Sylvester wrote: Since I do not hold that kāyānupassanā (as the 1st satipatthana) is done whilst in Jhana
Hi Sylvester,
Surely body contact can be present during the engagement in any of the four satipaṭṭhāna-s? And while engaging in the satipaṭṭhāna-s there can be concomitant sukha. What about at the pre-jhāna stage of sammāsati, if when engaging in kāyānupassanā or the other three satipaṭṭhāna-s the five hindrances have been abandoned, but the five jhāna factors aren’t fully present? If one has developed renunciation and the hindrances have been abandoned is this concomitant pleasure still sāmisa sukha?
Sylvester wrote:There is nothing in MN 10 to suggest that during kāyānupassanā ānāpānapabba there is niramisa piti or niramisa sukha.
There is nothing to suggest that there is sāmisa pīti or sukha either. It’s my understanding of MN 118 as well as the Paṭisambhidāmagga Ānāpānassatikathā that one doesn’t necessarily need to enter jhāna in order to practice vedanānupassanā. For example, with regard to sukhapaṭisaṃvedī the Ānāpānassatikathā states:
- Pleasure (sukha): there are two kinds of pleasure: bodily pleasure and mental pleasure.
What is bodily pleasure?
Any bodily well-being, bodily pleasure, well-being and pleasure born of body contact, welcome satisfactory feeling born of body contact, is bodily pleasure.
What is mental pleasure?
Any mental well-being, mental pleasure, well-being and pleasure born of mental contact, welcomed pleasant feeling born of mental contact, is mental pleasure.
How is he acquainted with that pleasure?
When he understands unification of mind and non-distraction through long in-breaths his mindfulness is founded. By means of that mindfulness and that knowledge he is acquainted with that pleasure. When he understands unification of mind and non-distraction through long out-breaths ... through short in-breaths ... through short out-breaths, through in-breaths while acquainted with the whole body, through out-breaths while acquainted with the whole body ... through in-breaths calming the body formation ... through out-breaths calming the body fabrication ... through in-breaths while acquainted with pīti ... through out-breaths while acquainted with pīti, his mindfulness is founded. By means of that mindfulness and that knowledge he is acquainted with that pleasure.
And so if one is practicing sukhapaṭisaṃvedī vedanānupassanā and has abandoned the five hindrances but has not entered jhāna, why would the presence of pīti and sukha necessarily be sāmisa pīti and sukha?
Sylvester wrote:why should the presence of samisa piti, samisa sukha in kāyānupassanā be relevant or objectionable?
Well, as we have already seen, according to SN 47.6 one is instructed to not wander into the range of the kāmaguṇa-s (and by extension sāmisa sukha), but to instead remain in the proper range of the four satipaṭṭhāna-s:
- [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.
Sylvester wrote:I am of the view that apperception of wilderness is nothing more than the 1st satipatthana.... So, the absence of niramisa piti and niramisa sukha here will not conflict with the presence of samisa pitisukha in this sanna.
If sāmisa sukha is present is it accurate or advisable to suggest that the practitioner’s “mind takes pleasure, finds satisfaction, settles, & indulges in its perception of wilderness” (araññasaññāya cittaṃ pakkhandati pasīdati santiṭṭhati adhimuccati)? Especially in light of the above injunction from SN 47.6, and also MN 66 which informs us that any sukha and somanassa that arises dependent upon the kāmaguṇa-s is not to be cultivated or developed, rather it is to be feared:
- Now, any pleasure & happiness that arises dependent on these five strings of sensuality is called sensual pleasure, a filthy pleasure, a run-of-the-mill pleasure, an ignoble pleasure. And of this pleasure I say that it is not to be cultivated, not to be developed, not to be pursued, that it is to be feared.
And also SN 35.115:
- There are forms, monks, cognizable via the eye — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. If a monk relishes them, welcomes them, & remains fastened to them, he is said to be a monk fettered to forms cognizable by the eye. He has gone over to Mara's camp; he has come under Mara's power. The Evil One can do with him as he wills.
Now, there are forms cognizable via the eye — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. If a monk does not relish them, welcome them, or remain fastened to them, he is said to be a monk freed from forms cognizable by the eye. He has not gone over to Mara's camp; he has not come under Mara's power. The Evil One cannot do with him as he wills.
I’m wondering why you find in necessary to maintain that all visible forms, sounds, odors, flavors, and tactual objects are kāmaguṇa-s? Given that SN 3.12 tells us that:
- Those same forms... sounds... odors... flavors... tactual objects that are agreeable to one person, great king, are disagreeable to another.
Is there something intrinsic to all visible forms, sounds, odors, flavors, and tactual objects which binds the mind? In your view, what is it about all visible forms, sounds, odors, flavors, and tactual objects that is “agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing” and therefore requires all of them to be kāmaguṇa-s?
All the best,
Geoff