Very interesting Sutta.
The basic teaching is that Jhana is not very important for eliminating defilements.
The main purpose of Jhana seems to be the pleasant abiding here and now.
The question is how Vipassana fitting to this?
Vipassana seems not considered Jhana.
Is there another word for effacement?
Wisdom requires concentration which jhana (or more exactly the state of mind just after quitting jhana) is one way, the other being upacara samadhi and khanika samadhi. So I think it is just a matter of preference whether one want to practice concentration by developing jhana, upacara samadhi, or moment-to-moment awareness (khanika samadhi). Different people, different compatibility.
The sutta speaks about the wrong view of taking jhana attainment as the destruction of kilesa, since jhana can only supress it. Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw has a long commentary on Salekkha Sutta.
Actually, the basic message here is that thinking of jhanas as ādwelling in effacementā is a false idea.
The jhanas are indeed for a pleasant abiding, which is to say, they help pass the time for people sitting in the woods. But everyone and their wanderer dog can access jhanas of one sort or another; wisdom is other than this, and comes from effacement.
This Sutta is criticizing the idea that meditative accomplishments in and of themselves are expressions of wisdom, it seems to me. I also hear a criticism with respect to the idea that sitting in jhana is somehow like a spin cycle on a washing machine, something you can set & forget. But jhanas are in fact fully inactive and uneffacing on their own.
They can generate a pliable mind, but that mind could just as well go on to get high scores at arcade games.
No, the teaching here is that jhana is not in itself enough, for the ending of defilements. Obviously it is part of the noble eightfold path. Also in one sutta (which I cant seem to find now) the Buddha tells Mahanama, a lay debotee, the reason why his mind hasnāt given up on desires is because it hasnāt found something better than what those desires offer him. What is ābetterā than sensual desires is the pleasant abiding of the jhanas; so they have a role to play.
with metta
āRemoval of mental defilementsā as per the link provided by Davidās post.
I still use effacement. Itās a little obscure, but quite nice and accurate. The root is from likh in the sense to ārub or scratch outā, i.e. to literally āeffaceā marks on stone or something, but also in the psychological sense of āerasing the selfā.
This is similar to the following sutta:
"And what is the perception of abandoning? There is the case where a monk doesnāt acquiesce to an arisen thought of sensuality. He abandons it, destroys it, dispels it, & wipes it out of existence. He doesnāt acquiesce to an arisen thought of ill-will. He abandons it, destroys it, dispels it, & wipes it out of existence. He doesnāt acquiesce to an arisen thought of harmfulness. He abandons it, destroys it, dispels it, & wipes it out of existence. He doesnāt acquiesce to arisen evil, unskillful mental qualities. He abandons them, destroys them, dispels them, & wipes them out of existence. This is called the perception of abandoning. AN10.60
With metta
Someone just asked me about this sutta, I replied and have now looked around to see if thereā more conversation about it. Iāll now put my reply here, as I find this interesting and am interested if you guys think my sense is in the right direction:
Iām not familiar with this sutta but I gave it a go. It talked about āeffacementā, which is an English word Iām not familiar with. The dictionary doesnāt help me much - for āeffaceā it says:
- erase (a mark) from a surface
- make oneself appear insignificant or inconspicuous
Not obvious to me how the sentences make sense with either of those meanings. But the PED gives this for the PÄli, āsallekhaā:
- austere penance, the higher life
Since I am not familiar with the usage of this term in the canon, my view is only speculative. But I find myself sondering if he is referring to the kind of practices non-Buddhists were doing in India. Iāve spent time in the forests and countryside of India with spiritual practitioners who have not spoken in many years, or help their hand in the air for years - there are others who will never sit, and so on. They believe that will get them closer to god, or get to moksha or whatever. I wonder if that is the type of āaustere penanceā that sallekha is referring to here.
If so, it would appear that first, the Buddha is saying no, donāt misunderstand, jhÄna is not some kind of penance, by which you get a reward because of doing something really hard (training for ages in concentration, sitting totally still for hours every day etc.).
But no, that is not why jhÄna practice works. Itās a totaly different principle than the idea of getting benefit merely because somethign is hard to do, such as holding your hand in the air for years etc.
So heās saying no, thatās not sallekha.
But then (if my interpretation of sallekha is correct), he redefines sallekha! He did this with many words. So if thatās whatās happening here, heās basically saying no, if you really want to endure difficult things, then the real sallekha is to extinguish your cruelness, by not killing, not stealing etc.
So whereas the non-Buddhist sallekha may be based around ritual, the power of specific actions, heās ethicising it. Heās making the tasks directly related to ethical behaviour. Holding your hand in the air, or never sitting down etc., these are all difficult, but in the Buddhaās view I think those would be seen as useless. This austerity the Buddha is proposing is also difficult, but itās totally based on inter-relation - how our actions affect others. And this morality is the necessary foundation for concentration training also, as it happens.
And please note that he concludes the sutta by instructing to pracrice jhÄna:
Here are these roots of trees, and here are these empty huts. Practice absorption, Cunda! Donāt be negligent! Donāt regret it later! This is my instruction.ā
EtÄni,
cunda, rukkhamÅ«lÄni, etÄni suƱƱÄgÄrÄni, jhÄyatha, cunda, mÄ pamÄdattha, mÄ pacchÄvippaį¹isÄrino ahuvatthaāayaį¹ kho amhÄkaį¹ anusÄsanÄ«āti.
Bare in mind that thatās the first time Iāve read that last sutta you asked me about, so my interpretation might not be correct. Thatās what comes off the top of my head when I read it though.
And if Iām on the right track, then I might prefer to translate sallekha as āaustere penanceā as the PED has, rather than the rather obscure word āeffacementā which even as a native English speaker gave me no suitable understanding of the word even with the dictionary, and evidently has given others here some trouble too.
I think of MN8 as an encouragement to be diligent and not get stuck jhana bliss. Self-effacement is simply the erasing of the defilements and hindrances. With all these gone, we attain Right Freedom.
In other words, there are different ways to use jhana. One can abide in jhana or one can actually apply it to self-effacement. One way is slow and blissful, the other way is quicker.
Test out my interpretation and see if you find that it works or not. Notice:
They might think
Tassa evamassa:
theyāre practicing self-effacement.
āsallekhena viharÄmÄ«āti.
But in the training of the noble one these are not called āself-effacementā;
Na kho panete, cunda, ariyassa vinaye sallekhÄ vuccanti.
theyāre called āblissful meditations in the present lifeā.
Diį¹į¹hadhammasukhavihÄrÄ ete ariyassa vinaye vuccanti.
[ā¦]
theyāre called āpeaceful meditationsā.
SantÄ ete vihÄrÄ ariyassa vinaye vuccanti.
[ā¦]
And I see no evidence at all here of any sense of there being anything wrong whatsoever of these āblissful meditations in the present lifeā, āpeaceful meditationsā, being negative in any way. Heās merely saying that they are not called āsallekhaā in this religion.
Then he redefines sallekha, and gives you the kind of (redefined) sallekha that are actually good, actually useful for attaining enlightenment. And those are the āerasingā of ethically bad actions/habits, which is perhaps where the etymology of the word comes in, as Ajahn mentioned:
If my sense of this is correct, then this makes sense, since it seems sometimes the Buddha redefined common words by going into their etymology, and then appliying that etymology in a new way. I.e. saying jhÄna, no, theyāre not sallekha. Theyāre something quite different. But hey, you want sallekha? Alright, Iāll give you sallekha, here, we can āeraseā (perhaps deliberately over-literal new use of the term) the tendency to kill, to steal, etc.
And we must not forget that he concludes by instructing to practice jhÄna!
Worried about bliss? So many people are! Thatās a big reason why the vast majority of Buddhist has rejected jhÄna practice! How ironic, for so many schools of Buddhism to reject the Buddhaās path to enlightenment! So, while I see no evidence of MN 8 being about avoinding bliss or even avoiding getting stuck in bliss (but of course we are not meant to get stuck in it, just as we shouldnāt get āstuckā in mindfulness of the body, etc.), consider this sutta, DN 29:
These four kinds of indulgence in pleasure, when developed and cultivated, lead solely to disillusionment, dispassion, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, and extinguishment.
CattÄrome, cunda, sukhallikÄnuyogÄ ekantanibbidÄya virÄgÄya nirodhÄya upasamÄya abhiƱƱÄya sambodhÄya nibbÄnÄya saį¹vattanti.
What four?
Katame cattÄro?Itās when a mendicant, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected.
Idha, cunda, bhikkhu vivicceva kÄmehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakkaį¹ savicÄraį¹ vivekajaį¹ pÄ«tisukhaį¹ paį¹hamaį¹ jhÄnaį¹ upasampajja viharati.
This is the first kind of indulgence in pleasure.
Ayaį¹ paį¹hamo sukhallikÄnuyogo.
And so on for the 4 jhÄnas.
And then:
Itās possible that wanderers who follow other paths might say:
į¹¬hÄnaį¹ kho panetaį¹, cunda, vijjati yaį¹ aƱƱatitthiyÄ paribbÄjakÄ evaį¹ vadeyyuį¹:
āThe ascetics who follow the Sakyan live indulging in pleasure in these four ways.ā
āime cattÄro sukhallikÄnuyoge anuyuttÄ samaį¹Ä sakyaputtiyÄ viharantÄ«āti.
They should be told, āExactly so!ā
Te vo āevaį¹ā tissu vacanÄ«yÄ.
Itās right to say that about you; it doesnāt misrepresent you with an untruth.
SammÄ te vo vadamÄnÄ vadeyyuį¹, na te vo abbhÄcikkheyyuį¹ asatÄ abhÅ«tena.
Ajahn Sujato has āindulging inā pleasureā¦ I think this comes from yutta, which the PED also gives as ādevoted toā. Perhaps this is closer to the PÄli, Iām not sure. Walshe actually gives this as āaddicted toā in his translation. Iām not so sure about that, but certainly the Buddha encourages his disciples to be devoted to jhÄna practice.
Also I added a paragraph to the end of my last comment, in case youāre interested.
To me MN8 is to be understood in context of what the Jains called and still call to date sallekhana, the practice of spiritual suicide via gradual fasting.
Ok, that might fit with what Iāve suggested above still. How do you then see the sallekha that he advocates? Do you see this as a redefinition of the term, part way through the sutta, as Iāve suggested?
Yes, it is a very interesting redefinition of the term. If it is a discourse taught by the Buddha it tells us that indeed the sallekhana practice was already in vogue back then and he found it relevant enough to be redefined in Buddhist terms. If not, it tells us that those compiling what became suttas found the need to redefine the term in a Buddhist way anyway.
On the minimal data I have on this topic (so forgive me if Iām missing something), I see another logical possibility, that being that sallekhana practice was already in vogue back then, but that it was not the same as it is now.
For example, could it have had a broader meaning? Which could include the various kinds of austerities I mentioned above, such as never sitting, etc.? I suppose an extensive search of the term in the canon could help establish this either way but I have no time to do that - have you analysed every occurence?
Also I think it would be wonderful to have an extensive list of all the pre-Buddhist terms the Buddha redefined, with a clear ellucidation of the original meaning, the Buddhaās new meaning, and perhaps even contemporary Hindu/Jain definitions of the terms also (which may or may not have changed in response to the Buddhaās redefinition). Is there such a list anywhere?
@Senryu, @Gabriel_L thank you both for pointing out the Jain context of Sallekha. I had totally missed that connection since I donāt know Jainism.
It would appear that the four absorptions were thought by some to be self-effacement. The Buddha says that is not so:
But in the training of the noble one these are not called āself-effacementā; theyāre called āpeaceful meditationsā
Then the Buddha gives Cunda lots of homework on self-effacement:
Now, Cunda, you should work on self-effacement in each of the following ways. ā¦
Therefore, the Buddha is telling Cunda there is more than just jhanas.
This is also taught in DN33:
Four ways of developing immersion further.
There is a way of developing immersion further that leads to blissful meditation in the present life. (these are the jhanas)
ā¦
There is a way of developing immersion further that leads to the ending of defilements. (this is what goes to freedom)
Yes, we all agree jhanas are necessary. The Buddha also says there is more to do with immersion. Basically, I would use immersion to help me do Cundaās self-effacement homework. Blissful meditation is not enough.
Note: the other two ways of doing immersion donāt relate to MN8 so directly.
Now you see the benefit of posting comments on this thread
I donāt read it like that, as I mentioned. Can you quote the exact part where you believe this part is found, where he says that āthere is more than just jhanasā, as you put it?
And what do you feel is incorrect with my reading of the sutta, which is quote different from yours - that the Buddha isā¦
And then he concludes - āNow go do jhÄna! Donāt be negligent! Donāt regret it later! This is my instruction!ā
When I read your interpretation, I see āBut hey, you want sallekha?ā. This phrasing is a bit sarcastic and can be read one of two ways:
- Meaning #1: You donāt need this but if you want it, here it is
- Meaning #2: You do need this, and here it is.
The first meaning is sarcasm. The second meaning is instruction. I have not found the Buddha ever to be sarcastic. That would be an unkindness. I have always found the Buddha to be clear honest and simple. Therefore I favor meaning #2.
Try reading it with this tone -
Yeah in our religion we donāt do sallekha, so no, jhÄna isāt sallekha. But hey you really want something to do thatās called sallekha? Alright, sure, you can call our graduated jhÄna training sallekha, because if you really want to āeraseā something, then erase your wrong morality, your wrong ethical behaviour, and all the other obscurations to this jhÄna path! If thereās any real (/useful) sallekha to be doing, thatās the stuff weāre going to erase. Then also not just wrong morality to erase, but other faults - these are all the progressive faults that are needed to be overcome on the jhÄna path! Although he also adds erasing the two fruits of the path, āwrong knowledgeā and āwrong freedomā.
He did similar with redefining the term ābrahmanā for example. From the Brahmanical perspective, the Buddha and his Sangha were outcastes, the lowest of the low! So when he told his audience that actually heās a brahman, and his good monks and nuns are brahmin, due to ethical qualities, and brahmin (in the real world) who are lacking good ethical qualities are actually outcastes; then heās really poking them with a big stick! Heās messing with them! And making fun of their views also.
Same when he describes his own liberation as āextinguisihing the 3 firesā, an apparently direct reference to the 3 sacred fires of Brahmanism.
Heās very provocative. And not at all afraid of making fun of the ideas around him, using satire etc.