I would interpret it around the all-pervading immersion element. You are of the water (born in and growing in it), and there is nowhere without water. And this concerns the body also - it is an embodied experience, as opposed to cognitive. Pervading your entire body-mind. And you don’t stand up out of the water because there is no part where there is no water. It’s all of you. Not partial.
And I think the affective side of this is rather important. The Buddha seems to have clearly differentiated between affective and cognitive aspects of the mind and experience. He is here describing affective, embodied experience.
Interesting to take it as a meditation guide. I take is rather as a description. Which may also be useful for the purpose of identifying. But I did not take it to be used with intent, as in trying to ‘summon’ the state. Like a menu - the description of food describes what it is, but it’s not something to wish for in order to create it. Though it does also help in identifying it - if 4 people order and unfamiliar food comes, at least they can know which food is who’s by examining the items and comparing them to the menu. But the actual creation procedure is another thing entirely.
Thank you for your helpful comment. In regards to the “all-pervading immersion element”, I agree with what you and other commentators have mentioned. I guess what I am trying to get at is how this all-pervading immersion in the third jhana differs from the all-pervading immersion that characterizes the first, second and fourth jhanas as well, all of which equally emphasize an all-pervading component to their respective jhana states. In the second jhana, for example, the piti is also all-pervading and immersive. For me, I feel that the crucial aspect of this powerful analogy the Buddha has provided for the third jhana is that the state of happiness “flourish[es] without standing up out…” (i.e., it is restrained and controlled, unlike piti).
I can see your other point that it could be viewed as a description and it is very helpful that the Buddha does this in terms of helping us to understand each state. Perhaps what prompted me to use the term “guide” is that the Buddha has used fairly active verbs to describe this, which seems more in keeping with a “guide”. He begins with the phrase “Just as…” to describe the analogy, then says in the middle of the passage, when transitioning to actual practice “…even so, the monk…” and then uses active verbs like “permeates and pervades”. But it is not a complete guide in that the analogy does not fully explain how to arrive at the state; that is done elsewhere in the sutta.
I’ve struggled for nearly two years trying to understand this analogy for the third jhana state. Every time I read the suttas on jhanas, I would often skim over this section because it just didn’t resonate with me, whereas the other three analogies have been so wonderful and helpful. The Buddha’s teachings are so profound. Sometimes it just takes time. Undoubtably, there is still much more there than I can currently see, waiting to be uncovered.
You’re welcome! I’d guess that the total immersion aspect is the same, and that these are different ways of expressing that. But that some of the details, such as the pure brightness of the 4th jhāna, the still coolness of the 3rd, the cool internal stream of the 2nd, and the (mere) saturation of the 1st, point to the outstanding characteristics of these different affective experiences. These are further elaborated by the names of the affect, such as vivekajena pītisukhena etc. It’s hard to describe affects with much else than analogy!
The elements that you have pointed out do not make it seem instructional to me. It just sounds like an analogy being explained, as a description. Though this question would benefit from someone who knows how it would sound to a native Pāli speaker.
For actual instructions, I would turn to an instructional discourse. I forget where, I think somewhere in MN/MA, the Buddha instructs Anuruddha and his friends in jhāna. My memory tells me that might be… MĀ or MN 72? I don’t quite remember. Anyway, he even recounts his own jhāna practice before he was enlightened, which refutes the popular tale of him deciding jhāna was the path of enlightenment, eating some food, and then happening to attain all 4 jhānas and enlightenment in one sitting! So I like this sutta (with parallels) very much, as it seems to be the genuine story, in which he actually took a good amount of time to train himself to even experience the first jhāna! And so also for the next 3. It seems it could have been at least a number of days but more likely months or even years potentially! Either way, definitely for an extended period. So anyway, you can see his jhāna instructions there if you can find it.
Do you practice jhāna? A two year jhāna retreat with a suitable guide might find you the answer!
Or… outside of practice, perhaps looking into Ayya Khema’s teachings would be helpful. She was a jhāna teacher and so far as I can see, she was teaching from direct and deep experience. There are books and talks available from her.
Thank you–I read Ayya Khema’s works and found them to be helpful. I’ve also found Leigh Brasington’s book very useful because of its very specific instructions.
These images are really very interesting. As I look at them, I am struck by several additional insights related to this analogy.
Even though immersed in the water, you can see an image of the sky above, but are insulated from it. To me, this suggest the concept that in the third jhana state, one withdraws even further from interaction with the external world, even though it is still there. It reminds me of the experience, perhaps one you have had also, of being at a public pool and hearing all the noise when your head is above water, then immersing your head and it becomes so much more tranquil and quiet.
The image of the leaves above that have penetrated the water are seeking sustenance from the sun. This reminds me of the six sense base consciousnesses that are always reacting to the external world. The lotus immersed in the water is protected somewhat from that. The remaining in the water, while other fronds move up to the surface, implies a sense of restraint.
The experience of being underwater invokes a sense of being languid due to the inherent nature of the water slowing us down, and much less frenetic that being out of water where there is less resistance from the air.
The floor is murky and cluttered, yet the lotus rises out of it. The purpose of the jhana states is to move to ever high levels of mental purification.
Foremost of all, though, is the sense of stability, equilibrium and balance since the lotus is positioned between two extremes (the lake floor and the surface), and to me that is very much the essence of the third jhana and what we are seek to cultivate through the sukha that characterizes this stage.
Different colors–why did the Buddha explicitly mention this when he said “blue, white or red lotuses” instead of just saying “white lotuses”? What comes to mind here is the sense that we all bring to the path different characteristics and even as arahants, these persists. Moggallana, for example, cultivated psychic powers, while Sariputtra had a different temperament and focus. Another interpretation is that there are different paths to this happiness, such as a metta-based path or a seclusion-based approach.
Do any other insights related to the third jhana come to you as you look at these helpful images? In some ways, reflecting on these images seems like a form of anussati, specifically, Recollection of the Dhamma (Dhammānussati). I’ve been thinking lately that it would be nice to print these type of images drawn from the analogies of the Buddha (the frontier fortress for mindfulness, the hands of a soapmaker kneeding soap for the first jhana, etc.) as a way to remind myself of the tranquility and beauty of these states while struggling with the hectic nature of modern lay life.
The human mind has a substantial amount of cortex dedicated to visual processing. Some estimates are that as much as 50% of the cortex is dedicated to visual imagery. The images invoked by these analogies are a powerful way to leverage that extra processing power, those additional billions of neurons, as we seek to gain insight. Visual memory is also an important component of memory, one that tends to be nonverbal and thus less restrained by semantic limitations and thereby amenable to different forms of insight. Sati, or mindfulness, can be viewed as intertwined with recollection/memory. Thus it seems reasonable that the Buddha was encouraging us to use this resource as part of the path.
All of that is still being experienced at the mind, rather than the physical body contacting rapture and pleasure. The physical body experiences physical touch. Nothing more. It therefore follows that the sutta is not talking about the physical body, but another type of body. As with English and Sanskrit, “body” can mean different things depending upon the context.
You can’t hear a sound whilst in Jhana, since the 5 senses are temporarily shut down. Sounds more like access concentration to me, but we are getting too far into personal practice here.
Of course it’s ,there is no way for body to feel rapture, body can only feel tactile sensation
But when you are aware of your entire body or what sutta calls “perception of form” you will aware of rapture in that whole body and this includes internal organs too, it’s this awareness that covers that entire body so if rapture arises the rapture contacts the awareness in that entire body it’s what the buddha called mind born contact, so the rapture is not in your head or your breath it’s in your entire awareness
Once you become aware of space or infinite space you will aware of pleasure in that whole space since buddha still calls dimension of infinite space as pleasure, your awareness becomes unlimited
That is the difference between form and formless, both mental and breath body are formless and when buddha refers to perception of form he refers to your friend’s form or your mother’s form or your phone’s form, anything that has form but if we only focus or aware on this very form we use to breath that’s where the rapture arises
It’s like mind made body even though it’s mental you can see it and touch it
When gods create and use a mind made body they don’t lose their heavenly rapture and pleasure in that very body
I think up to third jhana you would still aware of your breath it’s not until fourth jhana you cant sense your breath in this case you can’t sense the nimitta/tactile sensation in your nose, the sign of breathing
And buddha said bodily fabrication cease in fourth jhana while mental fabrication cease in cessation attainment so even the buddha carefully differentiated between the body and the mental
That’s not true though. Emotions are embodied experience. In fact a lot of my work as a psychotherapist has revolved around getting people in touch with their emotions if they are not [oh, editing that I just noticed the striking parallel of English to Pāli, in touch with emotions, Pāli: ‘touching with the body’], and that means bringing it into the body, noticing through the body how your emotions feel. If you are stuck in your head, you’re dissociated from your emotions. Hence I find it entirely relevant that the Buddha seems to specifically talk about touching these states with the body, this being a way to differentiation this affective experience from cognitive experience, for which he uses the analogy of sight.
But this bodily experience is not the same as sensory affect, which is what ‘touch’ is all about. This is brain-generated affect, that you feel in your body. And mind. The experience is you could say an embodied-mental experience.
See above. But also - have you never felt bliss permeate your body? Or even on a more mundane level, have you never noticed the bodily component of anger, disgust, love, pride, shame and so on?
That’s certainly true and seems a pity that some ways of interpreting the suttas fall into a mind-body duality. I don’t see that in the suttas at all. I don’t see how rupa or vedana, in particular, can be cleanly separated into “body” and “mind”. baskets. Aren’t they just aspects of experience?
It would be circular reasoning to say that “body” here means the physical body because it says “body”. Since the 5 senses are shut down, temporarily, in the jhānā what is being referred to here is the nāmakāya. What psychotherapy has to say isn’t all that relevant, since we are discussing what the EBT say.
What you are aware of in the jhānā is an image (rūpa). This is what is transcended in the formless attainments (along will the 5 senses). For example, when working with the earth kasiṇa one’s entire perceptual field will be filled with one perception, one image (rūpa). This is what is then dropped to enter the formless. The perception of the 5 senses, which includes the body, is dropped to even enter the 1st jhāna. The jhānā are of one perception and one perception only, which is why you can’t be aware of the physical body in them and so why body here does not mean the physical body. To be aware of the physical body whilst in any of the jhānā would be a hindrance, since multiple perceptions (saññāmanasikārā)are a hindrance to the attainment.
Yes, agreed! What I personally see in the suttas, is a kind of split - or differentiation - between cognitive and affective. I feel that this has been missed, but sheds very significant light on the Buddha’s teachings.
As for affect, that always relates to the body in some way, unlike the cognitive aspect. But we have 3 kinds of affect, and only two, homeostatic and sensory affect, are ‘of the 5 senses’. The third, emotional affect, is mind-created. Of course the others are also in some sense. But not int he same way. The first are more automated, they evolved a lot longer ago, long before mammals existed. Emotions however are much less automated and it’s possible to take conscious control over them, their creation, and their cessation.
But if people are coming with a world view of ‘mind’ and ‘body’, then they may try to overlay that model onto this one, and, they do not match up. Affect spans body and mind. Hence, wrong framework to apply!
And I think this becomes quite significant when it comes to translating. I.e. not to translate into the wrong framework, otherwise the meaning may be lost.
I’m not concerned with abstract psychotherapy theories. Rather, I’m concerned with what my direct experience has to say, and my experience working with the mind through psychotherapy, for me has great relevance to this. Due to the direct investigation into how emotions are experienced embodied, as I witness in myself and others.
But in the spirit of challenge - can you find any example of any usage of ‘touching with the body’ where it is a cognitive experience, as opposed to affective? You should not be able to, if my hypothesis is correct.
You might also consider psychadelic drug use, or maybe even some other drugs. You may be unaware of your body in the sense of your physical body, maybe even feeling as if your body is the whole universe, or whatever, but, still have very clear feelings, which may be very profound for example. Great bliss or great love or whatever. And not ‘thoughts’, not something cognitive, but a feeling. Which may be experienced permeating your entire being. This I would also count as ‘touching it with your body’. It’s a direct, felt experience, not some kind of cognitive clarity etc.
Now we could argue, if you’re tripping and you feel that the whole universe is your body, and permeated with bliss, then can we call that ‘body’? We could also ask, if a person is dreaming, and in the dream, they experience fully embodied anger, in their body, since it’s a dream, can we call it ‘body’? We could even ask, if a person is daydreaming about someone they love, and are filled with love, and feel that, then can we say that is ‘body’, since the experience is generated in their mind and perceived by their mind?
Well, if we do call all of them ‘body’, then there are differences between them. However, there is also something they all have in common. It’s all about felt experience, that you feel filling your being. Affective experience.
In English we also talk about the physicality of emotions. ‘That song really touched me’. What’s that about? It’s referring directly to the embodied nature of affect, in this case emotional affect. Or your friend dies, and it ‘really hits you’. Maybe you felt ‘crushed’. Or ‘about to explode’. Or someone winds you up so much you say they’re ‘getting under my skin’. Or that someone ‘makes your skin crawl’.
So yes you don’t literally mean your actual skin they’re under. But it communicates the embodied nature of the experience. Which characterises affect. And I believe it is in this affective meaning the Buddha is referring to the embodied nature of affect by referring to ‘touching with the body’.
Well, I will try to read and research all 7000 suttas and even patisambhidamagga since not my opinions or your opinions were ebts, our opinions were created 2500 years after buddha’s parinibbana so we need to refer to arahant’s opinion
If you sir say “I don’t agree” that means you already close the possibility that others can be right, in that case no one can convince you not even the buddha let alone I
“I don’t agree” means you still cling to your view
Instead of “I don’t agree” it’s much better if you say “I don’t find enough evidences” you should give others the necessary hints about how you can be convinced
If you don’t want to be convinced at all then there is no condition for a honest discussion to happen since the requirement of a honest discussion is willingness to accept others view
I have forgiven you but please be careful with your words next time
Regarding access concentration it’s not an ebt term it doesn’t exist in suttas or even patisambhidamagga so I don’t know what to say to you
I will read your links sir thank for that
Do you think people can be aware of their breathing in jhana, formless attainment and even cessation attainment ?
If you answer no I have a killer sutta that I will give to you that even if I am in your position I say I would not have any room to deny it I will even cry for how wrong I am
I have a suggestion - it is completely derived from experience - but it is still a suggestion.
Why not a “yellow lotus flower”. They exist! Why merely red, blue, and white?
So maybe the jhanas have a relationship with the colour kasinas.
Water is described in the earlier analogies. For the first, it is a description of bath powder and water. For the second, a description of a cool lake, fountain of water at the bottom, and occasional showers from the sky.
So if the red, blue, and white kasinas correspond to the first, second, and third jhanas - then we have a sort of elevation of the missing colour - the yellow colour.
Red does not penetrate the pool of water. Nor does white, or blue.
Yellow, however is the dominating factor of the third jhana. And this is why no “yellow lotus” is mentioned (despite the fact that yellow lotus exist).
So, this is how I understand the simile. The red kasina leads to rapture and pleasure. The blue also leads to rapture and pleasure. The white - as the third jhana indicates - dispenses of rapture and leads directly to pleasure - so we have the white lotus not penetrating the surface - remaining within the limits of the body.
The yellow then emerges as the predominant pleasure of the third jhana.
I have thought about this. That is the closest I have got to unraveling this mystery.
That is an interesting line of reasoning, but I’m not sure that the Buddha specifically draws any distinctions between any of the colors (red, white or blue). While this could be a reference to the kasinas, it is odd that only 3 colors are explicitly mentioned. Also, could you explain what you mean by yellow being the predominant color of the third jhana?
Well. I should preface that it’s a very personal and idiosyncratic experience for me when I use the word “jhana”.
So, I follow this reasoning. The first four jhanas are “form” jhanas. Form is defined as earth; water; fire; and wind. Each element becomes less course as you progress.
So, my interpretation of the form jhanas is that they are related to the elements.
The “fire” jhana (third) happens to be associated with the white and yellow kasinas (in my very idiosyncratic experience). And that is why I say that yellow is the predominant colour of the third jhana.
And that is why I find it peculiar to see red, blue, and white in the third jhana simile - but not yellow.
