Over time I've seen a general idea (on this forum and elsewhere) of the suttas teaching a meditation focussed on the body as the main or only approach. I am not trying to debunk this idea, or trying to put it down. But while it is undeniable that body awareness is an important aspect of the training, I am not of the opinion that all meditation (specifically the jhanas) have to do with bodily awareness. Deep meditation is about absorption in the mind, leaving behind the 5 bodily senses. This is not just my view, there are many sharing this view, including respectable monastics.
Still, to me there often seems to be confusion amongst practitioners who either agree with, or investigate this perspective. They may think it is not in the suttas and is just a commentarial approach. I think this is partly because it is often called a 'visuddhimagga meditation', which I think is an erroneous and sort of off-putting label. Also some major scholars do not agree with this view and translate the suttas accordingly.
I decided to share some evidence from the suttas which -in my eyes- show that deep concentration is not bodily, but mental. Usually I'm more of taking the way of experience into meditation, but for others this thread may be very useful.
I'm fully aware that all quotes I put here can textualy be interpreted in other ways if one wants to. And so a textual debate is certainly not what I'm after. For that please use the 'great jhana debate' thread or open a new one. Also, the existing debate threads are so massively long, I wanted this outside of it because I think it is important and deserves attention. So rather than a debate, I would like to use this thread as a sort of sutta reference for those who think or experience concentration can go into states where there is no contact with the 5 senses; both as an inspiration, support and an opportunity to study. Also (although again I'm not trying to convince anybody) it could provide people who don't agree with a small perspective on the others opinion, which could lead to more mutual understanding and harmony.
I'm not the greatest sutta expert, neither a pali expert. So I can't go into detail and I surely can't consider myself to be the best person to open this topic. But since I think it's important, I'd like to kick it off anyway. I would like to invite everybody to share any additional sutta quotes and comments they would like to add. Or perhaps something similar already exists without me knowing about it. The below is what I could find so far. I hope somebody can benefit from it. There's more in the back of my mind which I couldn't recall or find at this time. Those I will most probably add later.
With a lot of metta,
Reflection
-------------------------------------
For starters, it's important to consider how the word 'kaya' (body), which is often used in relation to jhana or other words on meditation, does not have to refer to the physical body.
From ATI:
kaya: Body. Usually refers to the physical body (rupa-kaya; see rupa), but sometimes refers to the mental body (nama-kaya; see nama)."
From PTS:
Kaya: Group, heap, collection, aggregate, body.
A clear example of kaya as a mental body as opposed to a physical body is here:
Another example of the wide use of kaya is the anapanasati sutta where the breath is called "a kaya among all kayas":"'From name-&-form as a requisite condition comes contact. Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes contact. If the qualities, traits, themes, & indicators by which there is a description of name-group (mental activity) were all absent, would designation-contact with regard to the form-group (the physical properties) be discerned?"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So kaya could also refer to a collection of mental experiences for one thing. Seeing kaya as a general collection rather than 'physical body' gives the jhana descriptions another interpretation of jhana being mental.I tell you, monks, that this — the in-&-out breath — is classed as a body among bodies, which is why the monk on that occasion remains focused on the [breath]-body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world.
The anapanasati sutta goes on to feelings (again mentiones it's about feelings amongst feelings) and goes on telling us to focus on the mind in and of itself:
So anapanasati is one way of focussing on the mind, letting go of the other senses.On whatever occasion a monk trains himself, 'I will breathe in...&...out sensitive to the mind'; trains himself, 'I will breathe in...&...out satisfying the mind'; trains himself, 'I will breathe in...&...out steadying the mind'; trains himself, 'I will breathe in...&...out releasing the mind': On that occasion the monk remains focused on the mind in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. I don't say that there is mindfulness of in-&-out breathing in one of lapsed mindfulness and no alertness, which is why the monk on that occasion remains focused on the mind in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The following suttas shows how the pleasure of jhana is not of these five senses:
For those who want some more information on my interpretation of the term 'sensuality', I eleborated here:"And what is rapture of the flesh? There are these five strings of sensuality. Which five? Forms cognizable via the eye — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. Sounds cognizable via the ear... Aromas cognizable via the nose... Flavors cognizable via the tongue... Tactile sensations cognizable via the body — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. Now whatever rapture arises in dependence on these five strands of sensuality, that is called rapture of the flesh.
"And what is rapture not of the flesh? There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensual pleasures, withdrawn from unskillful qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. With the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance. This is called rapture not of the flesh.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 20#p202719" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Here we can see how it is possible and important to let the body and the 5 senses fade from the mind:"Monks, there are these nine step-by-step stoppings. Which nine?
"When one has attained the first jhāna, the perception of sensuality has been stopped.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Now 'there remains only consciousness' is perhaps accurate translation wise, but still wrong. Consciousness always needs an object, there can't be just consciousness. That there is not only consciousness, is also clear from the next sentence which says there are also feelings. So how can we interpret so it makes sense? Now if we look in the PTS dictionary at the entry vinnana:"And what is the earth property? ... head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, membranes, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, contents of the stomach, feces, or anything else internal... When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the earth property and makes the earth property fade from the mind.
(Same for liquid, fire, wind and space)
"There remains only consciousness: pure & bright. What does one cognize with that consciousness? One cognizes 'pleasure.' One cognizes 'pain.' One cognizes 'neither pleasure nor pain.'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
there is a varying use of the term in the Canon itself. In what may be a very old Sutta S ii.95 v. is given as a synonym of citta (mind)
So here I would personally translate "there remains only mind: pure & bright". Or I would do something with the word 'only' (yeva). In any way, there remains more than just consciousness.
After this, the sutta goes on to explain the process through the jhanas without explicitly mentioning them. However we can see it, because after cessation of various feelings (which I take to be the 1st-2nd-3rd jhana factors), it ends with "There remains only equanimity", referring to the 4th jhana. Then the arupas are described.
Sariputta explains nibbana and the importance of letting go of the five senses to understand nibbana:
The Buddha was able to meditate through a thunderstorm and a fight and not hear or see anything:But what is the pleasure here, my friend, where there is nothing felt?"
"Just that is the pleasure here, my friend: where there is nothing felt. There are these five strings of sensuality. Which five? Forms cognizable via the eye — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing; sounds cognizable via the ear... smells cognizable via the nose... tastes cognizable via the tongue... tactile sensations cognizable via the body — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. Whatever pleasure or joy arises in dependence on these five strings of sensuality, that is sensual pleasure.
"Now there is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. If, as he remains there, he is beset with attention to perceptions dealing with sensuality, that is an affliction for him. Just as pain arises as an affliction in a healthy person for his affliction, even so the attention to perceptions dealing with sensuality that beset the monk is an affliction for him. Now, the Blessed One has said that whatever is an affliction is stress. So by this line of reasoning it may be known how Unbinding is pleasant.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And I asked him: 'Why, brother, has this great crowd gathered together?' And he answered me: 'Just now, Lord, there was a heavy rain, with thunder rolling, lightning flashing, and thunderbolts crashing. And two farmers who were brothers were killed close by, together with four oxen. It is because of this that the great crowd has gathered. But where, Lord, were you?'
I was here, brother.' 'Yet, Lord, did you not see it?' 'I did not see it, brother.' 'But the noise, Lord, you surely heard?' 'I did not hear it, brother.' Then that man asked me: 'Then, Lord, perhaps you slept?' 'No, brother, I was not sleeping.' 'Then, Lord, you were conscious?' 'I was, brother.' Then that man said: 'Then, Lord, while conscious and awake, in the midst of a heavy rain, with thunder rolling, lightning flashing, and thunderbolts crashing, you neither saw it nor heard the noise?' And I answered him, saying: 'I did not, brother.'
"And to that man, Pukkusa, came the thought: 'Marvellous it is, most wonderful indeed it is, the state of calmness wherein abide those who have gone forth from the world!' And there arose in him great faith in me, and he respectfully saluted me, and keeping his right side towards me, he went his way."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .vaji.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;