Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate

The cultivation of calm or tranquility and the development of concentration
Post Reply
User avatar
Assaji
Posts: 2106
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate

Post by Assaji »

Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:57 pm
The Vimuttimagga (pp. 113-114) handles this issue wisely, stating that the cessation of five-sense perception occurs in the formless attainments:
And on another page, if I recall correctly, it offers one of the definitions of “secluded from kāmā” to be seclusion from the 5 senses.
There's no such definition. The Vimuttimagga treats "kāmehi" as lust, which accords with the analysis of jhāna formula in the Peṭakopadesa. The "sense-flood", mentioned on page 86, is a different thing.

https://archive.org/details/ArahantUpat ... 5/mode/2up
This fully accords with the earliest and most reliable explanation given in the Vibhaṅga (sorry, no English translation):
You can find an English translation at suttacentral. Quote a lot of the Theravadin Abdhidhamma is on there now.
Thank you. Here's the translation of Vibhaṅga passage explaining "kāmehi" in the jhāna formula:
“Aloof from sense pleasures, aloof from unskilful dhammas” means: Therein what are sense pleasures? Wish is sense pleasure, lust is sense pleasure, lustful wish is sense pleasure, thought is sense pleasure, lust is sense pleasure, lustful thought is sense pleasure. These are called sense pleasures.
And here's the passage explaining the cessation of five-sense impingement in the formless attainments:
“Terminating perceptions of (sense) impingement” means: Therein what are perceptions of (sense) impingement? Visible (object) perception, audible (object) perception, Intermediate sense perceptions. tangible (object) perception. These are called perceptions of (sense) impingement. These perceptions of (sense) impingement are calmed, tranquillized, inhibited, terminated, vanished, destroyed, well destroyed, withered, well withered, abrogated. Therefore this is called “terminating perceptions of (sense) impingement”.
https://suttacentral.net/vb12/en/thittila
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

Assaji wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 5:21 pm
There's no such definition. The Vimuttimagga treats "kāmehi" as lust, which accords with the analysis of jhāna formula in the Peṭakopadesa. The "sense-flood", mentioned on page 86, is a different thing.

https://archive.org/details/ArahantUpat ... 5/mode/2up
The quote quite clearly gives seclusion from sense experience as one of the meanings. What is your basis for reading it another way? I can’t see any:
And again, separation from lust is present bliss of relief from sense- pleasures, and separation from demeritorious states is present bliss of relief from non-subjection to tribulation.

And again, separation from lust is to get beyond the sense-flood entirely. Sepaiation from demeritorious states is the surpassing of all other defilements which cause rebirth in the sense and form (planes).
Vimuttimagga
Thank you. Here's the translation of Vibhaṅga passage explaining "kāmehi" in the jhāna formula:

“Aloof from sense pleasures, aloof from unskilful dhammas” means: Therein what are sense pleasures? Wish is sense pleasure, lust is sense pleasure, lustful wish is sense pleasure, thought is sense pleasure, lust is sense pleasure, lustful thought is sense pleasure. These are called sense pleasures.
Which contradicts what we find in the suttas.
And here's the passage explaining the cessation of five-sense impingement in the formless attainments:

“Terminating perceptions of (sense) impingement” means: Therein what are perceptions of (sense) impingement? Visible (object) perception, audible (object) perception, Intermediate sense perceptions. tangible (object) perception. These are called perceptions of (sense) impingement. These perceptions of (sense) impingement are calmed, tranquillized, inhibited, terminated, vanished, destroyed, well destroyed, withered, well withered, abrogated. Therefore this is called “terminating perceptions of (sense) impingement”.

https://suttacentral.net/vb12/en/thittila
And? It doesn’t logically follow that because the formless are without 5 sense experience the Jhanas are of them.
“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.”
BrokenBones
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:20 am

Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate

Post by BrokenBones »

Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 9:55 pm
Assaji wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 5:21 pm
There's no such definition. The Vimuttimagga treats "kāmehi" as lust, which accords with the analysis of jhāna formula in the Peṭakopadesa. The "sense-flood", mentioned on page 86, is a different thing.

https://archive.org/details/ArahantUpat ... 5/mode/2up
The quote quite clearly gives seclusion from sense experience as one of the meanings. What is your basis for reading it another way? I can’t see any:
And again, separation from lust is present bliss of relief from sense- pleasures, and separation from demeritorious states is present bliss of relief from non-subjection to tribulation.

And again, separation from lust is to get beyond the sense-flood entirely. Sepaiation from demeritorious states is the surpassing of all other defilements which cause rebirth in the sense and form (planes).
Vimuttimagga
Thank you. Here's the translation of Vibhaṅga passage explaining "kāmehi" in the jhāna formula:

“Aloof from sense pleasures, aloof from unskilful dhammas” means: Therein what are sense pleasures? Wish is sense pleasure, lust is sense pleasure, lustful wish is sense pleasure, thought is sense pleasure, lust is sense pleasure, lustful thought is sense pleasure. These are called sense pleasures.
Which contradicts what we find in the suttas.
And here's the passage explaining the cessation of five-sense impingement in the formless attainments:

“Terminating perceptions of (sense) impingement” means: Therein what are perceptions of (sense) impingement? Visible (object) perception, audible (object) perception, Intermediate sense perceptions. tangible (object) perception. These are called perceptions of (sense) impingement. These perceptions of (sense) impingement are calmed, tranquillized, inhibited, terminated, vanished, destroyed, well destroyed, withered, well withered, abrogated. Therefore this is called “terminating perceptions of (sense) impingement”.

https://suttacentral.net/vb12/en/thittila
And? It doesn’t logically follow that because the formless are without 5 sense experience the Jhanas are of them.
Maybe my reading skills are off but the above seems to contradict the point you are trying to make. Sensual lust not sense objects... why talk about sensual lust or desire being absent if the objects have have been removed?
And logically... if it was felt necessary to state the formless states are without sense experience then YES, it would be logical to make the same assertion for the four Jhanas. It doesn't make that assertion for one simple reason.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

pitithefool wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:13 pm
Bro I'm sorry.

I'll use the wording of the relevant suttas here, in the Mahavedalla sutta"
Trying to conclude that "if the formless attainments are 'divorced from the five senses', then the four jhanas must be without sense contact" is patently unsound. I'm honestly not sure how you could come to this conclusion, especially given the information in this sutta.
You are quite correct. Sadly I missed the "not" from my post.
Please note the conspicuous absence of "contact at the senses", or even the word Kamehi. Rather, the word Kamacchando (lit. sensual desire) is used here, along with the other 4 of the nivarana.
Indeed, but we also have countless instances of the jhānā as being quite secluded (vivicceva) from the external kāmā. Vivicceva is the gerund of "viviccati":
Viviccati Viviccati [vi+vic] to separate oneself, to depart from, to be alone, to separate (intrs.) Vin iv.241; ger. viviccitvā DhsA 165, & vivicca (see sep.). — pp. vivitta. — Cp. viveceti.
https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/p ... rchhws=yes

Vivicceva in the jhānā pericope means separating oneself from the kāmā. Since the kāmā are external sense objects, and since one is separated from them, it follows that the jhānā are without 5 sense experience. You might be tempted to argue that separate from means still experiencing in some way, but you would also then have to allow for unwholesome states to also be experienced in the jhānā:

Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu vivicceva kāmehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakkaṁ savicāraṁ vivekajaṁ pītisukhaṁ paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ upasampajja viharati.
It’s when a mendicant, quite secluded from kāmehi, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected.


Unless you wish to argue that one still experiences unwholesome states whilst in any jhānā, you will have to concede that vivicceva as "seclusion" means away from as in the non-occurrence/experiencing of x.

P1) Whilst in any jhānā there are no unwholesome states.
P2) Any jhānā is said to be separate from unwholesome states.
C) Therefore, "separate from" means not experiencing unwholesome states.

It then follows:

P1) Whilst in any jhānā there are no kāmehi.
P2) Any jhānā is said to be separate from the kāmehi.
C) Therefore, "separate from" means not experiencing the kāmehi.

Given that kāmehi are external sense objects (sights, touches etc) we can deduce further:

P1) Whilst in any jhānā there are no kāmehi.
P2) Kāmehi are sights, sounds, touches, smells and tastes.
C) Therefore, in any jhānā there is no experience of the 5 senses.

Still we can deduce further about the jhānā:

P1) Attention is required to experience the 6 senses.
P2) The jhānā are experiences without the 5 senses of sights, sounds, touches, smells and tastes.
C) Therefore, in any jhānā there is 1 attention at the mind.

P1) Rūpa is defined as "image".
P2) Rūpa is experienced in any jhānā.
P3) The jhānā are experiences without the 5 senses of sights, sounds, touches, smells and tastes.
C) Therefore, rūpa in any jhānā is a mental only image rather than a visual image etc.

As you can see, it follows quite logically that the jhānā are states divorced from the ordinary 5 senses. Rather, what is experienced is 1 conception only which is a mental image (rūpa).
I can actually extract a pretty solid deductive line out of this and I've heard these same arguments used quite a bit:

A. If the suttas are telling the truth, and there are suttas stating that one can hear sound while in jhana or that multiple perceptions occur in jhana, then the non-absorbed model stands.
B. If the suttas are telling the truth and there are suttas which describe not hearing sound while in jhana, or that there is only one perception in jhana, then the absorbed model stands.
C. If both A and C are true, the both models are true and neither models are false.
Well, lets take them one at a time.

A. If the suttas are telling the truth, and there are suttas stating that one can hear sound while in jhana or that multiple perceptions occur in jhana, then the non-absorbed model stands.

No sutta states that one can hear a sound whilst in any jhānā, that I am aware of. Regarding multiple perception, the only place I can think of is in DN 15:

“There are beings who are identical in body but diverse in perception, such as the gods of streaming radiance. This is the third station for consciousness."

The gods of streaming radiance are tied to the 2nd jhāna, so this is stating that whilst in the 2nd jhāna there are 2 conceptions/perceptions. This is obviously referring to piti and sukha. However, look at the whole passage:
1. There are beings who are diverse in body but identical in perception, such as the gods of the Brahma-order who are generated through the first (jhāna). This is the second station for consciousness.

2. There are beings who are identical in body but diverse in perception, such as the gods of streaming radiance. This is the third station for consciousness.

3. There are beings who are identical in body and identical in perception, such as the gods of refulgent beauty. This is the fourth station for consciousness.

5. There are beings who, through the complete surmounting of perceptions of material form, the passing away of perceptions of impingement, and non-attention to perceptions of diversity, (contemplating) ‘Space is infinite,’ arrive at the base of the infinity of space. This is the fifth station for consciousness."
I have numbered them 1, 2, 3 & 5 to simplify things. 1-3 refer to the 1st-3rd jhānā. Notice we have:

1. 1st jhāna = 1 conception/perception.

2. 2nd jhāna = 2 conceptions/perceptions.

3. 3rd jhāna = 1 conception/perceptions.

5. 1st Formless attainment.

The reason why I missed 4 should be obvious. The 4th jhāna is missing here. Still, we can see that the very 1st jhāna is of 1 conception/perception only as is the 3rd jhāna. As to why it skips to two conceptions/perceptions for the 2nd jhāna, we could put this down to the reciters thinking of piti and sukha as being two distinct objects of said meditation. A simple error in transmission it seems. Still, here we can clearly see that from at least the 1st - 3rd jhāna, on this sutta alone, there will be no experience of the 5 senses.

"B. If the suttas are telling the truth and there are suttas which describe not hearing sound while in jhana, or that there is only one perception in jhana, then the absorbed model stands."

As shown, those suttas do indeed exist.

"A.The mahavedalla sutta describes the entry into jhana as marked by the arising of the five jhana factors and the falling away of the five hindrances.
B. If a concentration satisfies those requirements, then according to the sutta, one is in the first jhana.
C. If a concentration that satisfies those requirements comes about while including contemplation of salayatana or anapanasati, then one is in the first jhana.
D. If the above statements are true and salayatana or anapanasati contemplation involves observing contact originating from the five senses, then one is in a first jhana which includes contact at the five senses, according to the Mahavedalla sutta."


All addressed above.

In order to prevent having this discussion across different threads, I will simply amalgamate all of my responses here to what you have put elsewhere:

Can We Hear Sound in Jhāna?
This is not a deductively valid line of reasoning.

Because:

You've made the assertion that "seclusion from sensory objects" is equivalent to "no contact at the sense bases". These are quite different conceptually though superficially similar. You've also made the same assertion with perceptions. You have reasons for equating these two quite different terms and that's where you've used induction to do so,

Given that the terms kama in plural and singular carry implicit connotations of desire for the five sense objects and also becoming in the sensual realm, and that vivicca means something closer to aloofness or separation, The term most likely means, well, exactly what it says: seclusion from sensuality. Jumping to the conlusion that it means "no contact at the 5 senses" requires a significant amount of stretching and I must say the support that you've given for this view is weak at best and directly contradicted in other places in the sutta pitaka.
Addressed above. Regarding kāmā:

Na te [demonstrative pronoun] kāmā [noun] yāni [relative pronoun] citrāni [adjective] loke

Not those [demonstrative pronoun] kāmā [noun] whatever [relative pronoun] are pretty [adjective] in the world.

If we are to be completely precise the verse in question should then be read as:

Na te kāmā yāni citrāni loke
Not those kāmā whatever are pretty in the world


From this we can clearly see that the kāmā are external objects.
Enlightenment era philosophers are not my bag. I'm much more of a formal logic guy myself.
Hume is interesting, since he reached very similar conclusions to the Buddha.
Essentially yes, it means external objects (four great elements) rather than internal. Maybe I should be a little more clear:
The mahābhūta are not "objects". They are fundamental qualities of our human experience. The following two suttas draw this out quite nicely:

"Katamā cāvuso, pathavīdhātu? Pathavīdhātu siyā ajjhattikā, siyā bāhirā. Katamā cāvuso, ajjhattikā pathavīdhātu? Yaṃ ajjhattaṃ paccattaṃ kakkhaḷaṃ kharigataṃ upādinnaṃ, seyyathidaṃ—kesā lomā nakhā dantā taco maṃsaṃ nhāru aṭṭhi aṭṭhimiñjaṃ vakkaṃ hadayaṃ yakanaṃ kilomakaṃ pihakaṃ papphāsaṃ antaṃ antaguṇaṃ udariyaṃ karīsaṃ, yaṃ vā panaññampi kiñci ajjhattaṃ paccattaṃ kakkhaḷaṃ kharigataṃ upādinnaṃ. Ayaṃ vuccatāvuso, ajjhattikā pathavīdhātu."

Kakkhaḷaṃ here can viewed as being in the nominative case. As such it would translate as "solidity". As such the sutta can be translated as:

"What, friends, is the earth element? The earth element may be either internal or external. What is the internal earth element? Whatever internally, belonging to oneself, is solid, solidity, and clung-to; that is, head-hairs, body-hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone-marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, contents of the stomach, feces, or whatever else internally, belonging to oneself, is solid, solidity, and clung-to: this is called the internal earth element."

This is referring to organs which show the quality of solidity. The earth element then is the quality of solidity. Now to the 2nd sutta:
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Rajagaha on Vulture’s Peak Mountain. Then early in the morning, Ven. Sariputta put on his robes and, carrying his bowl and outer robe, was coming down from Vulture’s Peak Mountain with a large group of monks when he saw a large wood pile off to one side. Seeing it, he said to the monks, “Friends, do you see that large wood pile over there?”

“Yes, friend,” the monks replied.

“Friends, if he wanted to, a monk with psychic power, having attained mastery of his mind, could will that wood pile to be nothing but earth. Why is that? There is earth-property in that wood pile, in dependence on which he could will that wood pile to be nothing but earth.

“If he wanted to, a monk with psychic power, having attained mastery of his mind, could will that wood pile to be nothing but water… fire… wind… beautiful… unattractive. Why is that? There is the property of the unattractive in that wood pile, in dependence on which he could will that wood pile to be nothing but unattractive.”
https://suttacentral.net/an6.41/en/thanissaro

Once again, the mahābhūta can all be found in the wood pile as qualities. The mahābhūta then are not "matter" or "objects", but rather fundamental qualities of our human sense experience. In interacting with these qualities we get contact and the arising of rūpa, which is an image at the mind. The rūpa-khandha then being quite literally the image of the body or sense objects at contact.
When internally the eye is intact and external rūpa come into its range and there is the corresponding conscious engagement, then there is the manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness.

The rūpa in what has thus come to be is included in the form aggregate affected by clinging. The feeling in what has thus come to be is included in the feeling aggregate affected by clinging... When internally the ear, nose [all still rūpa]... when internally the mind is intact and external mind-objects [still rūpa] come into its range and there is the corresponding conscious engagement, then there is the manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness.

The rūpa in what has thus come to be is included in the rūpa aggregate affected by clinging. The feeling in what has thus come to be is included in the feeling aggregate affected by clinging.
The sutta is quite clear. When a sense object comes into range, be it visual a sound or a mental dhamma, and their is attention then this is a manifestation of sense consciousness and rūpa, with rūpa being defined as the rūpa aggregate. Rūpa is the image at the mind. It is a sign (nimitta) of contact.
What I mean to say is that we should not be seeing everything as existing only in the mind. That's not what the Buddha taught.
I thoroughly agree. To get to Ontological Idealism you need the synthetic a priori. That and inductive reasoning was rejected by the Buddha in DN 1 as being the bases for views. There is a reason why the Buddha said the views of the ascetics were not knowledge, despite claims to be, and how they were "personal truths". Think Hume and reason being the slave of the passions here for the latter.
Rather we should see the object of our attention is one thing, and the contact, feeling, perception, etc. is another. If we were seeing a kasina object, it is still rupa per the sutta's definition, but so is the in-and-out breathing, a rock on the side of the road, and the physical body. It should not be known as the "impression of the object", .i.e what happens after contact.
This contradicts MN 28.
So what we do when meditating, is fix our attention on some wholesome thing so we can calm our minds and see all the interplay that comes between the objects of our attention and the contacts, feelings, percpetions, attention and intention they bear. This is how we gain insight into the process of conditioning and bring it to a stop.
I agree, but I obviously have a different conception of it. One achieves jhāna and upon leaving lust is abandoned since the pleasure of jhāna outstrips any sensual pleasure. Contemplating wisely ignorance can be abandoned, via the analytical knowledge of the dependent origination of said state and the aggregates (defined as experiences at the mind), six sense bases and so on leading to cessation. Naturally this means that without any jhāna there can be no Non-Return or Arahantship. Stream-entry or Once Return can be achieved with a lower level of concentration, but via the same method of contemplating the conditionality of said meditative state. This is why they have not abandoned lust. They have not experienced the otherworldly piti and sukha of any jhāna, but they do have some analytical knowledge.
The primary way we should understand rupa though is as that which is external to nama. That's why I champion just saying "the four great elements" because in everyday experience outside of meditation, that's what it is and that's how our mind understands it.
As per DN 15 rūpa as image is external to nāma. Rūpa offers the resistance, whilst nāma is what designates.

I wanted to pick up on one final thing. It's not completely relevant to the discussion at hand, but it is important nonetheless:
Further, according to DO, it is only when ALL sankhara (vitakka-vicara, feeling, perception, and in-and-out breathing) cease that consciousness, nama-rupa, salayatana and contact cease and that only occurs in nirodha samapatti, not anywhere else.

Further, you ever wonder why only those four things are listed as sankhara? ;)

It's because of their role in Anapanasati and in jhana lol.
The saṅkhāro of MN 44 are not the same as the saṅkhārā of dependent origination. If we look at MN 44 we see the following:

“Katamo panāyye, ariyo aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo”ti?
“But ma’am, what is the noble eightfold path?”

...

“Kati panāyye, saṅkhārā”ti?
“How many, saṅkhārā are there?”

“Tayome, āvuso visākha, saṅkhārā—
“There are these three processes.

"kāyasaṅkhāro, vacīsaṅkhāro, cittasaṅkhāro”ti.
Physical, verbal, and mental processes.”


Katama (katamo) means "What is". The answer will be given as a closed list (the NEFP). By comparison "kati" means "how many". The answer is given as kāyasaṅkhāro, vacīsaṅkhāro, cittasaṅkhāro”ti. It is not a closed list. It is not:

“What saṅkhārā are there?”
“There are three saṅkhārā."


But rather:

“How many, saṅkhārā are there?”
“There are these saṅkhārā.


Do you see? The answer given is not a definition for all saṅkhārā. The question is what are these specific saṅkhārā. As such, they are a specific type of saṅkhārā. Regarding the saṅkhārā of dependent origination, they are quite clearly shown to be intentions.
Kāye vā hānanda, sati kāya­sañ­ceta­nā­hetu uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ. Vācāya vā hānanda, sati vacī­sañ­ceta­nā­hetu uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ. Mane vā hānanda, sati mano­sañ­ceta­nā­hetu uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ avijjāpaccayā ca.

Sāmaṃ vā taṃ, ānanda, kāyasaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti, ...

Ānanda, when there is the body, because of bodily volition pleasure and pain arise internally; when there is speech, because of verbal volition pleasure and pain arise internally; when there is the mind, because of mental volition pleasure and pain arise internally—and with ignorance as condition. “Either on one’s own initiative, Ānanda one generates that bodily volitional formation ...
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.25/pli/ms

Further explained here:
“Then, investigating further, he thoroughly investigates thus: ‘What is the source of this birth, what is its origin, from what is it born and produced?… What is the source of this existence?… this clinging?… this craving?… this feeling?… this contact?… these six sense bases?… this name-and-form?… this consciousness? … What is the source of these volitional formations, what is their origin, from what are they born and produced? When what exists do volitional formations come to be? When what does not exist do volitional formations not come to be?’

“As he thoroughly investigates he understands thus: ‘Volitional formations have ignorance as their source, ignorance as their origin; they are born and produced from ignorance. When there is ignorance, volitional formations come to be; when there is no ignorance, volitional formations do not come to be.’

“He understands volitional formations, their origin, their cessation, and the way leading on that is in conformity with their cessation. He practises that way and conducts himself accordingly. This is called a bhikkhu who is practising for the utterly complete destruction of suffering, for the cessation of volitional formations.

“Bhikkhus, if a person immersed in ignorance generates a meritorious volitional formation, consciousness fares on to the meritorious; if he generates a demeritorious volitional formation, consciousness fares on to the demeritorious; if he generates an imperturbable volitional formation, consciousness fares on to the imperturbable. But when a bhikkhu has abandoned ignorance and aroused true knowledge, then, with the fading away of ignorance and the arising of true knowledge, he does not generate a meritorious volitional formation, or a demeritorious volitional formation, or an imperturbable volitional formation. Since he does not generate or fashion volitional formations, he does not cling to anything in the world. Not clinging, he is not agitated. Not being agitated, he personally attains Nibbāna. He understands: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.’
Whilst one can control the breath, that is not the method of ānāpānasati. Furthermore if the breath of MN 44 was the same as the bodily saṅkhāro in dependent origination it would mean we have to constantly intend to breath. I don't know about you, but my breathing is quite involuntary and automatic 99% of the time especially whilst asleep!

I hope I have answered some of your queries and have made my position more clear. Apologies for the delay, but I usually do not have the time for in-depth conversations during the week. I look forward to your reply.

:anjali:
“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.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

BrokenBones wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 11:52 pm
Maybe my reading skills are off but the above seems to contradict the point you are trying to make. Sensual lust not sense objects... why talk about sensual lust or desire being absent if the objects have have been removed?
The Vimuttimagga, like the later Visuddhimagga, follows the Vibhaṅga in defining kāmā as "sensual pleasures" rather than as sense objects. The Vimuttimagga gives one of the definitions of "seclusion from kāmehi" as being without sense experience, which is one definition among many it provides. It gives no further details. The Visuddhimagga by contrast has to go around the houses as to why "secluded from sensual pleasures" means "secluded from sense objects". My post to Assaji was simply to show that the Vimuttimagga does indeed class seclusion from sense experience as one of the meanings of "seclusion from sensual pleasures" as per the Vibhaṅga.
And logically... if it was felt necessary to state the formless states are without sense experience then YES, it would be logical to make the same assertion for the four Jhanas. It doesn't make that assertion for one simple reason.
I continue to be perplexed by this, since it looks like you are committing the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent. If you could put your argument in logical form that would make things clearer.
“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.”
BrokenBones
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:20 am

Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate

Post by BrokenBones »

'Denying the antecedent'... absolute tosh.
The Buddha tended to teach in a methodical and dare I say logical manner. If the first four jhanas had the same lack of sense experience as the formless then he would have mentioned it... he was the peerless teacher... he taught with an open hand... he wouldn't omit vital information, be vague in his definitions or play silly word play that need mental gymnastics and an Archimedes screw to understand 'what he really meant'.
waryoffolly
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:30 pm

Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate

Post by waryoffolly »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:30 pm I continue to be perplexed by this, since it looks like you are committing the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent. If you could put your argument in logical form that would make things clearer.
Hi Ceisiwr just a quick comment

Interpreting texts is not just strict binary logical argumentation imo. Most of the arguments made by you and others in this debate are almost all probabilistic- ie based on uncertain premises. Even seemingly “grammatical” based arguments are not always as certain as they seem-notice the variance in translations by (presumably) expert translators we see for key terms and passages.

The type of reasoning behind this specific argument regarding the formless attainments is called counter factual reasoning. Basically if we assume that the Buddha was a very clear and precise teacher then the odds of him not being equally explicit earlier on about the senses disappearing seems very low. (Counter factual because we imagine a world where the correct meaning is that the senses disappear and where he did include the senses disappearing in the earlier jhana formula. Then we can reason about the actual world, based on this counter-factual world, what the probabilities are for different true intended meanings of the jhana formula.)

Of course in your view he was explicit about the senses disappearing in the “viviceva kamehi” line so this reasoning doesn’t work under your understanding of the jhana formula, but for people who disagree with your interpretation of that phrase it would seem incredible that the Buddha (well technically compilers of the canon) didn’t include such a huge aspect of jhana in the definition, but bizarrely was/were precise only for the formless attainments. Such types of reasoning depend strongly on the underlying casual assumptions-here the assumptions are about what good pedagogy looks like (see broken bones post above).

Hopefully it’s more clear now why people use this as evidence. I believe it’s a valid type of reasoning to use here if “viviceva kamehi” isn’t taken to mean “completely divorced from the five senses”.

See the recent book “Book of Why” chapter 8 by Pearl for more on counterfactual reasoning and causality if you’re interested.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

BrokenBones wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:11 pm 'Denying the antecedent'... absolute tosh.
I'm sorry that just will not do. Denying the antecedent is a logical fallacy. If you are committing it it means your reasoning is flawed.

If P, then Q.
Therefore, if not P, then not Q.

If you are a ski instructor, then you have a job.
You are not a ski instructor
Therefore, you have no job

I took this example from Wikipedia for ease. As you can see, it is fallacious. This is why I asked you to put your argument in logical form. I wanted to check you were not arguing:

If you in the formless, then you do not experience the 5 senses.
You are not in the formless attainment,
Therefore, you are experiencing the 5 senses.
The Buddha tended to teach in a methodical and dare I say logical manner. If the first four jhanas had the same lack of sense experience as the formless then he would have mentioned it... he was the peerless teacher... he taught with an open hand... he wouldn't omit vital information, be vague in his definitions or play silly word play that need mental gymnastics and an Archimedes screw to understand 'what he really meant'.
I think you are suffering from a vast delusion if you think the suttas we have are full accounts of Dhamma talks and conversations. They have been stripped down to the bear minimum. Still, the suttas still retain the message that the Jhānā are free from sense experience. You of course do not accept the grammatical analysis I offered which clearly demonstrated that, nor the other evidences from the suttas. Still, even if the Buddha did not mention it at all it would still be fallacious to claim that the Jhānā are with sense experience because the formless are free from it. It would also be bad logic to conclude that the Jhānā are of sense experience because they do not mention otherwise. That would be an argumentum ad ignorantiam it seems to me. Perhaps if you tried making some more substantial and rational arguments you and I could move the conversation along a tad. Possibly you could offer an argument as to why kāmā must only mean "sensual pleasures" and why the Jhānā are of sense experience?
“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.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

waryoffolly wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:40 pm Hopefully it’s more clear now why people use this as evidence. I believe it’s a valid type of reasoning to use here if “viviceva kamehi” isn’t taken to mean “completely divorced from the five senses”.
Well, put it in logical form and let's see.
“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.”
User avatar
pitithefool
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2021 5:39 am

Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate

Post by pitithefool »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:52 pm
Ceisiwr, you're missing the point of the jhanas and the path as a whole completely.

It's not to end experience, it's to end craving and ignorance so that we can end suffering.

There isn't time in the day to address the amount of logical errors and contradictions present in your arguments either. One thing that you've shown me is that even if we stick to commentaries, let alone just the suttas, there is still plenty of textual evidence to accept both views as valid paths to the end goal.
Please note: This profile picture is not actually a picture of the user.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

pitithefool wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 1:55 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:52 pm
Ceisiwr, you're missing the point of the jhanas and the path as a whole completely.

It's not to end experience, it's to end craving and ignorance so that we can end suffering.
You seem to think that I think the jhānā are the goal. They are merely a tool. Without the otherworldly piti and sukha of jhānā lust cannot be given up let alone ignorance. As for Nibbana, it is the cessation of all conditioned dhammas.
“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.”
User avatar
pitithefool
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2021 5:39 am

Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate

Post by pitithefool »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 2:10 am
pitithefool wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 1:55 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:52 pm
Ceisiwr, you're missing the point of the jhanas and the path as a whole completely.

It's not to end experience, it's to end craving and ignorance so that we can end suffering.
You seem to think that I think the jhānā are the goal. They are merely a tool. Without the otherworldly piti and sukha of jhānā lust cannot be given up let alone ignorance. As for Nibbana, it is the cessation of all conditioned dhammas.
Right and the only thing the jhana pericopes dictate is that we find a happiness that isn't dependent on sensuality. Whether or not our experience is without these things is of secondary importance.
Please note: This profile picture is not actually a picture of the user.
waryoffolly
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:30 pm

Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate

Post by waryoffolly »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 12:35 am Well, put it in logical form and let's see.
It's not a logical argument-instead it's about honestly assessing what you think the probabilities are for a given scenario. I'd say this a reasonable and rational thing to do, but it occurs prior to being able to apply logic at all.

Also, completely ignore my last post, apologies. I just really like counterfactuals, but it doesn't make sense upon rereading it now. You could probably shoehorn it into a counterfactual setup if you really tried and make some convoluted causal assumptions, but it's much more natural to just point out that we're really just assessing a probability.

Basically the idea goes like this: Assume the Buddha is a good, clear teacher, and viviceva kamehi doesn't mean divorced from the senses. Then ask yourself: 'what is the probability that a good teacher would not mention the senses disappearing explicitly for the jhanas, but would mention them disappearing for the formless states in a world where the senses actually do completely disappear in jhana?'. I would asses this probability as being very low maybe 20% if I'm being cautious. Probably broken bones, and others assess it near 0%. Where would you put the percentage (remember we are assuming viviceva kamehi doesn't mean completely divorced from the senses)? So yes, we are really just intuitively assessing a probability here, but in my opinion so are all arguments about interpretation at their roots!

I think it's somewhat of a red herring to ask for airtight propositional logic-based arguments because the main disagreements here are more about assessing the probabilities for the different premises such arguments are based on. If everyone here agreed on the premises then I don't think we'd be having this many discussions about the nature of the jhana's, or at least those who understand logic wouldn't be having this discussion! The most likely way to convince each other is to first find shared premises, and then and only then can we apply propositional logic on top of those premises. The 'applying propositional logic' part of this discussion is the easiest part!

So that's my question and probably my last contribution to this conversation: What are the shared premises that both absorbed model believers and non-absorbed model believers can agree on? Answer that question first and then there is at least a small possibility of bringing this debate to an end (which was the purpose of the OP as I understand it). So maybe pitithefool and ceisiwr (or others on each side) are willing to pause and work together to find such common ground first? I personally would love to see such a thing, it would be amazing and inspiring to me.

PS: If a sufficient set of shared premises cannot be found to make a complete logically valid argument one way or the other, then unfortunately the entire discussion will just revolve around claiming one's own premises, assumed by intuition and usually dressed up to look like airtight and 'obvious' logic, are better than someone else's. Therefore the argument probably will end up being based on trying to alter the way others feel about the odds of unshared premises. Such arguments, being based on personal feelings, will very rarely end.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
waryoffolly wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 5:39 am So maybe pitithefool and ceisiwr (or others on each side) are willing to pause and work together to find such common ground first? I personally would love to see such a thing, it would be amazing and inspiring to me.
There is nothing inherently good about consensus.

It would be better for one to be right and the other to be wrong, than for them to agree on something which makes them both wrong.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 3073
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate

Post by Pondera »

If I may.
"'I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first jhana.' Thus it has been said. In reference to what was it said? There is the case where a monk, secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self. He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.'
Jhana Sutta

If there is no perception in the first jhana, then there is nothing there to regard as “inconstant; a disease; alien; and so forth”.

The purpose of jhana is not piti or sukha. It is samadhi. And the purpose of samadhi is “knowledge and vision of things as they really are”.

The sutta reference seems to indicate that such “knowledge” occurs simultaneously with the samadhi. However we have even resident Bhantes who affirm that all reflection occurs outside samadhi (samadhi per jhana - I mean. Ie. in post jhanic samadhi).

Yet. As the sutta reference indicates. If the skhandas are not available in the jhana - then one must exit the jhana to do any insight. However, what memory do they work off of?

If the skhandas are not available in the jhana, then there is also no memory of the skhandas outside of the jhana, per the jhana!

So, the skhandas must be available to the jhana samadhi. And that is exactly why we can view them as “alien; a disintegration; a cancer; etc.”

However; turning away from the skhandas we obviously leave the jhana. Ie. disenchantment; dispassion; release; and knowledge and vision of ending - all happen outside of the jhana. That is the reason we have this included:

“ He turns his mind away from those phenomena, ...”

Ie. those things are beyond the jhana. They are beyond the skhandas. So they transcend the object of the jhana.
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
Post Reply