I always cringe at the word “reject” in this context (and it’s thrown around a rather lot) because he didn’t reject them outright: he actually preserved them.
Rather, we should say he rejected them as… what?
We cannot say, " He rejected them as leading to liberation," because of course they lead to liberation; if they didn’t, they couldn’t be part of the nine samadhi scheme, as it does end in liberation. I am not desirous to argue about the translation of saṁvattati, but simply to point out that this is truly a situation where ignoring the nuances–which is what I think many scholars are doing–can be problematic. They were not rejected, and they do lead to liberation. That is the meaning, I think, of the qualifications pariyayena and nippariyayena: nuance
Yes!
Am I the only one who finds it odd that all the pre-Buddhist, “heterodox” meditative practices (which the Buddha nevertheless adopted, adapted, and promulgated despite the fact that they presumably continued to be shared with those same “heterodox” schools) are the ones which tradition tells us do not liberate and are fairly useless.
If I’m not mistaken, Bronkhorst in Two Traditions of Meditation in Ancient India argues that the four arupayatanas and cessation of perception and feeling are assimilated from Jains and other sramana tradition…
I find it noteworthy at least. It shows a certain sentiment in parts of the Buddhist community, namely: Buddha = good, non-Buddha = bad.
If for example Jains had access to the first Jhana before the Buddha, that would yuck the yumm a bit, wouldn’t it?
Or I showed for example how much the Buddha took over the notion of his monasticism, i.e. brahmacarya, from the Vedic tradition, including going on alms food, probably also the sleeping routine. That also doesn’t feel right, and the orthodox reflex responds with “but he made it better”.
The preface gives an excellent summary of his conclusions. I read this book awhile ago, but had forgotten this part. He seems most certain with regard to these states:
Returning to the Stage of Nothingness and the Stage of neither Ideation nor Non-Ideation, it will hardly be necessary to add that in my opinion they comply with the criterion of foreign intrusion into the Buddhist texts formulated above.
but does eventually say all four probably were brought in later.
To facilitate the comparison of the different progressions of samadhi in the canon, I have put together the table below. There may be more, but this is what I found. I did not see where ideation ceases.
I wonder if having converts from other traditions who practiced other types of meditation lead to some political compromises. Initially, it would have made traditionalists happier to deprecate the techniques brought in by non-Buddhist converts. We see those issues being addressed in DN/DA in several sutras, such as when non-Buddhists convert and are told they’ll be subjected a probationary period.
I also think there’s a subtle point in Buddhist sutras that goes over modern people’s heads. We don’t think of meditation as a way of winning birth in a heaven or to create the same experience that gods in heaven have while in an earthly body. But this seems to have been a common belief that Buddhists encountered and tried to argue against as an ultimate goal of religious practice. There are a few sutras that make these arguments regarding dhyana practice, not just these other techniques, but it’s when a practitioner is trying to get into heaven or have an experience of the heavens. Buddhists considered that just more craving and karmic existence. An example I remember ATM is SA 484, in which Ananda questions a monk and is disappointed when the monk thinks the form realm is the highest goal.
What, like “mindfulness”, “samādhi”, and “wisdom”, which the very same narrative tells us were practiced among the same teachers as the formless attainments?
In this respect, the arupas are not dissimilar to the psychic powers. Popular and fun; useful maybe; essential, probably not. But definitely a motivation for lots of people, ancient and modern.
I think I have to disagree with both of you here. I do see deep samadhi meditation as a way to a transformative experience that will lead to a healthier way to live with suffering in the world and especially, a healthier way to look at our own mortality. When the Buddha says
SN 2.26
The end of the world can never
be reached by traveling.
But without reaching the end of the world,
there’s no release from suffering.
So a clever person, understanding the world,
has completed the spiritual journey, and gone to the end of the world.
A peaceful one, knowing the end of the world,
does not long for this world or the next.”
One of the crucial things, in my opinion, is that meditation attainments do not stand in isolation. It is when combined with Right View that they lead to Liberation. In regards to the formless Jhanas, I think it is easy to see where people draw ‘wrong’ inferences from the experience - eg the experience of Infinite consciousness - being ‘interpreted’ as a range of things based on existing views. It is only with Right View and as part of the overall practice that specific things relating to Liberation are understood. The early teachers of the Buddha, did not have Right View, and as such the meditative experiences as they taught them, would not lead to Deliverance.
So just like Bhante @sujato said, it is like the psychic powers, in that ‘of themselves’ they do nothing to lead to Liberation, but with Right Understanding, they are instructive demonstrations of how Mind works and can lead to greater wisdom and confidence.
For example, if one experiences neither perception nor non-perception, and has Right View - then ones confidence must increase - it enables a better appreciation of cessation. Then if one goes even beyond that, to experience Cessation itself, then ones confidence must become unshakeable - it has become a REALITY to be experienced, not just a possible/likely theory. There is no going backwards from this - so yes it can lead to Liberation… but not without Right View.
As with all things in the Buddha Dhamma it is dependent on conditions
Let me clarify. My expectation is that deep samadhi will lead to a transformative experience that will lead to direct knowledge of right view as opposed to conceptual knowledge of it.
Note: I said deep samadhi, not any particular level. Whatever level the Buddha had in mind when he said it. We’ll find out when we get there. In addition to the first seven steps in the path, I try to train to take the elevator of samadhi down far enough to get there. I am not so much interested in the levels debate as much as I am in “reaching the end of the world.”
Yes, but I think the tendency is to make too much of this point while, conversely, you rarely hear, for example, that “Right Understanding” or “Right View" “of themselves” don’t lead to Liberation either. In fact, I don’t know of anything that liberates in isolation; however, this is only really ever emphasized when discussing samatha practices, or I should say, “practices popularly associated with samatha” (and consequently devalued accordingly).
The fact is that, for Liberation, meditative practices (broadly defined) are just as important to Liberation as wisdom exercises. And we hear it reinforced all the time that the formlessnesses (or even whatever level of jhana) are not necessary. Yet no one says, “Watching the rise and fall of the aggregates is not indispensable to Liberation, you know.”
So, again, @Viveka , what you said was absolutely correct, but so is what I said. I am just remarking about how much our discourse is still shaped by biases against devotion to meditation.
Had a good laugh over that - thank you I think there is another reason for this as well, given that in our current society intellectual understanding is so highly valued, that people could actually believe that Right view/understanding alone can lead to Liberation
I don’t think the problem is that too much is made of the point that right view is a necessary co-component for meditative attainments to lead to Liberation - but that the necessity and interdependence of all the factors on the Path is often underplayed, dismissed or ignored. Many under-estimate the Sila factors for example - they are indispensable, just like mindfulness and samadhi are each indispensable - The Buddha himself states that there are no superfluous factors! They all work together - and form the basis for causality - Dependently Arising conditions for successfully moving along the path.
With regard to the role of the Arupas specifically, I still stand by my above answer - They can lead to Liberation - but not in isolation - it’s dependent
Thanks for your response, @Viveka . I am going to reply to your points not in the interest of quibbling, but because I feel the point I’m making is one which is generally overlooked. Also, it’s a very subtle one, and I wonder if it was understood.
Of course. Picture someone saying, “Well, yes, right view is good and all, but it won’t liberate you on it’s own; and becoming too attached to your right view could lead you away from the path/goal.” It is indeed laughable.
But we often see people saying the same thing in a knee jerk reaction whenever certain meditation practices are mentioned. It’s like saying someone “happens to be” Black, or saying so-an-so’s gay, “and I am fine with that.” There’s a nervousness about it, in my opinion: it seems furtive. (And, like the examples I gave, painfully PC!)
Yes! And I wouldn’t limit such a characterization to contemporary times. I think this has been a trend humanity has been following for several thousand years now. (Anyone here into Iain McGilchrist, The Master and His Emissary? He builds off Julian Jaynes’ theory of the bicameral mind.) In fact, I view Buddhist history as an ebb-and-flow between intellection and a reaction to it because, yeah, traditionally, wisdom was thought to be the primary or even sole vehicle for most of Buddhist history on every continent on which it has existed.
Neither do I. I think the problem is that too much is made of (so-called) samatha practices being insufficient when, the truth is, it’s all insufficient. Really, though, how often is wisdom–not some specific brand of wisdom, but general, unqualified wisdom–spoken of as something negligible or, even worse, to be leery of? But, with meditation, we accept this narrative as a matter of course–even if we push back, we don’t question the hierarchy.
Yes, thank you for mentioning this. I used to think of the three trainings as primarily temporally sequential; I now no longer do. Now I see them as dependently originating concurrently.
So do I. It’s correct. I’m questioning why we feel the need to say it when we don’t feel the need to similarly qualify any other practice that I can think of.
Again, to use the dynamics of group discrimination as an model (because I do feel there is traditional prejudice, discrimination and bias here), If every time we mentioned a particular group, we accompanied our discourse with remarks about pressures they’re facing, disadvantages they have, and so on; while, when mentioning another group, we mentioned none of those social ills even though they were affected by them just the same, one sure result is that, in public discourse, the former group will always be less than while the latter will be above reproach.
This is the state of affairs, as I see it, in both academic as well as traditional Buddhism, with regard to wisdom and meditation.
Just to be pedantic here - this is one of the problems, one needs to relinquish/suspend ones own views and adopt the Buddhas Right View to start with. Then over time, through practice, as one begins the transformation, one begins to see things as the Buddha saw them and that is where the deeper knowledge comes in to confirm the RV of the 4 Noble Truths.
Yes, I’m not quite sure what you are getting at, especially in this post
Well I certainly don’t feel the need to say it, do you? So who are the people who are saying it? Practitioners? Academics? Noble Ones? Choose who to pay attention to, depending on what your aims are
If coming from a practitioner perspective, the Buddha made it very clear that one should associate with the wise (having RV) and not the foolish (those with wrong view) as per the Dhamma. There is wrong view all over the place in our daily lives. Tune it out It is part of wise attention and discrimination of what will lead to good states and progress and what will lead to the opposite, and making choices appropriately. Of course, this is the advice if one is a practitioner… but there are many reasons why people engage with the Buddhist texts. - but in the end, I’m a firm believer, that one will not really be able to ‘convince’ someone who is determined to follow their own view by engaging in intellectual arguments or arguing philosophy … I’m thinking of the Brahmajala sutta here … you could literally argue forever with all those views … The nature of the Dhamma is practice based - it must be experienced, it provides a mechanism by which we can by-pass the proliferating mind and get a look behind the scenes Which then demonstrates just how unreliable and unsatisfactory it is
Way enough from me on this. Good luck and best wishes, and hopefully others will have more to contribute that you’ll find useful
I do think that this is a valid question to raise, the fact is that some suttas in the EBTs describe the buddhas awakening as occurring with the aruppas and some describe it as occurring without. It seems a valid question to ask if one type of narrative is the correct one and the other type a later elaboration, or if not, how this discrepancy can be explained.
@josephzizys I am not sure who you are responding to here. But, since I am the OP, I will reply as if you are addressing me. If you weren’t please feel free to disregard this.
I’m not sure exactly which question you are referring to here.
Yes, sir! In fact, not only “with” them, but, it would sometimes appear, directly dependent on them.
I think so, too. But I don’t think there’s a balanced outlook for most of us: the narrative has already been skewed so that, for the most part, we discuss only how/why wisdom is the catalyst for liberation and why (tranquility) meditation could never be: the converse is rarely even brought up.
Over the last few years, Wynne and Analayo had that ongoing debate. (And, just for the sake of discussion, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt that neither of them is foolish with wrong view.) They argue over the validity of the TPT: the “Two-Path Thesis.” Yet no one is questioning the validity of any OPT because, first of all, there is no such theory to speak of, so that there’s not even the vehicle for such discussion. The result is it’s just not even questioned as if, again, it is so self-evident as to preclude the need. Perhaps. But there will never be balanced dialogue that way. This is the way systematized bias works. And this would seem to be one among traditional Buddhism’s many entrenched biases.
Thanks Knotty! I was in fact responding to the original post. My take is that there do appear to be many points in the EBTs where people who have been liberated by understanding the truth of conditionality or however you want to put it without having the deep meditative attainments that others have had. These liberated one way, liberated both ways seem to me to imply that the buddha, or the EBT’s at least did in fact accept that a person could be liberated through understanding the facts of phenomena, their arising, cessation and the method without having attained to these deep exemplary experiences of same. So I think the EBT’s and quite possibly the buddha took a fairly catholic or inclusive view with regards to this. I suppose for myself I am more intrigued by the jhanas vs aruppas, or rather the jhanas vs jhanas plus aruppas question, and to what extent the whole mass of meditative attainments relate in the early texts. anyway, thanks again for your reply, I am feeling a bit wooly today and not sure I am expressing myself well, or rather I may be expressing myself perfectly and what I am is confused
Very good point. I truly believe Right View is very important in the Path. But then again. But I believe meditation can also bring a conviction in right view.I read from a friend that seems to experiencing good in meditation but many wrong views. And I think that bothers people like a weight so they don’t progress to distinction
Thanks for the table Stephen! I just want to point out that DN9 is a sutta where the buddha is in (very sophisticated and philosophical) conversation with a practitioner with another sect, so that may explain, or at least give some context to the presence of the formless attainments - the same Nikaya, DN starts with the repition (12 times) of the jhana formula without the formless attainments as the path of gradual training.
I have been developing the impression recently, and am seriously considering trying to write something up formally, that DN is “early” MN is “middling” and SN and AN are “late” and I note in your table for example that the presence of breathing absent in AN but not in DN or MN is yet another suggestive fact for this argument.
I should elaborate what I mean by “early” - my impression is that the buddha taught for a long time, and would have conversed with many different groups and individuals of many different backgrounds and in many different locations, and that the original recitation traditions probably grew up as a way to keep the teachings for all those months and years that the buddha was elsewhere. so there was probably multiple groups of reciters focusing on differnet groups within the community, reciters for the newbies to learn the basics from, reciters for the advanced students etc, my impression is that DN was for the newbies; lots of forget your braminical nonsense talks and also a very straightforward description of the gradual training… MN has more complex stuff for the advanced students, etc…
Now, the DN we have is obviously not all from the buddhas lifetime, the Mahāparinibbānasutta for example can’t have been, and much textual elaboration must have occured over the years after his death.
However, I still think that the gradual training shows plenty of evidence of being one of he earliest sequences in the whole canon, the lack of the eightfold path, the lack of the immaterial attainments, and so on, make me think that along with the patimokkha this really was the “buddhism 101” given and approved by the buddha when new converts joined the by them already well established sangha.
Now, I think it is also clear, at least to me, that the very well attested 37 aides seems like a genuine or at least very early endorsed curriculum, lending much weight to basically everything in MN and SN as being “budhissm 201, advanced buddhism” teachings, directly from the buddha, for students who had got the patimhokka and the gradual sequence down.
This all brings me to my methodological point; where a doctrine or pericope is well attested in DN, then alterations or elaborations on it that are not explainable by context (like the list in DN9 is) they are suspect (like the absence of breathing in AN is, for both textual and asphixiative reasons)
Anyway, I think that i might need to organise my thoughts about all this more coherently and start a new thread for all this…
I think there is another reason for this as well, given that in our current society intellectual understanding is so highly valued, that people could actually believe that Right view/understanding alone can lead to Liberation 
