The Third Jhana - 'of which the noble ones declare'

Quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome qualities, I entered and remained in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected.

As the placing of the mind and keeping it connected were stilled, I entered and remained in the second absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of convergence, with internal clarity and confidence, and oneness of mind, without placing the mind and keeping it connected.

With the fading away of rapture, I entered and remained in the third absorption, where I meditated with equanimity, mindful and aware, personally experiencing the bliss of which the noble ones declare, ‘Equanimous and mindful, one meditates in bliss.’

With the giving up of pleasure and pain, and the ending of former happiness and sadness, I entered and remained in the fourth absorption, without pleasure or pain, with pure equanimity and mindfulness.

4 Likes

thanks for sharing the 4 jhana formula bhante.
do you use “convergence” consistently everywhere for translating samadhi?
such as "what is right convergence?"
and “samadhi-sambojjhanga” as “convergence-awakening-factor”,
or do you have several translations for samadhi based on context?

a quick short answer will do, i’m not trying to draw you into a long discussion on samadhi. i know you’re busy, and apologize in advance for taking your time. .

I appreciate that!

I am still not settled, but I am tending to use “convergence” these days.

The problem with using it is that it is not a normal psychological term, so it sounds odd in many contexts. However, it has the advantage of being meaningful and correct. In such an important doctrinal context, it seems to me that it’s more important to clarify the meaning, even at the expense of a degree of fluency and idomaticness (idiomaticality?) of the translation.

Other renderings are incorrect (“concentration”) or vague (“stillness”). But if we leave it untranslated, it becomes a cipher into which readers insert their own understanding of samādhi, which is usually as bad or worse.

5 Likes

I like ‘convergence’ a lot, simply for the reason of correctness, even though it sounds a bit odd. The only other words that don’t sound too far off to my mind are ‘unification’ and ‘integration’.
I think ‘convergence’ as a much needed improvement!

2 Likes

Well, thanks.

“Unification” is a definite possibility, but tends to be over-required for other terms.

“Integration” is a technical term in psychology that has a somewhat different meaning. Integration refers to different aspects of the psyche working together in harmony, communicating with each other well, informed by a similar set of values and purposes. Think, say, a well-functioning company or University, with different departments each doing their job, all communicating well, without toxic rivalries and so on. This is a nice description of healthy ordinary consciousness, but it’s not samādhi.

In a more general sense, samādhi can, and should be, part of an integrated overall spiritual path. So integration in Buddhism would really refer to practicing all aspects of the eightfold path, in balance and understanding, so that they effectively did their own jobs as well as supporting each other.

3 Likes

Hi Bante,

Thank you for posting this:

Do you have any comment on whether this translation matches Sylvester’s view that kāmā could be translated as “objects of sensual pleasure”? You certainly don’t translate it as “sensuality”, so perhaps you have the same meaning in mind as Sylvester, but don’t want to have the term “objects” in there. This seems to be a vexed point, so some clarification would be helpful.

Here, as kāmā is plural, it clearly refers to the external sense stimuli. So yes, I agree with Sylvester; in this case, Ven Thanissaro’s translation is incorrect.

However I prefer to avoid the use of the word “object” when talking about early Buddhism. There is no term in the description of sense experience that corresponds with the idea of “object”, which is a translation of the commentarial term ārammaṇa. In the EBTs, sense experience only happens in relationship, hence there is no room for an “object” that exists independently.

It’s true that “sensual pleasures” is ambiguous here. Perhaps “sense stimuli” would be better. @Brahmali, what do you think of this?

4 Likes

Thanks for clarifying that, Bhante. I get you point about “objects”. “Sense stimuli” is clearer, if less elegant…

2 Likes

Thanks Bhante. I’ve always had a problem with that mouthful “external sense base”, so I opt for “object” as a shorthand. Must remember to avoid any Comy connection.

1 Like

A full-time job! Which, among other requirements, also makes us get rid of “base” for āyatana. It is from the comms that the idea that āyatana often or primarily means “base” or “cause”, whereas the primary meaning in the suttas is “field, scope, dimension”. That is obviously what it means in the senses, so I use “sense fields”. For meditation attainments, I use, eg. “the dimension of infinite space”.

3 Likes

A worthy cause, nonetheless, Bhante.

Who knows? It may bring us closer to resolving that issue of whether any contextual difference exists between āyatana and indriya, where they pertain to the senses.

Earlier, you mentioned -

How does this fit in with MN 28’s presentation of contact? It seems to allow for sense data (a neutral term for now) to have existence apart from the corresponding sense faculty.

I haven’t translated it yet …

i’m guessing Bhante your intent was for samadhi in the context of jhana also to include the aspect of the noble eightfold path converging quoted above?

in satipatthana mula sutta, you use “convergence” for ekayano as well, presumably also to be inclusive of eightfold path?

dictionary.com has

www.dictionary.com/browse/convergenceconvergence con·ver·gence (kən-vûr’jəns) n. The process of coming together or the state of having come together toward a common point. Such a gathering at a single preganglionic motor neuron of several postganglionic motor neurons. The coordinated turning of the eyes inward to focus on an object at close range.

No, my point is that “convergence” and “integration” are quite different things. Samādhi is "convergence’, a temporary unification of the mind withdrawn from the senses. There is, so far as I know, no Pali word that closely corresponds to “integration” in the sense I outlined above.

The use of “convergence” for ekāyana preceded my use of it for samādi. As it happens, I am translating MN 10 today, so let’s see what I come up with!

3 Likes

It’s still not clear to me that “object” is so problematic. Yes, there is no independent external object with fixed characteristics, etc. But I don’t think most people use this word in this way. When we say “an object of meditation” we just mean whatever we focus on, without any metaphysical implications. I would say the same goes for “objects” of ordinary sense experience.

I feel we should focus on the everyday usage of words and leave philosophical implications as a distant secondary concern. I have heard all sort of people use “object of mediation” - even the best of meditators - without it having any detrimental effect on their progress. It seems more important to me to let people know of the dangers of the Abhidhamma and that it is not really the word of the Buddha. It is only then that these problems can be avoided.

As for “stillness” being a vague rendering of samādhi, this is of course true. But the same argument could be made for so many of the words used in translation. The fact is that the English language is deficient in words that relate to deep meditation, since mediation is largely foreign to Northern European culture. But it should be clear enough that when “stillness” is used in a meditation context it refers to no ordinary stillness. I think people will get that, just as they get all sorts of things about how words are used in context.

Well, you asked me to comment …

6 Likes

I agree, and I would be happy to use “object” if it was really necessary. But so far I haven’t found it to be so. Actually, I just checked and I only use “object” in the phrase “a long-distance shooter, a marksman, and one who shatters large objects.”

In translation this context is often unclear. The term pops up constantly in verse, or lists of doctrinal terms, where there is no real context. I tried using “stillness” and it just ended up being too wishy-washy in too many places. So sure, you can try to expand the rendering in such contexts, but that gets clumsy fast.

Having said which, I go back and forth on this every second Tuesday, or so it seems.

2 Likes

I really like this treatment of vitarka and vicāra. It very closely conforms to classical definitions, and also makes clear sense in the formula, and even in those of the few texts in the SĀ which treat vitarka and vicāra as positive factors.

6 Likes

Thanks, nice to know I’m not too far off base. It is a hard one, and it gets clumsy in some contexts, but i’m reasonably happy with it so far.

if we translate samaadhi as stillness, then how do you distinguish from samatha and passadhi? here in SN 46.2 samatha-nimitta is defined as the nutriment for samaadhi-sambojjhanga

(english is b.bodhi’s i think)

Ko ca, bhikkhave,
“And what, bhikkhus,
āhāro anuppannassa vā samā­dhi­sam­boj­jhaṅ­gassa uppādāya,
is the nutriment for the arising of the unarisen enlightenment factor of concentration
uppannassa vā samā­dhi­sam­boj­jhaṅ­gassa bhāvanāya pāripūriyā?
and for the fulfilment by development of the arisen enlightenment factor of concentration?
Atthi, bhikkhave,
There are, bhikkhus,
sama­tha­nimittaṃ
the sign of serenity,
abyag­ga­nimittaṃ.
the sign of nondispersal:
Tattha yoniso­ma­nasikā­ra­bahu­līkāro– ayamāhāro anuppannassa vā samā­dhi­sam­boj­jhaṅ­gassa uppādāya,
frequently giving careful attention to them is the nutriment for the arising of the unarisen enlightenment factor of concentration
uppannassa vā samā­dhi­sam­boj­jhaṅ­gassa bhāvanāya pāripūriyā.
and for the fulfilment by development of the arisen enlightenment factor of concentration.

by the way, where can i get a definition for abyag­ga­ of abyag­ga­nimittaṃ?
SC has no entry for abyagga. DPR breaks down the compound as “aby-agga” with agga meaning “highest, foremost, peak”

Hi Gabriel and others,

I haven’t read the entire discussion, so keep that in mind. May do so later offline.

Anyway, what I was referring toin SN 48.50 is (Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation): “As to these things that previously I had only heard about, now I dwell having contacted them with the body and, having pierced them through with wisdom, I see.”

Here is my own work-in-progress translation of the jhana:

When joy disappears as well, you come to dwell in the third jhana, where, even-minded, alert, and aware, you personally experience pleasure, which noble ones describe as ‘dwelling pleasurably, even-minded, alert’.

And the rest for good measure:
And what is right unification of mind? Then, when you get fully secluded from sensory experiences and secluded from unwholesome states, you come to dwell in the first jhana, where there is joy and pleasure coming from seclusion, to which the mind moves and holds on. When the moving and holding subside, you come to dwell in the second jhana, where the mind is inwardly confident and united, so there is no moving or holding on, but just joy and pleasure coming from unification of mind. When joy disappears as well, you come to dwell in the third jhana, where, even-minded, alert, and aware, you personally experience pleasure, which noble ones describe as ‘dwelling pleasurably, even-minded, alert’. when pleasure and displeasure are left behind, and happiness and unhappiness have come to an end earlier, you come to dwell in the fourth jhana, where there is a neutral sensation with pure even-mindedness and alertness. That is what’s called right unification of mind.”

Metta!
Sunyo

2 Likes