Vipassana during Jhana?

[Sylvester]

I think the knowing of the factors had to occur as they occurred just from the grammar. It says:

Known to him they arose, known to him they remained, known to him they subsided.

This is grammatically distinctive in this sutta, as in the case of the terms samanupassati and pajanati, the terms were being used as the main verb, but the word we are interested in here is a participle used as an adverb, which implies contemporaneity, because the participle is describing how the action occurred. When it says "Known to him they arose" it means that they arose in a way which was known to him.

That's my analysis, although I freely admit that it is possible that Pali participles work differently than in other languages.

Hi Bakmoon

Could you explain why the past participle viditā here appears to you to function adverbially? I think the general rule is for adverbs to be declined to the accusative? (see Geiger p.95) It should be an adjective, qualifying the noun dhammā.

It's not an easy passage, since the "tyāssa dhammā viditā uppajjanti" might be the continuation of preceding the ya-ta correlative clause that goes "Ye ca paṭhame jhāne ...tyāssa dhammā anupadavavatthitā honti". Bearing in mind that the honti appears to be functioning as an auxiliary verb, might it be possible that uppajjanti etc are also auxiliary in nature? Admittedly, this is unlikely, given Warder's short list of auxiliaries at Cap 24.

I am inclined to agree that the viditā is contemporaneous with the state's arising etc, but again, I am of the view that this has nothing to do with vipassanā. I interpret vipassanā to be the outcome of ruminative contemplation, whereas the absence of any mention of viditā in the 2 post-saññāsamāpattis suggests that vavattheti and vindati are allied to perception, rather than analysis.

[mikenz66]

Hi Sylvester,

I am inclined to agree that the viditā is contemporaneous with the state's arising etc, but again, I am of the view that this has nothing to do with vipassanā. I interpret vipassanā to be the outcome of ruminative contemplation, whereas the absence of any mention of viditā in the 2 post-saññāsamāpattis suggests that vavattheti and vindati are allied to perception, rather than analysis.

I'm curious where vipassana is declared to be "ruminative".


Mike

[danieLion]

From the Joseph Goldstein talk I linked to above.

The 1st Vipassana Jhana: Seclusion from the hindrances for a period of time, and a very immediate direct seeing of the three characteristics (33:38-ish to 45:00-ish).

The 2nd Vipassana Jhana: Discernment of what is the path (continuous mindfulness of whatever arises) with energetic rapture, resulting in a tremendous amount of confidence (38:00-ish to 45:00-ish).

The 3rd Vipassana Jhana: Lucid mindfulness. Energetic rapture fades away and is replaced by comfort and one-pointedness. Dissolution is experienced (45:00-ish to 49:00-ish).

Somewhere between the third vipassana jhana and the fourth, comfort becomes equanimity (while one-pointedness remains) until in...(49:00-ish to 50:45-ish)

...The 4th Vipassana Jhana: Equanimity becomes well developed, and experiences of dissolution become stronger and more subtle, preparing the mind to experience The Unconditioned (50:45-ish to 55:00-ish).

[Sylvester]

Hi Mike

I infer as such - see this post : viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2834#p218743. See also the Dhammasaṅgaṇī citation earlier, which employs rather discursive nouns related to one of the bojjhangas, ie dhammavicaya.

One of the 5 possibilities in AN 5.26 also employs rather ruminative verbs, ie anuvitakketi (ponders) anuvicāreti (examines) manasānupekkhati (metally inspects).

That being said, I would be the last to disagree that vipassanā in the sense of satipaṭṭhāna can carry a VERY broad range of the verbal formation, from the complex ones above to the bare awareness types that have been discussed.

[daverupa]

That being said, I would be the last to disagree that vipassanā in the sense of satipaṭṭhāna can carry a VERY broad range of the verbal formation, from the complex ones above to the bare awareness types that have been discussed.

Given that satipatthana was to be among the first things introduced to new ordinands, I think that the broad range of the term might be trying to capture the various ways satipatthana gets done, i.e. satipatthana occurs as the background for daily practice - sati-sampajanna - while anapanasati is a way of doing it which leads to jhana.

It seems to me that ruminative analysis forms the backbone of early practice, at least, up to and including first jhana (since this was discovered by the Bodhisatta at an early age, it makes sense to me that it's character would be markedly different from second jhana, etc.). But as things come to be known, analysis gives way to perception, and the increasing lack of rumination makes vipassanā the most appropriate single term for these aspects of this process, given its breadth.

There's a sutta that describes the practice of satipatthana as being with vitakka-vicara, with vicara, and without vitakka-vicara, which seems to hint in this direction as well.

[Sylvester]

[equilibrium]

Known to him they arose, known to him they remained, known to him they subsided.

This caught my eyes so will be brief.....lets use an analogy:
Lets say you known something to be true but now there is new information revealed to you and as you examine between the two, you will come to the conclusion that what you thought you knew was true was actually nothing but a believe, so you throw it away leaving you with the new information which now becomes the truth.

[Bakmoon]

I think the knowing of the factors had to occur as they occurred just from the grammar. It says:

Known to him they arose, known to him they remained, known to him they subsided.

This is grammatically distinctive in this sutta, as in the case of the terms samanupassati and pajanati, the terms were being used as the main verb, but the word we are interested in here is a participle used as an adverb, which implies contemporaneity, because the participle is describing how the action occurred. When it says "Known to him they arose" it means that they arose in a way which was known to him.

That's my analysis, although I freely admit that it is possible that Pali participles work differently than in other languages.

Hi Bakmoon

Could you explain why the past participle viditā here appears to you to function adverbially? I think the general rule is for adverbs to be declined to the accusative? (see Geiger p.95) It should be an adjective, qualifying the noun dhammā.

It's not an easy passage, since the "tyāssa dhammā viditā uppajjanti" might be the continuation of preceding the ya-ta correlative clause that goes "Ye ca paṭhame jhāne ...tyāssa dhammā anupadavavatthitā honti". Bearing in mind that the honti appears to be functioning as an auxiliary verb, might it be possible that uppajjanti etc are also auxiliary in nature? Admittedly, this is unlikely, given Warder's short list of auxiliaries at Cap 24.

Oh, you are right. The participle is acting as an adjective. I really need to review Pali case endings and verbals

I am inclined to agree that the viditā is contemporaneous with the state's arising etc, but again, I am of the view that this has nothing to do with vipassanā. I interpret vipassanā to be the outcome of ruminative contemplation, whereas the absence of any mention of viditā in the 2 post-saññāsamāpattis suggests that vavattheti and vindati are allied to perception, rather than analysis.

It's all a difference of definition, then. I understand vipassati to be seeing objects clearly as having the characteristics they have (seeing their conditions of arising and passing, seeing the three characteristics, etc...), as opposed to seeing it in a way contaminated by conceiving. To me, the sort of vigorous analysis you are talking about would better be classified as dhamma vicaya than vipassati, although I don't think they are mutually exclusive.

[Sylvester]

Hi Bakmoon.

Yes, it's definitely a difference in definition. It appears that you view vipassanā to be seeing the actual sense data, whereas I view it to be the outcome of the process of inferring inductive knowledge, based on the actual sense data. For want of a better analogy, it could perhaps be said that vipassanā, for you, is seeing the dots, whereas for me it is the pattern disclosed when the dots are joined.

[mikenz66]

Hi Sylvester,

This is a very helpful conversation, which perhaps clarifies where some of the different opinions come from...


Mike

[danieLion]

Don't suttas like Anguttara Nikaya 4.124 and 9.36 record examples of vipassana during jhana?

[Sylvester]

That does not seem to be the function of present tense verbs in Pali.

[daverupa]

That does not seem to be the function of present tense verbs in Pali.

Let's have the details, via Warder:

The present tense is used to express [1] present time, the limits of which are somewhat vague, or [2] indefinite time (timeless statements such as "eternal truths"), [3] sometimes the immediate future (which may include a shade of "imperative" sense; cf. English "I'm going") and [4] sometimes the past ("historic present"). It is used to express [5] the duration of an action "until", [6] a fixed future time (a vivid future visualized as present) "when", and [7] in certain other constructions.

The examples of those two suttas strike me as instances of [6].

(I wonder: isn't somanassa present during some jhana at least? And isn't cetana inherent in somanassa? So cetana would be present in maybe the first two or three jhana, but maybe I'm not thinking clearly, as I'm with a head cold.)

[santa100]

danielLion wrote:
Don't suttas like Anguttara Nikaya 4.124 and 9.36 record examples of vipassana during jhana?

Ven. Thanissaro said it could be either during or after in his summary of MN 111 ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... n.111.than ):

A description of how insight can be developed either while in, or immediately after withdrawing from, the different levels of jhana.

The reason that the 4th immaterial attainment's insight (base of neither perception nor non-perception) can only be done afterward was explained in Ven. Bodhi's note:

[1051]This indirect introspective method must be used to contemplate the fourth immaterial attainment because this attainment, being extremely subtle, does not enter into the direct range of investigation for disciples. Only fully enlightened Buddhas are able to contemplate it directly.