Skip to content

What does mindfulness really mean? A canonical perspective

Bhikkhu Bodhi

Contemporary Buddhism May 1, 2011 DOI: 10.1080/14639947.2011.564813 via OpenAlex

Summary

AI-generated from the abstract

Mindfulness meditation, as described in the Pāli Canon, is best understood as 'lucid awareness' rather than 'bare attention.' The term mindfulness (sati) originally meant 'memory,' but the Buddha gave it a new meaning central to his teaching. Clear comprehension (sampajañña) bridges mindfulness and the development of insight. The author argues that while secular applications of mindfulness are acceptable for alleviating suffering, they should not reduce the practice to a mere technique and must respect its Buddhist roots.

Study at a glance

Characteristics Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed
Citations 620
Key finding Mindfulness (sati) in the Pāli Canon is best characterized as 'lucid awareness,' not 'bare attention,' and secular applications of mindfulness are acceptable but should respect its traditional religious context.

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to determine the meaning and function of mindfulness meditation using as the source of inquiry the Pāli Canon, the oldest complete collection of Buddhist texts to survive intact. Mindfulness is the chief factor in the practice of satipa hāna, the best known system of Buddhist meditation. In descriptions of satipa hāna two terms constantly recur: mindfulness (sati) and clear comprehension (sampajañña). An understanding of these terms based on the canonical texts is important not only from a philological angle but because such understanding has major bearings on the actual practice of meditation. The word sati originally meant ‘memory,’ but the Buddha ascribed to this old term a new meaning determined by the aims of his teaching. This meaning, the author holds, might best be characterized as ‘lucid awareness.’ He questions the common explanation of mindfulness as ‘bare attention,’ pointing out problems that lurk behind both words in this expression. He also briefly discusses the role of clear comprehension (sampajañña) and shows that it serves as a bridge between the observational function of mindfulness and the development of insight. Finally, he takes up the question whether mindfulness can legitimately be extracted from its traditional context and employed for secular purposes. He maintains that such non-traditional applications of mindfulness are acceptable and even admirable on the ground that they help alleviate human suffering, but he also cautions against a reductionist understanding of mindfulness and urges that investigators respect the religious tradition in which it is rooted.

Comments

No comments yet.

Log in to comment