I think the ending of of defilements is no ending of the word, in this way that an arahant and Buddha’s 6 senses are still active. They experience the All, the world. In cessation one has, i belief, a very direct knowing of the end of the world, not conceived.
Greetings Bhante, Best wishes, and foregoing some formalities I would like to ask a question: since the formless attainments, as I understand them not having myself experienced them, are purely experiential by nature and can’t be described, have no simile and no characteristics to describe except a label, such as “nothing”, or “infinitude of space/consciousness” (unlike the jhanas which have characteristics and similes to describe them), then is there another way to begin talking about the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception, the cessation of feeling and perception, or Nirvana, which I think are considered unique to the Dharma, but also lack describable characteristics, without first distinguishing them from what had already (probably) been discussed philosophically for a long time by proponents of opposing (externalist) schools of thought? Sorry for the long sentence
And speaking of space 
, (the concept of) Sunyata/Emptiness excepts all phenomena and the formless absorptions’ characteristics, including the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception. It’s describable only as “signless” or uncharacterizable. (MN 121) Again is there another way to broach this without first referencing what it’s distinct from?
They sound like rhetorical questions, so here’s another: Have I understood any of this correctly?
I appreciate any clarification I may have coming to me 
Hi Cole,
I wouldn’t go so far, but sure, they are certainly hard to describe.
Apart from indirect approaches, I don’t think so. We can talk about what the texts say. But as far as personal experience goes, that’s something better shared between you and an experience teacher.
Well in this case the idea is an expression of the lack of substance and essance, so perhaps we could begin by looking at these things.
I mean, yes? But there’s an interesting difference you can see among those who discuss such questions. People who go “top down”, who start with the highest things, tend to either have some amazing new theory that will set the world on fire, or they get stumped and confused. those who start from the bottom up, on the other hand, focussing on what they can know and experience, find that things are pretty easy to understand, and the hard things? They’ll come in good time.
6 Likes
Hi Sujato, thanks and while I have you, though I’m terribly slow at typing
Yes by all means. Are there any descriptions in the texts beyond those sparse labels?
Will try. Easier said than done. The absence of substance and essence is see through 
Obviously not! but I thought I had the outline…
Yep, sorry, you probbaly get that all the time
Could you please tell me: is MN121 an EBT, or EBT with later changes, or not EBT?
Thanks in advance for your time and scholarly approach, very much appreciated
The term EBT is used on this forum to refer to the Pali Tripitaka and it’s paralells in the Chinese Agamas, as well as parallels in the Tibetan, Sanskrit and various Prakrits. So all of MN is “EBT” by that definition.
As for what is “early” and what is “late” in the EBT’s that is a matter of some controversy, arguments are sometimes made where the Agama parallels lack content that is in the Pali that the Pali content is therefore late, some wiser heads than mine claim that changes in aorist tense or changes in poetic metre can indicate lateness, and some (myself included) claim that there is internal doctrinal evolution suggestive of strata of earliness and lateness in the Tripitaka.
Long story short it would be a brave soul who was willing to bet their home on the earliness or lateness of MN121 relative to the rest of the sutta pitaka.
That said, it does appear to be quite unique in its presentation of the meditative attainments it describes, for example I think it is much more common for the 4 jhanas to be given as the “basis” from which the formless attainments are achieved, and it is much more common to see “the cessation of perception and feeling” at the end of the sequence than the “signless immersion of heart”.
1 Like
In Patisambhidamagga, Treatise on Emptiness, §6, supreme emptiness (or voidness) is the same as Nibbana, Nibbana is supreme emptiness, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishment of all substrata of being, cessation, the exhaustion (destruction) of craving, the fading away of greed,
1 Like
Thank you for your very helpful and equanimous response, bringing news I’m glad to hear because it turns out I’ve been reading the Pali translation of the MN all along, by Bhikkhus Nanamoli and Bodhi, just never registered that for some reason.
I barely understand the early or late rationale as I’d worry more if Agama parallels contain something the Pali don’t, and I’m afraid I don’t accept doctrinal evolution theory of any kind, because it could turn out to be a kind of subconscious selective reporting of what I wanted it to be. I’m also very sensitive the amount of paraphrasing there is in translations; I once read Life is pain and found it to be a bit of a turn off. Twenty years later I read This is unsatisfactory, O monks, this, namely, birth, aging and death. Big turn on. Well, infinitely more inviting to my curiosity anyway. Thanks for backgrounding me.
I couldn’t agree more. Incidentally the very next sutra MN122, also about emptiness, actually does lead Ananda through the jhanas, but not to the formless attainments or cessation. Perhaps another little anomaly in the general schematic…
Little details like this pop up here and there in the sutras, have puzzled me for twenty years or more, and still searching for answers, thanks for yours.
1 Like
Many thanks for the pointer, I’ll dig out my DN; there’s a miniature version in there. Any other mention of emptiness in talk by the Buddha specifically that you know? 
I think, 4 formless attainments is a fourth jhana itself. They has all factors of fourth jhana, namely - onepointedness of mind, nor-pain-nor-pleasure feeling, but an object is changed to a formless things - space, consciousness, nothing, feeble perception.
Formless stait is’nt seperate level of a jhana(there is not 5th jhana) because an object doesn’t determine level of a jhana, but a factors does. One rupa object could give fuel for every of the four jhanas - that mean that object doesn’t determine it.
1 Like
In the book Compassion and Emptiness Anālayo gives the opinion that perception/ nonperception slipped into that text later during the transmission process and wasn’t there at all originally.
Just to note that Bhante @Sujato has just been teaching a course on the Pārāyanavagga, where the Brahmins question the Buddha about how to progress. As Bhante says, the Buddha does not tell them to give up the formless attainments that they have been practising and do something else, but gives advice on how to use those attainments to progress.
4 Likes
It is strange that after attaining the formless states under his former teachers, saying their practice does not lead to enlightenment, some years later the Buddha-to-be instead recalled the first jhana he attained long before that, and then realized that is the path to enlightenment. And then he asked himself: why do I fear that pleasure of jhana?
If he had really attained the formless states, which you can only reach by going through the jhanas, then why did he still fear the jhanas? And why does he declare jhana as the path to enlightenment, but the formless states apparently weren’t? I don’t have an answer to these questions other than to say something in the texts, whatever it is, seems historically inaccurate. I do appreciate Wynne’s attempt to argue these formless are later additions (I think in 'The Origin of Buddhist Meditation), but as Ven. Sujato said, they are just too central to the suttas to be rejected as such.
Other than that, although it is said in a sutta or two that the first jhana can lead to full awakening, perhaps these suttas are inaccurate. It would make sense that the fourth jhana is required for awakening because at that point the sukha (bliss/happiness existing in the mind) is abandoned. If the mind can let go of that, then perhaps it is ready to let go of everything. Also, the fourth jhana is the purification of mindfulness and equanimity, and it does make some sense that you would need that for full enlightenment. If you actually need that fourth jhana, it may explain why the noble eightfold path (and samma samadhi) stops at the fourth jhana and does not include the formless. The fact that the Buddha seems to have needed it is quite telling as well. If enlightenment could be achieved through the first jhana, then why didn’t the greatest meditator of all just do that?
Although perhaps just abandoning the hindrances is good enough.
7 Likes
Your whole puzzlement is based on this, and this appears to be a pretty big assumption. How well supported is it by the texts? other than the fact that it’s always presented in that manner. Sure, in their final, polished, Buddhist version, that’s the paradigm. But aren’t we kind of acknowledging that all those chains (4 jhanas + some combination of formlessnesses and cessation) are probably later in origin? Did pre-Buddhist formless meditators enter them through jhana? If not, then that means jhana isn’t necessary. If so, then the question becomes, “How, then, do we define jhana?” Lots of questions; not necessarily a lot of answers.
I think the idea of attaining nibbana directly from the first jhana (presumably, by reflecting on the impermanence of its constituents) is a part of the movement towards non-jhanic, panna-vimutti and the general devaluation of Samantha practices altogether–a movement which begins in the suttas (despite the contemporary exaltation of those same practices by other suttas) and eventually swept up almost every Buddhist school, including the Mahayana.
I say this to say that you can be completely right in saying that the fourth jhana is necessary for all the reasons you listed, while elsewhere there’re paths to nibbana stemming from the first jhana, any subsequent jhana or attainment, or even a sub-jhanic level of concentration. The Buddha’s consistency doesn’t imply the texts’ consistency.
2 Likes
It really isn’t. I already explained this in my first answer in this thread, and have spoken on this many times over the years. You mischaracterize the texts, as is done by almost every commentator on this point. They don’t reject the practice of formless attainments, but the system as a whole including theory and practice.
When he first studied under these teachers, the text is careful to say that Alara Kalama spoke of the efficacy of “this teaching” (ayaṁ dhammo). The bodhisatta then began his path by memorizing “that teaching” (taṁ dhammaṁ pariyāpuṇiṁ). He then thought that Alara Kalama didn’t speak from mere faith about “this teaching” (imaṁ dhammaṁ), but has realized “this teaching” (imaṁ dhammaṁ) in his meditation. And when he left, he did so by saying “this teaching is inadequate” (taṁ dhammaṁ analaṅkaritvā).
This is not a game of “what attainment do I have to get”. It is a story of how a person’s spiritual path is shaped by the preconceptions of their philosophy. The narrative drama is not, “Boy, those meditations were a waste of time.” Rather, it is, “Even the very highest and most refined of meditation states will not bring you freedom if you have wrong view.”
Stories have beginnings, middles, and ends. What happens at the end is shaped by what happens at the beginning. That’s how narratives work; it is the reason why we tell a narrative. Any story-teller knows this, and in the very first detail plants the seed for all that follows. So when the story begins by emphasizing the memorizing of text-based philosophy, it means that this detail is crucial to understand everything that follows. This is why these events are told in narrative form.
Any account that does not consider the narrative form should be rejected out of hand. It’s like someone who reads a cake recipe, then puts all the ingredients in a heap 
and expects to get a cake. 
There’s a process that has to be followed.
This is why, when it came time for the Buddha to formulate his own conception of the path, he put right view at the beginning. Without it, nothing leads to liberation. He himself had started his meditation practice under these teachers by learning wrong view. That was the problem. And that is also why, through the suttas, the Buddha does not criticize the meditation attainments of other yogis—take for example the Parayanavagga, where he is more than happy to support a group of brahmins to continue to practice the dimension of nothingness—but relentless rejected their theories, primarily of course the atman.
Yet pretty much everyone who talks about this event simply ignores all this and proceeds as if the Buddha had said, “under my former teachers I practiced formless attainments and they didn’t lead to enlightenment”. I mean, all due respect, but go back and look at this thread: not a single person considers the narrative context at all, even after I repeatedly drew attention to it. 
His problem was not with the meditations, which he adopted into his teaching, but with the philosophy, which he rejected. And that is the crucial point of difference from his experience as a child. He was a child, he had no theory.
My previous discussion here.
This is a prime example of the problem of engineering vs story-telling:
16 Likes
I believe Buddha realised those meditative states of his teachers were only temporary states, conditioned, subject to arising and ceasing, volitionally produced. I think the Buddha did not search for something like that which is again not stable, inconstant, not reliable, produced, and so cannot function as a real refuge. Is that the narrative you refer to?
But i also ( like @Sunyo) do not see exactly why the memory of first jhana during childhood became such an important moment. Maybe because he realised that he could be happy here and now and use jhana as basis for developing insight? Does it in fact say that Buddha was unable to feel pleasure and meditate and develop insight without jhana?
Because it was the moment he realized that the key wasn’t pleasure/pain, but wholesome/unwholesome. Like many other ascetics, he had previously believed that all pleasure was bad, because sensual pleasures are bound up with unwholesome mind states.
But when he remembered his experience of the first jhana, he realized that it was a pleasure that was not connected with any unwholesome mind states, like greed and lust. So he realized that pleasure that doesn’t increase unwholesome states, pleasure that leads toward nibbana, should be pursued.
I considered: ‘I recall that when my father the Sakyan was occupied, while I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, I entered upon and abided in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion. Could that be the path to enlightenment?’ Then, following on that memory, came the realisation: ‘That is indeed the path to enlightenment.’
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.’
2 Likes
That’s not a narrative, it’s a realization. The narrative is the story of the Bodhisatta’s spiritual quest, starting with leaving home, but especially the episodes under Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta.
Buddhist concepts enter mainstream culture:
The Book of Form and Emptiness
by
Ruth Ozeki
“Themes of love, family, grief, substance abuse and mental health are touched upon with great compassion by the author. As the narrative progresses, the author paints a compelling portrait of how our interpersonal relationships are impacted by the importance we give to material belongings and the clutter we allow in our lives. Our inability to comprehend the “impermanence of form, and the empty nature of all things” often costs us our human connections.”—good reads
whispers (Buddhism has been mainstream for 2500 years …)
4 Likes
At least since Ashoka!
But, I do agree with Ajahn Geoff that there’s something perennially counter-cultural about reclusion.