> Yeah, there is indeed a skilful question of what is 'sati'.
>
> For the discussion of that question let me again recommend
> you the book "The Buddhist Path to Awakening" by Rupert Gethin.
>
> With metta, Dmytro

Dear Friends in Dhamma,

First, please note, what follows is meant to be heard in a friendly, not
accusatory tone :)

I would like to address the issues that have been raised by noting the
general trend, whether referring to Buddhist doctrine or the verity of
certain teachings, to cite Western or non-Buddhist sources as authority. I
suppose this could come from not speaking any Asian language for some, but
it still seems strange to me. I think if I wanted to learn more about sati,
I would go and find a meditation master who practices it. And I think I
would hesitate to look to Rhys-Davids or A.K. Warder for proof of the age of
any of the parts of the tipitaka, no matter how much I still rely on their
grammar books or translations. Indeed, the tipitaka is such a jewel, I
would not wish anyone to denegrate of any part of it. I am not sure what is
implied by the later/earlier idea, but it seems either one of two things:

1) the format (e.g. rhyme, syntax) of the teaching was adapted from the
orginal at various times in history, or

2) the doctrine was "thought up" at various times after the Lord Buddha
passed away.

I've heard an alarming lot of the latter among modern Western scholars who
put notes in claiming that "the Buddha is made to say" this or that.

I suppose I am in no position to say that this has not occurred, especially
in the commentarial stories, but I wonder at how often these claims are
made, along with the differing claims of "later" and "earlier" in regards to
the nikayas. What is the purpose of this? Is there something about certain
teachings, or even certain nikayas which seems unhelpful, indeed perhaps
negative in its impact on the rest (usually given as a very paltry set of
two or three "earlier" books) of the texts that leads one to suspect its
authenticity? It seems that the result is a lopsided version of the
Buddha's teaching (kind of like the blind men and the elephant), but it also
often seems that the original impetus for dissecting the tipitaka in this
way is to prove a lopsided point. It is strange to me, but then of course
if I asked any of the scholars and meditation teachers here about it, I
think they would tell me Westerners think too much and doubt too much. :)

So, perhaps this comes from living in a very Buddhist society. You'll have
to excuse me for it... I am still of the opinion that mindfulness is the
only way, and the whole of the tipitaka is equally valid :)

Peace be for all,

Yuttadhammo