Another take on Satipatthana and Jhana

I don’t agree with this statement :slight_smile: IN the nicest way of course!! :slight_smile:
There are many paths into the Dhamma, and each one suits different people with different skills and characteristics - and it really depends on where one is in the journey. (By this I mean past lives as well)

There are many places in the suttas where the gradual training is discussed. Virtue and morals (sila) are necessary for the development of Jhanas. As such, one needs to put the whole of the 8 fold Noble path into practice. The highest levels of the Jhanas are already advanced practices.

One of the things that can be very confusing is that the cause and effect of the path may appear quite linear. However, in practice this isn’t really the case. Rather I find it more like a cascade of deepening spirals :smiley: Each time round, understanding of each of the 8 factors deepens and practice is developed. As it deepens, ones understanding changes, from the mundane to the transcendental, and practice gradually becomes perfected. It is this complexity and inter-relatedness of the path, that really necessitates practice, rather than just knowledge and intellectual understanding :slight_smile:

with much metta :pray: :sunflower: :revolving_hearts:

7 Likes

I agree with the things you say, I am not sure about different paths though. Buddha mentions only the 8-fold path. The 4 buddhist jhanas is one step of that path, i.e. Samma samadhi. Samma samadhi does not include Arupas however. 8-fold path includes sila, samadhi and panna, there is no dispute regarding this. I was referring to Samma Samadhi, only here. We know that sila, samadhi, panna go hand in hand. Without Samadhi, there is no wisdom, and without wisdom there is no samadhi. When I said understanding I did not mean an intellectual understanding at all. Intellectual understanding only leads to mental proliferations. What good does that do? If knowledge get us to ending of samsara, then all scholars would be nibbanized. Paramatthaka Sutta Sn4.5 of Atthakavagga
writes
805 One should not form any view in the world, not through knowledge, and not even through virtue or vows, not presenting oneself ‘equal’, one should not even think one is inferior or better
806 Letting go of what one appropriates, one does not form a dependence even on knowledge 

With love

4 Likes

Hi,

I couldn’t find this donkey :slightly_smiling_face: but on a more serious note, AN11.9 only mentions about a colt and a thoroughbred(Arahant).

But perhaps I understand what you are trying to say. Are you saying that Satipatthana is a signless abiding?

Firstly I think, Satipatthana and signless meditation are two different things. This can be demonstrated by the following;

There are these three unskillful thoughts.
Sensual, malicious, and cruel thoughts.
And where do these three unskillful thoughts cease without anything left over?

In those who meditate with their mind firmly established in the four kinds of mindfulness meditation; or who develop signless immersion.
SN22.80

But I can understand why you would call it a state without taking an object though. The suttas explains it as one’s own territory where mara can’t get hold of oneself.

You should roam inside your own territory, the domain of your fathers.

If you roam inside your own territory, the domain of your fathers, Māra won’t find a vulnerability or get hold of you.

And what is a mendicant’s own territory, the domain of the fathers?

It’s the four kinds of mindfulness meditation.
SN47.6

3 Likes

Anyone can read her “Nāma-rĆ«pa and dharma-rĆ«pa: origin and aspects of anancient Indian conception” at archive.org

Thanks for quoting SN 47.42. The four nutriments scheme has been something which has actually puzzled me (recently listened to MN38 where they cropped up again). It’s something I had just put aside. However, that SN 47.42 does look like a really nice insight into them (links to the four satipatthanas does look a nice explanation).

That’s something that’s not obvious to me. I’m not very familar with Polak’s work. In the sets within the 37 Bodhipakkhiyādhammā, mindfulness always is listed before concentration where they occur. The stock definition of right concentration is the four jhanas. The stock definition of right mindfulness is the four establishments. For the seven enlightenment factors, there are quite a few steps in between, investigation of dhammas etc. There certainly seems to be a sequential aspect to developing these seven factors. Seems to me that practices like in the suttas relating to anapanasati and satipatthana would start by trying to establish sati with concentration as a later natural consequence of such practice.

I also think many of the details of the original meditation practice are a bit mysterious in the suttas (looking through a clouded glass). I’ve seen quite a few interpretations, approaches and ideas. Most rely and turn on a very small number of key suttas. I suppose the issue is is that one person’s “key” sutta is another person’s “outlier” or later “inauthentic” sutta.

2 Likes

I found these prior topics and links useful for aspects of this discussion :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Dear Lankaputra: Regarding the donkey, don’t blame me, It is our very own Ven. Sujato who labelled the Sandha “Donkey sutta” I spent the Lock down, locked down in all the talks he made on Youtube, and I decided to become active in Sutta Central. In one of his talks he was talking about “Donkey meditation” Like you do, I had thought of it as the meditation of the “foolish colt” He made the teaching far more affective by calling it “Donkey” So there the genius lies right at Sutta Central. Spend some time listening to his many videos, that will get you so much nearer to end of suffering. His sense of humor is frigging amazing.
As for your statements on “Signless” yes yes yes, several suttas have soaked these up, my take after wasting time with those, Buddhaghosa went into frigging elaboration of meditation calling them signless, wishless, selfless etc. and whatever else. After wasting many hours on these, one returns to Madhupindika, and finds all the answers right there. That is my short answer. The four jhanas and the Four Satipatthans rely on the same principle, i.e. leaving behind all objects. Once the consciousness is hung up on an object, it gives rise to subject and object. It has to be freed from all objects, to accomplish anything. That is why the Arahant is free. I hope I have addressed all issues, if I did not pl. nudge me.
you appear to be a fast learner, pleasure interacting you.
Happy Vesak!
PS I will respond to my others friends later, gotta take a shower. It is morning here.
PSS Also remember there are many suttas written by fervent Abhidhammikas, after the time of Buddha, or some suttas were tempered with. So Teachings other than Buddha’s are in the canon. Sometimes finding Buddha’s words is like finding a needle in a haystack
slightly joking

Yes but be careful!

3 Likes

I think the following passage is the relevant part you are referring (?)

Mendicant, a person is beset by concepts of identity that emerge from the proliferation of perceptions.

If they don’t find anything worth approving, welcoming, or getting attached to in the source from which these arise,

just this is the end of the underlying tendencies to desire, repulsion, views, doubt, conceit, the desire to be reborn, and ignorance. This is the end of taking up the rod and the sword, the end of quarrels, arguments, and fights, of accusations, divisive speech, and lies
MN18

I think there might be a difference between what Ven Analayo calls an object and what you are referring to as an object. If an Arahants consciousness does not take an object, by definition she would be unconscious. But I don’t think that’s what you meant. Can you clarify further what you mean by object with reference to MN18?

1 Like

My Dearest Lankaputra: you wrote I think there might be a difference between what Ven Analayo calls an object and what you are referring to as an object. If an Arahant’s consciousness does not take an object, by definition she would be unconscious
I do not think so, some buddhists are brainwashed including Ven Analayo (not a put down, I adore him for translating Madhyama agama etc) , or let me say it differently, they have formed the VIEW that this is how it is. That without an object a subject cannot exist, in other words, consciousness exists. But consciousness does not exist. It is constantly renewed, if you understood “Son’s flesh” that basically in a nutshell is the entire Buddha Dhamma. In Kaccayanagotta Buddha says “Our samsaric brain is hooked on the opium of Being or non-being”. We just cannot think otherwise. Perhaps that is why when he got enlightened, he wanted to shut up and go back to bed. But that intruder Brahma Sahampathi, won’t leave him in peace. And the rest is history. I wish Buddha had gone back to sleep right after awakening, joking
 now we have the nuisance of folks arguing over consciousness for a zillion years. But the problem is also Upanisads. After Buddha passed away folks had no teacher. There was no stability politically in North India. Teaching was orally transmitted, imagine the influences they were under, pandemics, wars, currying favor with royalty, for mere “existence” and of course Brahmins had a major influence, as did Upanisads. Upanisad ideas infiltrated the canon, they knew “consciousness” of a different flavor, a thing that was going to unite with Brahman after the death. In Buddha’s land there was 'no consciousness as such’ to join with anything else. Nibbana was it. But lots of folks had trouble with it. Who wants to expire if they believed “consciousness exists” it is like saying “I count for nothing” what an insult. Everyone wants to be counted, thus the necessity of God too, either Christian or Hindu, the golden CRUTCH. I will be saved by the view of God. Anyways I think it is kinda same thing when you tell me dear Son of Lanka, “if an object vanishes, the subject or consciousness vanishes, becomes unconscious”
As for the Arahant, she is disconnected from the “Tree of Being” she does not need that kind of worldly awareness to be present in front of our eyes, that subject object duality. She is here as long as the remnant of body remains. Thereafter we do not see her anymore.
When Vacca asked Buddha the ten questions, he kept silent. The questions make sense only if you are stuck on aggregates as permennacies. Your question on Arahant sounds the same to me. I can only keep silent. Go meditate, but not sitting hours and hours as folks brag about. Meditation would be if you could hold or come to terms with that awareness like Bahia did. You and I are having a friendly conversation, becoming a wee bit enlightened each moment, but neither are you or me on that side of the conversation nor this side of the conversation
yet this process of conversations carries on.
Do you get my drift dear One? Until you get to that point, you will never figure out why the Ararhant is fully aware and not unconscious. Don’t give Analayo so much power as to screw up your Dhammavicaya, the second factor of Seven Awakenig factors. This thread has a different take on Samma sati or Samma Samadhi. One can say that is another view also, but Buddha did not despise all views. Some views are worth holding on to, until worldly consciousness vanishes, and the connection to the “Tree of Being” is lost
With utmost love

2 Likes

you have pointed out many relevant issues. This thinking would be mine sort of a few months ago, 37 factors of Awakening was key for me, before I figured out RIGHT Samma Sati and Samma Samadhi. But in a way these are all linked. The 37 begins with Satipatthana. and ends with Bojjhangas and 4 Noble Truths but later I found there is no beginning or end. In every one of those, the other factors are present. For instance in the Bojjangas, the first factor is mindfulness, Samma Sati. second factor is Dhamma vicaya, i.e. investigating all the factors. Iddhi Pada one of 37, it weaves in across every step. Energy, the vigor, the faith and all that jazz. It all blends into one. You are smart enough, and figured out the essential, Spend some time with Polak, he has generously left his mark on the web. It is a hard read him, if you have not struggled with all the jhanas
 which I did. It is like Polak is at the PhD level, and one’s struggle with the jhanas, is like the first few years in college. That PhD is fully worth it. The one main thing I did not agree with, he seemed to reject all the suttas that had formless meditations in them. I do not think so. I think some intruder on a later day, sandwiched these into those suttas. Of course I think MN 111, is the biggest crime that some Abhidhammika committed. Why did he feed these words into the mouth of
Sariputta? to make it more authentic?
Once you understand, it is a bit like splitting head. But at one point in Sutta Nipata Buddha says, splitting ignorance is something like splitting head. Many headaches.
It is not an easy walk. But you will undertake it, only when you know “That all this is suffering” and truly so, and also when you’ve understood that anything else you do is like “Feeding on your own son’s flesh”
As for your trying to draw a line between concentration and mindfulness, I did that too. But now I know better, concentration is an Upanisad influence. Buddha’s teaching is about mindfulness. Have you spent much time with Atthakavagga and Parayanavagga? Please do. Try spending time with Alexander Wynne, and tell me your thoughts afterwards.
Yes the canon by itself 
 the right meditation is a mystery, that is why we need Polak, and Wynne. But the truth is I could not get anywhere without relying on Buddhaghosa’s Expositor. He gets a bad rap just because
 it is too much to get into. the translator of Visuddhimagga Ven. Nanamoli (I adore him), wrote one must not toss the baby with the bathwater

I agree with many things you say. To me the key finally became that one sutta in the Samyutta Nikaya i.e. 47.42. and MN 18 with the help of Malukyaputa and Bahia and also Attthakavagga and Parayanavagga

Have a glorious Day!
PS not sure that I addressed all you asked, but writing wears me out. I am never sure whether I am sticking to Right speech all the way. Forgive me if I have not.
PSS Yes I did not address the link between Samma Sati and Samma Samadhi, but will do so, on another day.

3 Likes

Hi,

I think this conversation has gone on to the wrong footing. If there is any dependence at all there will be agitation.

I think possibly the confusion lies in the difference between what you and Ven Analayo calls an object. Which I was trying to understand but you didn’t answer the question asked above.

When you say, consciousness has to be freed from all objects do you mean that any delighting any grasping after the object have to be got rid of or all objects of consciousness has to be got rid of in toto?

As to your comment about existence and none existence about consciousness. I think the suttas are pretty clear, when origination of consciousness is discerned, ‘doesnt-exist’ does not apply. When cessation of consciousness is discerned ‘exist’ does not apply. If you were meaning this I agree with you

Interesting food for thought! Some of that sounds a bit on the advanced side for me at this point! :wink: On the Atthakavagga and Parayanavagga, have gone through the Sutta Nipata before and very much liked it, but it has been a while (I actually have the relatively new Bhikkhu Bodhi translation of it and must get around to reading that). On Polak and Wynne, I think I’ve read bits and pieces of both here and there. I may investigate them a bit more and see what I make of their writings. Anyway, thanks for all that, appreciated. Have a glorious day yourself (or maybe night, depending on the time zone)! :slight_smile:

I didn’t understand the preceding, but the following works for me to inform my practice of Satipatthana and Jhana and beyond. :pray:

AN4.171:1.1: “Mendicants, as long as there’s a body, the intention that gives rise to bodily action causes pleasure and pain to arise in oneself. As long as there’s a voice, the intention that gives rise to verbal action causes pleasure and pain to arise in oneself. As long as there’s a mind, the intention that gives rise to mental action causes pleasure and pain to arise in oneself. But these only apply when conditioned by ignorance. By oneself one makes the choice that gives rise to bodily, verbal, and mental action, conditioned by which that pleasure and pain arise in oneself. Or else others make the choice 
 One consciously makes the choice 
 Or else one unconsciously makes the choice 
 Ignorance is included in all these things.
AN4.171:5.2: But when ignorance fades away and ceases with nothing left over, there is no body and no voice and no mind, conditioned by which that pleasure and pain arise in oneself. There is no field, no ground, no scope, and no basis, conditioned by which that pleasure and pain arise in oneself.

3 Likes

Suaimhneas
wrote [quote=“suaimhneas, post:16, topic:15672”]
The stock definition of right concentration is the four jhanas.
[/quote] true, but English is not ideal in this case. Does not Right Samadhi instead of right concentration make a whole lot of sense, in terms of what is taking place? Samadhi is a dynamic activity, concentration sounds like a stationary activity, focussing on one thing.

2 Likes

Lankaputra wrote I think this conversation has gone on to the wrong footing. If there is any dependence at all there will be agitation.
Wrong footing? I apologise, I did not intend to, when did I mention a dependence?
You wrote
I think possibly the confusion lies in the difference between what you and Ven Analayo calls an object. Which I was trying to understand but you didn’t answer the question asked above.

Let me clarify Ven. Analayo relies on the two main Satipatthana suttas, which are called “elegant fakes” by some scholars. It is a long story, and I like that story. My current understanding on Satipattthana is based on SN 47.42. The sutta speaks about deconstruction of consciousness. Analayo’s scheme does not. If Analayo’s teaching make sense to you, then my understanding will not make sense to you. However I am willing to discuss SN 47. 42 with you on another day.
You wrote
When you say, consciousness has to be freed from all objects do you mean that any delighting any grasping after the object have to be got rid of or all objects of consciousness has to be got rid of in toto?

Again to make the story short, If you follow instructions of MN 18, “bare cognition” what is there to delight of? It speaks of a transformed cognition, that should be the goal of our meditation, whether it is Satipatthana or Samma samadhi.
In this post my intention was to alert others of what I’ve become aware of. I thought it was pretty cool, but perhaps others are not ready to hear about this kind of thinking. Dhamma is a tricky thing, if you get hold of it at the wrong end, it can be unforgiving.
Last night I listened to a Dependent origination talk by Ven Sujato
 it is the 3rd episode published on Feb 7/2020. In the middle of the video, he talks about a man walking on a path, man notices a piece of truth, bends and picks it up. Mara and Buddha are watching this guy, Mara smiles, Buddha asks "Mara why are you smiling ". Mara says "in a couple more steps, he will make a view out of it".
In the business of Dhamma, a sense of humor is helpful.
Be well!

Please carry on! I think you have said some very important things. I agree with them (except your theories on Buddhist history and Sutta composition). But what you are saying has been expressed by other teachers, if you have the humility to give them due consideration. In essence what you are saying is what Ajahn Chah or Ajahn Brahm calls ‘letting go’. Which is already expressed in the Satipatthana Sutta

They meditate independent, not grasping at anything in the world.

anissito ca viharati, na ca kiñci loke upādiyati.
MN10

But, I am curious to converse further with you about it(as a friend). If you can start off by answering my question on MN18, would much appreciate. At your leisure of course.

2 Likes

:slight_smile: While the guidelines expressly ask that the Discussions Topics are based in EBT’s rather than personal practice, we know it can be useful to discuss practice issues. However, we ask that these conversations are done via the Personal Messages facility rather than as public topic posts. This way you are free to explore personal practice issues without constraint :pray: Remember, PM’s can be used by groups of people, so all individuals who are interested can participate :slight_smile:

As always it is a question of balance :balance_scale: but in general, the substantive part of the Discussion needs to be EBT based, and the guidelines also make it clear that discussion of attainments is not appropriate on this site.

For any further elaboration please don’t hesitate to ask

Metta

4 Likes

Lankaputra wrote Pl carry on
To respond to him
 OK let me back track, as for humility, when i chose to participate, it was simply as an acknowledgment of the great work Sujato has done over the last so many years. I found him during the lockdown. I wanted him to know, how he inspires the silent public.

The “humility factor?” it is very hard for anyone to go into the issues of popular buddhism, the moment one speaks up, there are many that confront the person for speaking up. For instance Burmese meditation, Sujato made a video on it. He is like the Royal elephant that went to war, not caring whether he would get killed. Some loved it, some hated him for that gumption.

I had been struggling to make sense of Buddhist meditation for several years, and finally I did. Once I did, I found out, Sujato more or less had come to the same conclusions many years ago. Why did I not find him then? Well perhaps one learns better by struggling, rather than have one’s parents do the homework for them. Karma has its own reasons. As for Ajhan Chah and Ajhan Brahm, I would not give them credit for whatever I say.

As for “letting go” every therapist says this to the patient. Ajhan Chah was wonderful, but I did not find right buddhist meditation (4 buddhist jhanas through him), in his writing. Pl bring me a quote of him that praises the 4 jhanas or the Satipathanas as in SN 47.42. However for the latter I would give credit to Vasubandhu’s Abhidhmmakosa. I had already given credit to Sarvastavadins for this in the main post, and mentioned how Theravadins failed at Satipatthana.

As for Ajhan Brahm, I know he is Sujato’s teacher. With all due respect Sujato himself said in one of the talks, a student does not need to be like a teacher, he said “it is complicated”. I totally understood, He is entirely different from Brahms. I had listened to Brahms 10 years ago, and he did not inspire me, but Sujato did. Need I say more?

I do not take any credit for the things I say, as for the history you do not believe. Pl read Johannes Bronkhorst, He is a frigging great scholar. Some Theravadins have a way of saying “We don’t trust them” or some demeaning thing like “They are of a different brand” If I give credit to anyone it would be these, below

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_La_Vallée-Poussin
or the writings of J. Polack,

or the many publications of Alexander Wynne. His Youtube postings are beyond amazing. That someone dared to give such a gift without being asked???

I hated some of the things, Wynne said at the beginning, and then I realized I simply hated him, for he was getting rid of my misconceptions. He basically thrashed Satipathana, the way Analayo presented it.

Now I am thankful for hating him, for the hate turned to love.

Dear Lankaputra I have limited time each day. I shall not disappoint you over time. Will answer all your questions. Just to clarify, I’ve nothing but humility. How could anyone be otherwise facing the dilemma of Samsara, as death sits looming over all of us.

“Do not waste a single moment” this is “our words to thee” Buddha had said even as he was dying, But he did not die, did he?

With love

1 Like

Moderator wrote 
 “Stick to EBT”
I feel what I write fits Early Buddhist teachings, the four jhanas and Satipatthana. Do you feel otherwise?
I was trying to remove the many misconceptions regarding early buddhism. If you feel that my comments are otherwise, pl point out, and I shall gracefully bow out.
With love

Your Pardon! This is your thread, I don’t have to do anything. It’s up to you to demonstrate your conclusions with clear references from the EBTs.

As you wish!

1 Like