SuttaCentral
I would like to rephrase this as “in the suttas physical pleasures are always contrasted to the jhanas”.
Sorry for bumping an old topic, but similar issues are currently being discussed in another topic (Jhanas & the body), where I referred to this one. And I thought it was important to rephrase this, but can no longer edit my post. 
The mental formations that come from Metta and Karuna are Transcendental to that of physical pleasures, and the emotional wellbeing of equanimity is a wonderful gift from meditation. To Love others perfectly is the Way of the Buddha, and for this world to not grasp onto the World-Honored One, but swift as a deer He lives in the city of Emancipation–specifically in order to give Metta to others.
Hi Sunyo,
This seems to be an inconsistency only if you view sati as something very different from samādhi. However, keeping in mind, retention (sati) is an essential part of the samādhi-khandha.
Of course, since jhāna practice is a process of burning defilements. This process is self-sustaining, - the more you burn, the stronger the fire.
Chinese versions of the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta include jhānas.
Indeed, for those who don’t know how this works, it may seem strange that corpse contemplation also leads to joy and rapture. However it does, if you apply the ancient methods. The Ānāpāna Vagga and the Nirodha Vagga of the Bojjhaṅga Saṃyutta (SN 46.57-76) explain that the items listed in the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta and the Ānāpānassati Sutta, — namely, a skeleton, a worm-infested, livid, dismembered or bloated corpse, breathing, unattractiveness, inconstancy, dispassion and cessation, — can serve as bases for the development of the seven enlightenment factors.
Well, the purpose of the commentary is to clarify the meanings of the words, and not to mention everything.
Of course, since the methods of the modern meditators are very different from the ancient ones.
People nowadays too often hastily reject these or that parts of the suttas because they don’t understand them. However, it’s to be expected that ancient almost forgotten methods don’t make immediate sense after more than two thousand years of vicissitudes.
Ajahn Anan talks about developing piti while contemplating the foulness of the body :
These images then became more clear, to the point of becoming samadhi- nimittas (visions). Sometimes I imagined blood running, dripping down from my moth all down my body, until strong feelings of revulsion would come up straight away. If I developed it further, it looked so real that it would make me throw up. This is what can come about simply through visualization in meditation. When one develops this practice constantly, seeing the body as clearly as loathsome inside and out, eventually gives rise to piti. Seeing the body as impure, the mind gets pure all the more. Piti arises. Then sukha arises - very powerful - and then stillness of mind. The mind enters peace.
Hi Nibbanka,
Yes. But that’s my point. So let me clarify: the Chinese versions also contain many other practices under kayagatasati which are quite clearly added later, which have nothing to do with the body, like perceiving light, fighting the mind with clenched teeth, and a few others. So these Chinese text seem to have been lengthened with the addition of stock passages that were put in a context where they don’t really belong. (Something that is also not too uncommon in the Pali canon.) That indicates, as Analayo and Sujato argued, the jhanas may also be additions to the Chinese Satipatthana Suttas (in fact, they add just the similies; not the standard jhana formulas). If we compare the Pali Kayagatasati Sutta to the Pali Satipatthana Suttas, it seems to be similarly lengthened with the addition of the jhanas. So a similar process seems to have been at work.
Exactly how the process went, is, however, kind of secondary. It’s just extra proof for my basic argument: that the jhanas were not originally part of the Kayagatasati Sutta.
Because this would by itself already explain away the inconsistencies of the Kayagatasati Sutta which I mentioned. It resolves a large number of inconsistencies with a single assumption, which I think makes it quite a strong case.
What you are referring is where one thing leads to another, or “serve as basis” for another. And that’s indeed coherent with the suttas, where sati is often said to lead to samadhi. But here, in the Kayagatasati Sutta, the two (jhana and sati) are not successive; instead, they are of the same order. (And jhana is effectively said to lead to jhana…?) That is not how other suttas talk about these things. (E.g. sati and jhana are of separate factors of the path.)
As I briefly said, the Kayagatasati sutta is to my knowledge unique in calling jhana the development of sati. Elsewhere, the jhanas are the development of samadhi, not of sati.
In other words, I’m not saying Kayagatasati can’t lead to the jhanas. In fact, that is exactly what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that Kayagatasati is not itself jhanas. And that the inclusion of jhanas under Kayagatasati is something unique to this sutta in the Pali canon.
But the commentary doesn’t just clarify terms here: it is actually inconsistent with the sutta. Because it effectively says it doesn’t need to explain anything, because it was all already treated in the kaya section of the Satipatthana Sutta. But the jhanas aren’t found in that section, while in the Kayagatasati sutta they are. The commentary even mentions the number of practices of the Kayagatasati to be 14, which is true in the Satipatthana Sutta, but plainly wrong for the Kayagatasati Sutta, where there are 18 (with the four jhanas as extra). Thus it seems like either the commentary read a different text where the jhanas weren’t there. Or else it made quite an oversight.
In short: It’s not just that the commentary leaves the jhanas out; it is that it doesn’t align with the text it comments on.
That’s interesting, and if it would be because the text was later than the commentary, that may be unique. So therefore I’m hesitant to go that far. That’s why I just called it “odd”… 
Statements such as these are unfortunately inaccurate or biased. Because it can be said that sati is the conditioning of samadhi. There is no samadhi without the establishment of sati.
If we look at the Noble Eightfold Path, then right mindfulness (samma-sati), right effort (samma-vayama) and right concentration (samma-samadhi) are in the same category: Samadhi.
So in seeing problems like this, it should even be an inspiration for us, that the contemplation of the body (kayanupassana) which is the first part of Satipatthana, it can condition the attainment of jhana. Not the other way around: “See in Satipatthana there is no mention of jhana then jhana is outside of Satipatthana”.
For things like this, we need to build a complete dhamma framework first so we can see the big picture. So that we can see so many consistent relationships between one Sutta and another, instead we direct our minds to the gaps in our incomplete understanding and then use them as a knife for analysis of the Sutta Pitaka.
Of course not to forget, our practice directly in the dhamma will also affect the “direct understanding” of the dhamma framework.
I’m not denying sati doesn’t condition samadhi. In fact, that’s exactly what I say a number of times, for example:
However, that does not make sati EQUAL to samadhi.
The suttas are usually very categorical with things, especially things like the four noble truths and the eight factors of the path. So what I was saying is: the seventh step of the path, the factor of sati, nowhere else to my knowledge includes the jhanas as a practice. Whereas in this suttas the jhanas are implied to be so.
Instead of being the outcome of the practice they are said to be the practice itself.
Of course, in practice we can make all sort of connections. But that’s not how what I’m talking about. I’m looking at it textually, at how the Buddha categorized his teachings. Because that’s more appropriate to do when analyzing whether a certain text is authentic or not.
MN 119 Kaya Gata Sati Sutta is a bit vague for non practitioner. However, if you practice accordingly by bringing your mind to within your body and calm it down, eventually you will realize that your mind will be calm down as well. Because there is no mind.
Mind/Citta is just activity of body, anyone can stop it if they follow Buddha instructions correctly (step by step).
Using MN 118 Anapanassati (as the simple practice step) and using MN 10 Satipatthana Sutta (for the details/insight), you can actively understood the whole Samma Sati steps. If you do it correctly, you will be in Samma Samadhi (jhana) and you will satisfy the satta bojjhanga (awakening, step 6 is 1st jhana and step 7 is 4th jhana). When you are at 4th jhana, you will need to “correct” your thinkings/thoughts dhammanupassana (tetrad 4).
In Anapanassati and satipatthana, The samadhi part occurs at tetrad 3.
Anapanassati: They practice breathing in immersing the citta (mood/mind) in samādhi. They practice breathing out immersing the citta (mood/mind) in samādhi.
Satipatthana: They know citta immersed in samādhi as ‘citta immersed in samādhi,’ and citta not immersed in samādhi as ‘citta not immersed in samādhi.’
Note: Anapanassati + satipatthana need to be done 24 hours/day. So it is not an easy practice for lay people even for a monk. You also need to have right view, calm conducts, calm life and willing to let go the senses desire. Basically Noble Eightfold path is 24 hours practice.
Hope this help.
Thank you for this interesting post. I was curious about your comment below:
Most likely you are aware that there is a nice translation of the Madhyama Āgama available free at: The Madhyama Āgama (Middle-Length Discourses), Vol. II – BDK America I think, as I look through the MA translation, that the jhana formula IS located in MA81. The translation of MA81 mentions: “A monk completely drenches and pervades his body with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion…” I believe this is the basic jhana formula for the first jhana, however, it elides mention of directed thought and evaluation (vitakka/vicara) It is on page 103 of the numbered document, or page 121 of the PDF .
Also, it seems that one of your key concerns for MN119 is the refrain:
As they meditate like this—diligent, keen, and resolute—memories and thoughts of the lay life are given up. Their mind becomes stilled internally; it settles, unifies, and becomes immersed in samādhi. That too is how a mendicant develops mindfulness of the body.
I believe this refrain is not present in MA81, though. Instead, there appears to be a different refrain:
In this way a monk, however he acts with his body, he knows it as [described] above, as it really is. In this way, dwelling in a secluded spot, with a mind free from indolence, practicing energetically, he removes any defilements from the mind and attains concentration of the mind. Having attained concentration of the mind, he knows [the body] as [described] above, as it really is. This is how a monk cultivates mindfulness of the body.
Thus, to present an alternate perspective, it may be that the basic jhana formulas and jhana similes were present in the original MN119 and are not a later addition as supported by the fact that they are essentially in MA81, but the refrain has been substantially modified.
One last point: MN118, the Anapanasati Sutta, does also link mindfulness of breathing with the jhana states in that it concludes by mentioning that mindfulness of breathing can lead to the seven enlightenment factors (bojjhangas), which some, like Gethin, feel are closely coupled with the jhanas.
Yes, many people have been pointing out how the initial phrase of each of the four dhyanas is present in the MA parallels, which is suggestive. There are couple things to consider:
This whole context tells me that Sarvastivadins didn’t equate the similes with dhyana the way Theravadins did, despite those snippets of the formulas being present. It was probably because Sarvastivadins were a very philosophical school of Buddhism, famous for their edifices of Abhidharma. Likely, they decided the similes can’t be referring to dhyanas on philosophical grounds and placed them with the first abode of mindfulness instead.
Now, there is another EBT school that did associate the similes with the four dhyanas: The Dharmaguptakas.
And I should correct what I had said a while back:
Now that I have studied their Dirgha Agama as I’ve translated it over the past year, I did discover that the four similes are treated the same way in DA 20. The confusion is caused by the fact that the Pali Ambhatta Sutta (DN 3) is largely abbreviated, but the abbreviation would contain the same material as in DN 2. In DA, the parallel to DN 2 doesn’t contain any of it; rather it’s all found in DA 20 (DN 3). So, it seems as though the Theravadins expanded DN 2 with material from DN 3, then abbreviated DN 3. Or something like that.
In any case, though, it would be wonderful if someday we discovered a copy of the Dharmaguptaka Madhyama Agama to see if it contains features like the four similes in common with MN. I would suspect it probably did, but it’s lost to the mists of time now, so we can’t really know. The Dharmaguptaka DA and Abhidharma are very similar to the Theravada parallels; it seems as though they both descend from the same canonical root. The Sarvastivadins are somewhat different in many respects, this issue of the similes and the four dhyanas being one of them.
Do you know why there is so many versions? It is because of lost on time, lost due to geographically, lost due to memory, lost due to misinterpretation.
But we should appreciate that Buddha teaching is still present now, we have so many collections. One who practice can cross reference and investigate with direct experience. But it is important to start from non-controversial version first (4 Nikayas). One who practice step by step will reach Nibbana here and now. Nibbana is not only an after death.
Also, The starting point/ the door to deathless is Right view. Do you know how to get right view? One who has right view, know the complete path and independent of teacher.
Hi, thanks for your reply! 
MA81 only has the similes, that’s the “drenches and pervades his body with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion”. The standard formula is “secluded from sense pleasures” and so on; the part which also numbers the jhanas. You see the translator has to add the jhana numbers to clarify what the passage is about:
A monk completely drenches and pervades his body with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion [experienced in the first absorptionerienced in the first absorption] (p103)
The standard formula you find for example on page 344:
Secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from evil and unwholesome states, I entered and abided in the first absorption, which is with [directed] awareness and [sustained] contemplation, with rapture and happiness born of seclusion
So MA81 leaves out this bit, which I think indicates the similes to be later additions.
Could be, but then there is still other problems, like the jhanas being mentioned in the results at the end of the sutta.
Yes, but that’s the point. As you say, it leads to jhanas. Mindfulness of breath (or body) is not itself identical jhana.
Again, a monk cultivates mindfulness of the body [as follows]. A monk completely drenches and pervades his body with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion [experienced in the first absorption], so that there is no part within his body that is not pervaded by rapture and pleasure born of seclusion.
If we take out the translators insertion, we have
Again, a monk cultivates mindfulness of the body. A monk completely drenches and pervades his body with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion, so that there is no part within his body that is not pervaded by rapture and pleasure born of seclusion.
Rapture and pleasure born of seclusion is talking about the 1st Jhāna, no?
Yes, but it does still not have the standard formula of “Secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from evil and unwholesome states, I entered and abided in the first absorption, which is with [directed] awareness and [sustained] contemplation, with rapture and happiness born of seclusion”. That’s the point.
At the very least it indicates that the Pali and Chinese are different, so something here is not original, whatever it is.
No, but since “rapture and pleasure born of seclusion” is always found with the 1st Jhāna it seems very likely that this is what the reciters of this text had in mind. You do find with parallels that the same thing can be said, but in slightly different ways. That seems to be what we have here. Short of having an example where rapture and pleasure born of seclusion occurs outside of Jhāna, it is reasonable to conclude that both texts are talking about one in the same thing. Namely, a more “embodied” and less absorbed view of Jhāna akin to what we find in the later Dhyāna sutras. Now this could be an insertion. That isn’t impossible, but it could also be some textual loss or just a different albeit unique way of phrasing. Sometimes said rephrasing does occur in the texts.
Since these similes occur in both canons, if they were inserted they were done so before the two traditions split. A question then to ask would be, why would the Sarvāstivādins and Theravādins do this? Both traditions viewed Jhāna as being an absorbed state either from the very 1st Jhāna onwards (Theravādins) or from the 2nd Jhāna onwards (Sarvāstivādins), yet these similes undermine the claims of both schools. It would be strange then for said schools to insert something into a text which undermines it’s own interpretation. It would make more sense if they tried to remove them.
There can be various reasons, I don’t think we can ever know why certain choices were made. My assumption is that it was based on the word “kāya”, trying to include every practice that mentions it, even though in the jhana formulas and similes the word means something different (imo) from the physical body.
Fact remains that the texts are different. As Analayo writes in his comparative study:
While the Kāyagatāsati-sutta at first describes the attainment of each jhāna, before turning to the effect of the jhāna on the body, its Madhyama-āgama parallel dispenses with this description
So I’m taking a step back from imagining what the compilers have had in mind, and just note the difference as one evidence that at least some of the texts is not original.
I aldo don’t think we can say Theravadins and Sarvastivadins had one fixed view, or that one canon is exclusive to the other. Or, more importantly, that these views were always carefully considered in compilation of texts.
We can’t know for sure, no, and as we know the whole “absorbed vs non-absorbed” debate has been around in the Buddhist world for over 2000 years. Personally I think we even see said tensions in the early texts themselves (incidentally another opinion of mine is that both experiences are Jhāna).
So I’m taking a step back from imagining what the compilers have had in mind, and just note the difference as one evidence that at least some of the texts is not original.
I don’t see how it is evidence though Bhante. Take for example the fact that talking simply about “rapture and pleasure born of seclusion” can be found in other texts as being simply a short-handed way of talking about Jhāna, then it is entirely possible that this was the original to both texts and the Theravādin reciter simply added at some point what he thought was the full wording as per the more common Jhāna pericope. That is entirely possible, and would mean that the similes are original.
I agree. What I tried to say there is that at least one of the texts is not fully original. It could be that one of the two is fully original, theoretically.
But the fact that even one is unoriginal is illustrative. It makes it not unreasonable to suggest both are edited. In other words, that one bit, the formulas, may have been added in the Pali, allows space that the similes were also additions to a now-lost original text. Because shows that the compilers weren’t transmitting the passage correctly all the time, whether intentionally or not.
By itself this single argument of course doesn’t hold much water. So to that I added the other arguments, for example that the Chinese mentions other practices that seemingly have nothing to do with the body, which are not found in the Pali. And so on.
This is an interesting hypothesis. I was looking at the Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam and there is record of one argument between (as I understand it) Sautrāntika (Dārṣṭāntika) and Sarvāstivāda (Vaibhāṣika), where the Sautrāntika says essentially that in the first three jhānas there is only a bodily sensation of happiness. The Sarvāstivādin replies that there is both bodily and mental sensation of happiness, whereby the Sautrantika says that the word “mental” has been interpolated and isn’t in the original text. On the following page the Sarvāstivādin once again asserts that happiness is a bodily sensation in the first two jhānas.
This is all on pp. 1232-3 of Pruden’s translation of Vol. 4. (Ch. 8).
Since I’m joining this discussion in the middle I’m not sure how relevant this is to the points being made. But if the point being made is that the similes involve bodily awareness of jhāna, this bodily awareness seems to have been accepted by the Sarvastivadins and emphasized by the Sautrantikas, at least with regard to certain of the sensations in jhāna in the AKB.