The Mahāsāṃghikas believed that the three marks of conditioned things were themselves unconditioned. Venerable Nagarjuna takes them to town over this doctrine, and Madhyamakas will claim to have refuted it, but they can always be wrong. Are you suggesting that the three marks themselves are unconditioned, unarisen and unceasing, when you suggest that they are inherent and ever-present? Or are you suggesting that they are only inherent and ever-present inasmuch as there are skhandas to find them within? Or are you suggesting that cognition of them is inherent and ever-present, hence there is cognition of the three marks even in jhana?
suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoherence (
Re: suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoheren
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
- pitithefool
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2021 5:39 am
Re: suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoheren
If you are wanting to take that view, the yes, devas are capable of doing vipassana and attaining either path-entry, arahantship or paccekabuddha. From what I understand, they often don't have any interest in doing so because the pleasure of their existence is too refined for them to take interest in anything else, much less even believe that it's impermanent. Not all devas were followers of the Buddha's teaching in their past lives.
Buddha said being a human is a very precious thing because we have the mental capacity to escape suffering while having the suffering to want to escape. Too much pleasure in one's life and it's not as likely they'll want to escape samsara.
Please note: This profile picture is not actually a picture of the user.
Re: suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoheren
I am suggesting the second possibility. Ie. that wherever skhandas are found, the three marks exist therein (whether discerned or not. Typically not - which is one reason we do not develop disenchantment towards them).Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 3:07 pmThe Mahāsāṃghikas believed that the three marks of conditioned things were themselves unconditioned. Venerable Nagarjuna takes them to town over this doctrine, and Madhyamakas will claim to have refuted it, but they can always be wrong. Are you suggesting that the three marks themselves are unconditioned, unarisen and unceasing, when you suggest that they are inherent and ever-present? Or are you suggesting that they are only inherent and ever-present inasmuch as there are skhandas to find them within? Or are you suggesting that cognition of them is inherent and ever-present, hence there is cognition of the three marks even in jhana?
When the skhandas disintegrate, of course, the marks are nowhere to be seen.
So, I believe the presence of the three marks is a by product of the skhandas coming together.
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
Re: suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoheren
What I did read was this:pitithefool wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 2:09 pm
Your comment here fails to address what I've said about both verbal and non-verbal vitakka-vicara being abandoned by entry into the second jhana.
When someone thinks a state free of thoughts is one of suppressing thoughts it says to me the person in question hasn't understood that the Jhānā are very tranquil states arrived at by stilling the mind and letting go. Using discursive thought is the very opposite of that. It's not even access concentration. There are skilful intentions, yes, but never "thoughts". These skilful intentions are then also seen to disturb the stillness of the mind and so are dropped, thus leading to the 2nd Jhāna.whether or not we use words in our head doesn't matter at best, and at worst suppressing thought about it can hinder it. Again though, once the jhana factors are there to where they don't need any more support, then thoughts in whatever way we're thinking of them as verbal and subverbal, can be let go of and will fade away... It's again quite arbitrary that we say "no verbal thoughts" when those can be very much skillful resolves, just like non-verbal thoughts can be.
Not that you have shown. Insight whilst in any absorbed state is impossible.You can and must see the three marks while in jhana AND after.
As has been shown, insight into impermanence, dukkha and not self requires the concepts of impermanent, dukkha and not self which in turn come from discriminating thought. None of this can occur in the stilled state of mind which is Jhāna. The task is to develop Jhāna to abandon lust for sensual objects, through experiencing it's otherworldly piti, sukha and equanimity, and to gain insight via seeing the conditionality of said states post the meditation.It's easy to think this amounts to vitakka-vicara, but it doesn't. The three marks amount to perception, and are not necessarily vitakka-vicara, a term which denotes willful thinking. Perceiving is not the same thing. Perceiving doesn't require direct willed effort and is more a product of conditioning (vitakka-vicara, anapana, vedana and other sanna). Those conditioners set up how perceptions occur and that's precisely what we're tasked with doing in meditation.
This would be like trying to still the pool with a paddle.If that's the case, then what of the time before that when discursive thought may be used to settle the mind (although admittedly not very frequently)?
It's important because that is what the suttas say and because if vitakka-vicara were gross thinking it would mean the Jhāna were impossible. Strangely it would also mean the likes of Ajahn Brahm and various other monks, nuns and laypeople have a mastery over the mind that the Buddha lacked. You haven't shown anything to the contrary and if you did not like MN 19, for whatever reason, I also gave you 2 other sutta passages.Further, You've also failed to explain why it's important for it to be non-verbal. Why is that, Ceisiwr? Why is what's apparently such an arbitrary distinction so important, when the content and and direction of the mind is the same regardless of whether we're thinking verbal thoughts or not? I've already shown that they can be used skillfully AND that they aren't used often at all, so why so much ill-will towards it? What evidence can you show me that vitakka-vicara is necessarily non-verbal, and please don't bring up MN 19 again, because it has absolutely nothing to do with verbal or non-verbal vitakka-vicara, only skillful resolves.
I'm not "implying". That is what the suttas says and, once again, vitakka-vicara are intentions not discursive & discriminating thought.So you seem to be implying that perception of the three marks has patisancikkhati (which is a type of vitakka-vicara) as a prerequesite?
Vitakka-vicara are intentions, but lets say they are not. This wouldn't help the Jhānā-lite crowd one bit. Their theory of insight in Jhāna would only hold true for the 1st Jhāna since the vicara needed for dhamma-vicaya would have been stilled . A bit odd, since the Buddha set out 4. Either way, the theory falls flat.Why yes, yes it does. But let me ask you further, is it possible to perceive things as imperment without vitakka-vicara? I.e. trough constantly reminding yourself of the three marks and constantly applying the perception to phenomena does it reach a point where the perception and subject action of abandonment becomes automatic and you no longer have to think about it? Is that not what we are doing when we sit down to meditate (cough cough DooDoot)?
You leave the Jhāna, review it's flaws and move onto the next. The Visuddhimagga sets this out quite well.If insight doesn't occur while in jhana, how is it possible that the meditator partakes in distinction, i.e. moving from the first into the second? How does the mind turn away from courser jhana factors it when it cannot perceive them as such?
If you every approach access let alone the Jhāna and experience the true stilling of the mind it will all become clear. I do hope you remember this conversation when that day comes.It doesn't make sense.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Thu May 06, 2021 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“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.”
Re: suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoheren
The hindrances are abandoned to a great degree prior to meditation, through virtue and sense restraint. This is why the suttas say the monk sits down having abandoned the hindrances, as in prior. During access they are completely suppressed from arising during the meditation with the arising of the nimitta. Before entering access the nimitta will come and go, because there are still ripples on the mind disturbing the concentration and stillness.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Thu May 06, 2021 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“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.”
Re: suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoheren
This is quite odd since the aggregates are always present in any sense experience. They rise and fall many times a day.Pondera wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 3:01 pm
That is not my experience. In my experience the three marks reveal themselves as inherent and ever present in the skhandas. When entering jhana, the skhandas do not first come into being - only to later come out of being. It is at death that the skhandas come apart.
Since nibbāna is a stilled state par excellence, and since in cessation there isn't even an experience of any conditioned dhammas, I struggle to see how you can think such a state is filled with said discursive thinking? In your view nibbāna seems quite ordinary. Just thoughts we have about the world, it seems.That seems like an odd argument, considering that one experiences the above defined “discernment” during cessation...
[7] "And what is the perception of cessation? There is the case where a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building — reflects thus: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the stilling of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving, cessation, Unbinding.' This is called the perception of cessation.
As previous suttas I posted showed, the Jhānā are tranquil states and vitakka-vicāra are intentions. So far, hard to see how any discernment can occur. But, lets say the opposite is true. The Jhānā are not stilled states and vitakka-vicāra mean discursive thinking. On this model insight could occur in the 1st Jhāna, but when we get to the 2nd Jhāna onwards the model breaks down. If vicāra means normal thinking and this is abandoned at the 2nd Jhāna then dhamma-vicaya cannot occur, which means no insight there onwards. A bit strange, given that the Buddha taught the 4 Jhānā and the Jhāna-lite person wants to have insight in every Jhāna step of the way.There is also nothing in AN 10.60 that says one cannot discern while in jhana. A sutta on Post jhana reflection does not imply an impossibility on mid-jhana discernment.
The aggregates rise and fall constantly.Again, and this is just a personal observation - the skhandas reveal their three marks as an inherent feature. Not as something to be discerned after their disintegration. In fact, if we had to wait for the skhandas to disintegrate before achieving insight, it would already be to late (ie. we would be dead).
The physical body does not experience pain. The nāmakāya does.Do you think that the body holds on to pain? Do you think that by letting go of that pain, one might feel pleasure?
“When serenity is developed, what purpose does it serve? The mind is developed. And when the mind is developed, what purpose does it serve? Lust is abandoned.”How does stillness lead to “knowledge and vision of things as they really are”?
“When insight is developed, what purpose does it serve? Wisdom is developed. And when wisdom is developed, what purpose does it serve? Ignorance is abandoned."
AN 2.31
Insight occurs after Jhāna.What do you think accomplishes a more penetrating insight? Loose concentration? Or acute concentration?
I'm not in the business of dismissing suttas because they are "inconvenient". MN 111 has all the hallmarks of some later editing, either to bring it in line with the Abhidhamma or being proto-Abhidhamma itself.Inconvenient, too
I believe I have addressed all of those by now.My concerns were stated here: viewtopic.php?p=620482#p620482
“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: suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoheren
Oh my Ceisiwr, did I ever say that the second jhana is arrived at by suppressing thoughts? Not only did you not actually read what I said, you then proceeded to put words in my mouth and set up a strawman against an argument I never actually made. The piti-sukha is what stills and unifies the mind, and vitakka-vicara amounts to the resolves that do so, I.e. letting go, relaxing et cetera. If it helps to use the words to do so, then use them, if it doesn't then don't.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 3:42 pm
When someone thinks a state free of thoughts is one of suppressing thoughts it says to me the person in question hasn't understood that the Jhānā are very tranquil states arrived at by stilling the mind and letting go. Using discursive thought is the very opposite of that. It's not even access concentration. There are skilful intentions, yes, but never "thoughts". These skilful intentions are then also seen to disturb the stillness of the mind and so are dropped, thus leading to the 2nd Jhāna.
Ceisiwr, if it were true that you can't do insight while in meditation, then there would be no such thing as a non-returner. If insight is required for liberation, then how does one reborn in the pure abodes have any insight while being there. Do they pop in and out?As has been shown, insight into impermanence, dukkha and not self requires the concepts of impermanent, dukkha and not self which in turn come from discriminating thought. None of this can occur in the stilled state of mind which is Jhāna. The task is to develop Jhāna to abandon lust for sensual objects, through experiencing it's otherworldly piti, sukha and equanimity, and to gain insight via seeing the conditionality of said states post the meditation.
True, it is more course than nonverbal, but it is quite often necessary to use it. Look at the Vitakkasanthana sutta, MN 20.This would be like trying to still the pool with a paddle.
MN 19 does not say that skillful thoughts are not jhana. All it says is that thinking like that for a long time will tire the body and that it's better to go further by meditating with piti-sukha and then riding that train towards stillness. In fact is uses the same term vitakka-vicara for the jhana factor, the only difference being that as a jhana factor it must be accompanied by the other jhana factors of piti and sukha. Further, if anything, MN 19 actually implies how to attain the first jhana by introducing rapture to our skillful thinking then to have it partake of distinction into the second and so on.It's important because that is what the suttas say and because if vitakka-vicara were gross thinking it would mean the Jhāna were impossible. Strangely it would also mean the likes of Ajahn Brahm and various other monks, nuns and laypeople have a mastery over the mind that the Buddha lacked. You haven't shown anything to the contrary and if you did not like MN 19, for whatever reason, I also gave you 2 other sutta passages.
Dhammavicaya is not the same thing as vipassana. My argument is precisely what you just laid out and save that you've defined vipassana to mean the same thing as dhammavicaya, which it's not. Dhammavicaya is insight willed by vitakka-vicara, and vipassana is insight that comes from conditioning (i.e. perception, feeling, and anapana). Whenever you "leave" the jhana to practice insight, you are actually performing dhammavicaya, where as during the (second and higher) jhana, what you have is (again non-verbal, not vitakka-vicara, but rather sanna) vipassana resultant of conditioning while in the jhana. This is why it says "a mind that is concentrated sees things as they are". It makes the practice of dhammavicaya much easier because the conditions already exist in the mind to see things as they are.Vitakka-vicara are intentions, but lets say they are not. This wouldn't help the Jhānā-lite crowd one bit, since their theory of insight in Jhāna would only hold true for the 1st Jhāna since the vicara needed for dhamma-vicaya would have been stilled . A bit odd, since the Buddha set out 4. Either way, the theory falls flat.
Cool, that's dhammavicaya. That's vitakka-vicara. What occurs in the jhana (second on) is vipassana. It is not willed other than setting up its conditions in the first jhana.You leave the Jhāna, review it's flaws and move onto the next. The Visuddhimagga sets this out quite well.
We shall all know on the day of our deaths who is right, Ceisiwr.If you every approach access let alone the Jhāna and experience the true stilling of the mind it will all become clear. I do hope you remember this conversation when that day comes.
Please note: This profile picture is not actually a picture of the user.
Re: suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoheren
It's interesting that you say something like that — because in the Jain's Tattvārtha sūtra (#43), vitarka is about the sacred knowledge (śruta / श्रुत), and the knowledge of the sacred knowledge (śruttajñāna / श्रुत्तज्ञान).pitithefool wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 3:10 am Nowhere have I asserted that the jhana factor of vitakka-vicara is the same as normal discursive thinking. Rather I am saying that discursive thinking can be a jhana factor if and only if it is skillful, solely centered around its object, is not connected with sensuality,...
Vitakka in jhana, might just be about thinking about the Dhamma.
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
Re: suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoheren
Yes the same thing happens to human, the pleasure is too strong that instead of doing vippassana they cling to the heavenly pleasurepitithefool wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 3:13 pmIf you are wanting to take that view, the yes, devas are capable of doing vipassana and attaining either path-entry, arahantship or paccekabuddha. From what I understand, they often don't have any interest in doing so because the pleasure of their existence is too refined for them to take interest in anything else, much less even believe that it's impermanent. Not all devas were followers of the Buddha's teaching in their past lives.
Buddha said being a human is a very precious thing because we have the mental capacity to escape suffering while having the suffering to want to escape. Too much pleasure in one's life and it's not as likely they'll want to escape samsara.
The best way to do vippassana is with access not with jhana,do you agree ?
Re: suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoheren
Can you quote the visuddhimagga where buddhaghosa said even in access, hindrances is supressed ?Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 3:49 pmThe hindrances are abandoned to a great degree prior to meditation, through virtue and sense restraint. This is why the suttas say the monk sits down having abandoned the hindrances, as in prior. During access they are completely suppressed from arising during the meditation with the arising of the nimitta. Before entering access the nimitta will come and go, because there are still ripples on the mind disturbing the concentration and stillness.
- pitithefool
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2021 5:39 am
Re: suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoheren
Yes, vitakka-vicara is the making of skillful perceptions until they stick around without further input. Connecting the perception to pleasant feeling makes it so that attention or use of the perception begets pleasure, and that pleasure begets desire to give attention, and so on until the mind will no longer look away from the source of the pleasure. That's how we get the mind to stay in one place and start to remove its supports.
My only argument is that it's ok to use verbal sankhara to do so, whereas Ceisiwr says it's not. When it's put this was, the difference between verbal and non-verbal intentions or thinking is silly and arbitrary. Someimte you need a baseball bat and others a feather duster will suffice. What's important is that getting the mind to settle to stillness is a skill that requires many tools in the toolbox. The more tools we know how to use, the better at our craft we can be.
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: suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoheren
He's right. by the Visuddhimagga's definition, the hindrances are absent but the jhana factors are not fully developed yet.Ratnakar wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 4:36 pmCan you quote the visuddhimagga where buddhaghosa said even in access, hindrances is supressed ?Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 3:49 pmThe hindrances are abandoned to a great degree prior to meditation, through virtue and sense restraint. This is why the suttas say the monk sits down having abandoned the hindrances, as in prior. During access they are completely suppressed from arising during the meditation with the arising of the nimitta. Before entering access the nimitta will come and go, because there are still ripples on the mind disturbing the concentration and stillness.
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: suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoheren
I can't answer that directly. Vipassana as it's defined in the canon is more a "seeing" rather than a "doing".
What we're doing in access (or first depending on how you define it) is more setting up the conidition for deeper concentration. In order for the mind to let go of things to rather deep concentration, two things must happen: 1st, the mind must see that there is a further escape, and second, action must be taken in order to abandon what must be abandoned to get there.
Vipassana occurs while in the concentration, and is perceptual rather than willed, whether we think so or not. Your mind would not be concentrated if it wasn't perceptive of the drawback of form, etc. If you lost this perception (again even if you aren't aware of it) you'd pop right out of the jhana and start engaging in sensual pleasures. It's because the mind sees the drawback in sensuality and the benefit in jhana that it not only developes the jhana, but also stays in it. Vipassana is this perception that must be there in order for the concentration to not only be maintained but to exist in the first place.
Again, at first our vipassana is willed and manipulated with vitakka-vicara, after which it will stand on its own. Ther absolutely must be pleasure involved though for it to have any stability, after which we can start to knock out supports, first with gross pleasure, then more subtle until the mind is content with equanimity and absolute stillness.
Please note: This profile picture is not actually a picture of the user.
Re: suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoheren
You were doing well until this, which is what I was opposing. No need to insert gross & rough thinking where it does not belong.pitithefool wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 4:24 pm
Oh my Ceisiwr, did I ever say that the second jhana is arrived at by suppressing thoughts? Not only did you not actually read what I said, you then proceeded to put words in my mouth and set up a strawman against an argument I never actually made. The piti-sukha is what stills and unifies the mind, and vitakka-vicara amounts to the resolves that do so, I.e. letting go, relaxing et cetera. If it helps to use the words to do so, then use them, if it doesn't then don't.
The texts are a little contradictory when it comes to matching up the Jhānā with other worlds. For example:Ceisiwr, if it were true that you can't do insight while in meditation, then there would be no such thing as a non-returner. If insight is required for liberation, then how does one reborn in the pure abodes have any insight while being there. Do they pop in and out?
“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." - DN 15
Here the 1st Jhāna is said to be of one perception only, and those born in the Brahma-order are of the same. Those then who obtain the 1st Jhāna will be reborn in the Brahma worlds, which matches their attainment. However, gods from the Brahma-order are said to descend, or talk to the Buddha and all manner of things that aren't compatible with being constantly in 1 perception. As I say, the texts aren't all that clear. I'm somewhat sceptical of most of the cosmology myself, although not rebirth itself.
That reads more like abandoning a hindrance, which of course is prior to the actual meditation.True, it is more course than nonverbal, but it is quite often necessary to use it. Look at the Vitakkasanthana sutta, MN 20
It shows that normal thinking tires the mental body. The vitakka-vicāra it then mentions in the Jhāna pericope are the intentions. The sutta supports the claim that normal discursive thought, which is harsh and disturbing, are incompatible with any Jhānā.MN 19 does not say that skillful thoughts are not jhana. All it says is that thinking like that for a long time will tire the body and that it's better to go further by meditating with piti-sukha and then riding that train towards stillness. In fact is uses the same term vitakka-vicara for the jhana factor, the only difference being that as a jhana factor it must be accompanied by the other jhana factors of piti and sukha. Further, if anything, MN 19 actually implies how to attain the first jhana by introducing rapture then to have it partake of distinction into the second and so on.
Dhammavicaya is insight into dhammas, which are beneficial and which are not and so on. You can't gain insight without discursive thinking, and you can't have discursive thinking without vicaya (outside of the Jhāna pericope). Even by the Jhāna-lite standard, insight is impossible from the 2nd Jhāna onwards since the very dhamma required for such discursive thought has gone. The bare constituents of the nāmakāya on their own are not enough for insight. If they were there would be insight in nevasaññānāsaññāyatana, which would be rather odd don't you think?Dhammavicaya is not the same thing as vipassana. My argument is precisely what you just laid out and save that you've defined vipassana to mean the same thing as dhammavicaya, which it's not. Dhammavicaya is insight willed by vitakka-vicara, and vipassana is insight that comes from conditioning (i.e. perception, feeling, and anapana). Whenever you "leave" the jhana to practice insight, you are actually performing dhammavicaya, where as during the (second and higher) jhana, what you have is (again non-verbal, not vitakka-vicara, but rather sanna) vipassana resultant of conditioning while in the jhana. This is why it says "a mind that is concentrated sees things as they are". It makes the practice of dhammavicaya much easier because the conditions already exist in the mind to see things as they are.
You just had insight outside of Jhāna via dhamma-vicaya and now you want it inside too when there can literally be no dhamma-vicaya? You can't have your cake and eat it. To have any insight requires discursive thought. This is impossible in any Jhāna, or even from the 2nd Jhāna onwards for the Jhāna-lite crowd, because the dhammas which are necessary conditions for it do not exist in those states. The nāmakāya on it's own is not enough.Cool, that's dhammavicaya. That's vitakka-vicara. What occurs in the jhana (second on) is vipassana. It is not willed other than setting up its conditions in the first jhana.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Thu May 06, 2021 5:13 pm, edited 5 times in total.
“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.”
Re: suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoheren
Sure:
CHAPTER IV - The Earth Kasina[THE TWO KINDS OF CONCENTRATION]
32. Now, concentration is of two kinds, that is to say, access concentration and absorption concentration: the mind becomes concentrated in two ways, that is, on the plane of access and on the plane of obtainment. Herein, the mind becomes concentrated on the plane of access by the abandonment of the hindrances, and on the plane of obtainment by the manifestation of the jhána factors.
33. The difference between the two kinds of concentration is this. The factors are not strong in access. It is because they are not strong that when access has arisen, the mind now makes the sign its object and now re-enters the life-continuum, just as when a young child is lifted up and stood on its feet, it repeatedly falls down on the ground. But the factors are strong in absorption. It is because they are strong that when absorption concentration has arisen, the mind, having once interrupted the flow of the life-continuum, carries on with a stream of profitable impulsion for a whole night and for a whole day, just as a healthy man, after rising from his seat, could stand for a whole day.
The Visuddhimagga seems to oscillate between the words "abandoned" and "suppressed" somewhat, so it's not all to clear to me if there is a distinction or not there.
“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.”