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 kalyāṇamitta in my life as a monk. But since this is only a correspondence, I won’t 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 satipaṭṭhāna, 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 sampajañña, 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 smṛti 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 smṛti, or in Pāli 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 satipaṭṭhānas. This suggests that the Buddha, or (more likely) the compilers of the texts, weren’t 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 mindfulness?” And the answer is given: “The mindfulness that one obtains on the basis of the four satipaṭṭhānas.” Here, mindfulness as memory doesn’t seem appropriate at all.
