Re: The Buddha/arahants/jhana and pain

[danieLion]

With reference to vedanā, I apologize that I was not careful to give vedanā the distinction it is given in the pāḷi ekaccānaṃ ~ as ‘certain’ or ‘particular’ (nor did I give cetosamādhi its distinction as ‘signless’ animitta, for that matter). Below is B. Bodhi’s variant reading at SN. 47.9:

Yasmiṃ ānanda, samaye tathāgato sabbanimittānaṃ amanasikārā ekaccānaṃ vedanānaṃ nirodhā animittaṃ cetosamādhiṃ upasampajja viharati. Phāsutaraṃ ānanda, tasmiṃ samaye tathāgatassa hoti. (PTS – 154)

“Whenever, Ānanda, by nonattention to all signs and by the cessation of certain feelings, the Tathāgata enters and dwells in the signless concentration of mind, on that occasion, Ānanda, the body of the Tathāgata is more comfortable.”

With reference to the context of ‘certain’ vedanā as with ill-feelings in these readings, this would seem to give this use of jhāna a particularly medicinal or palliative distinction. This, considered with the more often found pericope on jhāna mastery e.g.:

‘…catunnaṃ jhānānaṃ ābhicetasikānaṃ diṭṭhadhammasukhavihārānaṃ nikāmalābhī akicchalābhī akasiralābhī’

“One easily attains the four Jhānas as he wishes, without pain or difficulty, a pleasant abiding known now.” – AN. 4.35

…may indicate jhāna as having a wider range of use and benefits?

Thanks AB

[DarwidHalim]

Pain or not pain really comes how we approach that event.

We can see that for someone who like to go to the beach for the sun bath.

Same event.

For this person, that experience is a joy.
For that person, that experience is a pain.

So, the key here is - it is not the event that govern someone is in pain or not. But, it is your reaction into it.

If you like that event - you say that is joy.
If you don't like that event, you say that is pain.

But,
if you have this attitude that make you see that event is not yours - you are in the state of indifferent.

You are not in joy. You are also not in pain.

This indifferent feeling for the event can rise peace and bliss.

If this is hard to be understood, you should give it a try when you experience pain in your leg during meditation. The more you can deeply realize that pain is not yours, the more you can stay friendly with that event. Because of that, you no longer can say that event as pain, because you don't see any reason to reject it, you also don't see any reason to accept it.

There is absolutely no single dot of wish to remove that sensation in your leg.
There is also absolutely no single dot of wish to accept that sensation in your leg.

It is just like that at the end.

[Spiny Norman]

Porpoise wrote:
"would the experience of physical pain be dukkha for a Buddha? I'm still not clear."

The Buddha has transcended all ego notion of "I", "mine", and "myself" so although there's a physical body that experienced painful feeling, there's no "Buddha" who is subjected to dukkha ( or to be more accurate, "not Buddha", "not Buddha's", and "not the Buddha himself")..

But there is still the experience of physical pain, unpleasant vedana. Is that not dukkha?

[mikenz66]

But there is still the experience of physical pain, unpleasant vedana. Is that not dukkha?

Sutta Study this week on three types of Dukkha:
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=13459&view=unread#unread


Mike

[Spiny Norman]

Pain or not pain really comes how we approach that event.
The more you can deeply realize that pain is not yours, the more you can stay friendly with that event. Because of that, you no longer can say that event as pain, because you don't see any reason to reject it, you also don't see any reason to accept it.

But the Arrow Sutta makes a clear distinction between physical pain ( 1st arrow ) and mental pain ( 2nd arrow ), and you seem just to be talking about the 2nd arrow here, mental pain. But the simile of being pierced by arrows or darts makes it clear that both these experiences are painful.

[Spiny Norman]

But there is still the experience of physical pain, unpleasant vedana. Is that not dukkha?

Sutta Study this week on three types of Dukkha:
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=13459&view=unread#unread


Mike

Thanks. I think here we're talking about "intrinsic" suffering due to pain (dukkha-dukkhatā ).

[DarwidHalim]

But the Arrow Sutta makes a clear distinction between physical pain ( 1st arrow ) and mental pain ( 2nd arrow ), and you seem just to be talking about the 2nd arrow here, mental pain. But the simile of being pierced by arrows or darts makes it clear that both these experiences are painful.

Physical pain is also defined by this mind.

If your mind say this physical sensation as pain, then it becomes pain, unique to your mindset.
If your mind say this physical sensation as joy, then it becomes joy, unique to your mindset.

Just about physical sensation you get after exercise.
For some, who don't like that sensation, it is pain.
For others, who like that sensation, it is joy.

Another example is you eat hot and spicy chilly.
For some, the burning sensation is pain.
FOr others, that burning sensation is joy.

So, what is the actual value for that burning sensation? Is it joy or pain?

We should learn to eliminate the layer of concept on the sensation. When you do that, you will then know this is just sensation that can be named as any thing you want.

The actual value is up to you to define.

In buddhist concept, this is said that there is nothing intrinsic in anything you think.

Because if there is something intrinsic, no one will have different idea. The intrinsic thing will make all people in the whole 6 level of samsara have exactly same opinion like what you have.

If the burning sensation of eating chilly is joy and if that burning sensation has an intrinsic value, then the whole world will have same opinion that is joy. Even you give a chilli to your dog, you dog must be in joy. But, is there such thing?

Is headache a pain?
Is backache a pain?

They are just sensation that you label as pain.

In reality, it is just sensation. Nothing more, nothing less.

When you do a meditation, your leg can be extremely painful. But, when you your wisdom of "this is not mine" is also extremely strong, that painful sensation will just be sensation. Nothing more, nothing less.

You are talking about intrinsic pain and you think there is such thing. So, you may need to think about it again.

If there is such thing called intrinsic, why these people can see the same event like this, and those people see that event like that?
Since there is something intrinsic, all people must think the same think for the same event. But, why in reality it doesn't happen?
Is there such thing called intrinsic?

Regarding this arrow sutta. You need to ask this question:
For human who still have dualistic mind, of course there is a physical and mental pain.
But, if that human doesn't have dualistic mind, if that human can see "this is not mine", is it still correct to get the conclusion that there is also a physical and mental pain for these special beings?

[Spiny Norman]

But the Arrow Sutta makes a clear distinction between physical pain ( 1st arrow ) and mental pain ( 2nd arrow ), and you seem just to be talking about the 2nd arrow here, mental pain. But the simile of being pierced by arrows or darts makes it clear that both these experiences are painful.

You are talking about intrinsic pain and you think there is such thing. So, you may need to think about it again.

So are you saying that unpleasant physical vedana is solely a matter of mental perception? Why then is there the traditional distinction between mental and physical vedana, a distinction confirmed above in the Arrow Sutta?

[DarwidHalim]

Such thing can be valid.

But valid for who? Dualistic (conceptual) mind like us.

They are not valid for someone who can see everything is not him or hers.

[kirk5a]

They are just sensation that you label as pain.

In reality, it is just sensation. Nothing more, nothing less.

"Sensation" is also a label.

[santa100]

porpoise wrote:
"But there is still the experience of physical pain, unpleasant vedana. Is that not dukkha?"

Technically yes, physical pain is dukkha. But then we need to ask: "Who experienced this dukkha?". For worldlings like you and me, of course the answer is: "I", "mine", "myself". For the Buddha, the answer is: "this five aggregates". And what is "this five aggregates"? Were they the "Buddha"? or they "belong to the Buddha"? or "the Buddha himself"?

[DarwidHalim]

They are just sensation that you label as pain.

In reality, it is just sensation. Nothing more, nothing less.

"Sensation" is also a label.

Absolutely.

[kirk5a]

They are just sensation that you label as pain.

In reality, it is just sensation. Nothing more, nothing less.

"Sensation" is also a label.

Absolutely.

So in reality, there are mental labels along with what is labeled.

[DarwidHalim]

In terms of just label - There are mental labels.

But are there any true intrinsic mental object? It is just no.

By right, you even cannot make any labels, because there is no such intrinsic thing.

However, although in reality there is no something intrinsic, there are indeed these appearance as if they are real, as if they are permanent. That something as if they are real, as if they are permanent, is the one that becomes the basis of the label for the sake of communication.

For normal being - there is findable object, so you can put label.

For enlightened being - there is never ever exist an intrinsic object you can ever find. Consequently, in this perfect seeing, they can just nakedly see Indifferently and unbiasedly.

In perfect seeing, there is no subject who see, no object to be seen, and no seeing. It is just naked like that.

[reflection]

Seeing things as non self is the same as seeing things as suffering. One is enclosed within one another. It's not like if you see things as non-self, suddenly it isn't suffering anymore. No! It's the other way around. It's exactly because of non-self that there is suffering. Understanding one is understanding the other. And is also understanding impermanence.

From the sutta on non-self:

"What do you think, monks — Is form constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."
"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"
"Stressful, lord."
"And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
"No, lord."
(same for the other aggregates)

"Any kind of form/feeling/perception/determination/consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'

"Bhikkhus, when a noble follower who has heard (the truth) sees thus, he finds estrangement in form, he finds estrangement in feeling, he finds estrangement in perception, he finds estrangement in determinations, he finds estrangement in consciousness.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html

And elsewhere in the suttas:

He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self.

I could probably make an entire book with connected quotes. For example how aging and sickness are suffering. So did the Buddha still suffer? Yes, he did. A body is just one big piece of suffering. But that's ok for him, because he was bound for final nibbana, the end of body and mind and thus all suffering. No more work to be done.

With metta,
Reflection

[DarwidHalim]

So, according to you Buddha Is ok with all sufferings, because he bounds to final nibbana. After he pass away he will be free from body and mind.

And according to you someone who can see no self is the same thing as seeing suffering.

Then these are the main problems.

How do you free from mind (cognizance)?

What is the difference between Buddha and a statue? Statue has no mind.

If someone who can see no self can see suffering, it will be like someone who see the sky is suffering right now.

Do you think Buddha can run away from impermanence?
Do you think if you become a Buddha, after 100 years from now, you are not subject to impermanent?

[danieLion]

Dear DarwidHalim, kirk5a, santa100 and porpoise,
Thanks for turning the topic to a focus on the relationship of vipassana to pain.

I'm hope to find time to outline my thoughts on the importance of vipassana to pain with reference to specific techniques, especially those of Ines Freedman (here), along with discussing "balancing" it with samatha.

Best,
Daniel

[Aloka]

So, the key here is - it is not the event that govern someone is in pain or not. But, it is your reaction into it.

If you like that event - you say that is joy.
If you don't like that event, you say that is pain.

But,
if you have this attitude that make you see that event is not yours - you are in the state of indifferent.

So in that case would you still be in a state of indifference if someone had unexpectedly shot you at close range in the face and blown one of your eyes and your nose away ?

[DarwidHalim]

If you ask me, I don't know. I have none of that wisdom.

However, in reality there are few people can do that. Although they may not be in indifferent state.

Recently, in Iran, there was a case where this lady was thrown with acid to her face by her boyfriend. Her face is completely distorted not only her nose, but everything. The boyfriend was captured. Because iran is Muslim country, the lady can actually do the same thing to that guy. The lady can drop few drops acid into the eyes of that guy. But, she didnt do that.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14357261

This case although is very very rare, but indeed happens.

For the case where if the pain cannot occur during the accident, that one is really rare. It happens to vietnamese monk who burned himself. He was just there, and didnt move at all.

[Spiny Norman]

Seeing things as non self is the same as seeing things as suffering. One is enclosed within one another. It's not like if you see things as non-self, suddenly it isn't suffering anymore. No! It's the other way around. It's exactly because of non-self that there is suffering. Understanding one is understanding the other. And is also understanding impermanence.

"Any kind of form/feeling/perception/determination/consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'

"Bhikkhus, when a noble follower who has heard (the truth) sees thus, he finds estrangement in form, he finds estrangement in feeling, he finds estrangement in perception, he finds estrangement in determinations, he finds estrangement in consciousness.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. Yes, the aggregates are unsatisfactory and not fit to be "owned", but this seems to me more like a response to the second Noble Truth, ie the cause of suffering is grasping at the aggregates.