I’ve been doing pali+english audits of V&V passages for years now, it’s quite a large collection, and I need to organize it better before I share it on here. But yes, I should have a table of contents that highlights the cases where it’s particularly obvious V&V must be “thinking and evaluation”.
Can you give an example of a mentalist where it’s an amazing trick that looks like mind reading, that anyone can do?
I watched several of lior suchard’s videos, read his book as well,
and as far as I can tell, it’s no mentalist trick, but the power of samadhi. For entertainment purposes, he says he’s a mentalist, and I’m sure he has carefully studied and practiced the mentalist techniques (body cues, sublimnal influencing, etc), but the things he does on the videos, predicting the future winner of a professional team sports outcome, mind reading people’s ATM card numbers, having 100% accuracy rate in “guess which hand is holding the ball”, and ability to manipulate multiple members audience “free will”, it’s samadhi power.
I would be surprised if other mentalists can do the things lior is doing.
When you have samadhi power, it’s not going to be clear exactly how it works to the exerciser of that power. It’s just something that just follows your will and you wonder why everyone else can’t do it.
Ok, I believe you (and Bodhi’s translation agrees) that Ven. T’s translation has that mistake. Although the passage in question doesn’t specify exactly what the mind reader’s samadhi state is, can you really say, while he’s exercising the mind reading power, he is not in avitakka-avicara samadhi for much if not that entire time?
To read someone else’s mind, or one’s own mind, vitakka & vicara (as “thinking & considering”) is not required. Only S&S is needed (sati and sampajano), which is explicitly present in 3rd jhana, while 4th jhana is purified sati and upekkha (which can perform the same function as vicara, upa+ikkhati).
the 4 Satipatthana’s citta anupassana, is the exact same instructions as the psychical power of mind reading:
STED 6ab #3: cetasā cetoparicca pajānāti.
|
para-sattānaṃ para-puggalānaṃ |
other-beings, other-people, |
|
cetasā ceto |
their-minds, with-his-mind, |
|
paricca pajānāti. |
(he) distinguishes (and) understands. |
|
Sa-rāgaṃ vā cittaṃ ‘sa-rāgaṃ citta’nti pajānāti; |
with-passion ** (in their) mind, 'with-passion (in their) mind' (he) understands. |
|
vīta-rāgaṃ vā cittaṃ ‘vīta-rāgaṃ citta’nti pajānāti; |
without-passion ** (in their) mind, 'without-passion (in their) mind' (he) understands. |
|
sa-dosaṃ vā cittaṃ ‘sa-dosaṃ citta’nti pajānāti; |
with-aversion ** (in their) mind, 'with-aversion (in their) mind' (he) understands. |
|
vīta-dosaṃ vā cittaṃ ‘vīta-dosaṃ citta’nti pajānāti; |
without-aversion ** (in their) mind, 'without-aversion (in their) mind' (he) understands. |
|
sa-mohaṃ vā cittaṃ ‘sa-mohaṃ citta’nti pajānāti; |
with-delusion ** (in their) mind, 'with-delusion (in their) mind' (he) understands. |
|
vīta-mohaṃ vā cittaṃ ‘vīta-mohaṃ citta’nti pajānāti; |
without-delusion ** (in their) mind, 'without-delusion (in their) mind' (he) understands. |
|
saṃkhittaṃ vā cittaṃ ‘saṃkhittaṃ citta’nti pajānāti; |
restricted ** mind, 'restricted mind' (he) understands. |
|
vikkhittaṃ vā cittaṃ ‘vikkhittaṃ citta’nti pajānāti; |
scattered ** mind, 'scattered mind' (he) understands. |
|
mahaggataṃ vā cittaṃ ‘mahaggataṃ citta’nti pajānāti; |
enlarged ** mind, 'enlarged mind' (he) understands. |
|
a-mahaggataṃ vā cittaṃ ‘a-mahaggataṃ citta’nti pajānāti; |
un-enlarged ** mind, 'un-enlarged mind' (he) understands. |
|
sa-uttaraṃ vā cittaṃ ‘sa-uttaraṃ citta’nti pajānāti; |
with-superior [but surpassable] ** mind, 'with-superior mind' (he) understands. |
|
an-uttaraṃ vā cittaṃ ‘an-uttaraṃ citta’nti pajānāti; |
un-surpassable [nothing-higher] ** mind, 'un-surpassable mind' (he) understands. |
|
samāhitaṃ vā cittaṃ ‘samāhitaṃ citta’nti pajānāti; |
concentrated ** mind, 'concentrated mind' (he) understands. |
|
a-samāhitaṃ vā cittaṃ ‘a-samāhitaṃ citta’nti pajānāti; |
un-concentrated ** mind, 'un-concentrated mind' (he) understands. |
|
vimuttaṃ vā cittaṃ ‘vimuttaṃ citta’nti pajānāti; |
released ** mind, 'released mind' (he) understands. |
|
a-vimuttaṃ vā cittaṃ ‘a-vimuttaṃ citta’nti pajānāti’’. |
un-released ** mind, 'un-released mind' (he) understands. |
The big problem of V&V as "placing and connecting mind" in relation to S&S (sati and sampajano)
So as you can see, when one is doing citta anupassana, while in 3rd jhana, on themself, or as a psychic power reading someone’s else’s mind, the person’s mind they’re reading, as it switches through various mental states, would require the mind reader’s own mind to “place his own mind and keep it connected” through the various changes. But if the mind reader is in 4th jhana, and the ability to place and connect the mind has been abandoned after first jhana, this doesn’t make sense.
Imagine 50 to 100 years from now
Is the EBT as transmitted by B. Sujato's English translation, going to be easier to survive as something coherent and comprehensible with V&V as it is now, with the discontinuous change in 1st jhana with no explanation in MN 19, etc? We want the same thing, the genuine Buddha Dhamma to last as long as possible. The more complicated something is, the harder it is for it to survive.
2 Likes
There’s ample evidence, across two millennia of texts as well as many modern analyses, that the two interpretations of V&V that you insist upon characterizing as inadmissible “contradiction” are on a continuum of gradations of meaning, and have experientially reconcilable justification.
Your voluminous “proofs” of your interpretation, with its incessant redundancy, more demonstrates an over-sized confidence in your own views, and largely amount to conformation bias.
And in particular your evangelical impetus to virtually eradicate divergent views could be said to belie the tinge of insecurity that invariably lurks behind such dogmatism.
4 Likes
If the evidence was there, you would be able to show it, Vism. would be able to show it, Ajahm Brahm and his supporters would be able to show it. Mahayana is on the continuum of gradations as well, and if you see it having “reconciliable justification” with EBT, that’s your opinion and few (edit: few people following a reasonable standard) share it. There is a standard of reasonable logic that people can try to adhere to.
I’m all for divergence of views, I believe it contributes to a healthy ecosystem. But it ain’t what you do, it’s how you do it. You want to say Mahayana, or Late Theravada, or Modern Theravada is the best way to go, or Christianity is the best way to go, fine. But if you say they’re all on the same continuum, all meditative paths lead to the same mountain top, then you would find few rational people that could agree with that. They have similarities and points in common, but they have important differences where it counts the most. Disagree? Then show some evidence. You say it’s there, and it’s ample. Then show it.
1 Like
It’s strictly about interpretation of V&V. Not about Mahayana or Christianity etc. Evidence is abundantly available in Sujato’s blog coverage, L.S.Cousins’ article, in Richard Shankman’s survey “The Experience of Samadhi” (and the interviews therein), etc. Your views contribute to the discussion, but do not define it.
1 Like
I have read all 3. Cousin’s translation of V&V as “think OF something and thinking ABOUT same something” (my paraphrase) is an excellent translation. Shankman’s survey is really good. As far as I recall, he clearly showed where early and late Theravada contradict or differ in Jhana. I don’t think any of the points I’ve brought up on V&V are contradicted by Shankman or Cousins. If you think it does, then please show it.
Message 11 in this thread contains a link to an excellent blog post by @silence (I believe he’s the author of the blog post he links to), with scriptural evidence, where B. Sujato’s views on V&V don’t make sense.
If your issue is simply that I appear arrogant and dismissive of other views, then I apologize and I’ll try to do better in that department. In my defense, I do try to be fair in discussion, plain speaking and direct, which may come across as rude and abrupt. And maybe my tone is not so patient when people make claims for which they don’t supply a clear line of reason and evidence.
3 Likes
Indeed my experience is that the number one argument for the Vsm interpretation is the argument of authority (as exemplified by your interlocutor in post #9).
When other arguments are provided, they are flimsy, mere attempts to justify one’s beliefs, and when cross-checked extensively for consistency the interlocutor has to either back down or resort to all sorts of tricks and improbable assumptions.
1 Like
Hi Frank,
I don’t have any really strong views on this matter, but I don’t think it is nearly as clear-cut as you imply.
A variety of people who characterise themselves as EBT enthusiasts have argued for jhana-heavy, including SVens Sujato and Bramali, Sylvester, and Ven Analayo in his talks and writings.
Allow me to add some further comments:
I am inclined to make a distinction between the theory and the practical instructions in the Commentaries. If one takes the view that the practical instructions are summaries of experiences of adept ancient practitioners, then I think they should be taken seriously. One might, however, argue with some of the theory and also argue that, therefore, the jhana-heavy that is described in the Visuddhimagga is not necessary for awakening and that the jhana-light version may actually be more effective. I don’t know, of course… 
It’s probably a little out of date, but there is quite a variation of interpretation across the jhana-light spectrum in Leigh Brasington’s page here: Jhana Interpretations with Bhante Vimalaramsi being at the lightest end of the spectrum.
Finally, there is Bhikkhu Cintita’s analysis here: Buddha’s Meditation and its Variants | Buddha-Sāsana
He agrees with your interpretation of EBTs (jhana-light), and that the VM jhana-heavy is a later development. Ironically, perhaps, he notes that the “vipassana” approaches of Mahasi Sayadaw (based on the VM “dry-insight” approach, which “only” requires what there is called “access concentration”) are actually quite consistent with your interpretation of the EBTs in terms of the type of awareness being cultivated. In brief, he argues that your/his jhana-light interpretation is access concentration.
As I said, I don’t have a strong stake in all this. I happened to learn from Bhikku’s practicing a Mahasi-style approach, and I’ve stuck with that, so if the analysis of Bhikkhu Cintita is correct, I’m practicing in roughly the right way…
On the other hand, if Vens Brahm, Sujato, etc, are correct, I have a bit more work to do on the jhana factors to prepare for awakening…
Keep up the interesting conversation.
Mike
5 Likes
And when asked to justify with passage quotes, IMO have not provided any compelling evidence in the EBT that can reasonably justify redefining very important terms like kāya/body in the 4 jhanas, or support the idea of a frozen state where the “will” is suspended. The most fundamental and basic ability to do vipassana in EBT is S&S (sato and sampajano), explicitly present in the 3rd jhana.
Ultimately nothing is “clear-cut” as you point out, when interpreting any text, but relative reasonable-ness and likelihood can be compared.
Ven. Anālayo, does not belong in the group of EBT people cited above when it comes to interpretation of “body” in jhāna. He sides with the straightforward reading of EBT in both pali and agamas, that “body” is physical body of flesh and blood experienced in 4 jhānas.
The meditation method itself, VRJ and Ajahn Brahm’s jhāna, works as advertised, and I have no problem with the meditation techniques as meditation techniques. There are plenty of ways those techniques can be incorporated into Buddhism without contradicting EBT.
The problem is when you have to start redefining important fundamental terms in the EBT such as kāya, vedana, the distinction between rūpa and a-rūpa in such a way that future generations, and even people right now will become very confused, lose confidence in the integrity and coherence of the EBT itself. If you need highly trained experts like Ven. Sujato and Ven. Brahmali to be the religious elite intermediary with the general public to explain why the Buddha confoundingly redefined important terms, it does not bode well for the survival of EBT, IMO.
1 Like
I may be mistaken, since I am relying on memory, but my recollection from some of his talks was that Ven Analayo had an interpretation of jhana that was at the jhana-heavy end and that expressions such as “body-witness” in MN70 SuttaCentral cannot refer to a physical body. Unfortunately, I don’t have references, but the latter was a comment in the context of a recent Nibbana Sermon, 15 or 16. https://analayo2018.buddhistinquiry.org
When it comes to 16 APS (anapanasati), I’m 100% positive in both pali and agamas, in suttas and vinaya, he treats body as anatomical body, not mental body or “body of breath”.
In standard 3rd jhana of agamas from MA 2, he has:
“experiencing pleasure with the body,”
and here from tibetan parallel, in his satipatthana comparative studies, for third jhana, he writes:
j3: note body is physical
With the fading away of joy, dwelling equanimous with mindfulness and comprehension, experiencing just happiness with the body, what the noble ones reckon an equanimous and mindful dwelling in happiness, [a noble disciple] dwells having fully attained the third absorption. Such pleasant feelings do not increase desire, but [instead lead to] abandoning it.
The Majjhima-nikāya and Madhyama-āgama parallels differ in so far as they illustrate the type of pleasant feeling that is not related to desire with the example of the first absorption alone,21 without bringing in the second and the third absorption.
Here is the description of painful and neutral feelings that do not lead to unwholesome repercussions in the Tibetan version:
Here a noble disciple generates an aspiration for supreme liberation: “When shall I dwell fully realizing that sphere, which the noble ones dwell having fully realized?” The mental displeasure and painful feeling [due to] that aspiration, that pursuit, and that longing do not increase aversion, but [instead] abandon it …
It’s V&V (vitakka and vicara) where Ven. Analayo seems to share the same view as B. Sujato, according to his translations of jhana formulas in pali and agamas.
For the tibetan parallel V&V though, this is VERY interesting:
j1
Here a noble disciple, being free from sensual desire and free from bad and unwholesome states, with [directed] comprehension and [sustained] discernment, and with joy and happiness arisen from seclusion, dwells having fully attained the first absorption.
j2
With the stilling of [directed] comprehension and [sustained] discernment, with complete inner confidence and unification of the mind, free from [directed] comprehension and [sustained] discernment, with joy and happiness arisen from concentration, [a noble disciple] dwells having fully attained the second absorption.
Here’s relevant excerpt from V. Anandajoti’s 3rd jhana formula from Sanskrit work Arthaviniścayasūtram
experiencing happiness through the body,
Other than Ajahn Brahm (and his supporters), I don’t think anyone else in the EBT world in pali or agamas, or any other EBT school that I’m aware of, treat kaya as mental body. They all view the body as physical flesh and blood body in the 4 jhanas.
Even Ajahn Brahm’s beloved teacher, who he trained under for 9 years, the great Ajahn Chah, said body is physical.
2 Likes
Ajahn Brahm and those who have trained under him are experiencing very specific types of absorptions. These are real experiences for them and as Buddhists they would like to relate them to the Buddha’s teaching. This leads them to define V&V, body, etc. differently than what seems logical but in the end, for me, theses issues are not as important as:
- what are these types of absorptions bringing to the practitioners?
- do they make him/her closer to being free from dukkha?
- if so how do this work?
I would really like to read about the practical role of any form of absorptions (Jhanas and the others) on the path to liberation from dukkha. This would help re-installing the jhanas as the eight component of the 8FP that cannot be bypassed (in contrast to vipassana dry-insight).
3 Likes
It ain’t what you do, it’s how you do it. Ajahn Dtun, also a famous disciple of Ajahn Chah, when asked what jhāna is, the first thing he said, (from my memory I heard the translator translate from Thai in person), “This is my opinion, and I might be wrong…”. Ajahn Dtun is a proponent of studying the life and practice of Arahant Thai Forest masters (Ajahn Mun and his famous disciples), and that the Dhamma is somewhat corrupted nowadays and not as reliable as following the personal examples of arahants.
And here’s Ajahn Thate, from “Steps along the path”. The “appana samadhi” he proposes is far more reasonable. It’s not appana samadhi until the breath stops (which doesn’t happen until fourth jhana). Whereas Ajahn Brahm and VRJ (vism. redefinition of jhana) has that as a prequisite to first jhana. And the important, which I bolded and italicized below, ajahn Thate recognizes that there are many ways and controversies in interpretation of 4 jhanas, and to not take his opinion as an authority.
An item deserving a little more explanation here is the term fixed penetration (appana samadhi). Fixed penetration is a superior human attainment. By and large, people who reach fixed penetration tend to focus on the in-and-out breath (anapana) as their object of meditation. As they focus on the breath and come to pay attention to its arising and falling away, or just to its falling away, the mind gradually becomes more and more refined until, step by step, it lets go of all its preoccupations and gathers together to become fixed, as explained above. The stilling of the in-and-out breath is what indicates fixed penetration. In some instances it is called fixed jhana because it comes from the act of becoming absorbed in the breath. It is called fixed concentration because even though there is no in-and-out breath when the mind reaches that point, mindfulness is still absolutely full.
When you’re in this state you can’t examine anything, because the mind is totally uninvolved with anything at all. Only when the mind comes out of this state and enters threshold concentration can you begin examining things again. You will then see clearly into all the truths that the Buddha said are to be known, and into other matters as well. There will be no visions and signs, as mentioned above, but the knowledge here will be based on cause and effect, complete with analogies and similes that will utterly erase all doubt.
In some cases, meditators will be considering objects of meditation other than the in-and-out breath, and yet will still be able to reach fixed penetration in the same way as those who practice mindfulness of breathing. When the mind gathers to a point where there is no more in-and-out breathing, that’s fixed penetration.
This, at any rate, is my opinion on the matter. Meditators shouldn’t take my opinion as their criterion, because the thoughts and opinions of people in this world — even when we see the same things under the same conditions in the same place — can formulate different names for, and reach different understandings about, those same things, and thus give rise to endless disputes and arguments. Simply let us all work with our own objects of meditation so as to reach fixed penetration as discussed above and then — with a fair mind free from bias — compare what we experience with what has been formulated in the various texts. Our knowledge will then be paccattam — arising exclusively from within ourselves. That is what I would like to see in this regard.
If Ajahn Brahm followed their examples, by prefacing, “this is my opinion, I might be wrong”, then there would be no problem, I and others would not raise an objection criticizing him. Instead, in his book, “meditation, bliss , beyond”, based on his other free jhana publications, he authoritatively states his interpretation is the correct one, that others who don’t follow his interpretation of the mind being divorced form the 5 senses in the 4 jhanas are misunderstanding the EBT. He also stated most jhana teachers agree with him, that it’s just a minority that don’t. That is completely untrue. Early Theravada, Vimuttimagga, early Abhidhamma, the whole Sarvastivada EBT school, for all we know which might be larger and much more influential than the Theravada school, not to mention great masters like Ajahn Lee, and even Ajahn Brahm’s own teacher Ajahn Chah(!) stated the physical body is experienced in the 4 jhanas.
IMO, that is a completely irresponsible and unreasonable to take a position in that manner.
IMO, it would be perfectly reasonable to say, as one example:
The standard EBT formula for jhanas is too brief to give a clear unambigous teaching on how to attain jhanas, I believe this way of developing arupa samadhi using a visual light nimitta works better as a way to develop 4 rupa jhanas. This way you don’t redefine kaya, rupa, vedana, sati&sampajano, and clobber a working system taught by Sarvastivada, early Theravada, Ajahn Lee, etc. This way other systems can coexist peacefully without damaging the integrity of important fundamental EBT concepts like kaya, rupa, vedana, S&S, etc.
If you really want the arupa samadhi meditation technique of focusing on visual light, there are ways you can reasonably interpret certain EBT passages. For examples, the standard formula of “aloka sanna manasi karoti”, developing perception of light for knowledge and vision, ajahn brahm and VRJ could fit perfectly well here. Or as a pure citta anupassana as one of the 4sp could work.
Or, just latch on to the white kasina or light kasina, which may not be genuine word of the Buddha, but is in the EBT pali suttas, so that’s a very appropriate place to fit it in.
Like I said in an earlier message, the meditation technique works, and for people of certain dispositions and skill level, is a fine meditation technique. Just promote in such a way that doesn’t break the other EBT schools by redefining important fundamental terms. IMO.
2 Likes
What a great quote! And an awesome rant - best I have read on this site.
I would just like to add a small request: That Ajahns Brahm, Sujato, Brahmali, Vimalaramsi, Than. Bhikkhu, etc. Please stop criticizing each others methods. Certainly among you guys there are some adults that can let go of this authenticity stuff. Isn’t this “I am right and you are wrong” language not even right speech? Surely we can reach a point where you can acknowledge that though your methods may differ they are all valid and effective. Certainly we can go beyond this bickering. Show some respect for each other. Is this too much to ask?
Thanks @frankk. This stuff has been bothering me for a few years now. I feel much better!
3 Likes
I agree. I like it when people are careful to present what they say as their opinion and to acknowledge that others may see things differently, or may find different approaches more useful. Ven Analayo is an exemplar of that. There are other teachers whose teachings I actually find very useful, but I can only listen to them by ignoring their rants about other approaches. ("La La La! I can’t hear you!.). [Of course, reasoned arguments about shortcomings are valuable, but that’s not what one gets from some famous teachers.]
Hi Charlie, I don’t feel any of the Venerables you mentioned were being disrespectful to each other, and with the indispensable role of right samadhi in freedom from suffering, much is at stake. IMO respectful criticism from all sides is important and necessary to keep the Dhamma healthy, free of disease and corruption.
What happened in Mahayana, where they IMO went too far with harmony and validating each other’s views, you end up with syncretism, a hodge podge of Dhamma and non-dhamma that becomes confusing, misleading, and harmful.
It’s always important, the further in time we are from the Buddha, to check against the 4 great standards and scrutinize everything carefully.
For example, in the Sarvastivada EBT school,
When the Abhidharmikas asserted things that contradicted the Agama Sutras, the Surtrantikas took a stand and said, “no way, the suttas take precedence of the Abhidharma, and when cases where they contradict, the Sutras are correct.”
Bickering and disharmony should be avoided as much as possible, but if genuine Dhamma is to survive, there are times when you have to plant your feet and take a stand.
As AN 4.3 says, it can be really bad kamma to not criticize what deserves serious criticism.
1 Like
Yes, I agree. My request for respect was not to imply that there was disrespect but rather a lack of respect. Let me give a couple of examples: There is a youtube video from a few years back where Bhante Sujato talks about Goenka and Mahasi traditions. He does a great job here.
Another example is a recent post he made where he states that Than. Bhikkhus translation of a specific phrase is wrong. It is a very different approach. Perhaps TB’s translation is wrong or perhaps Sujato is overly confident in his view - everyone has had the experience of being certain of something only to find later they were wrong. Or perhaps TB simply looks at the issue from a different perspective. The response could have been along the lines of: TB translates it like that but as I see it this phrase should be translated as … In general I think he does a great job and so I would be interested in understanding his reasoning here. But for now, I have to go with my own understanding…
So yes, respectful criticism - this I think is the key. I think we can disagree with each other while avoiding combative language like ‘I am right and you are wrong’. That kind of approach is a dead end.
Ajahn Brahm has IMO stretched terminology pretty thin. I think his methods are sound and effective - but to imply that his version is the authentic version is unnecessary and counter productive.
1 Like