Bhante G vs. Bhante G

[nathan]

There is a new article by Ven. Gunaratana about Jhana and Vipassana. "Should We Come Out of Jhana to Practice Vipassana?"

It seems the Venerable has a new way of looking at jhana, which he now writes is entirely compatible with vipassana. As he seems to be entirely at odds in this article with what he has previously written about Jhana in two longer works on the same subject I thought it probably made the most sense to post a note about it here where people can quote passages from all three documents. May the noblest Bhante G. win.

The Venerables two previous works, also available as pdfs online, are:

The Jhanas in Theravada Buddhist Meditation

A Critical Analysis of the Jhanas in Theravada Buddhist Meditation


The new article:

http://www.bhavanasociety.org/resource/ ... vipassana/

[PeterB]

"May the noblest Bhante G win "...
I havent yet read the article but thanks for the smile..

[Ben]

Thank you Nathan.
I look forward to reading Bhante's article (and previous works) with great interest!
metta

Ben

[Kenshou]

It seems the Venerable has a new way of looking at jhana,

I could be mistaken, but it seemed to me that in the older essay, he is describing the traditional Theravadin view, and in the more recent one he is giving his personal understanding. Not necessarily any conflict here.

[husmonk]

One point I noticed is the following. In the older document, he recites the "common" way of practicing insight after getting out of a jhana (as a person like Ajahn Brahm would say). In the new one, he is emphatic about practicing insight "within" (i.e., not getting out of) a jhana. I would like to know more about the coexistence of deep concentration and mindfulness (more than Shankman, Brahm, Gunaratana, and Thanissaro have written). Any pointers? Thank you.

[Moggalana]

One point I noticed is the following. In the older document, he recites the "common" way of practicing insight after getting out of a jhana (as a person like Ajahn Brahm would say). In the new one, he is emphatic about practicing insight "within" (i.e., not getting out of) a jhana. I would like to know more about the coexistence of deep concentration and mindfulness (more than Shankman, Brahm, Gunaratana, and Thanissaro have written). Any pointers? Thank you.

Have you read this thread: Jhāna According to the Pāḷi Nikāyas?

[rowyourboat]

I dont see a contradication - only a development in Bhanthe's meditative abilities: It is easier to come out of jhana and practice vipassana. Now he seems to be able to practice it within jhana as well; and he is keen to share it with the world - we don't need to attack that do we?

with metta

Matheesha

[Sanghamitta]

I dont see a contradication - only a development in Bhanthe's meditative abilities: It is easier to come out of jhana and practice vipassana. Now he seems to be able to practice it within jhana as well; and he is keen to share it with the world - we don't need to attack that do we?

with metta

Matheesha

I think that's a good point. We are not after all dealing with revelations carved in stone. Within the practice of a group or individual there will be evolution and integration. Which could look like contradiction, but is in fact evidence of a wider or deeper view.

[husmonk]

One point I noticed is the following. In the older document, he recites the "common" way of practicing insight after getting out of a jhana (as a person like Ajahn Brahm would say). In the new one, he is emphatic about practicing insight "within" (i.e., not getting out of) a jhana. I would like to know more about the coexistence of deep concentration and mindfulness (more than Shankman, Brahm, Gunaratana, and Thanissaro have written). Any pointers? Thank you.

Have you read this thread: Jhāna According to the Pāḷi Nikāyas?

Thank you. I just started to read the thread and see some relevant posts. It will take some time to go through it....

[Sylvester]

One point I noticed is the following. In the older document, he recites the "common" way of practicing insight after getting out of a jhana (as a person like Ajahn Brahm would say). In the new one, he is emphatic about practicing insight "within" (i.e., not getting out of) a jhana. I would like to know more about the coexistence of deep concentration and mindfulness (more than Shankman, Brahm, Gunaratana, and Thanissaro have written). Any pointers? Thank you.

Hi, it's been posted before, but here's a current analysis of the 2 models of Jhana by Piya Tan -

http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-con ... .-piya.pdf

He discusses Bhante G's current views in depth.

If you can access Ven Analayo's online essays, check out his entries on Samadhi and Vitakka. Ven Analayo's discussion of the term Vitakka when it is part of the "vitakka-vicara" compound will clarify a lot of the common misunderstandings regarding what vitakka-vicara does in 1st Jhana. It's directly pertinent to the issue of whether satipatthana is possible within Jhanas.

[Nyana]

Hi, it's been posted before, but here's a current analysis of the 2 models of Jhana by Piya Tan

Piya Tan's survey of MN 111 fails to take into account the wording of the entire sutta. MN 111 informs us that all the mental factors of the first jhāna (the dhamma-s of vitakka, vicāra, pīti, sukha, cittekaggatā, phassa, vedanā, saññā, cetanā, vīriya, sati, manasikāra, etc.) are working together in complete harmony. Moreover each can be individuated and clearly seen via vipassanā as it persists. The same is true when correctly engaging in the remaining three jhāna-s and first three formless attainments.

MN 111 informs us that the two exceptions to this are the meditative attainment of the sphere of neither-apperception-nor-nonapperception and the attainment of the cessation of apperception and feeling. In both of these cases one must emerge from that attainment before applying insight to the past mental factors which were present therein. This is because apperception (saññā) isn't sufficiently functional while abiding in either of these two attainments for vipassanā to occur.

Moreover, not only does MN 111 describe vipassanā occurring within jhāna, so does the earliest strata of abhidhamma texts. For example, the Dhammasaṅgaṇī states that vipassanā occurs at the time of abiding in jhāna. And the Paṭisambhidāmagga Ānāpānassatikathā states that the coupling of samatha and vipassanā while one is correctly abiding in jhāna is the proper training of heightened mind (adhicittasikkhā).

If you can access Ven Analayo's online essays, check out his entries on Samadhi and Vitakka. Ven Analayo's discussion of the term Vitakka when it is part of the "vitakka-vicara" compound will clarify a lot of the common misunderstandings regarding what vitakka-vicara does in 1st Jhana. It's directly pertinent to the issue of whether satipatthana is possible within Jhanas.

The earliest detailed word commentary on the standard jhāna formula is found in Peṭakopadesa 7.72. It clearly defines vitakka and vicāra:

Here, for fulfilling non-passion he thinks the thought of renunciation. Here, for fulfilling non-aggression he thinks the thought of non-aversion. Here, for fulfilling non-delusion he thinks the thought of harmlessness.

Here, for fulfilling non-passion he is secluded from sensual pleasures. Here, for fulfilling non-aggression and fulfilling non-delusion he is secluded from unskillful phenomena. And so he enters and remains in the first jhāna, which includes directed thought and evaluation, as well as joy and pleasure born of seclusion.

Directed thought: There are three kinds of directed thought, namely the thought of renunciation, the thought of non-aversion, and the thought of harmlessness.

Here, directed thought is the first instance while evaluation is the evaluation of what is thereby received. Just as when a man sees someone approaching in the distance he does not yet know whether it is a woman or a man, but when he has received [the apperception] that “it is a woman” or “it is a man” or that “it is of such color” or that “it is one of such shape,” then when he has thought this he further scrutinizes, “How then, is he ethical or unethical, rich or poor?” This is examination. With directed thought he fixes. With examination he moves about and turns over [what has been thought].

And just as a winged bird first accumulates [speed] and then accumulates no more [speed when gliding], so too, directed thought is like the accumulation, and evaluation is like the outstretched wings which keeps preserving the directed thought and evaluation....

Directed thought is like a text-reciter who does his recitation silently. Evaluation is like him simply contemplating it.

This word commentary accords with MN 78 Samaṇamuṇḍika Sutta, which tells us that skillful resolves (kusalā saṅkappā) consisting of the resolve of renunciation (nekkhamma- saṅkappa), the resolve of non-aversion (abyāpādasaṅkappa), and the resolve of harmlessness (avihiṃsāsaṅkappa) don’t cease until the second jhāna. This provides some context as to the meaning and significance of directed thought and evaluation in the standard jhāna formula:

And what are skillful resolves? Being resolved on renunciation, on non-aversion, on harmlessness. These are called skillful resolves. What is the cause of skillful resolves? Their cause, too, has been stated, and they are said to be apperception-caused. Which apperception? — for apperception has many modes and permutations. Any renunciation-apperception, non-aversion-apperception or harmlessness-apperception: That is the cause of skillful resolves.

Now where do skillful resolves cease without trace? Their stopping, too, has been stated: There is the case where a monk, with the stilling of directed thought and evaluation, enters and remains in the second jhāna, which has internal serene-clarity and unification of mind free from thought and evaluation, and has joy and pleasure born of concentration. This is where skillful resolves cease without trace.

All the best,

Geoff

[Sylvester]

Thanks Geoff.

Could you share your thoughts pls as to why the particular verb tenses used in MN 111 necessitate contemporaneity of the 2 verbs?

I would suggest that the Abhidhammic notion of insight within Jhana is an outcome of its resort to the lokuttara jhana concept.

The Petakopadesa treatment of vitakka and vicara does not tally with how MN 117 treats the synonyms for vitakka-vicara.

With metta

[Nyana]

I would suggest that the Abhidhammic notion of insight within Jhana is an outcome of its resort to the lokuttara jhana concept.

The Dhammasaṅgaṇī states that vipassanā is present in rūpāvacarajjhāna as well as lokuttarajjhāna. Moreover, the Sarvāstivāda *Mahāvibhāṣā (Apidamo dapiposha lun), the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa (Dazhi du lun), the *Prakaraṇāryavācaśāstra (Xianyang shengjiao lun), and the Yogācārabhūmiśāstra all maintain that vipassanā should be developed within jhāna, just like the Pāḷi Abhidhammapiṭaka.

The Petakopadesa treatment of vitakka and vicara does not tally with how MN 117 treats the synonyms for vitakka-vicara.

Of course it does. Pls read the relevant section carefully. It employs the same mundane/supramundane analysis found in the Abhidhammapiṭaka.

Could you share your thoughts pls as to why the particular verb tenses used in MN 111 necessitate contemporaneity of the 2 verbs?

Reading the entire sutta in context we find that it explicitly states that one must emerge from the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception in order to employ insight regarding that attainment:

Furthermore, with the complete transcending of the dimension of nothingness, Sariputta entered & remained in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. He emerged mindfully from that attainment. On emerging mindfully from that attainment, he regarded the past qualities that had ceased & changed: 'So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.'

This qualification is neither stated nor implied with regard to the seven previous perception attainments (i.e. the four jhānas and the first three formless attainments). Ven. Ṭhānissaro comments on this section of the sutta as follows:

Notice that, with each of the previous levels of attainment, Sariputta was able to ferret out the various mental qualities arising there while he was still in the attainment. With this attainment and the following one, however, he was not able to analyze the mental qualities present and absent there until after he had left the attainment. The difference here is related to the point made in AN IX.36 that all the attainments up through the dimension of nothingness are "perception-attainments." And that, "As far as the perception-attainments go, that is as far as gnosis-penetration goes. As for these two dimensions — the attainment of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception & the attainment of the cessation of feeling & perception — I tell you that they are to be rightly explained by those monks who are meditators, skilled in attaining, skilled in attaining & emerging, who have attained & emerged in dependence on them."

This understanding also accords with the pan-Buddhist abhidharma interpretation that vipassanā can and should function in all seven perception attainments, but cannot function in the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception or the attainment of the cessation of perception and feeling.

All the best,

Geoff

[Sylvester]

Thank you Geoff.

Could you perhaps furnish the Dhammasangani passage which mentions vipassana within lokiya jhana?

Pls elaborate on the Petakopadesa and why you believe it is consistent with MN 117.

Let me mull over Ven Thanissaro's argument. I need to see if I still have a copy of Ven Dhammanando's critique of Ven Thanissaro's "gnosis penetration" from e-Sangha.

[Nyana]

Could you perhaps furnish the Dhammasangani passage which mentions vipassana within lokiya jhana?

We have to fill in the appropriate ellipses (here provided by U Kyaw Khine). Dhammasaṅgaṇī Cittuppādakaṇḍa (CSCD edition):

Rūpāvacarakusala

Catukkanayo

160. Katame dhammā kusalā? Yasmiṃ samaye rūpūpapattiyā maggaṃ bhāveti vivicceva kāmehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakkaṃ savicāraṃ vivekajaṃ pītisukhaṃ paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ [paṭhamajjhānaṃ (sī.)] upasampajja viharati pathavīkasiṇaṃ, tasmiṃ samaye phasso hoti … pe [complete this ellipse with the remainder of paragraph 1] … avikkhepo hoti … pe [complete this ellipse with the remainder of paragraphs 2 to 145] … ime dhammā kusalā.

The second ellipse includes paragraph 55:

55. Katamā tasmiṃ samaye vipassanā hoti? Yā tasmiṃ samaye paññā pajānanā vicayo pavicayo dhammavicayo sallakkhaṇā upalakkhaṇā paccupalakkhaṇā paṇḍiccaṃ kosallaṃ nepuññaṃ vebhabyā cintā upaparikkhā bhūrī medhā pariṇāyikā vipassanā sampajaññaṃ patodo paññā paññindriyaṃ paññābalaṃ paññāsatthaṃ paññāpāsādo paññāāloko paññāobhāso paññāpajjoto paññāratanaṃ amoho dhammavicayo sammādiṭṭhi – ayaṃ tasmiṃ samaye vipassanā hoti.

Pls elaborate on the Petakopadesa and why you believe it is consistent with MN 117.

MN 117:

And what is the right resolve that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? Being resolved on renunciation, on freedom from ill will, on harmlessness. This is the right resolve that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions.

This passage includes what is classified as rūpāvacarajjhāna in the Abhidhammapiṭaka. A number of academics and translators have noted that MN 117 has ābhidhammika type additions not found in the Āgama version of this discourse.

However, the Peṭakopadesa is actually closer to the treatment of the four jhānas found throughout the suttas than what is found in MN 117 or the Pāḷi Abhidhammapiṭaka.

Moreover, the Peṭakopadesa word commentary on the jhāna factors of all four jhānas is in close agreement with not only the Pāḷi suttas, but also the main non-Pāḷi Abhidharma texts, i.e. the Sarvāstivāda *Mahāvibhāṣā (Apidamo dapiposha lun), the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa (Dazhi du lun), the *Prakaraṇāryavācaśāstra (Xianyang shengjiao lun), and the Yogācārabhūmiśāstra. Thus, parts of the Peṭakopadesa may preserve very early, possibly even pre-sectarian commentarial material.

All the best,

Geoff

[nathan]

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

[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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

I'm not too keen on exploring what the Abhidhamikas from the various schools have to say.

That's fine.

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.

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