Samadhi (best English translation?)

Explore the ancient language of the Tipitaka and Theravāda commentaries
User avatar
Kumara
Posts: 995
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:14 am
Contact:

Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Post by Kumara »

Sylvester wrote:I'm curious, Bhante. Doesn't DN 9's listing of how perceptions cease and others arise through training suggest singularity of perception in the jhānas?
Have you had any experience of 'jhana' as it is popularly understood these days in the Theravadin world? I have to ask this because without it we'd be just going endlessly around theories.

Anyway, have a look at this: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 11#p248011
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Post by Sylvester »

But Bhante, what is the "popular" understanding as such? You'll forgive me if I express uncertainty, given the proliferation of the anti-absorption models online. Certainly, the "traditional" model holds its own within certain monastic environments, but I get the impression that the more popular model is for jhāna where there is :

- 5 sense awareness;
- thinking and rumination.

This does not even begin to factor in opinion from scholarly quarters (eg Wynne) that the absorption model found in the suttas is an artifact of contamination intruding into the Buddha's earliest teachings. I would exclude this model from the "popular" equation, since this line argues that the absorption suttas have suffered doctrinal contamination, which I think the "popular" school would find too radical an idea.

Pls excuse my reticence on my experiences. I simply prefer to restrict the discussion to what the discourses say. I don't think it's as hopeless as simply going around theories, since we are actually scrutinising each theory against the Gold Standard, ie the suttas.

I would just mention that I'm not a big fan of the Vsm model, but if I were to make a principled disagreement with the Vsm model, I do not brush it off simply by saying, "Oh that comes from the Vsm". I reject something only if I can demonstrate a clear inconsistency between an exegetical proposition with (i) a sutta proposition, or (ii) a reasonable inference from a sutta proposition.

All I would volunteer is that, having experienced the states described by the "popular" model, I have rejected them as being inconsistent with what I think the suttas say. The said emphasis is a recognition that I am not the last word on how suttas should be read and interpreted, but I would expect a great deal of linguistic rigour to be exerted with the texts. As a matter of principle, I do not allow the primary material to be lensed through later material, which is why you'll be hard-pressed to find me resorting to the Vsm.
User avatar
Kumara
Posts: 995
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:14 am
Contact:

Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Post by Kumara »

Sylvester wrote:But Bhante, what is the "popular" understanding as such?
I realise that 'popular' is not a suitable description here. Let me rephrase:
Have you had any experience of 'jhana' as it is traditionally understood these days in the orthodox Theravadin world?
Sylvester wrote: You'll forgive me if I express uncertainty, given the proliferation of the anti-absorption models online. Certainly, the "traditional" model holds its own within certain monastic environments, but I get the impression that the more popular model is for jhāna where there is :

- 5 sense awareness;
- thinking and rumination.
I suppose that's true within some circles. I wrongly used "popular" here.

I'd like to add that, in case some misunderstand, vitakka and vicara in the first jhana need to be understood as not in the manner that is part of the 5 hindrances. See Bhikkhunivasako/Bhikkhunupassaya Sutta (SN 47.10). Ajahn Chah was also quite clear about this.
Sylvester wrote:Pls excuse my reticence on my experiences. I simply prefer to restrict the discussion to what the discourses say. I don't think it's as hopeless as simply going around theories, since we are actually scrutinising each theory against the Gold Standard, ie the suttas.
For the purpose of theoretical debate, yes, its reasonable to take the Suttas as the "Gold Standard". Nonetheless, I think we need to also recognise its limitation. The collection is a record that came about through centuries of transmission, translation, AND editing, etc. Some of what we find therein is no longer well understood. Without comparing the suttas with actual practice, it's quite meaningless. At least so I think.

For me, the "Gold Standard" is not the Suttas. It's not even mere personal experience, which is also subject to interpretations. The "Gold Standard" for me is the spiritual growth of the individual.

If I know someone whose behavior is lacking in lobha, dosa, and moha, who is at ease with whatever happens internally and externally, I'd be pretty impressed. I'd listen to what his teachings, try it for myself and find spiritual growth--that for me is not just the "Gold Standard", it's the gold. If I can compare what I hear and experience with the Suttas (bearing in mind the meaning, rather than mere words), and find that they agree, then it's all the better (and perhaps even exciting). But it's not essential.
Sylvester wrote:I would just mention that I'm not a big fan of the Vsm model, but if I were to make a principled disagreement with the Vsm model, I do not brush it off simply by saying, "Oh that comes from the Vsm". I reject something only if I can demonstrate a clear inconsistency between an exegetical proposition with (i) a sutta proposition, or (ii) a reasonable inference from a sutta proposition.
Great, and I see that this is already well demonstrated by others, like Shankman and Shatz. I'm satisfied with that.
Sylvester wrote:All I would volunteer is that, having experienced the states described by the "popular" model, I have rejected them as being inconsistent with what I think the suttas say. The said emphasis is a recognition that I am not the last word on how suttas should be read and interpreted, but I would expect a great deal of linguistic rigour to be exerted with the texts. As a matter of principle, I do not allow the primary material to be lensed through later material, which is why you'll be hard-pressed to find me resorting to the Vsm.
Fair enough.

Let me ask you something: Would it be possible that what you think the suttas say is already influenced by orthodoxy? How did you begin your learning about meditation? By reading the Suttas?

I happen to know a few people who firmly believe some ideas that are in full agreement with the commentaries, but not with the suttas. Yet they regard themselves as following only the Nikayas. I also happen to know someone who started to learn Buddhism completely with the Suttas--in Pali. It's amazing to see how sharp his mind is in detecting nuances of later influences.
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Post by Sylvester »

That's for your reply, Bhante.
Kumara wrote:
Sylvester wrote:But Bhante, what is the "popular" understanding as such?
I realise that 'popular' is not a suitable description here. Let me rephrase:
Have you had any experience of 'jhana' as it is traditionally understood these days in the orthodox Theravadin world?

I'll still pass on this.

I'd like to add that, in case some misunderstand, vitakka and vicara in the first jhana need to be understood as not in the manner that is part of the 5 hindrances. See Bhikkhunivasako/Bhikkhunupassaya Sutta (SN 47.10). Ajahn Chah was also quite clear about this.
I suppose we may find some common ground in that sutta, but my principal point of reference would be MN 19 and MN 78, ie the vacīsaṅkhāra in the jhānas is sammāsaṅkappa.

Let me ask you something: Would it be possible that what you think the suttas say is already influenced by orthodoxy?


It's hard to deny the possibility, given the many scholarly opinions and findings about intrusions from sectarian affiliations showing up clearly in each collection. It's a given.
How did you begin your learning about meditation? By reading the Suttas?
I started with Zen meditation, before migrating to the "Theravada". Read the exegetical material first, and then found ATI and bought into the translations there. Have lately been re-reading the suttas in the Pali.
User avatar
frank k
Posts: 2247
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Post by frank k »

dear Ven. Kumara and Sylvester,

I have no idea what "popular' and "orthodox theravada" means. I do know what is meant by "sutta jhana" and "vism. jhana", but I wonder how much miscommunication happens on the jhana debates because it's not always clear what people are referring to. Another example, Thanissaro translates jhana as absorption, but so does Anaalayo and others but they have very different view of jhana. Also many people don't fall into the neat categories of "sutta jhana" or "vism. jhana". Some believe both are valid models, some have a hybrid model.

This must be why so many of us are interested in finding better translations for some of the key words associated with samaadhi. At this point I think that's not going to happen, probably the clearest way is to use pali terms and english in parenthesis or in footnotes.
www.lucid24.org/sted : ☸Lucid24.org🐘 STED definitions
www.audtip.org/audtip: 🎙️🔊Audio Tales in Pāli: ☸Dharma and Vinaya in many languages
User avatar
Kumara
Posts: 995
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:14 am
Contact:

Jhana -- Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Post by Kumara »

frank k wrote:I wonder how much miscommunication happens on the jhana debates because it's not always clear what people are referring to.
How much? I think a lot. Without clarifying what each person mean by jhana, people may think that they agree when they don't, or think that they don't agree when they actually do!
Another example, Thanissaro translates jhana as absorption, but so does Anaalayo and others but they have very different view of jhana. Also many people don't fall into the neat categories of "sutta jhana" or "vism. jhana". Some believe both are valid models, some have a hybrid model.
Exactly. Currently, I've come to see 2 forms of Vism jhana, and 2 forms of Sutta jhana. I've already pointed Ajahn Thate's view on 2 forms of Vism jhana (though he just calls it 'jhana').

As for the Sutta jhana, there is the directed (which applies only for 1st jhana), and the undirected. I rather not go further on this here though, as I foresee having to explain more than I'm willing to here. It's already confusing enough for most people. I'm not even sure if it's a good idea to add this point to my book.

Anyway, if you're interested in the various kinds on jhana, you'd probably be interested in this: Interpretations of the Jhanas http://www.leighb.com/jhanantp.htm

Also of interest is this: http://bhikkhucintita.wordpress.com/201 ... riants-18/ by Bhikkhu Cintita Dinsmore. If you've gotten much commentarial ideas and terminology in your head, you may find reading this meaningful. Otherwise, you'd probably find it confusing.
Last edited by Kumara on Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Post by Sylvester »

frank k wrote:dear Ven. Kumara and Sylvester,

I have no idea what "popular' and "orthodox theravada" means. I do know what is meant by "sutta jhana" and "vism. jhana", but I wonder how much miscommunication happens on the jhana debates because it's not always clear what people are referring to. Another example, Thanissaro translates jhana as absorption, but so does Anaalayo and others but they have very different view of jhana. Also many people don't fall into the neat categories of "sutta jhana" or "vism. jhana". Some believe both are valid models, some have a hybrid model.

This must be why so many of us are interested in finding better translations for some of the key words associated with samaadhi. At this point I think that's not going to happen, probably the clearest way is to use pali terms and english in parenthesis or in footnotes.

Hi frank.

I hope this does not come off sounding supercilious, but my personal view on the "sutta jhana" v "vsm jhana" dichotomy is that it is nothing more than a pop sound-bite. Which is why I feel that a study of vocabulary alone will not yield much, unless done in conjunction with a more rigorous grammatical and contextual analysis.

Context is all important, given the high degree of polysemy in Pali. Just look at the endless debates revolving around sememes such saññā, sati, kāya, vitakka etc etc. I wish Pali grammar and syntax did not need to be an important consideration, but given just how much misunderstanding is foisted on English translations, it becomes imperative to question interpretations that ignore the underlying Pali grammar. If you've followed the debates, you'd probably be familiar with the interpretations that rely on the proximity of the vipassanā verbs to the verbs associated with jhāna, all on the misguided basis that they are both in the present tense. On top of that silliness, you actually have to take pains to question if the standard viharati verb in the jhāna formulae has any meaningful relation to the vipassanā verbs, given that it functions as an auxillary to the attainment verb. I'm also sure you've seen the claim made about psychic powers being exercised in jhāna on the basis of the DN 2 pericope, but how many realise that the grammatical construction of that formula simply does not allow it? Do people actually notice that the "mind [thus] concentrated" ("samāhite citte" as a locative absolute formed out of a past participle) stands in a disjunct temporal relation to the exercise of the psychic powers?

Do you think dictionary entries or new glossaries will solve these types of confusion? As it is, some of the current dictionaries are not even critical enough to stratify vocabulary to usage according to the different layers of the Canon.

There's also the issue of internal consistency, but since that measures exegetical propositions against indubitable doctrinal statements, it can only be meaningfully performed if the baseline doctrinal statements themselves acquire an indubitable meaning based in part on the earlier 2 methods.

Brasington and Shankman have both done a great service in the comparative essays. While there's much to be lauded, I still see gaps in their work. There just isn't enough use of critical tools in their translation of the primary materials, IMHO. Granted, a "linguistic-textual-doctrinal" (per Bucknell) approach will not really be useful reading for the non-scholar. Yet, that tool exists. Should it be kept in the drawer, in deference to the appeal to experience?
Last edited by Sylvester on Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Jhana -- Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Post by Sylvester »

Kumara wrote:[As for the Sutta jhana, there is the directed (which applies only for 1st jhana), and the undirected. I rather not go further on this here though, as I foresee having to explain more than I'm willing to here. It's already confusing enough for most people. I'm not even sure if it's a good idea to add this point to my book.

Dear Bhante

It would be nice if you discussed this. If it's of less appeal to the Paliphiles here, you could always open a new thread. The interpretation of SN 47.10 is an important issue, since your belief that it applies to the 1st jhana might run counter to DN 9 (and its Chinese parallel DA 28) and AN 3.101.
User avatar
frank k
Posts: 2247
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Post by frank k »

Hi Sylvester, "sutta jhana" and "vism. jhana" at least is clear on the point that with "vism.", one uses visual light nimitta to enter into a jhana, and that one has to emerge before one is able to think and do vipassana, something which you won't find in the suttas. Also how vitakka and vicara are defined in vism. is clearly different than the sutta passages that explicitly state the vitakka and vicara being nekkhamma, abyapada, avihimsa (or their opposites) when talking about the presence and absence of vitakka and vicara for the first and second jhanas.

I agree that making better dictionary definitions for key pali terms alone is not going to solve communications problems, but surely there's something we can do as a community to facilitate better understanding of what these terms mean when talking about different interpretations of jhana.
www.lucid24.org/sted : ☸Lucid24.org🐘 STED definitions
www.audtip.org/audtip: 🎙️🔊Audio Tales in Pāli: ☸Dharma and Vinaya in many languages
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Frank,
frank k wrote:Hi Sylvester, "sutta jhana" and "vism. jhana" at least is clear on the point that with "vism.", one uses visual light nimitta to enter into a jhana, ...
I'm not sure it's so straightforward. What about Ajahn Brahm, who definitely sees himself as a "sutta follower", but also teaches the light nimitta?
And signs of concentration are certainly in the suttas: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=15578
frank k wrote: ... and that one has to emerge before one is able to think and do vipassana, something which you won't find in the suttas.
I'm no expert, but I understand that the interpretation of the temporal relationship of some statements in the suttas is not trivial.

:anjali:
Mike
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Post by Sylvester »

Hi Frank
frank k wrote:Hi Sylvester, "sutta jhana" and "vism. jhana" at least is clear on the point that with "vism.", one uses visual light nimitta to enter into a jhana, and that one has to emerge before one is able to think and do vipassana, something which you won't find in the suttas.
Re "insight" during the attainments, check out DN 9, but preferably a translation other than Ven T's. You can audit the translations against the Pali to see where the mistranslation by Ven T lies. The Chinese parallel says much the same thing about the incompatibility of thinking and intending with the attainments (sorry, I can't find my old post where I extracted the parallel passage from the Chinese DA 28). Not forgetting AN 3.101 which suggests that dhammavitakkā is a subtle defilement to be cleared out before one can attain the jhānas.

To get around this problem, some argue that vipassanā does not require thinking, that it is tied instead to perception. This brings in a gigantic subject for critical analysis of what vipassanā means in different strata of the texts and within specific contexts in the same stratum. What does vipassanā see - the states/experiences simpliciter or the dependency relationship of the states to one another in accordance with idappaccayatā? Leaving this gigantic issue aside, does the Pali actually say that one vipassati (does vipassana) during the duration of a jhāna?

If you survey the suttas' containing jhānas, you will find 2 broad categories. One is the narrative type, eg the account of Ven Moggallana's struggle to attain the jhānas (SN 40). The other would be the instructional sermons. Both types of suttas can be found framed with present tense verbs (eg MN 111 as a narrative and MN 66 as an instructional). The vipassati proxy verb pajānāti (knows/discerns/understands) then pops up in connection with the jhāna section as a following sentence, and pajānāti is also expressed in the present tense (eg MN 121). This, as most English readers would insist, must suggest that vipassanā is contemporaneous with jhāna. Does Pali grammar envisage such a function for the Pali present tense?

We can see that if contemporaneity were intended to be conveyed, the grammar suggests 2 other constructions, ie (i) the absolutive functioning as a gerund, or (ii) the genitive absolute formed from a present participle. However, these 2 types of construction are typically employed as the subordinate clause of relative clauses. I've not seen any of the jhāna and vipassanā passages structured in this kind of clause structure. I've not even seen any jhāna and vipassanā passages structured as distinct sentences (instead of clauses) where the jhāna verbs are expressed in either the absolutive or genitive absolute to the vipassanā verbs in present tense.

The reason for this is quite simple. The standard idiom for indicating contemporaneity of another activity with a jhāna is the relative clauses "Tassa ... iminā vihārena viharati, noun+another verb" idiom. Both the narrative and instructional suttas employ this idiom, and as far as I can see, the idiom is used only to speak of the "thorns" assailing the specific jhāna susceptible to that "thorn". Given that this idiom is available to both the narrative passages and the instructional passages, don't you find it contrived to press the present tense vipassanā verbs into service as functioning in the same way as the idiom? I've previously mentioned something about the periphrastic construction involving viharati in the jhāna pericopes (http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 16#p235389), and it seems that this idiomatic relative clause is the way to link the auxillary verb with the other verbs that follow as being contemporaneous.
Also how vitakka and vicara are defined in vism. is clearly different than the sutta passages that explicitly state the vitakka and vicara being nekkhamma, abyapada, avihimsa (or their opposites) when talking about the presence and absence of vitakka and vicara for the first and second jhanas.
I agree, but with the wee caveat that the Vsm definition could be justified on 2 grounds - (i) it discusses vitakka and vicāra in the bare mechanical sense, ie what the mind does, and this mechanical definition is also to be found in MN 19 and MN 117; and (ii) the qualitative sense of "how" the mechanics are performed would be found in the kusala descriptions such as MN 78, which you correctly identify with nekkhama, avyāpāda and ahiṃsā.
I agree that making better dictionary definitions for key pali terms alone is not going to solve communications problems, but surely there's something we can do as a community to facilitate better understanding of what these terms mean when talking about different interpretations of jhana.
That is KR Norman's plea, but he recognises that there's simply too much dogma entrenched in the exegetical traditions that they could not be expected to surrender to linguistic criticism. Nobody likes their memes to be scrutinised by grammarians and linguists...
User avatar
Kumara
Posts: 995
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:14 am
Contact:

Nimitta -- Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Post by Kumara »

mikenz66 wrote:Hi Frank,
frank k wrote:Hi Sylvester, "sutta jhana" and "vism. jhana" at least is clear on the point that with "vism.", one uses visual light nimitta to enter into a jhana, ...
I'm not sure it's so straightforward. What about Ajahn Brahm, who definitely sees himself as a "sutta follower", but also teaches the light nimitta?
And signs of concentration are certainly in the suttas: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=15578
As you mentioned at the end of your post there listing the many suttas mentioning nimitta, "None of these cases refer specifically to "light" nimittas used by Vens Brahm, Pa Auk, and others." We can find "light" nimittas, besides other visual nimittas, mentioned (along with tactile ones) in VisM though.

As for the conflicting Ajahn Brahm's stand, what do you think?
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Post by mikenz66 »

Bhante,

I read the accounts of ancient and modern teachers as records based on their experience and/or their students. The Suttas, of course, are the key information that the ancient and modern teachers should be evaluated against. However, to me, they contain few practice details, so I value the reported experience of the ancient and modern practitioners.

Regarding the concentration signs: If I recall correctly, there are concentration signs other than lights mentioned in Visuddhimagga.

:anjali:
Mike
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Post by Nyana »

Sylvester wrote:This, as most English readers would insist, must suggest that vipassanā is contemporaneous with jhāna.
Why do you continue to suggest that this is an error created by English language readers? Ven. Bodhi, Ven. Ṭhānissaro, Ven. Guṇaratana, and the entirety of the ancient Sarvāstivāda, Sautrāntika, and Yogācāra commentarial traditions all either read Pāli or other ancient Indic languages.
User avatar
Assaji
Posts: 2106
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Post by Assaji »

Hello,

The narrow, objectified interpretation of 'nimitta' as 'visual image' is later than Visuddhimagga.

Visuddhimagga gives the clear definition of 'nimitta' as 'representation', which is quite in line with the Sutta.
In practice, this representation can have visual, tactile, or other sensory characteristics.

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2770
Post Reply