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

The Watercooler
349

Thank you so much for the time you take for these very inspiring answers about your conception of Satipatthana and Anapanasati.

I see in your instructions a real intention to conform to what the suttas say! However, there are 2 elements that make me think that the first tetrad concerns only the breathing body and not the biological body.

These elements are this passage from MN 44:

“Friend Visākha, in-breathing and out-breathing are bodily, these are states bound up with the body; that is why in-breathing and out-breathing are the bodily formation. (Bodhi)

and these passages from MN 118:

“Bhikkhus, on whatever occasion a bhikkhu, breathing in long, understands: ‘I breathe in long,’ or breathing out long, understands: ‘I breathe out long’; breathing in short, understands: ‘I breathe in short,’ or breathing out short, understands: ‘I breathe out short’; trains thus: ‘I shall breathe in experiencing the whole body of breath’; trains thus: ‘I shall breathe out experiencing the whole body of breath’; trains thus: ‘I shall breathe in tranquillising the bodily formation’; trains thus: ‘I shall breathe out tranquillising the bodily formation’—on that occasion a bhikkhu abides contemplating the body as a body, ardent, fully aware, and mindful, having put away covetousness and grief for the world. I say that this is a certain body among the bodies, namely, in-breathing and out-breathing. That is why on that occasion a bhikkhu abides contemplating the body as a body, ardent, fully aware, and mindful, having put away covetousness and grief for the world. (Bodhi)

and

“Bhikkhus, on whatever occasion mn.iii.84 a bhikkhu trains thus: ‘I shall breathe in experiencing rapture’; trains thus: ‘I shall breathe out experiencing rapture’; trains thus: ‘I shall breathe in experiencing pleasure’; trains thus: ‘I shall breathe out experiencing pleasure’; trains thus: ‘I shall breathe in experiencing the mental formation’; trains thus: ‘I shall breathe out experiencing the mental formation’; trains thus: ‘I shall breathe in tranquillising the mental formation’; trains thus: ‘I shall breathe out tranquillising the mental formation’—on that occasion a bhikkhu abides contemplating feelings as feelings, ardent, fully aware, and mindful, having put away covetousness and grief for the world. I say that this is a certain feeling among the feelings, namely, giving close attention to in-breathing and out-breathing. That is why on that occasion a bhikkhu abides contemplating feelings as feelings, ardent, fully aware, and mindful, having put away covetousness and grief for the world. (Bodhi)

  • With MN 44, I notice that the “bodily formation” is breathing.
  • With the first passage of MN 118, I notice that the Buddha seems to be saying that during the first tetrad, we can say that we contemplate the “body”, but that this contemplated “body” is not just any body, it’s a particular body: breathing.
  • And in the second passage of MN 118, we can see the extent to which the Buddha insists, even in a tetrad speaking of mental sensations, that the sensations we contemplate are in fact the breath. This seems to show that the Buddha really does have an astonishing view of breathing compared to the common view.

All this suggests to me that the first tetrad focuses solely on the breath, not on the biological body.

350

From the Śāriputrābhidharma

In explaining “Experiencing the whole body he breathes out … breathes in …”, it says:
A bhikṣu, having filled the whole body with breath, breathes out. When the whole body is empty [of breath], he breathes in. Just as a skilful master of medicine or his pupil, having filled up his medicine bag, presses it to release the air. When the bag has become empty, he opens its mouth to get it filled with air. Likewise, a bhikṣu, having made the whole body pervaded with air, breathes out. When the whole body is empty, he breathes in.

From the Sarvāstivāda-Vaibhāṣika’s “Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra”

III. “Experiencing the whole body, …” It is so described even though the breath enters and exits through the nostril. This is because when the mindfulness on the breathing is not yet accomplished, one watches it through the nostril; when this has been accomplished, one watches the pores on the body as lotus stems pervaded by breath which enters and exits through it. This watching does not amount to leaving the meditation because the intention (āśaya) and the preparatory effort (prayoga) have not yet ceased. Vasumitra explains that this is like the contemplation on all conditioned dharma-s as being impermanent, unsatisfactory etc, without leaving the meditation. (E.g., in the path of vision). Experiencing the breath (being short or long) is not to be regarded as leaving the meditation.

From the Sautrāntika-Dārṣṭāntika tradition

“Whole body” — When the meditator is resolute (信解 adhi-√muc) that the body is hollow, he sees air going out and in the pores on the body. (Cf. ŚrBh, in §6.)

From the Yogācārabhūmi

“Experiencing whole body …” — He trains thus when he takes as cognitive object the in- and out- breathings through the pores on his whole body and becomes resolute (adhimucyate) with regard to them. (Cf. SatŚ, in §5.1)

This is all taken from Ven. Dhammajoti’s “The Sixteen-mode Mindfulness of Breathing”, which you can find here: 385138277-Dhammajoti-KL-Sixteen-mode-Minfulness-of-Breathing-JCBSSL-v-VI-2008.pdf (archive.org)

In the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya, on the section with mindfulness of breathing, it talks about breathing in experiencing the breath throughout the body, or something like that (I can’t find the exact quote right now). In comparison for Theravāda its the whole breath that one is aware of. There are some sutras which say something like this too. In the end though, I’m not sure if it matters much.

2 Likes
351

This is a recurrent discussion which will never be ‘solved.’ Clearly both interpretations make sense to derive from the text on various grounds as proven by both modern practitioners/scholars and ancient Buddhist analyses.

One thing I wonder though for those in the ‘sabbakāya = whole breath’ camp is why the text would use two separate phrases, side-by-side, to refer to the breath which are in fact separate from the normal word for breath also used in the text?

Kāyasaṅkhāra is defined explicitly as the breath as you pointed out, and it’s in the fourth step. So why say ‘sabbakāya’ and then ‘kāyasaṅkhāra’ if they mean the same thing? Why not ‘sabbakāyasaṅkhāra’? There may be some minority textual editions which do have this rendering IIRC, and so there may be some justification there for people, and that’s alright. Personally it doesn’t seem convincing as the original reading, but not impossible.

The passage after the steps which defines the breath as a certain body among the body is referring to the same expression as in the satipaṭṭhāna formula (i.e. kāye kāyānupassanā). It isn’t defining ‘kāya’ as ‘breath,’ it is saying that the breath is an aspect of the kāya which is within the larger collection of physical phenomena one can contemplate, and thus the breath practice fulfills the first satipaṭṭhāna. That’s the scope of that paragraph. So I personally don’t find it convincing to say that kāya means the breath; it’s a subtle thing, but a slightly less accurate reading within the context of the passage IMO.

We can also look at the other kāyānupassanā practices for reference. I haven’t heard this comparison before, but surely if the first tetrad of ānāpānasati is a valid form of it then it would be similar in nature. The main practices, affirmed by the parallels and other passages in the suttas, is the contemplation of the 31 body parts, the contemplation of the body in terms of the 4 elements, and the charnel ground contemplations where one sees their body as the same as/subject to death and decomposition. All of these practices refer to the whole body (with all its parts, or as split up into elements, or as liable to decomposition and death). So there is nothing wrong with being mindful of the whole body (sabbakāya) elsewhere in satipaṭṭhāna, why then here? (Some teachers suggest it is problematic to have a wider awareness of the breath).

Then of course there’s the argument made by others here as well as e.g. Anālayo based on the Mahāsaṁghika or Ekottara passages IIRC that if one is truly aware of the entire breath sensation on a very profound level, the breath sensations permeate the whole body when one is breathing fully with deep relaxation. So being aware of the whole body and the whole breath often end up being synonymous anyway.

I don’t tend to hold a strong opinion that it should be one way or the other, but I personally feel that there are some shaky issues in the exclusive reading of ‘the whole breath’ ‘body of the breath.’ It doesn’t seem so certain.

Mettā :smiley: :heart:

4 Likes
352

Wow, thank you so much for these references and the links you give: it’s a blessing for me to be informed; for here, I must say, you’ve taught me important things that I didn’t know at all about the ancient schools’ conception of this Anapanasati stage !!!
But all the same, reading the passages I’ve quoted, don’t you think it gives a strong impression that the object of attention is only the breathing body? I’d like to know what your impression is when you read these passages.

However, reading the sutta, Venerable Bodhi gets the impression that the instruction is not to focus on the “body of breath” (the term is not used in the Pali of the text), but is to have awareness of breath while having awareness of the biological body. This is very similar to what you said. And the Venerable Bodhi doesn’t stop there, but also gives an argument in favor of this intepretation. His argument is that the Pali text reads:

‘sabbakāyapaṭisaṁvedī assasissāmī’ti sikkhati, ‘sabbakāyapaṭisaṁvedī passasissāmī’ti sikkhati; (Bodhi, MN 118)

And according to Ven. Bodhi, the word “paṭisaṁvedī” has a stronger meaning than “being aware of”. The word “paṭisaṁvedī” would rather mean “hardcore experience, bodily experience”. He thinks that if the instruction was to be aware of one’s breathing body, the Pali would have used another word.
He explains this here: https://youtu.be/HS0BaNYSv8U?list=PLRiXO1rJL3YkfGMbN_-qdLiOjw3rE9uHp&t=2985 the video continues here : https://youtu.be/iNAp1yQM1PE?list=PLRiXO1rJL3YkfGMbN_-qdLiOjw3rE9uHp

However, I find the argument strange because “paṭisaėvedī” is also used concerning mental processes, so I do not have the impression that “paṭisaėvedī” necessarily means a “hardcore experience, bodily experience” :

‘cittasaṅkhārapaṭisaṁvedī assasissāmī’ti sikkhati, ‘cittasaṅkhārapaṭisaṁvedī passasissāmī’ti sikkhati;(Bodhi, MN 118)

But obviously I know NOTHING about pali, whereas Ven. Bodhi is an expert.

Moreover, here Ven; Bodhi explains that he does not agree that the passage on “this is a certain body among the bodies” proves that the instruction is to focus on the body of breathing rather than on the biological body :

Ven. Bodhi says the same thing as you here:

He says that there are different interpretations but that in practice they are all valid.

But I don’t really agree. I think the physical world is extremely complex; for proof of this, just look at all the scientific theories with all their complex mathematical equations to describe the world. And I think that the human mind is at least as complex as the physical world; the human mind is very subtle and very difficult to understand, so that by having slightly different meditation practices from the Buddha’s, you can achieve extremely different results without realizing it. That’s why I think it’s extremely important to do exactly what the Buddha says, to get exactly where we’re supposed to go, without deluding ourselves and subtly deceiving ourselves about our realizations: the end of suffering.

Edit : The Buddha has given us the precise equations leading to nibbana (sila, samadhi, panna), and a simple slight change in these equations can lead to extremely different results, just as a small error in calculation can lead to totally different results in mathematics.

353

Yes, I also find this strange. Ven. Kumara mentioned it in his book. But personally it is not enough for me to dismiss this interpretation.

“Bhikkhus, on whatever occasion a bhikkhu, breathing in long, understands: ‘I breathe in long,’ or breathing out long, understands: ‘I breathe out long’; breathing in short, understands: ‘I breathe in short,’ or breathing out short, understands: ‘I breathe out short’; trains thus: ‘I shall breathe in experiencing the whole body of breath’; trains thus: ‘I shall breathe out experiencing the whole body of breath’; trains thus: ‘I shall breathe in tranquillising the bodily formation’; trains thus: ‘I shall breathe out tranquillising the bodily formation’—on that occasion a bhikkhu abides contemplating the body as a body, ardent, fully aware, and mindful, having put away covetousness and grief for the world. I say that this is a certain body among the bodies, namely, in-breathing and out-breathing. That is why on that occasion a bhikkhu abides contemplating the body as a body, ardent, fully aware, and mindful, having put away covetousness and grief for the world.

Personally, I find that the explicit meaning of this sutta is that when someone practices these 4 instructions (first tetrad), that person is contemplating the body, and that body that he contemplates is a particular body: breathing. So for me the explicit meaning is clearly that when the person practices these 4 instructions, he contemplates the body of breathing.
But obviously, it is my intepretation, even if I find it really strong and explicit.

In addition, to go in your direction, in MN 119, the Buddha speaks of attention to the body allowing jhanas. And he lists several meditations on the body, including Anapanasati. And except for Anapanasati, all the listed meditations obviously concern the biological body (contemplating the body’s positions; analysing one’s own body as being considered of flesh, pus, etc.; contemplating a corpse) without there being any controversy. It might seem odd that the Buddha teaches meditations about the body with exactly the same meaning to the word “kaya” - biological body -, except at a meditation where the word “kaya” means “body of breathing”.

354

You are welcome.

If cessation of breath is the true determining factor that distinguishes the 4th jhāna from the other jhānas, I wonder why it is not included in the 4th jhāna formula.

1 Like
355

Actually, I prefer to see MN118 entirely as a means of reaching fulfillment of knowledge and freedom.

1 Like
356

Are you saying that a non returner or even an arahant can lose the ability to attain it? Even though they have perfected the samadhi with wisdom.

Will they still have any hindrances after perfected the samadhi?

or are you saying they are still in jhana? because this statement is in conflict.
1)It means you lose the ability to attain it
2) not that you come out of jhāna.

How can one have a wisdom if they are having hindrances when come out from jhana. Because come out from jhana is going back to sensual realm. Are you saying using a regular human mind, one can have a wisdom?

Insight will occur when one is in jhana. Because there is yoniso manasikara and manovinnana that observing & checking & verifying the factors up to 7th jhana (last 2 need to go back down to nothingness perception or lower to analyze). The higher the jhana, the mind will become more clear due to less and less impurities. 1st-4th jhana is removing vedana (related to 5 senses) and ayatana is removing sanna of the citta (up to sannavedayitanirodha).

I highly doubt someone can know when one is emerging from jhana. Because regular human mind with sensual hindrances or others are just too weak to do the stuff.

As many sutta said Buddha only explain 4 noble truth when one mind is pliable, rid of hindrances, elated (in at least 1st jhana), see below on MN 56:

Then the Buddha taught the householder Upāli step by step, with a talk on giving, ethical conduct, and heaven. He explained the drawbacks of sensual pleasures, so sordid and corrupt, and the benefit of renunciation.

And when he knew that Upāli’s mind was ready, pliable, rid of hindrances, elated, and confident (aka jhana) he explained the special teaching of the Buddhas: suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path.

Just as a clean cloth rid of stains would properly absorb dye, in that very seat the stainless, immaculate vision of the Dhamma arose in Upāli: “Everything that has a beginning has an end.”

Then Upāli saw, attained, understood, and fathomed the Dhamma. He went beyond doubt, got rid of indecision, and became self-assured and independent of others regarding the Teacher’s instructions.

btw, contemplation is a wrong word to describe analysis/know of jhana. Because contemplate implying a thought (vitakka) which has ceased on 2nd jhana onwards.

1 Like
357

I think we can see Anapanasati as allowing both, jhana and nibbana.

1 Like
358

@Ceisiwr I’d like to know what you think about MN 111. Do you think MN 111 is aprocryphal? One reason to think so is that this sutta says something impossible because in truth, during “cessation of perception and feeling” there are not the mental factors allowing to remember this realization, and this sutta goes against this fact when it describes how Sariputta emerges from “cessation of perception and feeling” and contemplates the completed phenomena of “cessation of perception and feeling”. So the fact that the sutta says something impossible, would justify considering this sutta apocryphal. What’s your opinion?

By the way, personally, I don’t know if we can’t remember “cessation of perception and feeling”, but in any case, if that’s the case, I wonder how the Buddha managed to tell us about it and describe this state, if he couldn’t remember this state.

Incidentally, in researching the “cessation of perception and feeling”, I notice that AN 9.41 explains that the Buddha puts an end to defilements when attaining the “cessation of perception and feeling”, whereas in MN 36 it says that he attained enlightenment after the fourth jhana (without mentioning the “cessation of perception and feeling”). Odd, isn’t it?

Before my awakening—when I was still unawakened but intent on awakening— (…)
And so, going totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, I entered and remained in the cessation of perception and feeling. And, having seen with wisdom, my defilements were ended.

359

Does that mean that one who is free from sensual pleasure is also blind, deaf, anosmic, ageusic and anesthetic?

2 Likes
360

Then you’re saying that one who’s not in jhana state is not free from sensual pleasure. (Bear in mind that @josephzizys was responding to what Aj @Brahmali said.)

1 Like
361

In some forms of jhana, sampatti, and saññavedayitanirodha…yes.

And while the senses are still operating for an Arahant, there’s no attachment or identification with them or with any aspect of experience. So the senses, as mere processes, do what they do without the accompanying dukkha of grasping and ignorance.
The freedom of nibbāna with residue, (Iti44):

"And what is the element of extinguishment with something left over? It’s when a mendicant is a perfected one, with defilements ended, who has completed the spiritual journey, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, achieved their own true goal, utterly ended the fetters of rebirth, and is rightly freed through enlightenment. Their five sense faculties still remain. So long as their senses have not gone they continue to experience the agreeable and disagreeable, to feel pleasure and pain. The ending of greed, hate, and delusion in them is called the element of extinguishment with something left over. "

Hope I didn’t misunderstand your post.

1 Like
362

I’d rather not engage in this discussion any more, it seems to have run its course (for me).

1 Like
363

Freedom from sensual pleasures can mean two things: (1) You are in a jhāna where the senses are temporarily absent. (2) You have no attachments to the senses and so there is no barrier to accessing the jhānas.

2 Likes
364

Saying this isn’t in line with Indriya-bhavana Sutta: The Development of the Faculties

Anyway, you did say “Freedom from sensual pleasure means freedom from the five senses. These things are given up together.”

1 Like
365

What problem do you see?

My point was just that when you give up sensual desire you also give up desire for the five senses, either temporarily or permanently.

1 Like
366

According to you, when you “give up desire for the five senses”, can you see, hear, etc?

1 Like
367

In a normal waking state, of course. In a deep state of samādhi, no.

1 Like
368

“when you give up sensual desire you also give up desire for the five senses”. That’s what you said to explain what you said earlier: "Freedom from sensual pleasure means freedom from the five senses. These things are given up together.

I think I can assume that by “sensual desire” you mean kāmacchanda, which is abandoned upon engaging in the jhānas.

Therefore, aren’t you then saying that one can engage in the jhānas “in a normal waking state”?

1 Like