Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

[danieLion]

But let's get back to the topic at hand. To answer your question:

When the Buddha distinguished "mind" from other things (e.g., the other five senses) do you interpret this to mean he thought "mind" and other things (e.g., the body) are independent?

I don't. I think it is quite clear they are interconnected.

Then how can you be sure that when you're in jhāna it's purely mental?

[danieLion]

The real issue to be posed to Ven T is why he chooses the singular noun "sensuality" to obscure the very clear Pali and Middle-Indic meaning conveyed by the plural kāmā. A lot of the translations floating out there, whether knowingly or unknowingly, use the Abhidhamma definition of kāmā, including Ven Nanamoli in his original translation of the MN. BB makes a global change of that to "sensual pleasures" in the MLDB, following a stricter philological approach.

I don't see much practical difference between "sensuality" and "sensual pleasures".

[Sylvester]

The real issue to be posed to Ven T is why he chooses the singular noun "sensuality" to obscure the very clear Pali and Middle-Indic meaning conveyed by the plural kāmā. A lot of the translations floating out there, whether knowingly or unknowingly, use the Abhidhamma definition of kāmā, including Ven Nanamoli in his original translation of the MN. BB makes a global change of that to "sensual pleasures" in the MLDB, following a stricter philological approach.

I don't see much practical difference between "sensuality" and "sensual pleasures".

What do you understand to be "sensuality" and "sensual pleasures"? Do you have any specific sutta in mind?

[reflection]

Now there are two ways one can interpret sensuality (kama):
1. 5 senses (activity)
2. 5 sense (activity) desire
(See critical pali dictionary and elsewhere)

Hi reflection

Actually, the CPD entry on kāma (singular) and kāmā (plural) makes the following points about their meanings in the different strata of the Canon.

In the Suttas and Vinaya, kāma (singular) refers to wish, desire, pleasure, while kāmā (plural) refers to the 5 sense objects of rūpa, sadda, gandha, rasa, phoṭṭhabba. CPD makes the contrast to the sutta definition of kāmaguṇa. You can find this distinction between kāmā and kāmaguṇa set out in several suttas (sorry, too lazy to pull them out from the old threads).

It is only in the Abhidhamma, starting with the Vibhanga, that the meaning of kāmā (plural) evolves into the set of "chando ~o rāgo ~o chanda-
rāgo ~o saṅkappo ~o saṅkapparāgo ~o". This unfortunate turn of course changed the meaning of the 1st Jhana's kāmā seclusion pericope, leaving poor Ven Buddhaghosa struggling to explain away the difference in the "eva" emphatic between the 2 seclusion pericopes.

The real issue to be posed to Ven T is why he chooses the singular noun "sensuality" to obscure the very clear Pali and Middle-Indic meaning conveyed by the plural kāmā. A lot of the translations floating out there, whether knowingly or unknowingly, use the Abhidhamma definition of kāmā, including Ven Nanamoli in his original translation of the MN. BB makes a global change of that to "sensual pleasures" in the MLDB, following a stricter philological approach.

Thank you sylvester, for pointing this out. I will look into it in the future and may edit my post a bit to make this clearer.

For now I think it's good enough, though. Because I think we can even use existing translations to see there is at least something there which could use another interpretation.

[reflection]

But let's get back to the topic at hand. To answer your question:

When the Buddha distinguished "mind" from other things (e.g., the other five senses) do you interpret this to mean he thought "mind" and other things (e.g., the body) are independent?

I don't. I think it is quite clear they are interconnected.

Then how can you be sure that when you're in jhāna it's purely mental?

How do you know water is wet?

You know it through experiencing it. Somebody else can tell you everything about water, but they can never portray how its wetness feels. Even two people who have experienced water to be wet can't find the words to explain it 100% accurately. But at least they can agree on water not being solid.

To describe accurately what certain meditation experiences feel like is impossible, but those who experience such things can agree on that it was without the 5 senses. Since this happens before jhana already, also people who don't experience jhana may already agree.

[danieLion]

The real issue to be posed to Ven T is why he chooses the singular noun "sensuality" to obscure the very clear Pali and Middle-Indic meaning conveyed by the plural kāmā. A lot of the translations floating out there, whether knowingly or unknowingly, use the Abhidhamma definition of kāmā, including Ven Nanamoli in his original translation of the MN. BB makes a global change of that to "sensual pleasures" in the MLDB, following a stricter philological approach.

I don't see much practical difference between "sensuality" and "sensual pleasures".

What do you understand to be "sensuality" and "sensual pleasures"? Do you have any specific sutta in mind?

Did you not mean all the suttas when you said "global"?

[danieLion]

To describe accurately what certain meditation experiences feel like is impossible....

Really? Would Brahm or Sujato agree?

[Sylvester]

Did you not mean all the suttas when you said "global"?

Hi

I'm not sure I understand. I was referring to BB's work in revising Ven Nanamoli's translation of the MN only. Does that help?

[reflection]

To describe accurately what certain meditation experiences feel like is impossible....

Really? Would Brahm or Sujato agree?

Ask them.

But I think it's quite obvious experiences can never accurately be described in words, it doesn't even have to be a meditation experience. I think the Buddha did quite well, though.

[danieLion]

Did you not mean all the suttas when you said "global"?

Hi

I'm not sure I understand. I was referring to BB's work in revising Ven Nanamoli's translation of the MN only. Does that help?

Yes, that does help. Thanks. I should've said "in all the MN suttas where kāma and kāmā appear" too. My bad.

[danieLion]

To describe accurately what certain meditation experiences feel like is impossible....

Really? Would Brahm or Sujato agree?

Ask them.

But I think it's quite obvious experiences can never accurately be described in words, it doesn't even have to be a meditation experience. I think the Buddha did quite well, though.

I hope to get the chance some day.

I should've just said what I was thinking and that's that Reverend Brahm goes into great detail describing his meditation experiences. Brahm's got the "beautifal breath", the "wobbles" and all the pretty light he's so fond of, etc....

In general, I agree. These experiences are ineffable. Yet, Brahm talks and writes like they're effable (or at least effable enough for him to teach from).

[danieLion]

The real issue to be posed to Ven T is why he chooses the singular noun "sensuality" to obscure the very clear Pali and Middle-Indic meaning conveyed by the plural kāmā. A lot of the translations floating out there, whether knowingly or unknowingly, use the Abhidhamma definition of kāmā, including Ven Nanamoli in his original translation of the MN. BB makes a global change of that to "sensual pleasures" in the MLDB, following a stricter philological approach.

At MN 19.26/i 118 (Dvedhāvitakkasuttaṃ) both have it as "sensual pleasures" from kāmānametaṃ.

Again, at MN 22.9/i 133 (Alagaddūpamasuttaṃ), look at the way they both translate this passage:

So vata bhikkhave aññatreva kāmehi aññatra kāmasaññāya aññatra kāmavitakkehi kāme paṭisevissatīti netaṃ ṭhānaṃ vijjati.

BB: "Bhikkhus, that one can engage in sensual pleasures without sensual desires, without perceptions of sensual desires, without thoughts of sensual desire--that is impossible."

TB: "For a person to indulge in sensual pleasures without sensual passion, without sensual perception, without sensual thinking: That isn't possible."

Looking at: MN 13.7/i 86 & ff. (Mahādukkhakkhandha suttaṃ); MN 26.31/i 174 & ff. (Ariyapariyesanasuttaṃ); MN 54.15/i 364 & ff. (Potaliya suttaṃ); MN 66.16/i 454 & ff. (Laṭukikopama suttaṃ); MN 75.13 & ff. (Māgandiya suttaṃ); MN 105.7/ii 254 & ff; (Sunakkhatta suttaṃ); MN 106.3/ii 261 & ff. (Āneñjasappāya suttaṃ); and MN 122.14/iii 114 & ff. (Mahāsuññata suttaṃ)--in the broader contexts of these passages, TB's uses of the term "sensuality," while syntactically singular in English, are clearly plural denotations/connotations.

The only sutta in the MN where I could find TB being ambiguous on this is at MN 45.3/i 305 & ff (Cūḷadhammasamādāna suttaṃ). But in the context of the above, it is again clear he's not suggesting singularity. Which makes me wonder why BB opted for a global approach? I don't know how many times I've heard him respond to questions with comments like, "We have to interpret this in light of all the suttas."

OR, as I originally stated, there's not much practical difference among BB's & TB's variations. Now, I would add, IF THERE IS A PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE IT'S TOO NEGLIGIBLE TO BE RELEVANT IN ANY PRAGMATIC SENSE.

Also, what exactly do you mean by translations "floating around out there"? Are you alluding to the nature of the differences among translators or to the way they exchange among each other? The way you put it makes it sound like they're at war.

They're not. In other words, this can't be, as you say, "the real issue to pose to Ven B".

[Sylvester]

Thanks dL for some really interesting quotes.

Looking at: MN 13.7/i 86 & ff. (Mahādukkhakkhandha suttaṃ); MN 26.31/i 174 & ff. (Ariyapariyesanasuttaṃ); MN 54.15/i 364 & ff. (Potaliya suttaṃ); MN 66.16/i 454 & ff. (Laṭukikopama suttaṃ); MN 75.13 & ff. (Māgandiya suttaṃ); MN 105.7/ii 254 & ff; (Sunakkhatta suttaṃ); MN 106.3/ii 261 & ff. (Āneñjasappāya suttaṃ); and MN 122.14/iii 114 & ff. (Mahāsuññata suttaṃ)--in the broader contexts of these passages, TB's uses of the term "sensuality," while syntactically singular in English, are clearly plural denotations/connotations.

I think it should be apparent that my grouse with Ven T's use of "sensuality" is in the 1st Jhana's kāmā seclusion pericopes. Good that you can see that "sensuality" connotes a plural, although there may not be others who are as sensitive to the term as you are.

OR, as I originally stated, there's not much practical difference among BB's & TB's variations. Now, I would add, IF THERE IS A PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE IT'S TOO NEGLIGIBLE TO BE RELEVANT IN ANY PRAGMATIC SENSE.

I'm still curious what exactly you understand to be kāmā in the seclusion pericope. It's not apparent from the passages you cite how exactly you view kāmā. Would you mind stating what you think kāmā in the seclusion formula means?

Also, what exactly do you mean by translations "floating around out there"? Are you alluding to the nature of the differences among translators or to the way they exchange among each other? The way you put it makes it sound like they're at war.

I'm alluding to the former.

[danieLion]

I'm still curious...

Why "still"? This is the first indication you've made.

...what exactly you understand to be kāmā in the seclusion pericope.... Would you mind stating what you think kāmā in the seclusion formula means?

I could be persuaded to indulge you that, but first you have to admit your trying to change the subject.

[Sylvester]

Hi dL

I'm still curious...

Why "still"? This is the first indication you've made.

That's odd. I thought I had previous asked -

What do you understand to be "sensuality" and "sensual pleasures"? Do you have any specific sutta in mind?

In case I was unclear then, the "sensuality" and "sensual pleasures" abovementioned are the translations of kāmā in the kāmā seclusion pericope. But I think it was quite obvious to you what I referring to since you had earlier said -

Sylvester wrote:
The real issue to be posed to Ven T is why he chooses the singular noun "sensuality" to obscure the very clear Pali and Middle-Indic meaning conveyed by the plural kāmā. A lot of the translations floating out there, whether knowingly or unknowingly, use the Abhidhamma definition of kāmā, including Ven Nanamoli in his original translation of the MN. BB makes a global change of that to "sensual pleasures" in the MLDB, following a stricter philological approach.

I don't see much practical difference between "sensuality" and "sensual pleasures".

I hope that clarifies.

...what exactly you understand to be kāmā in the seclusion pericope.... Would you mind stating what you think kāmā in the seclusion formula means?

I could be persuaded to indulge you that, but first you have to admit your trying to change the subject.

I thought the subject was whether or not the physical body could be felt in Jhana, or whether that physical body could contact/phusati the vivekaja pītisukha (rapture and pleasure born of seclusion). The external āyatana of the physical body is phoṭṭhabba, itself one of the kāmā. I don't think I've strayed from the range of the issue, so it would be quite nice of you to indulge my query. Thank you.

[danieLion]

I think it should be apparent that my grouse with Ven T's use of "sensuality" is in the 1st Jhana's kāmā seclusion pericopes....

Why limit it so? Perhaps a broadened perspective with unruffle your feathers. Consider this comparison of BB to TB from the Samyuttta Nikaya.

1.20/i 8, Samiddhi Sutta: agree (kāmesu, kāme, kāmā)

3.6/i 73, Appaka Sutta: agree (kāmesu)

4.20/i 116, Rajja Sutta: agree (kāmesu)

5.1/i 128, Alavika Sutta: agree (kāmā)

9.6/i 200, Anuruddha Sutta: disagree? This is interesting as BB translates sabbakāmasamiddhisu as “all desires are fulfilled,” while TB translates it as “all sensual pleasures honored.”

10.8/i 210, Sudatta Sutta: agree (kāmesu)

35.127/iv 110, Bharadvaja Sutta: agree (kāmesu)

47.7/v 148, Makkata Sutta: disagree (pañcakāmaguṇā).
BB: “five cords of sensual pleasure”
TB: “five strands of sensuality” (contextually, they agree on plurality v. singularity though)

Also, what exactly do you mean by translations "floating around out there"? Are you alluding to the nature of the differences among translators or to the way they exchange among each other? The way you put it makes it sound like they're at war.

I'm alluding to the former.

So if we add this to my (above) Majjhima Nikaya comparison, we can see you have no basis to claim: (1) that TB has obscured (intentionally or otherwise) the Pāli and Middle-Indic meaning conveyed by kāmā or support this with the corollary claims that (2) that he consistently translates kāmā or its conjugates as "sensuality" and (3) that BB is universally consistent in translating the same.

Finally, all this shows that your characterization of competing translators is misguided. My analyses, however, supports the notion that there is much more of an open exchange than you're willing to grant.

[reflection]

When using a term 'sensuality', I think it is a bit open to interpretation and that makes it a sort of usable translation for everybody. But I mainly use Ajahn Thanissaro's translations because they are easily available, so people can look up the context of the quotes I gave. Though of course his interpretation is interwoven in his translations. It would be less of a hassle for me if I used for example Nyantiloka's translations, which say "detached from sensual objects.. etc jhana etc", but ok it's not that much of a problem.

For clarification, this is Ajahn Thannisaro's interpretation:

There's the phrase in the description of jhana, "secluded from sensuality." Some people interpret that as meaning totally cut off from any input from the physical senses. Some interpret it as meaning secluded from sensual pleasures, so that you have to meditate in a place that's unpleasant or a place that's very boring. But neither of those interpretations is what the Buddha means. Sensuality, in his sense of the word, is your passion for your sensual thoughts and plans; the extent to which you love to obsess about those things. So in being secluded from sensuality you're not trying to close off any contact with outside senses and you're not trying to put yourself in a dull, boring place. You're trying to develop a more internal seclusion: If you see any sensual passion coming up, you sidestep it. You put it aside.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ions5.html

Just to say, it's fine with me some people interpret it this way. I personally don't want to use this thread to hammer in a specific view and hammer out others, but at the very least I think to translate sensuality as '5 sense activity' (or 'feeling at the 5 sense doors') makes at least just as much sense. And so the suttas can easiliy support mental jhanas and the term "Vishuddimagga Jhana" as opposed to "sutta jhana" is senseless. If anything comes across from this thread, let it be that.

Also here in my eyes, it is easier to interpret as '5 sense activity' instead of 'sensual passion':

"And what is the drawback of sensuality? There is the case where, on account of the occupation by which a clansman makes a living — whether checking or accounting or calculating or plowing or trading or cattle-tending or archery or as a king's man, or whatever the occupation may be — he faces cold, he faces heat, being harassed by mosquitoes & flies, wind & sun & creeping things, dying from hunger & thirst.
...
"And what, monks, is the escape from sensuality? The subduing of desire-passion for sensuality, the abandoning of desire-passion for sensuality: That is the escape from sensuality.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Now of course one could argue that 'sensuality' in the jhanas is not the same 'sensuality' as in other occasions. Which is fine, one could do that I guess. But imo a direct interpretation of the term works at least just as well and it accords with the other suttas I posted earlier. And because we are talking about something quite important - our meditation and where it leads to -, I think we shouldn't just disregard the possibility of the interpretation I and sylvester (and others at other times) tried to share being what the Buddha meant.

But in the end, experience is the only thing that can show us what's what, not a sutta.

[reflection]

I think I will mainly leave it at that in this thread. Perhaps some more suttas pop up, but I guess the main gist has been said. I hope people who agree with the mental jhana interpretation find some support in the suttas and I hope those who don't agree at least see how the suttas could be interpreted, and so I hope people will refrain from using "sutta jhana" versus "Vishudimagga jhana" and things like that and opt for terms like 'mental jhana' versus 'bodily jhana' or whatever skillful terms one can come up with.

Feel free to discuss further, I'll also join in probably.

[Sylvester]

Thank you dL for that fulsome catalogue of how BB and VT render kāmā.

But was that my grouse?

If you revisit my earlier post, it should be apparent that I was not talking about how these 2 venerables treat kāmā in general, but how translators treat kāmā in the context of the 1st Jhana's kāmā seclusion pericope -

It is only in the Abhidhamma, starting with the Vibhanga, that the meaning of kāmā (plural) evolves into the set of "chando ~o rāgo ~o chanda-
rāgo ~o saṅkappo ~o saṅkapparāgo ~o". This unfortunate turn of course changed the meaning of the 1st Jhana's kāmā seclusion pericope, leaving poor Ven Buddhaghosa struggling to explain away the difference in the "eva" emphatic between the 2 seclusion pericopes.

The real issue to be posed to Ven T is why he chooses the singular noun "sensuality" to obscure the very clear Pali and Middle-Indic meaning conveyed by the plural kāmā. A lot of the translations floating out there, whether knowingly or unknowingly, use the Abhidhamma definition of kāmā, including Ven Nanamoli in his original translation of the MN. BB makes a global change of that to "sensual pleasures" in the MLDB, following a stricter philological approach.

The reference I gave to the Vibhanga was to the Vibhanga's definition of kāmā in the 1st Jhana's kāmā seclusion pericope -

“Vivicceva kāmehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehī”ti tattha katame kāmā? Chando kāmo, rāgo kāmo, chandarāgo kāmo, saṅkappo kāmo, rāgo kāmo, saṅkapparāgo kāmo— ime vuccanti “kāmā”.

Vbh 12.1

I was not generalising about how translators (whether BB or VT) translated kāmā, but how they were translating that term in the kāmā seclusion pericope. I would have thought that the clear mention of the problem posed by the Vibhanga would have made it clear I was only interested in the 1st Jhana's seclusion formula, and not a broader philological treatment of kāmā in every other contexts. To reiterate, VT 's rendition of vivicceva kāmehi as "secluded from sensuality" is the object of my objection. As reflection's post just points out, VT makes no bones about what he means by sensuality in the Jhana pericope, ie saṅkapparāga (passion for your sensual thoughts and plans). This is the Abhidhamma meaning.

Now, if we can get back to the business at hand, ie the meaning of kāmā in the kāmā seclusion pericope, please share what you understand kāmā/sensuality/sensual pleasure to mean in this pericope within the Pali and in the translations.

PS - re the differences between BB's and VT's rendering of pañcakāmaguṇā, it' doesn't seem to be relevant to talk about plural or singular here, since the plurality is obviously with reference to the noun guṇā, rather than the noun kāma. The lemma kāma could have been inflected in either the singular or plural within the compound. Both have however translated the lemma to be in the singular. VT's translation harks back to an old explanation I recall him giving for the kāmaguṇā being akin to the strings of an instrument producing music; his analogy being that the kāmaguṇā when touched produces desire. BB's translation also has kāma in the singular, but referring to a pleasant feeling, rather than desire. The doctrinal impact of this difference is significant, depending on whether or not one accepts the suttas' tajja/correspondence model in describing the types of feelings that can arise with particular objects of cognition.

[Sylvester]

Hi reflection

It would be less of a hassle for me if I used for example Nyantiloka's translations, which say "detached from sensual objects.. etc jhana etc", but ok it's not that much of a problem.

Ven Nyanatiloka (and Ven Nyanaponika) are very brave in abandoning the Abhidhamma interpretation, particularly in the light of their works on the Abhidhamma! Very heretical of them!

You also point out an interesting conundrum with VT's translation of kāmā in these 2 suttas -

For clarification, this is Ajahn Thannisaro's interpretation:

There's the phrase in the description of jhana, "secluded from sensuality." Some people interpret that as meaning totally cut off from any input from the physical senses. Some interpret it as meaning secluded from sensual pleasures, so that you have to meditate in a place that's unpleasant or a place that's very boring. But neither of those interpretations is what the Buddha means. Sensuality, in his sense of the word, is your passion for your sensual thoughts and plans; the extent to which you love to obsess about those things. So in being secluded from sensuality you're not trying to close off any contact with outside senses and you're not trying to put yourself in a dull, boring place. You're trying to develop a more internal seclusion: If you see any sensual passion coming up, you sidestep it. You put it aside.

"And what is the drawback of sensuality? There is the case where, on account of the occupation by which a clansman makes a living — whether checking or accounting or calculating or plowing or trading or cattle-tending or archery or as a king's man, or whatever the occupation may be — he faces cold, he faces heat, being harassed by mosquitoes & flies, wind & sun & creeping things, dying from hunger & thirst.
...
"And what, monks, is the escape from sensuality? The subduing of desire-passion for sensuality, the abandoning of desire-passion for sensuality: That is the escape from sensuality.

And this is where his conception of kāmā as saṅkapparāga ("passion for your sensual thoughts and plans" or "sensual passion") will result in his translation of MN 13 reading as "The subduing of desire-passion for sensual passion, the abandoning of desire-passion for sensual passion: That is the escape from sensuality...". I think you were simply too polite and deferential to VT to point out the obvious.

In fact, MN 13's very popular format of analysis of the allure, drawback and escape from the kāmā is drawn out more explicitly in SN 35.14 to indicate that kāmā are the 5 external āyatana. You might be happy to note that SN 35.13 applies the same analysis to the internal āyatana, lending support to your position that even sense activity is viewed as burdensome.