SuttaCentral
As far as I can see, that is, as I expected, an argument of the type, “it doesn’t say John came out of bed, so that means he’s having breakfast in bed”.
What determines whether one can contemplate in jhanas is whether the mind can be active enough for that, not just whether you are percipient or not.
Having reread AN9.36, I think this is what it is telling us:
So, just as Anālayo suggests for MN111, the point being made in AN9.36 is not whether you emerge from all stages or only from the last two; the point is about the content of the attainments.
(And that’s more than enough jhāna sutta stuff for today. 
)
When in AN9.35 the Buddha says “a bhikkhu enters and emerges from each of these meditative attainments, his mind becomes malleable and wieldy”, it seems to me to say you can use any of these states to become enlightened, which is exactly what AN9.36 explains.
Also, the phrase “a bhikkhu enters and emerges from each of these meditative attainments, his mind becomes malleable and wieldy” is followed by “they become capable of realizing anything that can be realized by insight to which they extend the mind, in each and every case.” (AN9.35) And that phrase is elsewhere also used after abandoning the hindrances in general, like AN3.101–102; and AN5.23:
Yes, it seems to me that you can reach Nibbana with just one of these states (with insight, of course).
But, despite this and the other suttas, don’t you think that the translation of Venerable Bodhi is also ambiguous as to whether or not the Buddha specifically meant “a person who has attained all 9 jhanas (rather than saying that mastery of a single jhana is sufficient to have psychic powers)” ?
Interesting! I firmly believed that the first jhana was not enough because of the fact that I always saw psychic powers after this jhana.
By the way, I liked your comparison with John’s breakfast. It’s true that this kind of reasoning is really tempting sometimes!
For example, DN 2 says this:
“Further, great king, with the abandoning of pleasure and pain, and with the previous passing away of joy and grief, the bhikkhu enters and dwells in the fourth jhāna, which is neither pleasant nor painful and contains mindfulness fully purified by equanimity. He sits suffusing his body with a pure bright mind, so that there is no part of his entire body not suffused by a pure bright mind.
“Great king, suppose a man were to be sitting covered from the head down by a white cloth, so that there would be no part of his entire body not suffused by the white cloth. In the same way, great king, the bhikkhu sits suffusing his body with a pure bright mind, so that there is no part of his entire body not suffused by a pure bright mind. This too, great king, is a visible fruit of recluseship more excellent and sublime than the previous ones.
“When his mind is thus concentrated, pure and bright, unblemished, free from defects, malleable, wieldy, steady and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge and vision. He understands thus: ‘This is my body, having material form, composed of the four primary elements, originating from father and mother, built up out of rice and gruel, impermanent, subject to rubbing and pressing, to dissolution and dispersion. And this is my consciousness, supported by it and bound up with it.’
“Great king, suppose there were a beautiful beryl gem of purest water, eight-faceted, well cut, clear, limpid, flawless, endowed with all excellent qualities. And through it there would run a blue, yellow, red, white, or brown thread. A man with keen sight, taking it in his hand, would reflect upon it thus: ‘This is a beautiful beryl gem of purest water, eight faceted, well cut, clear, limpid, flawless, endowed with all excellent qualities. And running through it there is this blue, yellow, red, white, or brown thread.’ In the same way, great king, when his mind is thus concentrated, pure and bright … the bhikkhu directs and inclines it to knowledge and vision and understands thus: ‘This is my body, having material form …. and this is my consciousness, supported by it and bound up with it.’ This, too, great king, is a visible fruit of recluseship more excellent and sublime than the previous ones.
It’s true that the emergence of jhana before understanding is not explicitly mentioned, but neither is non-emergence. It really tempts me to conclude that insight takes place during jhana, lol. But caution is a very good thing.
This raises the question of having a coherent exegetic-hermeuntic-epistemological system for reading the suttas. Perhaps such a system could help to interpret the suttas with a rigorous, consistent and systematic method, to avoid bias.
Yesterday I watched some videos by Venerable Bodhi about MN 111. He says that when he reads the sutta itself, he gets the impression that you can practice insight while in jhana. However, according to intellectual reasoning, he thinks that one cannot practice insight while in jhana (he thinks one must first emerge from it).
The reasoning is as follows:
To analyze the elements of jhanas one by one, vitakka/vicara must be present in the mind;
However, vitakka/vicara are not present in the mind during jhanas superior to the first;
So we cannot analyze the elements of the jhanas one by one while in jhana.
links :
Thank you Bhante, you are humble and kind!
A simple reading of the suttas is that insight occurs whilst in Jhana. You don’t need V&V for that. Ven. Bodhi I assume thinks they are needed because of the translation of “initial thought and investigation”, but in terms of Jhana V&V mean the wholesome intentional thoughts of metta, mudita, contentment etc.
You’ve just described the reasoning behind much of the Abhidhamma literature, something every major early Buddhist sect seems to have valued! And they are always biased and disagree vigorously in several points with one another. Everyone is trying to understand the buddhavacana to the best of their ability, ideally to put it into practice and realize it for oneself. It’s helpful to have the opinions and analyses of knowledgable people — both ancient and modern — but there is no error-free method.
Mettā 
From upanishads
32-40. The first three states are said to be the waking state; the fourth is called the dream state. And the mind dissolves like the fragments of an autumnal cloud. He who reaches the fifth stage survives but as bare being. Due to the dissolution of the mind in this stage the world-manifold does not present itself at all. Reaching the fifth stage called ‘deep sleep’, the sadhaka remains as pure non-dual being, all particulars having completely vanished. Having reached the fifth stage, one stays consolidated in deep sleep, joyful, inwardly awake, all dual appearances gone. Looking inwards, even when attending to outer things, he appears always indrawn, being extremely exhausted. Practising in this fifth stage, free from all innate impulses, one reaches, as a matter of course, the sixth stage named ‘the Fourth’. Where there is neither the non-existent nor the existent, neither the ‘I’ nor the non-‘l’, with all analytic thinking gone, one stays alone, totally fearless, in non-duality. Beyond knots, with all doubt vanquished, liberated in life, devoid of imaginations, though unextinguished yet extinguished, he is like a painted flame. Having dwelt in the sixth. stage, he shall reach the seventh. The state of disembodied liberation is called the seventh stage of Yoga.
Forgot the name
For sake of clarity for those reading along, the translation you’re referring to is, “When, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu enters and emerges from each of these meditative attainments, his mind becomes malleable and wieldy.” (AN9.35) The question is, does it mean you attain all the attainments, or is one of them enough?
I don’t know what Bhikkhu Bodhi had in mind, but if I show you nine mushrooms and say “each of these will kill you when you eat them”, to me it doesn’t mean you have to eat all nine to die.
The Pali uses taṃ tad’eva (= taṃ taṃ eva). Elsewhere this is used as a universalization, like here:
Suppose, friends, a king or a royal minister had a wardrobe full of differently coloured clothes. Whatever suit he might want to wear in the morning he would wear in the morning. (SN46.4)
It doesn’t mean the king wears all his suits at the same time. (Though generally taṃ taṃ is accompanied by the relative yaṃ yaṃ, which AN9.35 doesn’t have. I’m not sure that makes a huge difference.)
I can see how contextually you could argue it says you need all nine attainments, though, including the cessation of perception. But that doesn’t fit too well in the wider scope of the canon, since this would be the only place (that I know of) where that attainment is said to result in a malleable mind. Elsewhere it is always after the jhānas that this happens. No surprise, when the commentary comments on the phrase in AN9.35, it say it refers to the fourth jhāna.
Let’s agree it is ambiguous, to not stick with this sentence for too long. Then still, the four jhānas are elsewhere also said to be emerged from, and to be “reviewed”.
In that case I think there is actually an indication as to what’s going on. It uses a locative absolute with a past participle (evaṃ samāhite …), which indicates something in the past (with a past perfect sense, meaning something completed). Wijesekera says in such cases “the loc. absolute is used in a general way to denote the time since or after which some action is supposed to take place.” A similar locative absolute with a past participle is evaṃ vutte, meaning “when this was said” (meaning the speaker had finished speaking). When something is going on at the same time, the locative absolute tends to use a present participle, not a past one.
However, the phrase must also be possible to be read differently, otherwise knowledged people wouldn’t disagree.
But also in this case the insight that follows is phrased as a thought: “This body of mine is physical. It’s made up of the four primary elements, produced by mother and father, built up from rice and porridge, liable to impermanence, to wearing away and erosion, to breaking up and destruction. And this consciousness of mine is attached to it, tied to it.'” Now, then it comes down to whether one believes in the fourth jhana one can think such thoughts. To me, the answer is an absolute ‘no’ already for the first jhana, let alone the fourth.
Thanks for linking to the timestamps in the video. 
I’m happy Bhikkhu Bodhi points out the “as they occurred” in “one by one as they occurred” isn’t in the Pali! I assumed that was his idea, but apparently it was Ñāṇamoli’s.
Not that it matters a lot, but the way he explains it, it doesn’t seem to be just intellectual reasoning. He refers to his own practice. And that is one point I tried to make before, that the way one reads these texts is influenced by one’s practice, and that’s the way it would have been at the time of the Buddha as well. That’s also why I would agree with Vaddha, that we shouldn’t approach the suttas just as a textual systematic method.
In my opinion, to those who attained jhānas it will be so clear that you can’t contemplate within them, that the sutta can only be read as Sariputta contemplating those phenomena after “they disappeared”. (Which, to repeat myself, is indeed when the insight is said to happen.) There is no ambiguity anymore for them. That’s why the suttas don’t need to explicitly mention emerging from the jhānas all the time.
On top of that, I think emerging after the jhana is left unmentioned in such suttas because it is a natural process, not something the meditator does. It is determined by how much letting go they do when entering the jhāna, not determined while they are in the jhāna.
Either way, I think I’ve given some quite strong examples where emergence is clearly implied without being stated explicitly, in particular SN28.1. I see no reason that this wouldn’t be similarly implied in suttas like MN111.
My apologies on this one. I was mis-remembering. It was ekā that Bhante’s post referred to
Though I don’t disagree with your view of the unitariness of perception in jhāna, I don’t think DN 9 offers very strong support for it. It really only works with Ajahn Thanissaro’s translation, which is based on the reading in the Royal Siamese Tipiṭaka where the two verbs happen to be in the singular:
Sikkhā ekā saññā uppajjati, sikkhā ekā saññā nirujjhati.
Thanissaro wrote:“With training, one perception arises and with training another perception ceases.”
Every other translator, however, has favoured the reading found in the Sinhalese edition (and in all editions of the Dīgha Commentary), where the two verbs are plural:Sikkhā ekā saññā uppajjanti, sikkhā ekā saññā nirujjhanti.
Thomas Rhys Davids wrote:“By training some ideas arise. By training others pass away.”
Sujāto wrote:“With training, certain perceptions arise and certain perceptions cease.”
Maurice Walshe wrote:“Some perceptions arise through training, and some pass away through training.”
Dhammānando wrote:“Owing to the training certain perceptions occur; owing to the training certain perceptions cease.”
Thomas Trätow wrote:“Durch Übung entstehen gewisse bewusste Wahrnehmungen, durch Übung vergehen gewisse bewusste Wahrnehmungen.”
Kåre A. Lie wrote:“Noen tanker oppstår som følge av trening, andre tanker stopper som følge av trening.”
Even if we grant that Thanissaro is right to favour the Royal Siamese reading, there’s still the question of whether he has translated it properly. Frankly I don’t think he has. The Pali word eka , outside of compounds, is much much more often used as a limiting adjective than as a numeral. For example, eko piḷhako would more probably mean “a certain dungbeetle” than “one dungbeetle”. Most translators would opt for the second rendering only if the context clearly indicated that eko was being used as a numeral (e.g., if the passage was a description of somebody counting dung-beetles).Even the Thai translators, who like Thanissaro use the Royal Siamese edition, don’t render the passage in the way that he does. They translate ekā saññā as “a certain kind of perception” (สัญญาอย่างหนึ่ง), not as “one perception” (สัญญาหนึ่ง).
How long to attain first jhana? - Page 4 - Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum
Looking at the Pāli for DN 9 it’s interesting that we have repetitions, but one with “eva” and one without
Vivekajapītisukhasukhumasaccasaññā tasmiṁ samaye hoti,
vivekajapītisukhasukhumasaccasaññīyeva tasmiṁ samaye hoti.
I’m not sure why this is. Do you have any ideas Bhante? I looked at the parallel for some clues but it was missing there
“Suppose a Tathāgata arises in the world, an Arhat and Completely Awakened One who possesses the ten epithets. Someone leaves home for the path in the Buddha’s Dharma … ceases the five hindrances that obscure their mind. They abandon desires and bad and unskillful things. With perception and examination, that seclusion gives rise to joy and happiness, and they enter the first dhyāna.
“Their prior notions of desire cease, and notions of joy and happiness arise. Wanderer, we know because of this that there are causes and conditions for conceptions to arise, and cause and condition for conceptions to cease.
“That person ceases having perception or examination. They have an inner joy and unified mind without perception or examination. That samādhi gives rise to joy and happiness, and they enter the second dhyāna.
The Long Discourses | 28. [Poṭṭhapāda] (dharmapearls.net)
That first post indeed says they abandoned the hindrances, but not that they attained jhana. You can abandon the hindrances without entering jhāna, because there is another thing you have to do, which is to become fully separated from kāmā (sensory experiences)". In fact, that this sutta specifically says “while walking” one abandons the hindrances but does NOT mentions jhāna or abandoning sensory experiences, I think speaks in favor of the non-bodily interpretation of jhana. I’d say it purposefully leaves “separated form sensory experiences” out, it and only mentions abandoning the hindrances, the latter of which I agree one can do while walking.
Bhante Sujato has stated samādhi has a broader meaning than jhānas as well, see Swift Pair of Messengers. So has Ānalayo, and I think most everybody, actually.
For a recap I was referring to this sutta
Suppose a mendicant has got rid of desire and ill will while walking, and has given up dullness and drowsiness, restlessness and remorse, and doubt. Their energy is roused up and unflagging, their mindfulness is established and lucid, their body is tranquil and undisturbed, and their mind is immersed in samādhi. Such a mendicant is said to be ‘keen and prudent, always energetic and determined’ when walking.
Carato cepi, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno abhijjhābyāpādo vigato hoti, thinamiddhaṁ … uddhaccakukkuccaṁ … vicikicchā pahīnā hoti, āraddhaṁ hoti vīriyaṁ asallīnaṁ, upaṭṭhitā sati asammuṭṭhā, passaddho kāyo asāraddho, samāhitaṁ cittaṁ ekaggaṁ, carampi, bhikkhave, bhikkhu evaṁbhūto ‘ātāpī ottāpī satataṁ samitaṁ āraddhavīriyo pahitatto’ti vuccati.
Now I do doubt your claim that samādhi sometimes doesn’t refer to jhāna (I also re-read Sujato’s book but couldn’t find anything, but I was skimming) but I don’t think that entirely matters here (although I’m happy to go over that too). There are occasions where it talks of the Signless etc, but those are clearly stated. Whilst walking, a mendicant has abandoned the hindrances. He is practicing Satipaṭṭhāna. When one abandons the hindrances through Satipaṭṭhāna then jhāna occurs, and so the samādhi here is referring to jhāna. This is bolstered by the phrase “Their energy is roused up and unflagging, their mindfulness is established and lucid, their body is tranquil and undisturbed, and their mind is immersed in samādhi.” We see this stock phrase occur with the awakening factors, for example
“Mendicants, when a mendicant is accomplished in ethics, immersion, knowledge, freedom, or the knowledge and vision of freedom, even the sight of them is very helpful, I say. Even to hear them, approach them, pay homage to them, recollect them, or go forth following them is very helpful, I say. Why is that? Because after hearing the teaching of such mendicants, a mendicant will live withdrawn in both body and mind, as they recollect and think about that teaching.
At such a time, a mendicant has activated the awakening factor of mindfulness; they develop it and perfect it. As they live mindfully in this way they investigate, explore, and inquire into that teaching with wisdom.
At such a time, a mendicant has activated the awakening factor of investigation of principles; they develop it and perfect it. As they investigate principles with wisdom in this way their energy is roused up and unflagging.
At such a time, a mendicant has activated the awakening factor of energy; they develop it and perfect it. When they’re energetic, rapture not of the flesh arises.
At such a time, a mendicant has activated the awakening factor of rapture; they develop it and perfect it. When the mind is full of rapture, the body and mind become tranquil.
At such a time, a mendicant has activated the awakening factor of tranquility; they develop it and perfect it. When the body is tranquil and one feels bliss, the mind becomes immersed in samādhi.
At such a time, a mendicant has activated the awakening factor of immersion; they develop it and perfect it. They closely watch over that mind immersed in samādhi.
At such a time, a mendicant has activated the awakening factor of equanimity; they develop it and perfect it.
SN 46.3
All in all then it does look like Jhāna is occurring whilst walking, during Satipaṭṭhāna. Satipaṭṭhāna is both an insight practice and a samatha practice. One can imagine a monk walking back and forth in the charnel ground, contemplating the corpses and his own body (the "internally and externally of Satipaṭṭhāna) which leads to the abandoning of the hindrances and the steadying of the mind until it is fully collected, i.e. jhāna. I also quite like this sutta for its mention of the need for bodily and mental seclusion (kāyavūpakāsena ca cittavūpakāsena ca).
I’m not sure exactly how this relates to the question whether jhānas are bodily states or not, but perhaps you are referring to the wider use of kāya, going beyond just ‘physical body’. Indeed, you’re right, the word kāya has a much wider meaning than just physical body. But at times it also goes beyond any aspects of the body. Among other things, it also can refer to the person more generally, just like we say ‘somebody’.
In the third jhāna “by the kāya” (kāyena) means “by the person”, i.e. “personally”:
And with the fading away of rapture, they enter and remain in the third absorption, where they meditate with equanimity, mindful and aware, personally (kāyena) experiencing the bliss of which the noble ones declare, ‘Equanimous and mindful, one meditates in bliss.’
The point is, one personally experiences the sukha one has heard about from the noble ones before
Whilst kāyena can be used idiomatically, and kāya can mean the whole person (body and mind) why must we read it this way when it comes to the Jhānas? Given the scheme laid out in the Indriyasaṁyutta, which discusses sukha in relation to the Jhānas, doesn’t it make more sense that the physical body is meant there?
Katamañca, bhikkhave, sukhindriyaṁ? Yaṁ kho, bhikkhave, kāyikaṁ sukhaṁ, kāyikaṁ sātaṁ, kāyasamphassajaṁ sukhaṁ sātaṁ vedayitaṁ— idaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, sukhindriyaṁ
And what is the faculty of pleasure? Physical enjoyment, physical pleasure, the enjoyable, pleasant feeling that’s born from physical contact. This is called the faculty of pleasure.
Katamañca, bhikkhave, somanassindriyaṁ?Yaṁ kho, bhikkhave, cetasikaṁ sukhaṁ, cetasikaṁ sātaṁ, manosamphassajaṁ sukhaṁ sātaṁ vedayitaṁ— daṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, somanassindriyaṁ.
And what is the faculty of happiness? Mental enjoyment, mental pleasure, the enjoyable, pleasant feeling that’s born from mind contact. This is called the faculty of happiness. - SN 48.38
Here sukha is bodily ease. Somanassa is mental pleasure, which has its basis in the emotion of rapture (pīti). Tranquillity seems to be the cause for the sukha, following the unfolding of the awakening factors. It would make sense that a tranquil body would feel sukha, ease, no? This brings me onto another point you have raised
It can’t be the body that feels the pīti and sukha, because in the suttas the pīti that is felt in the first two jhānas is repeatedly called mental (pīti-māna). It’s similar with the sukha, which is called non-physical (nirāmisa) and in other ways is indicated to be mental. For example, it is said in MN139 that the sukha that comes from the body (and other physical senses) is not to be developed, and that one should seek sukha “internally”, i.e. in the mind.
In the Nirāmisa sutta (SN 36.31) we find that based on the kāmaguṇa (nirāmisa) there is rapture (pīti) as well as mental and physical pleasure (sukha & somanassa). Sukha here can only be physical not mental, since that is covered by “somanassa”. Next we are told that spiritual (sāmisa) rapture (pīti) and spiritual pleasure (sukha) arise with their respective Jhānas. Note that somanassa (mental pleasure) is missing. Somanassa crops up again though later on
Katamañca, bhikkhave, nirāmisā nirāmisataraṁ sukhaṁ? Yaṁ kho, bhikkhave, khīṇāsavassa bhikkhuno rāgā cittaṁ vimuttaṁ paccavekkhato, dosā cittaṁ vimuttaṁ paccavekkhato, mohā cittaṁ vimuttaṁ paccavekkhato uppajjati sukhaṁ somanassaṁ, idaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, nirāmisā nirāmisataraṁ sukhaṁ.
And what is pleasure even more spiritual that that not of the flesh? When a mendicant who has ended the defilements reviews their mind free from greed, hate, and delusion, pleasure and happiness arises. This is called pleasure even more spiritual that that not of the flesh.
Here we have somanassa and sukha arising for a liberated one, reviewing their attainments. Once again since somanassa is mentioned, sukha has to be physical. We have then a non-material bodily ease arising. This would mean that the use of " Nirāmisa" can’t be used to argue that sukha must be mental. Now notice that throughout sukha is physical in this sutta. Somanassa is missing from the discussion of Jhāna, but I see no reason why the sutta would suddenly switch the meaning to “somanassa” here. Since rapture is also discussed, I would take somanassa to be covered by it during Jhāna, and so sukha here means physical ease just like the Nirāmisa sukha is physical for the liberated Arahant. This would also match the parallel versions of SN 48.40, where somanassa ends with rapture ceasing. Within Jhāna then the mental pleasure (somanassa) is caused by rapture, and so sukha must refer to bodily ease (caused by tranquillity). As mentioned before, the commentaries also explain it this way.
As far as I can see, that is, as I expected, an argument of the type, “it doesn’t say John came out of bed, so that means he’s having breakfast in bed”.
What determines whether one can contemplate in jhanas is whether the mind can be active enough for that, not just whether you are percipient or not.
That isn’t the argument I’m making. What is the Jhāna sutta discussing? It is discussing how liberation occurs. This occurs when there is perception. The sutta then makes a distinction between the Jhānas + the first 3 formless attainments and nevasaññānāsaññāyatana & nirodha-samāpatti (Neither-perception-nor-non-perception & Cessation of Perception & Feeling). When discussing nevasaññānāsaññāyatana & nirodha-samāpatti it says one can only have insight when one has entered and left them. The comparison then is that with the other attainments, you don’t need to enter and leave them in order for there to be insight. You just need to enter them. You mentioned that one needs to actually see their cessation in order to see impermanence, but how true is that? I can see the impermanence of my body without it having actually died no? After all “impermanence” is just a concept, a perception, that we apply to experience. Its not some thing you actually cognise.
“When his mind is thus concentrated, pure and bright, unblemished, free from defects, malleable, wieldy, steady and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge and vision. He understands thus: ‘This is my body, having material form, composed of the four primary elements, originating from father and mother, built up out of rice and gruel, impermanent, subject to rubbing and pressing, to dissolution and dispersion. And this is my consciousness, supported by it and bound up with it.’ - DN 2
In my opinion, to those who attained jhānas it will be so clear that you can’t contemplate within them, that the sutta can only be read as Sariputta contemplating those phenomena after “they disappeared”. (Which, to repeat myself, is indeed when the insight is said to happen.) There is no ambiguity anymore for them. That’s why the suttas don’t need to explicitly mention emerging from the jhānas all the time.
There has been however a long history of Buddhist traditions teaching that you can contemplate whilst in jhāna, most of them no longer around today.
To recap my points:
Satipaṭṭhāna is both an insight and samatha practice, and can be done whilst in Jhāna.
Samādhi means Jhāna, unless otherwise stated.
You can walk and gain insight whilst in a Jhāna.
Whilst in Jhāna there is mental pleasure (somanassa) arising from rapture, and physical ease (sukha) arising from physical tranquillity.
In order to enter Jhāna you need physical seclusion (kāyavūpakāsena) away from sensual pleasures (kāmā) and mental seclusion (cittavūpakāsena) from the hindrances.
Whilst in Jhāna your perception of the body will change, as it begins to take on the subtle form of the devas in the corresponding realms.
Thank you for explaining the discussion to the others readers!
Interesting, but for example if I say “When a person takes each of these coins, he becomes able to buy bread”, that gives the opposite impression. It seems that, depending on the examples we give, the “prejudices” we have about how the situations described work can make us lean towards one interpretation rather than another. We have to try to read these examples without prejudice - and that’s not easy.
For example, let me take your example and make it fit the Venerable Bodhi sentence.
Venerable Bodhi writes: “When, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu enters and emerges from each of these meditative attainments, his mind becomes malleable
and wieldy.”.
Modifying your example a little, I get: “When a person swallows each of these mushrooms, the person becomes ill”.
Let’s put aside our prejudices about the situation where someone eats mushrooms, and look at the sentence for itself to understand its meaning. Well, personally, I find it ambiguous.
I’m sorry I came back to that sentence, but it sounded very interesting.
That’s interesting. You know Pali 10,000 times better than I do.
To clarify the discussion for the readers, let me imitate you bhante by reminding them that you are talking here about this passage from DN 2 :
When their mind has become immersed in samādhi like this—purified, bright, flawless, rid of corruptions, pliable, workable, steady, and imperturbable—they extend it and project it toward knowledge and vision.
So evaṁ samāhite citte parisuddhe pariyodāte anaṅgaṇe vigatūpakkilese mudubhūte kammaniye ṭhite āneñjappatte ñāṇadassanāya cittaṁ abhinīharati abhininnāmeti.
Please venerable Sunyo, I have a question. In the case where we consider that this mental state of the fourth jhana is already completed (because of the pali), this implies that the fourth jhana has the characteristics of “pliable” and “workable”. How do you interpret these two words?
Some people say that non-corporeal jhanas are fixed because they are immobilized on an object of attention at one point (and it would be precisely this fixed aspect that brings great detachment and peace). If this is true, it gives me the impression that jhana is not flexible and malleable. But I feel that there is something that escapes my understanding.
Perhaps these “thoughts” are not “verbal thoughts” but rather a kind of “subtle non-verbal understanding”? But then this has to do with our interpretation of vitakka and vicara.
By the way, I’d like to say that there are regularly parts of your messages that I don’t reply to because they teach me so much but I don’t know what to say, so thank you again for all this information!
Venerable Analayo has argued this (p.121-122), if you’re interested :
To cultivate such awareness of these mental qualities arising and disappearing while being in an absorption is impossible, because the very presence of these qualities is required for there to be an absorption in the first place and for it to continue being a state of absorption.
The formulation used in the discourse makes it clear that the passage does not intend to refer to the momentary change of mental qualities. The Anupada-sutta clearly specifies that Sāriputta observes the arising of mental qualities which “have not been, come into being”, ahutvā sambhonti, and he contemplates their disappearance when “having been, they disappear”, hutvā paṭiventi. The notion of momentariness, according to which phenomena pass away on the spot at every moment, is in fact a relatively late development in Buddhist thought. It can safely be set aside as not forming the backdrop of the early discourses.
So when these states have not yet come into being or disappear, a practitioner inevitably is not yet or no longer in the absorption, simply because the absorption lasts only as long as all of the mental qualities that characterize it are fully present.
Therefore to observe the arising of these mental qualities and heir disappearance could only happen before an absorption is attained or after the attainment has come to an end.
No problem. I also apologize if anything I said has been incorrect or misremembered, which I’m sure must have been the case at some points in this long discussion.
The word eva may not mean much, to be fair. Sometimes it definitely means ‘only’, but exactly when can be hard to tell. But I think it makes contextual sense to translate it this way here, since we’re talking about perceptions ceasing and another being present. (Notice the verb here is surely singular in all editions, hoti.)
It also seems like the word eva is the only meaningful difference between the two statements, from which I conclude it may mean something more than just an emphasis. Otherwise there’s little use to restate the same thing.
But it seems I’m the only one to translate it that way here, so I’ll reconsider. It’s not that my interpretation stands or falls based on that word alone, anyway.
It’s about the passage as a whole, which sounds to me much more like withdrawing from the five senses than withdrawing into a hut or forest. For example, it says that the sensual perceptions cease at the moment one enters first jhāna, just like perception of pīti ends at the moment one enters the third jhāna. This doesn’t seem to refer to going into physical seclusion, which is usually done long before abandoning the hindrances and entering jhāna.
Let me quote the passage once more, for clarity:
When they get fully separated from sensory experiences and separated from unskillful states of mind, they attain the first jhana, where there is delight and bliss (sukha) caused by the separation [from the sensory experiences], to which the mind moves and holds on. The perception of sensory experiences which they had before, ceases. At that time there is subtle but true perception of delight and bliss caused by the separation, and they only have that perception, subtle but true, of delight and bliss caused by the separation. That is how through training some perceptions [of the five senses] cease while others [of pītisukha] arise.
The thing abandoned in the first jhāna is also called a ‘perception’, just like the feeling of pītisukha is called a perception. Walking into seclusion doesn’t really make certain “perceptions” cease, I would say, at least not in the same way the perception of pīti ceases in the third jhāna. However, the cessation of sounds, smells, and so on, is cessation in very much the same sense. (To pre-empt possible responses by others, I know in some other places kāmasaññā means perceptions of sense desire, but I don’t think that’s the case here in DN9.)
Elsewhere “fully separated from sensual objects (kāmā)” is also explained as “one has thoroughly ended sensual objects (kāmā)”. (AN9.33) That also doesn’t sound like withdrawing into the forest to me. By walking into a forest, you don’t really thoroughly end the “sensual objects”; you just move away from them. However, in my view of jhāna, sounds, sights, smells, etc, do actually thoroughly come to an end.
I don’t feel like discussing this here, and you were also happy to let it go, so I’ll just refer to others. Sujato’s discussion starts on page 16, and here are Anālayo’s thoughts.
Well, that’s exactly where we disagree, isn’t it? As I said, I think one needs to do something else too, namely withdrawing the mind from the five senses. That’s why there are two prerequisites for attaining the first jhāna in the standard formula, not one. Another argument is, if you only needed to abandon the unskillful qualities, the enlightened ones would always be in jhāna, because all unskillful qualities depend on ignorance (SN20.1).
That’s how sukha-indriya is defined there, yes. But as discussed before, it is said in SN48.40 that this kind of sukha (bodily sukha) does not exist in the third jhāna! So the sukha that exists in the third jhāna must be a different kind of sukha, which is mental. Therefore, it can’t be felt “with the body” (“kāyena”).
It does make sense on some level, and I used to think of it like that too. But I think the practice goes much deeper than just bodily relaxation. I take this to mean your body becomes so tranquil you can’t feel it anymore. That happens because you focus on the pīti (which is mental), being no longer interested in the body. Then the mind feels the ease (sukha) of not having that burden of the body anymore, the ease of being away from the senses.
(It’s good news for those in chronic pain: the body can also be tranquilized in this way if it is in pain. To attain jhānas the pain fades away into the background; it doesn’t need to be transformed into bodily pleasure, which sometimes just isn’t feasible. Also good news for quadriplegics, who, not being able to feel the body, can’t attain the bodily jhānas of some interpretations.)
Some Chinese parallels also say that both body and mind become tranquil at this point, not just the body.
Exactly, it’s spiritual (or literally “not of the flesh”), which means, “relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things”, synonyms being ‘psychological’, ‘inner’, and ‘non-material’. To avoid confusion, I prefer to translate nirāmisa following Cone and Digital Pali Dictionary as ‘non-physical’. PED and Buddhadatta also have ‘non-material’.
What I’m saying is, pleasure felt “with the body” is not spiritual, not nirāmisa. That’s what SĀmisa means, “of the flesh”, i.e. “of the body”. (As in Matthew 26:41: “the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh (body) is weak.”)
We also have to be consistent when possible. If nirāmisa pīti is a mental emotion, as you seem to agree (and which is hard to deny since it’s called pīti-māna), then nirāmisa sukha must also be a mental emotion.
No, here the two are definitely synonymous. Notice that in uppajjati sukhaṁ somanassaṁ the verb uppajjati is singular, which means that one thing arises, not two separate ones. You can see a peculiarity in Sujato’s translation, where subject and verb don’t agree in number: “pleasure and happiness arises”. The word “and” isn’t there in Pali, that’s the thing. More literally it says: “[there] arises sukha, which is somanassa”. The two words are attributes to one another, not different things.
I got your line of reasoning already, but I don’t find it satisfying. I’m not sure whether you saw my later post when you typed this. So to clarify, I think the essential comparison being made is much more pragmatic than that, and also more directly related to the central theme of the sutta, which is how the nine attainments are a basis for enlightenment, not whether one becomes enlightened inside of them or not.
The comparison being made is how you contemplate these states. When it comes to the last two attainments you can’t “contemplate the phenomena there”, because there just are not enough “phenomena” there. So when the Buddha says, “thus there is penetration to final knowledge as far as meditative attainments accompanied by perception”, the word “thus” means “in that way”—which is to say, penetration occurs in the way he just described for the attainments with perception, namely through analyzing “the phenomena there”. But it’s different for the final two.
The sutta doesn’t actually say the penetration to enlightenment happens inside the first seven attainments. That is something added on through interpretation, including in that article you linked, which is why I still think it makes a “John had breakfast in bed”-type argument. (There should be a better name for this! ‘Appeal to ignorance’, I believe is the name, claiming something is true because of something not being said. That is to say, “It isn’t said one comes out of jhana, therefore one doesn’t come out of jhana.”)
I mean, it’s true that the sutta only mentions having to be skilled in entering and emergence for the last two attainments. But does this therefore mean one doesn’t have to be skilled in these things for the prior attainments? I don’t think so. Elsewhere these skills are said to be important for developing all attainments of samādhi including the jhānas. A whole book in the Saṃyutta Nikāya, SN34, is all about these skills. There’s also SN52.21, AN2.163, AN6.64, AN6.72, AN7.40–41, and more. Suffice to say, the idea isn’t exactly marginal! And I think these skills are also implied in this sutta (AN9.36) for all nine states, especially because they are said to lead to enlightenment, which implies people are already skilled in these things.
It’s somewhat off topic, but I think that is very true, at least if we’re talking about enlightenment. The body’s impermanence is obvious if one gives it a second of thought, one doesn’t need jhana for that. But if one wants to understand impermanence of the aggregates/senses, on deep level that leads to awakening, something beyond the intellect, then one needs to see them cease. Two suttas earlier, in AN9.34, this is also explained with respect to dukkha using the jhānas. To understand for example how pīti in the third jhāna is “an affliction” (same word as mentioned in AN9.36), one needs to go beyond it (e.g. attain fourth jhāna) and then have it come back again. Through impermanence one understands suffering. The absence of a self can also be understood through seeing things cease. (E.g. MN148) Example: if the five senses cease in the first jhāna, you’ll be able to acknowledge deeply that they are anattā.
Anyway, that is only a tangential argument for the insights in AN9.36 to happen after the jhānas. My main argument is that it is not specifically mentioned to happen inside the jhānas (nor is this the case anywhere else). But there are other suttas where the person clearly comes out of jhāna at some point, yet emergence also isn’t mentioned there. Emergence is always implied, is what I’m saying.
Probably so. These disputes go back to the earliest days of Buddhism. Which is interesting in its own right, but I won’t diverge. 
Unfortunately, some people who disagree with me know Pāli at least as well as I do.
When the mind has attained the fourth jhana (or any jhana), it emerges (i.e. the jhana is as you say “completed”), then the mind becomes pliable and malleable. That’s because of the after-effect of jhana, which removes the hindrances for a long time. I wish the suttas said it clearer, but anyway, I’ll revert to my argument that it would have been abundantly clear to those who attained the jhānas.
Well, they may not be verbal, but then they are still thoughts, is what I would argue. I don’t think there is a significant difference between verbal and non-verbal thoughts. But let’s not go there…
Coming back to AN9.35, I could also argue, if your object of focus changes from pītisukha to nibbāna, then you’re definitely no longer in jhāna. Because the perception of pītisukha then ceases, meaning you’re no longer in jhāna. As the text says: “They turn their mind away from those things [the phenomena in the jhāna], and apply it to the deathless.” This means, in my opinion, they turn their minds away from reviewing the jhāna experience and project it towards nibbāna. And I’m arguing, if one thinks one contemplates these phenomena inside jhāna, then the sutta still says one turns one’s minds away from those phenomena, meaning the jhāna has ceased. And only then does enlightenment happen. So no matter how we interpret it, you don’t become enlightened inside jhāna.
So that’s three reasons in this sutta alone that the reflections happen outside jhāna: there are thoughts there, one turns one’s mind away from the phenomena, and one contemplates the “falling apart” of these things. I mean, that’s why it doesn’t need to be explicitly said that one emerges from jhāna. It would’ve been clear from context.
And it would have been clear to people who attained these states. In AN5.27 it is said that if one develops samādhi, the knowledge automatically arises that, “I mindfully enter into and emerge from this immersion.” This knowledge everybody who attained a jhāna will have, and it will be obvious what this implies. (This sutta precedes AN5.28 which talks about reviewing jhānas.)
But, lovely people, I said a few days ago that I was going to leave this topic, and I failed. And that’s your fault! because you all had such nice and interesting things to say. It was a respectful discussion, and that’s good, because without respect one can’t practice samādhi (AN5.22).
But second time is a charm, and I’m leaving now. I might be back after the rains to see if more interesting things have been said.
A final word. In SN16.13 it is said the dhamma will disappear when counterfeit dhamma appears in the world. It happens when people “lack respect and reverence for” certain things. And only one factor of the path is mentioned: samādhi. In my opinion, the bodily jhāna interpretations are a lack of reverence for how powerful the mind is, not respecting how deep it can go; and how deep it needs to go in order to see the dhamma. What, samādhi is at the very end of the path! but people claim these things are rather ordinary states. I think that’s very dangerous for the continuance of our Teacher’s dispensation, especially if people start actively discouraging the absorption jhānas, which is why I care about this topic.
Be well everybody. Sukhī hotu. 
Thank you very much Venerable for your great generosity, your patience, your kindness and the quality of your arguments. I hope your vassa will be as fruitful as possible.
May the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha be revered for a long, long time.
Interesting, please can you say more about these teachers, their current, etc? I’m very intrigued by this, as I had the impression that it was something relatively recent.
By insight I take it you mean “panna”. The question becomes what does panna mean in this case. I believe and will point to an argument that in this case panna means direct knowledge aka bare awareness. That is sensory input unmediated by sanna.
But first, I am not alone in this interpretation. Bhante Analayo comes to the conclusion in his paper “The Båhiya Instruction and Bare Awareness” that
When the Buddha says “in the seen is only the seen, etc…” that sure does sound like what Analayo calls “bare awareness of sense experience”.
So how does panna mean direct knowledge or bare awareness?
There is an argument for this a paper that has been discussed in this forum before “Kosalan Philosophy in the Kāṇva Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa and the Suttanipāta”.
I am not going to go over the whole argument. You can read it in the paper. Its chapter seven. But he does say
The following links support his assertion of the meaning of samjna and prajna as compound knowing and direct knowing or before knowing/perception.
Bare knowledge is direct knowledge of no ego. The ego is constructed during perception samjna/sanna therefore it is not present in prajna/panna. That is why Snp 4.14 says
This hard to read verse is just talking about bare awareness/direct knowledge of the sensory input. Note: I believe that vibhūtasaññī means perception of void or nothingness here. Bare sensory input is required since it is not lacking perception, nor perceiving void. Obviously, sanna has ceased given the first line.
So yes, there is panna/insight of no ego/self and that is accomplished via bare awareness or direct knowledge of sensory input.
There cannot be subject object dualism without an ego to be the subject.
I read “panna” as “understanding”.
The following links support his assertion of the meaning of samjna and prajna as compound knowing and direct knowing or before knowing/perception.
That’s Sanskrit though, and a Brahmin use of it. You can’t necessarily arrive at the meaning of a Buddhist Pali word by looking at Sanskrit. You have to look at the Pali and how the word is actually used to get the meaning.
The Buddha would have still thought “I am hungry”. He still then would have thought in dualistic terms, because language is dualistic.
Does anyone know from direct sources whether Ajahn Chah taught that there can or cannot be any reflection, thought, or insight during jhana?
This is not a challenge to the assertion that these cannot take place during jhana.
Just curious as what Ajahn Chah said, assuming such information is available.
This paper by Bhikkhu Gunaratana - Should we come out of Jhāna to practice Vipassanā? presents a perspective on practicing Jhāna with mindfulness based upon the suttas.
Some key points:
Can Jhānic concentration penetrate things as they really are? Do we have to come out of Jhāna in order to practice Vipassanā? Is concentration the same as absorption? If Jhānic concentration is the same as being absorbed by our object of focus then yes, we must leave Jhāna to practice Vipassanā. But, when we become absorbed into our object of focus, what we are practicing is “wrong” Jhāna. When we practice “right” Jhāna we will be able to see things as they really are.
When we read how the Buddha used his own fourth Jhānic concentration, as described in many Suttas, we have no reason to believe that he came out of Jhāna to develop the three kinds of knowledge—knowledge of seeing the past, knowledge of seeing beings dying and taking rebirth, and knowledge of the destruction of defilements. The Buddha used the fourth Jhāna for Vipassanā.
The Mahāsakuludāyi Sutta [MN 77] clearly expresses that the meditator, even in very refined states of Jhāna, sees and knows what it is going on in his mind. The verbs in the Sutta are used in the present tense not in the past tense. The Sutta states clearly what the meditator sees and knows while he is in the Jhāna state. If he were to see and know these things after emerging from meditation the Sutta would have used the past tense.
It is virtually impossible to find evidence in the Suttas that one should come out of Jhāna to practice Vipassanā. There are a number of passages repeated in many Suttas dealing with the four fine material Jhānas. Nowhere in any of these passages is it said that one should come out of Jhāna to gain the three kinds of knowledge—knowledge of seeing previous lives, knowledge of beings dying and taking rebirth according to their kammas, and knowledge of the destruction of defilements.
The belief that one must come out of Jhāna to gain supernormal knowledge (abhiññās) or to destroy defilements and attain enlightenment is based on an assumption that the concentrated mind becomes one with the object of meditation and is absorbed into that object. For this reason some people translate Jhāna or samādhi as absorption concentration. If the mind is absorbed into the object then the mind is paralyzed and incapable of doing anything.
This may be true when the Jhāna is gained without mindfulness. This is what happened to the teachers of the Bodhisatta Gotama. They were stuck in Jhāna but they thought that they had attained enlightenment. This cannot happen when you practice Jhāna with mindfulness. When we attain right Jhāna, our mindfulness is pure, our equanimity is strong, our concentration is strong and our attention is sharp.
If you are not aware of consciousness, mindfulness, attention, and concentration then you are in deep sleep. This is the state you go through when you are under an anesthetic. We struggle to attain concentration not to get into this kind of deep sleep and forget ourselves. We strive very hard to gain concentration to become fully aware of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and selflessness of the body, feelings, perceptions, volitional formations and consciousness.
Coming out of Jhāna means that we are no longer in Jhāna. All the hindrances that we have overcome with great difficulty will rush back to the mind and the mind will once again be cluttered with hindrances. We will lose clarity, purity, concentration, light, and mindfulness. If you want to come out of Jhāna to practice Vipassanā, then you should not waste your valuable time to attain it at all. You should use that time to practice Vipassanā from the beginning.
It is in the Jhānic state and only in the Jhānic state that equanimity, mindfulness and concentration are powerful enough to perform these activities. Once the meditator comes out of Jhāna the mind’s strength and power begin to weaken. The longer the meditator is out of Jhāna the weaker becomes that power and strength because the hindrances slowly return in their full strength. Finally the mind becomes as it was before attaining Jhānas.
Then you cannot directly see past and future lives nor destroy defilements. You can think rationally and logically about them, but you cannot experience them directly.
The Jhānic state is a perfect state of mind from which to focus on the four noble truths, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and selflessness. It is the perfect state from which to realize Nibbāna by eliminating all the fetters. Once we attain Jhāna we use its powerful concentration with the light and vision to see things as they really are.
"When his concentrated mind is thus purified, bright, unblemished, rid of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives…
When his concentrated mind is thus purified, bright, unblemished, rid of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs it to knowledge of the passing away and reappearance of beings…
When his concentrated mind is thus purified, bright, unblemished, rid of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs it to knowledge of the destruction of the taints. He understands as it actually is: ‘This is suffering’;… ‘This is the origin of suffering’;… ‘This is the cessation of suffering’;… ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering’;…‘These are the taints’;…’this is the origin of the taints’;… ‘This is the cessation of the taints’;… ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of the taints.’"[MN 111]
These passages are repeated in many places in the Pali Suttas. They refer to the fourth Jhāna. It is the fourth Jhāna itself that is purified, bright, unblemished, rid of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability. In this passage there is no suggestion at all that the meditator should leave the fourth Jhāna to attain these understandings.
In conclusion, we would like to cite a passage from Cūla-hatthipadopama Sutta in Majjhima Nikāya. This passage is conclusive evidence that one should not come out of Jhāna in order to attain full enlightenment by seeing the Four Noble Truths and destroying the taints.
"When his concentrated mind is thus purified, bright, unblemished, rid of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs it to knowledge of the destruction of the taints. He understands as it actually is: ‘This is suffering’; ‘This is the origin of suffering’; ‘This is the cessation of suffering’; ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering’; ‘These are the taints’; ‘This is the origin of the taints’; ‘This is the cessation of the taints; ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of the taints.’ … When he knows and sees thus, his mind is liberated from the taint of sensual desire, from the taint of being, and from the taint of ignorance. When it is liberated there comes the knowledge: “It is liberated.’ He understands: ‘Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being.’”
Metta
I’ve also noticed that many teachers of the non-corporeal jhanas of the Pa-Auk system explain that during Anapanasati, after a while, the meditator no longer perceives the difference between inhalation and exhalation, and is only aware of the breath as a stable homogeneous block.
Yet throughout the instructions in MN 118, the Buddha explains that the meditator is aware of inhalation and aware of exhalation. Indeed, each time, he says this : « a bhikkhu (…) understands: ‘I breathe in…’ (…) 'I breath out… » or « a bhikkhu (…) trains thus: ‘I shall breathe in…’ (…) ‘I shall breath out…’ ». This implies that the meditator is indeed aware of both separately, and does not confuse them into some kind of stable homogeneous block.