Ñāṇa wrote:reflection wrote:I think the quite in the OP is an excellent example of a sutta reference to what I'm talking about.
" Such are fabrications (volitions), such its origination, such its disappearance."
No it isn't. Prof. William Chu:
- Numerous suttas in the Nikayas talk about all the jhanas and bases as "attainments with residues of volitional formations" (Sankhāra-vasesasamāpatti). This is such a common observation that Bhikkhu Bodhi also makes this comment in Note #233 of his translation of the Connected Discourses (2000:792). These suttas state that the jhanas and bases are the "successive pacification of volitional formations." The base of neither perception nor non-perception, being the subtlest, is called "an attainment with a small residue of volitional formations." Even the Visuddhimagga explains these passages as meaning that all four of the mental functions, including intention, remain in all these states (337-338).
One of my Ph.D students' dissertation happens to be on the comparison of numerous commentaries in Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese, and Tibetan on the issue of jhana and vipassana. One really needs to be very competent in at least two canonical languages to know what she's talking about when she's trying to undertake scholarly debates on sutta terminology.
The evidence is overwhelmingly compelling that Visuddhimagga is the oddball in claiming that vipassana is to be practiced after jhanas. Such evidence comes from etymological, philological/textual evolutionary, nikaya-comparative perspectives.
reflection wrote:However, may I suggest us to keep this discussion in the appropriate thread about jhanas. I know your point of view by now. I think it doesn't really add to the discussion about various interpretations of rise and fall and how to practice it.
This discussion in this particular sub-forum necessarily includes discussion of jhāna as sammāsamādhi. Moreover, you're the one who brought this idea of volitionless jhāna into the present discussion. Your interpretation of rise-and-fall has no canonical basis whatsoever.
All the best,
Geoff
Not here, there is a special sticky topic for it. Go on there if you want to defend your points and I might reply there. I don't see how this discussion helps anybody with respect to the question in the OP of this topic. You can reply on my view about the question asked in more detail here, but what exactly a jhana is can be discussed elsewhere. I don't think Alex is really interested to see that discussion -which by the way is just a repetition of arguments- again. Or at least, I'm not. With all respect, you can quote 100 PhD thesis on pali literature on jhana, but you aren't going to convince me. Neither am I going to convince you, so I'm not even going to try.
Especially not in this topic. These are my last words on it here.
However, back to topic. I would like to correct something I said, which I partly came up with because of what you posted:
reflection wrote:
disappearance' of the aggregate of volition,
What I said here was not totally correct. There is still a kind of volition in absorption, but it is not voluntary, so what disappears is the "will" as most people see it. The mind still goes in a certain direction. This is what probably is meant with "residual volition" in the suttas. However "the will" is not exactly the same as volition. The aggregates are like a soup of stuff, not always that clear to distinguish. Pardon me for mixing it up a bit. However what certainly
does disappear in absorption is the decision making. And partly based on this you can begin to contemplate the non-self of the entire aggregate of volition. To come back to the question: This can partly be done discursively, but you can also contemplate on things without using too much words.
With metta,
Reflection