Hearing sounds in samādhi, jhāna

[Sylvester]

@frankk

AN 3.130 Anuruddha uses divine eye concurrently with 4th jhāna quality of samādhi, no need to emerge from an articifially created post 4th jhāna state.

If your argument lies in this -

@frankk

What unequivocally establishes this as 4 jhāna quality of samādhi, rather than just samadhi with ekaggata, is the presence of body pacification stated there, “passaddho kāyo”. This corresponds to passadhi-bojjhanga, the critical gate in 7sb that can block samadhi-bojjhanga (four jhānas here) from happening.

You’ve assumed that samā­dhi­sam­boj­jhaṅga can refer only to the Jhanas on the basis of the reference to passaddho kāyo. But isn’t it standard satipaṭṭhāna when one contemplates dhammas that all of the Awakening Factors are contemplated, eg -

When they have the the awakening factor of tranquility they clearly know ‘I have the awakening factor of tranquility’; when they don’t have the awakening factor of tranquility they clearly know ‘I don’t have the awakening factor of tranquility’; they clearly know how the unarisen awakening factor of tranquility comes to arise; and they clearly know how the arisen awakening factor of tranquility becomes perfected through development. (5)

When they have the the awakening factor of samādhi they clearly know ‘I have the awakening factor of samādhi’; when they don’t have the awakening factor of samādhi they clearly know ‘I don’t have the awakening factor of samādhi’; they clearly know how the unarisen awakening factor of samādhi comes to arise; and they clearly know how the arisen awakening factor of samādhi becomes perfected through development. (6) : MN 10

The formula used in AN 3.130 -

Āraddhaṃ kho pana me vīriyaṃ asallīnaṃ, upaṭṭhitā sati asammuṭṭhā, passaddho kāyo asāraddho, samāhitaṃ cittaṃ ekaggaṃ

is in fact found in so many other suttas discussing sense restraint, establishment of mindfulness, compassion etc. I would point out that the very same formula appears in MN 19 as the precursor to the First Jhana. There, another instance of Access Concentration in an EBT, although not named as such.

@frankk

One can even exercise divine eye, see beings in different realms, energetically suffuse those beings from any of the four jhānas. Doing 4j, 4bv, 4ip (iddhipada) concurrently.

Again, would you care to present evidence from the texts for this? Inference from a valid argument is also acceptable, if there is no explicit declaration of this in the texts. I have given 2 arguments against this, one grammatical, one doctrinal. The grammatical point was the reference to the form of the locative absolute used in all of the abhiññā pericopes. The doctrinal point was the reference to AN 9.35. It would be good to address these 2 points, and not ignore them. No reader of the abhiññā pericope who is fluent in Pali would miss the import of that pericope pointing to the abhiññā being exercised after the Jhanas. No reader of BB’s translation of AN 9.35 would miss the same import, unless he/she has relied in the ATI translation for too long.

@frankk

One of the key differences between VRJ (vism. redefinition of jhana) and the 4 jhānas in EBT is the frozen state where one can’t think, can’t do vipassana.

Ditto as above regarding the locative absolute and AN 9.35. In addition, DN 9 and its parallel are quite explicit that if one thinks or intends in any of the attainment, one falls out of that attainment. Which brings us to -

@frankk

MN 111 is one place

If one were inclined to disregard its obvious late provenance as ventilated in Anupada Sutta (MN 111) - Its status as an EBT

one could still try to make sense of the activities going on under the verb vavattheti as being limited to only the saññāsamāpattis. In case it’s overlooked, there is the obvious problem of Awakening happening in Cessation as presented in MN 111, when all other suttas employing the -

sabbaso neva­saññā­nā­sañ­ñāyata­naṃ samatikkamma saññā­ve­dayi­ta­nirodhaṃ upasampajja viharati. Paññāya cassa disvā āsavā parikkhīṇā honti.

pericope, do not envisage Awakening occurring without consciousness.

@frankk

The frozen state also shares similarities with DN 1’s wrong type samadhi of non-perception that leads to a rebirth in a non-perception realm with a lifespan that’s so long, after one is reborn from the non-perception realm, they can’t even remember a past life (as a human for example), and believe they were just spontaneously created beings.

Would you like to retract this strawman? As far as I can tell, all those who teach about the disappearance of the 5 sense objects in First Jhana insist that one if fully conscious and percipient of the qualia of pleasure at the mind.

@frankk

There isn’t a passage in the EBT establishing a frozen state in the 4j. If that passage existed, you can be sure Buddhghosa would highlight that in the Vism.

Here are the EBT passages referring to the Jhanas being void of the 5 sense objects -

1. every vivicceva kāmehi pericope
2. AN 9.37
3. SA 557

If you use the strawman of the “frozen state”, then it is a non-sequitur, since you are putting into our mouth what we have not uttered. Which explains why -

@frankk

I’ve read Ven. Analayo’s analysis on MN 111, it’s fatally flawed. This is once again related to the frozen state of VRJ. The EBT doesn’t have a frozen state for the 4 jhānas. His reasoning is all based on the existence of this frozen state. He needs to, but doesn’t ever show the passage where the frozen state is defined for the 4j.

Ven Analayo does not defend the utility of the frozen state which you attribute to the Absorbed camp.

@frankk

If that passage existed, you can be sure Buddhghosa would highlight that in the Vism.

In fact, he did. He was puzzled by the Abhidhamma explanation of the vivicceva kāmehi pericope and gave a rather feeble defense of it.

@frankk

You can milk the “eva” in “vivicceva kamehhi” for all its worth, but it absolutely doesn’t mean “mind divorced from 5 senses.”

I agree. It means separated from the 5 sense objects.

@frankk

It’s the seclusion from sensuality that is spiritually relevant.

And this is the damage caused by Ven Thanissaro’s interpretation of kāmā in the said pericope. Despite the CPD pointing out that -

1. kāmā as sensual desires is a Abhidhammic thing; and
2. kāmā in the suttas means the 5 sense objects,

he has opted for his interpretation that does violence to MN 13. Would you need me to ventilate again the ridiculous outcome of reading kāmā as sensual desires in MN 13?

In fact, I wonder if you did not notice this little sleight of hand in this translation in AN 6.63 on ATI -

Saṅkapparāgo purisassa kāmo,
Nete kāmā yāni citrāni loke;
Saṅkapparāgo purisassa kāmo,
Tiṭṭhanti citrāni tatheva loke;
Athettha dhīrā vinayanti chandanti.

The passion for his resolves is a man’s sensuality,
not the beautiful sensual pleasures found in the world.
The passion for his resolves is a man’s sensuality.
The beauties remain as they are in the world,
while the wise, in this regard, subdue their desire.

If he were consistent in his translation, he would have translated the kāmā above as “sensual desires” but that would contradict the verse insisting that “sensual desire” is only in the singular kāmo.

@frankk

The Buddha has unambiguous terms for describing a state where the 5 senses are not operating. The most frequently occurring one is in samadhi attainment #5, base of infinite space.

We can discuss this in a separate thread if you wish, but as Sue Hamilton’s research has shown, this hinges on what rūpa means as an Aggregate, and how your reading above is actually an Abhidhamma position limiting form to being contactable by only the 5 senses. I’m sure you will realise that this position contradicts the suttas on 2 counts.