Hi silence
I had canvassed the issue on DW previously, as you may recall. My argument goes like this -
Why does AN 10.72 describe certain phenomena to be “thorns” to the respective states?
Let’s start first with an inventory of the thorns, and map them against the states against which they are incompatible -
-
saṅgaṇikārāmatā (delight in company) - discussed in the context of seclusion, eg MN 122 –
Ananda, a monk does not shine if he delights in company, enjoys company, is committed to delighting in company (saṅgaṇikārāmo saṅgaṇikārato saṅgaṇikārāmataṃ anuyutto); if he delights in a group, enjoys a group, rejoices in a group. Indeed, Ananda, it is impossible that a monk who delights in company, enjoys company, is committed to delighting in company; who delights in a group, enjoys a group, rejoices in a group, will obtain at will — without difficulty, without trouble — the pleasure of renunciation, the pleasure of seclusion, the pleasure of peace, the pleasure of self-awakening. But it is possible that a monk who lives alone, withdrawn from the group, can expect to obtain at will — without difficulty, without trouble — the pleasure of renunciation, the pleasure of seclusion, the pleasure of peace, the pleasure of self-awakening.
So, here we see “delight in company” being diametrically opposed to the monastic’s effort at seclusion.
- subhanimittānuyoga - (bondage to an agreeable sign) – likely in the context of sense restraint, where subhanimittānuyoga might be equivalent to grasping at an agreeable sign in such pericopes –
So cakkhunā rūpaṃ disvā na nimittaggāhī hoti nānubyañjanaggāhī. Yatvādhikaraṇamenaṃ cakkhundriyaṃ asaṃvutaṃ viharantaṃ abhijjhā domanassā pāpakā akusalā dhammā anvāssaveyyuṃ.
On seeing a form with the eye, he does not grasp at any theme or details by which — if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the eye — evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail him.
It should be obvious here that “bondage to an agreeable sign” should be diametrically opposed to someone cultivating the sign of the unattractive. The person embarking on the meditation on the unattractive does so for the sake of allying lust - Ud 4.1, and in the sense restraint pericope, abhijjhā is synonymous with lust.
- visūkadassana - appears in the sections on ethical conduct in the DN -
And how is a monk consummate in virtue? …
He abstains from dancing, singing, instrumental music, and from watching shows (visūkadassana ).
Whereas some brahmans and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to watching shows such as these — dancing, singing, instrumental music, plays, ballad recitations, hand-clapping, cymbals and drums, magic lantern scenes, acrobatic and conjuring tricks, elephant fights, horse fights, buffalo fights, bull fights, goat fights, ram fights, cock fights, quail fights; fighting with staves, boxing, wrestling, war-games, roll calls, battle arrays, and regimental reviews — he abstains from watching shows (visūkadassana ) such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue.
We see that entertainment is prima facie obstructive to basic and intermediate monastic ethics.
-
mātugāmūpacāro - likely opposed to the ethical quality ārācārī (living apart [from women]) found in the formulaic silā passages in the DN.
-
sadda (sound) - we’ll leave this to later after we’ve examined the rest of the series, to see if the pattern of opposition is applied to the rest of the thorns.
-
vitakkavicāra needs no introduction. It is described invariably in the jhana pericopes as something that disappears for the Second Jhana to be attained. See also AN 9.31 which says niruddhā (has ceased) in relation to this phenomenon. So, here again we have the opposition pattern manifesting - the appearance of vitakkavicāra in the Second Jhana is a thorn because it should not be there.
-
pīti - as above for vitakkavicāra.
-
assāsapassāsa - also said to have ceased in the Fourth Jhana in AN 9.31.
-
saññā & vedanā in the attainment of Cessation. As above.
So, in this series of nine, 8 of the states have been shown to be viewed as “thorns”, simply because they cannot co-exist with their opposing state. That leaves only sound. Can anyone think of any sutta series where the Buddha conveniently cut the thread unifying the series, to interject a totally irrelevant proposition? The most natural reading of sound’s place in this series is that it cannot be (or at least should not be) perceived in the First Jhana.
To round it off, AN 9.31 also says that kāmasaññā has ceased in the First Jhana. Ven T translates this as “perception of sensuality”, by which “sensuality” he has indicated refers to “sensual desire”. It is of course possible to parse the compound as he has done, ie as a kammadhāraya, where kāma is adjectival singular, rather than substantive.
It is also possible to parse kāmasaññā as a genitive tappurisa consisting of kāmā (pl) and saññā. And this should be the natural reading of this compound, since everywhere else, the First Jhana pericope says vivicceva kāmehi (secluded from the kāmā (pl)).
I think what’s lacking to date is a proper rebuttal of AN 9.37’s proposition that in the jhanas, one is not sensitive to the 5 senses.