Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate

The cultivation of calm or tranquility and the development of concentration
sphairos
Posts: 570
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:37 am

Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate

Post by sphairos »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 12:58 pm
sphairos wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 11:10 am
If you were more mindful, you would have noticed, that I actually translated two lines of that śloka in my answer:
I do indeed remember, and I scratch my head somewhat at it. "Saṅkapparāgo purisassa kāmo;" establishes that greedy desire is a person's lust. ‘‘Na te kāmā yāni citrāni loke," establishes that the kāmā whichever are beauties in the world are not. The kāmā remain as they are, but a person should do away with lust. The message is clear. The external objects are not the problem per se, lust is.
"They are not lusts the ones which are beautiful in the world.
This confuses me further.

Na: Not

te: Those

kāmā ?

yāni: whichever

citrāni: beauties

loke: world

Not those kāmā whichever beauties world

Not those kāmā whichever are beauties in the world
And the sentence does not make sense, if you take kāmo in the second line as an "object of pleasure"
The verse states the complete opposite. Kāmo is a person's subjective lust.
I don't know why you are confused, but what you suggest is simply wrong.

Kāmā in the first line must be the same thing with the same meaning that kāma in the second. Otherwise there cannot be contrast (but it is). If in the second line it is "lust", it must be "lusts" in the first line. Q.E.D.

And Ceiswir, we are on the Buddhist forum ! Forget this "subjective, personal", "objective, in the world". Nothing is subjective and nothing is objective. Everything is the way it is.
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
User avatar
pitithefool
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2021 5:39 am

Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate

Post by pitithefool »

sphairos wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 3:29 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 12:58 pm

Kāmā in the first line must be the same thing with the same meaning that kāma in the second. Otherwise there cannot be contrast (but it is). If in the second line it is "lust", it must be "lusts" in the first line. Q.E.D.

And Ceiswir, we are on the Buddhist forum ! Forget this "subjective, personal", "objective, in the world". Nothing is subjective and nothing is objective. Everything is the way it is.
I agree. I don't think you can reasonably separate kama (pl) and kama (s) into two distinct meanings, especially considering terms exist for either of those. In the plural, it may mean 5 senses, but it retains the desire aspect of of the singular so it's not lost. Vice versa, the singular also contains connotiation of the 5 senses along with lust too.
Please note: This profile picture is not actually a picture of the user.
User avatar
Assaji
Posts: 1945
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate

Post by Assaji »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 2:49 pm I’ve always said that kāma (singular) means “lust”. My argument has been that kāmā (plural) refers to external sense objects. Therefore, in the jhāna pericope it is “secluded from sense objects” rather than “secluded from sensual pleasures”. We are not in agreement.
In the post viewtopic.php?p=616269#p616269 , you brought up a passage "Na te kāmā yāni citrāni loke" as somehow contradicting Vibhaṅga passage explaining "kāmehi" in the jhāna formula. What's the contradiction, when in both of them "kāma" has the same meaning?
User avatar
Assaji
Posts: 1945
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate

Post by Assaji »

pitithefool wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 3:06 pm Assaji, the jhana pericope does use the plural ablative kamehi, which in other places in the suttas, does refer to the 5 external sense objects.
The word "kāma" can have two meanings, see: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=6785
If it refers to sense objects in one place, this doesn't mean it can't refer to lust in another place.

Ceisiwr here misreads the CPD, stating that:
Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:50 pm
pitithefool wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:41 pm
Regardless, the term kama pretty much always implies desire for the sense objects, and does not reer the 5 senses by themselves, for which kamaguna is generally used. Even by the CPD's reckoning,

kāma, m. [ts., cf. BHSD, SWTF, Encyclop. of Buddhism VI, 1 1996 s.v.; Hôb. s.v. ai], 1. (mostly in sg.) wish, desire, pleasure; 2. (in pl.) the objects of sensual pleasure
The CPD states there that kāma means lust, but in plural form it means sensual objects.
CPD here states that the second meaning applies to the plural form. It doesn't say anything close to the Ceisiwr's statement.
sphairos
Posts: 570
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:37 am

Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate

Post by sphairos »

Here is the full śloka in ven. Bodhi's translation:

“They are not sensual pleasures, the pretty things in
the world:
a person’s sensual pleasure is lustful intention;
the pretty things remain just as they are in the world,
but the wise remove the desire for them."
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
User avatar
pitithefool
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2021 5:39 am

Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate

Post by pitithefool »

Assaji wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:07 pm
pitithefool wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 3:06 pm Assaji, the jhana pericope does use the plural ablative kamehi, which in other places in the suttas, does refer to the 5 external sense objects.
The word "kāma" can have two meanings, see: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=6785
If it refers to sense objects in one place, this doesn't mean it can't refer to lust in another place.

Ceisiwr here misreads the CPD, stating that:
Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:50 pm
pitithefool wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:41 pm
Regardless, the term kama pretty much always implies desire for the sense objects, and does not reer the 5 senses by themselves, for which kamaguna is generally used. Even by the CPD's reckoning,

kāma, m. [ts., cf. BHSD, SWTF, Encyclop. of Buddhism VI, 1 1996 s.v.; Hôb. s.v. ai], 1. (mostly in sg.) wish, desire, pleasure; 2. (in pl.) the objects of sensual pleasure
The CPD states there that kāma means lust, but in plural form it means sensual objects.
CPD here states that the second meaning applies to the plural form. It doesn't say anything close to the Ceisiwr's statement.
I would agree with you. In the jhana pericope however, kamehi is used which is plural. I still maintain that it both doesn't make a difference and still retains the same meaning of having dsire attached to it regardless though.
Please note: This profile picture is not actually a picture of the user.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 12827
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

Assaji wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 4:56 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 2:49 pm I’ve always said that kāma (singular) means “lust”. My argument has been that kāmā (plural) refers to external sense objects. Therefore, in the jhāna pericope it is “secluded from sense objects” rather than “secluded from sensual pleasures”. We are not in agreement.
In the post viewtopic.php?p=616269#p616269 , you brought up a passage "Na te kāmā yāni citrāni loke" as somehow contradicting Vibhaṅga passage explaining "kāmehi" in the jhāna formula. What's the contradiction, when in both of them "kāma" has the same meaning?
The contradiction is that rather than “sensual pleasures” they are sensual objects, which can be pleasant or unpleasant. For example, they can be “heat” or ‘gadflies” as per MN 14.
“The mental and material are really here,
But here there is no human being to be found,
For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll—
Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks.”


Visuddhimagga
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 12827
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

sphairos wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:14 pm Here is the full śloka in ven. Bodhi's translation:

“They are not sensual pleasures, the pretty things in
the world:
a person’s sensual pleasure is lustful intention;
the pretty things remain just as they are in the world,
but the wise remove the desire for them."
Which as far as I can tell is not grammatically correct.

“Na te”

“Not those”

“Kama” is the subject

Citrani is the adjective

As I’m on my phone kama is plural here.
“The mental and material are really here,
But here there is no human being to be found,
For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll—
Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks.”


Visuddhimagga
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 12827
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

Assaji wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:07 pm

Ceisiwr here misreads the CPD, stating that...
It seems you are the one misreading things, namely my posts.
“The mental and material are really here,
But here there is no human being to be found,
For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll—
Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks.”


Visuddhimagga
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 12827
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

sphairos wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 3:29 pm
Kāmā in the first line must be the same thing with the same meaning that kāma in the second. Otherwise there cannot be contrast (but it is). If in the second line it is "lust", it must be "lusts" in the first line. Q.E.D.
I’m confused once again on how you reached this conclusion. The verse is quite clear. Kamo is lust, and so is the problem. The external kama (plural) are not the problem. A distinction is made between the two. One is internal and subjective, and is a problem, whilst the other is external and objective and isn’t the problem. One removes lust for external kama (plural) which, based on another sutta, can also be unpleasant objects as well as pleasant ones. It emphatically denies that they are one in the same thing, but merely singular or plural. Related, yes, but different. Once lust (kamo) is removed the external kama (plural) remain as they are. This makes sense, since upon awakening the Buddha and Arahants still have pleasant and unpleasant contacts, i.e. kama (plural) and so have pleasant and unpleasant experiences. What is given up is lust, meaning there is now 1 dart and not 2. Pleasant and unpleasant touches, smells, tastes, sights, sounds and mental dhammas (memories and the like) but no 2nd dart of sorrow, lamentation etc etc.
“The mental and material are really here,
But here there is no human being to be found,
For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll—
Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks.”


Visuddhimagga
sphairos
Posts: 570
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:37 am

Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate

Post by sphairos »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:47 pm
sphairos wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 3:29 pm
Kāmā in the first line must be the same thing with the same meaning that kāma in the second. Otherwise there cannot be contrast (but it is). If in the second line it is "lust", it must be "lusts" in the first line. Q.E.D.
I’m confused once again on how you reached this conclusion. The verse is quite clear. Kamo is lust, and so is the problem. The external kama (plural) are not the problem. A distinction is made between the two. One is internal and subjective, and is a problem, whilst the other is external and objective and isn’t the problem. One removes lust for external kama (plural) which, based on another sutta, can also be unpleasant objects as well as pleasant ones. It emphatically denies that they are one in the same thing, but merely singular or plural. Related, yes, but different. Once lust (kamo) is removed the external kama (plural) remain as they are. This makes sense, since upon awakening the Buddha and Arahants still have pleasant and unpleasant contacts, i.e. kama (plural) and so have pleasant and unpleasant experiences. What is given up is lust, meaning there is now 1 dart and not 2. Pleasant and unpleasant touches, smells, tastes, sights, sounds and mental dhammas (memories and the like) but no 2nd dart of sorrow, lamentation etc etc.
No! See above the translation of the verse by ven. Bodhi. It is absolutely correct, like mine. Don't you think that your Pāli skills aren't yet sufficient? I think so.
Last edited by sphairos on Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 12827
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

sphairos wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:59 pm
No! See above the translation of the verse by ven. Bodhi.
I have and for reasons that I’ve stated over and over again it does not make sense in light of the grammar and what we see in other texts.
“The mental and material are really here,
But here there is no human being to be found,
For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll—
Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks.”


Visuddhimagga
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 12827
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

If I really need to go through each individual word step by step I’m more than happy to do that. Once again though, as I approach the week it might not be for a few days. I also have to reply to your Kantian metaphysics on another thread.
“The mental and material are really here,
But here there is no human being to be found,
For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll—
Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks.”


Visuddhimagga
sphairos
Posts: 570
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:37 am

Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate

Post by sphairos »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:00 pm
sphairos wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:59 pm
No! See above the translation of the verse by ven. Bodhi.
I have and for reasons that I’ve stated over and over again it does not make sense in light of the grammar and what we see in other texts.
But you don't know the grammar! :) Sorry to say it directly, but it's the truth.
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 12827
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Proposed solution to the Jhana Wars debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

sphairos wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:59 pm
It is absolutely correct, like mine. Don't you think that your Pāli skills aren't yet sufficient? I think so.
Provide a translation for each individual word and also show the grammar, as I have done, and let’s see if your translation is then valid. Work from the bottom up, like I did.
“The mental and material are really here,
But here there is no human being to be found,
For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll—
Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks.”


Visuddhimagga
Post Reply