Can We Hear Sound in Jhāna?

[pitithefool]

P1) Kāmā are external sensory objects.
P2) The jhānā are secluded from the kāmā.
C) Therefore, the jhānā are without sensory contact.

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.

[Ceisiwr]

No no no no. You've equated "seclusion from sensory objects" to "no contact at the sense bases", And you have done so by inductive reasoning. Now please provide step by step your reasoning for interpreting that way so we can analyze it.

Can you edit your post, so that it’s easier for people to see what you are objecting to. Thank you.

[pitithefool]

No no no no. You've equated "seclusion from sensory objects" to "no contact at the sense bases", And you have done so by inductive reasoning. Now please provide step by step your reasoning for interpreting that way so we can analyze it.

Can you edit your post, so that it’s easier for people to see what you are objecting to. Thank you.

Done

[ToVincent]

P1) Kāmā are external sensory objects.
P2) The jhānā are secluded from the kāmā.
C) Therefore, the jhānā are without sensory contact.

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.

Kāmā (objects of sensual pleasures) and bāhirāni āyatanāni (external fields of sensory experience), are not exactly what one could call, the same thing.

It has been noted again and again that this vanishing of perceptions (based) upon the internal organs of senses (ajjhattikāni āyatanāni), only occurs in the fifth attainment (arūpa) - as seen here: https://justpaste.it/2veig

-------

Anyway - this time worn Humean stuff applied to Buddha, is mere "ontological relativity".
We all, might as well sing "Rule Britannia", and get that blood clot from the empiricist and scientific method freaks.

Should we also call Hume an impostor and a bare plagiariser - who uses Buddha's concepts, that he might have probably heard about, from his enlightened brothers of the East Indian Company.
Ludicrous, isn't it?

I don't think Buddha was an afficionado of corruption, profit, badness, enjoyment, and possession; as the guys of the Enlightenment were*, (and still are) .
Hume's "destruction of the whole world", is not really Buddha's position on how to transcend and escape it.
(*Hegel demolished that nonsense "mobish" and "maraish" philosophy, in few paragraphs (https://justpaste.it/x3ky ).)

Moreover, how can one say this:

There is nothing metaphysical in that, if the Buddha directly experienced it. No synthetic a priori can be found above.
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=39409&p=609225&hil ... ha#p609225

I already acknowledged that what I have just been arguing is based on belief (and analysis of the suttas). This will be the case until I directly experience nibbāna for myself. You might reply with, "but you don't know that will ever happen" to which I would also agree. There is, of course, an element of risk with any trust & faith. It's a risk I'm more than willing to take.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=39030&p=601796&hil ... ha#p601796

-----------

The Buddha taught dependent origination. That is to say, conditionality and causality
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=38333&p=584787&hil ... ha#p584787

--------

The Totality of what can be known and which encompasses everything has had all metaphysics removed from it, and has instead been reduced to direct sense experience.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=39061&p=601779&hil ... ha#p601779

and still talk our ears off with this sense-experience-only, analytical knowledge, and non-causality nonsense.

"Seeker" usually means messy attempts — but does not necessary stand for pretension.
.
.

[pitithefool]

Man I wish I knew what you were talking about, but thanks!

[confusedlayman]

Quite secluded from sensuality means 5 sence not there... ita access concentration where body and sence disappear...

[Ceisiwr]

Man I wish I knew what you were talking about, but thanks!

I see you’ve met ToVincent

[Ceisiwr]

"Seeker" usually means messy attempts — but does not necessary stand for pretension.

I see you’ve learnt some Welsh via this translation of my username. This is progress.

[pitithefool]

Enlightenment era philosophers are not my bag. I'm much more of a formal logic guy myself.

Also, I can't sleep tonight. You're going to get my latest home cooking, starting with

The translation of the first jhana formula should actually read:

"Piti-sukha with vitakka-vicara that arises not due to sensuality or unwholesome states."

I believe this actually has the same semantic content as the original.

I'm cooking up some deductive lines of reasoning too, but I'm probably not going to post those in this thread.

Soon

[ToVincent]

deleted duplicate.
See below

[ToVincent]

Man I wish I knew what you were talking about, but thanks!

Well, you have people on this forum who — not only cannot make the difference between kāmā (objects of sensual pleasures) and bāhirāni āyatanāni (external fields of sensory experience) — but can also indulge heavily into such a ludicrous "ontological relativity", that they can say such ridiculous things like: "Buddhism is not a synthetic a priori" - while at the same time saying: "what I have just been arguing is based on belief (and analysis of the suttas). This will be the case until I directly experience nibbāna for myself. You might reply with, "but you don't know that will ever happen" to which I would also agree. There is, of course, an element of risk with any trust & faith. It's a risk I'm more than willing to take."

Or else, saying that the first four jhanas do not involve the senses - while at the same time advocating that: "the Totality of what can be known, and which encompasses everything, has had all metaphysics removed from it, and has instead been reduced to direct sense experience".

!?!?!?!?!

Bloody messy intellect - isn't it?
How do you want to argue with such a person, whose avatar means "Seeker" in Brittonic (of which I am unfortunately a part of).
Let him seek, without having to endure his pathetic pretentious and dubious sureties.

________

I see no rationale in the suttas WITH PARALLELS, that could have one pretend that the ajjhattikāni āyatanāni cannot experience objects, that do not carry lust (kāma).

By the way, AN 6.63 has no parallel for the extract. The verse is included neither in T57, nor in MA 111.
Expect a dubious discussion, from a dubious extract in a sutta.

________

Also, you're right — Buddhist logic has nothing to do with the logic of the "Universal") Enlightenment — let alone the Goidelic one (of which I am [also,] unfortunately a part of) .
.
.

[pitithefool]

You are a wise person indeed, and far above my level of reasoning.

I may post this in the Pali section of the website, but
Would you care to comment on my restatement of the jhana formula and whether it carries the same meaning?

"Piti-sukha with vitakka-vicara that arises but not due to sensuality or unwholesome states."

Because:

"born of seclusion from [kamehi akusala dhammehi]" is equivalent to "not born of union with [kamehi akusaladhammehi]"?

Is it too far of a leap to make that conclusion? If not, I feel it reveals the meaning a little better.

Thank you

[Coëmgenu]

Off topic question:
What does your screen name mean? Great name by the way.
Let me know if I guess correctly:
You like a show from the 80's called A-team, and the character Mr. T., a burly huge black guy with a mohawk, gold chains, had the famous catchphrase, "I pity the fool.", that he would say referring to the various criminals he would beat up in each episode, or even his friends on occasion.

So you're turning the phrase from one of mockery and violence into something more akin to mudita and compassion (mudita being closely related to pīti the awakening factor and pāmojja).

Yes exactly thank you lol!

I haven't figured out how to do a profile picture but I really want a picture of Mr. T as my profile pic on here.

[BrokenBones]

Man I wish I knew what you were talking about, but thanks!

I see you’ve met ToVincent

Please keep on topic... no snidey comments please
I'm enjoying this thread... it's like Sylvester is here in spirit... Arupa?

[ToVincent]

.....

Personally, I translate it: "separating oneself from objects of sensual pleasures".
But that's my take.

Personal jhāna Cheatsheet: https://rentry.co/m3inp
.
.