Equanimity without Jhana?

Q & A
47

This comes to me like a piece of sound advice and something I’ve been trying to follow to the best of my ability. Trying to join in debates or learning how it feels by remembering descriptions from others has only lead to doubting and suffering.

This makes good sense as I experience peacefulness/serenity/equanimity. When having prolonged time abiding in peacefulness and not looking for something else, it feels completely right. But every time I make some effort to concentrate on subtle sensations/feeling of joy, spaciousness and so on, the mind won’t have it and settle down in its own fullness of peace.
So, I guess the next thing to do is to let go of peacefulness…

48

Regarding the statement:

There is one problem with this statement because it is not “someone needing to not cling” (i.e., not an “I”) - it would be more appropriate to say that clinging does not happen due to seeing the three characteristics. Everything happens (including engaging in the practice, and developing the practice), due to causes and conditions – this is what one needs to understand experientially.

Also, regarding Thito’s statement:

Here again, there is no person attaining nibbana, but understanding the true nature of everything happens due to causes and conditions. If one thinks they have attained something, then they probably haven’t, but if “I attained nibbana” is understood as a perception that arises and ceases, then one is closer to nibbana.

Here, it is also useful to recall the Indriya-bhavana Sutta (MN 152) where it is stated that even arahants experience pleasant and unpleasant feelings, but because they have seen the true nature of things, they are not shaken by them and do not crave and attach to them.

49

Maybe a problem, but I regard it as a minor one. Any localisation of consciousness will lead one astray.

50

Do you know that for certain or are you speculating?

Sorry, but I do not subscribe to this interpretation of no-self.

The Buddha reprimanded a monk who held that interpretation

“So it seems, good sir, that form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness are not-self. Then what self will the deeds done by not-self affect?”

Then the Buddha, knowing what that monk was thinking, addressed the mendicants:

“It’s possible that some foolish person here—unknowing and ignorant, their mind dominated by craving—thinks they can overstep the teacher’s instructions. They think: ‘So it seems, good sir, that form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness are not-self. Then what self will the deeds done by not-self affect?’ Now, mendicants, you have been educated by me in questioning with regards to all these things in all such cases.

  • SN 22.82

The Buddha didn’t reject the existence of a being:

“‘A being,’ lord. ‘A being,’ it’s said. To what extent is one said to be ‘a being’?”

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be ‘a being.’[[3]]

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling… perception… fabrications…

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be ‘a being.’

The aggregates exist

“Form that’s constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change is agreed upon by the wise as not existing in the world, and I too say, ‘It doesn’t exist.’

…

“Form that’s inconstant, stressful, subject to change is agreed upon by the wise as existing in the world, and I too say, ‘It exists.’

  • SN 22.94

The Buddha used pronouns constantly, and that does not mean he wasn’t enlightened, so the language one uses is irrelevant.

No-self doesn’t mean no control either, as the Buddha had mastery of control.

"And, yes, I think whatever thought I want to think, and don’t think any thought I don’t want to think. I will any resolve I want to will, and don’t will any resolve I don’t want to will. I have attained mastery of the mind with regard to the pathways of thought.

  • Vassakara Sutta

No-self has to fall in the context of suffering and conditioned things. Suffering is no self because you don’t choose to suffer, you only suffer because you don’t know better. If you could choose not to suffer, you would. Once you know better, you’re no longer ignorant, you no longer suffer. All conditioned things are no-self because they’re all impermanent, if you knew better, you wouldn’t settle for conditioned things.

Whether a being exists or doesn’t exist in parnibbana is one of the topics the Buddha said should not be discussed. The unanswerable questions - Wikipedia

Again, because it’s speculation that cannot be known until you do know it for yourself directly.

51

This is ultimately about the separation of conventional reality and absolute reality. Yes, a person exists in ‘conventional reality,’ but when considering ‘absolute reality,’ it is a matter of causes and conditions leading to other causes and conditions. I will write about this sometime later.

1 Like
52

Here’s a great article by Ven Thanissaro on the “two truths” theory (conventional reality vs ultimate reality), and that it’s not early buddhist Contents | The Mirror of Insight

So the evidence strongly suggests that the word paramattha in the suttas is a name for the truth of the experience of nibbāna, and not an ultimate level of description about the world—and that the two-truth theory as a whole is a later addition to the tradition. This fact does not necessarily mean that it’s an inappropriate interpretation of the suttas—it could be making explicit something only implicit in the Buddha’s approach—but it so happens that when we examine some of the Buddha’s statements in the suttas about truth and teachings, the two-truth theory actually conflicts with them. This is what makes it an inappropriate interpretation of the Buddha’s strategy in teaching.

I recommend reading the entire link as it has several sutta references.

53

The ‘two truths’ is not a theory. It is something we can directly observe. When we talk about us existing in the world, interacting and doing things, etc., - all this represents the “conventional world” – i.e., agreed upon ways of naming, referring, understanding, etc. Science only focuses on studying this conventional world.

The Buddha’s teachings are about how we can gradually understand ultimate reality, which represents an ontologically different way of understanding. In terms of ultimate reality, there is nothing outside of the constantly changing (arising and ceasing) causally conditioned aggregates. If you read Ven Analayo’s book (“Satipatthana: The direct path to realization” - link: https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/direct-path.pdf - read Chapter 10) – it describes how we can understand every experience of the conventional world in terms of the constantly changing aggregates.

In Anuradha Sutta [SN 22.86], the Buddha is referred to as the Tathāgata (in the ‘conventional’ sense) – however, the Buddha says (at the end of this sutta) that even in the present moment, Tathāgata does not exist, so why talk about the potential existence after life. The same sutta describes how it is not possible to identify any of the aggregates as a self.

I don’t think that the article you have cited contradict any of what I have stated above. As I see it, conventional and ultimate truths are like the foreground and background parts of a gestalt image – two very different ways of understanding the world (that are ontologically and epistemologically different).

54

He doesn’t say that in that sutta though, he says

And so, Anuradha — when you can’t pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, ‘Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death’?"

He’s implying you can’t conceptually pin down the Buddha, not that the Buddha doesn’t or does exist, which again falls into the trap of assumption. In other words, you should not hold a position at all, and suspend judgement until you know for yourself, hence my original response to you on suspending judgement on things you don’t know for certain (direct experience).

Before that he says that he is not the 5 aggregates, which no one is disputing.

As per SN 12.15

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, ‘non-existence’ with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, ‘existence’ with reference to the world does not occur to one.

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on ‘my self.’ He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It’s to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

"‘Everything exists’: That is one extreme. ‘Everything doesn’t exist’: That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:

And yes, Ven Thanissaro, in that article, is against tbe two truths theory.

55

Regarding what you have written, the following is true:

Now, one can ask, “How does one get to know these for oneself ”? In other words, what are the ‘strategies’ that one needs to use to get to know these things for oneself?

The answer is: This is done by following the noble eightfold path, but practising satipatthana, by contemplating the four noble truths and the five aggregates, etc.

Now, when we do this, we get to know ‘within ourselves’ (not as a mere theory – i.e., experiential understanding) – that:

(i) the conventional reality constitute “bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases” [words quoted from the sutta (SN 12.15) you cited], and

(ii) ultimate reality is about seeing with right discernment or right view as described in that sutta.

Therefore, seeing (with wisdom) that these two realities as two extremes happen when one progresses towards ultimate wisdom. Now, conventional reality is easy to see – most people live with ignorance in the conventional world. But by following the Buddhist teachings, one gradually understands ultimate realities – this understanding gradually leads one to the “end of suffering.” Here, one also understands the two different realities, without clinging to any of them.

For the practice, I personally find that experientially understanding the five aggregates is tremendously useful (accomplished through mindfulness, and seeing the three characteristics). We need to remember that there is nothing outside of the five aggregates. The aggregates manifest moment by moment all the time. The thoughts you have when you read what I have written here (perceptions, etc.), as well as everything you write here (volition) are also aggregates that are arising and ceasing moment by moment. If you read chapter 10 of the book of ven Analayo that I mentioned, you will understand this.

If there is any suffering, this means you are attaching to some aggregate (for example, if one is attached to one’s own view, then suffering can happen because of the thought ‘that person doesn’t agree with my view!’) – the way to overcome this is to see the three characteristics of all aggregates – this is accomplished through insight meditation.