How long to attain first jhana?

[mikenz66]

No, I'm saying that the sutta seems to leave open the possibility that one might look at or attend to beautiful things, but not do it unwisely. And conversely, that attention to the sign of the ugly must be wise attention for it to be efficacious. The a/yoniso adjective seems to be doing some work in there.
...

...
I'll work on getting those suttas for you tomorrow. Although I'll say, the point of seclusion is exactly to avoid such things. Not to mention the countless suttas of the Buddha implying one should destroy beautiful music (simile of the lute), games (boys destroying sandcastles), form, err on the side of asceticism (MN3), etc.

Telling people to bear with sensuality seems masochistic and needlessly making it difficult for one in training. After the asavas have been destroyed, that's a different matter.

Sense restraint does not appear to be a general instruction to "not look/hear/etc":

“Master Gotama, it’s when the eye sees no sight and the ear hears no sound. That’s how Pārāsariya teaches his disciples the development of the faculties.”

“In that case, Uttara, a blind person and a deaf person will have developed faculties according to what Pārāsariya says. For a blind person sees no sight with the eye and a deaf person hears no sound with the ear.” When he said this, Uttara sat silent, embarrassed, shoulders drooping, downcast, depressed, with nothing to say.
https://suttacentral.net/mn152/en/sujato

Sense restraint is generally described as a training to not get caught up in what one sees/hears/etc:

“And how, friend, does one guard the doors of the sense faculties? Here, having seen a form with the eye, a bhikkhu does not grasp its signs and features. Since, if he left the eye faculty unrestrained, evil unwholesome states of covetousness and displeasure might invade him, he practises the way of its restraint, he guards the eye faculty, he undertakes the restraint of the eye faculty. ...
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.120/en/bodhi

Bhikkhu Sujato's translation, with the Pali, is:

When a mendicant sees a sight with the eyes, they don’t get caught up in the features and details.
Idhāvuso, bhikkhu cakkhunā rūpaṃ disvā na nimittaggāhī hoti nānubyañjanaggāhī.

But, of course, I also don't see any teachings advocating going out searching for sense pleasures, and there are times when avoidance is the sensible approach... However, my understanding is that renunciation is developed by understanding the drawbacks, not by simple avoidance.


Mike

[coconut]

Indeed it would be, if by "sensuality" we mean kāmacchanda rather than objects of sensuous experience.

One is simply just a subcategory of another. Sensual desire is a category of sensuous experience, they all fall under the category of form. And all form is to be rejected:

"In the same way, Radha, you too should smash, scatter, & demolish form, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for form.

And before you say the problem doesn't rely on form, but craving for form, yes, but before one can see that, they need to experience dispassion for form.

So again, why would the Buddha tell you to attend to something beautiful like say a beautiful body, instead of attending to something ugly, like say, a corpse. Both are bodies, one is beautiful because it's fresh, the other is ugly because it's dead, hence impermanence.

To me, making form "unfit to play" and "demolishing it", is to focus on the asubha aspects, i.e. see it as decayed and naturally broken, aka seeing impermanence which leads to dispassion, the opposite of craving.

[Sam Vara]

But, of course, I also don't see any teachings advocating going out searching for sense pleasures, and there are times when avoidance is the sensible approach... However, my understanding is that renunciation is developed by understanding the drawbacks, not by simple avoidance.

Yes, exactly so. It's also worth noting that MN2 famously points out that there are taints which are abandoned by avoiding, and others which are abandoned by restraint of the senses.

My Pali isn't good enough to make a positive claim, but it seems to me that nimittaggāhī and anubyañjanaggāhī might mean something like "one who grasps at or holds" the signs or the details.

[coconut]

No, I'm saying that the sutta seems to leave open the possibility that one might look at or attend to beautiful things, but not do it unwisely. And conversely, that attention to the sign of the ugly must be wise attention for it to be efficacious. The a/yoniso adjective seems to be doing some work in there.
...

...
I'll work on getting those suttas for you tomorrow. Although I'll say, the point of seclusion is exactly to avoid such things. Not to mention the countless suttas of the Buddha implying one should destroy beautiful music (simile of the lute), games (boys destroying sandcastles), form, err on the side of asceticism (MN3), etc.

Telling people to bear with sensuality seems masochistic and needlessly making it difficult for one in training. After the asavas have been destroyed, that's a different matter.

Sense restraint does not appear to be a general instruction to "not look/hear/etc":

“Master Gotama, it’s when the eye sees no sight and the ear hears no sound. That’s how Pārāsariya teaches his disciples the development of the faculties.”

“In that case, Uttara, a blind person and a deaf person will have developed faculties according to what Pārāsariya says. For a blind person sees no sight with the eye and a deaf person hears no sound with the ear.” When he said this, Uttara sat silent, embarrassed, shoulders drooping, downcast, depressed, with nothing to say.
https://suttacentral.net/mn152/en/sujato

Sense restraint is generally described as a training to not get caught up in what one sees/hears/etc:

“And how, friend, does one guard the doors of the sense faculties? Here, having seen a form with the eye, a bhikkhu does not grasp its signs and features. Since, if he left the eye faculty unrestrained, evil unwholesome states of covetousness and displeasure might invade him, he practises the way of its restraint, he guards the eye faculty, he undertakes the restraint of the eye faculty. ...
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.120/en/bodhi

Bhikkhu Sujato's translation, with the Pali, is:

When a mendicant sees a sight with the eyes, they don’t get caught up in the features and details.
Idhāvuso, bhikkhu cakkhunā rūpaṃ disvā na nimittaggāhī hoti nānubyañjanaggāhī.

But, of course, I also don't see any teachings advocating going out searching for sense pleasures, and there are times when avoidance is the sensible approach... However, my understanding is that renunciation is developed by understanding the drawbacks, not by simple avoidance.


Mike

As I just wrote to Sam Vara, I said one should avoid the features of beauty, not the form all together (yet).

"Monks, there are these four perversions of perception, perversions of mind, perversions of view. Which four? 'Constant' with regard to the inconstant is a perversion of perception, a perversion of mind, a perversion of view. 'Pleasant' with regard to the stressful... 'Self' with regard to not-self... 'Attractive' with regard to the unattractive is a perversion of perception, a perversion of mind, a perversion of view. These are the four perversions of perception, perversions of mind, perversions of view.

I.e. instead of looking at beautiful bodies (young), look at ugly bodies (old). One must shift their focus to the end of impermanence spectrum (death/ceasing) rather than to the beginning (arising/birth).

Hence my comment to auto, that asubha meditation is what you're supposed to focus on to remove sensual desires.

And don't forget that the Buddha didn't like noise and crowded monasteries either.

[Sam Vara]

Indeed it would be, if by "sensuality" we mean kāmacchanda rather than objects of sensuous experience.

One is simply just a subcategory of another. Sensual desire is a category of sensuous experience, they all fall under the category of form. And all form is to be rejected:

Indeed, but my point is that the purpose of the subcategorisation is in part that the types of rejection are different. We deal with lust for an object differently from how we deal with the object.

And before you say the problem doesn't rely on form, but craving for form, yes, but before one can see that, they need to experience dispassion for form.

Indeed. Dispassion for form means that the form can remain, we can be cognisant of it, and yet have no passion for it.

So again, why would the Buddha tell you to attend to something beautiful like say a beautiful body

He didn't, so far as I know, but I can think of plenty of circumstances when I might want to do exactly that, without danger of arousing sense desire.

To me, making form "unfit to play" and "demolishing it", is to focus on the asubha aspects, i.e. see it as decayed and naturally broken, aka seeing impermanence which leads to dispassion, the opposite of craving

In the absence of sutta or commentarial support for that, the most important words there are the first two.

[auto]

I don't understand your point, you're still supposed to master the signs of the mind as per Chef's cook sutta, and only deal with giving up signs all together at the end of the path, upon attaining arahantship. One cannot ignore the gradual training.

I don't say about ignoring gradual training. I should have left the signless out of the quote but thought perhaps then it is something to do with the context so i left it in in case i am out of the context with my quote.
Sense restraint -> nimitta
Restrained senses, craving will arise and the nimitta is there for grabbing thanks to the three poisons. Grasping is the characteristic of the attention(manasikara).
That is another thing, if the nimitta arises, even if it is a light, it should be graspable.

ps, i have no idea about Suttas by their head lines. I am used to the mn 1, sn 1 style.

also manasikara is by some translated 'reasoning'.

3.1.8. Wisdom and reasoning distinguished (cont.)
The king said: ‘What is the characteristic mark of reasoning, and what of wisdom?’

‘Reasoning has always comprehension as its mark; but wisdom has cutting off.’

Rājā āha—“kiṃlakkhaṇo, bhante nāgasena, manasikāro, kiṃlakkhaṇā paññā”ti? “Ūhanalakkhaṇo kho, mahārāja, manasikāro, chedanalakkhaṇā paññā”ti.

i already see i need more to learn, so i will learn

I don't fully understand your comment, are you saying that grasping is a result of the 3 poisons? If so I agree, but this isn't what you said earlier. Nimittas and grasping are two different things.

I would say grasping is a characteristic of unwise/improper attention.

Also do you have any more Rhys Davids suttas with that translation? Doesn't seem to be a common one for both Mr/Mrs Davids, http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/glosso ... sikara.htm

The form is in the sensuous world. With discipline, the sense organ is not let connect with the form. That doesn't constitute of understanding how the sense organ consciousness arises or ceases. Keeping this disconnection won't starve the form from arousing the sense organs in the future. Jhana doesn't have visible form, the form what is visible is in the sensuous world. The proper attention is a reference to the jhana and getting the 3 poison resulted form arise in the present when the sense organ is kept disconnected as of like pretending that the form doesn't exist. So when the nimitta arises it arises because of observing beautiful forms with proper attention.
i leave the grasping out, too much information.

i only know that sutta what translates manasikara that way.(i haven't searched it)

[Inedible]

Speaking of concentration, jhana, I think people here have ADHD. Oh look, something shiny.

[coconut]

I don't say about ignoring gradual training. I should have left the signless out of the quote but thought perhaps then it is something to do with the context so i left it in in case i am out of the context with my quote.
Sense restraint -> nimitta
Restrained senses, craving will arise and the nimitta is there for grabbing thanks to the three poisons. Grasping is the characteristic of the attention(manasikara).
That is another thing, if the nimitta arises, even if it is a light, it should be graspable.

ps, i have no idea about Suttas by their head lines. I am used to the mn 1, sn 1 style.

also manasikara is by some translated 'reasoning'.


i already see i need more to learn, so i will learn

I don't fully understand your comment, are you saying that grasping is a result of the 3 poisons? If so I agree, but this isn't what you said earlier. Nimittas and grasping are two different things.

I would say grasping is a characteristic of unwise/improper attention.

Also do you have any more Rhys Davids suttas with that translation? Doesn't seem to be a common one for both Mr/Mrs Davids, http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/glosso ... sikara.htm

The form is in the sensuous world. With discipline, the sense organ is not let connect with the form. That doesn't constitute of understanding how the sense organ consciousness arises or ceases. Keeping this disconnection won't starve the form from arousing the sense organs in the future. Jhana doesn't have visible form, the form what is visible is in the sensuous world. The proper attention is a reference to the jhana and getting the 3 poison resulted form arise in the present when the sense organ is kept disconnected as of like pretending that the form doesn't exist. So when the nimitta arises it arises because of observing beautiful forms with proper attention.
i leave the grasping out, too much information.

i only know that sutta what translates manasikara that way.(i haven't searched it)

In the end, it's identity view that drives our actions and cravings. The reason an Ariya attains jhanas is to remove all the distracting things like form, so they can verify that identity view is the cause of our motivation, intention, and cravings.

Identity view is what creates meaning, and the only reason we do anything is because we create meaning, otherwise our actions are just mechanical actions with no appeal or magic.

It's identity view that leads to story telling, creating meaning, and therefore intention and purpose which is what fuels craving, clinging, and becoming.

“And which are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external? There being ‘I am because of this (or: by means of this),’ there comes to be ‘I am here because of this,’ there comes to be ‘I am like this because of this’ … ‘I am otherwise because of this’ … ‘I am bad because of this’ … ‘I am good because of this’ … ‘I might be because of this’ … ‘I might be here because of this’ … ‘I might be like this because of this’ … ‘I might be otherwise because of this’ … ‘May I be because of this’ … ‘May I be here because of this’ … ‘May I be like this because of this’ … ‘May I be otherwise because of this’ … ‘I will be because of this’ … ‘I will be here because of this’ … ‘I will be like this because of this’ … ‘I will be otherwise because of this.’ These are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external.

https://suttacentral.net/an4.199/en/thanissaro

These are all forms of story telling and meaning creation that perpetuate our drive and existence.

Therefore the Ariya's jhana factors and their nimittas are born of stopping this proliferation of meaning-creation. No reason to do anything, so one begins to calm down.

[auto]

In the end, it's identity view that drives our actions and cravings. The reason an Ariya attains jhanas is to remove all the distracting things like form, so they can verify that identity view is the cause of our motivation, intention, and cravings.

Identity view is what creates meaning, and the only reason we do anything is because we create meaning, otherwise our actions are just mechanical actions with no appeal or magic.

It's identity view that leads to story telling, creating meaning, and therefore intention and purpose which is what fuels craving, clinging, and becoming.
..
These are all forms of story telling and meaning creation that perpetuate our drive and existence.

Therefore the Ariya's jhana factors and their nimittas are born of stopping this proliferation of meaning-creation. No reason to do anything, so one begins to calm down.

let me guess you think identity view is your sense of self?

[coconut]

The form is in the sensuous world. With discipline, the sense organ is not let connect with the form. That doesn't constitute of understanding how the sense organ consciousness arises or ceases. Keeping this disconnection won't starve the form from arousing the sense organs in the future. Jhana doesn't have visible form, the form what is visible is in the sensuous world. The proper attention is a reference to the jhana and getting the 3 poison resulted form arise in the present when the sense organ is kept disconnected as of like pretending that the form doesn't exist. So when the nimitta arises it arises because of observing beautiful forms with proper attention.
i leave the grasping out, too much information.

i only know that sutta what translates manasikara that way.(i haven't searched it)

Hey auto, I'm bumping this old post as I found something that may interest you. Apparently your belief that "so when the nimitta arises it arises because of observing beautiful forms with proper attention" comes from sujato's poor translation of the ambiguous word nimitta.

Nimitta is a word that changes meaning based on context, it's a word with multiple homonyms (meanings).

I believe Ven Varado understands this in detail, as he has like 20 definitions of nimitta depending on context, and ven sujato does not as ven sujato uses the translation "sign" or "foundation" for any instance of nimitta in any context which is wrong. That's like using the word "Address" (to speak to someone) in the context of Address (A location), you would get the wrong meaning if you used the wrong homonym. The fact ven sujato does this means he's not qualified to be a translator.

Here is Ven Varado's translation of the sutta you referenced:

Attachment, bhante, is a producer of abiding phenomena. Hatred is a producer of abiding phenomena. Undiscernment of reality is a producer of abiding phenomena.

"rāgo kho bhante nimittakaraṇo doso nimittakaraṇo moho nimittakaraṇo."

He defines "Abiding phenomena" as phenomena that arises and ceases (conditioned phenomena) and unabiding phenomena as phenomena that doesn't arise or cease.

Therefore his translation of that sutta implies that the 3 poisons produce conditioned/abiding phenomena, not signs, as ven sujato translates it.

His translation of this sutta explains it more:

He perceives all phenomena (sabbanimittāni) differently. He sees the visual sense differently, he sees visible objects differently…​

Therefore someone who attains "signless concentration" which is better translated as "unabiding/unconditioned concentration (nibbana)" does not see conditioned phenomena anymore.

I think ven sujato is a bad translator if he makes such a huge glaring mistake like this that leads to people misunderstanding the dhamma. Even I.B. Horner does not make mistakes like these, like using one translation for a word that has many homonyms.


See the source here under the nimitta section: https://pali-glossary.github.io/content ... l#_nimitta

[Ceisiwr]

On nimitta also worth a look: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/ni ... ction/5730

[coconut]

On nimitta also worth a look: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/ni ... ction/5730

I've seen that a long time ago, but knowing the homonyms is half the battle if you don't know which one to use in the right context, it's like finding the right puzzle piece. See Ven Varado's intro to his glossery:

This Glossary was originally conceived of as a way of supporting my own translations. Preparing it first of all involved gathering all instances of words in question together with their contexts. It would then usually become clear that words carried different meanings in different contexts. This was in accordance with the findings in Pāli dictionaries, which rarely consist of an explanation by a single word. The excerpts I found could then be divided into groups accordingly. Finding the correct English term for Pāli words when they are grouped on the same page turned out to be altogether easier than working with single passages or sentences and experimenting with terms in one’s head. By following this method, and sorting and resorting groups of quotes over days, months, or even years, continuously applying the find-and-replace tool, shifting backwards and forwards nearly two million words, it eventually confirmed or denied choices of my original renderings, and led to increasing confidence in my findings. Such a system of translation is only possible with computer leverage. With computers, Pāli studies have entered a new era.

We need to get this monk to translate the entire 4 nikayas. I already have his atthakavagga.

[auto]

He defines "Abiding phenomena" as phenomena that arises and ceases (conditioned phenomena) and unabiding phenomena as phenomena that doesn't arise or cease.

No, what he means is that the nimitta is term for phenomena what is regarded as existing thing instead of an everchanging condition.

Nimitta can mean 'abiding phenomenon,' which means a phenomenon that is regarded as an actual, existing thing instead of an everchanging condition.

Abiding phenomena are illusions. These illusions are produced by attachment, hatred and undiscernment.

Abiding phenomena are illusions produced by attachment, hatred, and undiscernment of reality (rāgo kho bhante nimittakaraṇo doso nimittakaraṇo moho nimittakaraṇo, S.4.296-7).

He could be thinking that the nimittakaraṇo and animitta.. is certain way of perceiving. Which could mean he is not anymore on '3 poisons are producers' and what he writes next is what he originally wanted to impute to the term nimitta.

A meditator can choose to not focus on abiding phenomena, and instead focus on 'the unabiding phenomenon' (animitta dhātu M.1.297)

I still think greed is developing nimitta, which when developed and jhana attained, greed can be given up.

Take a mendicant who, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected.Idhāvuso visākha, bhikkhu vivicceva kāmehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakkaṃ savicāraṃ vivekajaṃ pītisukhaṃ paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharati.
With this they give up greed, and the underlying tendency to greed does not lie within that.Rāgaṃ tena pajahati, na tattha rāgānusayo anuseti.

[Assaji]

Is it because they had a purer mind? What role does purity of mind (by which I mean lack of Kleshas, the ten defilements listed in Abhidhamma) have to play?

In most cases, people confuse jhāna with exhilarated, spaced out or blacked out states. This doesn't require any purity of mind.

However, if you want to attain a real jhāna, the only way to it is to remove the five hindrances (nivarana). This can sometimes happen spontaneously, but if you want to save time, you should carefully and precisely deal with hindrances. The methods of their removal are briefly described in the Ānāpānassati chapter of the Paṭisambhidāmagga.

If you get a proper guidance, in case of good initial conditions it doesn't take long, - perhaps just days.

[Mr. Seek]

I think one needs to have a lot of prerequisites covered, basically the ones suggested in DN 2. But then again, jhana means different things to different people...

To burn away...