Sensory experience in meditative attainments

[Boris]

Since someone told me that references regarding sensory experience in meditation which I gave him were useful, perhaps they could be useful for others. Even if such data is already available here in certain topic, it doesn't matter since perhaps someone has some suggestions how to resolve an ambiguity noticed below.

According to Suttas, sensory experience disappears totally in immaterial states. There is indeed certain ambiguity, but uncertainty is justified only about the forth jhana. I do not propose to resolve this ambiguity. Perhaps someone can help me in this. Following Suttas say implicitly that if sensory experience ceases in immaterial states, in the forth jhana senses to some extent  still should work:

“It is possible here that with the complete surmounting of perceptions of form, with the disappearance of perceptions of sensory impact, with non-attention to perceptions of diversity, aware that ‘space is infinite,’ some bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the base of infinite space.
MN 8

Some good man claimed that based of his Pali knowledge, what is unequivocal in English translation, isn't at all unequvocal in Pali. Assuming that his objection is based on his not so good Pali, and not on certain psychological obstacles described in suttas as ditthupadana - attachment to views, he should look at other passages, such as:

“Friend, what can be known by purified mind-consciousness released from the five faculties?”“Friend, by purified mind-consciousness released from the five faculties the base of infinite space can be known thus: ‘Space is infinite’; the base of infinite consciousness can be known thus: ‘Consciousness is infinite’; and the base of nothingness can be known thus: ‘There is nothing.′” MN 43

There is, bhikkhus, equanimity that is diversified, based on diversity; and there is equanimity that is unified, based on unity. “And what, bhikkhus, is equanimity that is diversified, based on diversity? There is equanimity regarding forms, sounds, odours, flavours, and tangibles. This, bhikkhus, is equanimity that is diversified, based on diversity.

“And what, bhikkhus, is equanimity that is unified, based on unity? There is equanimity regarding the base of infinite space, the base of infinite consciousness, the base of nothingness, and the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. This, bhikkhus, is equanimity that is unified, based on unity.20. “Here, bhikkhus, by depending and relying on equanimity that is unified, based on unity, abandon and surmount equanimity that is diversified, based on diversity. It is thus this is abandoned; it is thus this is surmounted. M 137

As we see equanimity that is diversified, based on diversity is surmounted only by immaterial states.

The eye itself as well as those forms will actually be present, and yet one will not experience that base.1924 (2) The ear itself as well as those sounds will actually be present, and yet one will not experience that base. (3) The nose itself as well as those odors will actually be present, and yet one will not experience that base. (4) The tongue itself as well as those tastes will actually be present, and yet one will not experience that base. (5) The body itself as well as those tactile objects will actually be present, and yet one will not experience that base.”

When this was said, the Venerable Udāyī said this to the Venerable Ānanda: “Is it, friend Ānanda, while one is actually percipient or while one is non-percipient that one does not experience that base?”

“It is, friend, while one is actually percipient that one does not experience that base, not while one is non-percipient.”

“But, friend, of what is one percipient when one does not experience that base?”

(6) “Here, friend, with the complete surmounting of perceptions of forms, with the passing away of perceptions of sensory impingement, with non-attention to perceptions of diversity, [perceiving] ‘space is infinite,’ a bhikkhu enters and dwells in the base of the infinity of space. When one is thus percipient one does not experience that base. (...) AN IX 37

However there is a line of thinking which leads to conclusion that sensory experience should cease already in the four jhana.

“Sister, the arahants maintain that when the eye exists there is pleasure and pain, and when the eye does not exist there is no pleasure and pain. The arahants maintain that when the ear exists there is pleasure and pain, and when the ear does not exist there is no pleasure and pain….
SN 35: 133

And of course we know that pleasure and pain disappear in the fourth jhana. In the same line of thinking we can argue that perception of the body should disappear in the fourth jhana, since breathing is recognised as bodily sankhara, or determination, and again we know that breathing stops in the fourth jhana.

Second objection could be neutralised by personal experience or knowledge of certain specific  dream, where we are merely disembodied point of view, so while we aren't aware of the body, visual experience is present. But it doesn't solve the first objection, and anyway such explanation although ingenious, isn't certain at all.

Perhaps one who mastered the four jhana and at least base of infinite consciousness could give us reliable explanation of this ambiguity, but to find such meditator is probably no less difficult than to attain such level of concentration by oneself.

Also I would like to emphasize that while it is quite obvious that in the first three jhanas sensory experience is still present, it doesn't undermine meditative skills of one who claims to reach such states where senses doesn't work. We can only congratulate him to be able to abide in such attainments, since most certainly meditation without sensory impact is more pleasant than meditation where senses still work. Only when such meditator names such states as one of the first three jhanas, we can point out that unfortunately it doesn't agree with Suttas definitions.

Ability to experience certain things, and ability to properly classified such experiences not always go together. So we have in suttas description of certain states of concentration where senses indeed doesn't work:

“Friend Sāriputta, could a bhikkhu obtain such a state of concentration that (1) he would not be percipient of earth in relation to earth; (2) of water in relation to water; (3) of fire in relation to fire; (4) of air in relation to air; (5) of the base of the infinity of space in relation to the base of the infinity of space; [9] (6) of the base of the infinity of consciousness in relation to the base of the infinity of consciousness; (7) of the base of nothingness in relation to the base of nothingness; (8) of the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception in relation to the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; (9) of this world in relation to this world; (10) of the other world in relation to the other world, but he would still be percipient?”
“He could, friend Ānanda.” (...) AN X 6

see also AN XI 19

[Ceisiwr]

Following Suttas says implicitly that if sensory experience ceases in immaterial states, in the forth jhana senses to some extent  still should work:

Isn’t that the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent?

[SarathW]

Following Suttas says implicitly that if sensory experience ceases in immaterial states, in the forth jhana senses to some extent  still should work:

Isn’t that the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent?

Is this cessation of perception and feeling? (Nirodha Samapatthi)

[Ceisiwr]

Following Suttas says implicitly that if sensory experience ceases in immaterial states, in the forth jhana senses to some extent  still should work:

Isn’t that the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent?

Is this cessation of perception and feeling? (Nirodha Samapatthi)

No?

[pegembara]

Following Suttas says implicitly that if sensory experience ceases in immaterial states, in the forth jhana senses to some extent  still should work:

Isn’t that the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent?

Is this cessation of perception and feeling? (Nirodha Samapatthi)

Isn't it the case that thinking/thoughts stop before sights, sounds, smells, tastes and touch(things tied up with the body)?

The Daily Tejaniya, July 7, 2019 wrote:
When you close your eyes to meditate, you may get the impression there is suddenly a lot of thinking. But the mind is actually thinking all the time. You just do not notice it because when your eyes are open you are paying more attention to external objects than to thoughts.

Then the base of boundless space, the base of boundless consciousness, the base of nothingness, and the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception would correspond to mental perception/fabrication or concept?

"When a monk is attaining the cessation of perception & feeling, friend Visakha, verbal fabrications cease first, then bodily fabrications, then mental fabrications."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

"In-&-out breaths are bodily; these are things tied up with the body. That's why in-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. Having first directed one's thoughts and made an evaluation, one then breaks out into speech. That's why directed thought & evaluation are verbal fabrications. Perceptions & feelings are mental; these are things tied up with the mind. That's why perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications."

Here is the kicker-

"But how, lord, could a monk have an attainment of concentration such that he would neither be percipient of earth with regard to earth... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet he would still be percipient?"

"There is the case, Ananda, where the monk would be percipient in this way: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' It's in this way that a monk could have an attainment of concentration such that he would neither be percipient of earth with regard to earth, nor of water with regard to water, nor of fire... wind... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception... this world... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet he would still be percipient."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[SarathW]

Isn't it the case that thinking/thoughts stop before sights, sounds, smells, tastes and touch(things tied up with the body)?

Even though that Vitakka Vicara (thinking/thought) stopped you still have the perception and feeling.

[pegembara]

Isn't it the case that thinking/thoughts stop before sights, sounds, smells, tastes and touch(things tied up with the body)?

Even though that Vitakka Vicara (thinking/thought) stopped you still have the perception and feeling.

You perceive the absence of thoughts, and body, you perceive infinite space, infinite consciousness ?mind etc until there is a cessation of perception and feeling.

"When a monk has emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling, friend Visakha, three contacts make contact: contact with emptiness, contact with the signless, & contact with the undirected."

This too is a perception, no?

There is the case, Ananda, where the monk would be percipient in this way. 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.'

[Suddh]

https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Wri ... atory4.pdf

Silence Isn’t Mandatory : Sensory Perception in the Jhanas