The Great Jhana Debate

Discussion of Samatha bhavana and Jhana bhavana.

Re: Tha jhana debate

Postby rowyourboat » Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:11 am

daverupa wrote:
rowyourboat wrote:Kama refers to those sense objects, from the five senses, that are enticing. The breath and one's own body is not.


""Whatever exists therein {in jhana 1-4} of material form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease..."


Hi Daverupa

Ultimately, nothing is enticing - when something is enticing it is only because of delusion, craving. It is important to not compare more mundane statements (stimuli from the opposite sex being alluring would be a good example) by the Buddha, with Ultmate truth statements (anicca, dukkha, anatta) of all phenomena. But then you know that already.. :jawdrop:
With Metta

Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
rowyourboat
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Tha jhana debate

Postby Freawaru » Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:34 am

Hi Reflection,

reflection wrote:Hi Frea!

Thanks for your explanation. I think you mean what I call 'acting' and 'seeing'. Or 'doing' and 'knowing'.


Yes, this fits, too.

But the odd thing is that with development of sati during it another acting and seeing, doing and knowing arises, this one based on sati. Based on awareness. This is why I think the rider-horse analogy is quite good. There are two minds, one of the horse and one of the rider, and they can work in harmony and independently of each other.

In the brain no 'main center' is found, so no real rider. Processes happen in parallel. Of course this corresponds with the Buddhist view of no self. So YEEYH for Buddhism :toast:


I don't think that no-self can really be known during jhana, at least not without vipassana. Jhana hints at it, also because of this shift of the object of clinging away from the personality, but it cannot be seen directly without vipassana.

Yes, I think so. But absorbed in a book or debate is totally different from a mental absorption. Not comparable. Absorption in meditation is unlike anything else experienced. As I've said before there are no senses active so you can't even read a book or hear a debate. ;) In Jhana the mind looks at itself with the doing part inactive. The will (the doing) is so still it can not do anything, so you can't come out by will. This is why it is called absorption.


I suspect that you refer to absorption into formless objects. They are quite an experience! But I am sure that even in the formless absorptions one can develop sati and volition based on it. But before this will happen one experiences the formless states without awareness and volition - at least I did. I suspect that the first time I did not even remember afterwards - memory was likely not "downloaded" into the memory storage of the personality (that is rather limited after all). Memory might be related to sati, but I am not yet sure here.

For a bit more of a description on how it is totally unlike reading a book ;) , see for example this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1oK4Vt_ntY


Thank you. I will watch it and maybe comment on it then.
Freawaru
 
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:26 pm

Re: Tha jhana debate

Postby tiltbillings » Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:43 am

Sylvester and Geoff ,

While I find your squabbling somwhat entertaining, albeit unintentionally so, and while I find your postings of interest, the squabbling is really rather petty and detracts from what is being said and is a distraction to the flow of the thread in general. Probably best for both of you to refrain altogether from such exchanges in this thread.

tilt
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19382
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The Great Jhana Debate

Postby Sylvester » Thu Jun 02, 2011 9:09 am

Aye, aye sir. :embarassed:
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1503
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Tha jhana debate

Postby Alex123 » Thu Jun 02, 2011 3:04 pm

Sylvester wrote:
Actually, that's not what AN 6.63 and suttas such as MN 13 say. The kāmā are the 5 sense objects, while the kāmaguṇā (kāmā that produce pleasant vedana) is a sub-set of the kāmā. AN 6.63 is strict in injuncting us not to confuse the 2. Maybe the Buddha gave that admonition after hearing a similar dispute in a group of monks... :rofl:


So the Arahant or the Buddha, who is totally freed from kāmā, cannot see or hear anything? Also do you really think that arahants do not know what sensuality, lust, etc is? They do know what they are, but they are simply not attached to it and cannot be interested. They are like adults who talk about children playing in the sandbox without getting excited themselves.

If the only way of escape (nissaraṇa) from something was "don't see, don't hear, don't know it" (similar to those ascetics who enter this mindless state and are still reborn as asaññasatta), then one would have to drop dead as a log. The piece in this kind of state is dependent on there not being 5 sense consciousness, and in such way, it is still conditioned. What, IMHO, is more reliable is to develop the peace even if there are 5 sense consciousness. When one is in the state where one cannot see, hear, form thoughts, comprehend what is happening, etc, one can't really do any insight.

We all (or most of us) fall into deep sleep every night. That doesn't make us awakened and neither does it by itself brings us closer to it. Many of us do not need new special comatose states to know that 5 senses are a burden (though craving is a bigger burden and ultimately causes acquisition of more senses through rebirth).


True escape in this life is to eliminate all craving and other defiled emotions that come from craving. So escape from 5 senses does NOT mean that one becomes a log of wood, one is merely not reacting to it with craving/aversion/delusion.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2844
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Tha jhana debate

Postby daverupa » Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:13 pm

Comments below:

Sylvester wrote:It's the same old "present tense" problem. What is indicated by the "sees" is given by the standard vipassana proxy "samanupassati"; it does not mean eye-sight.


The Sutta I mentioned, however, did not say one sees with the eye. "I see what you're saying" <-- this is a similar use of the word, yes? Nevertheless, the Sutta said that, in 1-4 jhana, whatever exists of material form was to be seen with wisdom. Focusing on "see" is a red herring, because the point is that there is instruction on material form for rupa jhana, and not for arupa jhana.

Sylvester wrote:Firstly, none of the present tense verbs in this passage can be read to necessarily infer contemporaneity with the "viharati" verb that marked Jhana.


Viharati = enters and dwells in, or maybe abiding? Well, the word "therein" in the Sutta seems to claim what you are denying. Whatever material form therein, not whatever material form afterwards.

Sylvester wrote:Secondly, three of the subsequent present tense verbs samanupassati, paṭivāpeti and upasaṃharati all require vitakka-vicara, which is certainly present in 1st Jhana, but absent in 2nd Jhana upwards. These verbs cannot be describing actions that are happening whilst in the Jhana.


Require vitakka-vicara? Where is this stated elsewhere?

Sylvester wrote:So, no need to worry about MN 64 being inconsistent with the rest of the Canon. The inconsistency only appears when a reader's English grammar is forced onto the Pali, and when one forgets that there is no anupassati without dhammavicaya.


The thing is, as far as I can tell it isn't inconsistent with the SuttaVinaya, but it is inconsistent with the Canon. That means it's inconsistent with resources I don't consider valid, so no problem thus far...
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 4123
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Tha jhana debate

Postby Nyana » Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:07 am

Alex123 wrote:There can be temporary seeing without kāma for a person who has suppressed kāma.

Yes, you are quite correct. AN 4.12 informs us that singleness of mind can be maintained and the five hindrances suppressed while walking, standing, sitting, or reclining.

All the best,

Geoff
Nyana
 
Posts: 2227
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Tha jhana debate

Postby daverupa » Fri Jun 03, 2011 1:20 am

Ñāṇa wrote:
Alex123 wrote:There can be temporary seeing without kāma for a person who has suppressed kāma.

Yes, you are quite correct. AN 4.12 informs us that singleness of mind can be maintained and the five hindrances suppressed while walking, standing, sitting, or reclining.

All the best,

Geoff


The Budhabayana-sutra (which only exists in Ghandari), in connection with this, mentions that good action is difficult to do in any posture, and that even on account of the Dhamma it is only easy by a wise person, not a fool.
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 4123
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Tha jhana debate

Postby Nyana » Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:28 am

daverupa wrote:The Budhabayana-sutra (which only exists in Ghandari), in connection with this, mentions that good action is difficult to do in any posture, and that even on account of the Dhamma it is only easy by a wise person, not a fool.

Of course. Abandoning the hindrances requires the maintenance of ethical conduct and the development of sense restraint and other skillful qualities.

All the best,

Geoff
Nyana
 
Posts: 2227
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Tha jhana debate

Postby Sylvester » Fri Jun 03, 2011 4:58 am

Alex123 wrote:So the Arahant or the Buddha, who is totally freed from kāmā, cannot see or hear anything? Also do you really think that arahants do not know what sensuality, lust, etc is?


Hmm, I think you're still confusing kāmā (sense objects) with kāma (sensual desire). While an Arahant is bereft of kāma, the Arahant will phusati/contact kāmā, except in those attainments which are secluded from the kāmā (vivicceva kamehi).

To get a more direct sense of kāmā, check out MN 75. I would suggest you use BB's translation, as the translation on ATI is only an extract which omits this critical distinction. For those who insist that the "kāmā" in the "vivicceva kamehi" formula means ONLY "kāmagunā", consider what the Buddha says about kāmā and kāmagunā here -

Taṃ kiṃ maññasi, māgaṇḍiya, api nu so devaputto nandane vane accharāsaṅghaparivuto dibbehi pañcahi kāmaguṇehi samappito samaṅgībhūto paricārayamāno amussa gahapatissa vā gahapatiputtassa vā piheyya, mānusakānaṃ vā pañcannaṃ kāmaguṇānaṃ mānusakehi vā kāmehi āvaṭṭeyyā”ti?


I wonder why this bit was left out from the ATI translation?

I'll track to track down that MN sutta, where the Buddha was in fact asked if enlightment meant that an Arahant cannot enjoy the kāmā. Oddly enough, the Buddha did not give a categorical answer, but said that an Arahant is incapable of 5 things in respect of the kāmā, eg sex, squirelling away food.


If the only way of escape (nissaraṇa) from something was "don't see, don't hear, don't know it" (similar to those ascetics who enter this mindless state and are still reborn as asaññasatta), then one would have to drop dead as a log.


No, it is not the only way. One starts with DN 2's sense restraint, and then progress onto the sense restraint accompanied with happiness (MN 151). Then one progresses to the MN 148, MN 152 and satipatthana instructions, not to relate to the kāmā but to simply relate to the feelings engendered by the kāmā. To me, anapanasati seems a natural progression from satipatthana, but even then, the contemplation of kāmā seems to be very limited, ie the experience of breath (most likely potthaba). Whether one likes it or not, the progressive cessation schema of DN 9, SN 36.11 and AN 9.31 are supposed to unfold in the Jhanas.

Don't you think it's a rather flimsy strawman to label meditation without cognition of the kāmā as "mindless"? DN 9 specifically says that in 1st Jhana, kāmasaññā ceases and is replaced by another saññā, namely the "perception of pitisukha born of seclusion". Can you cite any absorption teacher who teaches a Jhanic state that is without consciousness, without feeling or without perception?


The piece in this kind of state is dependent on there not being 5 sense consciousness, and in such way, it is still conditioned. What, IMHO, is more reliable is to develop the peace even if there are 5 sense consciousness. When one is in the state where one cannot see, hear, form thoughts, comprehend what is happening, etc, one can't really do any insight.


But do the suttas actually state that vipassana proceeds in a Jhana? That is a mistake that is easy to make, if one refers only to the English translations, without a sense of the Pali grammar. Just like those who read the iddhi sections following 4th Jhana as thinking that one could exercise the iddhis within the 4th Jhana. A quick check with the grammar on the effect of a past participle verb in a locative absolute construction would immediately tell you that the verbs associated with the 4th Jhana happened well in the past and not concurrently with the iddhis.


We all (or most of us) fall into deep sleep every night. That doesn't make us awakened and neither does it by itself brings us closer to it. Many of us do not need new special comatose states to know that 5 senses are a burden (though craving is a bigger burden and ultimately causes acquisition of more senses through rebirth).


Another non-sequitor. Which teacher has presented a model of Jhana that resembles sleep or a coma? All 4 of my teachers present Jhana as state of intense awareness, and the intensity is remembered after arising.
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1503
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Tha jhana debate

Postby Sylvester » Fri Jun 03, 2011 5:40 am

daverupa wrote:Comments below:

The Sutta I mentioned, however, did not say one sees with the eye. "I see what you're saying" <-- this is a similar use of the word, yes? Nevertheless, the Sutta said that, in 1-4 jhana, whatever exists of material form was to be seen with wisdom. Focusing on "see" is a red herring, because the point is that there is instruction on material form for rupa jhana, and not for arupa jhana.


Ahh, I see where you're coming from. But what sort of "material" rupa is in 1st Jhana?

Firstly, let's acknowledge that the adjective "material" is not in the Pali. But we can definitely follow the Namarupa definition (SN 12.2) and accept that "rupa" is the 4 dhatus and the "rupa" derived therefrom.

Would this be a worthwhile enquiry to find out what is actually meant by "rupa"? Does one take Hamilton's commentary that it is which constitutes "appearance", while Nama is that which allows the observer to conceive/conceptualise that Rupa? Or perhaps Ven Nanananda's commentary of Rupa as 'striking', in the context of patighasamphassa?

Bearing in mind that the dhatus are not little digitised atoms in the Western sense, but are merely designations for certain qualities (solidity, fluidity, heat, motion), what exactly is a rupa?


Viharati = enters and dwells in, or maybe abiding? Well, the word "therein" in the Sutta seems to claim what you are denying. Whatever material form therein, not whatever material form afterwards.


The point I was trying to make was that "viharati" occurs in the sentence preceding what you quoted; that sentence with "viharati" demarcates Jhana -

Idhānanda, bhikkhu upadhivivekā akusalānaṃ dhammānaṃ pahānā sabbaso kāyaduṭṭhullānaṃ paṭippassaddhiyā vivicceva kāmehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakkaṃ savicāraṃ vivekajaṃ pītisukhaṃ paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharati. So yadeva tattha hoti rūpagataṃ vedanāgataṃ saññāgataṃ saṅkhāragataṃ viññāṇagataṃ te dhamme aniccato dukkhato rogato gaṇḍato sallato aghato ābādhato parato palokato suññato anattato samanupassati. So tehi dhammehi cittaṃ paṭivāpeti ...


The "therein"/"tattha"/"in that place" is certainly referring to the states in 1st Jhana (referred to in the sentence preceding the vipassana sentence), but the issue was whether or not the "seeing" was taking place during Jhana, or post-Jhana.

Sylvester wrote:Secondly, three of the subsequent present tense verbs samanupassati, paṭivāpeti and upasaṃharati all require vitakka-vicara, which is certainly present in 1st Jhana, but absent in 2nd Jhana upwards. These verbs cannot be describing actions that are happening whilst in the Jhana.


Require vitakka-vicara? Where is this stated elsewhere?


Actually, the sutta itself says so, if you read the Pali. Let's take the verb "upasaṃharati". What is the meditator doing ?

So tehi dhammehi cittaṃ paṭivāpetvā amatāya dhātuyā cittaṃ upasaṃharati— ‘etaṃ santaṃ etaṃ paṇītaṃ yadidaṃ sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭinissaggo taṇhākkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānan’ti.


The moment you see the clitic "ti", the passage is reporting a thought. Can one think without "vitakka-vicara"?


The thing is, as far as I can tell it isn't inconsistent with the SuttaVinaya, but it is inconsistent with the Canon. That means it's inconsistent with resources I don't consider valid, so no problem thus far...


Not quite sure what you mean by the above. Might you care to elaborate?
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1503
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: The Great Jhana Debate

Postby rowyourboat » Fri Jun 03, 2011 10:24 am

Can someone translate this please:?


Taṃ kiṃ maññasi, māgaṇḍiya, api nu so devaputto nandane vane accharāsaṅghaparivuto dibbehi pañcahi kāmaguṇehi samappito samaṅgībhūto paricārayamāno amussa gahapatissa vā gahapatiputtassa vā piheyya, mānusakānaṃ vā pañcannaṃ kāmaguṇānaṃ mānusakehi vā kāmehi āvaṭṭeyyā”ti?

Thanks

Sylvester, could kaamesu be referring to kaama rather than kaamaa?

With metta

Matheesha
With Metta

Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
rowyourboat
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Tha jhana debate

Postby Freawaru » Fri Jun 03, 2011 11:15 am

Hi Sylvester,

Sylvester wrote:Just like those who read the iddhi sections following 4th Jhana as thinking that one could exercise the iddhis within the 4th Jhana. A quick check with the grammar on the effect of a past participle verb in a locative absolute construction would immediately tell you that the verbs associated with the 4th Jhana happened well in the past and not concurrently with the iddhis.


Okay, for the sake of discussion lets say you are right here. But how? I mean, how does the ability to use the iddhis (and finally master them) arise from the practice of jhana? If one is not IN jhana while using an iddhi, what is the mechanism of jhana that makes exercising the iddhis possible afterwards ? And what is the state called that arises while one accesses an iddhi? Is it just one state or are the iddhis maybe accessible during several different states? In short: what is the connection between jhana and the iddhis if it is not "opening of iddhi during jhana"?
Freawaru
 
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:26 pm

Re: Tha jhana debate

Postby daverupa » Fri Jun 03, 2011 11:55 am

Sylvester wrote:what exactly is a rupa?


I guess "material form" is in fact redundant, so that's fun. =)

I don't think it's precisely the -rupa of namarupa. It's alongside the other qualities directly according to the five aggregate scheme, so I define it thusly as the form-aggregate. I then simply note that rupa and arupa jhana differ in this respect, and conclude that the names of rupajhana and arupajhana are obviously referring to the presence, or absence, of the potential to discern form in these states.

Perhaps jhana 1-4 offer concentration to such a degree that vinnana can remain exclusively defined according to the mental sense base for the duration, but that's speculation on my part. In any event, the Sutta seems clear enough.

(I would be interested to see the Agama correlate to the Sutta in question.)
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 4123
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Tha jhana debate

Postby Nyana » Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:32 pm

daverupa wrote:Perhaps jhana 1-4 offer concentration to such a degree that vinnana can remain exclusively defined according to the mental sense base for the duration, but that's speculation on my part. In any event, the Sutta seems clear enough.

Mental consciousness (manoviññāṇa) can take the body sensory sphere as an object. Moreover, SN 47.6 Sakuṇagghi Sutta explicitly differentiates between the five strands of sensual pleasure (kāmagunā) and the four applications of mindfulness (satipaṭṭhānā), and so neither the body nor the breath are strands of sensual pleasure. Thus, all of this is really a moot point.

But if one really wants to split hairs, in commentarial terms the form portion of the "whole body" (sabbakāya) experienced in jhāna is mind-produced form which pervades the physical body. The Dīghanikāyaṭīkā:

    Mind-produced form (cittajarūpa) suffuses every area where there is kamma-produced form (kammajarūpa).

The Vimuttimagga:

    Just as the bath-powder when inside and outside saturated with moisture, adheres and does not scatter, so the body of the meditator in the first jhāna is permeated with joy and pleasure from top to bottom, from the skullcap to the feet and from the feet to the skullcap, skin and hair, inside and outside. And he dwells without falling back. Thus he dwells like a Brahma god.

    [Q.] Joy (pīti) and pleasure (sukha) are said to be formless phenomena (arūpa-dhamma). How then can they stay permeating the body?

    [A.] Name (nāma) depends on form (rūpa). Form depends on name. Therefore, if name has joy, form also has joy. If name has pleasure, form also has pleasure.

    Again, form born from joy causes tranquility of body, and when the entire body is tranquillized there is pleasure due to the tranquility of form. Therefore there is no contradiction.

All the best,

Geoff
Nyana
 
Posts: 2227
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: The Great Jhana Debate

Postby Sylvester » Fri Jun 03, 2011 3:04 pm

rowyourboat wrote:Can someone translate this please:?



Here you go, courtesy of the MLDB:

Taṃ kiṃ maññasi, māgaṇḍiya, api nu so devaputto nandane vane accharāsaṅghaparivuto dibbehi pañcahi kāmaguṇehi samappito samaṅgībhūto paricārayamāno amussa gahapatissa vā gahapatiputtassa vā piheyya, mānusakānaṃ vā pañcannaṃ kāmaguṇānaṃ mānusakehi vā kāmehi āvaṭṭeyyā”ti?

Would that young god surrounded by the group of nymphs in the Nandana Grove, enjoying himself, provided and endowed with the 5 cords of divine sensual pleasure, envy the householder or the householder's son for the five cords of human sensual pleasure or would he be enticed by human sensual pleasures?


As to your query, kāmā is one of those weird words in Pali, where the singular (kāma) means either (i) sensual desire, or (ii) a sense object, but the plural in the suttas does not mean sensual desires. So, kāmesu is a grammatical case (locative) for kāmā and is understood mean "with reference to the kāmā (sense objects).

Just note that Ven Nanamoli had translated kāmā to be "sensual desire", most probably following the Abhidhammic definition. When BB edited the MLDB, he decided to just stick with the sutta sense and rendered it as "sensual pleasures".
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1503
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Tha jhana debate

Postby daverupa » Fri Jun 03, 2011 3:22 pm

Ñāṇa wrote:SN 47.6 Sakuṇagghi Sutta explicitly differentiates between the five strands of sensual pleasure (kāmagunā) and the four applications of mindfulness (satipaṭṭhānā), and so neither the body nor the breath are strands of sensual pleasure.


But the body/breath are still available to perception in jhana 1-4. This is significant.

Ñāṇa wrote:But if one really wants to split hairs, in commentarial terms...


:|
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 4123
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Tha jhana debate

Postby Nyana » Fri Jun 03, 2011 3:35 pm

daverupa wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:SN 47.6 Sakuṇagghi Sutta explicitly differentiates between the five strands of sensual pleasure (kāmagunā) and the four applications of mindfulness (satipaṭṭhānā), and so neither the body nor the breath are strands of sensual pleasure.


But the body/breath are still available to perception in jhana 1-4. This is significant.

Yes. Specifically, for one engaged in ānāpānassatisamādhi the object-support is the mental representation (nimitta) of the breath cognized via mental consciousness.

All the best,

Geoff
Nyana
 
Posts: 2227
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Tha jhana debate

Postby Sylvester » Fri Jun 03, 2011 3:38 pm

Freawaru wrote:Okay, for the sake of discussion lets say you are right here. But how? I mean, how does the ability to use the iddhis (and finally master them) arise from the practice of jhana? If one is not IN jhana while using an iddhi, what is the mechanism of jhana that makes exercising the iddhis possible afterwards ? And what is the state called that arises while one accesses an iddhi? Is it just one state or are the iddhis maybe accessible during several different states? In short: what is the connection between jhana and the iddhis if it is not "opening of iddhi during jhana"?


It's going to be difficult to start the discussion, even with that concession. We have quite a gap to bridge in terms of finding some common ground on the characteristics of a Jhana.

Personally, I believe that the samadhi from which the iddhis are accessed is probably that state denoted by the Commentaries as "upacara samadhi". Clearly, the Jhanas are not the only states that are free from the Hindrances, given the many "sudden stream entry" suttas using the standard pericope of the Buddha teaching the 4 Noble Truths when the listener was "free from the Hindrances".

Have you considered the Iddhipadasamyutta of the SN as perhaps containing the answer to your query? It seems to me that all the 4 iddhipada-s are based on certain samadhi-s with specific qualities.

I am of the view that the iddhipadas samadhi are not Jhana, especially when you consider the 1st and 4th iddhipada. The 1st samadhi contains "volitional formations of striving" (padhānasaṅkhārasamannāgataṃ), whereas DN 34 and the Samadhi Sutta (in AN 5s) specifically mention that the Jhanas are "na sasaṅkhāraniggayhavāritagatoti" (without being controlled by volition).

This is further reinforced by the 4th iddhipada which is based on investigation (vimaṃsa). That is the function of the Enlightenment Factor of Dhammavicaya; see this post - viewtopic.php?f=13&t=7360&p=121106&hilit=vicarati#p121106

These are not states that can occur in a Jhana.

Sorry if I cannot be of much help.
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1503
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Tha jhana debate

Postby Sylvester » Fri Jun 03, 2011 3:47 pm

daverupa wrote:
Sylvester wrote:what exactly is a rupa?


I guess "material form" is in fact redundant, so that's fun. =)

I don't think it's precisely the -rupa of namarupa. It's alongside the other qualities directly according to the five aggregate scheme, so I define it thusly as the form-aggregate. I then simply note that rupa and arupa jhana differ in this respect, and conclude that the names of rupajhana and arupajhana are obviously referring to the presence, or absence, of the potential to discern form in these states.

Perhaps jhana 1-4 offer concentration to such a degree that vinnana can remain exclusively defined according to the mental sense base for the duration, but that's speculation on my part. In any event, the Sutta seems clear enough.

(I would be interested to see the Agama correlate to the Sutta in question.)


Hi, I think MN 28 places the rupa khandha squarely within the Namarupa scheme. And more tellingly, it mentions the internal and external constituents of the rupa khandha. Rupa khandha is not one's body, but simply one's experience of internal and external dhatus.

As for "material form", BB explains he decided to change Ven Nanamoli's uniform rendition of rupa to "form", so as to be able to distinguish between rupa as rupa khandha, and rupa as cakkhuvinneya rupa (visual data).
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1503
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

PreviousNext

Return to Samatha Meditation and Jhana

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest