Can you hear sound and feel body in jhāna?

[frankk]

(regarding AN 9.38)
all of the first 8 meditative attainments (1st jhāna … ākincāyatanaṃ (base of nothingness)) end like this:

others say thus of him: ‘He, too, is included in the world; he, too, is not yet released from the world.’ I also say thus: ‘He, too, is included in the world; he, too, is not yet released from the world.’

only the 9th attainment (saññā-vedayita-nirodha)

327(9) “Again, by completely surmounting the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, a bhikkhu enters and dwells in the cessation of perception and feeling, and having seen with wisdom, his taints are utterly destroyed. This is called a bhikkhu [432] who, having come to the end of the world, dwells at the end of the world, one who has crossed over attachment to the world.”
( ‘bhikkhu lokassa antamāgamma lokassa ante viharati tiṇṇo loke visattikan’”ti. sattamaṃ.)

so the relevant aspect of this sutta has to do with the 2nd noble truth, being fully abandoned, it’s not dependent on loka being 5 sensory objects, and one does not have to have complete non-percipience of 5 sensory objects to abandon craving for those 5 classes of objects.

in the first jhana formula, “loka” does not appear in it, so proving loka means 5 mere sensory objects does not sway the argument IMO. what WOULD be convincing is if we can see other suttas that clearly show “vivicceva kāmehi” is undoubtedly referring to 5 senses shutting off, as in space-infinitude-dimension. i don’t think those passages exist, or it would have been proudly put on display already.

[frankk]

i really have to wonder if anyone reading the EBT’s ever actually thought, when reading the standard first jhana formula, "oh, vivicceva kāmehi, what does that mean? oh, that means i can’t hear any sounds and body senses have been completely shut off! "

no amount of grammar expertise could show how you draw that conclusion. you’d have to show other EBT passages where vivicca (seclusion) has that meaning of such absolute sensory deprivation.

[frankk]

@Charlie

Can we create a bigger jhana tent that accepts a variety of experience – something beyond our own personal experience and views? This is not an ‘anything goes’ request. I think there are many aspects of jhana – key aspects - on which the above mentioned ajahns as well as the suttas all agree.

that’s more of the feel i get from reading the EBT, that jhāna is a bigger tent than how some teachers try to represent it.

if you look at the suttas near AN 9.38, there’s one where “vimutti” is used in a way to show gradual stages advancing through the 9 attainments, not just one absolute narrow definition for final release. Also with suññata, as in the cula sunnata discourse (MN 100 something), where it’s applied to increasingly refined states of samadhi, not just one narrow absolute definition.

so jhana, samadhi, vimutti, sunnata, all seeem to have a broad umbrella. as well as “dhamma”. i’m of the opinion the 4th satipatthana refers to both “Dhamma” as a teaching, a mental model to apply every moment, as well as the object of the 6th sense organ mana/mind. usually you hear teachers argue for one or the other why not both simultaneously? they both fit. so that’s what i’m going with.

[silence]

@chansik_park

However, AK Warder’s Introduction to Pali says this is grammatically unlikely (pg 61):

When an adjective, or (all the) adjectives, follows its noun this usually indicates that it is being “predicated” of the noun, or in other words that the attribute in question is being emphasized. One should then translate “… who is/which is…”. If we use the terms “nexus” and “junction” then the word order adjective+noun usually indicates junction and the order noun+adjective (or equally another noun in the same case) indicates nexus. When there is no verb in the sentence, however, we understand a nexus regardless of the order; then the placing of a nexus-adjective first indicates emphasis of it (as in an argument).*

(footnote to the last sentence reads:

In Pali word order is important chiefly for the sake of being able to deviate from it for effect. This may explain why some severe philologists have refused to countenance it.

Could you explain your argument in more understandable language for the layman? Particularly, what is a “nexus” as opposed to a “junction”?

[chansik_park]

Hey Frank,

Basically, the salient question raised by just this sutta boils down to: “What does it mean to dwell at/on/upon/towards the end/edge/limit/boundary of all* objects of the five senses?” I’m hoping that SA 559 sheds some light on what this might mean. I would appeal that if it is indeed the case that kāmaguṇā (ie not[aot] kāmā) does refer to the 5 mere sensory, this sutta does potentially hold sway over the issue since it directly comments on how one dwelling in first jhāna relates to the 5 mere sensory. The manner of this relationship (and so the tenability of a with-sound-with-body position that encompasses this sutta) is certainly contingent on the meaning of the particular phrasing.

What’s your take on it? Why does the sutta even bother to define kāmaguṇā as loka then?

*(See grammar notes in response to @silence below)

Overall, though, it’s definitely just one piece of the puzzle, and in no way do I want to say that this somehow settles the matter, merely that the with-sound-with-body position seems particularly difficult to maintain for this particular sutta and that from what little I’ve seen, it’s the most direct corroboration of the no-sound-no-body position. I think it would be utterly useful to continue aggregating the references and arguments from both sides to come up with and build on some comprehensive picture of the issue.

For example, if we look at Prof. Bhikkhu Analayo’s arguments for the omission of first jhāna from the sequence in MN 125 as being a mistake rather than genuine, it relies on a bit of loose psychological inference that isn’t quite as airtight as one might wish (atleast in the form presented across the references I included in the parent comment), and being able to stack all the arguments up against one another in an easy-to-consume structure might save a lot of headache in the future and perhaps even reveal something new, who knows.

On that note, is there a way for you to turn your original post into something anyone can edit? It’s been a few months since I’ve delved into this platform so I’m not sure if we need to get one of the moderators to do that somehow…Or maybe once we find some confidence in how the whole thing would be structured?

[chansik_park]

I can certainly try but I should warn you that I’ve made it past maybe 4 out of the 30 lessons in the book, a few months ago at that. The excerpt I quoted is from lesson 11.

In any case, the labels he gives to the two different orders are not as yet clear to me, but basically, the professor’s saying that if the order is “adjectives+noun”, eg “happy, jolly, merry Christmas”, then the adjectives “happy, etc.” differentiate the noun Christmas from other Christmases that are not “happy, jolly, etc” (“junction”). In the other order “noun+adjectives”, the adjectives would be emphasising that all Christmases happen to be “happy, jolly, etc” (“nexus”).

The argument I’m relaying (actually from a footnote in Acariya Piya Tan’s translation of AN 6.63 which seems no longer available on dharmafarer.org for some reason), is that in the usual definition of the five strands of sensuality we have:

Bhikkhus, there are these five cords of sensual pleasure. What five? Forms cognizable by the eye that are desirable, lovely, agreeable, pleasing, sensually enticing, tantalizing. Sounds cognizable by the ear … Odours cognizable by the nose … Tastes cognizable by the tongue … Tactile objects cognizable by the body …These are the five cords of sensual pleasure.

Pañcime, bhikkhave, kāmaguṇā. Katame pañca? Cakkhuviññeyyā rūpā iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṃhitā rajanīyā, sotaviññeyyā saddā … pe … ghānaviññeyyā gandhā … pe … jivhāviññeyyā rasā … pe … kāyaviññeyyā phoṭṭhabbā …—ime kho, bhikkhave, pañca kāmaguṇā.

In the English, it’s unclear as to whether the adjectives in the highlighted portion “desirable, lovely, etc.” apply to all forms cognizable by the eye, or whether of all the forms cognizable by the eye, just the “desirable, lovely, etc.” ones qualify as being a part of the five sensuality strands. Common sense would dictate that there are plenty of sights, sounds, etc that aren’t “desirable, lovely, etc.” and so we should read the sentence as the latter.

In the parallel portion in Pali, rūpā is the noun and the other seven words are adjectives. According to the rule, there being no verb in the sentence (the ones in the English are artificial), all seven adjectives, including cakkhuviññeyyā, would be ‘nexus’ adjectives, emphasising that all sights are of such and such characteristic, with particular emphasis on the fact of eye-cognizedness, etc. So this would dictate that we read the sentence as the former.

However, the professor in the footnote cautiously notes that “severe philologists” tend to discount such rules due to some amount of fluidity in context.

[Sylvester]

@chansik_park

I ran into AN 9.38 which presents the most convincing case I’ve seen for the no-sound-no-body position:

Pañcime, brāhmaṇā, kāmaguṇā ariyassa vinaye lokoti vuccati.
These five objects of sensual pleasure are called ‘the world’ in the Noble One’s discipline. (tr. Bodhi)

Though this particular definition of loka is subsumed by one that includes all six senses elsewhere, it nevertheless bolsters the no-sound-no-body position since, as we read further, we have:

Ayaṃ vuccati, brāhmaṇā, ‘bhikkhu lokassa antamāgamma, lokassa ante viharati’.
[A bhikkhu dwelling in first jhāna] is called a bhikkhu who, having come to the end of the world, dwells at the end of the world.

So dwelling in first jhana (and all others) is here called dwelling “at the end of the world of the five senses” (though he has not escaped the world and is still part of the world).

Hi Chan

AN 9.38’s reference to loka/world can be profitably compared to AN 4.45, where the same assertion is made -

… it isn’t through that sort of traveling that the end of the cosmos is known, seen, or reached. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos.

I take the loka in both suttas to refer to the Clinging-Aggregates. Even though forms, sounds etc are present, the Aggregates in relation to such external bases are absent (ie form of sound, consciousness of sound, perception of sound, feeling of sound, volition towards sound are the loka that has temporarily ended in the Jhanas)

@chansik_park

However, AK Warder’s Introduction to Pali says this is grammatically unlikely (pg 61):

Indeed, Warder is correct, otherwise AN 6.63 and MN 13 would be unsustainable in making the kāmaguṇā a subset of the kāmā . Reading the kāmaguṇā pericope as establishing a junction, and not a nexus, between the substantive and its adjectives is consistent with these 2 suttas.

@chansik_park

Does anyone know whether an English translation of this Āgama is forthcoming? Sounds super-relevant. I’d be very curious to know how the distinction between “present” and “experienced” is made.

I’ve looked at SA 559, and it says very much the same thing as AN 9.37 regarding the kāmā , but without first mentioning the formless attainments. The monk enquires of Ven Ananda how one is percipient yet unaware of the external bases and Ven Ananda goes through the pericopes for the First Jhana etc etc.

[Sylvester]

Alas, I have to confess that I was the one who misled Piya very early on, when I forgot the part that Warder mentioned as establishing a junction -

Adjective+substantive+adjective+adjective.

I only noticed the substantive+adjective+adjective in the pericope and assumed that it was a nexus.

So, a junction (aka restrictive predication) would be something like -

Mary threw the ball that is red.

Only the red ball out of the many balls was thrown, ie the red is restricted to only that ball.

The nexus (ie non-restrictive predication) would be something like -

I dated Mary and Jane, who are the daughters of Penelope.

Assuming that Mary and Jane are known to the the only daughters of Penelope, the predicate “daughters of Penelope” would define only Mary and Jane.

http://www.cws.illinois.edu/workshop/writers/restrictiveclauses/

[chansik_park]

I’m not so sure that you did, though! Doesn’t the junction require a verb? In which case, what would be the verb of the sentence in the kāmaguṇā definition?

ie from Warder, last sentence of p.61:

… When there is no verb in the sentence, however, we understand a nexus regardless of order; then the placing of a nexus-adjective first indicates emphasis of it (as in an argument).

[Sylvester]

Pali being a zero-copula language, the verb hoti/is does not need to be expressed.

For the kāmaguṇā, the junction would show up with “that are”. If the Pali had been a nexus, it would have been “, which are”.

Thanks for p.61!

[chansik_park]

@Sylvester

Thanks for p.61!

(I hope to make this pdf I have from ahandfulofleaves.org searchable some day soon )

@Sylvester

Pali being a zero-copula language, the verb hoti/is does not need to be expressed.

Yes, but a quick scan yields that in p. 9 and p. 14, Warder expresses this as:

Pali sentences do not all contain verbs. (9)

(sometimes there is no verb in Pali in this type of sentence…) (14)

However, I haven’t had the chance to double-check the rules, sort of see them in the wild, (nor read enough of the damn manual) so many thanks for your patience if I’m way off on this! (It’s a bit surreal to know about your raising the point with Acariya Tan, btw!)

If the point in this comment is salient, I can create another thread for just this nuance if you’d be so inclined to test the rules out collaboratively.

[silence]

@chansik_park

I think for the contrary position to be tenable in the face of this sutta, we’d have to weaken the defining of loka here (not implausible given that it’s already subsumed by a broader definition that includes mind) by adopting the ‘restricting’ meaning behind the aforementioned adjective list.

However, AK Warder’s Introduction to Pali says this is grammatically unlikely (pg 61):

@Sylvester

Indeed, Warder is correct, otherwise AN 6.63 and MN 13 would be unsustainable in making the kāmaguṇā a subset of the kāmā . Reading the kāmaguṇā pericope as establishing a junction, and not a nexus, between the substantive and its adjectives is consistent with these 2 suttas.

@Sylvester pardon me if I misunderstand you, but is this not self-contradictory?
On one hand, @chansik_park says the ‘restricting’ meaning (which I understand as ‘junction’) is unlikely according to Warder, and on the other you say Warder is correct, but then provide arguments to demonstrate that junction is the consistent interpretation in the case of AN 6.63 and MN 13?

[Sylvester]

Hi silence

I’m not sure if I would understand @chansik_park 's post like you.

His initial analysis was -

At the very least, the quoted passage would be suggesting that the list of adjectives in the definition of the five kāmaguṇā are descriptive of all objects of the five senses rather than acting as restricting conditions for which of the objects of the five senses qualify (the reading I’d been favouring at least).

He then analyses the counterargument -

I think for the contrary position to be tenable in the face of this sutta, we’d have to weaken the defining of loka here (not implausible given that it’s already subsumed by a broader definition that includes mind) by adopting the ‘restricting’ meaning behind the aforementioned adjective list.

However, AK Warder’s Introduction to Pali says this is grammatically unlikely (pg 61):

The first argument, as I read it, is for the nexus interpretation, while the second suggest the junction interpretation. I was actually thinking of this little nugget suggested by Warder at footnote 3, page 14 that refers to this on page 61 -

An adjective usually precedes the noun it qualifies (thus contrasting with attribute nouns : cf Lesson 1), but when there are several adjectives with one noun very often one adjective precedes and the rest follow the noun.

This seems to conform to the structure of the kāmaguṇā pericope. Unless of course, we chuck the standard dictionary gloss of ABCviññeyya and ask why an absolutive like viññeyya turns the compound into an adjective. It does not look like a syntactical compound like paṭiccasamuppāda, since the examples given by Norman have the absolutive as the first member, and the second member a substantive traceable to a verb (which does not seem plausible in eg cakkhuviññeyya).

[silence]

@Sylvester

I was actually thinking of this little nugget suggested by Warder at footnote 3, page 14 that refers to this on page 61 -

I was suspecting that, but your post suggested the contrary. Thanks for clarifying.

[chansik_park]

@Sylvester,

I’ve yet to find the acuity to properly digest the particulars of your comment above as well as the prudent grammatical note in response to @silence—and thank you for the SA 559 pointer as well, btw!—but stepping back, minding @Charlie’s ‘bigger jhana tent’, in devising some way to organize what I think we can all agree to be a fairly cumbersome topic, I wonder whether we might find some agreement on the overall landscape here.

Eg: As a starting point, and taking a cue from @FrankK’s comments elsewhere, what would anyone’s objections be towards establishing, as a general framework, that there are in fact three rough dispositions towards first dhyāna? Namely:

1. With-sound, with-body, all the way.
2. No-sound, no-body, as definition of attainment.
3. [1] in mere-attainment; [2] at purity.

Each would be replete with implications towards the other attainments along with branching dispositions within the same. For example, perhaps there’s even a no-sound, with-body variation for [2] and [3] that’s possible as per Frank’s careful framing of the original article, by taking the point of distinguishing between internal and external bases somehow (a topic I’ve not studied carefully with enough recency I’d note).

In this discovery phase, we could aggregate all arguments that support each respective position (as well as forming the substructure of each disposition). In a later phase, we can figure out some kind of process for documenting individual cross-dispositional interactions and reconciliations and maybe even try to prune the tree somewhat (in lossless, indexable manner, of course).

I can’t be sure whether this is workable at the moment, and it certainly explodes the scope of the discussion, but in collaboration, I’m thinking this is sort of where we should be headed for a sustainable, lossless and orienting document as I imagine Frank intended in creating it.

[frankk]

regarding an 9.38

@chansik_park

What’s your take on it? Why does the sutta even bother to define kāmaguṇā as loka then?

check out these 2 suttas in SN 35. i cut and paste the whole thing because SC’s numbering is different. translation is b.bodhi

116. Going to the End of the World

1“Bhikkhus, I say that the end of the world cannot be known, seen, or reached by travelling. Yet, bhikkhus, I also say that without reaching the end of the world there is no making an end to suffering.”96 “”

2Having said this, the Blessed One rose from his seat and entered his dwelling.97 “” Then, soon after the Blessed One had left, the bhikkhus considered: “Now, friends, the Blessed One has risen from his seat and entered his dwelling after reciting a synopsis in brief without expounding the meaning in detail. Now who will expound in detail the meaning of the synopsis that the Blessed One recited in brief?” Then they considered: “The Venerable Ānanda is praised by the Teacher and esteemed by his wise brothers in the holy life; the Venerable Ānanda is capable of expounding in detail the meaning of this synopsis recited in brief by the Blessed One without expounding the meaning in detail. Let us approach him and ask him the meaning of this.”

3Then those bhikkhus approached the Venerable Ānanda and exchanged greetings with him, after which they sat down to one side and told him what had taken place, [94] adding: “Let the Venerable Ānanda expound it to us.”

4[The Venerable Ānanda replied:] “Friends, it is as though a man needing heartwood, seeking heartwood, wandering in search of heartwood, would pass over the root and trunk of a great tree standing possessed of heartwood, thinking that heartwood should be sought among the branches and foliage. And so it is with you venerable ones: when you were face to face with the Teacher you passed by the Blessed One, thinking that I should be asked about the meaning. For, friends, knowing, the Blessed One knows; seeing, he sees; he has become vision, he has become knowledge, he has become the Dhamma, he has become the holy one; he is the expounder, the proclaimer, the elucidator of meaning, the giver of the Deathless, the lord of the Dhamma, the Tathāgata. That was the time when you should have asked the Blessed One the meaning. [95] As he explained it to you, so you should have remembered it.”

5“Surely, friend Ānanda, knowing, the Blessed One knows; seeing, he sees; he has become vision … the Tathāgata. That was the time when we should have asked the Blessed One the meaning, and as he explained it to us, so we should have remembered it. Yet the Venerable Ānanda is praised by the Teacher and esteemed by his wise brothers in the holy life; the Venerable Ānanda is capable of expounding the detailed meaning of this synopsis recited in brief by the Blessed One without expounding the meaning in detail. Let the Venerable Ānanda expound it without finding it troublesome.”

6“Then listen, friends, and attend closely to what I shall say.”

7“Yes, friend,” the bhikkhus replied. The Venerable Ānanda said this:

8“Friends, when the Blessed One rose from his seat and entered his dwelling after reciting a synopsis in brief without expounding the meaning in detail, that is: ‘Bhikkhus, I say that the end of the world cannot be known, seen, or reached by travelling. Yet, bhikkhus, I also say that without reaching the end of the world there is no making an end to suffering,’ I understand the detailed meaning of this synopsis as follows: That in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world—this is called the world in the Noble One’s Discipline. 98 “” And what, friends, is that in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world? The eye is that in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world .99 “” The ear … The nose … The tongue … The body … The mind is that in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world. That in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world—this is called the world in the Noble One’s Discipline. [96]

9“Friends, when the Blessed One rose from his seat and entered his dwelling after reciting a synopsis in brief without expounding the meaning in detail, that is: ‘Bhikkhus, I say that the end of the world cannot be known, seen, or reached by travelling. Yet, bhikkhus, I also say that without reaching the end of the world there is no making an end to suffering,’ I understand the meaning of this synopsis in detail to be thus. Now, friends, if you wish, go to the Blessed One and ask him about the meaning of this. As the Blessed One explains it to you, so you should remember it.”

10“Yes, friends,” those bhikkhus replied, and having risen from their seats, they went to the Blessed One. After paying homage to him, they sat down to one side and told the Blessed One all that had taken place after he had left, adding: [97] “Then, venerable sir, we approached the Venerable Ānanda and asked him about the meaning. The Venerable Ānanda expounded the meaning to us in these ways, with these terms, with these phrases.”

11“Ānanda is wise, bhikkhus, Ānanda has great wisdom. If you had asked me the meaning of this, I would have explained it to you in the same way that it has been explained by Ānanda. Such is the meaning of this, and so you should remember it.”
117. Cords of Sensual Pleasure

1“Bhikkhus, before my enlightenment, while I was still a bodhisatta, not yet fully enlightened, the thought occurred to me: ‘My mind may often stray towards those five cords of sensual pleasure that have already left their impression on the heart100 "
" but which have passed, ceased, and changed, or towards those that are present, or slightly towards those in the future.’ Then it occurred to me: ‘Being set on my own welfare,101 “” I should practise diligence, mindfulness, and guarding of the mind in regard to those five cords of sensual pleasure that have already left their impression on the heart, which have passed, ceased, and changed.’

2“Therefore, bhikkhus, in your case too your minds may often stray towards those five cords of sensual pleasure that have already left their impression on the heart but which have passed, ceased, and changed, or towards those that are present, or slightly towards those in the future. Therefore, bhikkhus, [98] being set on your own welfare, you should practise diligence, mindfulness, and guarding of the mind in regard to those five cords of sensual pleasure that have already left their impression on the heart but which have passed, ceased, and changed.

3“Therefore, bhikkhus, that base should be understood,102 "
" where the eye ceases and perception of forms fades away.103 “” That base should be understood, where the ear ceases and perception of sounds fades away.… That base should be understood, where the mind ceases and perception of mental phenomena fades away. That base should be understood.”

4Having said this, the Blessed One rose from his seat and entered his dwelling. Then, soon after the Blessed One had left, the bhikkhus considered … (all as in preceding sutta down to:) [99–100] … The Venerable Ānanda said this:

5“Friends, when the Blessed One rose from his seat and entered his dwelling after reciting a synopsis in brief without expounding the meaning in detail—that is: ‘Therefore, bhikkhus, that base should be understood, where the eye ceases and perception of forms fades away…. That base should be understood, where the mind ceases and perception of mental phenomena fades away. That base should be understood’—I understand the detailed meaning of this synopsis as follows: This was stated by the Blessed One, friends, with reference to the cessation of the six sense bases.104 “”

6“Friends, when the Blessed One rose from his seat and entered his dwelling after reciting a synopsis in brief without expounding the meaning in detail … I understand the meaning of this synopsis in detail to be thus. Now, friends, if you wish, go to the Blessed One and ask him about the meaning of this. As the Blessed One explains it to you, so you should remember it.”

7“Yes, friends,” those bhikkhus replied, and having risen from their seats, they went to the Blessed One. After paying homage to him, they sat down to one side and told the Blessed One all that had taken place after he had left, adding: [101] “Then, venerable sir, we approached the Venerable Ānanda and asked him about the meaning. The Venerable Ānanda expounded the meaning to us in these ways, with these terms, with these phrases.”

8“Ānanda is wise, bhikkhus, Ānanda has great wisdom. If you had asked me the meaning of this, I would have explained it to you in the same way that it has been explained by Ānanda. Such is the meaning of this, and so you should remember it.”

[chansik_park]

@frankk

Chan, i’m happy with whatever the group comes up with on organizing the essay structure, so long as there’s a synopsis that gives a clear map of what’s going on, where to find what, and clear sutta references. my proposal is i think this essay would be good to limit the scope to collecting EBT passages, and organizing them clearly to describe very briefly what position each passage may or may not support. we could leave the decision tree branching to other essays that this essay links to., and those essay could delve into explaining in detail how particular passages in this essay could be interpreted to support or disprove whatever position.

Hey Frank,

Based on your more tractable proposal, I’ve run through a first-pass draft (ie a request-for-comment) to get a sense of what it’d look like. Feel free to revise into the original until we get the wikiness of the thread fixed. The Y/N labels (and the quick quips) are loosely based on a roughly conceived “argument-initiator” heuristic and we could, in the interim, go so far as to link to individual comments/resources there.

(Oh and thanks for the two references above!)

draft.zip (1.3 KB)

---

(very) Roughly mined from:
Can you hear sound and feel body in jhāna?
Vitakka vicāra (Jhana-factors)
Roderick S. Bucknell - Reinterpreting the Jhānas (1993)

Others to mine:
"Sutta" and "Visuddhimagga" jhanas
The Third Jhana - 'of which the noble ones declare'
Jhana Interpretations
http://dhammawheel.com

---

Dīgha/Dīrgha

Y: DN 2 – “No part of the body unsuffused with rapture and pleasure”

Majjhima/Madhyama

Y: MN 118 – “I breathe out sensitive to pleasure and rapture”
Y: MN 125 – “Abide contemplating body without sensual thoughts, then with stilling, second jhana” (!MA 198, c.f. MA 102 != MN 19)
Y: MN 152 – “A blind man would have developed faculties if one does not hear eye/sound in developing faculties”

Saṃyutta/Saṃyukta

Y: SN 40.1 – “While I dwelt in first jhana sensual perceptions assailed me”
N: SN 48.40 – “(Bodily) dukhindriya ceases without remainder in first jhana”*
N: SA 559 – “Percipient without experiencing senses in first jhana+” (as in AN 9.37 for formless)

Aṅguttara/Ekottarika

Y: AN 3.63 – “When I am in fourth jhana, I walk back and forth, celestial”
Y: AN 5.113 – “One who can withstand the five senses can remain in right concentration”
Y: AN 5.176 – “[Bodily] pleasure & [mental] joy dependent on the skillful, while dwelling in seclusion & rapture”
N: AN 9.34 – “Sensual perceptions in first jhana like pain for a healthy person”
N: AN 9.38 – “Dwelling in first jhana is dwelling at the end of the world”
N: AN 10.72 – “Noise is a thorn to first jhana”

(Khuddaka)

(Vinaya)

---

• c.f. Clarification on Feelings in Buddhist Dhyāna/Jhāna Meditation, Tse Fu Kuan, Journal of Indian Philsophy (2005) 33: 285 – 319; p.290: T28, 979b, T32, 285b, T30, 331a, Ak-P 440

[sujato]

The OP of any post can make their own post a wiki, I believe. Click the wrench icon at the bottom of the post and then, make wiki. This means that anyone can edit it.

This wiki functionality is separate from the “Wiki” category, and can be used for anything.

[chansik_park]

Bhante, it looks like it’s a ‘Trust-Level Badge’ thing. (I’m unable to do the same for the one post I created.)

On the Badges page from the top-right menu, the word “Granted” in the descriptions of each Trust-Level Badge links to the technical documentation for the feature, where it says:

Users at trust level 3 can make their own posts wiki (that is, editable by any Trust-Level 1+ users)

However, searching the Discourse Meta for the word ‘wikify’ leads me to this topic and links to a pull request from January that says that there’s a setting “min_trust_to_allow_self_wiki” that is set to 3 by default…

[Charlie]

@chansik_park

(Khuddaka)

I think Ud 3.3 (Yasoja Sutta) should be included. This is the one where Buddha and 500 monks are sitting in imperturbable concentration. Ananda asks the Buddha a question twice without a response but upon asking him the question for a third time:

Then the Blessed One, emerging from his imperturbable concentration, said to Ven. Ānanda, “Ānanda, if you had known, not even that much would have occurred to you (to say). I, along with all 500 of these monks, have been sitting in imperturbable concentration.”

He is sitting in the imperturbable concentration, Ananda asks the question, he comes out of that concentration, and then answers the question – implying that he must have heard the question while in that concentration. That he does not answer him the first two times does not necessarily mean that he did not hear him. There are numerous instances in the suttas of Buddha remaining silent until a question has been asked three times – generally when he doesn’t really want to answer - as seems to be the case here.