sati/
http://theravadin.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/iti-and-sallakkheti/"

J C, have you any idea who this 'theravadin' might be? A monk? Scholar? His writings (at those links) is very extensive and in depth, with what appears as an impressive command of the texts and the Pali. Actually quite taxing to follow in detail.

Thanks for the links/intro to his stuff.