Tv Ab Kv 18.8 Abhidhamma claims you can not hear sounds in jhāna, but their logic is fallacious

[frank k]

It's not just AN 4.12, the same sutta occurs at in the ending of KN Iti.
https://lucid24.org/kn/kn-iti/iti4/index.html#s109

The structure of KN Iti is very interesting, the whole KN Iti doesn't ever mention the explicit 4 jhana formulas,
and the last 5 or so suttas are a gradual training showing the path from worldling to nirvana.
So that equivalent passage from AN 4.12, in addition to including the keywords ekaggata, samadhi, passadhi (one who has passaddhi will have piti and sukha), are also occurring in an area of the gradual training normally occupied by the jhanas.
The only sensible conclusion is that samadhi is equivalent to the 4 jhanas.
Otherwise, you have some sort of alternative non jhana samadhi system.

Also note that AN 8.63 and MN 128, the 3 ways of samadhi, which also doesn't explicitly call it 'jhana', everyone easily accepts that as 4 jhana equivalent. AN 4.12 and KN Iti 111 is exactly the same situation. It's no less jhana than 3 way samadhi.

This is what I call the infinite duck problem. You have a number of places where 4 jhana formula is not explicitly stated, just a few of the key terms, yet Sujato and Vism. will conveniently crown certain ones "jhana", while all the others with just as strong of a candidacy are dismissed as "not jhanic samadhi." Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck but is not a duck unless Sujato says so. Smart money says, when Sujato seems really adamant it's not a duck, it's a duck.

Isn't it interesting how these texts rarely use the words we want them to use? The state is never specified as a samādhi in the sutta. Those pesky suttas.

It may well be a non-dhyānic samādhi.

Samahitam cittam ekaggam with no hindrances seems a pretty clearcut case of samadhi. Suttas frequently discuss the same topic using a different vocabulary IMO (although here the vocabulary is nearly synonymous with that used to discuss samadhi). To determine if the same topic is being discussed we have to look at the context. This passage here occurs as a description of the next step after developing strong sila, and the abandonment of the hindrances. Given the standard accounts of the gradual training, progression of the bojjhanga, transcendental DA, etc, in the suttas we can pretty safely claim this state as a type of samadhi given it's location in the developmental progression.

[Coëmgenu]

Samahitam cittam ekaggam with no hindrances seems a pretty clearcut case of samadhi.

I noticed samāhita there. When I looked it up, it seemed to have the same essential meaning as "samādhi," but my contention is that I think it mustn't mean the same thing, because I'm not necessarily convinced that samādhi, particularly sammāsamādhi, is something other than dhyāna in Theravāda at the doctrinal level. I legitimately don't know the answer to that question. Dry-insight workers and the like must read "sammāsamādhi" as not necessarily meaning dhyāna, so there must be precedent. I suppose it's a fine idea for a thread in in classical subforum.

Several dictionaries describe it as a state of being, once again, "absorbed" in a meditation object, or at least "concentrating" on one. I suppose the only way to establish that the walking is not dhyānic is to say that it is "non-dhyāna samādhic."

I'd be interested to read more on Theravādin walking meditation. Why do they do it? It can't lead to dhyāna, according to the Theravādin understanding. Why? If the pedestrian entered a dhyāna from this "walking samādhi," they would fall down and the subsequent production of the kāyavijñāna would disrupt the dhyāna. So why walk mindfully at all in the Theravādin system of meditation? Very interesting.

[Assaji]

Hi Coëmgenu,

I'd be interested to read more on Theravādin walking meditation. Why do they do it? It can't lead to dhyāna, according to the Theravādin understanding. Why? If the pedestrian entered a dhyāna from this "walking samādhi," they would fall down and the subsequent production of the kāyavijñāna would disrupt the dhyāna. So why walk mindfully at all in the Theravādin system of meditation? Very interesting.

Perhaps it can't lead to dhyāna, but walking is very well suited for jhāna.

He only apprehends what is really there Like the Elder Maha Tissa who dwelt at Cetiyapabbata.
55. It seems that as the elder was on his way from Cetiyapabbata to Anuradhapura for alms, a certain daughter in law of a clan, who had quarrelled with her husband and had set out early from Anuradhapura all dressed up and tricked out like a celestial nymph to go to her relatives’ home, saw him on the road, and being low-minded, [21] she laughed a loud laugh. [Wondering] "What is that?” the elder looked up and finding in the bones of her teeth the perception of foulness (ugliness), he reached Arahantship.15 Hence it was said:

"He saw the bones that were her teeth
And kept in mind his first perception;
And standing on that very spot
The elder became an Arahant.”

But her husband, who was going after her, saw the elder and asked, "Venerable sir, did you by any chance see a woman?” The elder told him:

"Whether it was a man or woman
That went by I noticed not,
But only that on this high road
There goes a group of bones."

Footnote or sub-commentary
15. "As the elder was going along (occupied) only in keeping his meditation subject in mind, since noise is a thorn to those in the early stage, he looked up with the noise of the laughter, (wondering) ’What is that?’ ’Perception of foulness’ is perception of bones; for the elder was then making bones his meditation subject. The elder, it seems as soon as he saw her teeth-bones while she was laughing, got the counterpart sign with access jhāna because he had developed the preliminary-work well. While he stood there he reached the first jhāna. Then he made that the basis for insight, which he augmented until he attained the paths one after the other and reached destruction of cankers”
(Vism—mht 41-42).

https://americanmonk.org/32-parts-the-p ... eful-dead/

[Coëmgenu]

So, in Theravāda, "access jhāna" can be had while not in seated meditation? It doesn't say "while walking," it says "while he stood." Can "access jhāna" not be had while moving?

[Assaji]

So, in Theravāda, "access jhāna" can be had while not in seated meditation? It doesn't say "while walking," it says "while he stood." Can "access jhāna" not be had while moving?

Samādhi can be attained even while walking:

Monks, there are these five benefits of walking up & down. What five?

One is fit for long journeys; one is fit for striving; one has little disease; that which is eaten, drunk, chewed, tasted, goes through proper digestion; the composure (samādhi) attained by walking up & down is long-lasting.

These, monks, are the five benefits of walking up & down.

https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an ... .agku.html

[samseva]

So, in Theravāda, "access jhāna" can be had while not in seated meditation? It doesn't say "while walking," it says "while he stood." Can "access jhāna" not be had while moving?

The Commentary passage above is in English, rather than Pāḷi, however, "access jhāna" is probably "access-concentration," or upacāra-samadhi—which is more intense samādhi, but still not yet jhāna.

Samādhi can be attained even while walking:

Monks, there are these five benefits of walking up & down. What five?

One is fit for long journeys; one is fit for striving; one has little disease; that which is eaten, drunk, chewed, tasted, goes through proper digestion; the composure (samādhi) attained by walking up & down is long-lasting.

These, monks, are the five benefits of walking up & down.

https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an ... .agku.html

Samādhi can be intensified, but you don't "attain" samādhi. It is concentration, and is in differing degrees, no matter what one is doing—there is even samādhi while in unwholesome states of mind.

[samseva]

Ven. Anālayo also seems to be of the opinion that jhāna is not possible while walking (from hisFrom Grasping to Emptiness — Excursions into the Thought-world of the Pāli Discourses II, p. 133):

Judging from other discourses, the expression ‘unification of the mind’ is not confined to absorption concentration, since the same expression occurs in relation to walking and standing (AN II 14) or to listening to the Dhamma (AN III 175), activities which would not be compatible with absorption attainment. This suggests that this second definition of ‘right concentration’ would also include levels of samādhi that have not yet reached the depth of absorption concentration. In fact, the formulation of this second definition makes it clear that the decisive factor qualifying concentration as ‘right’ is not merely the depth of concentration achieved, but the purpose for which concentration is employed.

[Coëmgenu]

Samādhi can be attained even while walking:

Monks, there are these five benefits of walking up & down. What five?

One is fit for long journeys; one is fit for striving; one has little disease; that which is eaten, drunk, chewed, tasted, goes through proper digestion; the composure (samādhi) attained by walking up & down is long-lasting.

These, monks, are the five benefits of walking up & down.

https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an ... .agku.html

In the other thread, you defined samādhi as citass'ekaggatā. What differentiates the ekaggatā in the "access jhāna," or walking samādhi here, from a) jhānic ekaggatā that prevents rūpa-derived consciousnesses from being produced, and b) normal ekaggatā as a universal mental factor? What's the difference other than the non-jhānic ekaggatā being "wibbly-wobbly," so to speak, meaning the concentration object does not exhaustively fill all perception?

[waryoffolly]

Samahitam cittam ekaggam with no hindrances seems a pretty clearcut case of samadhi.

I noticed samāhita there. When I looked it up, it seemed to have the same essential meaning as "samādhi," but my contention is that I think it mustn't mean the same thing, because I'm not necessarily convinced that samādhi, particularly sammāsamādhi, is something other than dhyāna in Theravāda at the doctrinal level.

There are no explicit passages saying jhana/samma samadhi cannot be done in all four postures that I’ve seen. There are explicit passages saying samadhi (samma samadhi IMO) can be done in all four postures. We should base our reasoning on the evidence of the texts rather than using speculation based on very late interpretations to reinterpret clearcut passages. Reasoning such as “this can’t be samma samadhi because then jhana could be done while walking which contradicts interpretation xyz” is not valid reasoning unless you provide external evidence for why “interpretation xyz” must be true.

When I say “very late” by the way, I’m not even referring to the commentaries. The commentaries themselves have several explicit passages describing jhana while standing for example. Dmytro has mentioned one so far in this thread. Another is first jhana based on the sight of a corpse found in the commentary to the Sammanaphala Sutta. As you already know the jhana similes are also explained as explicitly embodied states with flesh and blood by the commentaries (Some argue that this must happen after jhana, but in my opinion the text would say that if it was the case. To read in “after jhana” where the text says “in jhana” is unreasonable IMO.)

Even a very late commentarial passage has the jhana of metta being done in all four postures (whether you equate that to the four jhana’s or just treat it as its own samadhi.)

So “at a doctrinal level” early theravada seems to allow samma samadhi in all postures, and at the very least first jhana while standing. I’m separating the two because some dislike equating samma samadhi to jhana (To avoid the conclusion of an embodied jhana based on a pre-decided thesis of disembodied jhana? Sometimes it seems that way to me tbh.). The version of doctrinal Theravada you’re referring to seems to come later arising sometime between the composition of the Vimuttimagga and the Visuddhimagga IMO.

Also a small minor point: the vibhanga labelling the vedana in jhana as mental and the body in third jhana formula as mental is not the same as saying that jhana is disembodied. This is a description of how vedana are experienced, and is not equivalent to saying the five sense faculties are shut.

Now, I don’t know if there are commentarial (ie atthakatha, not Visuddhimagga) passages with an opposing view of disembodied jhana, but I have yet to see them myself. If someone does have these references then feel free to share them and I’ll revise my view of when disembodied jhana arose first in the theravada. (We shouldn’t assume the commentaries are entirely homogeneous.)

[samseva]

There are explicit passages saying samadhi (samma samadhi IMO) can be done in all four postures.

Oh course there can be concentration while walking or sitting. No one is denying that.
And also of course samādhi being sammā-samādhi is not in the actual Pāḷi, but is your opinion.

The issue is some people like frank say you can walk while in jhāna, which is false.

Like Ven. Anālayo—someone who has actually studied Pāḷi—says (in his From Grasping to Emptiness — Excursions into the Thought-world of the Pāli Discourses II, p. 133):

Judging from other discourses, the expression ‘unification of the mind’ [either samādhi or ekaggatā] is not confined to absorption concentration, since the same expression occurs in relation to walking and standing (AN II 14) or to listening to the Dhamma (AN III 175), activities which would not be compatible with absorption attainment.

[Ceisiwr]

It comes back to the question of if jhāna is required for stream-entry or not. If the sotāpanna doesn’t require jhāna, yet has Right Concentration, then these passages that seem to be troubling some people become rather easy to explain.

[waryoffolly]

There are explicit passages saying samadhi (samma samadhi IMO) can be done in all four postures.

Oh course there can be concentration while walking or sitting. No one is denying that.
And also of course samādhi being sammā-samādhi is not in the actual Pāḷi, but is your opinion.

The issue is some people say you can walk while in jhāna, which is false.

Like Ven. Anālayo—someone who has actually studied Pāḷi—says (in his From Grasping to Emptiness — Excursions into the Thought-world of the Pāli Discourses II, p. 133):

Judging from other discourses, the expression ‘unification of the mind’ [either samādhi or ekaggatā] is not confined to absorption concentration, since the same expression occurs in relation to walking and standing (AN II 14) or to listening to the Dhamma (AN III 175), activities which would not be compatible with absorption attainment.

This is exactly the type of reasoning I was criticizing in my last post. A term which is closely allied with samma samadhi, is being reinterpreted to not be associated with samma samadhi based on an assumed thesis of jhana. Notice he provides no references for why those activities (walking and listening) must be in conflict with jhana-It is simply an assumption! Although if I remember in Ven Analayo’s case samma samadhi is not equated to jhana anyways.

To be clear I think Ven Analayo is a very admirable scholar-monk, and wish I could agree with his arguments on this topic.

Also you shouldn’t make assumptions that everyone who disagrees with you doesn’t know pali. I’m studying pali (I know very little so far) although making very slow progress due to limited time. Others with an embodied view do know pali at a more fluent (well at least for reading!) level.

[samseva]

This is exactly the type of reasoning I was criticizing in my last post. A term which is closely allied with samma samadhi, is being reinterpreted to not be associated with samma samadhi

I'm not the one doing the reinterpretation, you are!

You're taking a simple term like samādhi, and then magically say it means sammā-samādhi—when that's not what it means, and not what's written in the Pāḷi.

[waryoffolly]

This is exactly the type of reasoning I was criticizing in my last post. A term which is closely allied with samma samadhi, is being reinterpreted to not be associated with samma samadhi

I'm not the one doing the reinterpretation, you are!

You're taking a simple term like samādhi, and then magically say it means sammā-samādhi—when that's not what it means, and not what's written in the Pāḷi.

I was referring to the argument you quoted. Anyways I seem to have caught the “jhana debate virus” again. So let me withdraw from this discussion thread.

May all practice diligently and succeed in attaining the fruits of practice!
(Regardless of their views!)

[Assaji]

In the other thread, you defined samādhi as citass'ekaggatā. What differentiates the ekaggatā in the "access jhāna," or walking samādhi here, from a) jhānic ekaggatā that prevents rūpa-derived consciousnesses from being produced, and b) normal ekaggatā as a universal mental factor? What's the difference other than the non-jhānic ekaggatā being "wibbly-wobbly," so to speak, meaning the concentration object does not exhaustively fill all perception?

There's no such difference, and there's no non-jhānic ekaggatā.

Walking is very well suited for jhāna, since ekaggatā doesn't imply "absorption" or absence of five-sense perception.

From the Venangapura Sutta (AN III 63):

“But, Master Gotama, what is the celestial high and luxurious bed that at present you gain at will, without trouble or difficulty?”

“Here, brahmin, when I am dwelling in dependence on a village or town, in the morning I dress, take my bowl and robe, and enter that village or town for alms. After the meal, when I have returned from the alms round, I enter a grove. I collect some grass or leaves that I find there into a pile and then sit down. Having folded my legs crosswise and straightened my body, I establish mindfulness in front of me. Then, secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, I enter and dwell in the first jhāna, which consists of rapture and pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by thought and examination. With the subsiding of thought and examination, I enter and dwell in the second jhāna, which has internal placidity and unification of mind and consists of rapture and pleasure born of concentration, without thought and examination. With the fading away as well of rapture, I dwell equanimous and, mindful and clearly comprehending, I experience pleasure with the body; I enter and dwell in the third jhāna of which the noble ones declare: ‘He is equanimous, mindful, one who dwells happily.’ With the abandoning of pleasure and pain, and with the previous passing away of joy and dejection, I enter and dwell in the fourth jhāna, neither painful nor pleasant, which has purification of mindfulness by equanimity.

“When I am in such a state, if I walk back and forth, on that occasion my walking back and forth is celestial. If I am standing, on that occasion my standing is celestial. If I am sitting, on that occasion my sitting is celestial. If I lie down, on that occasion this is my celestial high and luxurious bed. This is that celestial high and luxurious bed that at present I can gain at will, without trouble or difficulty.”

Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi comments:

so ce ahaṃ, brāhmaṇa, evaṃbhūto caṅkamāmi, dibbo me eso tasmiṃ samaye caṅkamo hoti
"Mp says that his walking back and forth is celestial when, having entered the four jhānas, he walks back and forth; and his walking back and forth is celestial when, after emerging from the four jhānas, he walks back and forth. This seems to imply that walking can occur even with the mind in jhāna. This, however, is contradicted by the dominant understanding that jhāna is a state of uninterrupted absorption in an object, in which case intentional movements like walking would not be possible. Mp-ṭ explains the first case of Mp (walking after entering the jhānas) to mean that he walks back and forth immediately after emerging from the jhāna, while the second case (walking after emerging) to mean that he walks back and forth after having emerged some time earlier. The same explanation holds for the divine and the noble beds."