Using Lite Jhana to enter Deep Jhana?

[un8-]

Do you agree that right thought comes before right concentration?

No—sammā-diṭṭhi and sammā-samādhi are Path factors, not mental factors.

I don't know exactly where you're taking this, but I'm definitely not wasting another hour discussing with you.

Whichever combination you want to take me along, based on your opinion, I'm not interested.

Why? You have no problem insulting others and telling others they're wrong. It's easy to go after low hanging fruit right?

You're wrong. Unwholesome thoughts are eliminated way before right speech, right action and right concentration, and even before the 5 hindrances are overcome.

“Bhikkhus, if while walking a sensual thought or a thought of ill will or an aggressive thought arises in a bhikkhu, and if he tolerates it and does not reject it, does not dispel it and get rid of it and bring it to an end, that bhikkhu—who in such a manner is lacking in ardour and unafraid of wrongdoing—is called constantly lazy and indolent. If while standing … If while sitting … If while lying down a sensual thought or a thought of ill will or an aggressive thought arises in a bhikkhu, and if he tolerates it and does not reject it … that bhikkhu is called constantly lazy and indolent.

- iti 110

Sati-Sampajanna is defined as

“This is Nanda’s mindfulness and clear comprehension: Nanda knows feelings as they arise, as they remain present, as they disappear; he knows perceptions as they arise, as they remain present, as they disappear; he knows thoughts as they arise, as they remain present, as they disappear. That is Nanda’s mindfulness and clear comprehension.

- AN 8.9

Sati-Sampajanna happens way before the 5 hindrances are overcome

“I say, bhikkhus, that ignorance has a nutriment; it is not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for ignorance? It should be said: the five hindrances. The five hindrances, too, I say, have a nutriment; they are not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for the five hindrances? It should be said: the three kinds of misconduct. The three kinds of misconduct, too, I say, have a nutriment; they are not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for the three kinds of misconduct? It should be said: non-restraint of the sense faculties. Non-restraint of the sense faculties, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for non-restraint of the sense faculties? It should be said: lack of mindfulness and clear comprehension. Lack of mindfulness and clear comprehension, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for lack of mindfulness and clear comprehension? It should be said: careless attention. Careless attention, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for careless attention? It should be said: lack of faith. Lack of faith, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for lack of faith? It should be said: not hearing the good Dhamma. Not hearing the good Dhamma, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for not hearing the good Dhamma? It should be said: not associating with good persons.

- an 10.61

In the same way, a mendicant who is committed to the higher mind has coarse corruptions: bad bodily, verbal, and mental conduct. A sincere, capable mendicant gives these up, gets rid of, eliminates, and obliterates them.

When they’ve been given up and eliminated, there are middling corruptions: sensual, malicious, or cruel thoughts. A sincere, capable mendicant gives these up, gets rid of, eliminates, and obliterates them.

When they’ve been given up and eliminated, there are fine corruptions: thoughts of family, country, and being looked up to. A sincere, capable mendicant gives these up, gets rid of, eliminates, and obliterates them.

When they’ve been given up and eliminated, only thoughts about the teaching are left. That immersion is not peaceful or sublime or tranquil or unified, but is held in place by forceful suppression.

But there comes a time when that mind is stilled internally; it settles, unifies, and becomes immersed in samādhi. That immersion is peaceful and sublime and tranquil and unified,

- an 3.101

[samseva]

You're wrong. Unwholesome thoughts are elimanted way before right speech, right action and right concentration, and even before the 5 hindrances are overcome.

My point was that you were equating the Path factors of sammā-diṭṭhi and sammā-samādhi with mental factors.

And most of the passages you quoted don't deal with sammā-diṭṭhi and sammā-samādhi, exactly like I pointed out in my answer.

Or even of what I had been discussing, or the topic of this thread.

[un8-]

You're wrong. Unwholesome thoughts are elimanted way before right speech, right action and right concentration, and even before the 5 hindrances are overcome.

My point was that you were equating Path factors of sammā-diṭṭhi and sammā-samādhi with mental factors.

And most of the passages you quoted don't deal with sammā-diṭṭhi and sammā-samādhi, exactly like I pointed out in my answer.

Irrelevant, as I said, brokenbones was right about sensual desires in the mind. You also don't know the difference between sensual pleasures and sensual desires.

[samseva]

Irrelevant, as I said, brokenbones was right about sensual desires in the mind.

Of course sensual desires arise in the mind. Where else?

You also don't know the difference between sensual pleasures and sensual desires.

I do, but how is this relevant to the topic, and to jhāna?

[Coëmgenu]

You obviously did not read my post. No, it's not the kamaguna. Read my post.

I did. Your post says nothing.

Read the actual Suttas instead.

I would go back and read the sutta again, Samseva. You are wrong here. The objects themselves are not the kāma. "The world's pretty things stay just as they are." Kāma is defined in the sutta that un8 brought up as "saṅkapparāgo purisassa kāmo."

[samseva]

I would go back and read the sutta again, Samseva. You are wrong here. The objects themselves are not the kāma.

I didn't say they are. Here are my initial claims:

The stock jhāna passage in the Suttas, of "abandoning sensual pleasures" deals with only five senses.
The term kāma only deals with five senses:

Exactly like in AN 6.63, and MN 13, and hundreds of other instances in the Suttas, when kāma is mentioned, it has to do with the five senses, not all six.

It's un8- who went a strawman charade thinking I did, repeatedly trying to shove his long post from a completely unrelated thread, about sex, food, owning gold and cattle, and so on in my face, saying I didn't read it, posting in large red text.

[Coëmgenu]

Yes. I am talking about un8's point that runs counter to other points you've brought up. Is this the exchange you are talking about above?

Sensual desires does not refer to the 5 cords of the senses (kamaguna)

It literally says it in the passage:

And what, bhikkhus, is the gratification in the case of sensual pleasures? Bhikkhus, there are these five cords of sensual pleasure. What are the five? Forms cognizable by the eye that are wished for, desired, agreeable and likeable, connected with sensual desire, and provocative of lust. Sounds cognizable by the ear…Odours cognizable by the nose…Flavours cognizable by the tongue…Tangibles cognizable by the body that are wished for, desired, agreeable and likeable, connected with sensual desire, and provocative of lust. These are the five cords of sensual pleasure. Now the pleasure and joy that arise dependent on these five cords of sensual pleasure are the gratification in the case of sensual pleasures.

Ko ca, bhikkhave, kāmānaṁ assādo? Pañcime, bhikkhave, kāmaguṇā. Katame pañca? Cakkhuviññeyyā rūpā iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṁhitā rajanīyā, sotaviññeyyā saddā …pe… ghānaviññeyyā gandhā … jivhāviññeyyā rasā … kāyaviññeyyā phoṭṭhabbā iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṁhitā rajanīyā— ime kho, bhikkhave, pañca kāmaguṇā. Yaṁ kho, bhikkhave, ime pañca kāmaguṇe paṭicca uppajjati sukhaṁ somanassaṁ—ayaṁ kāmānaṁ assādo.

What is being described is kāmānaṁ—kāmaguṇā is simply used to describe kāmānaṁ.

Childish personal abuse deleted from this post.

This is the point I was talking about.

I didn't say they are.

Well, you sort of have, haven't you? Your views on jhāna depend on vivicceva kāmehi meaning that the 5 kāmaguṇas disappear, no? I don't know if you've brought this up, but I would be very surprised if your reading didn't hinge upon that. That was what un8 was talking about.

[samseva]

[...]

What I replied to BrokenBones's post:

The confusion comes from my take... 'abandoning sensual pleasures'... which would include the six senses... correct?

And your take... abandoning the five senses but leaving one intact (even if it has the discernment of a brick).

You seem to think that the first five senses are abandoned in the jhanas... where does it say this in the suttas.

Abandoning sensual pleasures is abandoning the desire (felt in the mind) for the sensual pleasure derived from the six senses.

You're incorrectly interpreting it from the English.

The stock jhāna passage in the Suttas, of "abandoning sensual pleasures" deals with only five senses.

Here, secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters and dwells in the first jhāna

Idha, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako vivicceva kāmehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakkaṁ savicāraṁ vivekajaṁ pītisukhaṁ paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ upasampajja viharati

The term kāma only deals with five senses:

And what, bhikkhus, is the gratification in the case of sensual pleasures? Bhikkhus, there are these five cords of sensual pleasure. What are the five? Forms cognizable by the eye that are wished for, desired, agreeable and likeable, connected with sensual desire, and provocative of lust. Sounds cognizable by the ear…Odours cognizable by the nose…Flavours cognizable by the tongue…Tangibles cognizable by the body that are wished for, desired, agreeable and likeable, connected with sensual desire, and provocative of lust. These are the five cords of sensual pleasure. Now the pleasure and joy that arise dependent on these five cords of sensual pleasure are the gratification in the case of sensual pleasures.

Ko ca, bhikkhave, kāmānaṁ assādo? Pañcime, bhikkhave, kāmaguṇā. Katame pañca? Cakkhuviññeyyā rūpā iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṁhitā rajanīyā, sotaviññeyyā saddā …pe… ghānaviññeyyā gandhā … jivhāviññeyyā rasā … kāyaviññeyyā phoṭṭhabbā iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṁhitā rajanīyā— ime kho, bhikkhave, pañca kāmaguṇā. Yaṁ kho, bhikkhave, ime pañca kāmaguṇe paṭicca uppajjati sukhaṁ somanassaṁ—ayaṁ kāmānaṁ assādo.

—MN 13

The claims I made:

You're incorrectly interpreting it from the English.

The stock jhāna passage in the Suttas, of "abandoning sensual pleasures" deals with only five senses.

The term kāma only deals with five senses:

Of which, directly after this post above, un8- responded:

...

Sensual desires does not refer to the 5 cords of the senses (kamaguna), see my post here for detail: viewtopic.php?p=650329#p650329

Understanding the gratification of the senses is different than seclusion from sensual desire

Two posts after, I posted AN 6.63, which also describes kāma as the five senses rather than all six—exactly like my initial claims—but which has nothing to do with kāmaguṇā (it's not even in the Pāḷi):

Here, AN 6.63:

And what is the diversity of sensual pleasures? Sensual desire for forms is one thing, sensual desire for sounds is another, sensual desire for odors still another, sensual desire for tastes still another, and sensual desire for tactile objects still another. This is called the diversity of sensual pleasures.

Katamā ca, bhikkhave, kāmānaṁ vemattatā? Añño, bhikkhave, kāmo rūpesu, añño kāmo saddesu, añño kāmo gandhesu, añño kāmo rasesu, añño kāmo phoṭṭhabbesu. Ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, kāmānaṁ vemattatā.

And even this, right after:

And what is the diversity of sensual pleasures? Sensual desire for forms is one thing, sensual desire for sounds is another, sensual desire for odors still another, sensual desire for tastes still another, and sensual desire for tactile objects still another. This is called the diversity of sensual pleasures.

Katamā ca, bhikkhave, kāmānaṁ vemattatā? Añño, bhikkhave, kāmo rūpesu, añño kāmo saddesu, añño kāmo gandhesu, añño kāmo rasesu, añño kāmo phoṭṭhabbesu. Ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, kāmānaṁ vemattatā.

• Sensual desire for forms (kāmo rūpesu)
• Sensual desire for sounds (kāmo saddesu)
• Sensual desire for odors (kāmo gandhesu)
• Sensual desire for tastes (kāmo rasesu)
• Sensual desire tactile objects (kāmo phoṭṭhabbesu)

Well, you sort of have, haven't you? Your views on jhāna depend on vivicceva kāmehi meaning that the 5 kāmaguṇas disappear, no? I don't know if you've brought this up, but I would be very surprised if your reading didn't hinge upon that. That was what un8 was talking about.

No... as with my initial claims, I was pointing out that, like in MN 13, or AN 6.63—which does not have kāmuguṇā—and multiple other instances in the Suttas, kāma deals with five senses, and not six.

Therefore:

• Like I said in a post before my initial post, "jhāna-lite" proponents are probably confused about jhāna because they think there are five senses.
• BrokenBone's infantile exclamations that jhāna which doesn't have sound or feelings of the body is "comatose" is just stupid and false—because obviously there is activity of the mind while in jhāna, and—as I described using Sutta passages—there is the sixth sense of the mind.

[Coëmgenu]

The claims I made:

You're incorrectly interpreting it from the English.

The stock jhāna passage in the Suttas, of "abandoning sensual pleasures" deals with only five senses.

The term kāma only deals with five senses:

Of which, directly after this post above, un8- responded:

...

Sensual desires does not refer to the 5 cords of the senses (kamaguna), see my post here for detail: viewtopic.php?p=650329#p650329

Understanding the gratification of the senses is different than seclusion from sensual desire

I think you've confused yourself, but maybe I'm confused. It's possible. BrokenBones asked you if "abandoning sensual pleasures" included the mind (and its objects). You said no. Then, un8 asserted that what is abandoned in jhana is the "saṅkapparāgo" which constitutes the "purisassa kāmo." He was saying that saṅkapparāgo is abandoned in jhana, not the 5 senses and their objects. You seem to think he's still talking about the enumeration, 5 or 6. That's not the issue anymore. It's just a question BrokenBones asked you.

No...

Can you clarify your stance on the matter if it's not correct that you believe that the 5 kāmaguṇas disappear in jhāna?

[samseva]

The only claims I made:

Your claim was that the Jhana of Ajahn Brahm etc is without the senses. This isn’t the case, since 1 sense is still active.

Maybe this is why people like BrokenBones and frank are confused regarding jhāna. They maybe think there are 5 senses, when in Buddhist teachings and in reality, there are six (mind being the 6th). This would explain a lot.

You're incorrectly interpreting it from the English.

The stock jhāna passage in the Suttas, of "abandoning sensual pleasures" deals with only five senses.

The term kāma only deals with five senses:

And now:

Therefore:

• Like I said in a post before my initial post, "jhāna-lite" proponents are probably confused about jhāna because they think there are five senses.
• BrokenBone's infantile exclamations that jhāna which doesn't have sound or feelings of the body is "comatose" is just stupid and false—because obviously there is activity of the mind while in jhāna, and—as I described using Sutta passages—there is the sixth sense of the mind.

[Ceisiwr]

You obviously did not read my post. No, it's not the kamaguna. Read my post.

I did. Your post says nothing.

Read the actual Suttas instead.

I would go back and read the sutta again, Samseva. You are wrong here. The objects themselves are not the kāma. "The world's pretty things stay just as they are." Kāma is defined in the sutta that un8 brought up as "saṅkapparāgo purisassa kāmo."

We can read kāmā as the sense objects, which would mean the Jhana pericope is “secluded form sense objects” rather than the Abhidhamma definition of “sensual pleasures”. This of course would mean absorption.

[Ceisiwr]

[The stock jhāna passage in the Suttas, of "abandoning sensual pleasures" deals with only five senses.
Here, secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters and dwells in the first jhāna

Idha, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako vivicceva kāmehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakkaṁ savicāraṁ vivekajaṁ pītisukhaṁ paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ upasampajja viharati

Kāmehi can be interpreted to mean “sense objects”. So, one abandons the objects of the 5 senses (sights, sounds etc).

[Mr. Seek]

[The stock jhāna passage in the Suttas, of "abandoning sensual pleasures" deals with only five senses.
Here, secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters and dwells in the first jhāna

Idha, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako vivicceva kāmehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakkaṁ savicāraṁ vivekajaṁ pītisukhaṁ paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ upasampajja viharati

Kāmehi can be interpreted to mean “sense objects”. So, one abandons the objects of the 5 senses (sights, sounds etc).

That's... a clear giveaway that jhana is attained not via concentration on objects, but via non-objectification.

Interesting stuff.

[Ceisiwr]

Na: Not

te: Those

kāmā ?

yāni: whichever

citrāni: beauties

loke: world

Not those kāmā whichever beauties world

Not those kāmā whichever are beauties in the world

The kāmā here are external things in the world.

[samseva]

Can you clarify your stance on the matter if it's not correct that you believe that the 5 kāmaguṇas disappear in jhāna?

The stock passage of jhāna says "vivicceva kāmehi." Kāma, like in MN 13, and AN 6.63, and other instances in the Suttas, deals with the five senses, and not six (the sixth being the mind). Although MN 13 describes kāmānaṁ as being the five kāmaguṇā, the passage I quoted in AN 6.63 does not:

And what is the diversity of sensual pleasures? Sensual desire for forms is one thing, sensual desire for sounds is another, sensual desire for odors still another, sensual desire for tastes still another, and sensual desire for tactile objects still another. This is called the diversity of sensual pleasures.

Katamā ca, bhikkhave, kāmānaṁ vemattatā? Añño, bhikkhave, kāmo rūpesu, añño kāmo saddesu, añño kāmo gandhesu, añño kāmo rasesu, añño kāmo phoṭṭhabbesu. Ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, kāmānaṁ vemattatā.