B. Sujato third jhāna, "The body as metaphor", more like out of context, out of his body, out of his mind

[frank k]

B. Sujato third jhāna, "The body as metaphor", more like out of context, out of his body, out of his mind
https://www.reddit.com/r/EarlyBuddhistT ... phor_more/

[BrokenBones]

It's like he's discovered an esoteric language, long lost to us lesser mortals.

The body is not a body... the Buddha is not the Buddha?

Fourth jhana simile... toes are not toes? Toes of the mind?

I always thought the Buddha used similes to clarify his teaching not obscure it.

Maybe it's a terma he discovered way out West.

[Ceisiwr]

"Birds of a feather flock together"

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

B. Sujato third jhāna, "The body as metaphor", more like out of context, out of his body, out of his mind
https://www.reddit.com/r/EarlyBuddhistT ... phor_more/

Can you post the relevant materials here, on-site?



Metta,
Paul.

[BrokenBones]

"Birds of a feather flock together"

Quite an apt proverb ... here's another...

"Ignorance is bliss"

Have you read the article?

[Ceisiwr]

"Birds of a feather flock together"

Quite an apt proverb ... here's another...

"Ignorance is bliss"

Have you read the article?

Sadly yes.

[Pulsar]

Dearest frank k. I read part of what you posted on Reddit...
From Sujatho what you posted...

And in just the same way, the body is not a physical body, but a metaphor for the wholeness and directness of experience. As if this were not obvious enough from the context, notice that the things to be realized with the body are the eight liberations, which include the four formless attainments. These are by definition beyond any kind of physical reality. Elsewhere, the Buddha says that even Nibbana is to be realized with the body.

The body is not the body, the eye is not the eye, and thought is not thought. These are all words, inadequate, struggling, messy words, creeping up from the evolutionary slime, groping and grasping towards the light. As long as we keep them weighed down by the mundane, we can never speak of higher things. And since these higher things are things of the mind, if we cannot speak of them, we cannot imagine them. And if we cannot imagine them, we cannot realize them. And that is rather a sad state of affairs.

Sujatho is rightly speaking of the

• the wholeness and directness of experience

He even says if if we cannot imagine them, we cannot realize them. And that is rather a sad state of affairs.
Many engage in discussions of jhana, without having a clue, of its soteriological significance. I feel folks think of jhana an an experience independent of the rest of the rest of the 8-fold path. It comes in a package. Is it not?
The 8-fold path does not require anything more than the 4 buddhist jhanas as Samma Samadhi, even though some suttas refer to meditations other than the 4 buddhist jhanas. I try not to dwell on what is unnecessary. I've noticed that you are a proponent of Arupa Samapathis.
Can you explain how those help the reversal of Dependent origination of suffering?
Should not this be our main concern?
Nama rupa helps propagate the worldly consciousness. If we can stop the process of creating rupa, (mental proliferation) the problem is solved.
4th Jhana can accomplish this. Why progress on to Arupa Samapatthis?
It is far better to rightly understand Paticca samuppada and educate folks on that, than to criticize Ven. Sujatho. He is merely discussing the weakness of language in communicating spiritual concepts.
Here is what someone else wrote on DW on the poverty of language in communicating spiritual concepts.
One time there was a question on why there is no sutta that explains awakening?

It is because they cannot explain what awakening actually is, to the puthujjana

Vinasp wrote. This is not Ven. Sujatho's fault.
It is not fair to misrepresent Ven. Sujatho.
With love

[DooDoot]

From Sujato what you posted...

And in just the same way, the body is not a physical body, but a metaphor for the wholeness and directness of experience. As if this were not obvious enough from the context, notice that the things to be realized with the body are the eight liberations, which include the four formless attainments. These are by definition beyond any kind of physical reality. Elsewhere, the Buddha says that even Nibbana is to be realized with the body.

The body is not the body, the eye is not the eye, and thought is not thought. These are all words, inadequate, struggling, messy words, creeping up from the evolutionary slime, groping and grasping towards the light. As long as we keep them weighed down by the mundane, we can never speak of higher things. And since these higher things are things of the mind, if we cannot speak of them, we cannot imagine them. And if we cannot imagine them, we cannot realize them. And that is rather a sad state of affairs.

I cannot imagine Ven. Sujato saying the above in reference to the phrase: kāyassa bhedā.

[frank k]

Greetings,

B. Sujato third jhāna, "The body as metaphor", more like out of context, out of his body, out of his mind
https://www.reddit.com/r/EarlyBuddhistT ... phor_more/

Can you post the relevant materials here, on-site?



Metta,
Paul.

Hi Paul, here's a copy and paste of that article, and you'll quickly realize why I post links to my article instead of pasting the whole article. Formatting of pali+english is lost, and links to explanations of important terms are lost. Without formatting, it can also be hard to tell what part is quoting someone else and what is my comment.


WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2021
B. Sujato third jhāna, "The body as metaphor", more like out of context, out of his body, out of his mind
Suttacentral recently had a massive update and an overhauled improved user interface. I keep waiting for B. Sujato to fix his errors in vitakka, vicara, kaya, rupa in his non EBT interpretation of jhana (he's suppose to be a leader in the EBT movement), but so far he is still clinging tenaciously to his erroneous views.

I've posted many articles over the years with detailed audits exposing his fallacies, contradictions, incoherence on this issue, but I thought with the new release of suttacentral and his refusal to acknowledge his errors, it's a good time to commemorate the occasion by publicizing the fallacies again, try to reach a broader audience.

I'll just make my points very concisely, and refer to my previous articles for the full audit. But first, I leave it as an fun exercise for the readers (also to test your knowledge of Dhamma and critical thinking skills). See how many fallacies you can spot and explain. I'll wait a few weeks, and then add my concise summary.

This is what Dhamma-vicaya-sambojjhanga (investigation of Dharma awakening factor) is all about, and it's equivalent to the 4th frame of satipatthana, seeing the Dharma [teaching that leads to Nirvana] as the Dharma, according to reality as it actually is, rather than a distorted, confused, or even erroneous Dharma [teaching].

In the forum discussion threads for this article, Name that fallacy! (or any error that isn't technically a fallacy)

also watch for whether he follows his own rules of translation:

B. Sujato sutta translation guideline: 1) “principle of least meaning”, 2) “principle of least accuracy”
DN 2: B. Sujato's translation of third jhana, and its simile as of 4/21/2021
4.3.2.7. Third Absorption
4.3.2.7. Tatiyajhāna
Furthermore, with the fading away of rapture, a mendicant enters and remains in the third absorption, where they meditate with equanimity, mindful and aware, personally experiencing the bliss of which the noble ones declare, ‘Equanimous and mindful, one meditates in bliss.’
Puna caparaṁ, mahārāja, bhikkhu pītiyā ca virāgā upekkhako ca viharati sato sampajāno, sukhañca kāyena paṭisaṁvedeti, yaṁ taṁ ariyā ācikkhanti: ‘upekkhako satimā sukhavihārī’ti, tatiyaṁ jhānaṁ upasampajja viharati.
They drench, steep, fill, and spread their body with bliss free of rapture. There’s no part of the body that’s not spread with bliss free of rapture.
So imameva kāyaṁ nippītikena sukhena abhisandeti parisandeti paripūreti parippharati, nāssa kiñci sabbāvato kāyassa nippītikena sukhena apphuṭaṁ hoti.

It’s like a pool with blue water lilies, or pink or white lotuses. Some of them sprout and grow in the water without rising above it, thriving underwater. From the tip to the root they’re drenched, steeped, filled, and soaked with cool water. There’s no part of them that’s not soaked with cool water.
Seyyathāpi, mahārāja, uppaliniyaṁ vā paduminiyaṁ vā puṇḍarīkiniyaṁ vā appekaccāni uppalāni vā padumāni vā puṇḍarīkāni vā udake jātāni udake saṁvaḍḍhāni udakānuggatāni antonimuggaposīni, tāni yāva caggā yāva ca mūlā sītena vārinā abhisannāni parisannāni paripūrāni paripphuṭāni, nāssa kiñci sabbāvataṁ uppalānaṁ vā padumānaṁ vā puṇḍarīkānaṁ vā sītena vārinā apphuṭaṁ assa; Variant: paripphuṭāni → paripphaṭāni (sya-all); paripphuṭṭhāni (pts1ed) | nāssa → nassā (bj) | parisannāni → abhisannāni (sya1ed, sya2ed); abhisandāni parisandāni (mr)





"The body as metaphor", B. Sujato essay from 2012 attempting to justify hiding the dead body in the third jhana formula


https://sujato.wordpress.com/2012/12/08 ... -metaphor/

The body as metaphor



While we’re on the topic of misconstrued meditative metaphors, here’s another chestnut that well and truly deserves roasting: the body. The formula for third jhana mentions that one ‘experiences bliss with the body’. Most interpretations of jhanas say that they are purely mental experiences, based on the unification of mind-consciousness, and that it is impossible to experience anything through the five senses while in such a state.



But then, we can’t just have everybody agreeing on everything, can we, because that would be just so so dull. So others take the word body quite literally here, and say that this shows that we can experience the body (and other physical senses) in jhana.



You’re probably guessing that I’m going to side with the non-literalists here, and you’re quite right. I’ve discussed this in more detail elsewhere, but I just noticed this little sutta that brings out the metaphorical nature of the language used in higher Dhammas quite nicely. Here it is, Anguttara 4.189.



Bhikkhus, these four are things to be realized. What four?



There are things to be realized with the body, to be realized with mindfulness, to be realized with the eye and to be realized with wisdom.



What should be realized with the body? The eight liberations.



What should be realized with mindfulness? Previous births.



What should be realized with the eye? The passing away and rebirth of beings.



What should be realized with wisdom? The ending of defilements.



Bhikkhus, these four are things to be realized.



Notice especially here the use of ‘body’ and ‘eye’. Now, it is clearly quite impossible that ‘eye’ means a physical eye here; no-one would argue that one can physically see beings getting reborn. In this context of subtle, abstruse, higher Dhammas, the eye is not a physical eye, but a metaphor for a refined inner vision.



And in just the same way, the body is not a physical body, but a metaphor for the wholeness and directness of experience. As if this were not obvious enough from the context, notice that the things to be realized with the body are the eight liberations, which include the four formless attainments. These are by definition beyond any kind of physical reality. Elsewhere, the Buddha says that even Nibbana is to be realized with the body.



The body is not the body, the eye is not the eye, and thought is not thought. These are all words, inadequate, struggling, messy words, creeping up from the evolutionary slime, groping and grasping towards the light. As long as we keep them weighed down by the mundane, we can never speak of higher things. And since these higher things are things of the mind, if we cannot speak of them, we cannot imagine them. And if we cannot imagine them, we cannot realize them. And that is rather a sad state of affairs.



Forum discussion
reddit


https://www.reddit.com/r/EarlyBuddhistT ... phor_more/

dhammawheel
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=39939

[frank k]

...
The 8-fold path does not require anything more than the 4 buddhist jhanas as Samma Samadhi, even though some suttas refer to meditations other than the 4 buddhist jhanas. I try not to dwell on what is unnecessary. I've noticed that you are a proponent of Arupa Samapathis.
...

I am also of the opinion that 4 (correct interpretations) of jhana are all that's needed, and not arupa.
I don't know how you got the impression that I'm a proponent of arupa.
What I'm a proponent of is monks being ethical in how they behave, and how they translate suttas.
The 4 jhanas are not arupa, in the 4 jhanas the mind is sensitive to the 5 senses of the body, which is made up of rupa of 4 elements, 31 body parts, born of mother and father, can hear sounds and can think.

[Pulsar]

frank k wrote 

I am also of the opinion that 4 (correct interpretations) of jhana are all that's needed, and not arupa.I don't know how you got the impression that I'm a proponent of arupa

Once I thought you engaged in a discussion on MN 111 with a group of folks. Why would anyone think MN 111 is a valid sutta? You were saying  MN 111 presents a bunch of stuff made up by some Abhidhammikas.
I read it again. I made an error. I must apologise. 
But you know that the

• 4th buddhist jhana is technically Arupa

right? You wrote

What I'm a proponent of is monks being ethical in how they behave, and how they translate suttas.

The scholar monks translate suttas the way they are handed down to them.
Corruptions had entered the Sutta Pitaka way before sectarianism.
Even BB admitted this. Several suttas have meditations of vedic or upanishadic origins stacked over and above the 4 Buddhist meditations?
Modern monks translate suttas as they are. It is not their fault.
I know you object to the word "Choice" used in the translation of sankhara.
But volition and fabrication used by BB and Thanissaro, are they any better? 
What would you propose? I would call sankhara

• "kamma generating  intention"

 but folks don't like to think they are creating kamma, when they are grasping a contact that generates a feeling leading to sankhara.
Now your main objection to Sujatho's translation below (i like to misspell Sujato, can i have that freedom?, the misspellings in Pali canon however could have lead to misinterpretation of the suttas, by abhidhamma compilers who did not understand the liberating intention enclosed within DO or the 4 buddhist jhanas).
The excerpt from Sujato that you objected to: 

And in just the same way, the body is not a physical body, but a metaphor for the wholeness and directness of experience. As if this were not obvious enough from the context, notice that the things to be realized with the body are the eight liberations.

What is wrong with that translation? The body in jhana is a reference to what is happening  at the sense bases primarily. It involves consciousness definitely.

• It is really an embodied experience.

Many Buddhists do not know the correct definition of consciousness.
In the right buddhist jhana, the body is engaged in distancing from the sensory world.
It does not mean the body is elevating, yet a movement is happening in the consciousness.
This  is true of  the first Satipatthana also.
But many fail to realize this. There are several suttas in the Salayatana that say so, and a few elsewhere that confirm this.
But people ignore these conveniently, or are not smart enough to notice.
In relation to the body in your comment you wrote 

which is made up of rupa of 4 elements, 31 body parts, born of mother and father, can hear sounds and can think.

i find the inclusion of 31 body parts, and born of mother and father rather distracting.
The attention here is directed mainly on the consciousness.
if i object to anything in the sutta you are quoting from...it is the 8 liberations (why the extra 4), but that is not the fault of the translator.
Sutta compilers dragged in non-buddha teachhings into the compilation of the Buddhist canon. 
The Original Buddha condemned the teachings of Alara kalama and & Co.  
For the errors in the sutta pitaka we cannot blame the modern scholar monks, the errors were already there. Just imagine our Sariputta going through the mental shenanigans described in MN 111.
If Buddha's words reported in Vinaya Pitaka are true, Sariputta and Moggallana had already become Arahants on that very first day.
I notice that you object to the word 'love', which i often use on this forum, at the end of a comment.
Regarding Sujato using love for Metta, you wrote on your blog,

As I highlighted earlier, his translation of 'metta' as love:I will develop [metta ceto vimutti] the heart’s release by love. I’ll cultivate it, What this instruction sounds like, and it is possible to do in real life, is one should have jhanic quality of samadhi and perform tantric sex for many hours.

 
Sorry when i write 'With love' on this forum, tantric sex is the last thing on my mind.
But the world is full of nutty folks, they can think whatever they want to,
even when love as in Metta is declared innocently.
Papanca is a characteristic feature of the unenlightened.  Buddha has  called it a mental sickness. 
with love 
PS Pl forgive the typos, that is entirely my fault. Don't pay attention to them. It is the content that is important.

[Ceisiwr]

Several suttas have meditations of vedic or upanishadic origins stacked over and above the 4 Buddhist meditations?

The formless meditations come from the annihilationists. Eternalists seem to have preferred the Jhanas. The rishis of the Upanishads likely practiced them.

[ToVincent]

The annihilationists believed in a self, at every of their seven levels - that stop at the field of neither-aquiescence-nor-non-aquiescence..

Buddha states nine attainments ( https://rentry.co/m3inp) - with no self - ending with the cessation of experiences, and aquiescence & intent towards these experiences. Namely entering nibbāna (the unborn) .

Did he speak about the annihilationism of the latter?
.

[Pulsar]

Ceisiwr wrote

Eternalists seem to have preferred the Jhanas.

Are you calling Buddha an eternalist? Ok I should remember that you wrote on my thread
on Jhana recently that Arahants have 5 aggregates.
Let us try to stick to the facts. Can you please define consciousness as intended by
Buddha?
With love

[Ceisiwr]

Ceisiwr wrote

Eternalists seem to have preferred the Jhanas.

Are you calling Buddha an eternalist? Ok I should remember that you wrote on my thread
on Jhana recently that Arahants have 5 aggregates.
Let us try to stick to the facts. Can you please define consciousness as intended by
Buddha?
With love

No. I'm saying that the suttas tie the annihilationists, for the most part, to the formless. When it comes to the Jhānā we see the likes of Mahavira associated with them. The Jhānā existed before the Buddha. He didn't discover them. What matters is how you view and used the meditation, not where it originated from.

Ok I should remember that you wrote on my thread on Jhana recently that Arahants have 5 aggregates.

Have as in experience, yes, since they are still walking around and talking to people.