Introduction

In the present chapter I translate the Saṃyukta-āgama parallel to the Sedaka-sutta of the Saṃyutta-nikāya, before studying the acrobat simile found in this discourse, which illustrates how the practice of mindfulness becomes a way to protect oneself as well as others. The extant versions of this discourse are:

• the Sedaka-sutta of the Saṃyutta-nikāya,[n.1] [2] SN 47.19 at SN V 168,16 to 169,24; studies of the significance of this discourse can be found in Debes 1964 and Ñāṇaponika 1967/1990.
• a discourse in the Saṃyukta-āgama,[n.2] [5] SĀ 619 at T II 173b5 to 173b19.
• a discourse quotation in the Bhaiṣajyavastu of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya.[n.3] [4] T 1448 at T XXIV 32b9 to 32c1, noted as a parallel to SĀ 619 by Chung 2008: 157. The corresponding part in the Tibetan translation of the Bhaiṣajya-vastu is abbreviated and only gives the title of the discourse; cf. note 4 below.

---

Translation

[Discourse on the Simile of the Pole Acrobat][n.4] [6] The translated discourse is SĀ 619 at T II 173b5 to 173b19, which does not give a title. For the sake of convenience I adopt the title given in a reference to this discourse in D 1 kha 62a7 or Q 1030 ge 57b8 as shing ʼdzeg gi shing lta buʼi mdo, literally: "the discourse on the simile of the pole of [one] who climbs up a pole".

Thus have I heard. At one time the Buddha was dwelling among the Kosalans, in a grove of Indian rosewood trees (siṃsapā) north of the town of Sedaka.[n.5] [7] SĀ 619 at T II 173b6: 私伽陀, identified as corresponding to Sedaka or Setaka by Akanuma 1930/1994: 608. SN 47.19 at SN V 168,16 locates Sedaka among the Sumbhas (Spk III 226,6 explains that Sumbha is the name of a janapada), the same village is also mentioned, e.g., in SN 46.30 at SN V 89,8 (Be, Ce, and Se: Setaka) and SN 47.20 at SN V 169,26. Whereas SN 47.19 does not give any indication regarding the grove in which the Buddha was dwelling, the otherwise unrelated DN 23 at DN II 316,6 refers to a siṃsapā grove north of a town in Kosala, although in this case the name of the town is Setavyā. On the pericope of a siṃsapā grove north of a certain town or village cf. above p. 106 note 4. At that time the Blessed One said to the monks:

"In former times there was a teacher of acrobatics done in dependence on a pole. He placed the pole straight up on his shoulder and told his disciple:[n.6] [8] SN 47.19 at SN V 168,18 does not specify where the pole was put; the Bhaiṣajyavastu, T 1448 at T XXIV 32b11, also reports that it was placed on the shoulder. 'Getting up and down on the pole,[n.7] [9] SN 47.19 does not specify that the protecting of each other should be done while getting up and down the pole, in fact in its account the teacher at first told the disciple to get up on his shoulders, which the latter then did, so that in SN 47.19 their discussion takes place with the disciple already standing on the shoulders of the teacher. you protect me and I will also protect you. Protecting each other we will put on a show and gain much wealth.'

"Then the disciple of acrobatics said to the teacher of acrobatics: 'It won't do, as you said. Instead, we should each take care to protect ourselves. [Like this] we will put on a show and gain much wealth. We will be physically at ease and yet I will get down safely.'

"The teacher of acrobatics said: 'As you said, we will take care to protect ourselves, this is correct and is also the meaning of what I said'."[n.8] [10] SN 47.19 at SN V 169,9 does not have a reply by the teacher, continuing only with a brief remark: "that is the method here", so tattha nāyo. Whereas Woodward 1930/1979: 149 takes this to be still part of the disciple's speech, Bodhi 2000: 1648 translates it as part of the explanation subsequently given by the Buddha. The passage in question reads: ... orohissāmā (Ce: orohessāmā) ti, so tattha nāyo ti bhagavā avoca (Be: bhagavā avoca). Since the first ti concludes the disciple's remark, the subsequent section should indeed be part of the Buddha's explanation. In the Bhaiṣajyavastu version, T 1448 at T XXIV 32b19, no reply by the teacher is found, instead of which the Buddha comments that the indications made by the disciple are the correct method.

[The Buddha said]:[n.9] [11] In SĀ 619 it is not clear at what point the speech of the teacher ends and the comment by the Buddha starts. My assumption that this occurs at the present junction is based on the parallel versions. In SĀ 619 it could alternatively be the teacher who draws this general conclusion, in which case the Buddha's comment would only start with the remark on becoming familiar with one's own mind. "Having protected oneself, one right away protects the other; when protecting the other and oneself, this is protection indeed.[n.10] [12] In SN 47.19 at SN V 169,11 the Buddha at first recommends the practice of satipaṭṭhāna to protect oneself and to protect another, followed by indicating that protecting oneself one protects others and protecting others one protects oneself, attānam, bhikkhave, rakkhanto paraṃ rakkhati, paraṃ rakkhanto attānaṃ rakkhatī ti. The corresponding passage in the Bhaiṣajyavastu, T 1448 at T XXIV 32b20, reads: "if one is able to protect oneself, one is able to protect others. If one [just] has the wish to protect others, one is in turn not able to protect oneself", 若能守護自身, 即能守護於他, 若欲守護於他, 即便 不能自守. In evaluating this difference, it needs to be taken into account that the intrusion of negations into a context where they were not originally found is not an unusual occurrence in the early discourses (cf. Anālayo 2007b: 40 and Anālayo 2009d: 14), so that it is possible that the final part of the present passage in the Bhaiṣajyavastu is the result of a similar type of error. In this case the reading would rather be, in closer correspondence to the parallels: "If one has the wish to protect others, one is in turn able to protect oneself."

"[How does protecting oneself protect others]?[n.11] [13] The supplementation of this query suggests itself from the context and the parallel versions, SN 47.19 at SN V 169,15 and T 1448 at T XXIV 32b22, where such a query serves as introduction to the corresponding explanation. Becoming familiar with one's own mind,[n.12] [14] SN 47.19 at SN V 169,16 does not explicitly specify that the mind is the object of development, reading (in reply to the Buddha's question on how one protects oneself): "by practising, developing, and making much of it", āsevanāya bhāvanāya bahulīkammena, which according to the commentarial explanation, Spk III 227,2, refers to one's meditation practice in particular, kammaṭṭhānāsevanāya. The Bhaiṣajyavastu, T 1448 at T XXIV 32b22, also does not mention becoming familiar with the mind. developing it, protecting it accordingly, and attaining realization; this is called 'protecting oneself protects others.'

"How does protecting others protect oneself? By the gift of fearlessness, the gift of non-violation, the gift of harmlessness,[n.13] [15] Instead of these three, SN 47.19 at SN V 169,19 speaks only of patience and harmlessness, khantiyā avihiṃsāya. The Bhaiṣajyavastu, T 1448 at T XXIV 32b24, mentions not annoying, not angering, and not harming another, 由不惱他, 亦不瞋他, 并不損害. The three versions agree that one protects others through mettā and empathy. by having a mind of mettā and empathy for others; this is called 'protecting others protects oneself.'

"For this reason, monks, you should train yourself like this:[n.14] [16] An injunction to the monks that they should train themselves like this is not found in SN 47.19. The Bhaiṣajyavastu, T 1448 at T XXIV 32b26 and 32c1, has such an injunction twice, before and after the statement according to which, in order to protect oneself and to protect another, one should practise the four satipaṭṭhānas. 'Protecting myself I will develop the four satipaṭṭhānas, protecting others I will develop the four satipaṭṭhānas.'"[n.15] [17] The Bhaiṣajyavastu, T 1448 at T XXIV 32b29, continues by briefly listing the four satipaṭṭhānas (body, feelings, mental states, and dharmas), 所謂身受 心法念等住處.

When the Buddha had spoken this discourse, hearing what the Buddha had said the monks were delighted and received it respectfully.[n.16] [18] Such a standard conclusion to the discourse is not found in SN 47.19.

---

Study

In what follows I first study the situation described in the simile in order to appreciate its significance. Then I examine in what way mindfulness protects oneself and thereby benefits others, before examining the reverse case, where protecting others benefits oneself. In the final part of my study, I turn to the four satipaṭṭhānas in an attempt to ascertain what aspect of their development is particularly related to protecting oneself as well as others.

The Acrobat Simile

For the two acrobats to successfully perform their feat, the teacher would have to keep the pole firmly straight up and the disciple would have to maintain balance while being on top of the pole.[n.17] [19] Olendzki 2010: 127f notes that the image of the acrobat paying attention to his or her own physical sense of balance mirrors the task of a meditator, in that "the acrobat, like the meditator, is bringing conscious awareness to a process that is always occurring but is generally overlooked." The simile thus exemplifies that "mindfulness is a tool for looking inward, adjusting our balance." In view of this need for cooperation, the suggestion made by the teacher that "you protect me and I will also protect you" is quite meaningful. It would imply that he wishes to protect the disciple by keeping the pole firmly upright. At the same time, he hopes that the disciple will protect him by avoiding any jerky movement that upsets the balance of the pole and makes it difficult to keep the pole up straight.

The teacher's concern would also be that, whether he makes a mistake or the disciple makes a mistake, in both cases the one who risks falling down is the disciple. Hence as the teacher and with a natural attitude of concern, he expresses himself in terms of protecting the other.

The disapproval voiced by the disciple – "It won't do, as you said" – comes somewhat unexpectedly in view of the fact that the simile introduces her as the disciple.[n.18] [20] Whereas SĀ 619 does not mention the name of the disciple or give any further indications, SN 47.19 at SN V 168,24 provides the disciple's name as Medhakathālikā, where the feminine ending gives the impression that the disciple would have been a girl. This is not the position taken in the commentary, Spk III 226,7, which explains itthiliṅgavasena laddhanāmaṃ and then refers to Medhakathālikā as antevāsiko, and thus as a male disciple; cf. also Bodhi 2000: 1925 note 167 and below note 22. Hecker 2003: 303 follows the indication in the discourse and refers to Medhakathālikā as "Gehilfin", i.e., a female assistant. According to the Bhaiṣajyavastu version, T 1448 at T XXIV 32b12, the task of the disciple was to get on top of the pole and do a "dancing spectacle", 舞戲. Based on this indication it seems that perhaps the performance combined an acrobatic feat with a display of female charms, something fairly common in acrobatic performances. The actual perspective introduced by the disciple that "we should each take care to protect ourselves" brings a refinement to the basic principle of harmonious cooperation, indicating that each of them should not give all priority to protecting the other. This indication would not imply a rejection of the need for both to be concerned about the other. Rather, it introduces the proper perspective for achieving smooth cooperation, namely being first of all centred oneself.

If the teacher were to worry excessively about the disciple, this might distract his attention from the need to keep his own balance and result in knocking over the whole set-up. Similarly, the disciple should not be overly concerned about the teacher, but needs to first of all pay attention to maintaining her own balance, otherwise she might get distracted from the need to keep her own balance and risks falling off the pole.

At this point of the simile, a significant difference occurs between the parallel versions. In the Saṃyutta-nikāya version, the Buddha simply acknowledges that the remark made by the disciple is the right method. [n.19] [21] Cf. above note 8. In the Saṃyukta-āgama discourse, however, it is the teacher himself who acknowledges the correctness of what the disciple has said, after which he adds that this "is also the meaning of what I said", that is, this much was anyway implicit in his presentation. This in itself minor difference results in the two protagonists of the simile appearing in a different light.

The impression that the Saṃyutta-nikāya version of the simile gives is that the teacher needed to be corrected by his disciple. This is unexpected, since he would be the one who taught the disciple the trade of acrobatics. Hence his understanding of the basic principles of this trade should be better than that of his disciple. In this way, on reading the Saṃyutta-nikāya discourse one has the impression that this teacher was not really up to the position of teaching that he had assumed, since in relation to so fundamental a matter as how to perform properly, he needed to get the priorities clarified by his own disciple.

In contrast, in the Saṃyukta-āgama version the teacher indicates that he had already been aware of the point made by the disciple. Even though his concern for the disciple had led him to express his advice in terms of protecting the other, it was implicit in his presentation that they both need to protect themselves by keeping their own balance. In this way, the manner in which the two protagonists interact in the Saṃyukta-āgama version fits the roles given to them better. The disciple's remark does not imply any ignorance on the side of the teacher, but only has the function of throwing into relief a principle that is implicit in the teacher's proposal to protect each other.

In spite of this difference, however, the parallel versions agree on the basic message of the simile, in that for the two acrobats to be able to perform their feat properly, they first of all need to make sure that they are centred themselves. Only based on having in such a way protected themselves will they be able to protect each other.

The simile depicting the cooperation of two acrobats in early Buddhist thought is extant not only in textual sources. Among the recently excavated remains of a stūpa complex at Kanaganahalli in Karnataka, a depiction of the present simile can be found. The inscription reads: lakhako m(e)yakathālikā.[n.20] Nakanishi and von Hinüber 2014: 106, rendered by them as "The acrobat (and musicians beating the rhythm?)". In a personal communication (letter dated 10 of June 2014), von Hinüber concords with my identification of the second term in the inscription as being the proper name of the disciple and the panel thus illustrating the simile found in SN 47.19 and its parallels. The first term renders the word "acrobat", whereas the second appears to be a reference to the name of the disciple, which the Saṃyutta-nikāya discourse gives as Medhakathālikā.[n.21] Cf. above note 18. The corresponding plate shows what appears to be a male disciple climbing up the pole, with the teacher below holding up the pole and an amazed spectator standing to one side.[n.22] Cf. plate 2 below p. 594. The circumstance that the disciple appears to be male corresponds to the explanation in Spk III 226,7; cf. above note 18.

Protecting Oneself

The notion that mindfulness has a protective function is not confined to the present discourse, as it recurs in other passages, according to which mindfulness is the one factor to guard and protect the mind.[n.23] [22] DN 33 at DN III 269,27: bhikkhu satārakkhena cetasā sammannāgato hoti, evaṃ kho, āvuso, bhikkhu ekārakkho hoti; cf. also AN 10.20 at AN V 30,24. A brief reference to what appears to be the same quality in DĀ 10 at T I 57b1 does not spell out the implications. A counterpart to AN 10.20, EĀ 46.2 at T II 775c28, only speaks of protecting the mind, without bringing in the role of mindfulness in this respect. Sv III 1051,15 and Mp V 8,11 understand this passage in DN 33 and AN 10.20 to imply that an arahant will be protected at any time by mindfulness in regard to the three pathways of action. The same nuance of protection can be found, for example, in the context of a simile that illustrates progress on the path with the example of a chariot, where mindfulness corresponds to the shielding function afforded by the canopy of the chariot.[n.24] [23] SN 1.46 (1.5.6) at SN I 33,11, with parallels in SĀ 587 at T II 156a20 and SĀ2 171 at T II 437a22.

Ñāṇaponika (1968/1986: 35 and 23) explains: "Just as certain reflex movements automatically protect the body, similarly the mind needs spontaneous spiritual and moral self-protection. The practice of bare attention will provide this vital function." "The non-violent procedure of bare attention endows the meditator with the light but sure touch so essential for handling the ... evasive and refractory nature of the mind. It also enables him to deal smoothly with the various difficult situations and obstacles met with in daily life."

Simply put, from the viewpoint of early Buddhist meditation theory mindfulness is what makes one aware of what is happening in the mind. It is based on such recognition through mindfulness that something can be done about the arising of unwholesome reactions or the presence of detrimental states of mind. Unless such recognition through mindfulness has been established, greed, anger, and delusion will have free range to work havoc in the mind, hiding under any of the various pretences and excuses that disguise their true nature. Mindfulness, however, enables seeing through these different disguises and rationalizations.

By detecting the presence of mental defilements, established mindfulness can in this way counteract the innate unwillingness to admit to oneself that one is greedy, angry or confused.

Any diversionary manoeuvre fuelled by mental impurities to avoid being detected can in principle be unmasked with the help of mindfulness, thereby revealing the actual condition of one's own mental household. In this way, mindfulness can indeed become a real protection.

The successful achievement of such self-protection through mindfulness finds illustration in another simile, which compares sati to a careful charioteer.[n.25] [24] SN 45.4 at SN V 6,10: sati ārakkhasārathi (Ce: ārakkhasārathī). The parallel SĀ 769 at T II 201a4 indicates that the motif of the skilled driver stands for "being well protected by right mindfulness", 正念善護持. The implications of this simile are self-evident, as without the presence of mindfulness an 'accident' is prone to happen. Applying the indications given in the Sedaka-sutta to this simile, a careful charioteer would be one who by maintaining awareness while driving through life's vicissitudes does the needful to avoid an accident, thereby protecting oneself and others.

The protective function of mindfulness receives another illustration in a simile that describes the gatekeeper of a town in a border district. According to a version of the discourse found in the Madhyama-āgama, the simile runs like this:[n.26] The translated passage is from MĀ 3 at T I 423c14 to c19.

It is just as if in the king's border town a chief officer is appointed as gatekeeper,[n.27] [26] MĀ 3 at T I 423c14: 大將. Hirakawa 1997: 392 gives as equivalents for 將 such terms as pariṇāyaka, vināyaka, senāpati. The version of this simile found in AN 7.63 at AN IV 110,29 does not have a comparable specification of the gatekeeper. one who is sharp-witted and wise in making decisions, brave and resolute, of excellent counsel, who allows entry to the good and keeps out the bad, in order to ensure peace within and control outside enemies.[n.28] [27] A reference to ensuring peace within and controlling outside enemies is not found in the parallel AN 7.63.

In the same way the noble disciple continuously practises mindfulness, achieves right mindfulness, always recalling and not forgetting what was done or heard long ago. This is reckoned to be the noble disciple's gaining of the 'gate-keeping chief officer' of mindfulness, which removes what is evil and unwholesome and develops wholesome states.[n.29] [28] AN 7.63 at AN IV 111,5 adds that, besides overcoming what is unwholesome and faulty and developing what is wholesome and faultless, the noble disciple in this way also preserves himself in purity, suddhaṃ attānaṃ pariharati. Other instances of this simile can be found in EĀ 39.4 at T II 730b6 and in T 212 at T IV 652c9 (on this work in general cf. below p. 463ff).

The simile of mindfulness as a gatekeeper recurs in another discourse,[n.30] [29] SN 35.204 at SN IV 194,34 identifies mindfulness as the gatekeeper; the parallel SĀ 1175 at T II 316a3 (translated Anālayo 2013c: 28) speaks of four gatekeepers, which are the four satipaṭṭhānas, 四守門者, 謂四念處. In another parallel, D 4094 nyu 43b4 or Q 5595 thu 83a2, the gatekeeper is mindfulness of the body, lus su gtogs paʼi dran pa, equivalent to the Pāli term kāyagatāsati. where the gatekeeper's task is to show the way so that the two 'messengers' of tranquillity and insight can deliver the 'message' of Nirvāṇa to consciousness.

These two similes can be seen to highlight two complementary aspects of the protective function of the gatekeeper of mindfulness in early Buddhist thought. The first simile shows mindfulness in its more general task of preventing the intrusion of evil and encouraging what is wholesome in the mind. The second simile is more specifically addressed to higher levels of insight, where the protective function of mindfulness is to supervise the two chief aspects of mental cultivation – tranquillity and insight – ensuring that they lead to their final purpose: liberation.

The gate-keeping function of mindfulness comes up again in another discourse from the Madhyama-āgama in the context of a description of sense-restraint. According to the indications given in this discourse, to restrain the senses requires to be "guarding and protecting the mind with mindfulness and becoming accomplished [in such protection]".[n.31] [30] MĀ 144 at T I 652b11: 守護念心而得成就. Another parallel, T 70 at T I 875b12, recommends to "protect one's own mind [by] protecting the mind with mindfulness", 自護其意護意念. Although in this case the Pāli parallel does not mention the protective role of mindfulness,[n.32] [31] MN 107 at MN III 2,13. the same is explicitly related to sense-restraint in another Pāli discourse found in the Aṅguttara-nikāya.[n.33] [32] Yit 2004: 185 points out that AN 5.114 at AN III 138,20 also associates sense-restraint with "protective mindfulness", ārakkhasatino, and speaks of being "endowed with a mind protected by mindfulness", satārakkhena cetasā samannāgata, a nuance of protection found in relation to sense-restraint also in the Mahāvastu, Senart 1897: 52,4: ārakṣāsmṛti ... araktena cetasa samanvāgataḥ, and in the Saṅghabhedavastu, Gnoli 1978: 240,20: guptasmṛtimānasaḥ; cf. also the Śrāvakabhūmi, ŚSG 1998: 100,8+18 and 101,2, with its Chinese counterpart in T 1579 at T XXX 406b24 and 406c3+10, which gives a detailed exposition on the implications of ārakṣitasmṛti / 防守正念, nipakasmṛti / 委正念, and smṛtyārakṣitamānasa / 念防護意, under the heading of indriyasaṃvara.

The Indriyabhāvanā-sutta and its Saṃyukta-āgama parallel confirm that to deal appropriately with the senses is a task that requires some form of inner protection, clarifying that from their perspective simply to block out sensory input is not the way mental cultivation should be undertaken. They report that the Buddha, apparently somewhat tongue in cheek, told a contemporary brahmin practitioner that, if the solution were to simply avoid seeing and hearing in principle, then the blind and the deaf must be reckoned highly accomplished practitioners.[n.34] [33] Whereas MN 152 at MN III 298,17 reports that the Buddha mentioned the blind and the deaf, according to SĀ 282 at T II 78b1 he only referred to someone who is blind, and the case of someone who is deaf was then brought up by Ānanda. The remark about the deaf is also attributed to Ānanda in the *Mahāvibhāṣā, T 1545 at T XXVII 729b6; cf. also T 1546 at T XXVIII 271a18 (Buddhavarman) and T 1547 at T XXVIII 439c19 (Saṅghabhūti). Bronkhorst 1993/ 2000: x sees a contradiction between on the one hand this criticism of the "development of the faculties" through avoiding sights and sounds and on the other hand the approving attitude shown in other discourses towards deeper states of concentration during which sights or sounds are no longer experienced, e.g., in DN 16 at DN II 131,20. Yet the present passage does not imply a criticism of deeper stages of concentration during which sensory experience is absent, but rather a criticism of attempting to deal with sensory impact during daily life by simply trying to avoid it, instead of developing equanimity towards whatever is experienced. In fact, the theme of MN 152 at MN III 298,8 is indriyabhāvanā, the "development of the faculties", a formulation that clearly points to a close relationship of the discourse's topic with indriyasaṃvara, "sense-restraint". For a critical review of Bronkhorst's argument cf. also Pāsādika 2009: 92f.

The above passages indicate in what way through mindfulness one can "become familiar with one's own mind, develop it, protect it accordingly and attain realization", as suggested by the Saṃyukta-āgama parallel to the Sedaka-sutta.

The two parallel versions agree in proposing that by protecting oneself in such a way one also protects others.[n.35] [34] Cf. above note 13. According to the commentary on the Sedaka-sutta, the implication of this dictum can be seen when a monk successfully develops his practice until he becomes an arahant. Others who see him become inspired and, because of having aroused faith in him, are reborn in heaven.[n.36] [35] Spk III 227,3: yo bhikkhu ... mūlakammaṭṭhānaṃ asevanto bhāvento arahattaṃ pāpuṇāti, atha naṃ paro disvā ... tasmiṃ cittaṃ pasādetvā saggaparāyano hoti, ayaṃ attānaṃ rakkhanto paraṃ rakkhati nāma.

This seems a somewhat narrow interpretation of the simile, which in a way restricts the efficacy of protecting others through self-protection to the case of arahants, or at least to those who are so well advanced that the inspiration they provide will lead others to rebirth in heaven. One might also wonder if the protection to be given to others is just about a heavenly rebirth, since the inspiration gained from witnessing accomplished practitioners could also be fruitful if it results in developing one's own meditation practice.

In a short study dedicated to the Sedaka-sutta, Ñāṇaponika (1967/1990: 5–7) envisages a considerably broader scope of implications for the effects of self-protection on others. He explains that, in particular from an ethical perspective, "self-protection will safeguard others, individuals and society, against our own unrestrained passions and selfish impulses ... they will be safe from our reckless greed for possessions and power, from our unrestrained lust and sensuality, from our envy and jealousy; safe from the disruptive consequences of our hate and enmity."

In contrast, "if we ourselves think of nothing else than to crave and grasp ... then we may rouse or strengthen these possessive instincts in others ... our own conduct may induce others to join us in the common satisfaction of rapacious desires; or we may arouse in them feelings of resentment and competitiveness." In the end, "greed and hate are, indeed, like contagious diseases. If we protect ourselves against these evil infections, we shall to some extent at least also protect others."

Understood in this way, protecting oneself through mindfulness could have a rather broad range of possible benefits for others, even if one has not yet become an arahant. In sum, in the words of Ñāṇaponika (1967/1990: 8), "he who earnestly devotes himself to moral self-improvement and spiritual self-development will be a strong and active force for good in the world."

Protecting Others

The commentary on the Sedaka-sutta illustrates how protecting others leads to protecting oneself with the example of a monk who gains the four absorptions through practice of the brahmavihāras and, having made the absorption attainment the basis for reviewing formations, develops insight and becomes an arahant.[n.37] [36] Spk III 227,13: yo bhikkhu ... brahmavihāresu tikacatukkajhānāni nibbattetvā, jhānaṃ pādakaṃ katvā, saṅkhāre sammasanto vipassanaṃ vaḍḍhetvā arahattaṃ pāpuṇāti, ayaṃ paraṃ rakkhanto attānaṃ rakkhati nāmā ti veditabbaṃ. This commentarial explanation again seems to present a somewhat narrow perspective.

Ñāṇaponika (1967/1990: 11f) explains that someone who is patient and forbearing towards others "will protect himself better than he could with physical strength or with any mighty weapon." "He who does not resort to force or coercion will, under normal conditions, rarely become an object of violence himself ... and if he should encounter violence, he will bring it to an early end as he will not perpetuate hostility through vengeance."[n.38] [37] Debvedi 1990: 42f speaks of using "our practice to improve the world, by training to see it in a more skillful way ... one who practises like this practises correctly in relation to oneself and also ... practises in the world in such a way as to be helpful, not harmful. Helping others also helps us to develop good qualities in ourselves ... in this way the practitioner sees the relationship between his own personal practice and the practice of relating to the world."

From this perspective, even without having developed the brahmavihāras up to absorption level and then using this to develop insight and become an arahant, there would be considerable scope for protection of others to benefit oneself.

As the Saṃyukta-āgama parallel to the Sedaka-sutta points out, one who protects others gives them "the gift of fearlessness, the gift of non-violation, the gift of harmlessness". Making the 'dāna' preparations required to be able to offer such gifts would immediately have considerable wholesome repercussions on one's own mind. Such form of 'dāna' involves a training and educating of the mind in wholesomeness that has its own intrinsic value, independent of whoever will eventually be the recipients of these gifts.

Here it is perhaps also noteworthy that the so-called Metta-sutta of the Sutta-nipāta refers to mindfulness. After describing the radiation of mettā in all directions without any obstruction, which involves a pervasion of the whole world with mettā that should be maintained in any bodily posture, the discourse continues by enjoining that "one should practise this mindfulness."[n.39] [38] Translation by Norman 1992: 17 of Sn 151: etaṃ satiṃ adhiṭṭheyya; cf. also Bodhi 2011: 26. Maithrimurthi 2004: 177 additionally mentions SN 42.8 at SN IV 322,4 and AN 8.1 at AN IV 150,16 as instances where the practice of mettā is related to being mindful, patissata. Sn 151continues by indicating that being determined on this (form of) mindfulness is said to be (one's) divine abode, brahmam etaṃ vihāraṃ idha-m-āhu. Kuan 2008: 56 comments that Sn 151 "probably does not mean that loving-kindness itself is a kind of sati, but it implies that the process of developing loving-kindness involves sati." This expression hints at a close relationship between the practice of mindfulness and the opening of the heart achieved through such boundless meditative cultivation of mettā.

The disciple in the Sedaka-sutta and its Saṃyukta-āgama parallel highlights that protecting others needs to have a firm foundation in self-protection. The same requirement finds illustration in the Sallekha-sutta in the example of drowning in a quagmire. The Madhyama-āgama parallel to the Sallekha-sutta presents this simile as follows:[n.40] The translated section is from MĀ 91 at T I 574b2 to b7.

For one who is untamed himself to tame others who are untamed; this is impossible. For one who is drowning himself to rescue others who are drowning; this is impossible ... [However], for one who is tamed himself to tame others who are untamed; this is possible. For one who is not drowning himself to rescue others who are drowning; this is possible.[n.41] [39] The parallel to MN 8 at MN I 45,3 indicates that the predicament in question is sinking in a quagmire; for another parallel cf. EĀ 47.9 at T II 784a20. A discourse quotation on the need to tame oneself before taming others, apparently from the present discourse, can be found in T 212 at T IV 712c9, which at T IV 723b17 also quotes the simile of pulling someone out of the mud (on T 212 in general cf. below p. 463ff). Mahāsi 1981/2006: 34f explains that "only the man who has disciplined himself ... and extinguished the fires of defilements will be able to help another man in regard to discipline ... and extinction of defilements", "just as a fire cannot be used for putting out another fire, so also a defilement cannot neutralize another defilement."

Ñāṇaponika (1967/1990: 8) explains that "if we leave unresolved the actual or potential sources of social evil within ourselves, our external social activity will be either futile or markedly incomplete. Therefore, if we are moved by a spirit of social responsibility, we must not shirk the hard task of moral and spiritual self-development. Preoccupation with social activities must not be made an excuse or escape from the first duty, to tidy up one's own house first."

The same suggests itself also from a study of the Mahāgopālaka-sutta and its parallels. This discourse clearly highlights the importance of concern for others as an integral aspect of growth in the Dharma. At the same time, however, it puts such concern for others into perspective by subordinating it to the principal task of progress towards liberation.[n.42] [40] Cf. above p. 41ff.

The Four Satipaṭṭhānas

The Sedaka-sutta and its parallel conclude with the Buddha recommending the practice of the four establishments of mindfulness as the way to protect oneself and others. This points to the way such self-protection and protecting of others should be practically implemented. Here the question arises of whether any particular aspect of the development of the four satipaṭṭhānas could be specifically related to this interrelation between protecting oneself and others.

Now according to the Satipaṭṭhāna-sutta and its parallels, the practice of mindfulness should be undertaken "internally", "externally", as well as "internally and externally".[n.43] [41] DN 22 at DN II 292,1, MN 10 at MN I 56,27, MĀ 98 at T I 582b27, and EĀ 12.1 at T II 568a11. MĀ 98 differs from the other versions in so far as it does not speak of contemplating "internally-and-externally", in addition to contemplating "internally" and contemplating "externally". In regard to other aspects of satipaṭṭhāna, the expositions in MĀ 98 and EĀ 12.1 show considerable variations when compared to DN 22 and MN 10; cf. also Kuan 2008 and Anālayo 2013c. The same specification is associated with satipaṭṭhāna in a range of other texts, for example in Abhidharma works like the Dharmaskandha and the *Śāriputrābhidharma,[n.44] [42] T 1537 at T XXVI 475c28 and T 1548 at T XXVIII 613a11. or in the Daśabhūmika-sūtra,[n.45] [43] Rahder 1926: 38,17: 'dhyātmaṃ kāye kāyānudarśī viharaty ... bahirdhā kāye ... adhyātmaṃ bahirdhā kāye, etc. as well as in Prajñāpāramitā literature.[n.46] [44] Dutt 1934/2000: 204,2; cf. also Lamotte 1944/1970: 1122. Thus this injunction can safely be taken to represent a key aspect of satipaṭṭhāna practice recognized in the Buddhist traditions.

A discourse in the Saṃyutta-nikāya and its Madhyama-āgama parallel report an instruction given by the Buddha to a monk who had requested a brief teaching that would enable him to engage in intensive practice. The instruction is that he should practise the four satipaṭṭhānas internally, externally, and internally-and-externally, [n.47] [45] SN 47.3 at SN V 143,11 and MĀ 76 at T I 543c12. with the Saṃyutta-nikāya version explicitly specifying that this instruction is about a threefold mode of practice, tividha.

This suggests that practice of satipaṭṭhāna in this way evolves through three distinct levels. These begin with internal mindfulness as a foundation and then proceed to mindfulness directed externally, which eventually culminates in a mode of practice that is internal-and-external. Moreover, such practice is explicitly recommended to someone who wishes to strive earnestly for progress towards liberation, indicating that externally developed mindfulness is as much required for such progress as its internal counterpart.

According to an indication provided in the Janavasabha-sutta and its Dīrgha-āgama parallel, contemplating internally refers to developing mindfulness in regard to oneself, whereas to undertake external contemplation involves awareness of the same phenomena in others.[n.48] [46] DN 18 at DN II 216,15 speaks of practising satipaṭṭhāna "externally in relation to the bodies of others ... the dharmas of others", bahiddhā parakāye ... bahiddhā paradhammesu, something to be undertaken based on having at first contemplated internally and thereby developed proficiency in concentration. The parallel DĀ 4 at T I 36a1 instructs: "having contemplated the body internally, one arouses knowledge of the bodies of others; having contemplated feelings internally, one arouses knowledge of the feelings of others; having contemplated mental states internally, one arouses knowledge of the mental states of others; having contemplated dharmas internally, one arouses knowledge of the dharmas of others", 內身觀已, 生他身智, 內觀受已, 生他 受智, 內觀意已, 生他意智, 內觀法已, 生他法智. This passage is preceded by distinguishing between internal and external contemplation, indicating that its implications would be similar to DN 18. Another instance reflecting this understanding can be found in a Chinese manuscript, possibly a text by Ān Shìgāo (安世高), which explicitly speaks of undertaking satipaṭṭhāna contemplation in regard to oneself, 觀自, and in regard to others, 觀他人; cf. Zacchetti 2003: 255f. EĀ 12.1 at T II 568a11, however, relates the qualification "oneself" to internal and to external contemplation, reading: 內自觀 and 外自 觀. This suggests that mindfulness practice undertaken according to the scheme of the four satipaṭṭhānas can also include directing awareness to others. [n.49] [47] Cf., e.g., MN 141 at MN III 252,5. Elsewhere I have argued that such awareness need not be taken to require supernatural powers, but could be implemented by becoming aware of the feelings and mental states of another through careful observation of their facial expression, tone of voice, and physical posture.[n.50] [48] Anālayo 2003: 96 and 2013c: 17–19. On the significance of internal and external satipaṭṭhāna practice cf. also Schmithausen 2012.

Practice undertaken in this way would require continuity of mindfulness during activities and thus would obviously not be confined to formal sitting, during which the opportunities to observe others are relatively limited. Needless to say, this threelevel approach would be based on first of all establishing mindfulness internally, for which formal meditation, ideally undertaken periodically under strict retreat conditions, would provide the necessary foundation. Based on having laid and maintained such a foundation, a practitioner of mindfulness could then continue to observe those phenomena, which have already been seen with awareness within oneself, as and when they manifest within others.

In this way, awareness of a particular condition within oneself would naturally lead to becoming aware of and eventually developing empathy for the same condition when it occurs within others. In turn, empathy developed for others would make it easier to maintain a balanced state of observation when the same happens within oneself, without immediately reacting and trying to suppress, or else avoiding recognition of what takes place in order to safeguard one's self-esteem. This eventually leads to a level of practice where whatever happens within oneself and within others is seen concurrently and in its reciprocal conditioning relationship.

Although awareness of oneself and others would be the result of a natural evolution, the fact that the Satipaṭṭhāna-sutta devotes explicit instructions to these three modes makes it clear that such natural evolution needs to be consciously encouraged. Understood in this way, one who is too much concerned with contemplating internally would need to make a conscious effort to extend practice to external phenomena, just as one who is too much given to the external would need to strengthen formal practice undertaken internally. As a result of such practice, eventually introversion and extroversion can be brought into a harmonious balance.[n.51] [50] Cf. in more detail Ñāṇaponika 1951.

Protecting oneself and others through satipaṭṭhāna in this way does not appear to be an extraneous addition to mindfulness practice, whose real purpose is something different. Instead, the acrobat simile seems to point to an essential and intrinsic part of properly undertaken mindfulness practice. If developed in this balanced manner, mindfulness meditation, while giving clear priority to self-development, concurrently fosters the benefit of others and of society at large.[n.52] [51] For a case study of the effects of the internal development undertaken by the monks described in MN 31 on their environment cf. Ariyaratne 2010.

Those streams that are in the world,
Are held in check by mindfulness.[n.53] [52] Sn 1035: yāni sotāni lokasmiṃ, sati tesaṃ nivāraṇaṃ; Pj II 586,8 explains that the 'streams' stand for craving, etc.; on this stanza cf. also Ñāṇananda 1973/1984: 29f. A similarly worded parallel can be found in the Yogācārabhūmi, cf. Enomoto 1989: 34 (edited together with a survey of parallel occurrences, to which now could be added Zieme 1997: 751): yāni srotāṃsi lokas– ya, smṛtiḥ teṣāṃ nivāraṇaṃ; the Chinese parallel in T 1579 at T XXX 386b21 reads: "all the streams that flow in the world, mindfulness is able to stop their flowing", 世間諸流漏, 是漏念能止; and D 4035 tshi 257b7 or Q 5536 dsi 299b7 reads: "whatever flows there are in the world, mindfulness restrains them", ʼjig rten rgyun ni gang yin pa, de dag bzlog par dran pa ste; cf. also Wayman 1989: 208. The same stanza is quoted in the *Mahāvibhāṣā, T 1545 at T XXVII 230b23: "all the flowing torrents in the world, right mindfulness is able to hold them in check", 世間諸瀑流, 正念能防護, with a somewhat different formulation in the same work at T XXVII 379b14: "wherever streams are about to leak out, right mindfulness is able to restrain them", 諸處將流泄, 正念能制防; cf. also T 1546 at T XXVIII 285b16 (Buddhavarman): "any streams in the world, they should be restrained with right mindfulness", 世間 所有流, 當以正念制, and T 1547 at T XXVIII 455a1 (Saṅghabhūti): "that is, all the streams in the world, one who is mindful restrains these streams", 謂世 諸流, 念者制流. The query about how the streams should be kept in check, which precedes Sn 1035, occurs also in the Jain Isibhāsiyāiṃ 29.1, Schubring 1969: 532: savanti savvato sotā, kiṃ ṇa sotonivāraṇaṃ? puṭṭhe muṇī āikkhe, kahaṃ soto pihijjati? This question receives a detailed reply on how to restrain the five senses, which notably does not mention mindfulness. This is remarkable in view of the considerable degree of parallelism between the early Buddhist and Jain traditions, as well as the acquaintance with Jain doctrine and tenets reflected in Buddhist texts, on which cf., e.g., Jacobi 1880, Bohn 1921: 25–32, Jain 1926, Bapat 1928, von Glasenapp 1951, Jain 1966, Jain 1972, Jaini 1974, Tatia 1980, Nakamura 1983, Tatia 1983, Norman 1989/ 1993, Bronkhorst 1993/2000, Tatia 1993, Chaudhary 1994, Gombrich 1994, Bronkhorst 1999, Balbir 2000, Caillat 2003, Jaini 2003, and Watanabe 2003. This difference highlights the significance of the role accorded to mindfulness in Sn 1035 and in other discourses, discussed in the present chapter, as a characteristic part of the early Buddhist approach to mental culture and liberation.