I’m seeking a comparative understanding of ‘signlessness’ as described in the Pali Suttas and in the later Prajna Paramita Sutras.
Bhikkhu Sujato’s translation of MN 121, Cūḷasuññatasutta has:
”Furthermore, a mendicant—ignoring the perception of the dimension of nothingness and the perception of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception—focuses on the oneness dependent on the signless immersion of the heart.”
In my understanding, MN 121 describes a process by which the meditator fixes their awareness on successively more subtle objects, starting from a perception of an empty hut all the way through the formless jhanas and culminating in the “signless immersion of the heart,” which leads to the direct perception of anicca, dukkha, and anatta.
The Diamond Sutra describes the arising of wisdom through the realization of “signlessness” as encapsulated in the formula, A is not A, therefore it is called A. Ultimately, the signlessness of dharmas seems to be used as a doorway into the perfection of wisdom: " ‘All dharmas,’ Subhuti, are said by the Tathagata to be no dharmas. Thus are all dharmas called ‘buddha dharmas.’”
Similarly in the Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines: ”He [the Bodhisattva] does not stand in form, perception, or in feeling,
In will or consciousness, in any skandha whatsoever.
In Dharma’s true nature alone he is standing.
That is his practice of wisdom, the highest perfection.”
Whereas MN 121 describes a successive process using the formless jhanas as the “bases” from which to launch into signlessness and a direct experience of emptines, the Prajna Paramita sutras appear to take signlessness as the starting point of bodhisattvic practice.
My questions below:
Is it fair to read these descriptions of signlessness as essentially pointing toward the same?
Might we read any suggestion from MN 121 of “signless immersion” as a kind of fifth formless jhana?
Are there comparative advantages and disadvantages in a primarily signlessness-oriented or emptiness-oriented meditation as often seen in the Mahayana? In other words, is it dangerous for Prajna Paramita Sutras to not stress the same steps toward signlessness as described in MN 121? Or should perhaps some similar process be seen as implicit in the Prajna Paramita approach?
Wow, what a dense topic! I’m afraid, I can only offer a cursory pointers to my knowledge, and feel free to ask more questions, but your questions start to lean into “It’ll take a few pages / papers / books to answer this” category!
Let’s tread this carefully.
SN 43.4 talk about:
“And what, bhikkhus, is the path leading to the unconditioned? The emptiness concentration, the signless concentration, the undirected concentration: this is called the path leading to the unconditioned….”
Signlessness is defined quite widely in MN 43:
“Friend, how many conditions are there for attainment of the deliverance of mind that is signless?”
“Friend there are two conditions for this: non-attention to all signs, and attention to the signless element. These are the two conditions for attainment of deliverance of mind that is signless.”
Signless Element is a very rare term. It occurs only in a couple of places, so there’s not much to say about it.
AN 6.13 makes an interesting case, listing releases as escapes, and implies that, once somebody develops an escape, there’s no return to the previous state.
Take another mendicant who says: ‘I’ve developed the signless release of the heart. I’ve cultivated it, made it my vehicle and my basis, kept it up, consolidated it, and properly implemented it. Yet somehow my consciousness still follows after signs.’ They should be told, ‘Not so, venerable! … For it is the signless release of the heart that is the escape from all signs.’
Thus, we might deduce here that after signless release of heart, the consciousess doesn’t follow after signs anymore.
Now, whether this is compatible with Prajnaparamita, depends a lot on how one read Prajnaparamita, and also how one reads what it would specifically mean for consciousness to not “follow after signs anymore”.
To me, there’s a compatible reading, such that all signs - distinctions, marks, are spoken as false, in both cases.
A is not A, therefore it is called A. → A is not truly A, so it can’t be said that A is A, but it’s called that in name only. One could read this as the the sign that AN 6.13 is talking about.
I mean, if you want to confuse people, sure.
There’s several other Concentrations / Samadhis mentioned in the suttas, like the three concentrations above. I think there are a few other samadhis that escape my mind now.
The point is, there’s 4 Jhanas, sometimes called Rupa Jhanas. Ayatanas, the four Formless Concentrations, are sometimes called Arupa Jhanas. That seems to be the common parlor.
So, these are all different Samadhis, and I think it’s best to call them just that.
This is a tough one to bite.
If one is convinced that they’re pointing towards the same thing (the irony!), then the differences are in approach.
Also note that, especially Early Mahayana texts generally assume the audience is familiar with core basic Buddhist Agamas / concepts. I think that’s evidently the case in Prajnaparamita Sutras. Early Mahayana masters often studied and commented on both Agamas and Mahayana Sutras.
In general, though, these topics are some of the finest points of Dharma. They’re usually not the first thing that people teach to others, until one if firmly established in good ethics and so on. Perhaps it’s wise to see how either of these approaches can be disconcerting, and either of them could be useful, if the time was ripe. I should not give advices on what practive works better or is safe/dangerous, even though I’m sympathetic to both EBTs and Prajnaparamita Sutras.
I would say, no, for the sake of clarity.
Emptiness is a loaded term. It can mean many things. Among others, for example:
It can mean the absence of self in any dharma.
It can be another name for Dependent Origination (often seen in Mahayana literature).
It can mean the absence of a self-nature of any dharma.
The last one is similar to Signlessness in a fashion, sure - they’re like two sides of a coin. As Dharmas lack an inherent nature, they could be said to be Signless, and vice versa.
This was a bit of a dense Q&A.
As addendum, here’s Peter Harvey’s “Signless Meditations in Pāli Buddhism”
Ven. Analayo’s “Compassion and Emptiness in Early Buddhist Meditation” which carefully maps MN 121 and Signlessness:
Also Ven. Analayo’s Prajnaparamita / EBT comparative Studies:
Hi, MagnificentTreeFrog (love the username, by the way).
MN 121 describes the practice of one of three samadhis: emptiness. The other two are called the signless samadhi and wishless samadhi. They were considered to form a progression to reach a state of detached transcendence from the phenomenal world.
I think there’s definitely a connection between these practices and the Mahayana idea that nirvana describes ultimate reality and that samsara is ultimately an illusion. The signless samadhi is often described as being like nirvana, which is itself signless. Mahayanists took this idea and generalized it to describe how a bodhisattva engages with the world while being detached from it emotionally.
Yes, there are disadvantages. Despite whatever Mahayana Sutra said, to read Mahayana Sutra requires understanding of the nikaya/agama. If one read Mahayana Sutra without understanding EBT, it’s like learning quantum physics without understanding classic Newtonian physics, or reading algebra without mastering addition, substraction, division, multiplication.
Maybe
The three gateway of liberation (sunyata, animitta, apranihita) (emptiness, signlessness, wishlessness) (and other variation of translation) , are central to Prajna paramita sutra. It will be repeated again and again, mentioned, elaborated, comparing its version with the Nikaya version and saying how its version is superior etc. But it’s not really clear how to practice it if one just read the Prajnaparamita sutra. It’s like the text assume you can already do it, and just need to add something, or modify it a little.
Here’s a quote:
20.4 “Blessed One, the Blessed One has said that a bodhisattva great being should not directly actualize emptiness. But how could a bodhisattva great being remaining in that meditative concentration not directly actualize emptiness?”
20.5 The Blessed One said, “Subhūti, it is because a bodhisattva great being considers emptiness to be replete with all excellent qualities. Such a bodhisattva great being does not consider it with the assumption that he or she will directly actualize it. Nor does he or she consider it with the assumption that it is something to be directly actualized. Nor does he or she consider it with the assumption that he or she will get fully aquainted with it or that it is the time for doing so despite its not being the time for directly actualizing it. Rather, the bodhisattva great being tethers his or her mind exclusively to an unfixed meditative object, knowing that he or she will be supported by the perfection of wisdom, but does not directly actualize emptiness. Along the way, that bodhisattva great being does not give up any qualities conducive to awakening. Nor does he or she eliminate worldly influences. Rather, he or she gets fully aquainted with them all. At the time when the bodhisattva great being is abiding in the meditative concentration on emptiness as the gateway to complete liberation, he or she should also abide in the meditative concentration on the freedom from signs, but should not directly actualize the freedom from signs. Why not? Because that bodhisattva great being has procured qualities by way of his or her roots of virtue and considers it a time to ripen those as such, not to directly actualize anything. And so, being someone supported by the perfection of wisdom, he or she does not directly actualize the pinnacle of reality.
20.8 At this, the Blessed One said to the venerable Subhūti, “The same is true, Subhūti, in the case of a bodhisattva great being who cares for the welfare of all sentient beings. He or she abides in benevolence, compassion, rejoicing, and impartiality. He or she is supported by skill in means and the perfection of wisdom. He or she dedicates the roots of virtue through the dedication that the perfect Buddha has recommended. But even though such a bodhisattva great being enters the gateways to complete liberation—that is to say, emptiness, the freedom from signs, and the freedom from inclinations—he or she does not directly actualize the pinnacle of reality, in particular, at the levels of the disciples or solitary realizers. Why not? Because he or she has the most powerful and unwavering supporters, namely the skill in means and the perfection of wisdom. For this reason, he or she has not abandoned all sentient beings, and hence, he or she has become capable of realizing unsurpassed, perfect awakening successfully and safely.
20.13 “Furthermore, Subhūti, when a bodhisattva great being considers or wishes to consider these profound topics—namely, emptiness, freedom from signs, and freedom from inclinations as gateways to complete liberation through meditative concentration—then he or she thinks, ‘These sentient beings have been going about life for a long time in mental perception because of their conception of a “sentient being.” Once I have realized unsurpassed, perfect awakening, I will teach the Dharma to those sentient beings who erroneously believe in their mental perception, in order to eliminate such an erroneous belief.’ After contemplating this, he or she attains emptiness as a gateway to complete liberation through meditative concentration, but does not directly actualize the pinnacle of reality. He or she attains the freedom from signs as a gateway to complete liberation through meditative concentration, but does not directly actualize the pinnacle of reality. He or she also attains the freedom from inclinations as a gateway to complete liberation through meditative concentration, but does not directly actualize the pinnacle of reality. Thus, a bodhisattva great being who has developed the proper mindset and this skill in means neither directly actualizes the pinnacle of reality along the way, nor loses the meditative concentrations on benevolence, compassion, rejoicing, and impartiality. Why not? Because a bodhisattva great being supported by skill in means thrives to a greater degree with his or her pure qualities. He or she also has sharper faculties, such as faith and so on, and attains the powers, the factors in awakening, and the path.
20.14 “Furthermore, Subhūti, a bodhisattva great being would think, ‘These sentient beings have been going about life for a long time in their mental perception because of their conception of “things.” Once I have realized unsurpassed, perfect awakening, I will teach the Dharma to those sentient beings who erroneously believe in their mental perception, in order to eliminate such an erroneous belief.’ A bodhisattva great being who has developed the proper mindset and this skill in means attains emptiness as a gateway to complete liberation through meditative concentration. But he or she does not directly actualize the pinnacle of reality. Also, he or she does not lose the meditative concentration on benevolence, compassion, rejoicing, and impartiality. Why is that? Because the bodhisattva great being supported by skill in means thrives to a greater degree with his or her pure qualities. He or she also has sharper faculties, such as faith and so on, and attains the powers, the aspects of awakening, and the path.
Thanks for this thoughtful and very helpful reply, which was honestly a wonderful read. I appreciate your caution in working through the various treatments of Signlessness in the suttas. Thanks also for taking the time and sharing these useful resources.
Signless Element
The notion of “Signless Element” is particularly evocative. It’s too bad we don’t see more elaboration on this. Just thinking out loud here, but I wonder if some exegesis of this might be found in Prajnaparamita sutras and later Mahayana texts, particularly those explicitly treating Signlessness and Emptiness as two sides of a coin as you put it. I’m thinking of the identification of Emptiness with Dependent Origination and Signlessness as a vehicle for it’s realization i.e. taking the Signless Element (as a-papañca) as an object of meditation to realize “things-as-it-is” in the Zen terminology. But maybe I’m still struggling to separate the two concepts of Signlessness from Emptiness.
So, these are all different Samadhis, and I think it’s best to call them just that.
Thanks for clarifying. I think my confusion in the various Samadhis of the Pali canon, especially coming from a zazen/shikantaza background, is the way the various Jhanas are often treated as sequential. I’m aware of the ongoing debate regarding the role of Jhanas in supporting insight, so I can appreciate that the question of how the various Samadhis relate and build upon on each is perhaps not straight forward.
Early Mahayana texts generally assume the audience is familiar with core basic Buddhist Agamas / concepts
This is a notion that has come up in some form in all the other comments here so far. It’s useful to keep this in mind. The study and practice of EBT fundamentals is something I’d like to see more of in the Zen circles that I’m running in these days.
Thanks for the reply! This comment highlights why I think I struggle with MN 121. Why do you say that MN 121 describes the practice of emptiness-samadhi and not signless-samadhi? Is it that signlessness as an object of meditation is treated as a doorway into emptiness-samadhi? Or am I missing something?
And thanks for sharing Kumarajiva’s commentary. I’ll be very keen to read this. I’d like to better understand the relationship between the three samadhis as you point to.
That’s a good point! It’s true that an emptiness samadhi isn’t mentioned in MN 121 or its parallel in MA. It’s rather a meditation on emptiness that results in a signless samadhi. It might be that these sutras predate the three samadhis, which might well be an Abhidharma teaching. By the time that Perfection of Wisdom sutras were written, the three samadhis were a fully developed meditation teaching, though. They are specifically mentioned as something that bodhisattvas have mastered in the introduction of the longer Perfection of Wisdom sutras.
I am also coming from a zazen/shikantaza background.
The four Nikayas that scholars agree are the most likely to be historically accurate have been a great resource for me (in particular, A. K. Warder cites them as most likely to be historically accurate, in his “Indian Buddhism”).
As I’m sure you’ve noticed:
… not only are the texts themselves composed in a clipped laconic style that mocks our thirst for conceptual completeness, but their meaning often seems to rest upon a deep underlying groundwork of interconnected ideas that is nowhere stated baldly in a way that might guide interpretation … the nikāyas (EBT sermons) embed the basic principles of doctrine in a multitude of short, often elusive discourses that draw upon and allude to the underlying system without explicitly spelling it out. To determine the principles one has to extract them piecemeal, by considering in juxtaposition a wide assortment of texts.
(Bodhi, “Musīla and Nārada revisited: seeking the key to interpretation,” in (edd) Blackburn & Samuels, Approaching the Dhamma, Buddhist Texts and Practice in South and Southeast Asia, Pariyatti, 2003; parenthetical added)
The critical pieces concern Gautama’s teachings on intentional activity, on activity by choice, and the cessation of that activity:
It is intention that I call deeds. For after making a choice one acts by way of body, speech, and mind.
(AN 6.63, tr. Bhikkyu Sujato; Pali Text Society [PTS] vol III p 294; emphasis added)
And what are choices? There are three kinds of choices. Choices by way of body, speech, and mind. These are called choices.
(SN 12.2, tr. Bhikkyu Sujato)
The Pali Text Society translated the above passage with “activities” in place of “choices”:
And what are the activities? These are the three activities:–those of deed, speech and mind. These are activities.
(SN 12.2; tr. PTS F. L. Woodward, Vol II p 4)
The “activities” of the Pali Text Society’s translation are the intentional actions of body, speech, and mind, the actions that follow from choice.
Gautama declared that the “activities” become still, or “cease”, in particular states of concentration:
…I have seen that the ceasing of the activities is gradual. When one has attained the first trance, speech has ceased. When one has attained the second trance, thought initial and sustained has ceased. When one has attained the third trance, zest has ceased. When one has attained the fourth trance, inbreathing and outbreathing have ceased… Both perception and feeling have ceased when one has attained the cessation of perception and feeling.
(SN 36.11, tr. PTS vol IV p 146)
My abbreviation left out the four formless concentrations that lead to “the cessation of perception and feeling”, but they are there in the sermon.
Regarding the “signless concentration”, Bhikkyu Sujato translates from MN 121:
Furthermore, a mendicant—ignoring the perception of the dimension of nothingness and the perception of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception—focuses on the oneness dependent on the signless immersion of the heart. Their mind leaps forth, gains confidence, settles down, and becomes decided in that signless immersion of the heart. They understand: ‘Even this signless immersion of the heart is produced by choices and intentions.’ Liberating insight comes from insight into the state of signless meditation, that is to say, it is the insight into insight itself. They understand: ‘But whatever is produced by choices and intentions is impermanent and liable to cessation.’ Knowing and seeing like this, their mind is freed from the defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn, and ignorance. When they’re freed, they know they’re freed.
The other critical thing to know concerns “one-pointedness”, or “one-pointedness of mind”. Bhikkyu Thanissaro wrote:
A Pāli sutta, MN 44, defines concentration as cittass’ek’aggatā, which is often translated as “one-pointedness of mind”: cittassa = “of the mind” or “of the heart,” eka = one, agga = point, -tā = -ness. MN 117 defines noble right concentration as any one-pointedness of mind supported by the first seven factors of the noble path, from right view through right mindfulness. MN 43 states further that one-pointedness is a factor of the first jhāna, the beginning level of right concentration.
Bhikkyu Thanissaro goes on to describe “one-pointedness of mind” as intense concentration on an object, yet Bhikkyu Kumāra questions that interpretation of sammadhi:
To sum up, the “samādhi” of the Suttas (EBT’s) is about concentrating the mind itself, while the “samādhi” of the Visuddhimagga is about concentrating on an object.
Bhikkyu Kumāra re-translated ek’aggatā as “one-place-ness”, or “one-placedness”. He goes on to equate “one-placedness” with a stillness of mind.
I would characterize “one-pointedness” and “one-pointedness of mind” differently: when a person is acutely self-aware, consciousness has a singular location, and that singularity remains constant even if the location of consciousness shifts.
You might like:
Suzuki described shikantaza in more detail:
So most teacher may say shikantaza is not so easy, you know. It is not possible to continue more than one hour, because it is intense practice to take hold of all our mind and body by the practice which include everything. So in shikantaza, our mind should pervade every parts of our physical being. That is not so easy.
(“I have nothing in my mind”, Shunryu Suzuki, July 15, 1969)
Gautama spoke similarly about the mind pervading the body:
… 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 pp 18-19, parentheticals paraphrase original)
“The pureness of mind” Gautama referred to is the pureness of the mind without any will or intent to act in the body. The lack of any will or intent with regard to the activity of the body in inhalation and exhalation could be said to be “the cessation of inhalation and exhalation”.
How come? I worry you may be sorely disappointed, as Zen circles typically don’t focus on EBTs and really only give passing attention to sutras, generally (chants, cursory study, etc). Rather, Zen circles typically prioritize personal, experiential development and transformation over intellectual understanding.
The relation of compassion to verbal activities comes under more detailed scrutiny in the Abhayarājakumāra-sutta. The discourse describes the types of speech the Buddha would use, distinguishing them according to three criteria: is such speech truthful? Is it beneficial? Is it agreeable to others? The Abhayarājakumāra-sutta clarifies that the Buddha will not engage in speech that is not in accordance with the truth or that is not beneficial. However, in the case of speech that is truthful and beneficial, the Buddha will at times say what is not pleasing to others. The discourse explicitly indicates that the Buddha’s speaking in these ways is an expression of his compassion.
From a practitioner’s perspective, then, to express compassion verbally does not mean that one only says what others find pleasing and agreeable. Of course, an effort should always be made to avoid hurting others. But at times it may be necessary to say something displeasing, if it is true and beneficial. In other words, the compassionate vision that informs one’s verbal activities does not consider only harmony in the present moment. Instead it evaluates a situation in the light of both short-term and long-term repercussions. Motivated by the wish to help others emerge from the conditions that cause their unhappiness, such compassion has the courage to do what is temporarily unpleasant, whenever this is required. In this way verbal activity can become the fitting expression of a mind that is filled with compassion.
I have some sympathy for the Ch’an dictum, though I think the attribution to Bodhidharma may be suspect (article about that, here):
The first great ancestor of the Chan school is Bodhidharma, the “Western barbarian” who is said to have brought the lineage from India to China. A famous four-line stanza attributed to Bodhidharma describes Chan’s salient characteristics:
A special transmission outside the scriptures,
Not depending on words and letters;
Directly pointing to the mind
Seeing into one’s true nature and attaining Buddhahood.
(“A Special Transmission: Teachings from the heart of the Chan Buddhist tradition”, from Tricycle Spring 2013; by Guo Jun)
Here’s one man’s opinion about that (mine, written previously):
Gautama’s advice was to go by the words of the teacher rather than any claim to authority, to compare the instructions of a teacher to the sermons Gautama himself had given and to the rules of the order that Gautama himself had laid down (DN 16 PTS vol. ii pp 133-136).
Nevertheless, activity solely by virtue of the free location of consciousness, the hallmark of the fourth concentration, has been conveyed by demonstration in some branches of Buddhism for millennia. The transmission of a central part of the teaching through such conveyance, and the certification of that transmission by the presiding teacher, is regarded by some schools as the only guarantee of the authenticity of a teacher.
The teachers so authenticated have in many cases disappointed their students, when circumstances revealed that the teacher’s cankers had not been completely destroyed. Furthermore, some schools appear to have certified transmission without the conveyance that has kept the tradition alive, perhaps for the sake of the continuation of the school.
Gautama made clear that only with the “utter destruction” of the three cankers was there no further diligence to be done (MN 70)(did he ever come flat out and say a person was enlightened?–I don’t think so).
What’s going on?
I would guess that most respected Buddhist teachers experience the “five limbs” of concentration regularly, and most practice a mindfulness very much like the mindfulness that made up Gautama’s way of living.
The “five limbs” were the four concentrations together with an overview of the body (the “survey-sign”) taken after the fourth concentration (AN 5.28, tr. PTS vol. III pp 18-19). The mindfulness that made up Gautama’s way of living was “the mindfulness of inbreathing and outbreathing”, a mindfulness that included the mindfulness of cessation in the course of inhalation and exhalation (SN 54.8, 54.11, tr. Pali Text Society vol V p 284, 298; MN 118).
The mindfulness that was Gautama’s way of living was his mindfulness before enlightenment (SN 54.8). That means that a person does not have to have “utterly destroyed” the three cankers to practice the mindfulness that was Gautama’s way of living; a person does not have to be enlightened.
How could a Buddhist teacher experience the “five limbs” regularly and practice a way of living like Gautama’s, yet not describe their experience as such?
Evidence suggests that the left hemisphere (of the brain) tends to create inferences and explanations to resolve uncertainty. As Gazzaniga suggested over two decades ago, the left hemisphere is an interpreter (Gazzaniga, 1989). … its inferences do not necessarily have to be correct, or even plausible in some cases, as long as they bridge gaps in information and create a cohesive story.
(“Divergent hemispheric reasoning strategies: reducing uncertainty versus resolving inconsistency”, Nicole Marinsek, Benjamin O Turner, Michael Gazzaniga, Michael B Miller, Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 Oct 21;8:839)
