Once again, there is no such thing as a “rupa” jhana or an “arupa” jhana in the sutta sources. These are commentarial terms that are not attested in the sutta material.
Unfortunately this is a bit where more excavation and comparative study is required to get to the bottom of what the earliest sources thought the mind turned to.
the mind made body and most of the psychic powers appear to be additions or expansions to the original text, which can be seen from the version preserved in the Puggalapannatti at Pp2.4 which you can read in Law’s translation in the link provided, just scroll about two thirds of the way down to the line " Here it happens that a Tathāgata is born in this world" and go from there.
As you will see the decisive insight that the mind turns towards is the recollection of past lives, the observation of persons experiencing the consequences of their good and bad actions, and the realization of the knowledge of the destruction of the influences (what you referred to as the “cankers”).
These three insights need not be particularly magical, as even without jhanas one can observe ones own past, in as much as one remembers it, and observe other people reaping what they sow, in as much as they do in this life, and observe in themselves that when an influence is eradicated, there is no motivation to pursue a course of action (for example if one quits smoking, and then observes, after some time, the craving for a ciggarette dies, then we do not feel an impulse to buy cigarettes anymore).
I agree with her and their is pretty ample evidence that this is the case, one can pretty much directly observe the development of this meditation practice in the back half of MN, and infer that a wave of suicides in the community where what prompted it. The ide that the Buddha was just too busy meditating to notice all the people slitting thier throats is, IMO, absurd.
Again, these texts use “The Buddha” and “Sariputta” and others as characters to legitimize doctrine, this does not mean that any such person ever gave any such teaching. Understanding that one is not necessarily reading the word of the Buddha just because a Prakrit text says so is a prerequisite to being able to move past superstition and arrive at scholarship, IMO.
Again, you appear to be confusing a religious text with a historical fact.
I mean, that’s fine, but I’m not sure what the point of your posts are in that case? You literally named your thread “Regarding Chronology”.
The knowledge of the destruction of the influences is the fundamental teaching of the prose suttas, regardless of your concerns.
AN3.58 gives a very nice and succinct description of this, once again agreeing with Pp2.4 that much of the psychic powers stuff is superfluous.
SN is a later compilation that forms at a time when jhana had been lost. For SN’s own account of this development (occurring when the sangha had transformed form wandering solitary mendicants to sedentary urban monastics, certainly after the time of the Buddha) see SN12.70 and especially it’s agama parallel SA347.
Anyway, As you are not interested in chronology I will leave it at that, but good luck with your “take aways”!
Once again, there is no such thing as a “rupa” jhana or an “arupa” jhana in the sutta sources. These are commentarial terms that are not attested in the sutta material.
I should start referring to them as “the four trances” and “the states of equanimity with respect to uniformity” plus the signless concentration (MN 136, tr. PTS vol III p 268).
I do notice that the “stages of Deliverance” (DN 16, tr. Pali Text Society vol. ii p 119) are described as three, prior to “the infinity of space”.
I do see where in SN V, Gautama refers to four stages prior to “the infinity of space” ( (SN 36.11; tr. Pali Text Society vol IV p 146)).
Maybe that says something about chronology, but I’m not sure whether those descriptions are unique to particular Nikayas, or scattered among Nikayas.
Unfortunately this is a bit where more excavation and comparative study is required to get to the bottom of what the earliest sources thought the mind turned to.
the mind made body and most of the psychic powers appear to be additions or expansions to the original text, which can be seen from the version preserved in the Puggalapannatti at Pp2.4 which you can read in Law’s translation in the link provided, just scroll about two thirds of the way down to the line " Here it happens that a Tathāgata is born in this world" and go from there.
You are quoting from Buddhaghosa’s work?
As you will see the decisive insight that the mind turns towards is the recollection of past lives, the observation of persons experiencing the consequences of their good and bad actions, and the realization of the knowledge of the destruction of the influences (what you referred to as the “cankers”).
These three insights need not be particularly magical, as even without jhanas one can observe ones own past, in as much as one remembers it, and observe other people reaping what they sow, in as much as they do in this life, and observe in themselves that when an influence is eradicated, there is no motivation to pursue a course of action (for example if one quits smoking, and then observes, after some time, the craving for a ciggarette dies, then we do not feel an impulse to buy cigarettes anymore).
And what of “the cessation of in-breathing and out-breathing”, that marks the fourth trance/concentration? The fourth being the stage where “purity by the pureness of mind” suffuses the body, such that “there is not one particle of the body that is not pervaded with purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind” (AN 5. 28, tr. PTS vol. III p 18-19)?
I believe that’s what yields the knowledge and insight that consciousness is bound to the body (like a jewel on a thread). Maybe the passage about the jewel-like nature of consciousness (MN 77, PTS vol II p 217) was an addition, and not necessary to arrive at the freedom and knowledge associated with “intuitive wisdom”? Not sure about that.
I agree with her and their is pretty ample evidence that this is the case, one can pretty much directly observe the development of this meditation practice in the back half of MN, and infer that a wave of suicides in the community where what prompted it. The ide that the Buddha was just too busy meditating to notice all the people slitting thier throats is, IMO, absurd.
Well, he did tell Ananda that he wanted to see no one except for the monk that brought him his food, for three weeks. I love Woodward’s translation of Ananda’s response to Gautama’s question on his return, about the diminuition of the Order: “it were well, Lord, if the Lord were to teach some other method of gnosis.”
Again, these texts use “The Buddha” and “Sariputta” and others as characters to legitimize doctrine, this does not mean that any such person ever gave any such teaching. Understanding that one is not necessarily reading the word of the Buddha just because a Prakrit text says so is a prerequisite to being able to move past superstition and arrive at scholarship, IMO.
Such a cynic.
Ok, I agree that the disciples don’t speak in quite the same voice as Gautama, and the addition of Gautama’s stamp of approval to their speeches doesn’t convince me. But in the case of Anapanasati, and chapter X, it staggers the imagination to think that someone could make up a mindfulness so different from Satipatthana, and pass it off as Gautama’s.
Again, you appear to be confusing a religious text with a historical fact.
The mindfulness he outlined in Anapanasati, and in Chapter X, I believe can make up a way of living, given a regular practice of the five limbs of concentration. I’m not talking religion, I’m talking a way of living, even if it’s better suited to the rainy season than other times of year.
I mean, that’s fine, but I’m not sure what the point of your posts are in that case? You literally named your thread “Regarding Chronology”.
The chronology I’m concerned with would be more aptly described as pre- and post- suicide of scores of monks a day, I guess.
The knowledge of the destruction of the influences is the fundamental teaching of the prose suttas, regardless of your concerns.
Knowledge of the destruction of the asavas, I agree leaves nothing to be done through diligence (as Gautama made clear in MN 70). The question I’m framing is whether or not actual psychic ability surpassing that of most individuals is required for that destruction, and I’m not convinced by your argument that the insights involved are actually common-place.
SN is a later compilation that forms at a time when jhana had been lost. For SN’s own account of this development (occurring when the sangha had transformed form wandering solitary mendicants to sedentary urban monastics, certainly after the time of the Buddha) see SN12.70 and especially it’s agama parallel SA347.
SN 12.70, great. So Gautama declares that seeing impermanence in the five graspings as well as seeing the substance of dependent origination is sufficient for “(intuitive) wisdom”, for freedom and the knowledge of freedom. But where in that formulation is there any necessity for the attainment of the cessation of in-breathing and out-breathing, the “fourth stage”?
Like reading Alan Watts–I got what he was saying, but nothing in my life changed.
Anyway, As you are not interested in chronology I will leave it at that, but good luck with your “take aways”!
I’m getting a better picture of the chronology you feel is important, thanks for the excellent references.
Looks like you’re quoting from the Aṭṭhakathā commentaries?
After all, the monk was in a bookless world and only the minority were teachers; he had to fill in his day somehow. The treatment is very mechanical and barren; we are left at the end no further.” (C A F Rhys Davids, PTS SN vol V p xiv)
it staggers the imagination
your imagination, not mine, or CAF Rhys Davids, or GC Pandes, or really anyone who isn’t simply religious, or a "way of life"er?
Yup, a “way of life”-er am I. Been looking for a way of life that reconciles:
“You know, sometimes zazen gets up and walks around.” (Kobun Chino Otogawa)
with daily living, for a long time. The mindfulness Gautama described in that chapter X, and in Anapanasati, includes “I will breathe in observing stopping, I will breathe out observing stopping” (Horner’s translation, Woodward has "contemplating cessation, I will breathe in, contemplating cessation I will breath out)–that’s the place where zazen gets up and walks around, if that’s going to happen.
It’s the invocation of the fourth concentration, through the “survey-sign” of the concentration. Is that religion, to return to conscious yet neither habitual nor volitive action of the body, particularly in inhalation and exhalation? Do you doubt that the concentration that Gautama described as the cessation of in-breathing and out-breathing exists? What do you make of that?
I certainly regard the teaching as a kind of science, more than a religion. I’m not sure what your interest in the teaching is–sounds like history?
I think you have completely missed the point of this sutta.
The sermon is remarkable, in that there is no mention of concentration whatsoever, and freedom through intuitive wisdom is extolled. Also remarkable in that Gautama speaks of a fading away of desire:
Seeing this, a learned noble disciple grows disillusioned with form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness. Being disillusioned, desire fades away. When desire fades away they’re freed. When they’re freed, they know they’re freed.
Certainly, India has had its share of sages, most of whom seem not to have taught concentration. Certainly in MN 70, Gautama speaks of those who are freed through intuitive wisdom, seemingly without any practice of concentration. And of those who have practiced all of the “peaceful Deliverances”, and yet are not freed!
Yes, the actual chronology of the evolution of this corpus of texts, is what I “feel” is important.
[/quote]
I wonder how you judge what is closest to the teachings of the Gautamid–are you thinking that’s the earliest texts, and that those would be DN and MN? Or do you see nothing that represents a coherent thread, only earlier and later interpretations?
No? What is your confusion here exactly? I literally cite my source, the Puggalapaññatti , do you not realize where that text comes from?
I am honestly not sure what to make of it?
My current judgment is that by and large the poetry is the earliest layer, but yes, “only earlier and later interpretations” is about right for the prose material.
I have yet to gain an interest in the Abhidhamma. You are thinking some of the Abhidhamma dates from way back, that you would quote it as though it were an indisputable historical source, rather than something cobbled together by a later commentator?
I guess I’m a bandit, I’ll take anything I can use (but that’s not much).
I am honestly not sure what to make of it?
My best description, based off Dogen:
Eihei Dogen, founder of the Soto school of Zen, wrote:
When you find your place where you are, practice occurs, actualizing the fundamental point.
(“Genjo Koan [Actualizing the Fundamental Point]”, tr. Tanahashi)
I’ve explained Dogen’s meaning:
Given a presence of mind that can “hold consciousness by itself”, activity in the body begins to coordinate by virtue of the sense of place associated with consciousness. A relationship between the free location of consciousness and activity in the body comes forward, and as that relationship comes forward, “practice occurs”. Through such practice, the placement of consciousness is manifested in the activity of the body.
When you find your way at this moment, practice occurs, actualizing the fundamental point…
(“Genjo Koan [Actualizing the Fundamental Point]”, tr. Tanahashi)
I’ve explained:
“When you find your way at this moment”, activity takes place solely by virtue of the free location of consciousness. A relationship between the freedom of consciousness and the automatic activity of the body comes forward, and as that relationship comes forward, practice occurs. Through such practice, the placement of consciousness is manifested as the activity of the body.
When activity of the body takes place solely by virtue of the free location of consciousness, habit and volition in the activity of inhalation and exhalation have ceased. That’s the hallmark of the fourth “corporeal” concentration.
Gautama described a suffusion of the body with “purity by the pureness of mind” in the fourth concentration:
Again, a (person), putting away ease… enters and abides in the fourth musing (concentration); seated, (one) suffuses (one’s) body with purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind so that there is not one particle of the body that is not pervaded with purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind. …
(AN 5.28, tr. PTS vol. III p 18-19; parentheticals paraphrase original).
Gautama made clear through his choice of words (“not one particle… that is not pervaded”) that the mind can remain one-pointed, even as the body is suffused with “purity by the pureness of mind”.
In the sermon, “several mendicants” declare their enlightenment:
Now at that time several mendicants had declared their enlightenment in the Buddha’s presence: “We understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is nothing further for this place.’”
Susima questions how that could be, when they haven’t experienced the psychic phenomena that Gautama experienced while abiding in the fourth concentration, and the mendicants reply:
“Reverend Susīma, whether you understand or not, we are freed by wisdom.”
Susima questions Gautama, and Gautama runs through the five skandhas, and how one should not see them as self. He then states:
Seeing this, a learned noble disciple grows disillusioned with form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness. Being disillusioned, desire fades away. When desire fades away they’re freed. When they’re freed, they know they’re freed.
Gautama then queries Susima:
“Do you see that when grasping ceases continued existence ceases … when craving ceases, grasping ceases … when feeling ceases, craving ceases … when contact ceases, feeling ceases … when the six sense fields cease, contact ceases … when name and form cease, the six sense fields cease … when consciousness ceases name and form cease … when choices cease consciousness ceases … when ignorance ceases choices cease?”
To which, Sasima replies yes. Gautama then asks Sasima if he has experienced the psychic phenomena that Gautama experienced while abiding in the fourth concentration, or if he has experienced the “peaceful liberations (Deliverances)”, to which Sasima replies no.
Gautama declares:
“Well now, Susīma, how could there be such a declaration when these things are not attained?”
Correct me if I’m wrong–by “such a declaration”, Gautama is referring to Susima’s declaration that he does see that “when grasping ceases continued existence ceases”, and the rest. Gautama is pointing out that Susima has declared that he sees the chain of dependent origination, and yet has not experienced the psychic phenomena that Gautama experienced while abiding in the fourth concentration.
Susima then declares he was mistaken, in doubting the enlightenment of the mendicants who declared their enlightenment.
But Susima has seen as the mendicants saw, and he is not enlightened–what am I missing here?
I think that what you are missing is that the sutta is late. The Buddha was dead. The sangha had lost the spiritual technology of the jhanas and powers and replaced it with the aggregates and dependent origination.
The clear contradiction, which you point out very well, that mere intellectual acceptance of a theory is not sufficient for a person to genuinely free themselves form the pain of this life, is a characteristic problem with this strand of Buddhism.
In fact, “nibanna” itself originates with this strand, starting at DN1, developing in DN14, and reaching the point of absurdity at MN37 and thereafter.
This strand stands in sharp contrast to the picture at DN2 (and DN3, DN4, DN5, DN6*, DN7, DN8, DN9, DN10, DN11, DN12…) where no “nibannas” are mentioned at all.
*with the exception of this, a sectarian sutta of the Therevada, not paralleled in the Agamas.
The mindfulness of SN 54, which Woodward translated “the intent concentration on in-breathing and out-breathing”, and which Horner translated as “the (mind-)development that is mindfulness of in-breathing and out-breathing” in MN 118 (Anapanasati), includes mindfulness of the four qualities of mind cited in MN 37:
… by knowing all the (psycho-physical) conditions thoroughly (one) knows all the conditions accurately; by knowing all the conditions accurately, whatever feeling (one) feels, pleasant or painful or neither painful nor pleasant, (one) abides viewing impermanence, (one) abides viewing dispassion, (one) abides viewing stopping, (one) abides viewing renunciation in regard to these feelings, (one) grasps after nothing in the world; not grasping (one) is not troubled; being untroubled (one is oneself) individually attained to nibbana, and (one) comprehends “Destroyed is birth… done is what was to be done…”. Briefly, it is to this extent… that (a person) comes to be freed by the destruction of craving, completely fulfilled…"
(MN 37, tr. Pali Text Society vol. I pp 306-307)
The four I’m referring to are the “viewing” (or mindfulness) of impermanence, of dispassion, of stopping (or cessation), and of renunciation.
The mindfulness of impermanence–isn’t that exactly the mindfulness of “this am I not, this is not mine, this is not my self” with regard to the five skandhas, the aggregates? Yes, I think so, looking at MN 109.
I do not “know all the conditions accurately”, but I can see that the reflection on impermanence is helpful in arriving at dispassion with regard to the pleasant/painful/neutral of feelings, and that in turn is helpful with regard to the ceasing of habit and volition in the activity of the body (that is to say, arriving at activity of the body solely by virtue of the place of occurrence of consciousness, or such is my experience). The renunciation that follows is:
“… there are no latent conceits that ‘I am the doer, mine is the doer’ in regard to this consciousness-informed body.”
(MN 109, tr. PTS vol III p 68)
When habit and volition in the activity of the body ceases, latent conceits about being the “doer” of the activity tend to be relinquished.
In MN 37, Gautama states that a part of the mindfulness that was his way of living in SN 54 could, in conjunction with “knowing all conditions accurately” constitute a personal nibbana. That to me is the beautiful thing about the teachings, that although the concern is clearly with the destruction of the cankers, we have sermons where Gautama stipulates that the path still exists after “individual nibbana” (just that it’s ten-fold, MN 117), and that a mindfulness that includes mindfulness of “cessation” or “stopping” is still the way of living (SN 54.11)–that such a mindfulness was in fact his way of living before enlightenment as well as after (before enlightenment 54.8, “the Tathagatha’s way of life”, SN 54.11 tr. PTS SN vol. V p 289).
I don’t anticipate my individual nibbana anytime soon, but I can aspire to return to “one-pointedness of mind” after speaking (MN 36, tr. PTS vol. I p 303), to the practice of the five limbs of concentration (AN 5.28, tr. PTS vol. III p 19), and to mindfulness that includes mindfulness of “stopping” (cessation)–these things Gautama said did not require nibbana, and are apparently the same after nibbana.
DN 14, a fairy tale prefaced with “thus have I heard” IMO.
“This, Nigrodha, is difficult for you to understand—since you have different views, different inclinations, different preferences, follow a different practice, and have a different teacher.”
Oh! sorry, I meant DN15 for the first example, for those following along here are the relevant passages:
Tayidaṁ, bhikkhave, tathāgato pajānāti:
The Realized One understands this:
‘ime diṭṭhiṭṭhānā evaṅgahitā evaṁparāmaṭṭhā evaṅgatikā bhavanti evaṁabhisamparāyā’ti,
‘If you hold on to and attach to these grounds for views it leads to such and such a destiny in the next life.’
tañca tathāgato pajānāti, tato ca uttaritaraṁ pajānāti; tañca pajānanaṁ na parāmasati, aparāmasato cassa paccattaññeva nibbuti viditā.
He understands this, and what goes beyond this. And since he does not misapprehend that understanding, he has realized quenching within himself.
Vedanānaṁ samudayañca atthaṅgamañca assādañca ādīnavañca nissaraṇañca yathābhūtaṁ viditvā anupādāvimutto, bhikkhave, tathāgato.
Having truly understood the origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape from feelings, the Realized One is freed through not grasping.
DN1
vedanā ca hi, āvuso, sabbena sabbaṁ sabbathā sabbaṁ aparisesā nirujjheyyuṁ.
‘Suppose feelings were to totally and utterly cease without anything left over.
Sabbaso vedanāya asati vedanānirodhā api nu kho tattha ‘ayamahamasmī’ti siyā”ti?
When there’s no feeling at all, with the cessation of feeling, would the thought “I am this” occur there?’”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”.
“No, sir.”
“Tasmātihānanda, etena petaṁ nakkhamati: ‘na heva kho me vedanā attā, nopi appaṭisaṁvedano me attā, attā me vediyati, vedanādhammo hi me attā’ti samanupassituṁ.
“That’s why it’s not acceptable to regard self as that which is liable to feel.
Yato kho, ānanda, bhikkhu neva vedanaṁ attānaṁ samanupassati, nopi appaṭisaṁvedanaṁ attānaṁ samanupassati, nopi ‘attā me vediyati, vedanādhammo hi me attā’ti samanupassati.
So evaṁ na samanupassanto na ca kiñci loke upādiyati,
Not regarding anything in this way, they don’t grasp at anything in the world.
anupādiyaṁ na paritassati, aparitassaṁ paccattaññeva parinibbāyati,
Not grasping, they’re not anxious. Not being anxious, they personally become extinguished.
‘khīṇā jāti, vusitaṁ brahmacariyaṁ, kataṁ karaṇīyaṁ, nāparaṁ itthattāyā’ti pajānāti.
They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is nothing further for this place.’
DN15
Evañcetaṁ, devānaminda, bhikkhuno sutaṁ hoti:
When a mendicant has heard that
‘sabbe dhammā nālaṁ abhinivesāyā’ti.
nothing is worth insisting on,
So sabbaṁ dhammaṁ abhijānāti; sabbaṁ dhammaṁ abhiññāya sabbaṁ dhammaṁ parijānāti; sabbaṁ dhammaṁ pariññāya yaṁ kiñci vedanaṁ vedeti—
they directly know all things. Directly knowing all things, they completely understand all things. Completely understanding all things, when they experience any kind of feeling—pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral—
sukhaṁ vā dukkhaṁ vā adukkhamasukhaṁ vā, so tāsu vedanāsu aniccānupassī viharati, virāgānupassī viharati, nirodhānupassī viharati, paṭinissaggānupassī viharati.
they meditate observing impermanence, dispassion, cessation, and letting go in those feelings.
So tāsu vedanāsu aniccānupassī viharanto, virāgānupassī viharanto, nirodhānupassī viharanto, paṭinissaggānupassī viharanto na kiñci loke upādiyati.
Meditating in this way, they don’t grasp at anything in the world.
Anupādiyaṁ na paritassati, aparitassaṁ paccattaññeva parinibbāyati:
Not grasping, they’re not anxious. Not being anxious, they personally become extinguished.
‘khīṇā jāti, vusitaṁ brahmacariyaṁ, kataṁ karaṇīyaṁ, nāparaṁ itthattāyā’ti pajānāti.
They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is nothing further for this place.’
MN37
So we can see how the epistemic claims enlarge as we progress, in the beginning the buddha simply understands how views lead to misconception, in the second the particular avoidance of the wrong-grasping of the concept is said to be liberative in itself, and in the third we add the claim of omniscience.
The most plausible explanation is that over time, from DN1 to DN15 to MN37, the community made wider and wider, and wilder and wilder, claims for it’s epistemic stance, as the praxis of the community shifted form meditative to intellectual and from rural to urban.
Thanks for giving some of the sources, on your reading of the gradual reworking/rewriting of the teaching.
I read the first four Nikayas in the Pali Text Society translations, but I confess I only paid attention to the bits I felt were useful to me. I still tend to glaze over, reading passages like the one you quote from MN 37. No wonder I didn’t reach your conclusion–the stuff you find late and inauthentic, I mostly skipped over.
For me, the heart of the teaching is “one-pointedness of mind”, that “one-pointedness” conducts to a cessation of habit and volition in activity of the body and ultimately to a cessation of habit and volition in activity of the mind, and the following:
That which we will…, and that which we intend to do and that wherewithal we are occupied:–this becomes an object for the persistance of consciousness. The object being there, there comes to be a station of consciousness. Consciousness being stationed and growing, rebirth of renewed existance takes place in the future, and here from birth, decay, and death, grief, lamenting, suffering, sorrow, and despair come to pass. Such is the uprising of this mass of ill.
Even if we do not will, or intend to do, and yet are occupied with something, this too becomes an object for the persistance of consciousness… whence birth… takes place.
But if we neither will, nor intend to do, nor are occupied about something, there is no becoming of an object for the persistance of consciousness. The object being absent, there comes to be no station of consciousness. Consciousness not being stationed and growing, no rebirth of renewed existence takes place in the future, and herefrom birth, decay-and-death, grief, lamenting, suffering, sorrow and despair cease. Such is the ceasing of this entire mass of ill.
(SN 12.38, Pali Text Society vol. 2 p 45)
That especially makes sense to me, in light of Gautama’s occasional explanation of suffering as “not to get what one desires… in short, the five groups based on grasping are suffering” (AN 3.61, PTS vol. I p 160). That suffering or anguish is “birth, decay-and-death, grief, lamenting, suffering, sorrow and despair” may be true, but the occasional explanation above addresses suffering more directly, for me.
The location of the consciousness identified with the self is a singular location in the body except when certain senses are either dysfunctional, or fooled in the way that Olaf Blanke has demonstrated. Most people expect that location to be in the head, behind the eyes, but the secret to one-pointedness of mind is that the consciousness identified with the self can move, it’s not necessarily stationary. Suffering follows the stationing of consciousness, I can see that.
The difficulty is that it’s impossible for most people to believe that action of the body, much less the mind, can take place with consciousness but without volition. Until they experience activity solely by virtue of the location of consciousness, they can’t believe it’s possible, and they can’t experience that until they can “make self-surrender the object of thought” and thereby cease persisting and stationing consciousness.
I wish you good luck with your research and your documentation–do you plan to present, in one form or another?
Just late, not “inauthentic”, I don’t think any of the literature of buddhism gives us actual quotations from Gotoma, so in that sense it is all equally “inauthentic”.