anusmrti(recollection), the meditator is required to
bring to mind one of six different ideal subjects: the
Buddha, his teachings (dharma), the community of his
noble disciples (san ̇gha), good moral habits, generous
giving, and heavenly beings (deva). The meditator first
brings to mind the traditional description of the cho-
sen topic, then reviews discursively the good qualities
associated with the subject of meditation.
A practice that is not explicitly called smrti,yet in-
volves a systematic bringing to mind or an evocation
of affect is “abiding in sublime abodes” (brahmavihara,
also called “boundless states”). Four such states are pre-
scribed: benevolence, compassion, joy, and equanim-
ity. In one of the most common forms (recommended
and practiced in Theravada circles) the meditator be-
gins by developing thoughts of benevolence toward a
person to whom the meditator is indifferent, then to-
ward a friend, then an enemy, and finally all SENTIENT
BEINGS, infusing the whole universe with feelings of
benevolence. The meditator then proceeds to develop
the other three feelings in the same manner.
A third type of smrti,commonly known as “mind-
fulness practice” or “attention to mindfulness”
(smrtyupasthana; Pali, satipatthana), may be called
“mindfulness proper.” It is the “recollection” or
bringing to mind of bodily and mental states, and of
the conditions to which these states are subject. Once
“recollected” they are held in attention and observed
with clear awareness.
Tradition prescribes four objects of mindfulness:
body, sensations (bodily feelings), mind (thought and
stream of consciousness), and dharmas (doctrinal
truths and doctrinal ideas). However, tradition has it
that all four are encompassed by the sole practice of
“mindfulness of breathing” (anapanasmrti), which can
be undertaken in preparation for, or in conjunction
with, the practice of the other four. One may argue
that mindfulness proper is a type of insight practice
(vipas ́yana), insofar as calm awareness is a requisite for
keen observation. Observation is usually formulated as
follows: “What is my body doing?” or “What is my
mind doing at this moment?”
At the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of
the twentieth century, several Buddhist monks from
Myanmar (Burma) set out to reform the practice of
Buddhist meditation. Leading figures like Ledi Saya-
daw (1856–1923) and Sayagyi U Ba Khin (1889–1971)
objected to what they perceived as an excessive em-
phasis on meditation as samadhi,that is, technically,
as mental withdrawal and spiritual power. They pro-
posed a putatively more direct meditation in which
mindfulness was the primary technique and insight the
ultimate goal. This, they felt, had been the teaching of
the Buddha himself.
Presented in a variety of forms, this basic approach
came to be known as “mindfulness” or “insight” (or
by the original Pali terms, satipatthanaand vipassana).
The prototypical practice was mindfulness of breath-
ing, but other forms of mindful awareness and recol-
lection were emphasized. Insight meditation lent itself
to lay practice, and soon came to satisfy the aspirations
of the new secular, middle-class audience that ap-
peared in modern Southeast Asia, and of young West-
ern disciples who came to Asia in search of the dharma.The mind: calm and insight.Contemporary advo-
cates of mindfulness/insight methods regard such
practices as distinctive or self-contained practices, as
suggested in canonical texts like the Satipatthana-sutta
(Majjhimanikaya1, 55–63). However, the most com-
mon scholastic position in classical times was to sup-
pose that one needed techniques for making body and
mind supple and malleable, serene and focused, as a
basis for mental culture.
In this context, the word samadhidenotes a family
of techniques shared by other religious systems of In-
dia, but normative Buddhist literature generally re-
gards these techniques as preparatory or foundational,
and not as aims in themselves. Although, in practice,
many even today pursue states of samadhi for their
own sake, the higher, normative goal is insight, which
is believed to lead to liberation from suffering and from
the cycle of rebirth.
Insight is not a simple “looking” or “seeing,” but
rather a review of reality or truth. Insight is therefore
not easily separated from doctrine and doctrinal re-
flection. The classical Indian tradition sometimes ac-
cepts the possibility that there can be insight without
the cultivation of serenity. An integration of both is
not a given, and it is neither simple nor necessary, yet
most traditions acknowledge the need for both, even
when one is emphasized more than the other. Gener-
ally, the theoretical integration is based on two as-
sumptions: that a preparatory calming of the mind will
allow for clear insight, and that the objects used as the
foundation for calm can also be used as objects of in-
vestigation by means of insight. The goal of insight is
discernment or clear understanding (prajña), and this
discernment would never arise without the cultivation
(bhavana) of insight accompanied by the cultivation of
perfect calm and concentration.MEDITATION