Ex cathedra statements are irrelevant. Provide a translation and an argument or, once again, this conversation goes nowhere fast.
Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate
Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate
“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.”
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.”
- pitithefool
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2021 5:39 am
Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate
Ceisiwr, even if we say kamehi means only the 5 external sense objects, without the implication of them being pretty, we still get a monk simply not paying attention to or engaging with the objects of sensuality.
That brings me to one of my main points: What about the case where somebody is practicing the contemplation of salayatana or 5 aggresgates? They are paying attention to the sense bases, to external forms, etc and applying various perceptions to them: "this is form, this is the eye, when form, the eye and consciousness meet, there is contact. With contact there is feeling.
My argument is that practicing such a contemplation is not in conflict with the first jhana pericope, beause by doing so, we are not 'doing' kama, but rather observing phenomena with the purpose of getting disentangled from them.
This type of practice is encouraged in many many places in the suttas, and it's given in conjunction with the jhana pericopes in a few places (MN 111, esp. SN 9:36, SN 35:99 and its parallels).
I don't see why this type of application wouldn't be considered as Vitakka-vicara given its common definition of thought and given that it doesn't have anything to do with sensuality.
Please note: This profile picture is not actually a picture of the user.
- pitithefool
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2021 5:39 am
Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate
If such a practice that involves any sense data besides that coming from the mind-door as an object of contemplation is not jhana, then what is it?
It's clear from the suttas that satipatthana refers to the objects of contemplation and not to the concentration brought about while contemplating. Satipatthana also includes themes which use sense data and the physical body as "right mindfulness".
If such a singleness of mind is had, then we have a concentration supported by 7 path factors. But you say it's not jhana. However, this flies in the face of the Great Forty Sutta:
The Blessed One said: "Now what, monks, is noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions? Any singleness of mind equipped with these seven factors — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, & right mindfulness — is called noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions.
If you say this isn't a singleness of mind, then that flies in the face of attaining a singleness of mind while listening to a dhamma talk.
Further, right concentration in other places is defined as nothing other than the four jhanas:
If we are equipped with right view and rapture arises because of such a contemplation, it arises because of the contemplation, and not because of the sense objects. This means that even by your definition, this is a rapture and pleasure apart from sensuality."And what is right concentration? There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. With the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance. With the fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.' With the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is called right concentration.
Given these two suttas, we must conclude that there does exist a first jhana in which sensory data is not only possible, but forms the factor of right mindfulness.Even though a disciple of the noble ones has clearly seen as it actually is with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, still — if he has not attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful mental qualities, or something more peaceful than that[4] — he can be tempted by sensuality.
And one last point:
If we allow for sensory data to be used as the basis of contemplation, this includes the element of vipassana into the practice and restores the original conceptualization of jhana having the two qualities of samatha and vipassana, rather than them being two separate practices altogether.
Please note: This profile picture is not actually a picture of the user.
Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate
MN 150 gives an example of seclusion from sensual objects :
‘It is because those venerable ones resort to remote jungle-thicket resting places in the forest. For there are no forms cognizable by the eye there of a kind that they could look at and delight in. There are no sounds cognizable by the ear there of a kind that they could listen to and delight in. There are no odours cognizable by the nose there of a kind that they could smell and delight in. There are no flavours cognizable by the tongue there of a kind that they could taste and delight in. There are no tangibles cognizable by the body there of a kind that they could touch and delight in.