Roderick S. Bucknell - Reinterpreting the Jhānas (1993)

Sylvester · June 6, 2016, 3:40am

Dear Bhante

If I may add just one tiny contribution to the list, and that is intended to refute some suggestions that kāmā in the first jhana pericope refers only to the five cords of sensual pleasure (kāmaguṇā).

In MN 75, we have this statement -

Taṃ kiṃ maññasi, māgaṇḍiya, api nu so devaputto nandane vane accharāsaṅghaparivuto dibbehi pañcahi kāmaguṇehi samappito samaṅgībhūto paricārayamāno amussa gahapatissa vā gahapatiputtassa vā piheyya, mānusakānaṃ vā pañcannaṃ kāmaguṇānaṃ mānusakehi vā kāmehi āvaṭṭeyyā”ti?

What do you think, Magandiya? Would that young god surrounded by the group of nymphs in the Nandana Grove, enjoying himself, provided and endowed with the five cords of divine sensual pleasure, envy the householder or the householder’s son for the five cords of human sensual pleasure or would he return to human sensual pleasures?”

This makes clear that in this context the five cords of sensual pleasure are a sub-set of the kāmā.

Brahmali · June 8, 2016, 12:25am

But does it even make any sense to speak of being secluded from the objects of sense pleasure, while not being secluded from sense objects that do not give pleasure? I cannot see how, from practical perspective, you can divide up the sensory world in this way. It seems to me that either you are secluded from all sense objects, or they are all (potentially) available to you.

The reason the suttas define the kāmaguṇas (and kāmā) as the five kinds of sense objects that give pleasure is that these are what matter from a practical perspective. These are the objects and experiences you crave and attach to, and therefore the ones that will stop you from gaining samādhi and insight. The sense objects that are painful or neutral are not really relevant, since they are no obstacle on the path. As soon as you overcome craving for sense pleasure, you are able to give up the whole lot. And either you give them all up, or you haven’t really given them up at all.

What do you think?

Sylvester · June 8, 2016, 12:56am

Indeed, Bhante. That’s how I’ve argued the case against the naysayers who insist that kāmā in the First Jhana pericope refers to the kāmaguṇā. This despite my pointing out that according to AN 5.176, the pain from unpleasant kāmā are also absent from the jhanas.

Jesse · June 9, 2016, 2:08pm

Bhante, I tend to agree with your assessment. My logic has always been that if you do not go beyond sense experience how will you truly let go of it? An example is Ajahn Brahm’s tadpole and frog analogy. Another analogy of sorts is when The Buddha showed Nanda the celestial nymphs. He had to be taken out of the physical world and shown something better, then his mind would incline away from his sensual desire for women (not fully the same, but a similar concept).

However, I do not think we can so easily dismiss the other perspective on jhanas. There are many people I have encountered who are knowledgable and are either agnostic or who think you can experience the five senses in jhana. This seems to be a topic of huge debate (at least on the Internet!).

I have never been particularly convinced by the idea you can experience the senses in jhana, but others seem to have pretty strong convictions based on the suttas. Just to be speculative, perhaps their position is that if you are overwhelmed with non-sensual (i.e. mental pleasure) you will be secluded from the objects of sensual pleasure? That is the jhana factors overwhelm sense pleasure and objects. Though this would seem to raise questions about the process of absorption and how you could be focused solely on non-sensual pleasure and still experience the senses. Though many of these teachers claim to practice and teach just such a thing.

I have done some research and cannot find a specific response to your question Ven Brahmali. I have tried to piece together the logic of the position that you can experience the senses in jhana and I personally can’t understand a cohesive narrative behind it. Much of the argument seems to be about the presence of jhana factors and the supposed ease of getting into jhana in the suttas, thus precluding something as difficult as cutting off the senses.

The best theory I can come up with is that one would have equanimity towards sense objects so they do not disturb you, but the objects are still there?? Somehow parallel to how an arahant can be in the world but not have desire arise. I think in this case the emphasis would be on the development of the positive experience of the jhana factors and then equanimity towards everything else. So to be in jhana is measured by having the jhana factors arising, not directly by what is not there (i.e. sense objects).

This runs counter to how someone like Ajahn Brahm seems to talk about it. He emphasizes how the the jhana factors arise when the other things disappear as opposed to focusing solely on the arising. As far as I can tell this difference is about the role of absorption/convergence/unification in the arising of the jhana factors.

Given there are many people that hold the position that you can experience the senses in jhana I am very interested to better understand why they believe that and how it works. Two teachers that I think differ are Bhante Gunaratana and Ayya Khema/Leigh Brasington. Does anyone understand the details of their positions well? What arguments do they use to back up their position?

Here is a full list of different teachings for reference:
http://www.leighb.com/jhanantp.htm

LXNDR · June 9, 2016, 6:10pm

couldn’t the Mahasaccaka sutta (MN 36) and Culadukkhakkhandha sutta (MN 14) be the key to understanding the first jhana formula? especially that they refer to the Buddha’s own experience

“I thought: ‘Why am I afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensual pleasures and unwholesome states?’ I thought: ‘I am not afraid of that pleasure since it has nothing to do with sensual pleasures and unwholesome states.’

Tassa mayhaṃ etadahosi: ‘kiṃ nu kho ahaṃ tassa sukhassa bhāyāmi, yaṃ taṃ sukhaṃ aññatreva kāmehi aññatra akusalehi dhammehī’ti? Tassa mayhaṃ etadahosi: ‘na kho ahaṃ tassa sukhassa bhāyāmi, yaṃ taṃ sukhaṃ aññatreva kāmehi aññatra akusalehi dhammehī’ti.

"Before my enlightenment, while I was still only an unenlightened Bodhisatta, I too clearly saw as it actually is with proper wisdom how sensual pleasures provide little gratification, much suffering, and much despair, and how great is the danger in them, but as long as I still did not attain to the rapture and pleasure that are apart from sensual pleasures, apart from unwholesome states, or to something more peaceful than that, I recognised that I still could be attracted to sensual pleasures. But when I clearly saw as it actually is with proper wisdom how sensual pleasures provide little gratification, much suffering, and much despair, and how great is the danger in them, and I attained to the rapture and pleasure that are apart from sensual pleasures, apart from unwholesome states, or to something more peaceful than that, I recognised that I was no longer attracted to sensual pleasures.

pubbeva sambodhā, anabhisambuddhassa bodhisattasseva sato, ‘appassādā kāmā bahudukkhā bahupāyāsā, ādīnavo ettha bhiyyo’ti—evametaṃ yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya sudiṭṭhaṃ hoti, so ca aññatreva kāmehi aññatra akusalehi dhammehi pītisukhaṃ nājjhagamaṃ, aññaṃ vā tato santataraṃ; atha khvāhaṃ neva tāva anāvaṭṭī kāmesu paccaññāsiṃ. Yato ca kho me ‘appassādā kāmā bahudukkhā bahupāyāsā, ādīnavo ettha bhiyyo’ti—evametaṃ yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya sudiṭṭhaṃ ahosi, so ca aññatreva kāmehi aññatra akusalehi dhammehi pītisukhaṃ ajjhagamaṃ, aññaṃ vā tato santataraṃ; athāhaṃ anāvaṭṭī kāmesu paccaññāsiṃ.

the phrase aññatreva kāmehi aññatra akusalehi dhammehī uses the same terms as the 1st jhana formula but they appear in the context of pleasure and rapture associated with kāmā and escape therefrom through replacement with jhanic pleasure

so it could mean that what a meditator must be secluded from is not sensory perception but pleasant feelings it induces, or more precisely the attachment to those feelings, whether it’s possible without seclusion from sensory experience entirely is a question in itself

but also is there a definitive answer as to whether the factors enumerated in each jhana formula are prerequisites to entering a jhana or only define a jhana state when it’s entered into?

Brahmali · June 10, 2016, 1:34am

Indeed, we should not dismiss the claims of others. If your meditaiton is going well, that’s wonderful. If you are experienceing lots of joy and happiness, great. If you are feeling peaceful and content just to be with your breath, marvellous. All good meditation experiences are a positive contribution to your progress on the path and they should never be dismissed.

Still, it is important to assess at what point jhāna happens. It is so easy to delude oneself into thinking one has attained all sorts of things, when in fact one has not. The world is full of people who think they are stream-enterers or even arahants (or anything in between). The same is true, I believe, of the jhānas. The problem is that overestimation stops us from achieving the full benefit of the Dhamma. We end up remaining stuck in saṃsāra.

An important reference point when it comes to the jhānas is the fact that they are so highly thought of by the Buddha. The suttas often speak of the jhānas as a group together with the four stages of awakening. Think about that for a moment. The jhānas are described in a number of very lofty ways, including, super-human qualities, distinctions in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones, the happiness of awakening, the footsteps of the Tathāgata, and the list goes on. When you get to the jhānas, you are in a sense in the presence of awakening itself. The qualities of the jhānas are in many ways similar to those of awakening. This being so, we should expect them to be extremely profound. This is one of the reasons I have most confidence in those who give the most profound description of jhāna.

Then there is the important Kaṇṭaka-sutta at AN 10.72 (and its parallel in Chinese at MA 84), in which sound is said to be a thorn to the first jhāna. The context seems to make it clear that you cannot be in jhāna if you hear anything. And it is a common experience among meditatiors that sound is the last of the senses to disappear as you enter samādhi.

Yes, the arahants cannot experience sense desire, but they still exist in the sensory world. Arahants experience kāma, such as nice food or painful physical feelings; they just don’t get caught up in craving. In the same way, kāmehi in the first jhāna formula means more than just desire.

Sylvester · June 10, 2016, 3:00am

Hi Jesse

I would just like to echo something said by Bhante about MN 111 previously. It’s that wretched translation into English of the following -

tyāssa dhammā anupadavavatthitā honti

This has been variously translated as -

he ferreted them out one after another.
(per Ven Thanissaro)

these states were defined by him one by one as they occurred
(per Middle Length Discourse of the Buddha)

and these things … are uninterruptedly set up by him
(I.B. Horner’s translation, 1959)

I won’t be discussing much the meaning of vavatthita, as it seems to be associated with the vipassana of anupadadhammavipassanaṃ mentioned earlier. This issue is, in my opinion, better litigated by asking if the meaning of vipassana here means (i) acquisition of insight, or (ii) just plain old “clear seeing”. I know Bhante Gunaratana interprets it as the former, but that would really be difficult to reconcile with DN 9 which suggests that any form of intention or thinking in a jhana would throw the meditator back into the gross perception of sensual objects (kāmasaññā).

I’m more interested in how the editors of the MLDB translated “anupadavavatthitā honti” as “were defined by him one by one as they occurred”. I suspect Bhikkhu Bodhi took the “honti” to furnish “as they occurred”.

However, the entire phrase “anupadavavatthitā honti” is easily recognisable as a periphrastic construction, where “honti” is a mere auxillary verb meaning “were”. This is how Warder explains it -

Sometimes a verb meaning " to be ” or a verb implying
duration is used more or less as an auxiliary with a form
(usually a participle) of another verb. A construction in which
two verb forms are thus used as equivalent to a single verb is
called " periphrastic ” .

Introduction to Pali, p.233

I think Bhikkhu Bodhi (or was it Ven Nanamoli) was following the Commentary in not regarding that phrase to be a periphrastic construction, thereby leading to the translation that suggests two actions were going on, instead of just one.

If you accept my argument, the “as they occurred” should be chucked out of the window, so that the text is ambiguous about whether the vavattheti-ing is going on during a jhana.

To answer that question, we look at another periphrastic construction used in MN 111. It’s to be found in every jhana pericope; I will use the first jhana pericope as illustration -

Idha, bhikkhave, sāriputto vivicceva kāmehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakkaṃ savicāraṃ vivekajaṃ pītisukhaṃ paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharati.

Here, bhikkhus, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, Sariputta entered upon and abided in the first jhana, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion.

The periphrastic construction is in bold, and according to Warder (p.239) the auxillary verb viharati/dwells is meant to convey a durative sense to the absolutive upasampajja/having entered.

The problem that many jhana-lite interpreters fails to recognise is that in the jhana pericopes, the durative aspect of viharati only combines with the main verb in the periphrastic construction (ie upasampajja); there is no spillage into the subsequent sentence to create another periphrastic construction with eg vipassana verb, or the psychic verbs.

To illustrate the impossibility of the jhana periphrasis spilling over into the vipassana sentences, take a look at another pair of sentences in MN 111 -

Puna caparaṃ, bhikkhave, sāriputto sabbaso nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṃ samatikkamma saññāvedayitanirodhaṃ upasampajja viharati. Paññāya cassa disvā āsavā parikkhīṇā honti.

“Again, bhikkhus, by completely surmounting the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, Sariputta entered upon and abided in the cessation of perception and feeling. And his taints were destroyed by his seeing with wisdom.

Can you see how ridiculous the jhana-lite interpretation gets when it insists that the “seeing” occurred contemporaneously with the abiding in Cessation, where there is nothing going on?

In fact, if the suttas want to indicate that something was going on at the same time as the jhanas, they would employ a very specific idiom. It looks like this -

So kho ahaṃ, ānanda, vivicceva kāmehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakkaṃ savicāraṃ vivekajaṃ pītisukhaṃ paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharāmi. Tassa mayhaṃ, ānanda, iminā vihārena viharato kāmasahagatā saññāmanasikārā samudācaranti

Then, quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities, I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. As I remained there, I was beset with attention to perceptions dealing with sensuality.

SuttaCentral (using Ven Thanissaro’s translation for convenience).

Given that this idiom is attested in other places, I would suggest that when it is not used to connect a jhana with other actions in subsequent sentences, this would indicate that we should not read the vipassana verbs as being contemporaneous with the jhana pericope’s viharati.

Jesse · June 10, 2016, 1:00pm

Thanks Bhante, I agree one hundred percent with your assessment.

That is how I always felt when I encountered this discussion. In fact it was for this very reason I was drawn to Ajahn Brahm and his students. It does seem like many people want to believe that Buddhist practice is going on a retreat and getting a stream winner or jhana certificate at the end of it . However, the more I practice, the more profound and subtle the teachings become. I greatly value uncompromising teachers who push this depth of understanding as it has opened up much more of the Dhamma for me.

Thanks Sylvester for the in depth analysis of this issue. The distinction you make grammatically between what is included in the jhana and what is not makes a lot of sense. I have always run across arguments from teachers such as Ven Thanissaro claiming one could do vipassana in jhana and I have always wanted to see a more specific refutation of their points (because I don’t know Pali and can’t do it myself!).