No.
hindrances and jhana factors...can they coexist?
Re: hindrances and jhana factors...can they coexist?
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Re: hindrances and jhana factors...can they coexist?
(Your post on this topic from the thread on "jhāna-lite.")
Jhāna factors are mental factors. And no one is "fighting" about "if it's in the body or the mind." Regarding the body, the only thing being discussed is whether one perceives the body while in jhāna.
For there to even be jhāna, the hindrances must not be there. Whether or not there are hindrances present in no way says anything about the value of jhāna.
Re: hindrances and jhana factors...can they coexist?
You are right. I ve tried to say somethin else...but it didn't work.
Btw...do you think, that piti and sukha , present in Anapanasati Sutta, are entirely different form the actual jhana factors? Becouse I've met many teachers, who treat piti and sukha as fairly common meditative experiences. Based on this sutta.
Re: hindrances and jhana factors...can they coexist?
Ānāpānasati Sutta/MN 118 deals with how to get to jhāna, and describes jhāna.
Re: hindrances and jhana factors...can they coexist?
Please continue the discussion here:
See Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu's explanation here, in the very passage you quote from him:
Even if the mental factors of vitakka and vicāra, or pīti can occur outside of jhāna—it doesn't mean that experiencing pīti while thinking and feeding ducks bread in a park means that "you are in jhāna."
See Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu's explanation here, in the very passage you quote from him:
Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu wrote:It’s important when reading these lists to realize that they’re not recipes. For
instance, you can’t simply take the five factors of the first jhana, combine them, and
then expect to get the first jhana. That would be like hearing that the tropical fruit
durian smells like custard combined with garlic, and that it contains a little
cyanide, some vitamin E, and a large dose of potassium. If you simply combined
these ingredients in hopes of getting durian, you’d actually get a poisonous mess.
Re: hindrances and jhana factors...can they coexist?
If they are not entirely different from the jhāna factors, then there's no reason to assume that (as per your OP) that they can't coexist with hindrances. If there are sufficient hindrances to prevent one from being in jhāna at that moment, but pīti or sukha or vitakka or vicāra are experienced, then coexistence occurs.Tennok wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 11:45 amYou are right. I ve tried to say somethin else...but it didn't work.
Btw...do you think, that piti and sukha , present in Anapanasati Sutta, are entirely different form the actual jhana factors? Becouse I've met many teachers, who treat piti and sukha as fairly common meditative experiences. Based on this sutta.
Re: hindrances and jhana factors...can they coexist?
*But in such a case they would be considered mental factors rather than jhāna factors.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 1:39 pm If they are not entirely different from the jhāna factors, then there's no reason to assume that (as per your OP) that they can't coexist with hindrances. If there are sufficient hindrances to prevent one from being in jhāna at that moment, but pīti or sukha or vitakka or vicāra are experienced, then coexistence occurs.
Re: hindrances and jhana factors...can they coexist?
And would the way in which they are considered be a scriptural matter (i.e. there is a sutta which says that a mental factor is objectively different from a jhāna factor) or a matter of experience (i.e. having known both, one can tell them apart)?samseva wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 2:13 pm*But in such a case they would be considered mental factors rather than jhāna factors.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 1:39 pm If they are not entirely different from the jhāna factors, then there's no reason to assume that (as per your OP) that they can't coexist with hindrances. If there are sufficient hindrances to prevent one from being in jhāna at that moment, but pīti or sukha or vitakka or vicāra are experienced, then coexistence occurs.
Are they "considered" different in the way that Venus is considered to be either the morning star or the evening start according to when it is seen; or considered different in the way that Venus is considered to be different from Mars?
Re: hindrances and jhana factors...can they coexist?
They obviously aren't entirely different, but they likely aren't entirely the same either. Even if they were the same factors, the fact that such mental factors arise due to being in jhāna is enough for them to be different at least in that aspect (i.e., their causes/conditions)—and why the different terms.
Re: hindrances and jhana factors...can they coexist?
So they are the same in at least some respects, and any possible difference between them is a matter of probability or likelihood. But what's the source for this? Is there a sutta or commentary which delineates the exact difference?
That appears to be a circular argument ("Factors which arise in jhāna must be different from the same factors which arise elsewhere, the reason being that they arise in jhāna...") and also committing the genetic fallacy.Even if they were the same factors, the fact that such mental factors arise due to being in jhāna is enough for them to be different at least in that aspect (i.e., their causes/conditions)
I'm open to persuasion on this, but so far it appears that any difference between factors based upon whether they appear in jhāna or not is a matter of linguistic convention rather than a real objective distinction. A bit like the distinction between "an oak beam" and "a tie beam". They are one and the same object, but we refer to the latter when it appears in a roof truss.
Re: hindrances and jhana factors...can they coexist?
Yes, after all, they wouldn't be called the same thing if they were entirely different. However, the issue is not the factors themselves, but the differentiation between the terms mental factor and jhāna factor.
It's not a circular argument, and not even an argument for that matter. I'm just pointing out the distinction between mental factors such as vitakka and vicāra experienced in everyday life as different from the jhāna factors of vitakka and so on while in jhāna—being that they arise while in jhāna.
Well, yes, in large part. But even if the mental factors are the same both outside or while in jhāna, the causes or conditions that gave rise to those mental factors are still objective and relevant.
Even though "money is money," earning money at a registered company is objectively different from earning money at an unregistered business (and I'm sure tax collectors are of the same opinion).
I'm not familiar with construction terms, but probably, yes.
Re: hindrances and jhana factors...can they coexist?
That's right. I'm reminded that jhāna factors are all mental factors in one important sense, so they might be the very same thing.
Ah, apologies. My point is though that any substantive differences between those factors cannot be attributable to the fact that some are experienced while in jhāna; the occasion for their arising is neither a sufficient nor necessary condition for them being different from those other factors. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, they look like the same thing.It's not a circular argument, and not even an argument for that matter. I'm just pointing out the distinction between mental factors such as vitakka and vicāra experienced in everyday life as different from the jhāna factors of vitakka and so on while in jhāna—being that they arise while in jhāna.
Absolutely. But in the context of the OP - "Can jhana factors coexist with hindrances?" - then it is their sameness which is the relevant point here. The origin of the factors is very important for practice, of course, but the question of coexistence can only be decided by identity or existence ("Is this thing X?") rather than causes ("What makes this thing happen?").Well, yes, in large part. But even if the mental factors are the same both outside or while in jhāna, the causes or conditions that gave rise to those mental factors are still objective and relevant.
Sure. But that's to talk about the origins again. Relevant for tax collectors, but not for deciding whether it can coexist with something else. To push the point further, if we ask whether money can coexist with unhappiness, it's the existence or identity of the money which is in question ("Is this thing money?") rather than the origins ("How did they come by this money?").Even though "money is money," earning money at a registered company is objectively different from earning money at an unregistered business (and I'm sure tax collectors are of the same opinion).
It appears then thatI'm not familiar with construction terms, but probably, yes.
1) if they are substantively and objectively the same; and
2) if at least some of them can appear when one is not in jhāna; and
3) when one is not in jhāna there are some defilements present;
then some factors can coexist with some defilements - even though the convention is that we don't normally talk in this fashion.
Re: hindrances and jhana factors...can they coexist?
We're mostly just going in circles here.
You appear to be saying that mental factors and jhāna factors are the same thing, right? Then if that is the case, can one be dancing and singing while experiencing the jhāna factor of pīti?
You even gave an example with the beam in your earlier post. If there are two beams made of the same wood, there are absolutely zero differences between a wall beam and a tie beam, because they are made of the same wood? Their physical functions and locations have zero relevance in distinguishing them as "wall beam" and "tie beam"?
You appear to be saying that mental factors and jhāna factors are the same thing, right? Then if that is the case, can one be dancing and singing while experiencing the jhāna factor of pīti?
But they can. Even if they are 100% the same thing if removed from their situational context... There are still differences between the mental factor of vitakka while one is not in jhāna, and the mental factor and jhāna factor of vitakka while one is in jhāna. The mental factor of vitakka can both be while in jhāna, and while not in jhāna, but the jhāna factor of vitakka can't occur while not in jhāna/while experiencing the hindrances (which was Tennok's question).Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 4:52 pm My point is though that any substantive differences between those factors cannot be attributable to the fact that some are experienced while in jhāna; the occasion for their arising is neither a sufficient nor necessary condition for them being different from those other factors. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, they look like the same thing.
That's because that's precisely the difference between vitakka as mental factor alone, and vitakka as a mental factor and jhāna factor.
You even gave an example with the beam in your earlier post. If there are two beams made of the same wood, there are absolutely zero differences between a wall beam and a tie beam, because they are made of the same wood? Their physical functions and locations have zero relevance in distinguishing them as "wall beam" and "tie beam"?
Re: hindrances and jhana factors...can they coexist?
I don't seem to have changed my position at all; everything I have said is an explication of the same idea. You seem to have moved to a position where the jhāna factors and mental factors are referring to the same substantive thing, but then reverted to your original position where they refer to substantively different things. That may account for any deja vu.
I'm taking that as a working hypothesis, subject to refutation. It doesn't seem like all that wild a notion, given that the Pali terms for all the factors (whether or not they exist outside the context of meditation - I don't think ekaggatā ever does) are certainly not homophones, and are never (unlike, say, dhamma, dīpa, paññāpeti, etc.) presented as having more than one referent. In the absence of evidence - from the suttas, or personal experience - that they do have multiple referents, it makes sense to deploy Ockham's Razor and treat the terms as having broadly the same referent.You appear to be saying that mental factors and jhāna factors are the same thing, right?
If the term refers to something broadly the same wherever experienced, that would merely be a confusing way of referring to it. Nobody ever reached jhāna through singing and dancing, so it would be less confusing if references to jhāna were avoided. It would be like talking about a tie beam when the piece of wood is not part of a truss.can one be dancing and singing while experiencing the jhāna factor of pīti?
The only difference is analytic, trivially true: that one is in jhāna, and the other is not. If there are substantive differences (i.e. objective differences such that "vitakka" has two distinct referents) then evidence would be needed to support it. This is of course the case whether we take the term to mean "thinking", or "initial application of the mind to its object", etc. Unless there is textual or personal evidence that the processes refer to two different things, then it makes more sense for me to believe that the self-same process is occurring both within jhāna, and without. It's OK of course to have a theory that jhāna is different, but where's the evidence?But they can. Even if they are 100% the same thing if removed from their situational context... There are still differences between the mental factor of vitakka while one is not in jhāna, and the mental factor and jhāna factor of vitakka while one is in jhāna.
No that's an incorrect example. The example I gave was of the difference between an "oak beam" and a "tie beam". Those two can be the self-same thing, can have the same referent. I can point to it and use either term correctly. But a tie beam and a wall beam are clearly two different things, located in different places although they can have the same dimensions. An oak beam can also be a wall-beam, of course, because then we again have two terms but only one referent. We can multiply terms if we like, by calling it a "structural component" and a "dead tree", etc, but the referent is still the one thing.You even gave an example with the beam in your earlier post. If there are two beams made of the same wood, there are absolutely zero differences between a wall beam and a tie beam, because they are made of the same wood? Their physical functions and locations have zero relevance in distinguishing them as "wall beam" and "tie beam"?
Re: hindrances and jhana factors...can they coexist?
I didn't read the post. Feel free to think mental factors and jhāna factors are the same.