If jhana is total absorption without physical sensation, why is pain only abandoned in the fourth jhana?

[Ceisiwr]

I find these passages quite interesting from Venerable Kumārajīva’s "Chán fǎ yào jiě (Essential Explanation of The Method of Dhyāna), regarding how the body begins to change to the subtle form of the rūpa-loka during Jhāna

Question: How can one recognize the signs of single-mindedness?

Answer: When the mind dwells on an image, the body would be soft, gentle, and blissful. All anger, anxiety, grief, and other afflictive mental dharmas are ceased.174 The mind acquires swift blissfulness never before experienced, which surpasses the five desires. Because the mind is pure without any defilement, the body will shine brightly. It is like a pure and clean mirror [shining] the light externally, or like the shining light of bright pearl that appears, illumines, and manifests in the pure water. After having seen these signs, the cultivator‘s mind is calm, tranquil, joyful, and delightful. It is like a thirsty person, who digs the earth searching for the water. If he sees the moist mud, then he will get the water soon. The cultivator practices in a similar way as such; at the beginning of the practice, it is like digging a dry earth for a longtime without stopping; as he sees the signs of moisture, he knows himself that he will get the water soon. Having known by oneself that one will attain the meditative samādhi soon, one must diligently concentrate, joyfully believe, gather the mind, and move it to enter the deep samādhi. Give rise to the thought that ―I have already cursed the five desires.‖ See those who seek after their desires as extremely detestable, as one sees a dog, who, unable to get good food, chews on stinking manure. According to these various conditions, you should curse desire as a fault. One‘s mind gives rise to sympathize with those who experience the five desires. Their own minds have blissfulness already, but they do not know how to seek for it. Instead, they seek for the external impurity and faulty joyfulness. Throughout day and night, the cultivator should always practice diligently various wholesome dharmas, which support the achievement of meditative samādhi.

Question: What are the marks of attaining the first dhyāna?

Answer: At first, one uses proper mindfulness to admonish and halt five desires. Although one has not attained the ground [of the first dhyāna], the mind is joyful, delightful, soft, harmonious, and gentle; the body has bright light. **When one attains the first dhyāna, its mark is that it continuously changes, increases, and excels [than before]. cause the four elements of the Desire Realm spread fully all over the body, which is soft, harmonious, gentle, and joyful signs, and the mind leaves bad desire and unwholesome deed, then the samādhi of single-minded thought can cause one having joy and happiness.183 Forms created in the Form Realm have the feature of bright light. Hence, the cultivator sees the wonderful and bright light emitting from the body internally and externally. The mind of the cultivator changes differently. Within the angry situation, one does not get angry. Within the joyful situation, one does not have [much] joy. The eight kinds of worldly dharmas cannot move the cultivator.184 Faith, respect, shame, and conscience largely change and multiply. As for the clothes, food, and drink, one does not crave and attach to them. One only considers various wholesome deeds and meritorious morality as valuable, and others are worthless. One does not attach to even the five celestial desires, how much more the five impure desires of the secular world. For those who have attained the first dhyāna, these are the features.

Again, when one attains the first dhyāna, the mind is greatly surprised and joyful. As a poor man at last acquires the treasury storage, he is greatly surprised and joyful. He thought that: ―During the beginning, middle, and last watches of the morning, I have cultivated diligently and ascetically the first dhyāna. Now I have attained the good retribution, which is true without falsity. These wonderful and joyful experiences are as such, but other sentient beings are insane, confused, stubborn, and foolish. They are sunk into the impurity and non-blissfulness of five desires. How pitiful they are.‖ The blissfulness of the first dhyāna is spread all over the body internally and externally. As the water soaks into dry earth, it is wet and moist inside and outside. The experience of blissfulness of the Desire Realm cannot spread through the body and mind. The fire of sexual desire and anger in the Desire Realm burns the body. Entering the cooling and blissful pool of first dhyāna is the foremost way in extinguishing the fire of mental afflictions. As when it is too hot, one jumps into the cooling and pure pool. After one has attained the first dhyāna already, one thinks about the original practice of spiritual path or other conditions, namely the samādhi of Buddha name‘s recitation, or the mindfulness of the body‘s impurity, or the contemplation of the loving-kindness mind, or others. Why is that? Utilizing the power of contemplation helps the cultivator to attain the meditative samādhi and again enter deeply. Then, the original contemplations will become many times more pure and clear.

There is a form of nimitta here, but there is also a bodily experience. The body and the external elements start to being subtle, translucent-like but a physical side to the experience still remains. Rather than a mental image, the body and external forms are becoming transformed to the meditator. We also see something like this talked about in the Visuddhimagga, but its under the section on “corruptions of insight”, where the body is blissful and starts to emit light.

[Sunyo]

@Vaddha

I think there was a miscommunication that should be clarified

Venerable

There may be some miscommunication indeed, for which I apologize. Partly that’s because I tried to reply to you and Ceisiwr at the same time, which wasn’t very wise of me. But partly that’s also because (and you can blame it on my limited imagination) what you’re saying just doesn’t make sense to me! The divine eye and development of samādhi are very different things, placed at very different parts of the practice. I don’t see why they would be mixed up in the way you propose, both from the sutta perspective and a pragmatic one.

OK, I’ll start of with this: I’ll grant you that some of the terminology in AN8.64 is very similar to MN128. But there could be other reasons for this, having to do with oral literature. There are other phrases in the suttas that are virtually identical but refer to very different things.

Maybe you can also grant me a few things? Here’s some more to consider:

This [divine eye] could be before or after [jhānas], depending on how one’s meditation is going and the mind’s proclivities.

Technically speaking I could suppose that’s true, that someone can have the divine eye before the jhānas. I don’t know. But I do know that it’s not how the suttas tend to speak about it. Do you have any clear canonical reference where this is the case?

Regardless, it seems that it wasn’t the case for the Buddha himself. And that matters, because we shouldn’t forget that the bulk of MN128, although spoken to Anuruddha and friends, actually is about the Buddha’s own practice before his awakening. Now, in all other places where he talks about this Bodhisattva period, he developed the divine eye only after he developed the jhānas. See for example MN19, where the order of his practice is: Abandoning hindrances (of thoughts) > jhānas > threefold knowledge (including divine eye) > awakening. But in MN128 in your interpretation it must have been: Divine eye > hindrances > abandon hindrances > jhānas > awakening.

Put differently, why would the Bodhisattva have used his divine eye, apparently getting disturbed by the hindrances it caused, then conclude, “I’ve given up my mental corruptions. Now let me develop immersion in three ways (i.e. jhānas and beyond),” and then get awakened. This fits nothing any other sutta I know of says, not only on the Bodhisattva’s own practice, but also on the relation of the jhānas to the divine eye, and on the divine eye’s relation to awakening (which is to understand kamma).

Or am I missing something here?

As I said, I think the light (obhāsa) is the light of the meditator’s mind which extends out to illuminate forms. So it makes perfect sense that the Buddha would call it ‘my light’—it’s like a divine flashlight projecting out.

The idea is interesting (can I say unique?), but it doesn’t fit MN127 on which you heavily rely, where the light is said to be of the deities themselves: “some deities there have limited radiance, while some have limitless radiance.” It also doesn’t fit AN8.64 where the light also seems to refer to the deities themselves, not the Buddha’s “flashlight”: “I perceived light and saw visions. And I associated with those deities.” Finally, if the light was a beam which illuminates forms, the Buddha also wouldn’t say “I perceived light and forms”. He would say something like, “I perceived forms with light”. The light is the thing perceived here, not the thing that does the perceiving.

In MN128 it is called “my light” because it is the light inside of his own mind, is what I say. It has nothing to do with deities. Anuruddha, Nandiya, and Kimbila also perceived lights in their own minds. It may be nothing of relevance, but Nandiya’s single verse at Thag1.25 also mentions light. And what does he say? “One whose mind is often filled with light”. Here the word for light (obhāsa) is actually the same as in MN128, contrary to MN127 where it’s a different word.

Now, on similar sounding words which are about very different topics: AN6.29 and AN4.41, which you mentioned earlier, don’t speak about the divine eye or perception of devas. They mention “the perception of light, concentrating on the perception of day regardless of whether it’s night or day.” The light here is not of deities, it is simply daylight, and an imagined (perceived) daylight at that, because it also exists at night. So this light also exists in the practitioner’s own mind. This is a practice to overcome sleepiness, see AN7.61 where this is explicitly stated. It’s quite effective. (Useful for gloomy rainy days with power outages as well!)

Contextually in these two texts, I suppose even after you attained the jhanas you can still keep yourself awake for longer when practicing such perceptions, so you can practice contemplation for longer, which are the practices that follow in both AN6.29 and AN4.41. These practices do not include the divine eye in either sutta. Just like MN128, I see no single connection to the divine eye here, or even devas. There’s only a connection to light, but that alone isn’t enough to connect this to the divine eye.

The content of MN 127 and MN 128 is suspiciously related. Radiance, lights, seeing forms, deep meditation, Anuruddha

Not as suspiciously related as MN31, where it is specifically stated what the “comfortable abidings” are which the Buddha asks about in MN128. I don’t see MN127 mentioning seeing forms, by the way. But that’s a minor detail. Also in this case, just because the two texts both mention lights, doesn’t mean it’s the same thing.

Anuruddha being mentioned is also nothing special. Sorry, but it is clutching at straws a bit when a mere name is taken as an indication for what the sutta is about.

We’d better look at matching contexts. Now, in MN68 (Naḷakapāna Sutta) Anuruddha and friends had recently gone forth (like MN128 these friends include Kimbila, and also Bhagu reoccurs from MN128). And what does the Buddha teach them? How to develop the jhānas by abandoning the hindrances!! That’s exactly what he’s doing in MN128, to the same people!

That’s the kind of context we should rely on, not MN127, where Anuruddha is the teacher, not the Buddha, and where the friends are also absent.

And in the Naḷakapāna Sutta the Buddha further says how he can see beings being reborn and why he tells the bhikkhus about it. So it’s something that the bhikkhus (including Anuruddha) apparently weren’t able to do, which implies Anuruddha (and his friends) didn’t have the divine eye at that time yet. Which makes complete sense to me, since they didn’t even have the jhanas yet at that time.

By the way, I found a much better indication that MN31 (Gosiṅga Sutta) happened chronologically after MN128: In it the three monks are said to be enlightened. In MN128 they still had hindrances, so they weren’t enlightened yet.

In MN31 Anuruddha does mention (in passing, without a mention of light) talking to devas. But here he also did that after his (and his friends’) enlightenment, and after developing the jhānas, not before.

But the divine eye isn’t explicitly mentioned here either. And it’s also quite clear that his friends didn’t have this power, because, first of all, it isn’t mentioned when the Buddha asks, “have you all achieved any other superhuman distinction?” Secondly, they had to learn from Anuruddha that he was speaking to the devas about their attainments. They apparently didn’t see him doing it, and didn’t do it themselves either. They didn’t have such abilities; not after the jhānas, let alone before.

No other sutta I found says that the friends have these abilities either, so would they in MN128?

The commentary to MN 128 (as pointed out by another user here) says that it refers to the divine eye:

I pointed it out for the Vimuttimagga, but perhaps I confused it with the Papañcasūdani. Regardless, it’s my time to disagree with the commentaries! (Wouldn’t be the first time, either, I already mentioned the kasinas earlier in this thread.)

I don’t think the idea of nimittas as understood in later literature is wrong or contradicted by the suttas.

Cool. I didn’t assume that you did, by the way.

Some people may develop it from the 4th jhāna (the ideal place in the suttas), but others seem to be able to use the light of the ‘nimitta’ to develop or naturally have the divine eye.

Are you basing that on MN128 alone, or are there other texts that point to this? As I said before, it doesn’t seem the Buddha himself had the divine eye before he developed the jhānas, and the practice described in MN128 is that of the Buddha.

Also, even if Anuruddha had the ability before jhana (is this mentioned anywhere?), I highly doubt his friends had it before jhāna too, as I said before. There are no indications of that, and there are indications to the contrary.

By your interpretation it seems that the Buddha and the three monks of MN128 all had this ability before the jhanas. That seems kind of odd if the jhānas is the ideal starting place for such practices.

Focusing too much on the beings one is seeing (the forms)

But isn’t focusing on the beings a good thing if you want to see those beings? I don’t understand how that would be a hindrance to lose those forms and lose samādhi. What does it mean to focus too much?

Seeing ghosts or beings one has never seen before can be extremely frightening.

Fair enough, I should have thought of that myself! Still, my basic point is that there is no other sutta where the divine eye is connected to the hindrances. It just seems far-fetched to connect the two.

I think we agree more than you may have thought, and I hope this post has clarified what I meant some more to demonstrate that.

Well, at least I understand a bit better what you’re saying, so thanks for the patience to clarify. But still it makes no actual sense to me! I hope you understand. I think you’re making connections that don’t exist in actual practice, or in the suttas.

In a way I would have better understood if you argued MN128 was only about the divine eye, but to mix it up with the development of samādhi and nimittas, that is just really confusing to me.

@Ceisiwr

We all have biases Bhante.

Hey Ceisiwr,

I do apologize again for guessing! (I’ll be more careful even in future when hypothesizing about such things.) What I said was meant as a general reflection, though. Because I’m sure there are people who dismiss the nimitta ideas based on MN128 with reasons much less well thought-out than yours.

I see you’re responded also to an earlier part of the topic, which I appreciate. Pardon me if I let you have the last word!

[Ceisiwr]

@Sunyo

Hey Ceisiwr,

I do apologize again for guessing! (I’ll be more careful even in future when hypothesizing about such things.) What I said was meant as a general reflection, though. Because I’m sure there are people who dismiss the nimitta ideas based on MN128 with reasons much less well thought-out than yours.

That’s ok. For sure. As I say, and as evidenced from my post above, I’m not against nimittas. I do think they occur, I just don’t think the suttas talk about them. Or rather, the arguments that they do aren’t that strong to me. They don’t have to be though. Buddhism is a living tradition, not a textual one. There are lots of things about meditation that aren’t in the texts which have been transmitted down the line, and then written about later. Nimittas are talked about in all meditative traditions that I know of, Buddhist or non-Buddhist. If one has to be absorbed into them, and if some sense of physical experience remains whilst in the Jhānas is the main discussion for me.

[Ceisiwr]

@Sunyo

I see you’re responded also to an earlier part of the topic, which I appreciate. Pardon me if I let you have the last word!

You’re welcome Bhante. Because of work and things, I sometimes take a day or two to reply to people fully. Its nice we all had a productive discussion. All the best to you.

[Pondera]

@Sunyo

Anyway, so you do think there are always these light/form nimittas inside the jhānas, then? Or how do you interpret MN128?

I’m glad you pointed out the distinction. Thank you @DeadBuddha as well.

I’m actually on your side here. I believe the nimitta is a precursor to absorption.

I also believe the nimitta and the sukha of absorption are one and the same.

I practice Brahmaviharas and in my experience I can, for example, cultivate Karuna. When I do this the characteristic of Karuna appears within my mental field. I extend it beyond my being into my entire mental field. This gives rise to a certain brown nimitta. The nimitta appears in the centre of my mind.

It’s almost as if the process follows the sequence of:

Rapture —> Tranquility——> Sukha

The the external projection of Karuna exists (for me) as rapture. The appearance of the brown nimitta in my internal perception acts like tranquility - ie. the longer it hangs around, the more relaxed my body grows.

And, for me, the centre of my mind is the nervous complex from which the rest of the body receives signals. Therefore, when the nimitta arises in the centre of my mind, I can, if i choose, let it “saturate” my body.

And that is how I understand how the arrival of the nimitta extends to the rest of the body. I find my body filled with this brown quality and it is extremely pleasant and satisfying. In fact, it’s so pleasant it’s sickening. And I turn away from it after a while.

I cultivate the four Brahmaviharas in order. Each Brahmavihara gives rise to a specific external mind frame (the counterpart sign), a specific nimitta (access concentration), and a specific absorption (absorption concentration).

[Vaddha]

@Sunyo

In a way I would have better understood if you argued MN128 was only about the divine eye, but to mix it up with the development of samādhi and nimittas, that is just really confusing to me.

Hello, venerable! I — like you — am mostly just inspired to simply practice from these conversations. You make many good points, and I grant you a lot of what you say as valid and relevant to the practice / MN 128. Let me just (semi) briefly clarify my main point.

I think that in the suttas, or meditation in general, the radiance of the mind is used for developing the divine eye. So when the suttas talk about perceiving as though day a radiant mind which is alert and clear and leads to ñānadassana (also referenced in AN 8.64 as referring to the divine eye), I think this is talking about a practice which can culminate in seeing other beings / world systems.

I think that this is the same radiance one naturally experiences when the mind is free of drowsiness and sluggishness and settles into deeper meditation. It’s just that one can play with this radiance and ‘purify’ / ‘project’ it in order to develop certain psychic abilities, especially the dibbacakkhu.

This is the relationship I’m making between samādhi, nimittas, and the dibbacakkhu. As one purifies the mind of hindrances more and more towards samādhi, one may perceive light/forms. These can cause various experiences to arise, from hindrances to more intense meditative experiences involving visions beyond oneself. I think MN 128 is about the general experience of this phenomena, and managing it to stabilize oneself in jhāna.

Keep in mind that one may have already developed jhānas, then started getting more experience with the divine eye, and then they were presented with obstacles arising once they had the divine eye that were blocking their progress. Actually, to give a concrete example (though not one I’d typically quote), in Mae Chee Kaew’s biography I seem to remember one of her main issues in practice was getting lost in the divine eye and not settling into normal samādhi. At one point her teacher threatened to kick her out of the monastery if she didn’t solve this problem; it was a major hindrance, apparently. So this is what I mean by the divine eye before jhāna: one with sufficient samādhi experience starts getting deeper and more profound experiences that become an obstacle.

It’s very possible MN 128 is mostly just about internal nimittas. But I also strongly suspect the divine eye experience is related, as do the commentaries or Bhante Sujato for instance

@sujato

“Forms” (rūpā) is similar in meaning here, although the plural suggests a diversity that is absent from plain old light. Perhaps it refers to a kind of psychic vision, perhaps of past lives or something of the sort.

So personally, I don’t find it unlikely MN 128 is about Anuruddha and friends, who are already experienced practitioners, dealing with trippy meditative visions arising from the radiance of the mind they developed, and the Buddha understanding this. You make a good point about the progress of the Buddha’s awakening, but I don’t see it as a necessary contradiction: the Buddha developed samādhi, then he started developing the divine eye afterward which, as AN 8.64 eludes to, was actually a much more drawn out and involved process of investigation/experimentation. It could have been precisely in this period when the various hindrances or obstacles arose, as with Anuruddha.

Keep in mind that there are several suttas, such as DN 11, which mention that before Brahmā appears, one experiences a bright radiant light. This would imply that seeing other beings occurs in relation to the development of light and nimittas and can naturally happen to an experienced meditator.

Then that mendicant attained a state of immersion such that a path to the gods appeared.
Then he approached the gods of the Four Great Kings … [Divine eye/conversing with deities in AN 8.64]
‘But by the signs that are seen—light arising and radiance appearing—we know that Brahmā will appear. For this is the precursor for the appearance of Brahmā, namely light arising and radiance appearing.’ [More experience of divine eye after light and radiance]
DN 11

He paid attention, applied the mind, and concentrated wholeheartedly on the fate of Magadhan devotees, and sat on the seat spread out, thinking, “I shall know their destiny, where they are reborn in the next life.” And he saw where they had been reborn. …
Then Venerable Ānanda went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and said to him, “Sir, you look so serene; your face seems to shine owing to the clarity of your faculties. Have you been abiding in a peaceful meditation today, sir?” [Reference to ‘peaceful meditation’ as meaning experiencing the divine eye in samādhi]
The Buddha then recounted what had happened since speaking to Ānanda, revealing that he had seen the destiny of the Magadhan devotees. …
Then in the northern quarter a magnificent light arose and radiance appeared, surpassing the glory of the gods. Then Sakka, lord of gods, addressed the gods of the Thirty-Three, “As indicated by the signs—light arising and radiance appearing—Brahmā will appear. For this is the precursor for the appearance of Brahmā, namely light arising and radiance appearing.”
As indicated by the signs, Brahmā will appear.
For this is the sign of Brahmā: a light vast and great.
“We shall find out what has caused that light, and only when we have realized it shall we go to it.” [Reference to understanding the causility/basis for the arising of light in terms of the divine eye, as mentioned in MN 128.]
DN 18
(P.S., DN 18 has some other interesting references such as referring to the radiant vision of the god speaking as ‘nimitta’ — again a connection between this word, light, and the divine eye; it’s a really trippy sutta!)

As for perceiving light not being the ‘flashlight,’ this can be both: the forms (the deities) emitting radiant light (obhāsa), sure. But still I believe that the development of the divine eye is via extending the radiance of the mind outward to see other things. There’s even a correspondence between one giving off light in a subtle body and one experiencing inner meditative light, as MN 127 describes with rebirth.

Before getting too trippy and clunky in describing profound meditative visions, I think I’ll end off here. As far as practice goes and developing deeper samādhi/dealing with hindrances or upakilesas, we agree. And that’s what matters most for Dhamma growth and discussion, more than secondary interpretative issues.

Much mettā and happy practice! Strive on!
Vaddha

[kumara]

@Brahmali

@kumara

I do think they understand the character of jhāna as they understand it. That is why they regard it as optional.

Do you mean that they regard them as optional because they see them as difficult to attain? If so, it’s a bad reason.

Of course not. They know what they call “jhāna” actually is, and know that’s not necessary.

[kumara]

@Sunyo

I’ve looked at your book as you asked me to, Venerable, but I still don’t understand what “separation from sensualities” pragmatically means to you. Can you explain? Sorry, but I find this very vague English. You can blame me for that, perhaps, since I’m not a native speaker. But in more than a decade of using the language in daily speech I don’t think I’ve never heard anybody use ‘sensuality’ in the plural in normal speech.

Whether you want to have it as plural or singular doesn’t really matter here. The Pali isn’t very particular about grammatical number for abstract nouns. E.g., in speaking of the 5 aggregates, sometimes the 4th aggregate is in plural and sometimes in singular.

[Brahmali]

This is masterly! Thanks for putting this together.

There is one small issue, however, that I wish to bring up. I think it is important, and fairly relevant to the issue raised by the OP.

@Sunyo

The title of the sutta itself is “minor (upa) defilements (kilesa)” (or Sujato “corruptions”). The defilements are the hindrances left before the jhānas, as described in many other suttas. (I’ll give some below.) The minor defilements are the final hindrances before jhānas. As Ānalayo notes: “This list of mental obstructions [in MN128] does not mention the first two of the five hindrances, sensual desire and aversion. Their absence indicates that the meditative development described in the present discourse sets in at a more advanced stage, when these two comparatively gross mental defilements have been subdued and a minimum degree of mental tranquillity has already been established.” This is exactly when the nimittas happen: when the hindrances are weak. Sensual desire and anger are abandoned at that time. Good observation by Ven. Ānalayo.

I am not sure if this is such a good observation by the good Ven. Analayo. It is not clear to me that there is any real difference between the five hindrances and what is here called the upakkilesas. There are a number of reasons for this.

First, the word upakkilesa is sometimes used to mean defilements in general, not just minor defilements. At MN7 upakkilesa is used of a whole range of mental defilements, including some coarse ones, such as “unrighteous greed” (visama lobha). At MN14 upakkilesa is used of lobha, dosa, and moha, which are often regarded as the most general classification of defilements, whether refined or coarse.

It seems to me, then, that upakkilesa means defilement in general. In contemporary Buddhist circles the favoured word for defilement is kilesa, a word that hardly occurs in the suttas. The original sutta word for defilement in general is upakkilesa (and perhaps saṅkilesa), not kilesa. And so although upakkilesa can be rendered as “minor defilement” in connection with MN128, this does not work as a general rendering of the term, for which Bhante Sujato’s corruptions is better.

Second, I do not think there is any clear distinction between the five hindrances (nīvaraṇa) and the defilements of MN128. As a matter of fact, the hindrances themselves are sometimes called upakkilesas, e.g. in the standard description of the gradual training (“having abandoned the five hindrances, the upakkilesas of the mind”, for instance at MN27). At AN5.23 each of the five hindrances is specifically said to be a upakkilesa. This is to be expected if upakkilesa is a general term for defilement.

Yet the interesting thing about the hindrances is that they are not just any kind of defilements. Their position on the path suggest that they are refined defilements, just as the upakkilesas of MN128. The hindrances are always abandoned after sense restraint, after full awareness, and after any other aspect of the gradual training that comes before jhāna. In fact they are the last thing you abandon before entering jhāna. This suggests to me that they are close in meaning to the upakkilesas of MN128.

Moreover, I do not think it is the case the first two hindrances are absent from MN128. Sometimes the senses, especially sounds, can intrude on the meditation, even at the stage of nimittas. I think this is potentially captured in MN128 by upakkilesas such inattention (manasikāra), discomfort (duṭṭhulla), and perhaps even longing (abhijappā). And wherever there is a remnant of sensory interest, ill will, in its weakest manifestation, is lurking in the background, perhaps as a weak kind of aversion.

My point is that I think the hindrances and the upakkilesas of MN128 are in fact quite closely related. And this has consequences for how one deals with defilements as a practical matter. The coarse defilements are dealt with through sense restraint and full awareness (sati-sampajaññā). These coarse defilements are mostly about sensuality and ill will. Defilements such as lethargy and restlessness, on the other hand, are hindrances that are mostly to be dealt with as one gets closer to jhāna. (I am not suggesting, of course, that lethargy and restlessness do not exist early on. I am just saying that one should focus on abandoning sensuality and ill will, which in turn will resolve much of the other defilements.) My conclusion is that the common practice of treating the five hindrances as a general classification of all defilements is problematic.

@kumara

They know what they call “jhāna” actually is, and know that’s not necessary

What exactly do you mean by this? A bit of elaboration would be helpful so that we don’t speak past each other.

[kumara]

@Brahmali

@kumara

They know what they call “jhāna” actually is, and know that’s not necessary

What exactly do you mean by this? A bit of elaboration would be helpful so that we don’t speak past each other.

A bit much to explain here. I’ve written on that in my book
What You Might Not Know about Jhāna & Samādhi. Just reading beginning of Part 1 is enough.

[kumara]

@Brahmali

It seems to me, then, that upakkilesa means defilement in general. In contemporary Buddhist circles the favoured word for defilement is kilesa, a word that hardly occurs in the suttas. The original sutta word for defilement in general is upakkilesa (and perhaps saṅkilesa), not kilesa.

Yup, that’s what I notice too. I suppose at that time kilesa meant something physical dirty.

[Nickelii]

@Sunyo

But that’s exactly how it’s defined in SN48.36–39: “And what is the faculty of pleasure? Physical enjoyment, physical pleasure, the enjoyable, pleasant feeling that’s born from physical contact.”

There also isn’t a real difference between nirodha and vaya. I don’t think this is the right place to discuss this, though. I believe Ven. Sujato addressed these ideas here .

MN 128

Sunyo. SN 48.36 does not offer any explanation of the word ‘indriya’. It is like asking: “What is the controlling faculty of the mind?” Answer: “Sukha”. The answer is unrelated to the meaning of ‘indriya’ in the question.

SN 22.5 looks like it explains what samudaya means and also its opposite nirodha.

As for MN 128, this sutta looks like its about psychic powers and not about jhana nimitta. It is obvious a jhana nimitta does not cause defilements to arise. MN 128 sounds like it is about Anuruddha & his companions, about which SN 14.15 says:

Do you see Anuruddha walking together with several mendicants?”

“Yes, sir.”

“All of those mendicants have clairvoyance (dibbacakkhukā).

In MN 128, the visions of forms Anuruddha is seeing, causing defilements to arise, are the forms seen with the Divine Eye.

[Sunyo]

@Brahmali

My point is that I think the hindrances and the upakkilesas of MN128 are in fact quite closely related.

Thanks Ajahn, I stand corrected on upakkilesa being “minor”, in fact I contradicted myself directly with the suttas I quoted right after, where it is used as a synonym for the five hindrances. And I actually realized it while I was typing it. But I was too lazy to edit, hoping nobody would notice! (But luckily someone did.) To be clear, that “minor” was my insertion, not Venerable Anālayo’s.

I also said to Erika that the fear is sometimes a disguised form of sensual desire or attachment to the five senses, so I agree on that part too.

However, I still think it may be relevant that sensual desire and anger are not mentioned explicitly in the list. In my experience, at that stage of meditation you’re generally not thinking about sensual things, or even other people. So many of the thoughts mentioned in MN19 for example are abandoned. I suppose contextually Anuruddha & co already did that by the way they lived and behaved. So also pragmatically I agree, with some defilements being abandoned by sense restraint and so forht.

Anyway, a minor detail, not relevant for the core of the arguments.

@kumara

Whether you want to have it as plural or singular doesn’t really matter here. The Pali isn’t very particular about grammatical number for abstract nouns. E.g., in speaking of the 5 aggregates, sometimes the 4th aggregate is in plural and sometimes in singular.

Thanks Venerable

But that doesn’t answer my (and Erika’s) question what it actually means to be “separated from sensuality/ies”.

Also, our whole disagreement kind of boils down to whether kāma in this case is an abstract noun or not. I don’t think you can just assume it like that.

(BTW. I don’t know if sankhāra as an aggregate is ever used in the singular, especially with the exact same sense. An example would be helpful. The other aggregates are in some contexts also used in the plural sometimes, but that doesn’t mean the number is simply irrelevant or turns it into an abstract noun. One feeling means something different from multiple feelings, for example.)

[Brahmali]

@Erika_ODonnell

I am also interested to learn about the pragmatic or phenomenological meaning of separation from sensuality when it is something else than the separation from the five senses.

Just to give some context, the disappearance of the five senses seems like such a clear experiential threshold. It must be very unambiguous whether the five senses are experienced or not; like night and day.

This is a very interesting post, Erik! Yes, I can only agree that the “hard” jhāna experience is pragmatically important, especially from an insight perspective. Insight is about the three characteristics, and jhāna gives you powerful direct experience of all three. Impermanence, for instance, as you point out, only becomes fully manifest when things disappear completely, that is, when they cease. This is so because you cannot possibly fully comprehend something while you are still immersed in it, like the tadpole in water. Only a frog, who has left the water, can have the perspective to understand it. It is for this reason that we find cessation as the highest expression of impermanence in suttas such as the Ānāpānassati Sutta, MN118.

When things cease, you also understand dukkha in a much deeper way, again because you have emerged from the thing that has ceased. When something is completely gone, you understand it’s true value, or lack thereof. And finally you get a deeper appreciation of anattā. By entering a meditative state where the things that have ceased are no longer accessible, such as the five senses in “hard” jhāna, you know they must be nonself. Anything that is outside off your control, that you cannot access, is by definition nonself.

So yes, “hard” jhāna (not sure if I like that term, though! ) is pragmatically a very important basis for insight in a way that pre-jhāna samādhi can never be. IMO.

However, there are even further pragmatic aspects that need to be properly discussed. So far as I am concerned, it is beyond doubt that people have experiences that match the description of hard jhāna. These are states of extreme otherworldly bliss, where there is no mental movement (with the partial exception of the first jhāna), where you have complete nondual unity of mind, where you are frozen for hours or even days on end. What are these states if not jhāna?

I mean, the jhānas are at the very end of the Buddhist path. They are almost always classified as a distinct category together with the four stages of awakening. They are praised throughout the suttas as exceptional. They are variously called the bliss of awakening, the footsteps of the Buddha, super-human qualities, distinctions in knowledge and vison worthy of the noble ones, etc. We should expect the jhānas to be at the very peak of profound spiritual qualities. I don’t know, but this seems to me to match so much better with “hard” jhāna than soft jhāna. And again, what are these states if not jhāna?

[thomaslaw]

However, according to SA 347 (but not in its counterpart SN 12.70), the four jhanas are not needed for attaining the wisdom-liberated ‘paññā-vimuttā’:
Pages 201-2 from The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism Choong Mun-keat 2000.pdf (167.3 KB)

[kumara]

@Sunyo

But that doesn’t answer my (and Erika’s) question what it actually means to be “separated from sensuality/ies”.

For that, please refer to my book again, under the heading Vivicca & Viveka.

@Sunyo

I don’t know if sankhāra as an aggregate is ever used in the singular, especially with the exact same sense. An example would be helpful.

Here you go:

Saṃkhārā bhikkhave, anattā, saṃkhārañca hidaṃ bhikkhave, attā abhavissa nayidaṃ saṃkhāraṃ ābādhāya saṃvatteyya, labbhetha ca saṃkhārā "evaṃ me saṃkhāraṃ hotu, evaṃ me saṃkhāraṃ mā ahosī’ti. Yasmā ca kho bhikkhave, saṃkhāraṃ anattā, tasmā saṃkhāraṃ ābādhāya saṃvattati. Na ca labbhati saṃkhāre "evaṃ me saṃkhāraṃ hotu, evaṃ me saṃkhāraṃ mā ahosī"ti.

It’s in Anattalakkhana Sutta a.k.a. Pañcavaggiya Sutta.

FYI, your desire to win arguments is the reason I’m reluctant to engage with you.

[kumara]

@Erika_ODonnell

I am also interested to learn about the pragmatic or phenomenological meaning of separation from sensuality when it is something else than the separation from the five senses.

Pls refer to the same as I suggested to @Sunyo above.

[Erika_ODonnell]

@Brahmali

So yes, “hard” jhāna (not sure if I like that term, though! ) is pragmatically a very important basis for insight in a way that pre-jhāna samādhi can never be. IMO.

I’m not sure about the hard/soft jhana as terms either, but AFAIK it’s the shortest to write so it saves the most typing time

@kumara

@Erika_ODonnell

I am also interested to learn about the pragmatic or phenomenological meaning of separation from sensuality when it is something else than the separation from the five senses.

Pls refer to the same as I suggested to @Sunyo above.

Hi Venerable, congratulations on your book! it’s an accomplishment even if some people disagree with some of the points

Here I’m quoting from the book:

In this way, sensualities and unskillful qualities can still occur while the observer feels separate from them, thus not dis-eased by them, making it easy to examine them objectively.

So if I have understood correctly, in the way (first) jhana is conceptualized in your book, the hindrances can be present during the first jhana but the meditator is experiencing a feeling of separation from them. (I’ll just use ‘the hindrances’ as a blanket term here)

My first question is how this relates to right effort and right mindfulness. The EBTs are full of instructions not to tolerate arisen unskillful qualities. If the point of examining the hindrances objectively is to make them go away, isn’t this just right effort rather than right samadhi?

Or, if this is a fourth satipatthana practice (i.e. understanding the hindrances) isn’t this right mindfulness rather than right samadhi?

How would you respond to a criticism a la “yeah, if you do this and manage suppress the hindrances, then the vision of lights and form appear, which is the path into the first jhana”?

[Sasha_A]

@Erika_ODonnell

I am also interested to learn about the pragmatic or phenomenological meaning of separation from sensuality when it is something else than the separation from the five senses.

There is an excellent book on the subject: ‘The Only Way To Jhāna’ by Ajahn Nyanamoli.

@Ven. Nyanamoly

If people were to truly see the danger of sensual desire for sensual pleasures, none of that would ever again be seen as safe, friendly, suitable, pleasurable for me; it would be seen to be like a pit of burning embers, a poisonous drink, a bait, a trap, etc. Those significances are there, it’s not like you must remove the significances of pleasures. No, you must instead stop entertaining them, and look for the other significances that are equally present, but that you have been ignoring out of your habit of welcoming lust.
…

AN9.41
Then the thought occurred to me: “If, having seen the danger of sensual pleasures, I were to pursue that; and if, having understood the reward of renunciation, I were to develop it, there’s the possibility that my mind would leap up at renunciation, grow confident, steadfast, and firm, seeing it as peace.” So at a later time, having seen the danger of sensual pleasures, I pursued that theme; having understood the reward of renunciation, I familiarized myself with it. My mind leaped up at renunciation, grew confident, steadfast, and firm, seeing it as peace.

Then, withdrawn from sensual desires, withdrawn from unwholesome states, I entered and remained in the first comprehension: pleasure and happiness born from withdrawal, with thinking and pondering.

…

MN36

“In the same way, there are ascetics and brahmins who live withdrawn in body and mind from sensual pleasures. But they haven’t internally given up or stilled desire, affection, infatuation, thirst, and passion for sensual pleasures. Regardless of whether or not they suffer painful, sharp, severe, acute feelings due to overexertion, they are incapable of knowledge and vision, of supreme awakening.”

You’re not in the water any more, but the mind is still wet with the value of sensuality. So it doesn’t matter what you do, or how much effort you’re putting in, or how motionless and for how many hours you sit in your meditation, if you have not, on the level of your views, devalued sensuality forever. Through not understanding the danger of it—you are still within it. So there will be no wisdom arising on account of whatever endurance you undergo, because you do so while still acting from the point of view that sensual pleasures are valuable. … Mentally abandoning sensuality is not simply about not thinking about it, it means devaluing it.

If you physically step outside of the swamp of sensuality, but still mentally value swimming in it, you’re not withdrawn from it. If you don’t see the danger in it, you are still valuing it.

[kumara]

@Erika_ODonnell

So if I have understood correctly, in the way (first) jhana is conceptualized in your book, the hindrances can be present during the first jhana but the meditator is experiencing a feeling of separation from them. (I’ll just use ‘the hindrances’ as a blanket term here)

Seems to me you didn’t read that section properly.

@Erika_ODonnell

My first question is how this relates to right effort and right mindfulness. The EBTs are full of instructions not to tolerate arisen unskillful qualities. If the point of examining the hindrances objectively is to make them go away, isn’t this just right effort rather than right samadhi?

Or, if this is a fourth satipatthana practice (i.e. understanding the hindrances) isn’t this right mindfulness rather than right samadhi?

Are you regarding right effort, right mindfulness and right samadhi as separately practised?

@Erika_ODonnell

How would you respond to a criticism a la “yeah, if you do this and manage suppress the hindrances, then the vision of lights and form appear, which is the path into the first jhana”?

I would find it so confusing that I wouldn’t be bothered.