Keren Arbel Jhana

[Ceisiwr]

Deep sigh... of course it answers your question... just not to your liking.

I asked you if someone who is drinking is being abstinent. As of yet that remains unanswered. If you can’t understand how your reply did not offer a reply to that query, then there isn’t really any point in discussing things further.

[BrokenBones]

Deep sigh... of course it answers your question... just not to your liking.

I asked you if someone who is drinking is being abstinent. As of yet that remains unanswered. If you can’t understand how your reply did not offer a reply to that query, then there isn’t really any point in discussing things further.

Geez... I actually answered your original question. An analogy can only be taken so far before it becomes ridiculous. You have actually read my answer? Only you seem to be lost in some sort of parallel universe.

[Sam Vara]

Moderator note: could participants in this thread please return to the topic?

Further meta discussion and personalised point-scoring will be removed.

Thanks.

[Pondera]

...
If I'm wearing a simple coat and someone prods me with a stick it's a 'thorn'.

If I'm wearing a super thick coat and they prod me then I'm still aware of it going on but it no longer bothers me.

Entering first jhana and the early stages of settling into it is the simple coat... becoming established in first jhana is the super thick coat.

That's exactly how it is. If people were serious meditators and had personal experience, they would come to a fascinating discovery that the suttas mean what they say, in plain simple terms.

I once was in Asia meditating in a group in the large meditation hall. A loud thunderstorm snuck up on us, where you never knew it came, no sound of rain, no visual of lightning, the first moment we knew of the storm, was the loudest thunder I've ever heard.

Large meditation hall, lots of people in it, I opened my eyes when the thunder struck, I was completely calm and unperturbed. I heard it, understood it was loud, but was not startled in the least. Exactly like the simile above with muted response with progressively thicker coat. All around me I can see and feel people jump out of their seats and visibly startled by the thunder, loudest I've ever heard that suddenly came out of nowhere with no warning.

Lots of meditation charges up your jhana battery, and it's like you get air bags that cushion you from large shocks,

That's why those war elephant similes work in MN 125, how they train in jhanas 1-4 to be resilient and imperturbable to the physical trauma of war.

When the suttas talk about imperturbability where they wouldn't have heard that loud thunder, those meditators would have been in an arupa samadhi at the time, or the 9th attainment. But if they were IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO ATTAIN those formless states, then they would hear the thunder, and that's the distinction made in AN 10.72 that almost no one seems to notice.

also, another real example my story of my taiji teacher colliding with a speeding vehicle.

http://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/20 ... rt-vs.html

“These two, mendicants, are not startled by a crack of thunder. What two? A mendicant who has ended defilements; and a thoroughbred elephant. These are the two who are not startled by a crack of thunder.”

https://suttacentral.net/an2.52-63/en/s ... ript=latin

[Pondera]

Someone doesn't want to answer a question....



... I don't blame them though. It's a tricky question. Entire historical sects of Buddhism were schismed over whether there was still cognition in the cessation of perception and feeling. If those sects couldn't get along...

it’s the ”attainment of” (samāpattiyā), not the activity within that samadhi itself that is a thorn

On what grounds do you separate the initial penetration into the samādhi from the dwelling in said samādhi? Both are referred to as "the samāpatti" in the case of the formless. Where is the precedent for considering the samāpatti to be only the initial penetration?

Case in point: in Chinese, there is often absolutely no difference between samādhi and samāpatti, particularly in the case of the early translations, and whenever you see samādhi you often have the choice of understanding it as samāpatti. Why? Because a samāpatti is necessarily a samādhi and does not refer to exclusively to the initial penetration into said samādhi, but also refers to the dwelling in it. I am open to this being wrong, but you'll have to show me where you find precedent for the quoted statement.

Is it possible you are confusing samāpanna with samāpatti?

You are in disagreement with the sutras

“It could be, Ānanda, that a mendicant might gain a state of immersion like this. They wouldn’t perceive earth in earth, water in water, fire in fire, or air in air. And they wouldn’t perceive the dimension of infinite space in the dimension of infinite space, the dimension of infinite consciousness in the dimension of infinite consciousness, the dimension of nothingness in the dimension of nothingness, or the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. They wouldn’t perceive this world in this world, or the other world in the other world. And they wouldn’t perceive what is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, or explored by the mind. And yet they would still perceive.”

https://suttacentral.net/an11.7/en/suja ... ript=latin

“Could it be, sir, that a mendicant might gain a state of immersion like this. They wouldn’t be aware of the eye or sights, ear or sounds, nose or smells, tongue or tastes, or body or touches. They wouldn’t be aware of earth in earth, water in water, fire in fire, or air in air. And they wouldn’t be aware of the dimension of infinite space in the dimension of infinite space, the dimension of infinite consciousness in the dimension of infinite consciousness, the dimension of nothingness in the dimension of nothingness, or the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. They wouldn’t be aware of this world in this world, or the other world in the other world. And they wouldn’t be aware of what is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, or explored by the mind. Yet they would be aware?”
“It could be, Ānanda.”
“But how could this be?”
“Ānanda, it’s when a mendicant is aware: ‘This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.’
That’s how a mendicant might gain a state of immersion like this. They wouldn’t be aware of the eye or sights, ear or sounds, nose or smells, tongue or tastes, or body or touches. … And they wouldn’t be aware of what is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, or explored by the mind. Yet they would be aware.”

https://suttacentral.net/an11.8/en/suja ... ript=latin

Care to explain why?

[Pondera]

This is Buddhaghosa’s instructions on how to practice the earth kasina. I’ve read the book. Don’t take me for a fool.

the retina burn thing you claim Visuddhimagga is suggesting is wrong i think.

It says the nimitta will be presented to mind door and acts as a javana(impulsive consciousness). If it would be retina burn it is eye door.

30. When, while he is developing it in this way, it comes into focus9 as he
adverts with his eyes shut exactly as it does with his eyes open, then the learning
sign is said to have been produced. After its production he should no longer sit
in that place;10 he should return to his own quarters and go on developing it
sitting there.

9. “‘Comes into focus’: becomes the resort of mind-door impulsion” (Vism-mhþ 122).

also its not the image, it is the adverting mechanics what are same as eyes open, what if interrupted by some stray object, can be forgotten then need go back to the place you got the adverting, eyes open. I have already told you that before. I don't know why you not check things over again, you might learn something new and give up wrong view. Is it going with the ages old dogma so comfortable?

if not understand what are these mechanics, it is 'apprehending the sign'. Which is about doing the same thing with the mind what eyes do. Its something you haven't picked up reading visuddhimagga.
+ its not just about watching object, you got to specifically use your eyes and gaze. Its basics of meditation in general.

So he should develop it by
apprehending the sign (nimitta), keeping his eyes open moderately, as if he were
seeing the reflection of his face (mukha-nimitta) on the surface of a lookingglass.
29. The colour should not be reviewed. The characteristic should not be given
attention.8 But rather, while not ignoring the colour, attention should be given
by setting the mind on the [name] concept as the most outstanding mental
datum, relegating the colour to the position of a property of its physical support.
..

Well thank you auto. But I’ve developed the kasina. The blue kasina and red kasina. And I’ve felt full body rapture from head to toe. And I’ve felt the ensuing sukha that comes from it. However I know of another way where I can generate rapture and pleasure alongside a certain samadhi that leads me directly to insight into the three marks.

So whereas you assume I am ignorant on certain matters, I happen to be quite knowledgeable. Why don’t you listen to me, instead of me listening to you?

[Pondera]

I was asking for your position on the cessation of perception & feeling. When in that attainment, is there perception & feeling?

I think you're too attached to jhanas & beyond as being static states. Life's not like that... maybe you're trying to take an impermanent thing as permanent.

It's also off topic... the article is about the jhanas.

As has already been pointed out, you are dodging the question. Perhaps another. Do you think someone who is drinking alcohol is being abstinent?

I can answer in his defence. No! A person in nirodha samapatti does not experience any of the six senses.

Okay. So what’s your point?

[Pondera]

for cessation of perception and feeling, it’s the ”attainment of” (samāpattiyā), not the activity within that samadhi itself that is a thorn.

in this case, sounds are thorns while one is in the process of trying to attain. Note that same qualifer of “attainment” is not applied to the 4 jhanas, and note once again the 4 formless attainments are missing.

Am I to gather from this that for you perceptions & feelings are a thorn to those who are trying to enter nirodha-samāpatti, but whilst in the attainment itself there is perception & feeling? A curious logic to me, if so.

if the 4 jhanas were uninterruptible frozen states like the 9th attainment, then they would also need that qualifier of the ”attainment of” (samāpattiyā) to indicate that the thorn is happening before the freeze, not during.

I'm not sure what your thinking is here, but the parallel does essentially have this.

See above. Perception and awareness are existent in nirodha samapatti. Have you ever experienced it? Can you elaborate on what KIND of perception exists? What KIND of awareness exists?

[BrokenBones]

I think you're too attached to jhanas & beyond as being static states. Life's not like that... maybe you're trying to take an impermanent thing as permanent.

It's also off topic... the article is about the jhanas.

As has already been pointed out, you are dodging the question. Perhaps another. Do you think someone who is drinking alcohol is being abstinent?

I can answer in his defence. No! A person in nirodha samapatti does not experience any of the six senses.

Okay. So what’s your point?

Hi Pondera

I actually answered no but qualified it with a 'yes'... when the attainment is fragile there exists a thorn that may or may not knock one out of the state.

[Coëmgenu]

Care to explain why?

I'm sorry, Pondera, but I don't think you have a clue what I am talking about, based on your reply thus far. It is best to respond to what I say instead of responding to something that you imagine I might be saying.

Why did you think quoting those two suttas was relevant? It seems like you have no clue what I was talking about, but I'll give you an opportunity to try to contextualize yourself.

[nirodh27]

Forgive me those who asked for a response on another topic, but since this was already half written and I had all the references, it was really very easy and fast for me to write. Unfortunately, it will be choked full of english mistakes!

In the jhanas as presented in the Visuddhimagga, it is said that the five sense are absent and that the mind that is such concentrated on one single point cannot hear sounds. This seems also the established theravadin position well before the composition of Buddhagosa's work. While this is unquestionably so for the formless states, this seems not the case for the four jhanas as described in the Nikayas. This is how the argument usually is been made (taken by the book of Ayasma Khumara, I can't find the Tze-Fu Kuan direct quote):

However, some among them claim they are going by the Suttas, citing a statement in Kaṇṭaka Sutta (AN10.72): “Sound is a thorn (kaṇṭaka) to the first jhāna.”1 (Both “thorn” and “kaṇṭaka” carry the figurative meaning of “source of discomfort” or “bother”.) They seem to read the statement as “Sound hinders one from attaining the first jhāna”. Then upon attaining the first jhāna (and by logic the rest too), one isn’t supposed to hear any sound. But is this view supported by that sutta statement?

Let's see why, in my opinion, this is not the case. Let's be clear, the fact that one can hear or not sounds or that the senses are completely shut-down is not essential to the practice of Jhana in my view. Since the work is to produce thought of renunciation, ill-will, and non-cruelty as narrated in MA102, even if the mind is the only sense active, you might be able to do the job in both cases even if I have reserves about the role of Kaya. Still, it seems to me abundantly clear that there's no shut-down of the five senses in the Nikayas for the 1st Jhana. It is not either that the focus of the Jhanas is to remain aware of external sounds or there's some merit in remaining aware of those sounds. The message of the Nikayas, as we will see, is one: the less sound, the better.. Of course also the typology of sound makes difference.

Let's start with a passage in the sutta that actually presents the thorn simile. Here we see that even elder monks and great disciples wants to change place foreseeing that heavy sounds and disturbances will arrive:

Then the well-known virtuous senior elders, the great disciples, heard that the Licchavis of Vesālī, with their great power and royal might, and loudly singing, were coming out of Vesālī to approach the Buddha and pay homage. They thought, “Noise is a thorn to absorption. The World-honored One has declared that noise is a thorn to absorption. Let us instead go to Gosiṅga Grove. Staying there we will not be disturbed, and will stay secluded and alone to sit in meditation.” The well-known virtuous senior elders, the great disciples, went to Gosiṅga Grove. There, undisturbed, they stayed secluded and alone to sit in meditation.

This could sound unimportant, but is crucial. Even great disciples, that supposedly can enter Jhana at will and without trouble, needs to depart from sounds to practice them. That would not be the case if Jhana is a shutdown of the senses, at least for highly skilled monks. Elders and great disciples would be able to enter Jhanas as will and avoid the disturbance. This is strange. Especially in the Pali version, the monks are a little group. Instead of sending the novice monks to the forest, they go to the forest leaving the sangha.

As we will see, the link between the thorn statement and the elder monks agreeing to go somewhere else is the key to understand the thorn simile. Most of you will have already undestood my argument by simply reading the passage quoted above: to remove the thorn, you simply have to go to a secluded and silent place

But to accept this simple conclusion, first we have to fully unpack the thorn simile. We will see that the main (only) significance of the "thorn" is that is precisely something that you need to remove if you have a certain intent. . This is valid for every occurrence of thorns in MA84 (or the parallel of Kaṇṭaka-sutta, which have only ten thorns listed) while the meaning of destroyer (which is the Visuddhimagga thesis, sounds "destroys" your abiding into first jhana) is not valid for every occurrence. For example:

to one leading a celibate life, looking at the female form is a thorn; (MA84)

Here we can see that of course one can still see a female form and, even if the looking is occurring, he is still leading a celibate life. It doesn't destroy the celibate life. So this example invalidates the destroyer position. Let's see another one:

Again, there are three thorns: the thorn of desire, the thorn of anger, and the thorn of ignorance. An arahant, who has eradicated the taints has already cut off these three thorns, knows that they have been pulled out by the root and destroyed so that they will not arise again. (MA84)

Here we see that first, the simile is about removing them, to pull out the torn. So we're right on track. The practitioner in this case have a disturbance. A thorn. That disturbance doesn't make impossible to remove the thorn and the Visuddhimagga interpretation of a thorn that destroy what it pierces is incorrect in this case. We have (supposedly) all those three torns in our foot, we have the thorn of ignorance in our foot and yet we are not destroyed and also our possibility to get enlightnment is not destroyed and we have the opportunity to remove it.

The thorn in this case is also slowly removed, so in some cases the simile also supports graduality, it is not an on/off switch. Surely anger would be less of a thorn for an non-returner and a Sotapanna have less ignorance than a Worlding.

Let's take another one, which instead supports the destroyer position:

to one entering the concentration by the cessation of perception and knowing, perception and knowing are a thorn. In Nirodha attainment, the thorn to remove is precisely perception itself.

Of course, in a narrow sense having perception and feelings is impossible in the state called the ending of perception and feelings. Even if in the second jhana having a thought will not destroy your second jhana if you swiftly remove the thought by renewing your intention to noble silence, in this case, which seems the most stable meditation of all the ones proposed in the Nikayas, it could well be argued that you're clearly out of Nirodha Samapatthi at the first occurrence of a perception. It could be argued that even here one can have a disturbance with the coming back of perceptions that are swiftly removed, but for how the attainment is depicted in the canon, the first case is more likely.

What we have to make of all this? That the simile is not at all about what have to be present or not present to technically be in a particular state, but it is there to tell us what we have to remove and for every case the solution to be adopted is clearly stated in the suttas. For some of the thorns, and it has to be expected that a state of cessation have this the removal is a sort of destroyer, for others the thorn is a simply a disturbance like we have seen with the celibate life or with the three poisons and many others in the list. The more you go upwards to the list of samadhi attainments, it has to be expected that the torn is yes/no switch more akin to a pin pushed into a baloon since you're in very unified mind-states with very little fabrication going on.

From what we will see, there's no reason to consider sounds to be like a pin in a baloon that makes the baloon to explode. A thorn, as we have seen, can be a disturbance too and every thorn must be seen in detail to undestand the nature of the thorn, but in both cases the lowest common denominator is that you have to remove it. This we can see is valid for every thorn presented by the Buddha, while the "destroyer interpretation" is not and, at least for the last nirodha attainment, not even the disturbance option seems always right.

But we should also be clear that is abundantly clear how the first jhana thorn is removed. We have many occasion in the suttas (the elders going to Gosinga being one) in which we see how the Buddha prescribes the removal of the thorn that we are so interested about: simply go and find a silent place. It is actually there many times explicited and almost before every jhanic meditation the Buddha tells you to go to a secluded and remote place.

You too should do your part. Go and sit in meditation (jhana) and contemplation in a secluded place, in a forest, at the base of a tree, in an empty and quiet place. Do not be negligent, make diligent effort, lest you [come to] regret it later. This is my instruction, this is my teaching! (MA76)

Mahāmoggallāna, what are the conditions of which I say one should associate with? Mahāmoggallāna, secluded places: I say that one should associate with these conditions. Beneath trees in mountain forests, empty and peaceful places, high crags and rocky caves without noise, remote places free of evil, free of people, places conducive to meditation: Mahā-moggallāna, I say that one should associate with these conditions. (MA83)

Shutdown the senses is pure overkill and the Buddha doesn't ask you to do that. If we want to put this request in the sound thorn, we could very well put that request also to the monk that isleading a celibate life: when you see a woman, learn to shutdown the senses as well. But the solution of course is way more easy in both cases and, as a bonus, we don't have to invent it: the Buddha tells us and teached that to the senior elders that promply remembered. Just go somewhere else just like for avoiding female sights you have to look somewhere else and avoid the village.

Just re-read the passage of the elder monks that wants to change place because of the incoming sounds. They remember the teaching "sound is a thorn to jhana" and their immediate reaction is "let's go somewhere else". Those are elderly monks and great disciples, they have the utmost knowledge of the teachings. And their reactions is to go somewhere else. This is how actually the thorn is removed and this instruction is present in MA76, MA83 and many other places in the canon. Very simple, very straightforward. Let's see the Pali Nikaya (AN10.72)

“These several well-known Licchavis have plunged deep into the Great Wood to see the Buddha. Driving a succession of fine carriages, they’re making a dreadful racket. But the Buddha has said that sound is a thorn to absorption. Let’s go to the Gosiṅga Sal Wood. There we can meditate comfortably, free of noise and crowds.” Then those venerables went to the Gosiṅga Sal Wood, where they meditated comfortably, free of noise and crowds.

Then the Buddha said to the mendicants:

“Mendicants, where are Cāla, Upacāla, Kakkaṭa, Kaṭimbha, Kaṭa, and Kaṭissaṅga? Where have these senior disciples gone?”

And the mendicants told him what had happened. “Good, good, mendicants! It’s just as those great disciples have so rightly explained. I have said that sound is a thorn to absorption.

Again here we would have to really do a strech of imagination to conclude that when the Buddha teaches "sound is a thorn for first jhana" he is actually saying that we have to get so concentrated that we have to shut-down the ear faculty. We have a small group of elder monks that remembers the teaching "sound is a thorn", they go in a secluded place free of noise and the Buddha praises their behaviour by saying that the great disciples have rightly undestood. Understood what? how to remove the thorn.

Let's see other examples in detail, we will see that the focus is about the fact that you have to remove the thorn: how? it is not stated for some of the thorns, but for one that knows the Dhamma how to remove the thorn is evident. In many of those examples both a narrow sense (like mind-moments) and a general sense is intended, but, as we have seen, not all the examples grant us the luxury to favor one way or the other. We don't have to make the error to read all those examples as narrow and technical, as true or false statements, because that will betray the thorn simile real intent, but also we have not to negate that in some cases there's small room for interpretation and those examples can suggest a yes or no. Let's see:

To one who is keeping morality, breaches of morality are a thorn: in this case the breaches of morality are a thorn in the sense that the monk have to confess to the Sangha and amend for his breach. This breach could follow the monk as a shadow and an unvirtuos or guilty mind is an hindrance to the holy life. You have to remove it asap. It is important to note that a single breach, a minor offense, doesn't support a destroyer position. We can rightly say that a person that commits minor offenses is still maintaining his morality, it is not a black and white issue. The meaning is that a breaches must be amended, to mantain the sense that you have to remove it that is the only meaning shared by all the similes.

to one cultivating [the perception] of foulness, an appearance of purity is a thorn. In this case again, to one that wants to cultivate foulness, an appearance of purity is something that you need to remove, (but, again, nowhere it is stated or implied that you have to shutdown the senses).

to one cultivating loving-kindness, anger is a thorn. One that wants to cultivate metta, needs to remove anger asap. You need to shut-down the senses or anger? Seems very drastic. When one have an unwholesome thoughts many strategies are outlined in MN20 like seeing drawbacks, calming the mind, look somewhere else. One little episode of anger will not stop a monk to cultivate loving-kindness, but maybe a great offense could. Here we have a mixed example, of course in a technical and narrow sense one person that is angry is not at that moment cultivating loving kindness, but here the Buddha is not speaking of a technical switch of the mind (he's not teaching mind-moments), but of an ongoing intent that one episode cannot destroy, but of course you want to remove asap because the mind can rapidly learn to appreciate anger.

to one abstaining from liquor, drinking liquor is a thorn. Again, one thing to stop asap, remove even small quantities. One that works on abstaining from liquor, every time he drinks a liquor it will find pleasure and the mind will incline accordingly. Still, this example can be read in boh ways. In a narrow and technical sense, in which of course abstaining from liquor and drinking liquor cannot happen at the same time (but it is truly a teaching worth suggesting? Is the Buddha capitain obvious?) in another, which I think it is the most useful, it could be read in the sense that if one wants to lead a life of abstinence from liquor just like for the celibate life, even a sip once in a while is dangerous and so it has to be removed. But no matter how you read this, the point as we have seen is another and valid in both cases: those events and conditions should be removed (But not by shutting down taste btw!).

As we have seen, strategies about the thorns are not the shutdown of the senses, but varies a lot. In the case of the thorn of the first Jhana, we have seen that the strategy adopted is going somewhere else where sound is not a disturbance. The case is strengthened from the fact that we actually have a case in which you have to remove perception of forms, sounds, odor to enter that state, but it is not the first jhana!

to one entering the sphere of [boundless] space, the perception of form is a thorn

This is expected, since the formless spheres are defined as places in which forms are not present. This is consistent with AN 9.37 that clearly states that it is in the formless attainments that one cannot hear sound and it is divorced from forms, sounds, odors, tactile sensations. This give credit to those how says that the tradition have misread the jhanas transforming them into actual formless attainments.

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN9_37.html

Forms are sound, odors, tastes, sights. Here, the thorn is actually the five senses and the five senses are removed, not there anymore. To do that in the first jhanas is overkill, is not needed, is nowhere suggested, it is beyond due time. We know that one in a million practitioner is said to be able to enter first jhana for the Visuddhimagga. But how we reconcile to the Buddha teaching that to young monks? And why no istruction whatsoever is found in helping the novice monks to do so and no direct clear statement in SN, SA, MN, MA? But the instructions, since the Buddha is a wonderful teacher, has been there all the time and are actually everywhere: go to a secluded place without people and noise. And it is something that the Buddha always did himself and suggested:

These tree roots are indeed lovely and inspiring, with little sound and little noise, with an atmosphere free from people and remote from humans, being suitable for solitary retreat, just like [the type of places where] I used to visit the Blessed One. (MN 89)

These tree roots are quiet and without noise, secluded, without disturbance, without people, being suitable for sitting in meditation. In such places I have frequently met the Buddha. (MĀ 213)

Keep company with noble friends,
dwell in a lonely practice-place,
secluded, having little noise,
with food be moderate. (Suttanipata 2.11)

All the other jhanic thorns are simply that: a thing that you have to remove. I would argue that until fourth jhana the thorns are more like disturbances while when you start to do arupas all became more black and white. After all, impure jhanas with some difficults are depicted in the canon and are still called jhanas, while it is hard to even imagine an impure Nirodha samapatti (well, it is actually hard to imagine Nirodha samapatti).

But this is about first jhana so we don't need to worry about that. To affirm that you have to remove the ear faculty in first jhana will clearly need more stronger arguments and the thorn argument is invalid, it would actually need you to ignore what the text says: the removal of the thorn usually is simply to stay in the Sangha which is usually a very silent place (EĀ 43.7, DĀ 27, DN2), but if there's disturbance is to go in a quiet and lonely place. Do everything to remove the thorn. To sustain that after you have removed the thorn, you have also to impede the ear faculty, other arguments have to be made.

If you want to learn first to shutdown the earing faculty, do so. But if we strictly follows the Nikayas and the Agamas, I have found nothing nothing that prompts you to do that in first Jhana, probably simply because if you have found a secluded place without noise (or you have ear-plugs), there's no need to to that at all. As I've said, it is pure overkill and it could also actually impede to do the practice as teached by the Buddha. The other message is clear: you will have to want silence, you will want little to no noise around when you pratice, the Buddha highly praised places without noise and pretended his sangha to be without the thorn to support practice.

Suttas are not so drastic to ask the body and the faculties disappear, since we actually have many passages that links the jhanas to kaya (I read that as "oneself", as the body-mind aggregate as a whole), could even be detrimental to your practice and pacification of a being that is not only mind, but also flesh and flesh needs to be calmed and could very well need the piti of seclusion and samadhi. The Buddha says that sounds are a thorn, it says nothing about internal tactile sensations or sense bases being thorns of the first four jhanas.

The teaching to remove the thorn is actually to go to an empty place or, else, if not possible, be tolerant of a certain dose of sound which is a quality needed for samma-samadhi.

“Bhikkhus, possessed of five things a bhikkhu is unable to abide engaging in proper composure (sammā·samādhiṁ upasampajja viharituṁ).34 What five? Here, a bhikkhu is intolerant of [visual] forms, intolerant of sounds, intolerant of odours, intolerant of tastes, intolerant of physical sensations. Possessed with these five things a bhikkhu is unable to abide engaging in proper composure.”

“Bhikkhus, possessed of five things a bhikkhu is able to abide engaging in proper composure. What five? Here, a bhikkhu is tolerant of [visual] forms, tolerant of sounds, tolerant of odours, tolerant of tastes, tolerant of physical sensations. Possessed with these five things a bhikkhu is able to abide engaging in proper composure.”

In other words, to abide engaging in proper composure, i.e. the four jhānas, we need to accept five-sense impingements. After all, as Ajahn Chah and Sayadaw U Tejaniya both say, “Sound is just sound.”

Please read it: to abide in samma-samadhi you need to be tolerant of sounds. Here we don't even even the enter, but while you're staying in samma-samadhi (= four jhanas) you have to be tolerant of sounds. That is a quality that you have to learn sooner or later in group retires if you want to practice there.

And after all, if internal mental sound isn't present in the Jhanas and it would be impossible to read other minds. This is why second Jhana is called noble silence: precisely because even the internal sound of thoughts is stopped (but with the shutting down of the internal hearing sense to enter first jhana, this passage will lose any sense whatsoever). Let's read Ayasma Khumara on this:

A fairly good notion is found in Saṅgārava Sutta (AN3.60), where the Buddha explains about mind-reading.

In one of the ways, the mind reader ... hears the sound of the diffusion of thought (vitakkavipphārasaddaṁ) as one is thinking and examining (vitakkayato vicārayato) [some matter] and then declares: ‘Your thought is thus, such is what you are thinking, your mind is in such and such a state.’ And even if he makes many declarations, they are exactly so and not otherwise. (NDB, p264) [Parentheses, emphasis and italics are added.]

This shows that vitakka creates mental sound that such a mind-reader can apparently hear.

Taking again from Ayasma Khumara, it seems clear to me that in the case of the thorn example the best translation of sadda in those circumstances is not sound, but noise. This is clearly the case also in many of the examples of the thorns. If we translate sound as noise, all makes a lot more sense. Try to re-read my arguments with noise in mind and everything will go in its own place even better.

paṭhamassa jhānassa saddo kaṇṭako. Although sadda generally means “sound”, it can also specifically mean “noise”. In fact, this may be the actual meaning here going by the context in the sutta, in which the Buddha spoke in response to an occasion where many well-known Licchavis who arrived to see him were uccāsaddā mahāsaddā, literally “of high sound, of great sound”. In other words, they were very noisy. In NDB, sadda is translated as “noise”.

So we have similes about sound that simply doesn't indicate that sound cannot be heard (the buddha have all the Pali words to say that sound cannot be heard in first Jhana. A list of five ayatanas or kamaguna, or simply saying to abandon forms would do the trick). We don't have instruction of how to do the actual shut-down the senses. We have elder monks and great disciples that to remove the thorn, instead of shutting down the senses, immediatly think to simply change the place of meditation after they recalled the Buddha's teaching about sounds and jhana and the Buddha praises them precisely because they have done something that he teached. We have the Buddha that to practice Jhana tells you to go to a secluded place without sound. We have the Buddha that to avoid sounds goes to the forest to avoid noise.

Going to a secluded and quiet place is the removal of the thorn which is the only solution proposed in the sutta in which the simile is presented, the rest must be demonstrated in other ways.

So the initial phrase that Khumara attributes to no-sound supporters:

They seem to read the statement as “Sound hinders one from attaining the first jhāna”

is not incorrect if taken with the meaning of hamper, interfere else the actions of the elder monks will make very little sense. They had the fear to get hindered by strong sounds (at the same time, they are not hindered by very little sounds and they usually stays in the Sangha to do jhana, which is good for my argument because that means that some sound is acceptable, monks are not ghosts even if they are very silent). But only if this is not taken in a very narrow (switch on/off) sense (because we have many example that hardly reconcile with a narrow sense and because little noise is allowed and one have also to be tolerant when he abides in jhanas, I will not repeat all the argument here) and, most important of all, the simile is not speaking about the shutdown of the senses, but of finding places without sounds (like rocky caves), because less sound, the better since sounds, some sounds most than others (imagine what disturbance can be meditating near a little waterfall or a small continuous watercourse) makes jhanas uselessly more difficult to obtain.

[frank k]

Is that clear now?

What you've explained you've explained pretty clearly. I don't have any gripes with it. The issue is I've not explained myself clearly, it seems.

When you said, "it’s the 'attainment of' (samāpattiyā), not the activity within that samadhi itself that is a thorn," I took you as suggesting that samāpatti only refers to the initial attainment of the samādhi and does not refer to the dwelling in it, then I asked you on what grounds you suggest this. Is this not what you suggested?

samāpatti is nominative, a noun, 'attainment'.
samāpattiyā, which is what AN 10.72 uses, can be instrumental, dative, etc., and is referring to the process of attaining that attainment. Sound can only be a thorn for cessation of perception and feeling in the process of attaining, once they're in the attainment, it's a state uninterruptible by sound, fire, etc.

The four jhanas are different than the 9th attainment in that sounds are a thorn both in the process of trying to attain, and within the attainment itself where sound is a thorn. The 10 examples in the sutta, were deliberately crafted to show that the thorn was happening in activities that were 'in the live process WHILE doing that activity', and not the 'process that preceded it of trying to attain that activity'.

[frank k]

her book is really good, i'm about half way through it right now.
Unfortunately no one wants to spend 75$ for a book, so it's never going to get wide circulation.

Some of the points are really good. However some of her arguments make little sense, such as claiming that vivicceva means discrimination instead of seclusion in the jhana formula.

Ven Analayo discusses the vivicceva point and others in his essay here: https://journals.equinoxpub.com/BSR/art ... 1649/pdf_1
I don’t agree with the entirety of his article either though.

I did a quick read of Analayo's article, based on that quick read, all of his criticisms seem legitimate to me.
I also agree with him that Arbel goes too far in her conclusion, but despite that, Arbel's research and thesis has much to offer, and I wouldn't dismiss it just because viveka instrumental case (the one where 'discrimination' would be more justified) isn't used.
She may not be able to justify viveka as discrimination in first jhana based on sutta passage support with similar usage, but her conclusion that the kamehi in first jhana is a result of wisdom (as opposed to for example brute force will power temporarily suppressing defilements) is correct.

For example, the sutta titled "first jhana": AN 6.73
73. First jhāna (1st) (⤴)
73. Paṭhamata-j-jhāna-sutta
73. First jhāna (1st)
“Cha, bhikkhave, dhamme appahāya abhabbo paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharituṃ.
“monks, without giving up these [bad] dharmas you can’t enter and remain in the first jhāna.
Katame cha?
What six?
Kāma-c-chandaṃ,
1. Desire for sensual pleasures,
byāpādaṃ,
2. ill will,
thina-middhaṃ,
3. dullness and drowsiness,
uddhacca-kukkuccaṃ,
4. restlessness and remorse,
vicikicchaṃ,
5. doubt,
kāmesu kho panassa ādīnavo
6. And the drawbacks of sensual pleasures
na yathā-bhūtaṃ samma-p-paññāya su-diṭṭho hoti.
have not been {well-seen}, as-they-actually-are, (with) right-discernment.
Ime kho, bhikkhave, cha dhamme appahāya abhabbo paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharituṃ.
Without giving up these six [bad] dharmas you can’t enter and remain in the first jhāna.

[frank k]

...
“These two, mendicants, are not startled by a crack of thunder. What two? A mendicant who has ended defilements; and a thoroughbred elephant. These are the two who are not startled by a crack of thunder.”

https://suttacentral.net/an2.52-63/en/s ... ript=latin
[/quote]

nice find.

[Coëmgenu]

Is that clear now?

What you've explained you've explained pretty clearly. I don't have any gripes with it. The issue is I've not explained myself clearly, it seems.

When you said, "it’s the 'attainment of' (samāpattiyā), not the activity within that samadhi itself that is a thorn," I took you as suggesting that samāpatti only refers to the initial attainment of the samādhi and does not refer to the dwelling in it, then I asked you on what grounds you suggest this. Is this not what you suggested?

samāpatti is nominative, a noun, 'attainment'.
samāpattiyā, which is what AN 10.72 uses, can be instrumental, dative, etc., and is referring to the process of attaining that attainment.

Yes. This is what I'm questioning. On what grounds do you say that the word "samāpatti" or its declensions are referring to the process of attaining that attainment and not the dwelling in that attainment itself? This requires a further clarificatory question.

When you say "process of attaining that attainment" are you referring to the moment that the attainment is entered, i.e. the moment of penetration, or the first time the attainment is entered for the practitioner? I took you to mean "any time you enter the samāpatti, the samāpatti itself is merely the entering/penetrating and is never the dwelling/abiding."