According to the early Pāli texts, ethical development is an indispensable stage that establishes the conditions for advanced meditative practices. The process concerned with ethics is usually constructed under the category of sīla, which refers to the observance of a list of precepts. The main aim of this list is to restrain bodily and verbal actions. In contrast, the regulation of mental acts is usually considered to fall outside the scope of sīla as a stage of practice and is generally addressed within the context of meditative practice framed under the category of samādhi. The main objective of this process is mental development that culminates in the deep meditative states of absorption and liberative knowledge.

Despite the conceptual understanding of sīla and samādhi as two distinct categories representing separate stages of practice and dealing with different aspects of training, when examining the models presented in the canonical sources this distinction is rather blurred. First, the category of sīla includes many types of lists that differ according to time and agent. In some of these lists, the regulations are not limited to the ethical framework but are concerned with the preliminary purification of the mind oriented to advanced stages of training as part of the soteriological setting. In addition, the mental development that is ascribed to meditation in the stage of samādhi is already implemented, in its preliminary steps, in pre-meditative practice. These observations highlight the continuity of sīla that goes beyond mere ethical practice and show that the practice of samādhi in formal meditation is a stage that depends on prior mental development. Within this transitional stage that emphasizes the practical sequence between sīla and samādhi, some features of mindfulness practice have an active role that connects these two aspects. By applying mental restraint accompanied by previous bodily and verbal restraint, mindfulness in this context functions as a base for advanced mental development in formal meditation.

This paper will examine the concept of sīla as a dynamic stage of practice, that varies according to a specific agent, scheme, and way of classification. As a result, it reflects the flexibility of constructing moral practice in Pāli discourses.

At the outset, by reviewing the different lists of precepts applied to specific agents or circumstances, the contextual aspect of sīla will emerge. The various lists of precepts addressed by a householder or monk will emphasize the notion of sīla as a multifaceted moral practice that differs according to a specific agent, time, and expected goal.

Further to the examination of lists, the paper will offer a new understanding of sīla as an extended category of practice that involves initial mental development. This new conceptualization will be supported by examining certain mindfulness practices that precede meditation and include moral features. Although this definition deviates from the formal identification of sīla as limited to the observance of precepts (see, among others, DN I.4; DN I.64; MN I.181; MN I.269; MN I.346; MN II.262; MN I.286–287, MN I.360–362; MN I.489–490; MN III.23–24; MN III.209; SN IV.313–314; AN I.297–298; AN II.254–255), it expresses more precisely the sequence shown in the early models of the Buddhist path. In addition, it emphasizes the vital role of mindfulness as a mental aspect of training that connects moral precepts with meditative practice.

Finally, by examining the alternative models of the gradual path that highlight different aspects of practice before meditation, this paper will suggest that we should see the dynamic nature of sīla as mirroring the doctrinal multivocality of early Buddhism. This multivocality is displayed by the various ways in which moral and mental training creates the conditions for generating successful samādhi.

The Concept of Sīla

Primary Understanding

Before examining the practical process of developing sīla, we shall briefly examine the term as it is used in different textual contexts. The concept of sīla in Pāli sources has a wide semantic range depending on the particular context in which it is mentioned. According to the dictionary of the Pāli Text Society (PED, p. 713), sīla can refer to the nature, habit, or character of a person in a broad sense; as a virtue, moral quality, or ethical aptitude of the agent according to the Buddhist doctrine; and finally, in a more particularized way, as a stage or part of the practice in the Buddhist path. The primary definition is concerned with the nature, habit, or behavior of an agent which does not necessarily refer to a positive or wholesome one. For example, a person with a stingy or ungenerous character is called adānasīla (Sn 43; verse 244), and a person of bad character is called dussīla (DN III.235). However, these negative connotations of sīla are relatively rare compared to the more common understanding of sīla as a concept designating good moral character. For example, a person who is endowed with morality is called sīlasampanna (DN I.63), or one who is morally virtuous is called sīlavā (DN I.114). The latter two correspond with the category of sīla as a stage or aspect of practice placed at the beginning of the path. Some would argue that it is one of the ways of defining a Buddhist (Giustarini, 2017). Followed by the declaration of taking refuge in the triple gem (Buddha, Dhamma, and Saṅgha), one’s adherence to the Buddhist path is formalized by vowing to undertake the five (or more) precepts. Although there are some references to sīla as generally signifying the course of the practice of ascetics from other sects—including perplexing practices like adopting the habits of a cow (gosīla) or a dog (kukkurasīla; MN I.387)—in most cases, it is restricted to the practice prescribed by the Buddha to his followers by sets of rules usually interpreted as morally oriented (Giustarini, 2017; Heim, 2020, pp. 18–23; Keown, 1992, pp. 25–56). Although these different uses highlight the wider understanding of the concept, this article will be focused mainly on the concept of sīla as a stage of practice according to Buddhist doctrine.

While associated with the Buddha’s teachings, sīla is not restricted to one specific list of regulations. Initially, the content of the practice, which varies in length according to the particular listing, is differentiated according to a specific agent and his proximate goal (Vélez de Cea, 2004, p. 126), with respect to his social state of affairs, and specific time circumstances. This diversity of lists emphasizes the contextual aspect of sīla and points to the varying levels of intensity that different agents are committed to and to the particular measures each of them is ready to adopt. This distinction between levels of intensity will be clarified next in reviewing the different lists of precepts.

Sīla as Lists of Precepts

As mentioned before, sīla is defined as a formal set of rules that prescribe the proper way of action. There are mainly four kinds of lists prescribed to different agents on different occasions: five precepts (pañca-sīla) for the householder (gahapati); eight precepts (aṭṭhaṅga-sīla) for a devoted householder (upāsaka) on the special days of observance (uposatha); 10 precepts (dasa-sīla/sikkhāpada) for a novice monk (sāmaṇera); and the full monastic code of discipline (pāṭimokkha), consisting of 227 rules for monks and 311 for nuns. The basic list of five is abstaining (veramaṇī) from taking life (pāṇātipātā); abstaining from taking what is not given (adinnādānā); abstaining from inappropriate sexual conduct (kāmesu micchācāra); abstaining from telling lies (musāvādā); and abstaining from using intoxicants that cause carelessness (surā-meraya-majja-pamāda-ṭṭhānā). The other lists go one step further by adding more abstentions to those listed before. On the uposatha days, a householder avoids eating at the wrong time (vikāla-bhojana), i.e., after noon; he avoids dancing, singing, hearing music, watching shows, wearing garlands, using perfume, ointments, and adornments; and he avoids using high seats and beds (uccāsayana-mahāsayana; AN IV.248–251). The next list of 10 precepts prescribed to the novice monk follows the same pattern. These are the same as the eight except that the seventh is split into two parts, and there is the additional undertaking of abstaining from accepting gold and silver (jāta-rūpa-rajata-paṭiggahaṇa; Khp.1). This extra precept distinguishes between the householder and the monk, by precluding the actual handling of money in the case of the latter (Harvey, 2000). The final list of the pāṭimokkha portrays very detailed instructions and delineates the ideal way of living for the fully ordained monk and nun.

The diversity of precepts enumerated in the different lists emphasizes the dynamic character of sīla that differs according to a specific agent, time, and proximate goal. In recognizing the various rules affiliated with a specific list, sīla is formed as a flexible category of training, which is modified by different circumstances.

In these lists, we see a hierarchy of progressive intensities a practitioner commits to in order to achieve his expected goal. In addition, some of these precepts relate to behavior that deviates from morality in the narrow sense, which is directly concerned with the proper way of treating others. Secondly, as pointed out by Harvey (2000, p. 51), a “key aspect of Western ethical systems is that moral prescriptions should be universally applicable to all people who can understand them. On the other hand, though Buddhism has ethical norms in its basic precepts, others only apply to those who are ready for them, as their commitment to moral and spiritual training deepens.” Although in theory nibbāṇa is considered the summum bonum of the Buddhist tradition, in the practical sense this goal is generally limited to the spiritual elite of fully ordained monks who strive toward it by all means necessary. By distinguishing between the basic precepts of the householder and the extended list for monks, it seems that there is no one definite goal. Instead, in the Buddhist ethical system, which is common to all agents—each list is prescribed in order to accomplish a specific level of ethical fulfillment. In addition, the highest level cannot be reduced to ethics alone but is part of the larger soteriological framework aimed towards the goal of full liberation. While the final attainment is naturally associated with ethical perfection as an inherent prerogative of the agent (the arahant), the specific practices affiliated with the stage of sīla may be defined differently.

Along with the ethical aspect of sīla, which is limited to the basic immoral actions one must avoid, the extended lists include additional rules beyond basic moral precepts. While the first list of precepts is construed as an ethical implementation, the other lists serve as a means for higher development that goes beyond what would typically be considered the ethical sphere. In these meticulous sets of rules, one may find many ideas that are not directly related to morality, but rather concern detailed instructions oriented towards the higher goal of a purified, restrained, and wieldy mind that meets the basic requirements for higher mental cultivation. In this sense, the practice of sīla begins with an ethical framework, but at a certain stage, it goes beyond ethics and continues to a soteriological framework.

Apart from the importance of adopting precepts as a support for higher spiritual development, there are additional functions of the monastic code of discipline. Gethin (1998, pp. 91–92) mentions four particular concerns in the Buddhist monastic rule as set out in Vinaya: (1) the unity and cohesion of the Saṅgha, (2) the spiritual life, (3) the dependence of the Saṅgha upon the wider community, and (4) the appearance of the Saṅgha in the eyes of that community. In a rather similar way, Bodhi (2010, p. 44) points to several levels of harmony the observance of sīla leads to—social, psychological, kammic, and contemplative. According to both, there is an emphasis on the role of the extended list as a way to regulate the social relationship within the monastic community and also between the monks and the laity. While these additional functions of sīla are undeniable, my focus here is on its mental aspect which is concerned with the establishment of the preliminary purification of the mind that will carry on more deeply and thoroughly in the development of concentration and wisdom.

Already, on the level where we approach sīla as lists of precepts, it is clear that this category is also connected to the higher and advanced practice that ripens in meditation. It starts from the basic list of five precepts for the householder who aspires for material gain and good rebirth and continues to the elaborated list for the fully ordained monk and nun who are dedicated to the goal of arahatship. Along with the common articulation of sīla that is focused on bodily and verbal restraint by following precepts, in some cases, mental development is considered an integral part of practice prior to meditation. The following discussion will demonstrate the fluidity of sīla as an extended category by exploring some additional pre-meditative practices that are conjoined to the list of precepts and related to mindfulness.

Between Sīla and Samādhi

Sīla in the Noble Eightfold Path and the Threefold Training

After the suggestion of treating sīla as a stage of practice that is not limited to the scope of ethics has been put forward for consideration, one step further in our examination will show additional practices that accompany the list of precepts. Sīla’s construction as a category of practice in the noble eightfold path (ariya aṭṭhangika magga) referring to right speech, right action, and right livelihood (MN I.550), or as the first stage of the threefold training (ti-sikkhā—sīla, samādhi, and paññā), does not correspond with the gradual model of practice in other schemes presented in the Nikāyas. These schemes of the sequential path comprise some practices that are not unequivocally classified under one of the three aspects of training. In these schemes, we find some features of practice that signify an in-between stage — neither mere observance of precepts nor formal meditative practice. Accordingly, this work will suggest considering the understanding of this gap as part of an extended category of sīla — a moral practice that involves preliminary mental restraint, which promotes effective meditative development by gaining access to higher levels of concentration.

Within the extended stage of sīla appended to mental restraint, some features of mindfulness play a central role as practices that precede formal meditation. Practices such as continuous awareness in daily actions, moderation in eating, and wakefulness all invigorate and encourage a fruitful practice of meditation. Combining these practices with the fundamental establishment of observing the precepts, they function as a broader stage, which is classified in this discussion as the pre-meditative practice. In this wider framework, mindfulness is considered an integral part of a gradual process of acquiring the optimal conditions for meditative practice. While the canonical sources are rather blurred in defining this liminal stage of practice as part of sīla, the post-canonical sources presented in the commentary on the suttas (Aṭṭhakathā) and the Visuddhimagga — a seminal manual of practice written by the prominent scholar Buddhaghosa — sketch an integrative scheme that re-organizes what was already implied earlier in a wider category of sīla. Hence, the moral practice is reaffirmed, under a fresh conceptualization, as an inclusive process of refining the mind to initiate mental cultivation in the formal meditative practice. More of this extended articulation of sīla in the post-canonical sources will be given in the final section (Sīla in the Post-Canonical Sources).

Meditation, Samādhi, and Mindfulness

Before treating the mental practices that are accompanied by the list of precepts, some basic distinctions are needed regarding meditation as portrayed in this paper, and its relation to mindfulness practice and the development of samādhi. In specific contexts, there is a tight and close connection between meditation, samādhi, and mindfulness (sati). At a certain stage, they are intertwined as part of the higher mental development that will eventually lead to penetrative insight into all phenomena at the moment of liberation. Prior to that, mindfulness in its advanced manifestation as meditative attainment is understood as a quality that is present in deep states of absorption signified under the four jhānas, denoting the ubiquitous definition of right concentration (sammā-samādhi) found in the Nikāyas. For example, in the standard formula that designates the attainment of the fourth jhāna (MN I.436), the practitioner is said to have complete purity of mindfulness and equanimity (upekkhā-sati-pārisuddhi; Anālayo, 2017; Gethin, 2015). Although meditation, samādhi, and mindfulness are combined in this passage, there is an alternative way of reviewing each of them separately and examining how they function at different stages of the path. This will clarify that not every practice of mindfulness is implemented in meditation at the stage of samādhi. Additional clarification of sati, meditation, and its connection with samādhi is needed.

The notion of mindfulness as a quality that is implemented in meditative practice has a wide range of expressions in the early Pāli texts. The increasing modern therapeutic and scientific discussions on mindfulness have led Buddhist scholars to articulate more fully the many functions mindfulness plays in the Buddhist path. A few of them have commented on the interrelated meaning of mindfulness as “memory” or as a function of “recollecting past events” (Cox, 1992; Gethin, 2015; Gyatso, 1992; Shulman, 2010). As in some cases, the meditator is instructed to observe (or even imagine) the body organs and hold them in mind as “impurities” (asuci; MN I.57). The aim of this contemplation is mainly to reduce attachment to the body by directing awareness to its repulsive nature. From this viewpoint, it is hard to see how mindfulness can be restricted to the narrow definition of non-conceptual and non-discursive awareness (Gethin, 2015, p. 11; Bodhi, 2011, p. 28; Shulman, 2010, p. 402; Dreyfus, 2011).

On the other hand, the meditative practice of mindfulness that is commonly interpreted in clinical and psychological circles as “the awareness that arises through paying attention in a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment, and non-judgmentally” (Kabat-Zinn, 1994, p. 4) is another way it functions in some of the Pāli texts. For example, a monk is instructed to observe feelings (vedanā) as pleasant, painful, or neutral without any evaluative judgment (MN I.59). These two examples illustrate how mindfulness can be designated as an evaluative construction of an object on the one hand, and as a bare attention without any evaluative interpretation on the other.

While acknowledging the wide semantic range of the concept of mindfulness and its diverse manifestations in meditative practices, my focus in this article is to extend the framework of discussion and to highlight the specific features of mindfulness in the stages preceding formal meditation. These practices, as the paper will argue, enrich the practitioner’s abilities to develop the quality of mindfulness in its advanced manifestation to enter deep meditative states and gain liberation.

In addition to understanding mindfulness as a quality not necessarily implemented in meditation, an alternative term might be offered specifically to designate the meditative practice and its proper articulation according to early Buddhist texts. The Pāli term usually interpreted as meditation is bhāvanā — literally producing, dwelling on something, putting to one’s thoughts, application, and developing in a causative sense of bringing into existence the different qualities as part of mental cultivation (PED, p. 503).

The use of bhāvanā as meditative practice is exemplified by a few compounds such as metta-bhāvanā (MN I.424) — the development of loving kindness as one of the four brahmā abodes (brahma-vihāra), citta-bhāvanā (DN III.219) as mental development, and samādhi-bhāvanā (DN III.222) as concentration development. In the post-canonical sources, we find additional compounds such as samatha-bhāvanā (Th-a II.249) and vipassanā-bhāvanā (Th-a II.253) — two central aspects that make a distinction between a meditative practice that has tranquility and serenity as its main goal and the meditative practice that has insight or wisdom as its goal, respectively (Arbel, 2017, pp. 173–190; Cousins, 1996). While these aspects are usually connected to meditative practice, it seems that the concept of bhāvanā is not necessarily restricted to meditative practice, but rather is a basic element of spiritual progress, which is present in many aspects or stages of the Buddhist path. This is exemplified under the standard fourfold definition of right effort (sammā-vāyāma) — the effort for the non-arising of unarisen unwholesome states (akusala-dhamma), the effort for the abandoning of arisen unwholesome states, the effort for the arising of unarisen wholesome states (kusala-dhammā), and finally, the effort for the continuance, non-disappearance, strengthening, and increase of arisen wholesome states (e.g., DN II.312). With special reference to the last two efforts, it seems that the act of development (paraphrased by the effort for the arising of wholesome states) indicated by the Pāli term bhāvanā is more general and does not correspond in a fixed way to meditative practice.

Despite the different ways of characterizing meditative practice, this paper’s discussion will be focused on the formal sense typically known — sitting cross-legged in a static position and focusing on an object (Gethin, 2004, p. 207). In this specified scope of discussion regarding meditative practice, we may relate this practice as signifying the stage of samādhi or at least heading towards it, which in all versions also requires having taken the sitting posture (Anālayo, 2017, p. 85). The standard formula presenting right (sammā) samādhi is usually interpreted as the gradual process of entering the four jhānas, and prior to that, the abandoning of five hindrances (nīvaraṇa) as a prerequisite. According to the model of the gradual training presented in the Discourse on the fruits of Recluseship (Sāmaññaphala Sutta—DN 2) in its full version and many other discourses in a shorter version (MN 27; MN 38; MN 51; MN 60; MN 76; MN 79; MN 94; MN 101), there is a specific stage in which the monk is sufficiently qualified to resort to a secluded place for meditative practice (DN I.71). After finding a suitable place, he sits down, crosses his legs, holds his body erect, and establishes mindfulness in front of him. In this sense, the meditative practice is generally associated with the stage of developing samādhi. While many other practices can be beneficial to the establishing of concentration, according to the gradual model of training, this is the optimal stage in which the monk attempts to gain access to deep meditative states. At this stage of mental development, mindfulness is cultivated as part of the advanced level of meditation that is ripened in the accomplishment of right concentration. A more detailed consideration of this stage will be given later in the examination of the scheme in the Sāmaññaphala Sutta.

As noted above, not all practices concerned with establishing mindfulness are applied through meditation. Some features of mindfulness are more relevant to the preliminary stages preceding samādhi. Focusing on the transitional stage spanning between sīla as precepts and samādhi as meditation, we encounter a supplementary stage of practice, that provides invaluable means to advance soundly from one phase to the next. As we shall see by reviewing the canonical schemes, at this stage mindfulness — or in a broader sense the qualities of continuous awareness, critical attention, and alertness — plays a vital role in making this transition successful.

The Scheme in the Sāmaññaphala Sutta

In order to examine the stages that precede formal meditative practice, let us first review one of the most elaborate schemes of the gradual path presented in the Nikāyas — the Discourse on the fruits of recluseship (Sāmāññaphala Sutta, DN 2). In this discourse, the Buddha is asked by King Ajātasattu about the “fruits,” i.e., the benefits, that one who decides to adopt the life of an ascetic can expect. In response, the Buddha sketches the hierarchy of the attainments in a scheme of gradual practice that culminates in final liberation. Three prior conditions that precede the formal practice are as follows: The tathāgata arises in the world and teaches the dhamma; the householder hears the tathāgata’s teachings and gains faith (saddhā) in him; and finally, he decides to go forth (pabbajjā) into a state of homelessness (anagāriya) as a monk (DN I.62–63). After this initial stage, the monk starts the actual course of training by adopting the practice of morality (sīla). The part on morality here is divided into three sections according to length: short, middle, and long. The three sections present together an extended and detailed list of abstentions. It starts with a close overlap with the basic list of five precepts and continues to other precepts which are mentioned under different formulations in the list of monastic code of discipline (pāṭimokkha). Though the part on morality as presented here does not completely correspond with the comprehensive list of the pāṭimokkha, the extended threefold section of sīla does seem to represent a literary articulation of the formal monastic code of discipline found in the Vinaya.

Restraint of the Sense Faculties

After encountering the basic interpretation of sīla as a list of rules, the next stage signifies the starting process of mental restraint moving toward samādhi. These additional practices cannot be unequivocally classified according to the dichotomy of sīla and samādhi, but should rather be seen as a fluid stage, which connects the two aspects as a continuous process of taming the mind. As emphasized by Bodhi (1995, p. 35), the next three steps are intended to internalize the process of purification conduct and livelihood and thereby bridge the transition from virtue to concentration.

The first practice in the transitional stage is restraint or guarding of the senses (indriya-saṃvara). According to this practice, the practitioner restrains the reactions to stimuli that are mediated by the six senses. The main operating principle, in this case, is the practice of avoidance. Therefore, the practitioner must endeavor to restrain his sensory and mental faculties and avoid instinctive reactions that may lead to the emergence of unwholesome states (akusala-dhammā). This is how the canonical passage describes the practice of restraining the senses:

And how, great king, does the bhikkhu guard the doors of his sense faculties? Herein, great king, having seen a form with the eye, the bhikkhu does not grasp at the sign or the details. Since, if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the eye, evil unwholesome states such as covetousness and grief might assail him, he practices restraint, guards the faculty of the eye, and achieves restraint over the faculty of the eye. Having heard a sound with the ear…having smelled an odor with the nose…having tasted a flavour with the tongue… having touched a tangible object with the body…having cognized a mind-object with the mind, the bhikkhu does not grasp at the sign or the details. Since, if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the mind, evil unwholesome states such as covetousness and grief might assail him, he practices restraint, guards the faculty of the mind, and achieves restraint over the faculty of the mind. Endowed with this noble restraint of the sense faculties, he experiences within himself an unblemished happiness. In this way, great king, the bhikkhu guards the doors of the sense faculties (Bodhi, 1989, p. 38).

(DN I.70: 'kathañca, mahārāja, bhikkhu indriyesu guttadvāro hoti? idha, mahārāja, bhikkhu cakkhunā rūpaṃ disvā na nimittaggāhī hoti nānubyañjanaggāhī. yatvādhikaraṇamenaṃ cakkhundriyaṃ asaṃvutaṃ viharantaṃ abhijjhā domanassā pāpakā akusalā dhammā anvāssaveyyuṃ, tassa saṃvarāya paṭipajjati, rakkhati cakkhundriyaṃ, cakkhundriye saṃvaraṃ āpajjati. sotena saddaṃ sutvā…pe… ghānena gandhaṃ ghāyitvā…pe… jivhāya rasaṃ sāyitvā…pe… kāyena phoṭṭhabbaṃ phusitvā…pe… manasā dhammaṃ viññāya na nimittaggāhī hoti nānubyañjanaggāhī. yatvādhikaraṇamenaṃ manindriyaṃ asaṃvutaṃ viharantaṃ abhijjhā domanassā pāpakā akusalā dhammā anvāssaveyyuṃ, tassa saṃvarāya paṭipajjati, rakkhati manindriyaṃ, manindriye saṃvaraṃ āpajjati. so iminā ariyena indriyasaṃvarena samannāgato ajjhattaṃ abyāsekasukhaṃ paṭisaṃvedeti. evaṃ kho, mahārāja, bhikkhu indriyesu guttadvāro hoti.')

The main function of this practice is designed to develop the ability to control the senses, and as a result, to gradually restrain one’s reaction to objects that reach him through these senses. As cited above, the practitioner is instructed not to “grasp” — meaning to become involved with, to cherish, to be invested in and even to make judgments about — neither the major signs (nimitta) nor the subtler details (anuvyañjana) of any particular object, but instead he guards (rakkhati) the six senses from internal and external stimuli until he reaches a sufficient level of control over them.

The practice of sense restraint naturally follows the precepts as a direct continuation of a gradual process of refining the mind. While the previous stage was delineated as the avoidance of specific actions prescribed by the rules, this stage is understood as an extension of avoidance by the general instruction of not grasping at any sense object that might lead to the arising of unwholesome states. In addition, the restraint of the mind faculty signifies another extension of the formal practice of morality as mere precepts. While the latter is focused on bodily and verbal restraint, the former proceeds to preliminary mental development focused on restraint.

Although this is not the classic form of mindfulness, the post-canonical interpretation implies that mindfulness is one of the means of gaining restraint over the sense faculties:

‘Restraint by mindfulness’ is this: ‘He guards the eye faculty, enters upon restraint of the eye faculty’ (Ñāṇamoli, 2010, p. 11).

(Vism I.7: 'rakkhati cakkhundriyaṃ, cakkhundriye saṃvaraṃ āpajjatīti [DN I.70] ayaṃ satisaṃvaro.')

In this passage, Buddhaghosa is specifically quoting from the Sāmaññaphala Sutta as the canonical source that designates the active role of mindfulness, by which the practitioner gains control over the eye faculty. Maria Heim (2020, p. 20) follows this interpretation of restraint by mindfulness practice and stresses that “attending to one’s phenomenological states can also help one restrain oneself, as when simply becoming aware of one’s greed can often help one to curb it.” This may accord with the other modes of restraint, as Heim mentions that Buddhaghosa lists five types of restraint: restraint by monastic precepts, restraint by exertion, restraint by forbearance, restraint by knowledge, and restraint by mindfulness practice. However, in this specific context, it seems less suitable. While Heim is pointing to the act of attending to one’s phenomenological states, in the practice of sense restraint the practitioner is instructed not to grasp at any of the details and signs of the sense objects. Thus, this practice is positioned one stage before mindfulness, providing basic control over the senses by an act of withdrawal from sensory stimulation and an active detachment from the outer world and mental objects.

The rudimentary aspect of the practice of sense restraint becomes clearer when compared to the advanced counterpart of “development of the faculties” (indriyabhāvanā). As interpreted in the Indriyabhāvanā Sutta (MN 152), the development of the faculties signifies the competence of the mind to properly respond to the objects experienced through the sense. According to Bodhi (1995, p. 1365, note. 1352), “The development of the faculties carries this process of control through to the point where, by an act of will, one can immediately set up insight even in the course of sense perception.” On the other hand, in the prior act of restraint regarding the faculties, the practitioner’s main aim is the non-respondence of the six senses to their objects, postponing the effort to confront them and reconstruct phenomena according to their true nature. The act of awareness is set aside temporarily in order to establish control over the sensual experience, which in turn will enable the practitioner to practice mindfulness. According to Anālayo (2017, pp. 137–138, note. 61), “The exposition in MN 152 is a criticism of attempting to deal with sensory impact during daily life by simply trying to avoid it, instead of developing equanimity toward whatever is experienced.” This criticism can be settled by placing each instruction in a specific context and under a particular stage of practice. Unlike the advanced stage of development of the faculties that culminates in the fruit of arahatship, the preliminary act of restraint is part of the preparatory stage of applying the requisites for higher mental practice; and therefore, its objectives are rather limited. On the basis of the fourfold classification of right effort (sammā-vāyāma) presented in the Nikāyas (DN II.312), the act of restraint is prioritized by preventing unwholesome states to arise and abandoning those that have arisen as a foundation. In the next level, an effort is made to allow wholesome states to arise and to maintain them through mindfulness in formal meditation. During this phase of practice, the practitioner cultivates the quality of equanimity (upekkhā), which is considered a crucial element in attaining the fourth jhāna (e.g., MN I.22).

Mindfulness and Clear Comprehension

In the next stage, after the sense faculties have been restrained to a sufficient degree, the monk starts practicing a more basic level of awareness called mindfulness and clear comprehension (sati-saṃpajañña). The transition to this stage signifies the initial process of active awareness after gaining moderate control over the reaction of the senses to external stimuli. Each word of this compound signifies a wide range of meanings that must be interpreted according to context. For example, depending on post-canonical sources, Hallisey (2010, p. 141) interprets the compound as “moral discernment” or “prudence,” Garfield (2017, p. 205) renders it as “attention and introspective vigilance,”, and Bodhi (2011, p. 34) understands it as a “reflexive cognition of mental events.” Despite these issues of ambiguity, in this passage, sati-saṃpajañña refers to a specific way of practice concerned with the deliberate performance of one’s daily tasks. In the Sāmaññaphala Sutta, the main verb which is used to represent this practice is sampajāna-kārī hoti in the meaning of “acting knowingly” or “acting in full awareness” regarding seven basic modes of action: (1) when going and returning, (2) when looking ahead or looking aside, (3) when flexing and extending his limbs, (4) when wearing his robes and carrying his outer robe and bowl, (5) when eating, drinking, consuming food, and tasting, (6) when defecating and urinating, and (7) when walking, standing, sitting, falling asleep, waking up, talking, and keeping silent (DN I.70–71). The emphasis in this practice is limited to labelling current action while it is done without any further investigation, simply knowing continuously what procedure is carried out in real-time, unlike other conceptual contemplations which involve the assimilation of specific doctrinal components. As pointed out by Anālayo (2003, p. 114), “Labelling is not an end in itself, only a means to an end. Once knowledge and awareness are well established, labelling can be dispensed with.”

The formula presenting the practice of mindfulness and clear comprehension also appears in the Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna Sutta (DN II.292–293), in the first section referring to body contemplation (kāyānupassanā). The other practices presented in this section are mindfulness of the breath (ānāpānasati), mindfulness of the four postures of the body (iriyāpatha), attention to what is repulsive (paṭikūla-manasikāra), attention to the four elements (dhātu-manasikāra), and the nine contemplations in the charnel ground (nava-sivathika). Reviewing these diverse ways of practice under the wide category of mindfulness illustrates how each practice can be in the service of different qualities scattered along the stages of the path. Along with the practice of mindfulness regarding the four postures, it seems that mindfulness and clear comprehension in daily routine actions is not performed in the framework of the standard meditative practice in a cross-legged sitting position. Despite the preliminary instructions of the Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna Sutta which is oriented toward meditative development, it is less plausible that it applies to this specific practice. While the general statement guides the monk to set out to a remote place and sit cross-legged before the first practice of mindfulness on the breath, the practice of mindfulness and clear comprehension includes other positions and postures apart from sitting in a static mode.

In addition, the fact that this specific practice is also presented in the Sāmaññaphala Sutta, as well as in many other parallels in the Nikāyas as part of a sequential path, reflects its essential role in the process of gaining successive awareness as a foundation for both discursive and concentrative ways of applying mindfulness in advanced stages of meditation. As stressed by Shulman (2010, p. 401), this passage highlights the idea that the meditative space developed by these practices involves a careful and vigilant alertness to corporeal reality at any specific moment, creating an intense state of awareness and presence. As part of the wide and diverse notion of mindfulness presented in the Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna Sutta, some of the practices converge to modes of restraint and not to formal mental development (bhāvanā) in meditation. According to Anālayo (2003, p. 137), “Awareness trained in this way constitutes an important foundation for more formal meditation since the diligent practice of this contemplation will bring the mind’s tendency to distraction considerably under control.” In this way, it constitutes another stepping stone toward concentrative attainments.

Contentment

The last stage which is included in the pre-meditative practice is concerned with developing the quality of contentment (santosa) regarding the four requisites, namely, robes (cīvara), food received in the alms-bowl (piṇḍapāta), a dwelling-place (senāsana), and medicine (gilāna-paccaya-bhesajja). However, in the passage presenting this quality in the Sāmaññaphala Sutta, the text is referring only to the first two by using the simile of a bird that takes its wings along wherever it goes; in the same way, a monk is content with robes to protect his body and alms-food to sustain his belly, and wherever he goes he sets out taking only these two requisites (DN I.71).

The description in this passage marks the stage of fulfillment in which the monk becomes content (santuṭṭha) with the means of existence but does not refer to the actual practice leading to this fulfillment. As in many cases in the early Pāli texts, there is no clear distinction between the descriptive aspect that presents the acquired qualities and skills as the state of fulfillment, and the prescriptive aspect that guides how one should act to fulfill those qualities. Another passage that discusses the practice concerning the four requisites appears in the Majhima Nikāya in the Discourse on all the Taints (Sabbāsava Sutta, MN 2). In this text, the monk is instructed to reflect with proper attention (paṭisaṅkhā yoniso) whenever material support is needed in order to use it only for the right reason. Using the robes only for protection from the weather, or for protection from contact with mosquitoes and other animals. Using alms food neither for amusement and intoxication, nor for the sake of physical beauty and attractiveness, but only for the endurance and continuance of the body, for ending discomfort, and for assisting the holy life. The same applies to the last two requisites (MN I.10; Bodhi & Ñāṇamoli, 1995, p. 94).

As depicted by the passage in the Sabbāsava Sutta, the practice that guides the monk to reach the level of contentment is characterized by an act of restraint accompanied by critical mental observation when considering the proper use of these means for sustaining life. This practice represents a higher stage of observance which is not enforced under the formal list of regulations found in the pāṭimokkha, but rather sets the higher demand of careful mental consideration, by reflecting on how each form of material support could assist progress in the spiritual life, without encouraging desire.

The process of acquiring contentment emphasizes its function that goes beyond mere observance of the precepts found in the monastic code of discipline. Along with the formal prescription of rules, one must restrain the mind and habituate it to critically examine the extent to which one must rely on the basic means of living — even if this improper use does not deviate from a specific regulation. In this process, a monk becomes content with the very basic means that allow him to maintain his spiritual quest, and as a result, this quality serves him in the next stage of practice when he sets out in solitude to dwell in deep meditative states. As pointed out by Anālayo (2017, pp. 135–136), “contentment directly feeds into concentration, which is but the outcome of a mind that is contentedly resting within instead of being on a quest for sensual distraction and entertainment.” This observation emphasizes the quality of contentment as a mental factor that is intertwined with bodily restraint depicted earlier in the formal list of rules but goes one step further to a subtler level that supports the mind with self-control.

This practice along with the previous stage of sati-sampajañña illustrates the different modes of awareness prescribed in each level according to the sequence of the path. Initially, the monk is required to monitor his daily actions by mere labelling, and at the next stage, a certain level of critical examination is integrated as part of the wider framework of mindfulness.

Concluding Summary on the Scheme of the Sāmaññaphala Sutta

Following these practices, there is a passage that summarizes and constructs the transitional stage which sets forth the stage of dwelling in seclusion and establishing mindfulness in the formal meditative procedure:

Endowed with this noble aggregate of moral discipline, this noble restraint over the sense faculties, this noble mindfulness and clear comprehension, and this noble contentment, he resorts to a secluded dwelling—a forest, the foot of a tree, a mountain, a glen, a hillside cave, a cremation ground, a jungle grove, the open air, a heap of straw. After returning from his alms round, following his meals, he sits down, crosses his legs, holds his body erect, and sets up mindfulness before him (Bodhi, 1989, p. 39).

(DN I.71: 'so iminā ca ariyena sīlakkhandhena samannāgato, iminā ca ariyena indriyasaṃvarena samannāgato, iminā ca ariyena satisampajaññena samannāgato, imāya ca ariyāya santuṭṭhiyā samannāgato, vivittaṃ senāsanaṃ bhajati araññaṃ rukkhamūlaṃ pabbataṃ kandaraṃ giriguhaṃ susānaṃ vanapatthaṃ abbhokāsaṃ palālapuñjaṃ. so pacchābhattaṃ piṇḍapātappaṭikkanto nisīdati pallaṅkaṃ ābhujitvā ujuṃ kāyaṃ paṇidhāya parimukhaṃ satiṃ upaṭṭhapetvā').

The commentarial interpretation of this passage (DN-a I.208) emphasizes the necessity of these prior conditions as a solid foundation before the move to meditative practice in seclusion by the implicit use of the frame — cattāro paccayā (the four requisites). The common understanding of the term refers to the four necessary material means of living for a monk (robes, alms-food, shelter, and medicine), but here, the four practices are identified as the four basic conditions for a monk to dwell in the forest and practice meditation successfully. In other words, just as a monk is dependent on basic material support to stay vibrant in his spiritual quest, in the same way, he depends on these practices (i.e., the monastic code of discipline, restraint of the sense faculties, mindfulness and clear comprehension, and contentment) in order to meditate in seclusion without any interruptions. By this, the commentary emphasizes the essential connection between the practice of sīla and mental restraint in the process of gaining access to refined meditative attainments.

The examination of the scheme depicted in the Sāmaññaphala Sutta has suggested locating and marking sīla as a stage preceding the meditative practice. As such, it is initially concerned with the full list of precepts a monk must observe to make progress toward concentration through meditative development. However, this necessary step is not sufficient in itself. Following the precepts, there are three additional practices a monk should carry out before he is qualified to enter the realm of samādhi. While they are not affiliated with the formal practice of meditation, they also deviate from the classical definition of sīla which focuses on physical and verbal actions. Nevertheless, they are characterized as initial stages of mental development that prepare the mind for effective meditation. These practices, as the scheme portrays, directly continue the progress from the grosser levels of sīla concerned with body and speech, to the subtler level of sīla concerned with the mind.

Furthermore, this scheme indicates the active role of mindfulness in the stages that precede formal meditative practice. While in the threefold division of training (ti-sikkhā), mindfulness (sati) is associated with the stage of concentration (samādhi), according to this scheme, some of its features are already developed in the previous stage. This means that it seems more accurate to consider mindfulness as a wide-ranging feature cultivated at different levels in all three stages of practice. In the wider framework of sīla as a pre-meditative practice, practices such as sense restraint, mindfulness and clear comprehension, and contentment are part of the transitional stage that gradually habituates the mind toward the meditative space, in which it acquires wholesome tendencies that qualify the monk to enter deep levels of concentration.

The Scheme in the Sekha Sutta

Along with the gradual scheme presented in the Sāmaññaphala Sutta, other versions in the Nikāyas present parallel schemes, which highlight alternative modes of practice and are relevant to the pre-meditative framework of mindfulness. The presence of these parallel versions stresses the multiplicity of approaches to constructing the gradual practice in the early Nikāyas and the flexibility in their definition. While these approaches retain sīla as a preliminary practice, each version articulates it in new ways that construct different modes of progress. In the context of the pre-meditative practice, these schemes formalize the transitional stage between sīla and samādhi with partial modifications that highlight additional practices correlated with mindfulness. This section will introduce the Discourse on the Trainee (Sekha Sutta—MN 53) as an example of a parallel scheme that presents new practices and emphases.

The Discourse on the Trainee formulates another model of the path. At a certain level, this scheme overlaps with the previous one, but additionally presents new ways of practice. This alternative version is not necessarily sequential, but more focused on the practice of the Trainee (sekha paṭipadā — a noble disciple who reached one of the three levels of the path, i.e., stream-entry, once-returning, non-returning, but is not yet an arahant) and the qualities he acquires that enable him to enter the four jhānas freely. The talk is given by Ānanda at the Buddha’s request. The qualities are listed as follows:

Mahānāma, here a noble disciple is possessed of virtue, guards the doors of his sense faculties, is moderate in eating, and devoted to wakefulness; he possesses seven good qualities; and he is one who obtains at will, without trouble or difficulty, the four jhānas that constitute the higher mind and provide a pleasant abiding here and now (Bodhi & Ñāṇamoli, 1995, p. 461).

(MN I.354: 'idha, mahānāma, ariyasāvako sīlasampanno hoti, indriyesu guttadvāro hoti, bhojane mattaññū hoti, jāgariyaṃ anuyutto hoti, sattahi saddhammehi samannāgato hoti, catunnaṃ jhānānaṃ ābhicetasikānaṃ diṭṭhadhammasukhavihārānaṃ nikāmalābhī hoti akicchalābhī akasiralābhī.')

In this passage, Ānanda enumerates five qualities a noble disciple is endowed with as part of his ability to access the four jhānas. Apart from the practice of sīla and sense restraint which accord with the scheme of the Sāmaññaphala Sutta, there are three additional aspects of training presented in this scheme, which characterize the noble disciple: being moderate in eating (bhojane mattaññū), developing wakefulness (jāgariyaṃ anuyutto), and having the seven good qualities (sattahi saddhammehi samannāgato). An overview of each of them follows below.

Moderation in Eating

On examining the description of moderation in eating, we can see that the exact same formula is found in the Discourse on all the Taints (Sabbāsava Sutta, MN 2) under the description of the proper way of using the alms food as a means to assist the progress in the spiritual path (MN I.10). While the latter also mentions the other three means of support (i.e., robes, dwelling places, and medicines), in this case only the proper use of food is mentioned. In addition, the practice of contentment is omitted in this scheme, which suggests that it is replaced by this reduced description regarding food only.

The limited construction of the scheme in the Discourse on the Trainee compared to the comprehensive instructions from the Discourse on all the Taints might imply the crucial necessity of moderated eating for accessing deep meditative states. As highlighted by Giustarini (2012, p. 90), this practice “counteracts the tendency of the mind to transform physical nutrition into a sensual gratification. The latter is a snare, wherein attention is wasted and weakened: sense gratification (kāma), through food or other sense-objects, is an impediment to concentration, and as such it constitutes the first of the five hindrances (nīvaraṇa).” In addition, overeating could also lead to sloth and torpor (thīna-middha) — unwholesome mental factors that are listed as the third hindrance, which disrupt the process of entering the four jhānas.

While the instruction in this specific sutta regarding moderated eating is restricted to the way it supports the spiritual practice as mentioned in the previous scheme, some other passages in the early Pāli texts emphasize the more concrete aspect of mindful eating. For example, in one of the verses in the Theragāthā (Th 983), the monk is instructed to leave room in his stomach and not to be overly replete, and to drink some water after eating four or five mouthful bites. These passages illustrate the demanding instructions of eating in constant awareness in order to dwell comfortably in meditation.

Devotion to Wakefulness

The next practice in the scheme is characterized by devotion to wakefulness (jāgriyaṃ anuyutto). At this stage, the monk is instructed to develop constant wakeful attention in order to purify the mind from obstructive states (āvaraṇīya), with the latter used in certain instances as a synonym for the five hindrances (DN I.246). During the day, he practices wakefulness while walking back and forth and sitting, without standing or lying down, which stabilizes the monk’s keen alertness and prevents him from falling asleep. On the other hand, practicing wakefulness during the night seems to be more demanding. Out of the three portions of the night, the monk is allowed to lie down only in the middle one, while in the first and last watch, he is instructed to practice in the same way as during the day. Even in the middle watch of the night, when sleeping is permitted, there are specific instructions regarding the proper way of sleeping. At the beginning of the second watch of the night, the monk should undertake the lion posture (sīhaseyyā) — meaning, lying down on the right side, and placing the left leg over the right one. While doing that, he should be mindful and comprehensive (sato sampajāno) and note in his mind the time for rising at the end of the second watch. After arising, he continues to practice as prescribed in the previous periods of time.

According to these instructions, the main goal of developing wakefulness is twofold. At the rudimentary level, the monk tames his mind to preserve successive awareness and reduce the need for sleep during the night. In addition, at a more advanced level, the wakeful monk acquires the quality of mindful sleep, which enables him to fix the time for rising, just like an inner alarm clock (Anālayo, 2003, p. 140; Giustarini, 2012, p. 97).

According to this passage, it is not entirely clear whether this state conforms to the action of sleeping in its full meaning. In the context of this sutta, it is said that the Buddha gave a talk to the Sakyans during most of the night, and then asked Ānanda to replace him because he had back pain. After that, the passage describes the Buddha resting in the lion pose exactly as presented in Ānanda’s talk. At the end of his talk, the Buddha praises Ānanda and approves his teachings (MN I.358–359). Following this narrative, it does not seem accidental that the Buddha’s resting is presented in this particular way, but rather as a figurative example of practicing wakefulness. Assuming that the Buddha approved Ānanda’s talk by listening to it, it seems that lying down in the lion pose is not characterized as sleeping, but rather an act of resting while keeping a certain level of awareness. On the other hand, this text may implicitly show the contrast between the fully developed Buddha who has no need for sleep, and the noble disciple who has limited need but is still dependent on sleep to some degree. Giustarini (2012, p. 104) stresses the relevance of wakefulness in the pursuit of nibbāna by highlighting recurring features in the traditional accounts of the Buddha’s life. For example, on the night of awakening, he attained the three knowledges in succession, one in each of the three watches of the night (MN I.237–251). These descriptions show how wakefulness (jāgariyā) in its full manifestation turns into awakening (bodhi) as its final end. Nonetheless, according to the Sekha Sutta, developing wakefulness is considered an essential factor in the process of gaining free access to the four jhānas.

The Possession of Seven Good Qualities

Along these four stages associated with the pre-meditative practice (viz. endowed with morality, sense restraint, moderate in eating, devoted to wakefulness), the sutta also mentions additional seven qualities (satta saddhamā; MN I0.356) the noble disciple is endowed with. Those are more related to the noble fruits, but some of them can also be included under the wider category of moral practice. The seven good qualities are faith (saddhā) in the Buddha’s awakening; a sense of shame (hiri) over moral transgression; moral dread (ottappa) — fear of the results of wrongdoing; one who has heard much (bahussuta) and remembers what he has learned and preserves the knowledge; having initial energy (āraddha-viriya) for abandoning unwholesome states and attaining wholesome states; being mindful (satimā) and recall what was said and done long ago; being wise (paññavā) who see the arising and passing away of all phenomena (udayatthagāminiyā paññāya samannāgato).

The list of seven good qualities is mentioned in other canonical sources (e.g., AN IV.145) but is framed under that specific scheme only in this sutta. In a detailed study of the gradual path of training in the Pāli discourses, Bucknell (1984, p. 22) suggests that the term satta saddhamā was accidentally replaced by the term sati-sampajañña as a result of corruption either through mishearing in chanting or through misreading in the copying of manuscripts. As support for this claim, he mentions the Gaṇakamogallāna Sutta (MN 107) which presents the same scheme with the replacement of satta saddhamā by sati-sampajañña, as textual evidence for this corruption. This observation might be correct, but despite the similarity between the two versions, the list presented in the Sekha Sutta, as implied by its name, is more focused on the trainee’s abilities and not strictly constructed as a gradual path. While these seven good qualities support the mind in the development of samādhi, it seems that this sub-category is more applicable to the characterization of a noble disciple (ariyasāvako), who is destined to reach full liberation within seven human rebirths. As such, the list includes some advanced qualities such as the penetrative wisdom of impermanence of all phenomena, which usually expresses the attainment of stream-entry (sotāpatti) in other canonical sources (DN I.110; MN I.380). Therefore, although partially related to moral development and preliminary mental cultivation, the list of seven good qualities does not specifically fall under the category of pre-meditative practice in our discussion. It is more concerned with articulating the qualities of the noble disciple at a higher stage of the path.

Concluding Summary on the Scheme of the Sekha Sutta

In reviewing the scheme presented in the Sekha Sutta, a partial overlap was found along with some additional practices that may be understood as alternatives for those presented in the Sāmaññaphala Sutta. The first two stages present the practice of sīla as observing precepts and the practice of sense restraint is similar in both. In the next stage, the practice of mindfulness and clear comprehension (sati-saṃpajañña) in daily actions is replaced by moderation in eating, and the practice of contentment (santosa) is replaced by the practice of wakefulness (jāgariyā).

Despite the partial overlap between the two schemes, it is not quite clear how these competing versions are to be understood — as part of one inclusive model, or rather as alternative models that highlight different aspects of practice? According to Anālayo (2016, 2017, p. 107), these variations in the description of the gradual path lead to the conclusion that “some practices are of a cumulative character rather than being sequential.” Anālayo differentiates between factors such as sense restraint, moderation in eating, and wakefulness as cumulative, while those such as seclusion, suspension of the hindrances, the jhānas, and imperturbability as sequential. He then suggests that there is no deeper significance in the variations since they are an outcome of editorial decisions in particular exposition (Anālayo, 2016, p. 17). I agree with Anālayo’s assessment regarding the cumulative nature of these practices, but I think the versions are not a mere result of textual diversity, but rather of soteriological diversity as well. These versions represent the different ways of conceptualizing and formulating a path that has no fixed and final definition but consists of multiple alternatives along the course of training. In the context of our discussion regarding the stage of practice that precedes meditation, both schemes represent the active role of mindfulness as a prerequisite for sāmadhi and the manifold ways in which mindfulness is actualized and developed in accordance with a specific stage of practice.

In sum, by analyzing the different practices associated with mindfulness as a preliminary mental practice, this discussion has attempted to highlight the dynamic nature of the path presented in the various models in the Nikāyas. Its characterization as dynamic mostly refers to the alternative practices affiliated with a specific scheme of the gradual path as an expression of the early texts approach, which is diverse and flexible rather than fixed and frozen. Acknowledging flexibility does not repudiate pattern preservation, but rather highlights the leeway in the practice of sīla. As suggested by Gethin (2020, p. 63), “The threads of the different schemes are skillfully and creatively woven together to produce a single yet variegated and colorfully patterned fabric.”

Sīla in the Post-Canonical Sources

As examined in the early Pāli sources, sīla is constructed as a dynamic stage of practice, which might consist of some additional stages that conform with mental development included under the broader conception of mindfulness. While the early schemes of the path stretch the process that qualifies the practitioner to resort to higher mental training in formal meditation, sīla is still denoted in the narrow sense as the observance of moral precepts found in the monastic code of discipline. Moving from the canonical dynamic schemes to the post-canonical interpretation, sīla is conceptualized more explicitly as part of a larger mental process concerned with practices that go beyond a mere list of precepts.

In moving from the Nikāyas to the post-canonical text, the way of interpreting the path becomes more fixed and less diversified as a result of scholastic effort of the tradition to create a coherent and unified system. As stressed by Stuart (2015, p. 14) in assessing the development of early meditative tradition, “The homogenizing force of the Theravāda commentarial project tends to drown out the voices of the individual meditative traditions that most likely made up a very colorful fabric of religious practice during the first half of the first millennium in India, Sri Lanka, and elsewhere.”

As an expression of this trend, by connecting the dots between canonical passages, the commentarial texts thicken the concept of sīla and bind it to the mental aspect more strongly. In addition, they make an integrative definition of the practice of sīla, which is based on the canonical schemes mentioned before. The following discussion will address this issue in detail.

In his seminal manual, The Path of Purification (Visuddhimagga), Buddhaghosa demonstrates a meticulous analysis of doctrinal concepts beginning with the exposition of sīla (sīla-niddesa). In this section, he treats sīla as a multidimensional phenomenon and admits its various modes of description and consideration in different contexts (Heim, 2020). Buddhaghosa opens his discussion on sīla with a set of questions that he intends to answer in detail afterward:

(i) What is virtue? (ii) In what sense is it virtue? (iii) What are its characteristic, function, manifestation, and proximate cause? (iv) What are the benefits of virtue? (v) How many kinds of virtue are there? (vi) What is the defiling of it? (viii) What is the cleansing of it? (Ñāṇamoli, 2010, p. 10)

(Vism I.6: 'kiṃ sīlaṃ? kenaṭṭhena sīlaṃ? kānassa lakkhaṇa-rasa-paccupaṭṭhāna-padaṭṭhānāni? kimānisaṃsaṃ sīlaṃ? katividhaṃ cetaṃ sīlaṃ? ko cassa saṃkileso? kiṃ vodānanti?')

Buddhaghosa sets out to answer these questions by analyzing the different approaches to deciphering the concept of sīla in Buddhist theory of practice. In the concise scope of the following discussion, only two central aspects of the commentarial interpretation regarding sīla as conjoined with mentality will be examined: one conceptual and the other practical. With regard to the conceptual aspect, the essential features of sīla are related to specific mental tendencies a moral agent is endowed with. Furthermore, on the practical aspect of training, which might be understood as the central model of sīla, mental practice is considered an integral part one has to initiate in order to complete this stage of practice. The former is expressed in the answer to the first question concerning the primary definition of sīla, and the latter is indicated by a specific classification of sīla as the four purifications in the answer listing the many kinds of sīla.

In the primary definition (Vism I.7), Buddhaghosa points to four levels of understanding sīla — as intention (cetanā), as a mental factor (cetasika), as restraint (saṃvara), and as non-transgression (avītikkama). In our discussion, only the first two of which are relevant to the mental aspect of sīla. Following the Abhidhammic method of investigation, which is focused on the phenomenological experience (on which see Heim, 2013, pp. 83–131), sīla as intention (cetanā) is defined as the abstention from the first seven of the ten unwholesome ways of action (dasa akusala-kamma-pathā). These seven abstentions, which can be present in a single mind moment, are concerned only with refraining from unwholesome bodily and verbal actions (i.e., actions of killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, malicious speech, harsh speech, and gossip). At this level, the definition coincides with the canonical concept of sīla as an expression of a list of precepts. At the higher level, the next definition of sīla as a mental factor (cetasika) adds the three additional unwholesome ways of action to supplement the mental actions (covetousness, ill-will, and wrong view) as part of the wide conception of sīla concerning wholesome mental tendencies. With this, Buddhaghosa emphasizes the essential connection between the practice of sīla and mental development. On the grosser level, it is concerned with the non-transgression of the precepts aimed at bodily and verbal restraint, but on a more refined level, it is defined as a mental attitude one must acquire in order to avoid moral transgression.

In this context, sīla is conceived as a mental phenomenon that precludes immoral action and prevents it in the future. For example, the presence of the mental factor of “non-covetousness” (anabhijjhā) pushes out greed and thus prevents physical immoral actions like stealing, or “non-ill-will” (abyāpāda) that makes violence and harsh speech impossible at that mind moment (Heim, 2020, p. 20).

By these diverse definitions, the mental dimension of sīla is articulated more explicitly in the post-canonical texts than what is implicitly understood in the canonical texts. In addition to the conceptual understanding of sīla as intertwined with mental development, at the practical level, some aspects that were affiliated with the pre-meditative stage in the canonical schemes are integrated into an extended and inclusive category of sīla. Despite the multi-dimensional analysis in the Visuddhimagga interpretation, in the attempt to locate the central model expressing the practice of sīla, there is one category that stands out — morality regarding the four purifications (catu-pārisuddhi-sīla). This stage is listed as the first among seven purifications (satta visuddhi) — a rather unique category Buddhaghosa adopts in his exposition of the gradual path in the Visuddhimagga, which is mentioned only once (Rathavinīta Sutta—MN I.145–151) in the early discourses (Anālayo, 2005; Endo, 2015).

These four are listed as follows (Vism I.11; Ñāṇamoli, 2010, p. 14): sīla as restraint of the monastic code of discipline (pāṭimokkha-saṃvara-sīla); sīla as restraint of the sense faculties (indriya-saṃvara-sīla); sīla as purification of livelihood (ājīva-pārisuddhi-sīla); and sīla as proper use of requisites (paccaya-sannissita-sīla). The centrality of this scheme in the Visuddhimagga is underscored by the extended discussion Buddhaghosa assigns to it. The explication regarding the four purifications comprises more than half of the entire section on sīla (Sīla-niddesa) in the Visuddhimagga (Keown, 1983, p. 72). The common use of this scheme when interpreting the practice of sīla in the commentaries on the early suttas (Aṭṭhakathā) lends further evidence to its central position in post-canonical texts.

One of the most conspicuous examples of this construction of sīla as the four purifications is found in the commentary to the Mahāparinibbāṇa Sutta (DN II.81) when the Buddha highlights the great benefits of developing sīla, samādhi, and paññā, and the necessity of successively establishing each aspect in order to develop the next. Regarding the practice of sīla, the commentary explicitly signifies it as the four purifications of morality:

Such is moral conduct: moral conduct amounts to this; in this context moral conduct means conduct with the four purities (An, 2003, p. 50)

(DN-a II.537: iti sīlanti evaṃ sīlaṃ, ettakaṃ sīlaṃ. ettha catupārisuddhisīlaṃ sīlaṃ).

Other examples which identify the accomplishment of sīla with the four purifications can be found in the commentary on the Saṃyutta Nikāya (SN-a III.121; SN-a III.133; SN-a III.170).

On reviewing the four purifications, one can detect a partial overlap between this category and the practices that precede formal meditation as presented earlier in the canonical schemes: starting from the basic characterization of sīla by the monastic code of discipline (pāṭimokkha) as the first purification, moving to the gross level of mental and sensual restraint of the sense faculties (indriyasaṃvara), and ending with the fourth aspect concerned with the right mental attitude when making use of the four requisites — paraphrasing the practice of contentment (santosa) under a different rubric.

The third purification concerned with livelihood is defined differently and consists of interweaving moral principles scattered in the canonical texts. Instead of mentioning the common definition of right livelihood (sammā-ājīva) associated with the eightfold path, which simply points to the abandonment of wrong livelihood (DN II.312), Buddhagosa adds some additional details that specify the proper livelihood of a monk. It entails (Vism I.16) transgression of the six training precepts mentioned in the Vinaya (Dhirasekera, 1982, p. 204) such as (Vism I.23) laying a claim to higher spiritual states, acting as a go-between between a man and a woman, hinting at being an arahant, and eating refined food while not being sick. This way of livelihood entails the evil states beginning with “Scheming, talking, hinting, belittling, pursuing gain with gain” as mentioned in some canonical discourses (DN I.8; MN II.75). By this definition Buddhaghosa combines passages from the Nikāyas and the Vinaya and formalizes an integrated account of the proper ascetic way of life.

By this analysis of the concept of sīla in the post-canonical literature, we can detect a drift towards its identification as an extended practice that continues with higher mental development in samādhi. While the early schemes remain rather vague in their classification of sīla as conjoined with preliminary mental development, Buddhaghosa explains sīla with the fresh doctrinal terminology of the four purifications. As claimed by Dhirasekera (1982, p. 215), “Buddhaghosa is anxious to maintain that the Pāṭimokkha by itself does not complete the discipline of a monk. The Pāṭimokkha being essentially an organ of Buddhist Vinaya aimed at the correction only of word and deed, but the complete development of a Buddhist disciple included the discipline of his mind as well.” Thus, by adding the three divisions of sīla that are concerned with mental development, the catu-pārisuddhi-sīla was meant to be the complete and comprehensive code of Buddhist monastic discipline.

Despite the post-canonical integrative conceptualization, the new category of sīla is not a fully comprehensive articulation of the wide range of practices that precedes samādhi. While it stresses the importance of the mental aspect, some of the practices that were mentioned in the Suttas are excluded from it. Mindfulness-oriented practices such as clear comprehension in the daily routine, moderation in eating, and devotion to wakefulness are omitted from the commentarial interpretation of sīla. This omission emphasizes internal diversity in formulating the practices comprising the transitional stage between sīla and samādhi — both in the canonical and post-canonical Pāli texts. Each systematic approach corresponds with the others in certain respects, but at the same time accentuates a unique modality of practice, which together combine to expose the multiple methods of training that direct the mind toward advanced meditative states.

Conclusion

The concept of sīla, as examined in this essay, refers to a dynamic stage of practice that functions predominantly as a practice of restraint. While most commonly perceived as types of physical and verbal restraint, which are formulated as rules that an agent must follow, we have discovered that the mental aspect is also considered an integral part of progress toward samādhi under the framework of pre-meditative practice. The different versions of the gradual path presented in the early discourses agree that the preliminary practices of mental training form a necessary step of cultivation that is carried out before the formal practice of meditation sets in. Accordingly, sīla should be understood as an integrated stage that includes mental development. As part of the extended category of sīla, mindfulness plays a vital role in the fundamental mental development that establishes the optimal conditions for formal meditative practice.

It is important to understand the role of the practice of mindfulness within the schemes of the path, which require its application as part of ethical maturation. While mindfulness is commonly treated as a form of meditative observation in contemporary Western discourse, this understanding is rather limited and tends to neglect the active role mindfulness takes in the grounding stage. Although mindfulness surely relates to meditation, the practice of mindfulness in its different manifestations goes well beyond the meditative framework and consolidates the practitioner’s ethical stance, since one who is trained in wakefulness and sense restraint, and who considers meticulously each daily action is less expected to fall under moral transgression. Moreover, this study has strived to enrich and expand the concept of mindfulness as an auxiliary mode of practice that generates a smooth transition toward the profound and utterly absorptive meditative states of samādhi.

The examination of mindfulness as a pre-meditative stage portrayed in the canonical sources highlights the early Buddhist approach that emphasizes the diverse ways in which mental training promotes wholesome qualities for fruitful meditation. The divergent schemes of the path conform to the conceptual classification of the threefold training. In this sense, they all agree on placing sīla as the foundation for meditative practice and advanced practices of insight. However, each presentation of the path makes its own emphases within this broader conceptualization of sīla. This means that at certain times practices overlap, while at others they differ in their description of the gradual path. While each scheme highlights different practices, so that they should not be forced to conform with one inclusive model, they all acknowledge the importance of ethical practices as a form of mental preparation for the intensive states of meditative absorption. In addition, each scheme emphasizes its own articulation that complements and expands the narrow understanding of sīla as a form of physical and verbal conduct.

This means that mindfulness and mental cultivation, more broadly, participate in the ethical effort. At the same time, this effort itself is directed toward conducting advanced meditation, in which mindfulness will work in more subtle ways. While mindfulness is active in all stages of the gradual path— sīla, samādhi, and paññā — each stage has its unique emphases. But foremost, it begins with its work in the ethical domain.