How to reconcile these 2 suttas with absorption Jhāna?

Q & A
41

Hi everybody, :slight_smile:

Sorry if it comes across that way, but I think that is you reading things into it. I’m not saying all.

To clarify, I was just pointing out that the deeper interpretations of the jhanas have been around for thousands of years, and held by respectable people still now, because some participants here are effectively saying that it has zero grounds in the suttas, that the suttas unambiguously teach the lighter jhanas. But if that were the case, would honest people commenting directly on the suttas really have different interpretations? In other words, it’s good to acknowledge there is reason for debate, instead of shutting down all discussion straight away by dismissing other views before being aware of their arguments.

Of course I am aware that not “all” scholars agree. That’s exactly the point I was making. :wink:

That depends on translation, though. Just like in English we say “somebody” and mean “some person” not “some physical body”, kāya can mean both “body” and “person” (or “experiencer”) depending on context.

Tse-fu Kuan states in Mindfulness in Early Buddhism p.83: “The simile-accompanied glosses on the jhānas […] contain the term kāya, [which] here probably refers to the experiencer of sensation”. Cone’s Dictionary of Pāli glosses, specifically referring to the jhāna similes: “the experiencer of sensation and feeling, either (a) generally (physically and/or mentally); or (b) specifically, as one of the organs of sense or perception.” Likewise, the PTS Pāli English Dictionary suggests for these similes: “Best to be grouped here is an application of kāya in the sense of the self as experiencing a great joy; the whole being, the ‘inner sense’, or heart.”

I follow this interpretation. You can see my translation here: AN 5.28. Five-factored Unification

You drenched, suffused, filled, and pervaded your experience with delight and bliss caused by the separation, so that there is no single part of your whole experience that is not pervaded with it.

Either way, if we interpret kāya as the physical body in this context, your interpretation has a problem with SN48.40, the sutta we’re discussing here, because it says bodily feeling ceased in the third jhana. My interpretation doesn’t have that problem at least, even if it has others. How would you reconcile this text?

MN128 can easily be seen as an entire discourse about this, about perceiving lights and then losing them because the hindrances arise. When the lights were no longer lost, then the Buddha developed the jhanas based on it. Also there is “the meditation on universal blue … the meditation on universal yellow … the meditation on universal red … the meditation on universal white” for example in AN10.29 and other places. It’s quite clear to me that this refers to what we now call nimittas and that the commentarial ideas of kasinas being physical disks of clay don’t apply here. The Anapanasati sutta also talks about “experiencing the mind” before before developing samadhi, which is taken to refer to experiencing nimittas.

Either way, this doesn’t really answer our question, how to reconcile these sutta with our interpretation of jhana. Jhanas aren’t the same nimittas, at least in my interpretation. So I’ll leave it at that.

I’m not sure what they do say, but luckily we can think independently of the commentaries. :wink: It seems a very reasonable reason to me.

Either way, the general argument remains the same: it is extremely unlikely that the composers of the Pali text, whoever they were, simply overlooked this fact of (bodily) sukha not existing in the third jhana. The text might be inauthentic perhaps (though I don’t think so), but based upon the high editorial standard of the canon, I think we can be quite sure that the cessation of sukha in the third jhana was done on purpose. This I think needs explaining rather than dismissing it as an editorial error.

If anybody has a better explanation, I’m all ear. (The one in the Visuddhimagga doesn’t seem very convincing, for example.)

It’s been a while since I looked at this, so I may misremember the details. But the texts I know are not really parallels at all. They are just a line or two instead of an entire sutta like we have in SN48.40. You can never substantiate these things 100%, but that already indicates that they are somewhat of a summary, if based upon this particular sutta at all. It seems quite clear to me that whoever composed these “parallels” wasn’t aware of the definition of the faculties presented in SN48.36-38, since they don’t mention it and since there are no parallels of this. It seems extremely likely they took the “sukha” to refer to the sukha of the first three jhanas, not aware that it is actually defined as the faculty of somanassa (=mental sukha) in the Pali suttas. So then they saw an inconsistency, with they tried to resolve by changing the order of the faculties.

Sorry, I’m not sure what you are asking. Apologies if I misinterpret, but it’s not like we can copy-paste dictionary definitions and just replace Pali words with them. If that were the case, there would be no need for human interpretation. For you and me talking about this. :slightly_smiling_face:

Either way, Venerable Analayo and most dictionaries support Venerable Sujato’s interpretation of kāya in this context. It is clearly the case in other contexts, such as seeing the highest truth “with the body” (AN4.113) or seeing the dhamma “with the body” (Dhp259). That makes no sense. It means seeing it personally.

Parallels support this also:

“And what is the person who experiences personally ( 身 , lit. ‘body’)? Here, a person experiences personally. They don’t believe other people, don’t believe what the Tathagata says, nor do they believe what’s said by worthies. They just live by their own capacity and disposition.” (EĀ27.10)

Not me. :slightly_smiling_face: That’s partly why it’s such an important point for me. I think chasing bodily bliss, while not always wrong per se, can at times be a distraction. If you’re in pain, you can just let go of the body and move directly to the mind, for example. And at the very least save a lot of time! As for the suttas, the Buddha was able to attain jhana while in pain.

You can tranquilize the body by moving the mind away from it. Then it doesn’t become blissful but it becomes calm regardless, and then fades away from awareness altogether. That then gives rise to the sukha, which is why SN48.40 says there is no bodily sukha in the third (and imo first and second) jhana.

If you’re a meditation teacher like me, you soon learn how many people, especially older people, have irresolvable pains in their body. If they are (imo unnecessary) chasing bodily bliss, they will be heavily disappointed and have lots of frustration. So it’s not just a matter of “just practice and see where it leads”, to paraphrase a certain interpretation on this matter. The practice for the different interpretations of jhana can be different as well.

Also, some people have bad relationships with their body for various reasons, so for them too a different approach can be helpful. But I’m straying from the topic. What I’m saying is, if it were purely a theoretical matter, I would care less about it.

That could indeed be another way to resolve the seeming inconsistency in SN48.40. Thanks for that. I’m hoping others can share their interpretations too, instead of bringing up other text to argue against non-bodily jhanas.

But in response to your interpretation, in other discourses piti is said to come not from the body from such things as recollecting the three gems, being virtuous, and so forth: mental perceptions, in other words, not the body. It is also repeatedly called pitimana, “mental rapture/delight”, in the direct context of attaining samadhi. I don’t think the piti of jhanas is ever said to be based upon the body in the early texts.

For instance:

At that time their mind is unswerving, based on the Realized One. A noble disciple whose mind is unswerving finds inspiration in the meaning and the teaching, and finds joy connected with the teaching. When they’re joyful, rapture (piti) springs up. When the mind is full of rapture, the body becomes tranquil. When the body is tranquil, they feel bliss. And when they’re blissful, the mind becomes immersed in samādhi. (AN6.10)

Note, by the way, that it doesn’t say “they feel bliss (sukha) with the body” but just “they feel bliss”, which in my interpretation comes exactly from the fact that the body becomes so tranquil it fades from awareness. Either way, the fact that piti (rapture) is said to be mental, also indicates that it is not felt “with the body” and that therefore Tse-fu Kuan and the dictionaries I quoted in response to obobinde have good grounds to interpret kāya in context of the jhana similes as “person/experiencer” or “inner sense”. Because those similes say the piti spreads through the kaya.

PS. Sorry to everybody if my reply seems a bit brusque. I have only limited time online, and it’s easier to leave out the pleasantries and be direct. :slightly_smiling_face: I edited it a bit to sound more pleasant, I hope!

2 Likes
42

Yes. That would be better.

43

Yes, but this seems to me almost more of an issue relating to careful use of language.

For example, someone could get totally absorbed into a nimitta from recollecting the triple gem or some other practice not related to the physical body, but part of that nimitta could be some form (a mental picture) that represents the body.

Like, say someone has a nimitta where they experience the body being literally disintegrated by piti. That’s not literally happening; from an outside observer’s perspective the person is just sitting still; it’s all happening in the mind. But there’s a certain logic in using some “physical-ish” language there.

So there’s a question about what type of language is appropriate. What are the consequences of using different terms or phrases?

Right, but let’s take Ajahn Brahm’s description of moving from the breath, to the beautiful breath, into the mind and into the first jhana.

In one way, this is ‘based on the body’ (the breath-kāya). Even though it makes perfect sense to describe it as mental, in some way it is also causally dependent on the physical process called the breath.

To clarify what I mean by causally dependent: what if someone dies while in first jhana and they stop breathing. Inside the first jhana, what if then the piti stopped, because the breath – while imperceptible to the person inside the jhana – was nonetheless a necessary cause for the piti.

Of course, that first jhana state would still be awesome, and perhaps the death of the body would make it easier to go even deeper into mental experience.

Anyway, I am just speculating here :slight_smile: :pray:

1 Like
44

I don’t believe this. The first jhana is a state where there is no longer sensual desire and sensual pleasure. It is different from not having sensory objects. If jhana means being unaware, then wouldn’t the blind and deaf attain it more easily?

45

A person in jhana isn’t unaware of sensory objects because their sense organs aren’t functioning. They’re unaware of them because their mind disengages from them. There are also a number of positive states that a person in jhana has that a blind or deaf person doesn’t.

2 Likes
46

How do you think about this sutta? Does it contradict your view while a person in the state of Jhana can walk around?
https://suttacentral.net/an3.63/en/bodhi

“Here, brahmin, when I am dwelling in dependence on a village or town, in the morning I dress, take my bowl and robe, and enter that village or town for alms. After the meal, when I have returned from the alms round, I enter a grove. I collect some grass or leaves that I find there into a pile and then sit down. Having folded my legs crosswise and straightened my body, I establish mindfulness in front of me. Then, secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, I enter and dwell in the first jhāna, which consists of rapture and pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by thought and examination. With the subsiding of thought and examination, I enter and dwell in the second jhāna, which has internal placidity and unification of mind and consists of rapture and pleasure born of concentration, without thought and examination. With the fading away as well of rapture, I dwell equanimous and, mindful and clearly comprehending, I experience pleasure with the body; I enter and dwell in the third jhāna of which the noble ones declare: ‘He is equanimous, mindful, one who dwells happily.’ With the abandoning of pleasure and pain, and with the previous passing away of joy and dejection, I enter and dwell in the fourth jhāna, neither painful nor pleasant, which has purification of mindfulness by equanimity.
“Then, brahmin, when I am in such a state, if I walk back and forth, on that occasion my walking back and forth is celestial. If I am standing, on that occasion my standing is celestial. If I am sitting, on that occasion my sitting is celestial. If I lie down, on that occasion this is my celestial high and luxurious bed. This is that celestial high and luxurious bed that at present I can gain at will, without trouble or difficulty.”

47

And in the fourth Jhana state, the Buddha could use the divine eye and divine ear. If the senses are not used, how can the divine eye and divine ear be explained?

48

Yes, and even IF 5 sense domains would shut down, there is still the 6th sense domain. What one perceives in jhana is also sensed. It is also experience.

2 Likes
49

Thank you for your informative answer ! I guess we won’t really ever know for sure but that’s ok. At some point I should try to attain those deep jhana just to know precisely what I’m talking about.

1 Like
50

Hi, :slight_smile:

As to the question asked about the texts, I agree. SN48.40 is a problematic text for both interpretations of jhana, and perhaps we will never know what it exactly is trying to say. My interpretation, as I said, is also not 100% natural. But so far nobody has proposed an alternative that supports sukha as “feelings of pleasure from the physical body” in the third jhana, other than dismissing the sutta simply as wrong.

But it is clearly telling us that at least in the third jhana the sukha is mental, not bodily. Whoever composed this text had this interpretation. That much seems sure. And I see no reason to see it as a late composition, so hence my attempt to interpret it as authentic.

As to practice, there I think we can be sure what the Buddha was on about. But I usually don’t discuss practice here on this board, nor base my text arguments upon it.

Anyway, I hope you get an idea that the matter may not be as clear-cut as you thought earlier.

51

any feeling is always mental

52

It seems to me that the source text is open to interpretation, as Sujato translates it as

…
When I’m practicing like this, if I walk, at that time my walking is heavenly.
…

However, I don’t know Pali, or the textual and historical context well enough to judge which interpretation is best.

53

When their mind has become immersed in samādhi like this—purified, bright, flawless, rid of corruptions, pliable, workable, steady, and imperturbable—they project it and extend it toward the creation of a mind-made body.

From this body they create another body, physical, mind-made, complete in all its various parts, not deficient in any faculty DN2

I feel like AN3.63 can be understood as a type of astral travel, not a physical travel (thus “the divine walk”).

54

And what are the two feelings? Physical and mental. These are called the two feelings.

SN 36.22

55

It is distinction between when someone says something unpleasant to you and you are upset. It is painful mental feeling.

When someone hits you, it is painful bodily feeling. But even is the second case without mind assistance the would be nothing felt. I am not arguing about jhanas here, just clarifying certain point, in hope that it could be useful for you.

56

The body does not feel pain. All feelings are mental. But, if dukkha vedana arises for example when we cut our finger, that can be called a bodily feeling or physical feeling because it is related to the body but it does not mean that the dukkha vedana is physical, it is mental.

57

Sorry for bumping the discussion, but I just wanted to clarify the intent of my earlier post:

The question asked was not, “please provide sutta evidence for non-bodily jhanas”, but “how to reconcile these two suttas with non-bodily (“absorption”) jhanas”. :slight_smile: So that is what I tried to answer. As I admitted, my suggested reconciliation is not the most natural reading of SN48.40, but then, the most natural reading is one that I think nobody holds, one that has no support in any other sutta—namely that the sukha in the first two jhanas would be bodily but in the third it would suddenly be mental.

But although it is not intuitive to read the cessation of bodily sukha in the third jhana in SN48.40 as a reinforcement of the cessation of bodily sukha in all jhanas like I suggest, this does actually have a common precedence. This precedence is the standard fourth jhana formula, which says that dukkha is abandoned there (dukkhassa ca pahānā). Dukkha (here usually understood to mean any kind of pain, whether mental or bodily) has already been abandoned earlier, in the first jhana. Yet this is restated at the fourth jhāna to emphasize its neutral quality. I suggest something similar is happening in SN48.40 with the faculty of (bodily) sukha. Its cessation reinforces that the sukha that is the sole object of the third jhana is mental.

As I’ve said, the only way I basically see to fit this text with the jhanas where sukha is “felt with the body” is to disregard this sutta as inauthentic. Or at least, so far nobody has suggested a reading that reconciles this text with such jhanas. I could have argued for its inauthenticity too, but that is the very opposite of reconciling the text, so it wouldn’t have answered the question. :slight_smile:

And although my reading of SN48.40 is somewhat unnatural, disregarding the text as inauthentic I think is more unnatural. To reject a text as definitely inauthentic you need strong evidence from various places, which I don’t see in this case. And difficult passages are actually more likely to be authentic, that’s what the principle of lectio difficilior basically says. In this case, it is unlikely the composer of this sutta would be blind to the fact that sukha, which still exists in the third jhana, is said to cease in the third jhana. If the faculty of sukha referred to the supposed bodily sukha of the third jhana itself, this would be, as far as I know, the biggest logical blunder in the entire canon. Hence me going by the assumption that the text is authentic, that this was done for some purpose, which we are now left to figure out. It is also said that mental sukha (the faculty of somanassa) ceases at the fourth jhana, which reinforces that the composer of this text held that sukha in the third jhana is mental.

My point with this post being, if the question was, “please show in the suttas that the sukha in the jhanas is mental”, I would go about it in a very different way, and these texts would be some of the last I would consider. So I just wanted to clarify my earlier post, so it doesn’t get misunderstood outside of the context of the very particular question asked in this discussion. (To make sure, I added some of the above as edits to my earlier post.)

But to finish with just one argument I don’t think I’ve shared before, which is somewhat relevant to this discussion: In AN2.68–70 the Buddha says that of all pleasant (sukha) feeling tones, whether mental or physical, the best is that which is mental (cetasika) and non-physical (or literally “not of the flesh”, nirāmisa).

Now, an even better “sukha” is the neutral feeling tone of the fourth jhana and beyond, but as far as pleasant feelings go, the third jhana is the highest. This is why it is described by the noble ones in the standard jhana formula as “dwelling in sukha”, being in a sense the highest sukhavihāra (“pleasant abiding”). It makes little sense that this would be a bodily happiness, not only from our personal perspectives (I hope) but also from these texts. As these discourses say, the highest sukha feeling tone is mental, not bodily. And the sukha of all jhanas is elsewhere described as “non-physical” and continually opposed to the pleasure that comes from the five senses, which include the body.

For example SN36.31:

And what is pleasure (sukha) of the flesh [i.e. physical]? Mendicants, there are these five kinds of sensual stimulation. What five? Sights known by the eye that are likable, desirable, agreeable, pleasant, sensual, and arousing. Sounds … Smells … Tastes … Touches known by the body that are likable, desirable, agreeable, pleasant, sensual, and arousing. These are the five kinds of sensual stimulation. The pleasure and happiness that arise from these five kinds of sensual stimulation is called pleasure of the flesh.

And what is pleasure not of the flesh [i.e. non-physical/mental]? It’s when a mendicant, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected. As the placing of the mind and keeping it connected are stilled, they enter and remain in the second absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of immersion, with internal clarity and mind at one, without placing the mind and keeping it connected. And with the fading away of rapture, they enter and remain in the third absorption, where they meditate with equanimity, mindful and aware, personally experiencing the bliss of which the noble ones declare, ‘Equanimous and mindful, one meditates in bliss.’ This is called pleasure not of the flesh.

Regardless of how we interpret “not of the flesh”, bodily feelings of sukha are here directly opposed to the jhanas. So the sukha of the jhanas can not be such feelings.

And this central point is what I suggest SN48.40 is reinforcing (in an uncommon and creative way), when saying that the sukha of the third jhana is not the faculty of bodily sukha. But again, I’m very open to other interpretations.

3 Likes
58

I suppose you havent compare it to the parallel suttas ?

59

There can be some support for this when we think about the case for arahants.

  1. Arahants have no more 5 hindrances, forever, automatically, except maybe for lack of sleep which is possible to affect them.

  2. Arahants have no more unpleasant mental feelings, and can also enter into 1st Jhāna.

From SN48.40, it seems that generally 1st Jhāna should have unpleasant mental feelings due to the presence of initial and sustained application to keep the object in mind. But since arahants do not have them, then the 1st Jhāna for arahants are without mental unpleasant feelings.

Then it can be seen that the nature of Jhānas according to SN48.40 can be closer to higher grade in certain situations.