Bhante G vs. Bhante G

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
nathan
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:11 am

Re: Bhante G vs. Bhante G

Post by nathan »

Thank you to everyone for the scholarly notes, additional related links and informed comments.

:anjali:
But whoever walking, standing, sitting, or lying down overcomes thought, delighting in the stilling of thought: he's capable, a monk like this, of touching superlative self-awakening. § 110. {Iti 4.11; Iti 115}
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Bhante G vs. Bhante G

Post by Sylvester »

Hi Geoff

Thanks for the notes.

Could you indulge me and explain why the peyyala instruction in the Catukkanaya discussion of rupavacarakusala dhamma must contain the vipassana definition found in para 55? Para 55 is found in the kamavacarakusala's Padabhajani laundry list of dhammas. Are we supposed to pluck out everything in paras 2 onwards pertaining to the kamavaracarakusala arupi dhammas and export them wholesale to the rupavacarakusala lists? The same peyyala instruction is also given in the arupavacarakusala dhammas and it should be very clear that stuff such as piti, sukha, vitakka, vicara etc etc from the kamavacarakusala list has no place in the rupa (at least beyond the 1st and 2nd Jhanas for the examples cited) list, much less the arupa list. So, how does the Dhammasangani instruct us as to which of the kamavacarakusala dhammas is pertinent to and to be repeated in the rupavacakusala and arupavacarakusala lists?

I think I see where the problem is with our discussion of the Petakopadesa. You've offered an English translation of that text, where vitakka and vicara are rendered "directed thought" and "evaluation" respectively, with the corresponding denominative verb being rendered "thinks". I'm not accusing you of sleight of hand, but don't you think that reliance on this particular English translation is simply begging the question in the issue "What does vitakka-vicara mean?"

Since you've mentioned that MN 117 looks "Abhidhammic", what do you think about Mrs Rhys Davids's suspicions about the status of MN 111 as not originating from the Buddha's time? Unlike MN 117 which has at least a parallel, MN 111 is completely unique in the corpus of Early Buddhism. Nevertheless, for the sake of discussion, I'll treat MN 111 as canonical.

Pls give me some time to gather my thoughts coherently on the "arising from the attainment" issue in MN 111. While I share part of your belief about the role of sanna in the preceding 7 attainments, I do not take the view that there is a necessary temporal conjunction between the sanna refrain and the vipassana refrain.
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Bhante G vs. Bhante G

Post by Nyana »

Sylvester wrote:Are we supposed to pluck out everything in paras 2 onwards pertaining to the kamavaracarakusala arupi dhammas and export them wholesale to the rupavacarakusala lists?
Yes.
Sylvester wrote:The same peyyala instruction is also given in the arupavacarakusala dhammas and it should be very clear that stuff such as piti, sukha, vitakka, vicara etc etc from the kamavacarakusala list has no place in the rupa (at least beyond the 1st and 2nd Jhanas for the examples cited) list, much less the arupa list.
Omissions are made of paragraphs no longer relevant to the higher jhānas. The formless attainments retain the same paragraphs as those pertaining to the fourth jhāna, with further omissions appropriate to the fourth formless attainment.
Sylvester wrote:I think I see where the problem is with our discussion of the Petakopadesa. You've offered an English translation of that text, where vitakka and vicara are rendered "directed thought" and "evaluation" respectively, with the corresponding denominative verb being rendered "thinks". I'm not accusing you of sleight of hand, but don't you think that reliance on this particular English translation is simply begging the question in the issue "What does vitakka-vicara mean?"
No. Survey the appropriate passages from the Suttapiṭaka and Abhidhammapiṭaka, as well as the context of that section of the Peṭakopadesa. Then survey the appropriate passages from non-Pāḷi Abhidharma sources. Then you may have consulted enough source materials to offer an informed opinion. Lance Cousins, who has done such a survey, has given the following translations for the two registers of vitakka and vicāra in the Dhammasaṅgaṇī:
  • vitakka: 1. takka 2. vitakka 3. saṅkappa 4. appanā 5. byappanā 6. cetaso abhiniropanā 7. sammāsaṅkappa

    1. speculation 2. thought 3. thought formation 4. fixing 5. firm fixing 6. applying the mind 7. right thought formation.

    vicāra: 1. cāra 2. vicāra 3. anuvicāra 4. upavicāra 5. cittassa anusandhānatā 6. anupekkhanatā

    1. wandering 2. wandering about 3. repeated wandering about 4. frequenting 5. explorativeness of mind 6. constant examination.
Sylvester wrote:Since you've mentioned that MN 117 looks "Abhidhammic", what do you think about Mrs Rhys Davids's suspicions about the status of MN 111 as not originating from the Buddha's time?
I think that there are probably many suttas which don't originate from the Buddha's time. There is no way of ever arriving at "original Buddhism," and even the notion of "early Buddhism" relies much more on the Abhidhamma and commentaries than some proponents of the "early Buddhism" idea are willing to acknowledge.
Sylvester wrote:While I share part of your belief about the role of sanna in the preceding 7 attainments, I do not take the view that there is a necessary temporal conjunction between the sanna refrain and the vipassana refrain.
Every significant Abhidhamma/Abhidharma treatise that I've consulted, except the Visuddhimagga, mentions vipassanā/vipaśyanā as a mental factor employed in the four jhānas/dhyānas. Most explicitly state that the four jhānas/dhyānas are the optimal samādhis for the development of supramundane vipassanā/vipaśyanā. All of these treatises are basing this understanding on the same Nikāya/Āgama source materials.

All the best,

Geoff
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Bhante G vs. Bhante G

Post by Sylvester »

Thanks again Geoff.

You said -
The Dhammasaṅgaṇī states that vipassanā is present in rūpāvacarajjhāna as well as lokuttarajjhāna.
Even if I accept that the 2nd peyyala is with reference to paras 2 to 145 of the rupavacarakusala dhamma list, para 55 does not say what you say it says. Your quote above posits an absolute ontological statement, whereas all the dhamma formulations are conditional ontic commitments formulated in the locative absolute formation. If they were not conditional, how else would an Abhidhammika account for the piti, sukha, vitakka, vicara etc peyyalas having a place in the respective jhanas? I don't believe it is possible to invoke para 55 as proof per se for the presence of vipassana in rupavacarajjhana, without at least proving the existence of the conditions for vipassana's hoti at that samaye.

Which leads to the next problem about the place of para 55 in the scheme of the arupas. You said -
Omissions are made of paragraphs no longer relevant to the higher jhānas. The formless attainments retain the same paragraphs as those pertaining to the fourth jhāna, with further omissions appropriate to the fourth formless attainment.
Could you pls point out where in the cattāri arūpajhānāni soḷasakkhattukāni are the instructions to be found as to which of the 144 peyyala should be excluded as irrelevant? Or are the instructions part of the post-canonical/modern understanding?

I'm not too keen on exploring what the Abhidhamikas from the various schools have to say. Why appeal to these commentaries to authorise your reading of the suttas? Reliance on this particular English translation of the Petakopadesa, just because this translation adopts renderings which suggest discursiveness, rather than the alternatives of stability, isn't quite helpful, especially when you resort to statements such as -
Survey the appropriate passages from the Suttapiṭaka and Abhidhammapiṭaka, as well as the context of that section of the Peṭakopadesa. Then survey the appropriate passages from non-Pāḷi Abhidharma sources.
It doesn't add anything to the discussion as to which of 2 "flavours" of vitakka-vicara are to be read into the 1st Jhana formula. If you really feel that your survey is exhaustive, pls lay out the reasoning, rather than assume that the other's survey is incomplete.

In fact, if we revert to the "unloaded" Pali text of the Petakopadesa, one wonders if the 3 similes (especially the winged bird simile) are not pointing towards what Ven Analayo calls the ripples of the mind during 1st Jhana.

May I ask for a favour for the rest of the translation of section 72 of the Peta. I am curious as to how the translator would have rendered the passage on the perceptions of sensuality etc and its sequel the vitakka of sensuality.
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Bhante G vs. Bhante G

Post by Nyana »

Sylvester wrote:I'm not too keen on exploring what the Abhidhamikas from the various schools have to say.
That's fine.
Sylvester wrote:Why appeal to these commentaries to authorise your reading of the suttas?
To accept Ven. Brahmavamso and Ven. Sujato's interpretation of the suttas, one has to accept that every single treatise and every single commentator in the history of Buddhist exegesis was wrong regarding sammāsamādhi. Moreover, one has to accept that the suttas do not mean what they say, and engage in superfluous hermeneutics such as Piya Tan and yourself are fond of engaging in, in order to force the suttas to say what you wish they would say.
Sylvester wrote:Your quote above posits an absolute ontological statement
More nonsense. This thread is about Bhante G's teachings, and your introduction of Piya Tan's critique of Bhante G. I've pointed out a couple of serious flaws in Piya Tan's reading of the suttas, and provided canonical support for Bhante G's teaching on samatha and vipassanā conjoined in jhāna.

There is so little hermeneutic and exegetical support for Ven. Brahmavamso and Ven. Sujato's interpretation of sammāsamādhi, that I find their teachings on the subject completely uncompelling and quite misguided. If you find their interpretation and teachings helpful, that's fine by me.

All the best,

Geoff
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Bhante G vs. Bhante G

Post by Nyana »

Sylvester wrote:Your quote above posits an absolute ontological statement
My quote doesn't posit anything of the sort. The Dhammasaṅgaṇī Cittuppādakaṇḍa offers lists of phenomena present (meaning mental factors concomitantly engaged) in a skillful, unskillful, etc, cognition. Thus, it's concern is phenomenological. The section on Rūpāvacarakusala lists the mental factors engaged in an optimally skillful rūpāvacarajjhānacitta. This list includes sammādiṭṭhi, sammāsati, sampajañña, samatha, and vipassanā. Taking the canonical Pāḷi treatises into consideration, as well as the numerous major non-Pāḷi Abhidharma treatises, there is nothing whatsoever unusual about the inclusion of vipassanā here. In all of our discussions you have yet to offer any canonical support for the premise that vipassanā cannot be engaged while abiding in jhāna.

Again: This thread is about Bhante G's teachings, and your introduction of Piya Tan's critique of Bhante G. I've pointed out a couple of serious flaws in Piya Tan's reading of the suttas, and provided canonical support for Bhante G's teaching on samatha and vipassanā conjoined in jhāna. You've offered no canonical support for Piya Tan's critique of Bhante G's teachings. And you've offered no canonical support for the notion that vipassanā cannot be conjoined with samatha in jhāna.

Moreover, you seem unwilling or unable to acknowledge the consequence of Ven. Brahmavamso and Ven. Sujato's interpretation of sammāsamādhi: To accept Ven. Brahmavamso and Ven. Sujato's interpretation, one has to accept that every single treatise and every single commentator in the history of Buddhist exegesis was wrong regarding sammāsamādhi. Do you accept Ven. Brahmavamso and Ven. Sujato's interpretation of sammāsamādhi or not? If so, do you accept this consequence or not?

All the best,

Geoff
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Bhante G vs. Bhante G

Post by Sylvester »

To accept Ven. Brahmavamso and Ven. Sujato's interpretation, one has to accept that every single treatise and every single commentator in the history of Buddhist exegesis was wrong regarding sammāsamādhi. Do you accept Ven. Brahmavamso and Ven. Sujato's interpretation of sammāsamādhi or not? If so, do you accept this consequence or not?
Of course I don't accept that consequence. After all, that consequence is simply another of your ex cathedra pronouncements that has not been demonstrated to be correct, let alone reasonable. It seems to be a favoured tactic, dropping names and appealing to authority, but I don't believe in engaging such non sequitors.

I don't see any success in your enterprise to refute Piya. Citing MN 111 (as per Ven Thanissaro's "ferreting" translation) does not make a dent on Piya's thesis that the casual reader of the English translation of a Pali text will be easily misled by Bhante G's assertion about the present tense which flies against the Pali grammars. It may be a technical argument, but that is not reason enough to justify reading the Pali present tense as importing "missa" as Bhante G asserts. Likewise, the problem with your belief about MN 111 coming to your rescue stems from your having not paid attention to the tenses of the 2 major sets of verbs used in the first 7 attainments, and assuming that the "arising" formula in the final 2 formula pertained to vipassana, when it is clearly tied to the status of the last 2 attainments as going beyond the sannasamapatti. Compare the tenses of "vavatthitā" and "viditā" versus the tenses for "pajānāti", "viharati" etc. I'm sure it should be obvious from the grammars (eg Warder at p.40) what sort of temporal sequence is intended by past participle verbs hanging around with present tense verbs (the latter functioning as the historical present in MN 111). The whole point about the final attainments surpassing the sannasamapatti is to clearly suggest the inability of sanna, not vipassana, to work in these 2 attainments. No meaningful sanna = no point hanging around in that absorption.

In fact, this difference in the sannasamapatti and the final 2 attainments is underscored in a very striking difference in their vipassana formulae. For the sannasamapatti, MN 111 uses "pajanati" for the understanding of all 7 attainments regarding their arising and passing away. For the final 2 attainments, there is no "pajanati" into the arising and passing away of these 2 attainments, implying that a different kind of vipassana is taking place. This I think is based not on direct experience (having surpassed sanna's ability to perceive the event) but as suggested by AN 10.36, will have to be tutored by others conceptually.

I have asked you very specifically to address your ontological statement regarding vipassana within Jhana, and all you can muster is -
More nonsense
If you choose to read the Dhammasangani in an ungrammatical manner, just so as to find some basis for your statement that the Dhammasangani says that vipassana is present in Jhana, you can't blame me for questionning that, no matter how unedifying the outcome. Why should you not be taken to task for bending the grammatical rules to suit your enterprise? You may wish to gloss over the peyyala series as "phenomenological", but the Dhammasangani itself is couched in very unmistakable "conditionality" form that it should be obvious that "existence" was not being discussed but paṭiccasamuppannā (referenced directly right after para 57)

I've also asked a fair question on the source of your interpretation of the peyyala. I think the readers ought to have the opportunity to know if the interpretation is canonical or commentarial or yours.
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Bhante G vs. Bhante G

Post by Nyana »

Sylvester wrote:Of course I don't accept that consequence.
You failed to answer the first question: Do you accept Ven. Brahmavamso and Ven. Sujato's interpretation of sammāsamādhi or not?
Sylvester wrote:I've also asked a fair question on the source of your interpretation of the peyyala.
I gave the source when I posted the excerpt from the Dhammasaṅgaṇī Cittuppādakaṇḍa: Khine, U Kyaw. The Dhammasaṅgaṇī. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications. 1999.

All the best,

Geoff
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Bhante G vs. Bhante G

Post by Nyana »

Sylvester wrote:I have asked you very specifically to address your ontological statement regarding vipassana within Jhana....
Detailed answer already given here.
Sylvester wrote:You may wish to gloss over the peyyala series as "phenomenological", but the Dhammasangani itself is couched in very unmistakable "conditionality" form that it should be obvious that "existence" was not being discussed but paṭiccasamuppannā
Paragraph 1 of the Dhammasaṅgaṇī Cittuppādakaṇḍa is a list of numerous phenomena that arise concomitantly on a specific occasion, which are then defined in paragraphs 2 to 57. Paragraph 1 includes the arising of both samatha and vipassanā, specifically, at that time. These are then defined in paragraphs 54 and 55:
  • What at that time is samatha? That which at that time is stability of mind, steadfastness of mind, thorough steadfastness of mind, unshakableness, non-distraction, imperturbability, calmness of mind, faculty of concentration, strength of concentration, right concentration. This at that time is samatha.

    What at that time is vipassanā? That which at that time is discernment (paññā), thorough understanding, investigation, comprehensive investigation, investigation of phenomena, consideration, discrimination, direct discrimination, erudite intelligence, proficiency, refined intelligence, discriminative examination.... This at that time is vipassanā.
Are you seriously suggesting that this passage be interpreted to preclude the concomitant occurrence of samatha and vipassanā?

All the best,

Geoff
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Bhante G vs. Bhante G

Post by Sylvester »

Hi Geoff

Of course samatha and vipassana can arise concurrently in the Dhammasangani schema, based on a casual reading of the English translation. But let's not forget the Yevāpanaka admonition given at the end of the explanations -
Ye vā pana tasmiṃ samaye aññepi atthi paṭiccasamuppannā arūpino dhammā— ime dhammā kusalā.

'Or whatever other immaterial conditionally-arisen states (phenomena) there are too on that occasion'
All discussions of relations based on Dependant Origination will boil down to that terse Idappaccayata formula -
Imasmim sati, idam hoti. Imass uppadadam uppajjati.
Imasmim asati, idam na hoti. Imassa nirodha, idam nirujjhati
As far as I can see, all of the other writers I have consulted (Kalupahana, Kearney) have identified the "Imasmim sati, idam hoti" as being in the locative absolute.

Samatha and vipassana, as part of conditionally related pairs, may be grammatically interpreted as being concurrent under the locative absolute. But as Warder points out (p.103), the locative absolute also allows for the elements in the pair to be temporally disjunct. This probably accounts for why it is not meaningful to interpret the Padabhājanī list as a catalogue of each dhamma to be found in common in every citta. The qualifier "tasmiṃ samaye"/"on that accassion" should be a clear signal that these 56 "factors" in the Padabhājanī were not intended to list what is common to each and every citta. Were that to be the case, I'm sure the Abhidhamma would have listed 56 universals, instead of just 7.

Ven Nyanaponika has this comment on the inclusion of samatha-vipassana pair in the Padabhājanī -
We suggest that the intention in including these two groups was to show that the mental factors present in any wholesome state of consciousness associated with knowledge afford the chance to practice different methods of spiritual development (bhavana),of which two examples are given here. The exemplify the potentialities of the respective wholesome thought which belong as much to the dynamic structure of a state of consciousness as its actualities do.
Abhidhamma Studies, 1974, p 147
As for your first question, I really don't see the relevance other than as your attempt at the Horse Laugh, but nevertheless I will concede that I follow the absorption model of jhana discussed by Ven Analayo, Ven Nyanaponika, Ajahn Brahm, Ajahn Sujato and others.
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Bhante G vs. Bhante G

Post by Nyana »

Sylvester wrote:This probably accounts for why it is not meaningful to interpret the Padabhājanī list as a catalogue of each dhamma to be found in common in every citta. The qualifier "tasmiṃ samaye"/"on that accassion" should be a clear signal that these 56 "factors" in the Padabhājanī were not intended to list what is common to each and every citta. Were that to be the case, I'm sure the Abhidhamma would have listed 56 universals, instead of just 7.
Another non-starter. These 56 factors are not "common to each and every citta." They are common to skillful kāmāvacara cittas accompanied by somanassasa and associated with ñāṇa and skillful rūpāvacarajjhāna cittas. (There are altogether eight categories of skillful kāmāvacara cittas. The section in question only pertains to the first.)
Sylvester wrote:As for your first question, I really don't see the relevance other than as your attempt at the Horse Laugh, but nevertheless I will concede that I follow the absorption model of jhana discussed by Ven Analayo, Ven Nyanaponika, Ajahn Brahm, Ajahn Sujato and others.
Then my question is: What is your concern with Ven. Gunaratana's teachings on jhāna?

All the best,

Geoff
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Bhante G vs. Bhante G

Post by Nyana »

Sylvester wrote:Of course samatha and vipassana can arise concurrently in the Dhammasangani schema, based on a casual reading of the English translation.
This has nothing to with "a casual reading of the English translation." This is a specific enumeration of dhammas which occur concomitantly on a specific occasion, and which are all dependently arisen according to these appropriate conditions.
Sylvester wrote:But let's not forget the Yevāpanaka admonition given at the end of the explanations -
Ye vā pana tasmiṃ samaye aññepi atthi paṭiccasamuppannā arūpino dhammā— ime dhammā kusalā.

'Or whatever other immaterial conditionally-arisen states (phenomena) there are too on that occasion'
The inclusion of this statement is merely meant to indicate that the preceding enumeration isn't meant to be a closed system.

All the best,

Geoff
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Bhante G vs. Bhante G

Post by Sylvester »

Then my question is: What is your concern with Ven. Gunaratana's teachings on jhāna?
The same concern, perhaps, that you have with Ajahn Brahm's et al teaching on jhana? I trust you will not be asserting a monopoly to truth and the upholding of the Dhamma?
This is a specific enumeration of dhammas which occur concomitantly on a specific occasion, and which are all dependently arisen according to these appropriate conditions.
Where in the Dhammasangani does it state that these dhammas occur concomitantly? Instead of the locative absolute which permits of 2 temporal possibilities, the redactors could have easily used the missakiriya to expressly exclude temporal disjunction, so that there is no doubt that contemporaneity was intended.

The trouble with your reading the Padabhājanī as a list of 56 dhammas that exist simultaneously in the rupavacara cittas is that certain states of the rupavacara are known to be bereft of piti, sukha, vitakka, vicara, sankappa. I think a more reasonable reading, if you insist on ignoring the locative absolute, would be to treat the 56 dhammas as possibilities. After all, if the peyyala instruction (as you put it below) for the 4th arupa attainment allows for discriminatory and selective repetition of the list, why isn't such discrimination in order for the rupavacara treatment?
Omissions are made of paragraphs no longer relevant to the higher jhānas. The formless attainments retain the same paragraphs as those pertaining to the fourth jhāna, with further omissions appropriate to the fourth formless attainment.
I don't see the Dhammasangani set out these instructions in the text itself as to which omissions are to be made to the peyyala series.
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Bhante G vs. Bhante G

Post by Nyana »

Sylvester wrote:The same concern, perhaps, that you have with Ajahn Brahm's et al teaching on jhana?
I don't go jumping in to discussions of Ven. Brahmavamso's teachings.

But the distinction between Ven. Gunaratana's teachings on sammāsamādhi and the teachings of Ven. Brahmavamso and Ven. Sujato are significant: Ven. Gunaratana's teachings accord with the Tipiṭaka, including the Paṭisambhidāmagga and the Dhammasaṅgaṇī, while Ven. Brahmavamso and Ven. Sujato's do not. Moreover, there is nothing particularly Buddhist about what Ven. Brahmavamso and Ven. Sujato consider to be "jhāna." It's only in the company of people who are unwilling to approach the Tipiṭaka on its own terms, and who are unwilling to consider the historical pan-Buddhist understanding of sammāsamādhi, that this "debate" about vipassanā occurring within jhāna is even an issue.
Sylvester wrote:Where in the Dhammasangani does it state that these dhammas occur concomitantly? Instead of the locative absolute which permits of 2 temporal possibilities, the redactors could have easily used the missakiriya to expressly exclude temporal disjunction, so that there is no doubt that contemporaneity was intended.
All of the dhammas in any specific category of citta occur "at that time." The context excludes any other interpretation of the grammar employed, just as in MN 111 the context excludes your forced grammatical interpretation. In the case of MN 111 the grammar reflects the speaker (the Buddha) narrating events which have already transpired. The context also makes it clear that Ven. Sāriputta knew those various dhammas as they occurred within jhāna while in the first seven abidings.
Sylvester wrote:The trouble with your reading the Padabhājanī as a list of 56 dhammas that exist simultaneously in the rupavacara cittas is that certain states of the rupavacara are known to be bereft of piti, sukha, vitakka, vicara, sankappa.
This qualm has already been addressed.

All the best,

Geoff
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Bhante G vs. Bhante G

Post by Sylvester »

I don't go jumping in to discussions of Ven. Brahmavamso's teachings.
I agree; discussions of Ajahn Brahm don't seem to be your forte, but ex cathedras and ad hominems such as "ambulance jhana" abound. I notice that you have also elected to remain silent on Ven Analayo's absorption model which agrees with the Brahm model. Your claim that the entire commentarial community is pro-discursive jhana, save for Ajahns Brahm and Sujato, is a wild exaggeration in an attempt to appeal to authority.
But the distinction between Ven. Gunaratana's teachings on sammāsamādhi and the teachings of Ven. Brahmavamso and Ven. Sujato are significant: Ven. Gunaratana's teachings accord with the Tipiṭaka, including the Paṭisambhidāmagga and the Dhammasaṅgaṇī, while Ven. Brahmavamso and Ven. Sujato's do not. Moreover, there is nothing particularly Buddhist about what Ven. Brahmavamso and Ven. Sujato consider to be "jhāna."
Not that you have demonstrated, regardless of how many times you proclaim this. What you think the Tipitaka says may not be what the Tipitaka actually says; I'll furnish an example below on your reading of the 56 dhammas.
All of the dhammas in any specific category of citta occur "at that time." The context excludes any other interpretation of the grammar employed, just as in MN 111 the context excludes your forced grammatical interpretation.
Sadly, Geoff, if the resort to "context" is the best you can offer, then I have to say that you have not even been able to mount a single rebuttal to the implausibility of your thesis of 56 concomittant dhammas given the problems of piti, sukha, vitakka, vicara and sankappa that I posed you. Your context flies in the face of direct contrary evidence, unless of course, you wish to argue that the sutta jhana formulae are subordinate to your thesis. Please address the problem of including these 5 states as being invariably concommitant in the rupavacara, instead of just proclaiming that you have addressed it. Where?

In contrast to your 56 invariably concommitant dhammas reading of the Dhammasangani, please refer to Karunadasa's very insightful explanation (The Theravada Abhidhamma, 2010, p.89 - 90) for how this Dhammasangani schema is actually composed of a differentiation of the cittas into 8 classes of wholesome consciousness. One of the 3 qualifiers used by the Dhammasangani to differentiate the 8 classes is the presence or absence of "paññā" which, unsurprisingly, is also the description in para 55 for vipassana. This 8-fold classification makes it clear that "vipassana" as a rupavacara dhamma is not invariably present (let alone concommitantly present as Nyanaponika points out) and only 4 out of the 8 types of cittas will have "vipassana" as an attribute. My initial suspicions of vipassana being an attribute of only the lokuttara jhanas in the Abhidhamma scheme is confirmed by Karunadasa at p.93.

As a sidebar, you may like to note that this 8 fold schema accounts for the presence or absence of piti, sukha, vitakka, vicara and sankappa within any of the rupavacara cittas.
In the case of MN 111 the grammar reflects the speaker (the Buddha) narrating events which have already transpired.
I have said as much when I alluded to the cluster of verbs in the present tense - these indicate the historical present, which is how everyone has translated it.
The context also makes it clear that Ven. Sāriputta knew those various dhammas as they occurred within jhāna while in the first seven abidings.
That is a wild leap, if by "knew" you meant "pajanati". You have not addressed the very pertinent fact that the earlier cluster of verbs ("vavatthitā" and "viditā") were expressed in the past participle, instead of the same tense that was applied to the 2nd cluster of verbs. Please demonstrate the "context".
Post Reply