Ahh, I see where you're coming from. But what sort of "material" rupa is in 1st Jhana?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.
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?
The point I was trying to make was that "viharati" occurs in the sentence preceding what you quoted; that sentence with "viharati" demarcates 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.
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.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 ...
Actually, the sutta itself says so, if you read the Pali. Let's take the verb "upasaṃharati". What is the meditator doing ?Require vitakka-vicara? Where is this stated elsewhere?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.
The moment you see the clitic "ti", the passage is reporting a thought. Can one think without "vitakka-vicara"?So tehi dhammehi cittaṃ paṭivāpetvā amatāya dhātuyā cittaṃ upasaṃharati— ‘etaṃ santaṃ etaṃ paṇītaṃ yadidaṃ sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭinissaggo taṇhākkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānan’ti.
Not quite sure what you mean by the above. Might you care to elaborate?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...