MN 111 jhana 'lite' vs. jhana 'heavy', sutta vs. vism. 'jhana'.

[Ceisiwr]

I don't see how that negates the fact that he was able to perceive that factor as stressful while in jhana, and turn away from it instead of clinging to it.

The sphere of infinite space is without form. If he is perceiving form, then he is not in that attainment. It follows that his mind slipped back to perceiving form, which knocked him out of that attainment. The same for the other attainments and jhānas discussed. The sutta isn't stating that these things happen whilst in jhāna. They are stating what went wrong, what removed one from jhāna. Ergo, he is not in x jhāna or attainment but is reviewing after the fact.

Obviously he was able to discern it as stressful, which implies that discernment doesn't happen at the vitakka-vicara level but at the consciousness level.

"'Consciousness, consciousness': Thus is it said. To what extent, friend, is it said to be 'consciousness'?"

"'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'consciousness.' And what does it cognize? It cognizes 'pleasant.' It cognizes 'painful.' It cognizes 'neither painful nor pleasant.' 'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus it is said to be 'consciousness.'"

"Discernment & consciousness, friend: Are these qualities conjoined or disjoined? Is it possible, having separated them one from the other, to delineate the difference between them?"

"Discernment & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It's not possible, having separated them one from the other, to delineate the difference between them. For what one discerns, that one cognizes. What one cognizes, that one discerns. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference between them."

"Discernment & consciousness, friend: What is the difference between these qualities that are conjoined, not disjoined?"

"Discernment & consciousness, friend: Of these qualities that are conjoined, not disjoined, discernment is to be developed, consciousness is to be fully comprehended."[1]

I assume this is Ven. Ṭhānissaro's translation here? What he has translated as "discernment" is "paññā". If we look at the sanskrit Prajñā we can see that it is comprised of pra (प्र) and jñā (ज्ञा)

pra: great

jñā: knowledge, understanding

Prajñā/paññā: Great understanding/knowledge.

This is the meaning we find in the suttas. Discernment is more the function of dhamma vicaya. It is this which leads to paññā. Using typical jhāna lite definitions an argument can be put forward that insight occurs within the 1st jhāna, since there is vitakka-vicāra (defined as something along the lines of thinking and pondering) and so the possibility of dhamma vicaya, but when we move past the 1st jhāna the whole argument unravels. Since vitakka-vicāra is absent from the 2nd jhāna onwards there is no possibility of dhamma vicaya and so no possibility of being able to review or gain any kind of paññā whilst in any of those attainments. The whole jhāna lite enterprise thus collapses itself, due to its own definitions. The alternative view, which is much more in line with what we see in the pali, is that vitakka-vicāra in the jhāna pericope doesn't mean normal "thinking and pondering/contemplating" but more "applied and sustained thought" and so even from the 1st jhāna there is no possibility of any reviewing or insight whilst in the attainment. This is much more consistent than the jhāna lite argument, where you have insight in 1 attainment but not for the rest. It is then only upon leaving x jhāna or attainment that normal functions of the mind return and so dhamma vicaya can do it's work, thus resulting in wisdom.

As a supplement to my argument (which I mentioned earlier) the sutta also repeats “saññāmanasikārā”, as if attention to multiple perceptions are part of what is going wrong. If saññāmanasikārā is part of the problem then it follows that part of doing jhāna well is to have 1 attention of perception (saññā) rather than many. In other words, absorption.

[coconut]

I don't see how that negates the fact that he was able to perceive that factor as stressful while in jhana, and turn away from it instead of clinging to it.

The sphere of infinite space is without form. If he is perceiving form, then he is not in that attainment. It follows that his mind slipped back to perceiving form, which knocked him out of that attainment. The same for the other attainments and jhānas discussed. The sutta isn't stating that these things happen whilst in jhāna. They are stating what went wrong, what removed one from jhāna. Ergo, he is not in x jhāna or attainment but is reviewing after the fact.

Obviously he was able to discern it as stressful, which implies that discernment doesn't happen at the vitakka-vicara level but at the consciousness level.

"'Consciousness, consciousness': Thus is it said. To what extent, friend, is it said to be 'consciousness'?"

"'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'consciousness.' And what does it cognize? It cognizes 'pleasant.' It cognizes 'painful.' It cognizes 'neither painful nor pleasant.' 'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus it is said to be 'consciousness.'"

"Discernment & consciousness, friend: Are these qualities conjoined or disjoined? Is it possible, having separated them one from the other, to delineate the difference between them?"

"Discernment & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It's not possible, having separated them one from the other, to delineate the difference between them. For what one discerns, that one cognizes. What one cognizes, that one discerns. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference between them."

"Discernment & consciousness, friend: What is the difference between these qualities that are conjoined, not disjoined?"

"Discernment & consciousness, friend: Of these qualities that are conjoined, not disjoined, discernment is to be developed, consciousness is to be fully comprehended."[1]

I assume this is Ven. Ṭhānissaro's translation here? What he has translated as "discernment" is "paññā". If we look at the sanskrit Prajñā we can see that it is comprised of pra (प्र) and jñā (ज्ञा)

pra: great

jñā: knowledge, understanding

Prajñā/paññā: Great understanding/knowledge.

This is the meaning we find in the suttas. Discernment is more the function of dhamma vicaya. It is this which leads to paññā. Using typical jhāna lite definitions an argument can be put forward that insight occurs within the 1st jhāna, since there is vitakka-vicāra (defined as something along the lines of thinking and pondering) and so the possibility of dhamma vicaya, but when we move past the 1st jhāna the whole argument unravels. Since vitakka-vicāra is absent from the 2nd jhāna onwards there is no possibility of dhamma vicaya and so no possibility of being able to review or gain any kind of paññā whilst in any of those attainments. The whole jhāna lite enterprise thus collapses itself, due to its own definitions. The alternative view, which is much more in line with what we see in the pali, is that vitakka-vicāra in the jhāna pericope doesn't mean normal "thinking and pondering/contemplating" but more "applied and sustained thought" and so even from the 1st jhāna there is no possibility of any reviewing or insight whilst in the attainment. This is much more consistent than the jhāna lite argument, where you have insight in 1 attainment but not for the rest. It is then only upon leaving x jhāna or attainment that normal functions of the mind return and so dhamma vicaya can do it's work, thus resulting in wisdom.

As a supplement to my argument (which I mentioned earlier) the sutta also repeats “saññāmanasikārā”, as if attention to multiple perceptions are part of what is going wrong. If saññāmanasikārā is part of the problem then it follows that part of doing jhāna well is to have 1 attention of perception (saññā) rather than many. In other words, absorption.

I don't follow outsider hindu interpretations and definitions, I follow interpretations that are defined within the suttas. Sankhara in hinduism for example, has a completely different definition than Sankhara in Buddhism, therefore we follow what the sutta define the term as.

IB horner translation of mn 43

“Your reverence, it is called ‘Discriminative consciousness, discriminative consciousness.’ Now in what respects, your reverence, is it called ‘discriminative consciousness’?” “Your reverence, if it said ‘It discriminates, it discriminates,’ it is therefore called discriminative consciousness. And what does it discriminate? It discriminates pleasure and it discriminates pain and it discriminates neither pain nor pleasure. If it is said ‘It discriminates, it discriminates,’ your reverence, therefore it is called ‘Discriminative consciousness.’”

“That which is intuitive wisdom, your reverence, and that which is discriminative consciousness, are these states associated or dissociated? And is it possible to lay down a difference between these states, having analysed them again and again?” “That which is intuitive wisdom, your reverence, and that which is discriminative consciousness, these states are associated, not dissociated, and it is not possible to lay down a difference between these states, having analysed them again and again. Whatever one comprehends, your reverence, that one discriminates; whatever one discriminates that one comprehends; therefore these states are associated, not dissociated, and it is not possible to lay down a difference between these states, having analysed them again and again.

“That which is feeling, your reverence, and that which is perception and that which is discriminative consciousness, are these states associated or dissociated? And is it possible to lay down a difference between these states, having analysed them again and again?” “That which is feeling, your reverence, and that which is perception and that which is discriminative consciousness, these states are associated, not dissociated, and it is not possible to lay down a difference between these states, having analysed them again and again. Your reverence, whatever one feels, that one perceives; whatever one perceives that one discriminates; therefore these states are associated, not dissociated, and it is not possible to lay down a difference between these states, having analysed them again and again.”

As for your remaining interpretation, it's nonsense with no basis and no reason to waste time on.

Either accept the suttas at face value, or don't, but don't warp them to fit your broken understanding.

[Ceisiwr]

lite jhana is stepping stone to full hardcore jhana.. everyone dont stop till u attain hardcore jhana...

do you want to be brahma of lower level or higher level?

I'm not so sure. Given that most, if not all, jhāna lite methods encourage maintaining multiple perceptions I can't see how they can even develop access concentration let alone full blown jhāna.

[coconut]

There is no such thing as "Jhana lite"..

MN 64:

“And what, Ānanda, is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters? Here, with seclusion from the acquisitions, with the abandoning of unwholesome states, with the complete tranquillization of bodily inertia, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion.

“Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element thus: ‘This is the peaceful, this is the sublime, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbāna.’ If he is steady in that, he attains the destruction of the taints. But if he does not attain the destruction of the taints because of that desire for the Dhamma, that delight in the Dhamma, then with the destruction of the five lower fetters he becomes one due to reappear spontaneously in the Pure Abodes and there attain final Nibbāna without ever returning from that world. This is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters.

[Ceisiwr]

I don't follow outsider hindu interpretations and definitions, I follow interpretations that are defined within the suttas. Sankhara in hinduism for example, has a completely different definition than Sankhara in Buddhism, therefore we follow what the sutta define the term as.

Pali is essentially simplified sanskrit, so it helps to know the sanskrit roots. The Buddha would have also been familiar with what these words meant, and so we need to understand them in their context in order to understand what he meant when using them.

IB horner translation of mn 43

“Your reverence, it is called ‘Discriminative consciousness, discriminative consciousness.’ Now in what respects, your reverence, is it called ‘discriminative consciousness’?” “Your reverence, if it said ‘It discriminates, it discriminates,’ it is therefore called discriminative consciousness. And what does it discriminate? It discriminates pleasure and it discriminates pain and it discriminates neither pain nor pleasure. If it is said ‘It discriminates, it discriminates,’ your reverence, therefore it is called ‘Discriminative consciousness.’”

“That which is intuitive wisdom, your reverence, and that which is discriminative consciousness, are these states associated or dissociated? And is it possible to lay down a difference between these states, having analysed them again and again?” “That which is intuitive wisdom, your reverence, and that which is discriminative consciousness, these states are associated, not dissociated, and it is not possible to lay down a difference between these states, having analysed them again and again. Whatever one comprehends, your reverence, that one discriminates; whatever one discriminates that one comprehends; therefore these states are associated, not dissociated, and it is not possible to lay down a difference between these states, having analysed them again and again.

“That which is feeling, your reverence, and that which is perception and that which is discriminative consciousness, are these states associated or dissociated? And is it possible to lay down a difference between these states, having analysed them again and again?” “That which is feeling, your reverence, and that which is perception and that which is discriminative consciousness, these states are associated, not dissociated, and it is not possible to lay down a difference between these states, having analysed them again and again. Your reverence, whatever one feels, that one perceives; whatever one perceives that one discriminates; therefore these states are associated, not dissociated, and it is not possible to lay down a difference between these states, having analysed them again and again.”

I'm not sure why Horner choose "discriminative consciousness" as a translation, since that has no basis in the pali:

“They speak of ‘consciousness’.
“‘Viññāṇaṃ viññāṇan’ti, āvuso, vuccati.

How is consciousness defined?”
Kittāvatā nu kho, āvuso, viññāṇanti vuccatī”ti?

Likely it is because the sutta has viññāṇa cognising different vedanā. Even on this basis however it still doesn't get you where you want to be, since viññāṇa is simply cognising. To get discernment and insight you also need vicāra/vicaya, that is to say investigation.

As for your remaining interpretation, it's nonsense with no basis and no reason to waste time on.

Either accept the suttas at face value, or don't, but don't warp them to fit your broken understanding.

For your non-absorption model of the jhānas and attainments to work you will need to answer how you can have insight without dhamma vicaya? I assume you don't define vitakka-vicāra as initial and sustained thought, but something more along the lines of thinking and investigating? You would also have to address the repetition of saññāmanasikārā.

[Ceisiwr]

There is no such thing as "Jhana lite"..

We agree at last!

[Ceisiwr]

“And what, Ānanda, is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters? Here, with seclusion from the acquisitions, with the abandoning of unwholesome states, with the complete tranquillization of bodily inertia, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion.

“Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element thus: ‘This is the peaceful, this is the sublime, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbāna.’ If he is steady in that, he attains the destruction of the taints. But if he does not attain the destruction of the taints because of that desire for the Dhamma, that delight in the Dhamma, then with the destruction of the five lower fetters he becomes one due to reappear spontaneously in the Pure Abodes and there attain final Nibbāna without ever returning from that world. This is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters.

Once again, even on a purely English language basis this does not support your claim that insight is occurring whilst in jhāna.

[coconut]

I don't follow outsider hindu interpretations and definitions, I follow interpretations that are defined within the suttas. Sankhara in hinduism for example, has a completely different definition than Sankhara in Buddhism, therefore we follow what the sutta define the term as.

Pali is essentially simplified sanskrit, so it helps to know the sanskrit roots. The Buddha would have also been familiar with what these words meant, and so we need to understand them in their context in order to understand what he meant.

IB horner translation of mn 43

“Your reverence, it is called ‘Discriminative consciousness, discriminative consciousness.’ Now in what respects, your reverence, is it called ‘discriminative consciousness’?” “Your reverence, if it said ‘It discriminates, it discriminates,’ it is therefore called discriminative consciousness. And what does it discriminate? It discriminates pleasure and it discriminates pain and it discriminates neither pain nor pleasure. If it is said ‘It discriminates, it discriminates,’ your reverence, therefore it is called ‘Discriminative consciousness.’”

“That which is intuitive wisdom, your reverence, and that which is discriminative consciousness, are these states associated or dissociated? And is it possible to lay down a difference between these states, having analysed them again and again?” “That which is intuitive wisdom, your reverence, and that which is discriminative consciousness, these states are associated, not dissociated, and it is not possible to lay down a difference between these states, having analysed them again and again. Whatever one comprehends, your reverence, that one discriminates; whatever one discriminates that one comprehends; therefore these states are associated, not dissociated, and it is not possible to lay down a difference between these states, having analysed them again and again.

“That which is feeling, your reverence, and that which is perception and that which is discriminative consciousness, are these states associated or dissociated? And is it possible to lay down a difference between these states, having analysed them again and again?” “That which is feeling, your reverence, and that which is perception and that which is discriminative consciousness, these states are associated, not dissociated, and it is not possible to lay down a difference between these states, having analysed them again and again. Your reverence, whatever one feels, that one perceives; whatever one perceives that one discriminates; therefore these states are associated, not dissociated, and it is not possible to lay down a difference between these states, having analysed them again and again.”

I'm not sure why Horner choose "discriminative consciousness" as a translation, since that has no basis in the pali:

“They speak of ‘consciousness’.
“‘Viññāṇaṃ viññāṇan’ti, āvuso, vuccati.

How is consciousness defined?”
Kittāvatā nu kho, āvuso, viññāṇanti vuccatī”ti?

Likely it is because the sutta has viññāṇa cognising different vedanā. Even on this basis however it still doesn't get you where you want to be, since viññāṇa is simply cognising. To get discernment and insight you also need vicāra/vicaya, that is to say investigation.

As for your remaining interpretation, it's nonsense with no basis and no reason to waste time on.

Either accept the suttas at face value, or don't, but don't warp them to fit your broken understanding.

For your non-absorption model of the jhānas and attainments to work you will need to answer how you can have insight without dhamma vicaya? I assume you don't define vitakka-vicāra as initial and sustained thought, but something more along the lines of thinking and investigating?

The Buddha defined his own terms in the suttas, hence we use the suttas for their definition. So far 2 experts disagree with you, now for Ven Sujato's definition

“They speak of ‘consciousness’.
“‘Viññāṇaṃ viññāṇan’ti, āvuso, vuccati.
How is consciousness defined?”
Kittāvatā

nu kho, āvuso, viññāṇanti vuccatī”ti?

“It’s called consciousness because it cognizes.
“‘Vijānāti vijānātī’ti kho,āvuso, tasmā viññāṇanti vuccati.

And what does it cognize?
Kiñca vijānāti?

It cognizes ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’ and ‘neutral’.
Sukhantipi vijānāti, dukkhantipi vijānāti, adukkhamasukhantipi vijānāti.

It’s called consciousness because it cognizes.”
‘Vijānāti vijānātī’ti kho, āvuso, tasmāviññāṇanti vuccatī”ti.

“Wisdom and consciousness—
“Yā cāvuso, paññā yañca viññāṇaṃ—

are these things mixed or separate?
ime dhammā saṃsaṭṭhā udāhu visaṃsaṭṭhā?

And can we completely dissect them so as to describe the difference between them?”
Labbhā ca panimesaṃ dhammānaṃ
vinibbhujitvā vinibbhujitvā nānākaraṇaṃ paññāpetun”ti?

“Wisdom and consciousness—
“Yā cāvuso, paññā yañca viññāṇaṃ—

these things are mixed, not separate.
ime dhammā saṃsaṭṭhā, no visaṃsaṭṭhā.

And you can never completely dissect them so as to describe the difference between them.
Na ca labbhā imesaṃ dhammānaṃ vinibbhujitvā vinibbhujitvā

nānākaraṇaṃ paññāpetuṃ.

Ven Varado has his bases covered

Viññāṇa: the instrument of knowledge, not a knowing phenomenon

The instrumental case in the following quote (tena ca viññāṇena) shows that viññāṇa is the instrument through which one knows sensation.

What does one know with that viññāṇa? One knows what is pleasant, one knows what is unpleasant, one knows what is neutral.

Tena ca viññāṇena kiṃ vijānāti: sukhan ti pi vijānāti dukkhan ti pi vijānāti adukkhamasukhan ti pi vijānāti.

— M.3.242

This suggests that viññāṇa is a knowing phenomenon, which is how Bodhi understands it. He says 'Usually in the suttas viññāṇa is presented simply as the basic awareness of an object via one of the sense bases, i.e. as bare "consciousness of" rather than as a discriminative capacity' (CDB p.1072 n.114). But this presupposes that awareness of an object produces sensation, whereas awareness of an object is surely equivalent to sensation, and it would lead to the following translation:



Dependent on the visual sense and visible objects, basic awareness of an object arises. The association of the three is sensation.

Cakkhuñca paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇaṃ. Tiṇṇaṃ saṅgati phasso.

— M.3.281

But the suttas say that for sensation there needs to be all three elements:

That they should experience anything without sensation could not be

te vata aññatra phassā paṭisaṃvedissantīti netaṃ ṭhānaṃ vijjati.

https://pali-glossary.github.io/content ... %E1%B9%87a

Furthermore, he derives Panna from Pajanati

Pajānāti: three meanings

We render pajānāti as either:

to 'discern'

to 'know that'

to 'understand how'

For examples, see Illustrations, grouped accordingly.
Paññā: wisdom or penetrative discernment

Paññā is etymologically and functionally related to pajānāti. Where it linked to conduct of body and speech we call it wisdom. Where it is linked to conduct of mind we call it penetrative discernment.

https://pali-glossary.github.io/content ... 3%B1%C4%81

[coconut]

“And what, Ānanda, is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters? Here, with seclusion from the acquisitions, with the abandoning of unwholesome states, with the complete tranquillization of bodily inertia, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion.

“Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element thus: ‘This is the peaceful, this is the sublime, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbāna.’ If he is steady in that, he attains the destruction of the taints. But if he does not attain the destruction of the taints because of that desire for the Dhamma, that delight in the Dhamma, then with the destruction of the five lower fetters he becomes one due to reappear spontaneously in the Pure Abodes and there attain final Nibbāna without ever returning from that world. This is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters.

Once again, even on a purely English language basis this does not support your claim that insight is occurring whilst in jhāna.

Then what does "“Whatever exists therein" mean? Obviously there is discernment. Also where did I make that claim that insight occurs in jhana? I made the claim that there is discernment.

[Ceisiwr]

The Buddha defined his own terms in the suttas, hence we use the suttas for their definition. So far 2 experts disagree with you, now for Ven Sujato's definition

Yes, and we are discussing in part the best translation of those definitions.

Ven Varado has his bases covered

"Viññāṇa: the instrument of knowledge, not a knowing phenomenon

The instrumental case in the following quote (tena ca viññāṇena) shows that viññāṇa is the instrument through which one knows sensation.

What does one know with that viññāṇa? One knows what is pleasant, one knows what is unpleasant, one knows what is neutral.

Tena ca viññāṇena kiṃ vijānāti: sukhan ti pi vijānāti dukkhan ti pi vijānāti adukkhamasukhan ti pi vijānāti.

— M.3.242

This suggests that viññāṇa is a knowing phenomenon, which is how Bodhi understands it. He says 'Usually in the suttas viññāṇa is presented simply as the basic awareness of an object via one of the sense bases, i.e. as bare "consciousness of" rather than as a discriminative capacity' (CDB p.1072 n.114). But this presupposes that awareness of an object produces sensation, whereas awareness of an object is surely equivalent to sensation, and it would lead to the following translation:



Dependent on the visual sense and visible objects, basic awareness of an object arises. The association of the three is sensation.

Cakkhuñca paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇaṃ. Tiṇṇaṃ saṅgati phasso.

— M.3.281

But the suttas say that for sensation there needs to be all three elements:

That they should experience anything without sensation could not be

te vata aññatra phassā paṭisaṃvedissantīti netaṃ ṭhānaṃ vijjati.

https://pali-glossary.github.io/content ... %E1%B9%87a

There is a world of difference between "knowing" (viññāṇa) and investigating (vicaya). Everyone knows when vedanā is present, but not everyone investigates it (vicaya). In other words, dhamma vicaya is separate from and not always present with viññāṇa. If viññāṇa and vicara/vicaya were one in the same then the Buddha would not have differentiated them, and he would have included investigating instead of simple "knowing" within the definition of viññāṇa.

Furthermore, he derives Panna from Pajanati


"Pajānāti: three meanings

We render pajānāti as either:

to 'discern'

to 'know that'

to 'understand how'

For examples, see Illustrations, grouped accordingly.
Paññā: wisdom or penetrative discernment

Paññā is etymologically and functionally related to pajānāti. Where it linked to conduct of body and speech we call it wisdom. Where it is linked to conduct of mind we call it penetrative discernment."


https://pali-glossary.github.io/content ... 3%B1%C4%81

This would make Dhamma vicaya rather superfluous, since on this basis paññā is doing all of the leg work. Luckily, the quote doesn't say what you want it to either. The venerable said that paññā and pajānāti are linked. As in, related but not the same. Ven. Ñāṇamoli taught that pajānana is the act of understanding, which makes it different to paññā which is the understanding:

Paññā, (f.) (cp. Vedic prajñā, pa+jñā) intelligence, comprising all the higher faculties of cognition, “intellect as conversant with general truths” (Dial. II. 68), reason, wisdom, insight, knowledge, recognition. See on term Mrs. Rh. D. “Buddhism” (1914) pp. 94, 130, 201; also Cpd. 40, 41, 102 and discussion of term at Dhs. trsl. 17, 339, cp. scholastic definition with all the synonyms of intellectual attainment at Nd2 380=Dhs. 16 (paññā pajānanā vicayo etc.). As tt. in Buddhist Psych. Ethics it comprises the highest and last stage as 3rd division in the standard “Code of religious practice” which leads to Arahantship or Final Emancipation. These 3 stages are: (1) sīla-kkhandha (or °sampadā), code of moral duties; (2) samādhi-kkhandha (or cittasampadā) code of emotional duties or practice of con centration & meditation; (3) paññā-kkhandha (or °sampadā) code of intellectual duties or practice of the attainment of highest knowledge. (See also jhāna1.) They are referred to in almost every Suttanta of Dīgha 1. (given in extenso at D. I, 62—85) and frequently mentioned elsewhere, cp. D. II, 81, 84, 91 (see khandha, citta & sīla).—D. I, 26=162 (°gatena caranti diṭṭhigatāni), 174 (°vāda), 195 (°pāripūrin); II, 122 (ariyā); III, 101, 158, 164, 183, 230, 237, 242, 284 sq.; S. I, 13=165 (sīla, citta, paññā), 17, 34, 55; II, 185 (sammā°), 277; V, 222 (ariyā); M. I, 144 (id.); III, 99 (id.), 245 (paramā), 272 (sammā°); A. I, 61, 216; II, 1 (ariyā); IV, 105 (id.); III, 106 (sīla, citta, p.), 352 (kusalesu dhammesu); IV, 11 (id.); V, 123 sq.; It. 35, 40 (°uttara), 51 (sīla~samādhi p. ca), 112 (ariyā°); Sn. 77, 329, 432, 881, 1036 and passim; Dh. 38, 152, 372; Nd1 77; Nd2 380; Ps. I, 53, 64 sq. , 71 sq. , 102 sq. , 119; II, 150 sq. , 162, 185 sq.; Pug. 25, 35, 54 (°sampadā); Dhs. 16, 20, 555; Nett 8, 15, 17, 28, 54, 191; VbhA. 140, 396; PvA. 40 (paññāya abhāvato for lack of reason); Sdhp. 343. On paññāya see sep. article. See also adhipanna (adhisīla, adhicitta+).

The Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary

For pajānana to occur you will need dhamma vicaya, and so this leads me back to my main argument. On a non-absorption model you can only have insight in the 1st jhāna. After that it becomes impossible as there is no possibility of dhamma vicaya arising, as the condition for it (vicaya) is absent. The alternative is to accept that vitakka-vicāra means something more along the lines of "applied and sustained thought" leading to absorption, and so insight cannot occur in any jhāna or attainment. Either way, your interpretation (and all jhāna lite models) fall. To get out of the quagmire you find yourself in you will need to explain how insight can occur without dhamma vicaya. You would also need to address my secondary point regarding the hindrance of multiple perceptions.

Then what does "“Whatever exists therein" mean? Obviously there is discernment.

That whatever dhammas there where in that attainment, he contemplates them as not-self etc. Nothing in that sentence leads us to conclude that all this happens whilst in the actual attainment itself.

Also where did I make that claim that insight occurs in jhana? I made the claim that there is discernment

Coconut: The Buddha is quite explicit that you can see each jhana factor as impermanent and stressful which leads to calming that jhana factor and into the next jhana.

Ceisiwr: Your quote doesn’t say that happens whilst in Jhana. The traditional understanding, which is supported by the suttas, is that it is upon leaving each Jhana that its drawbacks are reviewed.

Coconut: The sutta does though...I don't see how that negates the fact that he was able to perceive that factor as stressful while in jhana, and turn away from it instead of clinging to it. Obviously he was able to discern it as stressful, which implies that discernment doesn't happen at the vitakka-vicara level but at the consciousness level.

Please don't backtrack.

[coconut]

The Buddha defined his own terms in the suttas, hence we use the suttas for their definition. So far 2 experts disagree with you, now for Ven Sujato's definition

Yes, and we are discussing in part the best translation of those definitions.

Ven Varado has his bases covered

"Viññāṇa: the instrument of knowledge, not a knowing phenomenon

The instrumental case in the following quote (tena ca viññāṇena) shows that viññāṇa is the instrument through which one knows sensation.

What does one know with that viññāṇa? One knows what is pleasant, one knows what is unpleasant, one knows what is neutral.

Tena ca viññāṇena kiṃ vijānāti: sukhan ti pi vijānāti dukkhan ti pi vijānāti adukkhamasukhan ti pi vijānāti.

— M.3.242

This suggests that viññāṇa is a knowing phenomenon, which is how Bodhi understands it. He says 'Usually in the suttas viññāṇa is presented simply as the basic awareness of an object via one of the sense bases, i.e. as bare "consciousness of" rather than as a discriminative capacity' (CDB p.1072 n.114). But this presupposes that awareness of an object produces sensation, whereas awareness of an object is surely equivalent to sensation, and it would lead to the following translation:



Dependent on the visual sense and visible objects, basic awareness of an object arises. The association of the three is sensation.

Cakkhuñca paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇaṃ. Tiṇṇaṃ saṅgati phasso.

— M.3.281

But the suttas say that for sensation there needs to be all three elements:

That they should experience anything without sensation could not be

te vata aññatra phassā paṭisaṃvedissantīti netaṃ ṭhānaṃ vijjati.

https://pali-glossary.github.io/content ... %E1%B9%87a

There is a world of difference between "knowing" (viññāṇa) and investigating (vicaya). Everyone knows when vedanā is present, but not everyone investigates it (vicaya). In other words, dhamma vicaya is separate from and not always present with viññāṇa. If viññāṇa and vicara/vicaya were one in the same then the Buddha would not have differentiated them, and he would have included investigating instead of simple "knowing" within the definition of viññāṇa.

Furthermore, he derives Panna from Pajanati


"Pajānāti: three meanings

We render pajānāti as either:

to 'discern'

to 'know that'

to 'understand how'

For examples, see Illustrations, grouped accordingly.
Paññā: wisdom or penetrative discernment

Paññā is etymologically and functionally related to pajānāti. Where it linked to conduct of body and speech we call it wisdom. Where it is linked to conduct of mind we call it penetrative discernment."

https://pali-glossary.github.io/content ... 3%B1%C4%81

This would make Dhamma vicaya rather superfluous, since on this basis paññā is doing all of the leg work. Luckily, the quote doesn't say what you want it to either. The venerable said that paññā and pajānāti are linked. As in, related but not the same. Ven. Ñāṇamoli taught that pajānana is the act of understanding, which makes it different to paññā which is the understanding:

Paññā, (f.) (cp. Vedic prajñā, pa+jñā) intelligence, comprising all the higher faculties of cognition, “intellect as conversant with general truths” (Dial. II. 68), reason, wisdom, insight, knowledge, recognition. See on term Mrs. Rh. D. “Buddhism” (1914) pp. 94, 130, 201; also Cpd. 40, 41, 102 and discussion of term at Dhs. trsl. 17, 339, cp. scholastic definition with all the synonyms of intellectual attainment at Nd2 380=Dhs. 16 (paññā pajānanā vicayo etc.). As tt. in Buddhist Psych. Ethics it comprises the highest and last stage as 3rd division in the standard “Code of religious practice” which leads to Arahantship or Final Emancipation. These 3 stages are: (1) sīla-kkhandha (or °sampadā), code of moral duties; (2) samādhi-kkhandha (or cittasampadā) code of emotional duties or practice of con centration & meditation; (3) paññā-kkhandha (or °sampadā) code of intellectual duties or practice of the attainment of highest knowledge. (See also jhāna1.) They are referred to in almost every Suttanta of Dīgha 1. (given in extenso at D. I, 62—85) and frequently mentioned elsewhere, cp. D. II, 81, 84, 91 (see khandha, citta & sīla).—D. I, 26=162 (°gatena caranti diṭṭhigatāni), 174 (°vāda), 195 (°pāripūrin); II, 122 (ariyā); III, 101, 158, 164, 183, 230, 237, 242, 284 sq.; S. I, 13=165 (sīla, citta, paññā), 17, 34, 55; II, 185 (sammā°), 277; V, 222 (ariyā); M. I, 144 (id.); III, 99 (id.), 245 (paramā), 272 (sammā°); A. I, 61, 216; II, 1 (ariyā); IV, 105 (id.); III, 106 (sīla, citta, p.), 352 (kusalesu dhammesu); IV, 11 (id.); V, 123 sq.; It. 35, 40 (°uttara), 51 (sīla~samādhi p. ca), 112 (ariyā°); Sn. 77, 329, 432, 881, 1036 and passim; Dh. 38, 152, 372; Nd1 77; Nd2 380; Ps. I, 53, 64 sq. , 71 sq. , 102 sq. , 119; II, 150 sq. , 162, 185 sq.; Pug. 25, 35, 54 (°sampadā); Dhs. 16, 20, 555; Nett 8, 15, 17, 28, 54, 191; VbhA. 140, 396; PvA. 40 (paññāya abhāvato for lack of reason); Sdhp. 343. On paññāya see sep. article. See also adhipanna (adhisīla, adhicitta+).

The Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary

For pajānana to occur you will need dhamma vicaya, and so this leads me back to my main argument. On a non-absorption model you can only have insight in the 1st jhāna. After that it becomes impossible as there is no possibility of dhamma vicaya arising, as the condition for it (vicaya) is absent. The alternative is to accept that vitakka-vicāra means something more along the lines of "applied and sustained thought" leading to absorption, and so insight cannot occur in any jhāna or attainment. Either way, your interpretation (and all jhāna lite models) fall. To get out of the quagmire you find yourself in you will need to explain how insight can occur without dhamma vicaya. You would also need to address my secondary point regarding the hindrance of multiple perceptions.

Then what does "“Whatever exists therein" mean? Obviously there is discernment.

That whatever dhammas there where in that attainment, he contemplates them as not-self etc. Nothing in that sentence leads us to conclude that all this happens whilst in the actual attainment itself.

Also where did I make that claim that insight occurs in jhana? I made the claim that there is discernment

Coconut: The Buddha is quite explicit that you can see each jhana factor as impermanent and stressful which leads to calming that jhana factor and into the next jhana.

Ceisiwr: Your quote doesn’t say that happens whilst in Jhana. The traditional understanding, which is supported by the suttas, is that it is upon leaving each Jhana that its drawbacks are reviewed.

Coconut: The sutta does though...I don't see how that negates the fact that he was able to perceive that factor as stressful while in jhana, and turn away from it instead of clinging to it. Obviously he was able to discern it as stressful, which implies that discernment doesn't happen at the vitakka-vicara level but at the consciousness level.

Please don't backtrack.

Discernment and insight are not necessarily the same, and so you shouldn't say I said something that I never said. Don't put words in my mouth. I never said the word insight. Maybe you shouldn't lie instead of telling me not to backtrack.

Furthermore that's already 5 monks with 5 translations that disagree with you. Vinanna and Panna are conjoined and you cannot separate them, therefore there is discernment while in jhanas as many suttas say, which frankk quoted in his blog article in the OP of this thread if you read it.

One can see (discern) what factor is stressful while in jhanas, which is exactly what the suttas MN 43 says, consciousness cognizes ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’ and ‘neutral’".

[Ceisiwr]

Discernment and insight are not necessarily the same, and so you shouldn't say I said something that I never said. Don't put words in my mouth. I never said the word insight. Maybe you shouldn't lie instead of telling me not to backtrack.

You have been arguing that whilst in jhāna one can "see each jhana factor as impermanent and stressful". Seeing dhammas as anicca and dukkha is insight.

Furthermore that's already 5 monks with 5 translations that disagree with you.

Ven. Ṭhānissaro: Disagreement.

Ven. Sujato: Agreement

Ven Varado : Partial agreement.

Ven. Bodhi: Agreement.

IB Horner (not a monk): Disagreement.

Vinanna and Panna are conjoined and you cannot separate them, therefore there is discernment while in jhanas as many suttas say, which frankk quoted in his blog article in the OP of this thread if you read it.

I agree, but paññā does not mean "discernment":

Paññā, (f.) (cp. Vedic prajñā, pa+jñā)

Pra: great

jñā: knowledge, understanding

Prajñā/paññā: Great understanding/knowledge.

Discernment noun
/dɪˈsərnmənt/
[uncountable] (formal) (approving)

the ability to show good judgment about the quality of someone or something

Oxford Dictionary

To be able to judge the quality of something you need to investigate it (vicaya). You would need dhamma vicaya. Given that vitakka-vicāra is totally absent from the 2nd jhāna onwards there is simply no possibility of any discernment happening at all in those states and, by extension, no insight. Discernment and insight therefore occurs outside of those states.

One can see (discern) what factor is stressful while in jhanas, which is exactly what the suttas MN 43 says, consciousness cognizes ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’ and ‘neutral’".

Please do explain how this can happen without dhamma vicaya? Once again, simply knowing vedanā is not dhamma vicaya. Everyone knows vedanā, but not everyone can engage in dhamma vicaya.

[coconut]

Discernment and insight are not necessarily the same, and so you shouldn't say I said something that I never said. Don't put words in my mouth. I never said the word insight. Maybe you shouldn't lie instead of telling me not to backtrack.

You have been arguing that whilst in jhāna one can "see each jhana factor as impermanent and stressful". Seeing dhammas as anicca and dukkha is insight.

Furthermore that's already 5 monks with 5 translations that disagree with you.

Ven. Ṭhānissaro: Disagreement.

Ven. Sujato: Agreement

Ven Varado : Partial agreement.

Ven. Bodhi: Agreement.

IB Horner (not a monk): Disagreement.

Vinanna and Panna are conjoined and you cannot separate them, therefore there is discernment while in jhanas as many suttas say, which frankk quoted in his blog article in the OP of this thread if you read it.

I agree, but paññā does not mean "discernment":

Paññā, (f.) (cp. Vedic prajñā, pa+jñā)

Pra: great

jñā: knowledge, understanding

Prajñā/paññā: Great understanding/knowledge.

Discernment noun
/dɪˈsərnmənt/
[uncountable] (formal) (approving)

the ability to show good judgment about the quality of someone or something

Oxford Dictionary

To be able to judge the quality of something you need to investigate it (vicaya). You would need dhamma vicaya. Given that vitakka-vicāra is totally absent from the 2nd jhāna onwards there is simply no possibility of any discernment happening at all in those states and, by extension, no insight. Discernment and insight therefore occurs outside of those states.

One can see (discern) what factor is stressful while in jhanas, which is exactly what the suttas MN 43 says, consciousness cognizes ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’ and ‘neutral’".

Please do explain how this can happen without dhamma vicaya?

Discernment actually means comparing two things, like a computer compares two variables really fast, like binary 0 and 1. More specifically seeing a state change from 0 to 1, or 1 to 0. It's seeing change, as frankk wisely noted in his blog post, that is what one needs to see. This is why Dependent Origination is 2-step, and one can only see the arising and ceasing of an object and its cause, which is what is needed for proper attention, which means seeing Dependent Origination is seeing how one object causes another object to arise (0 to 1, 1 to 2, 2 to 3, 3 to 4, etc..).

One does not need to mentally verbalize (vitakka/vicara) to discern.

Also you're completely wrong about dhamma-vicaya.

Dhamma-vicaya happens way before jhanas, not after jhanas. Dhamma-vicaya means judging your thoughts for wholesome/unwholesome which is needed to fulfill the first requirement of jhana: seclusion from unwholesome mental states (thoughts).

Remaining mindful in this way, he examines, analyzes, & comes to a comprehension of that quality with discernment. When he remains mindful in this way, examining, analyzing, & coming to a comprehension of that quality with discernment, then analysis of qualities as a factor for awakening becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its development.

After dhamma vicaya comes energy/persistence, then rapture not-of-the-flesh, then passaddi, then sukha, then concentration, then equanimity. So it happens before jhanas, not after jhanas.

[Ceisiwr]

Discernment actually means comparing two things, like a computer compares two variables really fast, like binary 0 and 1.

No, that is just comparing.

Discernment noun
dis·​cern·​ment | \ di-ˈsərn-mənt , -ˈzərn- \

Definition of discernment
1: the quality of being able to grasp and comprehend what is obscure : skill in discerning
2: an act of perceiving or discerning something

Merriam-Webster

Discernment noun
/dɪˈsərnmənt/
[uncountable] (formal) (approving)

the ability to show good judgment about the quality of someone or something

Oxford Dictionary

discernment
noun [ U ] formal approving
UK /dɪˈsɜːn.mənt/ US /dɪˈsɝːn.mənt/

the ability to judge people and things well:
It's clear that you are a person of discernment.

Cambridge Dictionary

This is why Dependent Origination is 2-step, and one can only see the arising and ceasing of an object and its cause, which is what is needed for proper attention, which means seeing Dependent Origination is seeing how one object causes another object to arise (0 to 1, 1 to 2, 2 to 3, 3 to 4, etc..).

Dependent origination is about conditionality rather than causality, but lets put that to the side for the moment.

One does not need to mentally verbalize (vitakka/vicara) to discern.

To judge the qualities of dhammas, to discern them, you need dhamma vicaya. In other words, investigation rather than just knowing that they are present (viññāṇa). Vicāra doesn't exist past the 2nd jhāna so even on a non-absorption model dhamma vicaya, and so discernment, cannot happen at all in those states.

Dhamma-vicaya happens way before jhanas, not after jhanas. Dhamma-vicaya means judging your thoughts for wholesome/unwholesome which is needed to fulfill the first requirement of jhana: seclusion from unwholesome mental states (thoughts).

It does mean that and it does lead to entry into the jhānas. This too leads to insight, by seeing which dhammas are beneficial in leading to said attainments. Investigation of dhammas doesn't stop there though, since the end goal is not the jhānas. If you are going to develop the
saññā of anicca, dukkha and anatta then you will need to investigate dhammas (vicaya) to see if they have those characteristics. So, once out of x attainment you will need to investigate dhammas in order to generate insight and understanding. If you do not investigate them then you won't gain any insight and you won't learn anything. Naturally this cannot occur whilst actually in the attainment itself, for the reasons I have been outlining (i.e. the total absence of vicaya).

[BrokenBones]

One of the issues I see with 'sleeping' hard jhana is that it seems to be completely seperate from a graduated path. Apparently, one has to reminisce about the experience and retroactively see its rising and passing. Sure, your mind is pretty chilled after your hard jhana experience (a bit like after a reefer ) but no insight has been gained and although directing your mind to the Dhamma post 'high', is going to be beneficial it's merely scratching the surface.

Metta