How Early Buddhism differs from Theravada: a checklist by Bhante Sujato

[Ceisiwr]

As for light... nobody denies that light appears... just don't make it the focus, cling to it and definitely don't merge with it... if people did that they'd likely lose their senses.

I reckon I'm doing one and a half out of three. My meditation teacher tells me to focus on the nimitta, and drop all other perceptions except the light and a background awareness of breathing.

Will I lose my senses, or just some of them? And is that a good or a bad thing?

I would say good but of course you don’t lose all of your senses, just 5.

[mikenz66]

Yeah... like I said... he didn't address them. Waving the Jhana lite description as some sort of derisive slogan, addresses nothing. It's understandable a comparison between sutta & Vism. was not part of the article... the EBTs descriptions are just too hard to fudge.

As for light... nobody denies that light appears... just don't make it the focus, cling to it and definitely don't merge with it... if people did that they'd likely lose their senses.

Since Bhikkhu Sujato, and others, have discussed jhana extensively, in forums (as in the links from Ven Dhammanando) and in talks, it's hardly a matter of omission. It's simply that you (and others) don't agree with the him (and others). And vice versa. Of course, it's quite proper for either side to argue their case, but I presume Bhikkhu Sujato feels similar to how Ven Dhammanado expressed himself in this post: viewtopic.php?p=560223#p560223.



Mike

[thomaslaw]

That "shortly thereafter" could refer to the first council, if according to Ven. Yinshun:

The Sutra collections of Early Buddhism include SA/SN (originated at the first council) and MA/MN, DA/DN, and EA/AN (originated at the second council, one hundred years after the death of the Buddha).

SA/SN represents the situation with regard to the compilation of the Buddhist teachings shortly after the death of the Buddha.

MA/MN, DA/DN, and EA/AN represent the Buddhism of the period just before that second council.

If true then MA/MN, DA/DN, and EA/AN were complied by 2nd or 3rd generation disciples. That’s still a good point of reference IMO, unless we are to believe that the Dhamma was corrupted by Ananda’s disciples or theirs in turn. If so it doesn’t give much hope to us practicing today IMO. Ven. Ananda could speak and explain the Dhamma as much as the Master could, when he awakened. Personally I think those whom he instructed could do so also, since I believe they too would have been Arahants (his disciples involved at the 2nd council that is). This would mean that MA/MN, DA/DN, and EA/AN are just as good a source of Dhamma as SN/SA are. The same for those whom Ven. Sariputta etc instructed.

For the studies in Early Buddhism/EBTs, it will be better to see clearly and respect the differences and similarities between the divergent, non-identical texts and traditions, particularly between SA/SN and other versions of literature in Buddhist history.

[frank k]

I get really sick of well informed and educated people like yourself, Mike, continuing to bury your head in the sand and pretend that everyone is good, everyone is sincere and made valid but differing arguments and provided evidence to support their positions [on jhana and samadhi].
They did not.
Not only did they not provide sufficient evidence and reasoning, they deliberately cherry pick a small percentages of the relevant passages, and fail to address the incontrovertible evidence from the passages that contradict them, fail to explain why their interpretation does not need to take those passages into account.
That's why I call them out publicly on this.
If they had honestly examined all the relevant evidence and address why or why it didn't support their positions, then we could at least agree to disagree and leave it at that.

But that is not the case with Sujato, Analayo, Ven. Dhammanando.

Ven. Dhammanando, the best he could do, besides the evasive maneuvers such as not translating vitakka and vicara into english for the jhana relevant passages, was claim that earlier Theravada councils had already had the jhana wars, and that the LBT Theravada had shown how canonical sutta supports their LBT redefinition of jhana being a disembodied frozen state.
Yet Ven. D doesn't provide a summary, a quote, or any references to how this is done, what is the reasoning showing how the alleged sutta passages support LBT redefinition of jhana.

Yeah... like I said... he didn't address them. Waving the Jhana lite description as some sort of derisive slogan, addresses nothing. It's understandable a comparison between sutta & Vism. was not part of the article... the EBTs descriptions are just too hard to fudge.

As for light... nobody denies that light appears... just don't make it the focus, cling to it and definitely don't merge with it... if people did that they'd likely lose their senses.

Since Bhikkhu Sujato, and others, have discussed jhana extensively, in forums (as in the links from Ven Dhammanando) and in talks, it's hardly a matter of omission. It's simply that you (and others) don't agree with the him (and others). And vice versa. Of course, it's quite proper for either side to argue their case, but I presume Bhikkhu Sujato feels similar to how Ven Dhammanado expressed himself in this post: viewtopic.php?p=560223#p560223.



Mike

[frank k]

...
Since Bhikkhu Sujato, and others, have discussed jhana extensively, in forums (as in the links from Ven Dhammanando) and in talks, it's hardly a matter of omission. It's simply that you (and others) don't agree with the him (and others). And vice versa. ...

Sujato has discussed extensively, but only ever use cherry picked suttas like MN 19, AN 3.100 to support his jhana interpretation, while failing to explain key suttas such as :

- how vitakka (sankappo) in MN 78 doesn't disappear until second jhana,
- MN 125 first jhana deliberately omitted and in it's place, a second instance of satipatthana, but this time with vitakka free of kama
- noble silence being second jhana, and not first, as you would expect if V&V was subverbal
- KN Pe explicitly glossing vitakka, vicara, kayika and cetasika for the jhana factors, clearly showing that early Buddhist scripture thousands of years preceding Sujato had used a simple and consistent Buddhist lexicon interpreted and understand jhana as being embodied, verbal thought, etc., just as you would expect an honest person using words consistently would do.
- in AN 3, if a mind reader reads the mind of someone in first jhana, it would be the same way they read an ordinary person thinking verbal thoughts. In fact, someone in LBT redefinition of jhana, would not be able to have their mind read at all, until after they emerge from the frozen stupor.
- in SN, the founder of the jains doesn't believe 2nd jhana or higher is possible, but he does believe (and probably can do an know people who can do) first jhana is possible. Why? Because he's using same definition of vitakka and vicara as everyone else, not Sujato's crooked definition of V&V. How does that sutta make any sense? Did Sujato go back with a time machine to teach Nigantha his special defintion of vitakka? And if that's the case, what exactly does NIgantha think first jhana is?


And even in Visuddhimagga, the LBT redefinition of jhana, still uses the standard vitakka and vicara definition of the EBT! THis is also in Abhidhamma commentary. One uses the verbal thought, "earth kasina, earth kasina" to enter (redefined) jhana and formless attainments.

And canonical Th Abhidhamma explicitly glosses the vitakka of first jhana to include samma sankappo, which as you know are 3 types of verbal thoughts of renunciation, good will, etc.


Those are just the more prominent pieces of evidence I can think of off the top of my head, that Sujato fails to address.

And I have detailed public audits of all of that and much more.
https://lucid24.org/sted/8aam/8samadhi/ ... index.html

[frank k]

...
Since Bhikkhu Sujato, and others, have discussed jhana extensively...

And how can I forget, MN 111, AN 9.36?
If they discussed jhana so extensively, how could they fail to explain how MN 111 works for them?

MN 111 explicitly includes volition (cetana) in the first 7 attainments, and explicitly describes the final 2 attainments as having to emerge from that state before being able to do vipassana.

AN 9.36 explicitly includes rupa perception in the 4 jhanas, and excludes rupa beyond 4 jhanas.
How does that work with Sujato's redefined kaya and rupa?

And what does volition/cetana do, if as Sujato claims, vitakka is too subtle to be a verbal thought, is just a "placing the mind (on what exactly)"?
What is cetana doing, since as Sujato claims, the Buddha doesn't have a word for the special subverbal activity that vitakka does in first jhana, so he had to redefine vitakka to mean something else.


What on earth are you thinking, Mike?
How can you miss all that?
It's great that you want to believe everyone is good and everyone has a valid opinion, but unfortunately reality isn't like that.

[Pulsar]

frank k wrote

And how can I forget, MN 111, AN 9.36?

Why do you blame V. sujato for these suttas, laden with Arupas.
Are not these works of Vibajjavadin compilers?
V. Sujato is not responsible for all that went wrong with the Pali tradition.
I cannot find an agama parallel for MN 111.
Neither can I find a SA parallel for AN 9.36.
V. Sujato is commendable for bringing Agama parallels to the Theravada public, so that curious folks can find out what went wrong with Vibajjavadin/Theravada, beginning around the third council.

• Have you explored how MN 43, and MN 44 were fabricated????

Why are these suttas a mix of facts and falsities? yet so many blithely quote them. Have you checked out the original SA parallels to these suttas?
Very eye opening!
That would be a worthwhile project for a good blogger, and far more useful to the public, than your constant attempts at disparaging V. Sujato.
Regards

[frank k]

I've told you this before and you didn't get the point, so I'm only going to say it one more time.
The Agamas consist of incomplete fractions from several schools.
If they were each complete, as in Theravada having a complete scriptural collection, then you'd have more of a basis to compare and rightly question why some parallels exist or don't exist.
But the fact that each agama school is incomplete, the lack of a parallel in pali doesn't give you enough to draw a conclusion.
If you can't see that, get someone else to explain it to you.

Even ignoring MN 111 and AN 9.36, I've written a ton of detailed analysis showing the fallacy of Sujato's interpretation and lack of evidence to support his reasoning.
For you to characterize objective criticism as "disparaging Sujato" just shows your lack of objectivity, and a lack of critical thinking skills.

frank k wrote

And how can I forget, MN 111, AN 9.36?

Why do you blame V. sujato for these suttas, laden with Arupas.
Are not these works of Vibajjavadin compilers?
V. Sujato is not responsible for all that went wrong with the Pali tradition.
I cannot find an agama parallel for MN 111.
Neither can I find a SA parallel for AN 9.36.
V. Sujato is commendable for bringing Agama parallels to the Theravada public, so that curious folks can find out what went wrong with Vibajjavadin/Theravada, beginning around the third council.

• Have you explored how MN 43, and MN 44 were fabricated????

Why are these suttas a mix of facts and falsities? yet so many blithely quote them. Have you checked out the original SA parallels to these suttas?
Very eye opening!
That would be a worthwhile project for a good blogger, and far more useful to the public, than your constant attempts at disparaging V. Sujato.
Regards

[mikenz66]

Hi Frank,

I get really sick of well informed and educated people like yourself, Mike, continuing to bury your head in the sand and pretend that everyone is good, everyone is sincere and made valid but differing arguments and provided evidence to support their positions [on jhana and samadhi].
They did not....

I'm fine with you disagreeing with their arguments, but I don't see why you should call into question the sincerity of others. Noone is questioning your sincerity...


Mike

[Pulsar]

frank k wrote

 I've told you this before and you didn't get the point.

The reason I didn't get your point is that your arguments are based on a false premise.
People like you fail to understand the first thing about DO. The meditations of the Noble path ie Satipatthana and 4 buddhist jhanas were designed by the Buddha to terminate DO.
Folks like you who sing the praises of Arupas are clueless about the most basic thing in DO.

• You insist that the first Satipatthana is about a physical body

this to me is a clear indication of your ignorance.

• The kaya in first Satipatthana is the mental imagery derived from physical elements that appear in the mind.

You are not the only one who thinks like the first group. The entire late Pali tradition believed so. Once kaya was thought to be a physical body, all the body meditations and meditations on corpses were imported into the sutta pitaka. Suttas like DN 22/MN10 and Kayagatasati are prime examples.
Tradition failed, and you continue to propagate its fallacy by bringing in glamorous sensational similes like "Jhana is like soaking up the water jets of a fancy 21st century jacuzzi???" or something of that nature.
Once Satipatthana is finessed, that is jhana, in pure plain English.
This is what Anuruddha samyutta points to. Abhidhammikas who failed to see this basic truth (like you) imported exotic Arupas into the canon, and packed these into some Samyutta agama suttas where Arupas did not exist.
In suttas in the Samyukta agama Arupas are missing, also vitaka and vicara.
You continued.

so I'm only going to say it one more time. 
The Agamas consist of incomplete fractions from several schools. 
If they were each complete, as in Theravada having a complete scriptural collection, then you'd have more of a basis to compare and rightly question why some parallels exist or don't exist.

Nice, actually I was relying on only one school of Agama, Mulasarvastivada. The school that was responsible for the compilation of Samyukta Agama.
viewtopic.php?f=29&t=41910
BB in the intro to Samyutta Nikaya writes DN and MN were written for non-buddhists, and SN was written for those buddhists that could think like an advanced practitioner? AN is a mix of SA type of suttas and suttas of the type found in DN and MN ie MN 111.
You wrote 

But the fact that each agama school is incomplete, the lack of a parallel in pali doesn't give you enough to draw a conclusion.
If you can't see that, get someone else to explain it to you. 

Lack of parallel and other factors (inclusion of Arupas and kasinas and misinterpretation of body in satipatthana) are enuf reason for me.
You wrote 

Even ignoring MN 111 and AN 9.36, I've written a ton of detailed analysis showing the fallacy of Sujato's interpretation and lack of evidence to support his reasoning.

Your detailed analysis? that uses a questionable sutta like SN 36.11? to prove that kaya is body??? When I pointed out the brevity of the Mulasarvastivada parallel to you, you dragged in a later more elaborate sarvastivada version to prove your point, that kaya is body.
you wrote 

For you to characterize objective criticism as "disparaging Sujato" just shows your lack of objectivity, and a lack of critical thinking skills.

 V. Sujato is not the problem, he is the solution. He provided us with the agama parallels.

• The tradition that interpreted Kaya in Satipatthana as a physical body, and rupa in DO as a physical body is a bigger problem.

Take it up with the late compilers of the "Complete Pali canon" the Vibajjavadin entries.
With love

[asahi]

Theravada is the school of Buddhism established at the Mahāvihāra in Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka, by King Ashoka’s son Mahinda and daughter Saṅghamittā, and which later spread across south-east Asia. It regards the Pali Tipiṭaka alone as authoritative.

I agree with Sujato on that Theravada is one of the late sub-school . But his takes on many subjects appears to be misleading . One need to understand and differentiate that the early buddhism is actually has turn into about sectarian buddhism . However , early buddhism has already lost its Originality in the process of times .

......kaya....


V. Sujato is not the problem, he is the solution. He provided us with the agama parallels.

In the suttas most of the times it means 《collection or group》, but specifically for jhana context , it does refers to physicality .

Providing the parallel is not the complete solution but an big advantage .

[frank k]

...
With love

Your assumptions, line of thinking, are completely incomprehensible to me.
Best of luck to you, please don't interact with my posts and I'll do the same for you.

[frank k]

Hi Frank,

I get really sick of well informed and educated people like yourself, Mike, continuing to bury your head in the sand and pretend that everyone is good, everyone is sincere and made valid but differing arguments and provided evidence to support their positions [on jhana and samadhi].
They did not....

I'm fine with you disagreeing with their arguments, but I don't see why you should call into question the sincerity of others. Noone is questioning your sincerity...


Mike

Hi Mike,
I didn't set out to call out deceit and hypocrisy (attributes of lack of sincerity).
What I set out to do, was defend proper interpretation of EBT jhana, which Sujato claims to do, yet he blatantly ignores the many passages that contradict his thesis. In the otherwise nice essay of his in the OP, you may not have noticed he still continues to assert his interpretation of jhana and samadhi as a fact, as if it's well supported by a natural reading of the EBT.
If that's not deceit, then what is it? He's been made aware privately and publicly of the detailed arguments disproving his interpretation.

An honorable person, a person of integrity, would address all of the relevant passages on jhana, not just two cherry picked passages.
A person of integrity would provide sufficiently detailed proof justifying their interpretation, especially when there is a massive amount of detailed audits in excruciating detail disproving their interpretation.
A person of integrity, if unable to produce detailed proof or counterarguments, would at least have some modicum of transparency and explanation for why they are unable to show evidence.

A person of integrity, would not abuse their position of power, authority, and influence to advance their unfounded interpretation of samadhi and jhana without due process in addressing all of the most critical reasonable objections.

It's not because I disagree with Sujato that I call into question his honor and integrity.
It's because he pushes his agenda in a deceitful and dishonorable way, unbecoming for a Buddhist monk.

[frank k]

Hi Frank,

I get really sick of well informed and educated people like yourself, Mike, continuing to bury your head in the sand and pretend that everyone is good, everyone is sincere and made valid but differing arguments and provided evidence to support their positions [on jhana and samadhi].
They did not....

I'm fine with you disagreeing with their arguments, but I don't see why you should call into question the sincerity of others. Noone is questioning your sincerity...


Mike

My original message to you was less about calling out Sujato, and more about calling out you and other good members of the Buddhist community.
All it takes for evil to triumph, is for good people to do nothing.
Refraining from criticizing wrong views because they come from a popular and well liked teacher is not "right speech".

We all have a responsibility to police each other, and especially police the teachers.
There is no pope or central governing in Theravada to denounce wrong views of rogue teachers, so it's a collective responsibility.

If you genuinely don't know if a teacher is doing something wrong, then right speech is to remain silent and agnostic.

But if you know for a fact a teacher is committing wrong, and you remain silent, that is wrong speech, wrong action, wrong view, wrong livelihood.

That Sujato has been and continues to get away with his promulgation of wrong Dhamma on jhana and samadhi, is a direct result of good people enabling him to do so, by shirking their responsibility to call out wrong action.

[Ceisiwr]

…