Tattvasiddhi-Śāstra on Jhāna

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Tattvasiddhi-Śāstra on Jhāna

Post by Pulsar »

BrokenBones wrote
Please note... this whole kalapas nonsense is not seeing arising & passing away.
I don't quite understand what "kalapas" mean.
Are you calling the sutta on Origination nonsense? Your statement
Arising and passing away. How things arise... e.g nutriment... food and our desire/craving because we see it as attractive.

Passing away... food... nutriment... because we correct our view and see it as unattractive or not worth our while... our craving weakens... we develop a view that no longer wishes for a new body... passing away.
??? how does this relate to our current exchange: comparing the way DN 22 treats the word "body" and SN 47.42 treats the word "body". Can you please elaborate? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding?
With love :candle:
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Tattvasiddhi-Śāstra on Jhāna

Post by Pulsar »

Sphairos wrote Harivarman proves that the dhyāna is not needed at all for Enlightenment. Not at all, even pre-dhyāna. Where in the document posted do you read this? Can you pl. point out the page number?
Later you wrote in response to OP
No, he advocates prajñā path, not dhyāna path.
Again where do you find this? on which page? Scholars have debunked the notion of two paths. Hmm... I thought you knew this. Harivaram??? it is most unlikely.
Best :candle:
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Tattvasiddhi-Śāstra on Jhāna

Post by Pulsar »

thomaslaw wrote
Could you provide some explanations or concrete details regarding the differences between DN 22 and SN 47.42 on "body"? Thanks.
OK here is one excerpt from DN 22 regarding body...
"Furthermore, as if he were to see a corpse cast away in a charnel ground — one day, two days, three days dead — bloated, livid, & festering, he applies it to this very body, 'This body, too: Such is its nature, such is its future, such its unavoidable fate'...

"Or again, as if he were to see a corpse cast away in a charnel ground, picked at by crows, vultures, & hawks, by dogs, hyenas, & various other creatures... a skeleton smeared with flesh & blood, connected with tendons... a fleshless skeleton smeared with blood, connected with tendons... a skeleton without flesh or blood, connected with tendons... bones detached from their tendons, scattered in all directions — here a hand bone, there a foot bone, here a shin bone, there a thigh bone, here a hip bone, there a back bone, here a rib, there a breast bone, here a shoulder bone, there a neck bone, here a jaw bone, there a tooth, here a skull... the bones whitened, somewhat like the color of shells... piled up, more than a year old... decomposed into a powder: He applies it to this very body, 'This body, too: Such is its nature, such is its future, such its unavoidable fate.'

"In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or externally on the body in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the body in & of itself.
Do you not think this passage is odd? All such descriptions in the sutta pitaka related to meditations are supposed to be later later add ons.
I have read so in the past and wondered about it. After studying "Origination" it makes sense to me.
However this sentence below has a similarity to SN 47.42 first establishment, since it is referring to Dependent origination of body.
But this is more or less tossed in like an after thought.
Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the body, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the body, or on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to the body.
...DN 22 has been labelled a fraud.
You find none of the extraneous stuff in "Origination" It is precisely targeted towards what is required of the meditation, "dismantling" the houses where consciousness resides.
Be well :candle:
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Tattvasiddhi-Śāstra on Jhāna

Post by Pulsar »

Dearest thomaslaw: now that I have your attention, I have a question for you.
Since you are a fan of Samyutta Nikaya, perhaps you can help me out. I was intrigued by the fact that, that
  • the four similes for the four jhanas are never found in the Samyutta Nikaya.
Only recently did it come to my attention.
I looked up the Jhana samyutta in the SN. It is almost like an empty house, nothing significant can be found there.
I looked for other descriptions of jhana there. Only
Moggallana Samyutta and Citta Samyutta
have any descriptions of the kind we read in Middle length and Long Length.
The formulaic descriptions of jhana? were they concocted by abhidhammikas.

Do you know any other suttas in SN that contain the words Viatka, Vicara, in relation to jhana, other than the suttas of Moggallana and Citta samyutta,
  • which are both late entrants to the game.
Scholars have said as much.
I don't believe a single sutta in the Moggallana Samyutta. It makes Moggalanna look like a bit of an awkward person, (Buddha had to pull ears) to wake him up as he was nodding off, during jhana.
Who makes up stuff like this, and gets them included in such an esteemed journal? I mean Tripitaka?
Only a powerful compiler could, like the ones who complied the bogus sutta DN 22, and its MN partner.

Anyways the reason I am upset about Moggallana Samyutta is this. Did he deserve this?
According to elsewhere in the canon he was the world's topmost expert in Jhana, who was given the task of training novice monks, after Sariputta was done with them. Sariputta trained them in the Doctrinal aspects, to bring them up to Stream entry. Moggallana trained them in jhana or Samadhi, to bring them up to Arahant level.
I trust the original translation of Vinaya Pitaka.
According to the original translation Moggallana and Sariputta were already Arahants by the time they met the Buddha. Before meeting Buddha V. Assaji had taught them how things originate.
Did a chief disciple deserve his 'ear pulled' by the Buddha? Did the Arahant nod off?
Can you help me out here, since you are an expert on Samyutta Nikaya?
With love :candle:
Inedible
Posts: 953
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2020 12:55 am
Location: Iowa City

Re: Tattvasiddhi-Śāstra on Jhāna

Post by Inedible »

The way I remember the story was that the Chief Disciples were Stream Enterers when they met the Buddha. Venerable Shariputra was the first person to reach that status without direct interaction with Buddha.
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Tattvasiddhi-Śāstra on Jhāna

Post by Pulsar »

Inedible wrote
the way I remember ...
The way I remember is as reported in the Vinaya Pitaka, translated by I. B. Horner.
The Lord saw Sariputta and Moggallana coming in the distance;
seeing them, he addressed the monks saying,
When in the deep sphere of knowledge, they had attained the matchless freedom in which there is destruction of attachments,
then the teacher explained about them in the Bamboo grove.
Monks, these two friends, Kolita and Upatissa are coming. This pair of disciples will be my chief, my eminnet pair.
Now a scholar recently has disputed this translation, based on the Pali grammar involved.
I stick with I B Horner. Based on my understanding of the translation, Matchless Freedom and Destructions of attachments can only be associated with an Arahant.
With love :candle:
Inedible
Posts: 953
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2020 12:55 am
Location: Iowa City

Re: Tattvasiddhi-Śāstra on Jhāna

Post by Inedible »

That makes sense. I always thought of the Vinaya as a boring rule book. So I never read it and never had any intention to try it.
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Tattvasiddhi-Śāstra on Jhāna

Post by Pulsar »

OP wrote
Thought I would share what the Tattvasiddhi-Śāstra has to say on Jhāna.
About Harivaram ... Was he a Sautrantika? It seems Prajanaptivadins had similar notions.
The word jhana is used in many contexts.
Pali canon uses the word jhana in reference to the first four buddhist jhanas, only.
For the Prajnaptivadins Samma samadhi was just the first four buddhist jhanas. They were closely connected to Mahasanghikas for whom Samma Samadhi was just that too.
For the vibajjavadins jhana included Arupa Samapatthis. Theravadins are descendents of Vibajjavadins????

Pudgalavadins??? What did they think?
Leonard Priestley's
Pudgalavadin Buddhism: The Reality of the Indeterminate Self
is a marvelous read.
Thich Thien Chau's doctoral dissertation (1977) treats these guys comprehensively. Is there any way you can find a link to that? It was done at the Sorbonne, so probably in French??? However it has been translated into English by Sara Boin-Webb.
Chau has also published two papers based on his work "The literature of the Pudgalavadins". The content might be interesting.
With love :candle:
waryoffolly
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:30 pm

Re: Tattvasiddhi-Śāstra on Jhāna

Post by waryoffolly »

Pulsar wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 7:08 pm I looked up the Jhana samyutta in the SN. It is almost like an empty house, nothing significant can be found there.
I looked for other descriptions of jhana there. Only
Moggallana Samyutta and Citta Samyutta
have any descriptions of the kind we read in Middle length and Long Length.
The formulaic descriptions of jhana? were they concocted by abhidhammikas.

Do you know any other suttas in SN that contain the words Viatka, Vicara, in relation to jhana, other than the suttas of Moggallana and Citta samyutta,
  • which are both late entrants to the game.
I decided to do a quick survey of jhana in the SN spurred by your question.

Please see SN 16.9, SN 16.10, SN 16.11, SN 28.1, SN 36.19, SN 36.31, SN 40.1, SN 41.8, SN 41.9, SN 45.8, SN 48.10, SN 48.40, SN 53.1-12, SN 53.13-22, and SN 54.8 for formulaic descriptions of the first jhana in SN.

SN 16.9-11 are all about disciples being praised for their achievements of jhana, or else they themselves mentioning their achievements of jhana. SN 28.1 is about Sariputta's lack of conceit while entering and exiting jhana (another sutta about praising disciples more or less). SN 40 contains the suttas from Moggallana Samyutta, and 41.8 (Citta has second Nigantha doesn't)/41.9 (Citta has jhana, but his friend who practiced as naked ascetic doesn't) are both in the Citta Samyutta like you mentioned. All of these (SN 16.9-11, SN 28.1, SN 40, SN 41.8-9) seem to be about praising disciples or describing their achievements of jhana more or less.

SN 45.8 is the analysis of the 8fold path, and jhana is listed as samma samadhi although the parallels have a different definition of samma samadhi (SA 13.74 translation by Charles Patton: “What’s right concentration? It’s abiding with mind unconfused, resolute, collected, tranquil, concentrated, and single-minded.”). SN 48.10 has jhana's as the definition of the concentration faculty (and the parallel seems to have the same). These two describe jhana's relationship to the path.

SN 53.1 just say that jhana's slope towards nibbana. SN 53.13-22 I'm not sure why I originally have that listed, but it's another repetitive series without much doctrinal content.

SN 36.19, SN 36.31, SN 48.40 are all about explaining jhana with respect to different types of vedana (carnal vs spiritual, and which vedana are present in jhana).

SN 54.8 just says that developing anapanasati leads to jhana's.
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Tattvasiddhi-Śāstra on Jhāna

Post by Pulsar »

waryoffolly wrote
I decided to do a quick survey of jhana in the SN spurred by your question
My Dearest waryoffolly you are very generous! I couldn't not thank you enough.
That you took the trouble to help me out.
The sutta from Sariputta Samyutta was very insightful. It helped me detect what was going on with the Connected Series. While it maintained its superb quality, it still was vulnerable to small dozes of corruption.
Sutta from Vedana Samyutta confirmed what Buddha meant by the Brahma Viharas.
I will discuss this in greater detail. Give me time.
Retro' thread spurred me to wade into Abhidhamma. What happened in those early years? that so many sectors emerged from one dispensation? This endeavour is eating up my time.
You pointed to Joseph Walser's
  • Nagarjuna in context: Buddhism in early Indian culture
during that discussion, indirectly.
Walser gets into discussions of abhidhamma in early years, which is pretty revealing. When supplemented with Andre Bareau's work, it is a gift.
Slowly the light dawns. Once Alexander Wynne wrote that it will take generations for folks to figure out
the issues with the Sutta Pitaka. I think he meant "years to figure out how much sectarianism crept into the sutta pitaka labelled as word of the Buddha".
Perhaps with folks like you around it may not take that long.
I am thankful every day that you are here. When I am done with Walser, perhaps I would be in a better frame of mind, to discuss individual suttas that you provided me with.
With love :candle:
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22382
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Tattvasiddhi-Śāstra on Jhāna

Post by Ceisiwr »

Pulsar wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:07 pm
You of course are totally biased free.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Tattvasiddhi-Śāstra on Jhāna

Post by Pulsar »

OP wrote
You of course are totally biased free.
It hints of sarcasm. Maybe I am wrong. Are you suggesting that what I noted in my previous comment
addressed to you, was biased? If so, can you pl. elaborate?

My comment was
The word jhana is used in many contexts.
Pali canon uses the word jhana in reference to the first four buddhist jhanas, only.
For the Prajnaptivadins Samma samadhi was just the first four buddhist jhanas. They were closely connected to Mahasanghikas for whom Samma Samadhi was just that too.
For the vibajjavadins it seems, jhana included Arupa Samapatthis. Theravadins are descendents of Vibajjavadins????
If I misunderstood you, and you were really not sarcastic, pl ignore my comment.
I apologise for misreading you.
With love :candle:
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Tattvasiddhi-Śāstra on Jhāna

Post by Pulsar »

Dear WayOfFolly: apologise for my tardiness. It took me a while to negotiate the literature on Sectarianism.
There is no evidence in the Samyutta Nikaya to support anything but the first four jhanas, alongside the 8-fold path as
  • What the Buddha taught.
I had mentioned Citta and Moggallana as late Samyuttas, hence are to be discounted, just like one discounts DN 22/MN10.
I looked up Sariputta Samyutta (thanks to you). That too comes across as seriously flawed. A curious fact about phony Samyuttas is that they lack substantial agama parallels.
There is sparse mention of Arupas in a couple of isolated suttas in SN i.e. SN 54.8, again I suspect corruption. Who was responsible for such mischief?
On page 220 of Andre Bareau, in "The Buddhist Schools Of the Small Vehicle" the Vibhajjavadins are presented as
"Typical heretics, those who make objections, who maintain wrong doctrines and who attack the good doctrine"

Vibhajjavadins are hard to pin down as a uniform group. There is mention of them around the 3rd council. Pali canon was still open, even though the Sarvastivadin canon had been closed several centuries before.
Perhaps there was a subset of Vibhajjavadins, that matched the above description.
Are they responsible for suttas like DN 22/MN 10, MN 111, besides the Sariputta Samyutta and Moggallana samyutta?
Who were these rogue abhidhammikas? who deftly introduced Arupas as part of Buddha's teaching into the canon???
To their craftiness, we can add SN 54.8. Any mention of Arupa Samapttis to me, raises a red flag.
Thank you again for bringing Sariputta Samyutta to my attention. Your kindness, and your gentleness, are very much appreciated.
Did I mention? a red flag is also raised when a sutta compiler writes An "Arahant enters the first, second, 3rd or 4th jhana".
With love :candle:
GreyHaven
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2021 6:48 pm

Re: Tattvasiddhi-Śāstra on Jhāna

Post by GreyHaven »

The issue with this line of inquiry is that it's unfalsifiable. Nobody can directly know whether the tampering you assert occurred, given that the "proof" is classic Texas Sharpshooter logic- you have noticed a "pattern", and then drawn an explanation of your own design to fit, in a manner not dissimilar to most methods of problem solving used by people. It can have explanatory power, but how is this exercise more beneficial than interrogating the nature of the dhyanas directly?

If the contention is that the four supramundane dhyanas do not actually exist, and that pursuing them is a dead end, well. There is little that would change your mind aside from experiencing them directly, yes? Are you a meditator who has pursued these, been unable, and then set off looking for answers in the suttas, or is it that you have approached this question purely from the perspective of a scholar, seeking to establish an intellectial position, but not an experiential one? Caution must be advised if the second is true.

It would be deeply unfortunate to miss experiencing something profoundly significant just because one pre-supposed it's nonexistence for unrelated reasons.
Post Reply