The Great Jhana Debate

[Sylvester]

On MN 43 and AN 9.37

You suggest that –

“Moreover, M i 293 and A iv 426 both explicitly state that it is only when abiding in the fully purified formless attainments that the mind is isolated from the five sense faculties and doesn’t attend to any apperceptions of the five sensory spheres.”

“With regard to the formless attainments, since MN 43 states that it is with the attainment of the fully purified formless apperception attainments that the mind is isolated from the five sense faculties ... we can deduce from this that with entrance into the formless attainments bodily equanimity (kāya upekkhā) is no longer experienced, and what remains is mental equanimity (cetasika upekkhā).”

I do not think the Mahavedalla Sutta says that.

It simply says that “with the purified mental-consciousness isolated from the five faculties the sphere of infinite space can be known as ‘infinite space.” Logically, this works out to “If Infinite Space is attained, then the consciousness is isolated from the 5 faculties.”

But for your phrasing to work, the typical “If A, then B” proposition would have to be re-expressed as “If not-A, then not-B”. I think this is called the fallacy of denying the antecedent.

You might argue that the logical structure of MN 43 works out to “If the consciousness is isolated from the 5 faculties, then Infinite Space is attained”, and apply modus tollens to prove that no Arupa implies no isolation from the 5 faculties, but the premise itself would be proven false by the handicapped who cannot attain the Arupa states.

I’m afraid I can’t agree with your reading of AN 9.37. While Ven Ananda cites the 3 Arupa Attainment as examples of the phenomena “where the eye will be, and forms, and yet one will not be sensitive to that dimension”, there is nothing in there to suggest that these 3 Attainments exhaust the field of the general proposition made by Ven Ananda regarding insensitivity to “that” dimension. The first paragraph was a general axiom, followed by 3 examples but no suggestion that the 3 were exhaustive.

[Sylvester]

About the Uppapatika Sutta’s schema

Thanks for sharing your reading of the Uppapatika Sutta.

But I cannot help but wonder why we need to insist on reading “kayika” in the pleasure, pain and equanimity faculties as “bodily” (as in the physical body). As I suggested earlier, the Salayatanavibangha Sutta, MN 137 has given very clear examples of mental kayika feelings, which represent the first dart of the Salla Sutta. This allows us to read the pleasure, pain and bodily equanimity faculties as being the first dart, while the joy, displeasure and cetasika equanimity faculty as the 2nd dart.

If this is a reasonable reading, then the implications are (borrowing from your summary)–

1. 1st jhāna:

the 1st dart - the pain faculty (dukkhindriya) that is any physical and mental pain, physical and mental discomfort born of contact at any of the 6 senses to be experienced as pain and discomfort ceases without remainder. “Cessation without remainder” does not necessarily imply that all of the 6 “painful” contacts ceased simultaneously and concurrently in 1st Jhana. Eye-contact would surely have ceased much earlier, unless one were fiddling around with a kasina;

2. 2nd jhāna:

the 2nd dart - the unhappiness faculty (domanassindriya) that is any mental pain, mental discomfort born of mind-contact to be experienced as pain and discomfort ceases without remainder. What if this unhappiness faculty which persists in 1st Jhana is that residual response to the 1st dart triggered by recognition of the discontent, the inability to concentrate fully, the pitisukha not born of concentration, so that vitakka vicara has to move the mind to-&-from the object?

3. 3rd jhāna:

the 1st dart - the pleasure faculty (sukhindriya) which is any physical and mental pleasure, physical and mental comfort born of contact at any of the 6 senses to be experienced as pleasure and comfort ceases without remainder. Same analysis as for 1st Jhana. There is nothing implicit or necessary in the Uppapatika Sutta to demand that different bits of the pleasure faculty could not have ceased earlier. Does anyone keep their eyes open to get into 3rd Jhana? If I have to hazard a guess, it seems that the last vestiges of the pleasure faculty would be piti, which by a happy coincidence, is absent in 3rd Jhana.

4. 4th jhāna:

the 2nd dart – the happiness faculty (somanassindriya) which is any mental pleasure, mental comfort born of mind-contact to be experienced as pleasure and comfort ceases without remainder. This 2nd dart is probably upekkhāsukha- the response to the 1st dart of an upekkha feeling.

It's just an exercise to invite a less traditional exegesis of the concept of "kayika" and open ourselves to the possibilities suggested in MN 137 of mental kayika feelings.

[Nyana]

Hi Sylvester,

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

About kāmā

SN 47.6 (S v 146) differentiates between the kāmaguṇa-s and the four satipaṭṭhāna-s. It's worth remembering in this regard that the contemplation of the body satipaṭṭhāna includes objects of contemplation such as mindfulness of breathing, the foul parts of the body, and the stages of corpse decomposition. In light of this differentiation, the body, the tactile sensations associated with the breath, the 32 parts of the body, and the stages of corpse decomposition are not considered to be “strings of sensuality.” SN 47.6:

• [Y]ou should not wander into what is not your proper range and is the territory of others. In one who wanders into what is not his proper range and is the territory of others, Mara gains an opening, Mara gains a foothold. And what, for a monk, is not his proper range and is the territory of others? The five strands of sensuality. Which five? Forms cognizable by the eye — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. Sounds cognizable by the ear... Aromas cognizable by the nose... Flavors cognizable by the tongue... Tactile sensations cognizable by the body — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. These, for a monk, are not his proper range and are the territory of others.
  
  Wander, monks, in what is your proper range, your own ancestral territory. In one who wanders in what is his proper range, his own ancestral territory, Mara gains no opening, Mara gains no foothold. And what, for a monk, is his proper range, his own ancestral territory? The four frames of reference. Which four? There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves... mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. This, for a monk, is his proper range, his own ancestral territory.

Surely you wouldn’t suggest that one must be isolated from the five sensory spheres in order to engage in kāyānupassanā?

So it does not make any sense to me to speak of a pleasant or attractive guna as if a guna could be limited by an adjective; only the response will reveal itself to be such or otherwise.

This falls in neatly with the Vipallasa Sutta, AN 4.49 which identifies as a vipallasa the identification of something “not attractive” (asubha) as being “attractive” (subha). Without any objective “attractiveness” to speak of, an observer will still add on the perception of “attractiveness” to the kamaguna.

What constitutes a kāmaguṇa is subjective, based on the apperception of the observer.

Which leads to the question – are there neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant feelings connected to the kamagunas in Jhana? I would suggest that those who assert suffusing the “body” (as in the physical body) with the bliss and pleasure of Jhana would have to overcome the Mahaniddana Sutta’s allowance for only one type of feeling at a time. You can’t assert neutral “bodily” feelings concurrently with “bodily” bliss and pleasure.

You’re missing the distinction between carnal and non-carnal rapture and pleasure (sāmisā pīti & sukha vs. nirāmisā pīti & sukha) [SN 36.31]. And in case you’re going to suggest that non-carnal rapture and pleasure cannot be experienced via the five sense spheres, I’ll refer you to the DN 22 commentary.

I think it is more plausible to read the rupasanna, patighasanna and nanattasanna as conceptions or ideas of anything that has to do with materiality, rather than apperception of form etc. Rupa, patigha and nanatta all involve rupa and its interaction with the indriyas, which in itself the “thing” that defines and delimits space. “Infinite space” as a conceptual category would be untouched by anything, including conceptions, pertaining to form.

AN 9.42: apperception of form (rūpasaññā) is present in the fourth jhāna. I see no good reason to interpret this as “conceptions” of form or “memories” of form, etc. Any such adventitious conceptions and memories that do not pertain to what is being immediately experienced in the fourth jhāna would be an obstacle to the highly refined samādhi of this jhāna.

I’m afraid I can’t agree with your reading of AN 9.37. While Ven Ananda cites the 3 Arupa Attainment as examples of the phenomena “where the eye will be, and forms, and yet one will not be sensitive to that dimension”, there is nothing in there to suggest that these 3 Attainments exhaust the field of the general proposition made by Ven Ananda regarding insensitivity to “that” dimension. The first paragraph was a general axiom, followed by 3 examples but no suggestion that the 3 were exhaustive.

Actually Ven. Ānanda gives four meditative states: the three formless apperception attainments and aññāphala samādhi. Given the importance of the four jhāna-s to the integral eightfold path of the sutta-s, if the jhāna-s were definable in such terms, then this sutta would have included them.

But I cannot help but wonder why we need to insist on reading “kayika” in the pleasure, pain and equanimity faculties as “bodily” (as in the physical body).

Because SN 48.37 expressly differentiates between kāyika/cetasika and kāyosamphassa/manosamphassa with regard to the feeling faculties.

All the best,

Geoff

[Yundi]

But it does not necessarily follow that phassa based on form needs to remain in a Rupa Jhana, even if form was the mode of entry.

Agree. But there is more than just the mode of entry.

There is a relationship with form because rapture & happiness occur due to the tranquilising or liberating of form. Form is tranquilised & liberated from sankharas to the point where, simultaneously, form cannot be cognised due to it tranqulility & due to the predominance of the factors of jhana. When the factors of jhana themselves tranquilise, form returns in the 3rd jhana to be completely tranqulised in the fourth jhana.

The jhanas have a relationship with form but are not dependent on cognition of forum. In fact, it is the very opposite. Jhana occurs when the mind is liberated from form (in varying degrees).

The suttas themselves have refutted Nana.

Nana vs Ajahn Brahm. Personally, the choice is easy.

[Kenshou]

Kayagatasati sutta:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Furthermore, quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, he enters & remains in the first jhana...

...This is how a monk develops mindfulness immersed in the body.

And furthermore, with the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters & remains in the second jhana...

... This is how a monk develops mindfulness immersed in the body.

And furthermore, with the fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body...

...This is how a monk develops mindfulness immersed in the body.

"And furthermore, with the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — he enters & remains in the fourth jhana...

...This is how a monk develops mindfulness immersed in the body.

This sutta starts off on the topic of the typical physical body, and I see nothing to suggest that this topic changes to any other kind of metaphorical body as the subject switches to jhana.

When the factors of jhana themselves tranquilise, form returns in the 3rd jhana to be completely tranqulised in the fourth jhana.

I have never heard this anywhere. Can you give a source?

Nana vs Ajahn Brahm. Personally, the choice is easy.

Are you aware that not every Thai Forest teacher shares Brahm's view? His opinion is not of any heavier weight than any other teacher's.

[Yundi]

It simply says that “with the purified mental-consciousness isolated from the five faculties the sphere of infinite space can be known as ‘infinite space.”

But for your phrasing to work, the typical “If A, then B” proposition would have to be re-expressed as “If not-A, then not-B”. I think this is called the fallacy of denying the antecedent.

You might argue that the logical structure of MN 43 works out to “If the consciousness is isolated from the 5 faculties, then Infinite Space is attained”, and apply modus tollens to prove that no Arupa implies no isolation from the 5 faculties, but the premise itself would be proven false by the handicapped who cannot attain the Arupa states.

Indeed. Well spoken again.

Also, MN 43 states "the purified mental-consciousness". Consciousness in the 1st & 2nd jhanas is not purifed mental consciousness because it is tainted by rapture & happiness. But the experience in the 1st & 2nd jhanas is still only of mental objects cognised by the mind-consciousness sense base.

What I find amusing is all of this study of suttas so one can declare to themselves "I have attained jhana" despite not going beyond kayanupassana.

The Buddha declared in SN 48.9 right concentration has a sole object, namely, relinquishment.

Sorry - but no relinquishment of "I" means no cigar, no $200, no passing "Go".

With metta

[Yundi]

I have never heard this anywhere. Can you give a source?

Having attained the fourth absorption, inhalation and exhalation have ceased.

Rahogata Sutta

[Yundi]

Are you aware that not every Thai Forest teacher shares Brahm's view? His opinion is not of any heavier weight than any other teacher's.

Are you saying Nana (Geoff Shantz) is a Thai Forest teacher?

Ajahn Brahm's view accords with the experience of jhana. There is no awareness of the physical body in the 1st & 2nd jhana.

[Kenshou]

I'm afraid that you did not address my comment. The quote from you which I questioned was this:

When the factors of jhana themselves tranquilise, form returns in the 3rd jhana to be completely tranqulised in the fourth jhana.

It is this that I am questioning. Not the nature of the breath in the fourth jhana.

Are you saying Nana (Geoff Shantz) is a Thai Forest teacher?

Of course not. What I'm saying is, not every teacher shares Ajahn Brahm's view. Simple as that.

Also, how would you comment on the Kayagatasati sutta?

[Yundi]

It is this that I am questioning.

Only the 3rd jhana is described as 'sensing pleasure with the body'.

"Then there is the case where a monk, with the fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.'

Pañcala Sutta

[Kenshou]

The "body" is mentioned in the other 3 jhana formulas as well. I believe the term "kaya" is used in all 4 of these. If the "body" in those cases is indeed a "body of jhana factors" as you have said, upon what do you base the assertion that the body of the 3rd jhana is not a body of jhana factors, but the physical body?

[Yundi]

Also, how would you comment on the Kayagatasati sutta?

Hi

I have never really studied this sutta. So the first question is what does 'kayagatasati' mean?

I am not knowledgable in Pali but the only relevent meaning (amongst many) I could find for 'gata' is 'directed to'.

It was already stated by Sylvester that mindfulness directed towards keeping the body in mind is the mode of entry into jhana.

I already said there is a relationship with the physical body because rapture & happiness occur due to the tranquilising of & liberating from the physical body.

I already said the jhanas have a relationship with the physical body but are not dependent on cognition of the physical body.

The word 'mindfulness' or 'sati' means 'recollection' or 'memory'. It does not mean 'awareness' in the sense of 'cognition' or 'knowing'.

I would say the translation 'mindfulness of the body' is creating a misperception; just as the translation 'mindfulness of breathing' creates a misperception.
In a practical sense 'kayagatasati' possibly means 'mindfulness directed at keeping the body in mind'.

So this mindfulness practise in maintained. I have no dispute with this & am, in fact, in full agreement.

But in the reality of practise, by maintaining mindfulness directed at awareness of the body, at a certain point, awareness or cognition of the body simply disappears due to the breathing in & out being calmed beyond the scope of cognition & due to bliss manifesting pervasively at the exclusive object of meditation.

When this occurs with complete clarity & stability & the jhana factors arise, this is the 1st jhana.

With metta

[Kenshou]

So you're saying that mindfulness of the body in reference to jhana as per the Kayagatasati sutta does not actually involve the experience of the body? I find this awkward. Why would you bother to remove the perception of something and then practice mindfulness on it?

But I realize that this is a necessary conclusion based on your idea of jhana, which I know that I'm not going to change. I happen to find Geoff's understanding to be the more sensible one, and you the opposing side. I think it's better to let them discuss this, since they're both rather more familiar with Pali.

At the very least, you ought to be able to admit that there is room for different interpretations, and that yours is not necessarily 100% correct, as you somewhat arrogantly imply. I admit this of my own views. If it were not so, there would not be the conflict that there is.

[Yundi]

If the "body" in those cases is indeed a "body of jhana factors" as you have said, upon what do you base the assertion that the body of the 3rd jhana is not a body of jhana factors, but the physical body?

The description of the 3rd jhana is the only place where this phrase it used.

But that kaya means 'the body or group of jhana factors', that is not my first choice. I prefered my first interpretation.

The physical body is indeed fully prevaded by rapture & happiness but the mind is not conscious of it because in the 1st jhana only the factors of jhana are the meditation objects.

With metta

[Yundi]

So you're saying that mindfulness of the body in reference to jhana as per the Kayagatasati sutta does not actually involve the experience of the body? I find this awkward. Why would you bother to remove the perception of something and then practice mindfulness on it?

You obviously did not either read or comprehend my post. Your phrase 'mindfulness on it' has no relevance to my post.

The method of practise does not change. This I already offerred in my post. Only the objects of meditation change.

Try to remember that the mind dwells within the physical body. The brain dwells within the physical body. When the mind is experiencing the factors of jhana, in the brain, it is still dwelling within the physical body.

The method of practise that brings the breath & body to mind does not change to the method of practise that brings the factors of jhana to mind.

But I realize that this is a necessary conclusion based on your idea of jhana, which I know that I'm not going to change. I happen to find Geoff's understanding to be the more sensible one, and you the opposing side. I think it's better to let them discuss this, since they're both rather more familiar with Pali.

I am unconcerned with your wishes (tanha).

At the very least, you ought to be able to admit that there is room for different interpretations, and that yours is not necessarily 100% correct, as you somewhat arrogantly imply. I admit this of my own views. If it were not so, there would not be the conflict that there is.

I would recommend you contribute to the discussion rather than behaving like a commentator (which you have done ever since my first post).

You recommendations are fully disregarded by me. I will continue to participate in this discussion & abide with 100% conviction in my views.

With metta