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.