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.
Epistemologically, it also seems logical to me how “hard” jhanas gives insight into Dhamma: it seems like the hard jhana itself would be a direct experience of the five senses being causally dependent on the five hindrances. Like, experientially, the 5-sense-world (kamaloka) feels stable and persistent, but after a hard jhana I would guess that it could feel fickle and unreliable instead. Aka a direct experience of impermanence.
Moreover, logically, if the inventory of experience can be seen to vanish and reappear based on causes, I can see how this would challenge beliefs about a permanent self/essence within the five khandas.
So, it is relatively easy for me to imagine how “hard” jhanas could work within the EBT Dhamma-system to produce awakening outcomes like no longer holding self views.
With “soft” jhanas, it is harder for me to imagine experiential criteria for when they obtain. I also struggle to understand how they produce awakening outcomes.
Like, how can you tell when you’re in a soft jhana? How do they produce awakening outcomes?
There is a sutta in the AN which speak of seeing “light and visions of forms”, which then states that devas are being talked about rather than nimittas. I’ll have to search for it when I’m home. It’s worth pointing out that even if the suttas do say there are nimittas (I don’t think they do, rather it’s clutching at straws) that still wouldn’t mean “Jhana is without the 5 senses” since in other traditions which do say the 5 senses are present in Jhana also talk of nimittas.
Sometimes psychic powers are said to come before the Jhanas. The texts aren’t really consistent on this. The problem is that MN 128 can be read my way, because of the AN discourse. It’s not really a strong argument for nimittas being present in the texts. A stronger argument would be their occurrence in many early and conflicting traditions, from those that propose an absorbed Jhana to those that do not. And of course, as I said above, nimittas don’t prove that Jhana is an absorbed state at all.
The Kama-loka isn’t “the world of 5 senses” but the worlds of sensual desire & sensual pleasures. Those above still have the 5 senses, but they have a subtle and fine body and gain ease and rapture apart from sensual pleasures. A mind only realm comes with the formless attainments, the devas of which have only 4 aggregates.
Well, I said I wouldn’t reply until an interesting reply appeared… it didn’t take long.
So here goes. (Sorry, it’s a bit disorganized, but there’s just too much to say!)
In MN128 the Buddha opens his questioning of the three monks with, “have you attained any comfortable abidings?” This “comfortable abiding” (or per Sujato “meditation at ease”) always refers to the jhānas and formless attainments, never to the divine eye. This question would make no contextual sense if he then started explaining how to practice the divine eye.
See:
"Good, good, Anuruddha and friends! But as you live diligently like this, have you achieved any superhuman distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones, a meditation at ease?” (MN128)
The answer Anuruddha gives is essentially “no”, because the Buddha then explains how to remove the hindrances, something he wouldn’t need to do if they attained these meditations.
Now, compare the above with MN31:
“Good, good, Anuruddha and friends! But as you live diligently like this, have you achieved any superhuman distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones, a meditation at ease?”
“How could we not, sir? Whenever we want, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, we enter and remain in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected. This is a superhuman distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones, a meditation at ease, that we have achieved while living diligent, keen, and resolute.”
Here the answer is “yes”, and the “meditation at ease” is indeed the jhānas.
This sutta, MN31 Cūḷagosiṅga Sutta, provides a much more direct context for understanding MN128 than MN127. Read them and you’ll see. Even the gatekeeper who failed to recognize the Buddha makes an appearance in both!
Now, it appears MN128 happened chronologically before MN31, because the former includes the Buddha’s travel from Kosambi to Anuruddha and his two friends. In the latter this passage isn’t there, but the introduction is otherwise similar, with the three monks still living in the same place. So what happened is, in MN128 the three monks still were developing the jhanas, but in MN31 they mastered them.
Other thoughts:
MN127 being placed before MN128 is likely just because of the protagonist being the same, namely Anuruddha. The order of suttas in the Majjhima often has no thematic connection. In the Chinese parallels these two texts also aren’t sequential. So we shouldn’t infer anything from this order.
I know I said this already, but the practical instructions in MN128 end with the jhānas, not with the divine eye. There is no single mention of the divine eye or deities in MN128.
Anuruddha attained the divine eye before his awakening, sure. But not before he attained the jhānas. The suttas consistently state that the development of the psychic powers is based on the jhānas, they always happen after the jhānas. In MN128 the lights and forms happen before the jhānas, not after. So it doesn’t refer to any psychic power.
The same principle from a different perspective: the divine eye doesn’t lead to the jhānas and development of samādhi. But that is what the sutta would effectively be saying, if the lights and forms were the divine eye.
The basic structure of the text is that of sīla > samādhi > paññā. The sīla is the three monks living simply and being kind to one another, the samādhi is the development of the jhānas (through abandoning the hindrances and developing the nimittas), the paññā happens at the end, when the Buddha speaks of his own awakening. I don’t know how the structure sīla > divine eye > paññā would fit other suttas.
When the sutta mentions “excessive meditation upon forms” which makes “sāmadhi fall away” the word for “meditation” is atini-jhāyati. To be clear, this jhāyati doesn’t mean jhāna proper. However, it means some sort of meditation, I’d say. It doesn’t seem mean looking at devas. (Or is the word used elsewhere for looking at devas?)
It should also say “my divine eye fell away” when the hindrances appear, if the divine eye is what the they were practicing, not “my sāmadhi fell away”.
You said, “This makes very little sense for nimittas: one does not usually, if ever, see limitless lights and forms in meditation.” But one does, right before the jhana when the edges of the lights or forms disappear. Also, the term limitless (appamaṇa) is often used with reference to meditation in other contexts as well, like the “limitless liberation of mind”. Even in MN127 which you mentioned, where it is a simile for mahaggata citta, “expansive mind”. Not expansive deities.
Consider the parallelism in: “What’s the cause, what’s the reason why my light and vision of forms vanish?’ It occurred to me: ‘Doubt arose in me, and because of that my immersion (samādhi) fell away.” Here the vanishing of “my lights and vision” is analogous to the falling away of “my samādhi”, not for losing the divine eye.
Notice the Buddha mentions “my light” (me obhāso) in MN128, not the light of others, like the deities.
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.
What I’m saying is, if the sutta were about the divine eye, the title makes little contextual sense.
SN46.33 has the same name Upakkilesa Sutta (with an alternative manuscript name Kilesa Sutta) and here these defilements are the hindrances to the jhānas. The upakkilesas have the exact same function in MN128: they obstruct the jhānas, not the divine eye.
See also SN47.8: “As they meditate … their mind enters immersion, their corruptions (upakkilesa) are given up.”
And MN60: “When their mind has become immersed in samādhi like this—purified, bright, flawless, rid of corruptions (upakkilesa), pliable, workable, steady, and imperturbable”
Now, how many suttas talk about these upakkilesas with reference to developing the divine eye?
And what other sutta opposes the divine eye to the hindrances? Compare this to how often are the jhānas opposed to the hindrances. Again, abandoning the hindrances leads to jhānas, not to the divine eye. And that’s exactly what the text says.
I could go on like this, but, I don’t know—to me it couldn’t be any clearer for a sutta to about developing jhānas than this one. I’m not even sure why I’m even explaining it, to be honest! Because if people don’t see that, I don’t know what to do.
I can admit a bias, though. Because how we read such texts definitely also has to do with our practice. To me, the hindrances the Buddha mentions so perfectly fit what happens with the nimittas. Perceptions of diversity are those fireworks nimittas for example, or those that keep changing color. Those aren’t very useful. Excessive meditation on forms is focusing too much on the shape of the nimitta instead of staying with the center, which doesn’t lead to jhāna. The fear and excitement that arises when nimittas arise is also extremely recognizable. (PS. why would you fear the divine eye?) Forms and lights are two types of nimittas that are (or can be) distinct but both are useful. Even the instruction “I’ll make sure that hindrance X will not arise in me again” is super applicable and brilliant. Because if you start thinking this kind of stuff WHILE you are perceiving the nimittas, your mind is usually gets too active, which destroys the nimittas. You have to set up mindfulness in advance, as the Buddha instructs. And then the similes of the quail and the treasures! Brilliant. I really can’t see how all this refers to the divine eye.
Perhaps other people have their bias. Maybe they just don’t want to have a sutta talk about ‘“commentarial” ideas of nimittas’, because it doesn’t fit their practice. Sorry for bluntly guessing. But perhaps they can explain what things like “excessive meditation on form” of “perceptions of diversity” mean in context of the divine eye.
The suttas do seem to make a connection between attaining nimittas and being reborn in a certain realm, something I didn’t realize before. Thanks for that, Venerable. But I don’t think this is what this sutta is about. That’s requires way too much inference to me, and ignoring what the text actually mentions, namely the development of sāmadhi.
(And to be completely honest, it’s kind of “frustrating” that many people don’t see this in their practice, apparently. I so wish that they would! Or that I could upload my experiences into the brains of others, lol. Because I’m sure they’d be like, “OMG, that’s exactly what the Buddha’s talking about!” Anyway, that’s off topic.)
Ok, one more reply. This topic is too fascinating for me to let go. (Also I’m in a vihara with easy internet access atm, so that’s not helpful when people keep posting interesting things… Please stop! )
Hey Erika,
In Ven. Kumara’s book Ven. Thanissaro is quoted to say: “If whole areas of our awareness are blocked off, how can you gain all-around insight?” I haven’t seen how venerable Thanissaro suggests insight arises from all-around awareness. Perhaps others more familiar with his teachings can clarify, that would be good to discuss.
(To be complete, the book also relates “blotting out large areas of awareness” to being adept at denial and being a sociopath. This implies that deep-jhana meditators are likely to be dissociated sociopaths. Nice and collegial… )
Anyway, in my experience it is exactly by letting go of parts of our awareness that one can understand things. Because the more areas of awareness we let go, the closer to nibbāna we are! This is stated extremely clearly in AN9.34, my favorite sutta. The affliction of the five senses, for example, can only be understood by entering the first jhana where these “sensory perceptions” have disappeared. Then having those senses come back is considered an “affliction”.
It’s like fish living in water can’t understand what water is. We can’t understand suffering without seeing peace, without seeing that suffering disappear. And we also can’t understand impermanence if things are continually in our awareness. It’s the same with anattā. If you attain a jhana afterwards you’re like, “Wow, these five senses really weren’t part of ‘me’”. If all things are constantly in your awareness, I don’t know how any of these insights could happen on a deep level.
(Now, just falling asleep is also letting go of awareness, but that’s very different from jhānas where you’re super aware. This super strong awareness is another reason why jhānas are required. And you don’t tend to get that from focusing on your body.)
Also, as you imply, to understand the hindrance of sense desire, one needs to be able to let go of all the senses. I mean, sense desire for food and sex is obvious, you need no meditation for that! But sense desire includes any kind of attachment to the senses. And these attachments will only become apparent when meditation starts to move beyond the five senses into the nimittas. (It’s one reason why people get scared at this stage, the fear is often just a derivative of sense desire.) If you can’t let go of the body, it’s because of attachment to it.
Also the lack of control one has in jhāna provides excellent opportunity to see anattā. If we’re consciously “spreading pleasure through the body”, as some people understand the jhānas, to me it sounds like you’re controlling your happiness. That’s exactly counterproductive to understanding anattā:
But because feeling is not-self, it leads to affliction. And you can’t compel feeling : ‘May my feeling be like this! May it not be like that!’
The list goes on, of how contrary the two approaches are when it comes to insight.
I think your question deserves a thread of its own. It’s an important angle, not often considered in these discussions.
I think there was a miscommunication that should be clarified: I’m not saying that MN 128 is about developing the divine eye rather than jhāna; I’m saying that the bulk of the text is about meditative experiences of the divine eye (on varying scales) mixed with hindering reactions that cause one to not be able to absorb fully into deeper states of jhāna. I think that this ranges from the experience of basic lights to light illuminating forms of beings (the divine eye).
I assume you agree that one using the divine eye is not experience everyday sensual experiences or filled with hindrances. It’s done from a place of samādhi, a unified and radiant mind which allows one to see other things not normally available to the senses. So yes, the samādhi falls away because one is having reactions to experiences within the samādhi which are the light/forms.
I also assume we agree that the divine eye is not exercised in jhāna. While in a jhāna attainment, the object/field of awareness is the pervasive vedanā described in the formulas. The divine eye is done when one’s mind is in samādhi and it is projected out to illuminate the vision of other things. So again, this means that one is in some weak state of samādhi outside jhāna when using the divine eye. This could be before or after, depending on how one’s meditation is going and the mind’s proclivities.
The commentary to MN 128 (as pointed out by another user here) says that it refers to the divine eye:
So clearly this reading I’m proposing is not anti-commentarial. It’s the opposite.
As I clarified at the end of my post, I don’t think the idea of nimittas as understood in later literature is wrong or contradicted by the suttas. I even think they are part of MN 128; but I think MN 128 is taking it to the full extent in terms of describing the divine eye. I believe that if one is able to get past the hindrances arising from the experience of mental radiance and seeing forms (which can range from a basic nimitta light to the divine eye, depending on the extent of the radiance/light etc.), then one can finally enter jhāna. So these are preliminary stages before jhāna still, including the divine eye. 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.
Focusing too much on the beings one is seeing (the forms), or having a perception of lots of beings scattered around that leaves the mind without a solid object of focus to contain it, are examples. I will reiterate that I think this can apply to basic nimittas—as you described—or to the more developed ‘nimittas’ which are actually seeing other realms of existence and radiant light. It’s a matter of scale/degree, not X or Y, I think.
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.
I agree this is only a minor point, but it’s also not just the order. The content of MN 127 and MN 128 is suspiciously related. Radiance, lights, seeing forms, deep meditation, Anuruddha. I still think we should consider MN 128 with MN 127 in mind as at least context for the character of Anuruddha and his meditative experiences.
The sutta is about meditative experiences and hindrances related to them that prevent one from being fully absorbed in jhāna attainment and developing higher wisdom. On this, we agree. 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.
Seeing ghosts or beings one has never seen before can be extremely frightening. Even people who do things like ‘astral projection’ can have terrifying experiences where they encounter what they perceive as other beings. It’s a completely new realm of experience, and people normally have a range of strong emotional experiences to new, unknown, other-worldly things — be they nimittas in the mind or the forms of literal gods. Actually, it reminds me of all the passages in the bible where people see radiant angles or the form of God himself shining with light and they are literally frozen in fear or terrified to death.
I think there is a lot one can learn from and see in one’s own practice in MN 128. So again, I agree. But I think the scope is broader and includes the divine eye, and this is also the understanding of the commentaries, some later manuals, as well as the same language used elsewhere in the canon to refer to it (AN).
We all have biases Bhante. Personally I used to argue that Jhana is an absorbed state based on the suttas. I even used the same arguments you have here. Today my view is different, that’s all. At one point I was an Abhidhammika too.
As I said I’m not against the idea of nimittas, I just don’t think they are in the early texts. And that’s ok, because the early texts don’t contain every detail. The details we have say there is mental rapture and pleasure and bodily ease, occurring with wholesome thoughts and intentions continually repelling the hindrances.
The same dictionary goes on to state that the definition of the kāmagūṇa are sights etc which are manāpā, but yes lets not argue of dictionaries.
I agree that kāmā are sensual objects, specifically pleasing sensual objects. To me AN 5.176 is saying that whilst in jhāna there is no pleasure occurring because of pleasing sights etc, nor is there any pain occurring, because one isn’t engrossed in them or dejected because of not having them/losing them. Where does this entail no 5 sensory experience of any kind? Apart from sensual pleasures, there can still be sense experience which is not of sensual pleasures. Namely the tranquil body. Feeling tranquillity, one experiences spiritual bliss. It’s spiritual, because its not based on pleasing physical contact with a pleasing physical object (say the touch of a lover). I’m open to the idea that there is no mental or physical pain either whilst in jhāna, because of somanassa and sukha, but that physical discomfort can arise again due to the continuous sasaṅkhāraniggayhavāritagato. I see the progression as follows
Abandon mental displeasure, the hindrances (domanassa) > 1st jhāna
Dukkha arises (because of excessive vitakka-vicāra) and is abandoned > 2nd jhāna
Abandon mental pleasure (somanassa occurring because of rapture) > 3rd jhāna
Abandon physical ease (sukha) > 4th jhāna
Which results in pure equanimity towards mind and body. At this stage the senses will begin to fade away IMO. And this makes sense, because what follows then is the formless if the meditator can and so wishes.
And if your body is in pain, you can’t escape it by walking into a forest. So it has to mean something more deep than that, and to me it makes most sense if this means not being able to feel the body at all. That’s how you escape from bodily pain.
Or through the substitution of opposites. Bodily sukha displacing bodily pain.
To me that’s not a natural reading, for reasons I’ve given, but also because it is pragmatically rather meaningless. Let’s take the enlightened, who have no hindrances all the time, so “unwholesome states” are always abandoned by them. In your interpretation, since the only other thing they have to fulfill is “bodily seclusion”, walking into the forest or hut makes the enlightened beings enter jhāna. That makes no sense to me. And that’s also what’s makes this interpretation vague, aside from pleasure being a personal preference, and it not taking into account that you can’t walk away from physical pain.
In the suttas we also consistently see the Buddha sitting down (or lying down in DN16) before he enters jhana, and he did so only after he already entered the forest a while before. Also, you can enter jhāna without going into a forest or being in isolation. In DN16 the Buddha attained it in a village while people were standing around him talking. Your interpretation of vivicceva kāmehi to move to a hut or forest doesn’t seem to align with these things.
They wouldn’t just have to walk into a forest. For the Arahants and Buddhas they have completely uprooted the taints. As such they don’t have to go through the process of bodily seclusion and then abandoning the hindrances. They have already done all of the work. All they have to do to enter Jhāna is begin to meditate and reflect on their noble state, which produces joy and rapture. They still have to intend and fabricate those emotions to enter Jhāna, otherwise they would be in Jhāna all the time which I think we both agree is absurd. For people like me however we have to go through the whole process and train. We have to practice sense restrain and virtue and then go to a forest or hut, a secluded place, and then mentally seclude ourselves. This is why the Buddha liked quiet secluded places. They are conductive to the monks in training for attaining Jhāna, even thought, as you say, he could enter Jhāna whenever he pleased. You can’t really compare the training to what Buddhas and Arahants can do, who have completed the task and mastered the mind.
No, that’s not the escape in this sutta (AN9.42), because the confinements for the higher states are all certain perceptions or experiences, not a desire for those things or an obsession over them. For example, in the “dimension of infinite space”, “Whatever perception of the dimension of infinite space has not ceased is the confinement there.” The perception itself is the confinement, not the desire for it. By extent, the confinement before the first jhāna is also a certain perception, namely the perception of the five senses. This fits when for example AN9.34 says that “perceptions of sense objects” are abandoned. Or in Ven. Sujato’s translation:
While a mendicant is in such a meditation, should perceptions accompanied by sensual pleasures beset them due to loss of focus, that’s an affliction for them.
This also shows that withdrawing from sensual pleasures is not just walking into a forest or hut, as you argue. Otherwise these things wouldn’t come back “to beset” you while you’re still meditating! But they do come back. And they are said to do so, in Ven Sujato’s translation at least, “due to loss of focus”. This means that when you lose focus on the mind, then the five senses come back into awareness. (I’m not sure if I agree with this translation, although it doesn’t really matter for my point.)
My understanding is that confinement and distraction regarding sensual pleasures is something like this
“Mendicants, before my awakening—when I was still unawakened but intent on awakening—I thought: ‘My mind might often stray towards the five kinds of sensual stimulation that I formerly experienced—which have passed, ceased, and perished—or to those in the present, or in the future a little.’
Then it occurred to me: ‘In my own way I should practice diligence, mindfulness, and protecting the mind regarding the five kinds of sensual stimulation that I formerly experienced—which have passed, ceased, and perished.’ - SN 35.117
Beings in the kāma-loke are confined because they live their lives obsessed with sensual pleasures (sex, food, money, drink, drugs, music, hair, makeup, clothes, games, tv, films, books etc) and so their minds are never still, always being pulled this way and that. When one though secludes from sensual pleasures, when they physical and mentally renounce them fully, then their mind becomes still, quiet, tranquil and calm. What is left? The disturbance of intentional thoughts. Then that is abandoned and so on. During the 1st Jhāna, if the mind is still weak, then it can be distracted with desire for and thoughts of sensual pleasures again.
Notice also that the sensual pleasures are called an affliction, which also shows that the painful side is also included. Kāma isn’t just the pleasant side of things, it includes the painful, which is even more afflictive than the pleasant side.
Don’t you think you are possibly taking this a bit too literally Bhante? In that sutta “Nothingness” is also said to be affliction. Is Nothingness painful? In a metaphorical sense, yes.
As I read this, those thoughts connected to the dhamma are still happening before the jhāna. The first jhāna happens when the sutta later says: “But there comes a time when that mind is stilled internally; it settles, unifies, and becomes immersed in samādhi. That immersion is peaceful and sublime and tranquil and unified, not held in place by forceful suppression.” The first jhana is peaceful and sublime. Anyway, as you say, this is digressing. Now we’re discussing vitakka and vicāra. Let’s not do that now.
Have you read the parallel Bhante? Its clear there that the meditation which is intentionally managed and controlled (sasaṅkhāraniggayhavāritagato) is the 1st Jhāna, because what follows it as the other Jhānas
Moreover, the monk parts (ways) with the many examinations and reflections and even attains the second, third, and the fourth dhyānas. Thus, the samāpattis are unmixed, peaceful, and pure, and they part (ways) with the afflictions. They are soft, pliable, authentic, and immoveable. With regards to this or that āyatana, if he desires to seek to make a realization of his comprehension, he is able to attain that realization - SĀ 1246
How is the 1st Jhāna intentionally managed and controlled? Because the intentional thoughts of vitakka-vicāra, of contentment, good-will etc are successfully repelling the hindrances. This meditation however is not fully peaceful, due to V&V, when compared to the other Jhānas. This is why we only see ekodibhāvaṁ in the 2nd Jhāna.
But the kāmaguṇa are “defined” not by what causes the feeling but just as “(pleasant) touches perceived by the body”, aka bodily feelings. Anything perceived through the body counts as a “touch” (kāya-viññeyyā phoṭṭhabbā). Whether this comes from an orgasm or some meditation experience is irrelevant. It remains a pleasant “touch”, so according to AN9.42 it has no place in the jhānas, and that is regardless of how we interpret kāmaguṇa.
The bodily kāmaguṇa isn’t bodily feelings any more than the visual kāmaguṇa is a feeling. They are alluring objects, not feelings. Things we find attractive, not the feeling it self. They are objects we have marked with signs as being pleasurable and desirable.
Not that it matters for what the suttas say, but where do the commentaries do so (not the sub-commentaries, some of which are written in the last handful of centuries)? The Visuddhimagga talks of sukha as being experienced (1) by “the mental body” and (2) by the “material body” only after emerging from the jhānas, so not in the jhāna itself. I’m not too fond of this commentarial “mental body” idea, as it misses the idiomatic use of kāya of “person”, but here the Visuddhimagga clearly doesn’t mean the sukha in the jhanas to be physical. The Abhidhamma also defines sukha in the jhānas as mental, and afaik it’s not often that the commentaries depart blatantly from the Abhidhamma, so if you can give a reference, that’d be helpful. Here’s what I know of:
In the discussion of the 1st Jhāna the Visuddhimagga says
100. But as to the other word: pleasing (sukhana) is bliss (sukha). Or alternatively: it thoroughly (SUþþhu) devours (KHÁdati), consumes (KHAóati),30 bodily and mental affliction, thus it is bliss (sukha). It has gratifying as its characteristic. Its function is to intensify associated states. It is manifested as aid. - CHAPTER IV The Earth Kasiṇa.
Later on the Visuddhimagga states that the 5 senses aren’t occurring in any jhāna. Why does it do this? I think Ven. Buddhaghosa was trying to harmonise different views within the tradition and the commentaries. For example, if we look at the commentary to DN 2 we see that it defines the sukha of the 1st jhāna in bodily terms quite explicitly (forgive my very rough translation).
“By means of seclusion from sensual pleasures…1st jhāna is arrived at and dwelt in” and so the citta concentrated in access concentration attains distinction concentrated in absorption concentration. That concentrated citta should be classed as and understood as being for the sake of seeing. “This exact same body” This physical body. “Fills up” Makes the naturally occurring rapture and pleasure drench and moisten everywhere. “Completely infuses” Experiences all around. “Whole body” This bhikkhu’s body, complete in all its parts, in the place where the continuity that is grasped occurs accompanied by skin, flesh and blood there is not even the tiniest part that is not pervaded with the happiness of the first jhāna."
What’s more it states that this occurs not in access concentration but whilst in jhāna proper. As I say, the sub-commentary makes this even more clear. On the Vibhaṅga the I can’t recall if it is talking about supramundane jhānas or mundane ones. I know that when it comes to the awakening factors the Sammohavinodani says it is talking about the supramundane path moment, although it acknowledges that other Theras say they also apply to the mundane. Once again, we see divergent views here.
What I was trying to say is that MN80 (in this translation anyway) appears to equate kāmaguṇa to “the senses”, not to the pleasure that comes from them. (Haven’t had time to look at the Pāli yet.)
‘From sensual pleasures (pleasing sights, sounds etc) comes sensual pleasure. From sensual pleasures comes the best kind of sensual pleasure, which is said to be the best thing there.’
I never met one of them, but I’d say they spend most of the time in jhānas, and that they are in the rūpa “loka” at that time. The lower heavens where the lower gods spend most time using the 5 senses are still part of the kāma loka. The Brahmas can still come back to lower realms, like when Brahma invited the Buddha to teach. That’s when they have five senses, but not while they are in jhānas. Them spending most of the time in jhāna is what separates them from the lower kāma-loka gods, is what I think. (I also wonder how much of this Brahmas coming down to the human realm is to be taken literally, but anyway.)
They still have 5 aggregates, though, even in the jhānas, because rūpa extends beyond what we call material or “sensual”. That’s why non-returners, who are no longer attached to the five senses, are still said to have the fetter of desire for rūpa. This refers to desire for the jhānas, I think you’ll agree. But since they no more sense desire, it has to refer to some desire for a mental thing.
When a mendicant visits Brahma in his realm, Brahma “takes him by the arm”
Then the Great Brahmā took that mendicant by the arm, led him off to one side, and said to him, ‘Mendicant, these gods think that there is nothing at all that I don’t know and see and understand and realize. That’s why I didn’t answer in front of them. But I too do not know where these four primary elements cease with nothing left over. Therefore, mendicant, the misdeed is yours alone, the mistake is yours alone, in that you passed over the Buddha and searched elsewhere for an answer to this question. Mendicant, go to the Buddha and ask him this question. You should remember it in line with his answer.’ - DN 11
As I say, I don’t think the kāma-loka means “the realm of the 5 senses” but rather the realm of sensual pleasures. This is why all the gods above us are described as still being obsessed with sensual pleasures, rather than sense experience itself.
Digital Pāḷi Dictionary
kāmaloka
masc. world of the pleasures
In DN31 there is a distinction between three types of rūpa, on which Sujato notes:
“Visible and resistant [form]” refers to material phenomena perceivable by the eye. “Invisible and resistant” is a shorthand for material phenomena that are not perceivable by the eye, but which nonetheless impinge on other senses, such as sounds or smells. “Invisible and non-resistant” includes form perceived solely in the mind.
The latter rūpa is the rūpa of the jhānas, and this is the rūpa experienced by the Brahmas when they are in their natural state of jhāna.
The “invisible and non-resistant” would include things like the water element, in the Abhidhamma commentaries. DN 31 is a proto-Abhidhamma text.
In some suttas rūpa includes besides the four elements also a fifth element, that of space, and this is what is present in the jhānas. It’s a mental perception of space, though, not a physical one (although you can’t feel space with the body anyway). This “space” sort of falls apart in the first arūpa (I’m presuming and going by what I’ve been told, so I may change my mind later), hence the first arūpa is “the dimension of boundless space”. Space, having no more boundaries, has become kind of ill-defined here, hence now it’s called “formless”.
After that state, the mental awareness also starts to cease in the formless attainments, ending eventually in the cessation of perception. So it’s a natural progression: entering the jhānas (the rūpa attainments) the five sense world (kāma) has ceased. In the formless the object of the mind (the rūpa) starts cease. In the final attainment the mental awareness itself ceases as well.
Well sure, with the perception of form there can be the perception of space since one can’t exist without the other hence neither can be said to be “real”, like long & short, but this relates to our previous conversation.
But is this about jhāna or about more general sense restraint? Since it talks about mindfulness and guarding the mind, it’s not yet samādhi in the sense of the jhānas.
It’s about sense restraint. It was a reply to Erik regarding still desiring things even if we don’t sense them.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
What exactly do you mean by this? A bit of elaboration would be helpful so that we don’t speak past each other.
Because if people don’t see that, I don’t know what to do.
That’s requires way too much inference to me, and ignoring what the text actually mentions, namely the development of sāmadhi.
(Also I’m in a vihara with easy internet access atm, so that’s not helpful when people keep posting interesting things… Please stop! 
)
This implies that deep-jhana meditators are likely to be dissociated sociopaths. Nice and collegial… 
)
The affliction of the five senses, for example, can only be understood by entering the first jhana where these “sensory perceptions” have disappeared. Then having those senses come back is considered an “affliction”.
Here’s some more to consider:
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.