Then how can you be sure that when you're in jhāna it's purely mental?reflection wrote:But let's get back to the topic at hand. To answer your question:I don't. I think it is quite clear they are interconnected.DanieLion wrote:When the Buddha distinguished "mind" from other things (e.g., the other five senses) do you interpret this to mean he thought "mind" and other things (e.g., the body) are independent?
Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas
Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas
Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas
I don't see much practical difference between "sensuality" and "sensual pleasures".Sylvester wrote:The real issue to be posed to Ven T is why he chooses the singular noun "sensuality" to obscure the very clear Pali and Middle-Indic meaning conveyed by the plural kāmā. A lot of the translations floating out there, whether knowingly or unknowingly, use the Abhidhamma definition of kāmā, including Ven Nanamoli in his original translation of the MN. BB makes a global change of that to "sensual pleasures" in the MLDB, following a stricter philological approach.
Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas
What do you understand to be "sensuality" and "sensual pleasures"? Do you have any specific sutta in mind?danieLion wrote:I don't see much practical difference between "sensuality" and "sensual pleasures".Sylvester wrote:The real issue to be posed to Ven T is why he chooses the singular noun "sensuality" to obscure the very clear Pali and Middle-Indic meaning conveyed by the plural kāmā. A lot of the translations floating out there, whether knowingly or unknowingly, use the Abhidhamma definition of kāmā, including Ven Nanamoli in his original translation of the MN. BB makes a global change of that to "sensual pleasures" in the MLDB, following a stricter philological approach.
- reflection
- Posts: 1116
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm
Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas
Thank you sylvester, for pointing this out. I will look into it in the future and may edit my post a bit to make this clearer.Sylvester wrote:Hi reflectionreflection wrote: Now there are two ways one can interpret sensuality (kama):
1. 5 senses (activity)
2. 5 sense (activity) desire
(See critical pali dictionary and elsewhere)
Actually, the CPD entry on kāma (singular) and kāmā (plural) makes the following points about their meanings in the different strata of the Canon.
In the Suttas and Vinaya, kāma (singular) refers to wish, desire, pleasure, while kāmā (plural) refers to the 5 sense objects of rūpa, sadda, gandha, rasa, phoṭṭhabba. CPD makes the contrast to the sutta definition of kāmaguṇa. You can find this distinction between kāmā and kāmaguṇa set out in several suttas (sorry, too lazy to pull them out from the old threads).
It is only in the Abhidhamma, starting with the Vibhanga, that the meaning of kāmā (plural) evolves into the set of "chando ~o rāgo ~o chanda-
rāgo ~o saṅkappo ~o saṅkapparāgo ~o". This unfortunate turn of course changed the meaning of the 1st Jhana's kāmā seclusion pericope, leaving poor Ven Buddhaghosa struggling to explain away the difference in the "eva" emphatic between the 2 seclusion pericopes.
The real issue to be posed to Ven T is why he chooses the singular noun "sensuality" to obscure the very clear Pali and Middle-Indic meaning conveyed by the plural kāmā. A lot of the translations floating out there, whether knowingly or unknowingly, use the Abhidhamma definition of kāmā, including Ven Nanamoli in his original translation of the MN. BB makes a global change of that to "sensual pleasures" in the MLDB, following a stricter philological approach.
For now I think it's good enough, though. Because I think we can even use existing translations to see there is at least something there which could use another interpretation.
Last edited by reflection on Wed Aug 22, 2012 8:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
- reflection
- Posts: 1116
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm
Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas
How do you know water is wet?danieLion wrote:Then how can you be sure that when you're in jhāna it's purely mental?reflection wrote:But let's get back to the topic at hand. To answer your question:I don't. I think it is quite clear they are interconnected.DanieLion wrote:When the Buddha distinguished "mind" from other things (e.g., the other five senses) do you interpret this to mean he thought "mind" and other things (e.g., the body) are independent?
You know it through experiencing it. Somebody else can tell you everything about water, but they can never portray how its wetness feels. Even two people who have experienced water to be wet can't find the words to explain it 100% accurately. But at least they can agree on water not being solid.
To describe accurately what certain meditation experiences feel like is impossible, but those who experience such things can agree on that it was without the 5 senses. Since this happens before jhana already, also people who don't experience jhana may already agree.
Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas
Did you not mean all the suttas when you said "global"?Sylvester wrote:What do you understand to be "sensuality" and "sensual pleasures"? Do you have any specific sutta in mind?danieLion wrote:I don't see much practical difference between "sensuality" and "sensual pleasures".Sylvester wrote:The real issue to be posed to Ven T is why he chooses the singular noun "sensuality" to obscure the very clear Pali and Middle-Indic meaning conveyed by the plural kāmā. A lot of the translations floating out there, whether knowingly or unknowingly, use the Abhidhamma definition of kāmā, including Ven Nanamoli in his original translation of the MN. BB makes a global change of that to "sensual pleasures" in the MLDB, following a stricter philological approach.
Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas
Really? Would Brahm or Sujato agree?reflection wrote:To describe accurately what certain meditation experiences feel like is impossible....
Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas
HidanieLion wrote: Did you not mean all the suttas when you said "global"?
I'm not sure I understand. I was referring to BB's work in revising Ven Nanamoli's translation of the MN only. Does that help?
- reflection
- Posts: 1116
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm
Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas
Ask them.danieLion wrote:Really? Would Brahm or Sujato agree?reflection wrote:To describe accurately what certain meditation experiences feel like is impossible....
But I think it's quite obvious experiences can never accurately be described in words, it doesn't even have to be a meditation experience. I think the Buddha did quite well, though.
Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas
Yes, that does help. Thanks. I should've said "in all the MN suttas where kāma and kāmā appear" too. My bad.Sylvester wrote:HidanieLion wrote: Did you not mean all the suttas when you said "global"?
I'm not sure I understand. I was referring to BB's work in revising Ven Nanamoli's translation of the MN only. Does that help?
Last edited by danieLion on Thu Aug 23, 2012 12:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas
I hope to get the chance some day.reflection wrote:Ask them.danieLion wrote:Really? Would Brahm or Sujato agree?reflection wrote:To describe accurately what certain meditation experiences feel like is impossible....
But I think it's quite obvious experiences can never accurately be described in words, it doesn't even have to be a meditation experience. I think the Buddha did quite well, though.
I should've just said what I was thinking and that's that Reverend Brahm goes into great detail describing his meditation experiences. Brahm's got the "beautifal breath", the "wobbles" and all the pretty light he's so fond of, etc....
In general, I agree. These experiences are ineffable. Yet, Brahm talks and writes like they're effable (or at least effable enough for him to teach from).
Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas
At MN 19.26/i 118 (Dvedhāvitakkasuttaṃ) both have it as "sensual pleasures" from kāmānametaṃ.Sylvester wrote:
The real issue to be posed to Ven T is why he chooses the singular noun "sensuality" to obscure the very clear Pali and Middle-Indic meaning conveyed by the plural kāmā. A lot of the translations floating out there, whether knowingly or unknowingly, use the Abhidhamma definition of kāmā, including Ven Nanamoli in his original translation of the MN. BB makes a global change of that to "sensual pleasures" in the MLDB, following a stricter philological approach.
Again, at MN 22.9/i 133 (Alagaddūpamasuttaṃ), look at the way they both translate this passage:
So vata bhikkhave aññatreva kāmehi aññatra kāmasaññāya aññatra kāmavitakkehi kāme paṭisevissatīti netaṃ ṭhānaṃ vijjati.
BB: "Bhikkhus, that one can engage in sensual pleasures without sensual desires, without perceptions of sensual desires, without thoughts of sensual desire--that is impossible."
TB: "For a person to indulge in sensual pleasures without sensual passion, without sensual perception, without sensual thinking: That isn't possible."
Looking at: MN 13.7/i 86 & ff. (Mahādukkhakkhandha suttaṃ); MN 26.31/i 174 & ff. (Ariyapariyesanasuttaṃ); MN 54.15/i 364 & ff. (Potaliya suttaṃ); MN 66.16/i 454 & ff. (Laṭukikopama suttaṃ); MN 75.13 & ff. (Māgandiya suttaṃ); MN 105.7/ii 254 & ff; (Sunakkhatta suttaṃ); MN 106.3/ii 261 & ff. (Āneñjasappāya suttaṃ); and MN 122.14/iii 114 & ff. (Mahāsuññata suttaṃ)--in the broader contexts of these passages, TB's uses of the term "sensuality," while syntactically singular in English, are clearly plural denotations/connotations.
The only sutta in the MN where I could find TB being ambiguous on this is at MN 45.3/i 305 & ff (Cūḷadhammasamādāna suttaṃ). But in the context of the above, it is again clear he's not suggesting singularity. Which makes me wonder why BB opted for a global approach? I don't know how many times I've heard him respond to questions with comments like, "We have to interpret this in light of all the suttas."
OR, as I originally stated, there's not much practical difference among BB's & TB's variations. Now, I would add, IF THERE IS A PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE IT'S TOO NEGLIGIBLE TO BE RELEVANT IN ANY PRAGMATIC SENSE.
Also, what exactly do you mean by translations "floating around out there"? Are you alluding to the nature of the differences among translators or to the way they exchange among each other? The way you put it makes it sound like they're at war.
They're not. In other words, this can't be, as you say, "the real issue to pose to Ven B".
Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas
Thanks dL for some really interesting quotes.
I think it should be apparent that my grouse with Ven T's use of "sensuality" is in the 1st Jhana's kāmā seclusion pericopes. Good that you can see that "sensuality" connotes a plural, although there may not be others who are as sensitive to the term as you are.Looking at: MN 13.7/i 86 & ff. (Mahādukkhakkhandha suttaṃ); MN 26.31/i 174 & ff. (Ariyapariyesanasuttaṃ); MN 54.15/i 364 & ff. (Potaliya suttaṃ); MN 66.16/i 454 & ff. (Laṭukikopama suttaṃ); MN 75.13 & ff. (Māgandiya suttaṃ); MN 105.7/ii 254 & ff; (Sunakkhatta suttaṃ); MN 106.3/ii 261 & ff. (Āneñjasappāya suttaṃ); and MN 122.14/iii 114 & ff. (Mahāsuññata suttaṃ)--in the broader contexts of these passages, TB's uses of the term "sensuality," while syntactically singular in English, are clearly plural denotations/connotations.
I'm still curious what exactly you understand to be kāmā in the seclusion pericope. It's not apparent from the passages you cite how exactly you view kāmā. Would you mind stating what you think kāmā in the seclusion formula means?OR, as I originally stated, there's not much practical difference among BB's & TB's variations. Now, I would add, IF THERE IS A PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE IT'S TOO NEGLIGIBLE TO BE RELEVANT IN ANY PRAGMATIC SENSE.
I'm alluding to the former.Also, what exactly do you mean by translations "floating around out there"? Are you alluding to the nature of the differences among translators or to the way they exchange among each other? The way you put it makes it sound like they're at war.
Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas
Why "still"? This is the first indication you've made.Sylvester wrote:I'm still curious...
I could be persuaded to indulge you that, but first you have to admit your trying to change the subject.Sylvester wrote:...what exactly you understand to be kāmā in the seclusion pericope.... Would you mind stating what you think kāmā in the seclusion formula means?
Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas
Hi dL
That's odd. I thought I had previous asked -danieLion wrote:Why "still"? This is the first indication you've made.Sylvester wrote:I'm still curious...
In case I was unclear then, the "sensuality" and "sensual pleasures" abovementioned are the translations of kāmā in the kāmā seclusion pericope. But I think it was quite obvious to you what I referring to since you had earlier said -What do you understand to be "sensuality" and "sensual pleasures"? Do you have any specific sutta in mind?
I hope that clarifies.I don't see much practical difference between "sensuality" and "sensual pleasures".Sylvester wrote:
The real issue to be posed to Ven T is why he chooses the singular noun "sensuality" to obscure the very clear Pali and Middle-Indic meaning conveyed by the plural kāmā. A lot of the translations floating out there, whether knowingly or unknowingly, use the Abhidhamma definition of kāmā, including Ven Nanamoli in his original translation of the MN. BB makes a global change of that to "sensual pleasures" in the MLDB, following a stricter philological approach.
I thought the subject was whether or not the physical body could be felt in Jhana, or whether that physical body could contact/phusati the vivekaja pītisukha (rapture and pleasure born of seclusion). The external āyatana of the physical body is phoṭṭhabba, itself one of the kāmā. I don't think I've strayed from the range of the issue, so it would be quite nice of you to indulge my query. Thank you.I could be persuaded to indulge you that, but first you have to admit your trying to change the subject.Sylvester wrote:...what exactly you understand to be kāmā in the seclusion pericope.... Would you mind stating what you think kāmā in the seclusion formula means?