" Monkey is the ninth in the 12- year cycle of Chinese zodiac. The Years of the Monkey include 1920, 1932, 1944, 1956, 1968, 1980, 1992, 2004, 2016, 2028… The monkey is a clever animal. It is usually compared to a smart person."
" People born in a year of the Monkey have magnetic personalities and are witty and intelligent. Personality traits like mischievousness, curiosity , and cleverness, make them very naughty. Monkeys are masters of practical jokes, because they like playing most of the time."
Oh! This is me:
" Rabbit is the fourth in the 12- year cycle of Chinese zodiac sign. The Years of the Rabbit include 1915, 1927, 1939, 1951, 1963, 1975, 1987, 1999, 2011, 2023… For Chinese people, the rabbit is a tame creature representing hope for a long time. It is tender and lovely." " Ladies belonging to the rabbit zodiac sign, apart from a pretty and demure appearance, have a pure heart"
“Fire Rabbit 1927, 1987 Broad-minded, smart, and flexible, with unique views”
You seem to be arguing something different than what Crizna was trying to point out. He wrote at least two excellent posts on this thread that were very clear, and is worth re-reading.
The ability to do what the teachings say is a separate issue. The main point he was getting at is the language we use needs to be coherent and consistent. For example, when scholar monks redefine body as “not physical, but a collection of mental aggregates”, or vitakka as “placing the mind” when everywhere else in the suttas it means “thinking”, this causes havoc. It has nothing to do with whether one can do jhanas or not. We are using a common language and need to be consistent in how we use words.
First, I wonder if part of the issue is a fundamental disagreement on the reference set:
Ajahn Brahmali was pointing out where ekagatta was in reference to samma samadhi. The first jhana being part of the standard definition of samma samadhi. → since ekagatta is used to describe the whole set of samadhi, which includes first jhana, then ekagatta also applies to the first jhana.
Your focus is on finding an explicit definition of ekagatta within the first jhana. → since ekagatta is not explicitly used to describe first jhana in EBT, then ekagatta isn’t a descriptor for the first jhana, even if ekagatta describes samadhi in the four jhanas.
While I struggle to understand your logic, could I check if my paraphrasing and framing of my understanding of your argument thread and of the source of disagreement with Ajahn Brahmali is correct?
The second comment is with reference to V&V. When you refer to EBT, i notice that you have made no references to the Chinese Agamas. But looking at the Chinese, it is quite clear that vitakka in the jhanas (覺, which means awareness) is a completely different character from vitakka outside the jhanas (尋, which means search, thinking). And this is repeated throughout the Chinese Agamas whenever the jhanas are referred to. How would this reconcile with your point of view?
No need for anyone to apologise. It is confusing finding one’s way around here at first.
When I read some of the ‘high end’ discussion on this site I started wondering if I was a bad meditator. Then I remembered the word path. The best way to stay on a difficult path is to put one’s foot right in front of where one is standing atm. That is the only skilful thing to do; staring at the acrobatic antics of people further up the mountain might even be a little dangerous.
I didn’t split the thread: it doesn’t seem necessary, and I couldn’t push the right button anyway. One of us might start a new thread in the Discussion category, if we’re interested in discussing experiential ramifications further. … I’m off to read MN44 and see what it says about immersion.
No. Triangulation is what I’m proposing : comparing texts to jhana experience to expert teachings. As 100’s of posts have already been written purely from a textual perspective I propose that approach is not productive, and only lead to arguments which is counter to Right speech.
I don’t read chinese and I’m not really qualified to have a view on that. But I do know that ancient Chinese is vague and abstruse enough that there’s no agreed upon unambiguous understanding of V&V in the jhanas.
One thing is for sure though, and that’s V&V in Chinese Agama passages could not be translated as “placing the mind & keeping it connected.”, as well as the sanskrit passage featured in this thread.
What’s motivating your line of questions? Why do you care about ekaggata and its framing?
Thanks for that. I need to be reminded, as one of my needs/desires/aspirations is to speed up that path so to avoid Life’s ubiquitous suffering. And then of course I trip in the act of trying to duplicate the steps of those who have gone before.
I had an emotional outburst the other day and hurt someone I love. Am I walking backwards on the path? Only time will tell.
W/Metta, Always
I’m just trying to summarise my understanding of the crux of disagreement. It’s a lot of words and details, and i’m afraid i’m losing the forest in the midst of the trees.
While it is true that ancient Chinese can be vague and abstruse, which isn’t helped by the seemingly random transliterations from Pali/Sanskrit, old Chinese is also quite precise and concise. In this case, the character for vitakka is pretty unambiguously different when used in jhana vs out of jhana; and this is repeated throughout the Chinese Agama descriptions of the first jhana. So while it might not mean “placing the mind”, it is definitely not thinking or thought.
Sometimes I think that kamma drives us to bring our red buttons next to people who push those red buttons inadvertently. The resulting squawking, howling and crying allows us to find and defuse those red buttons. Although making external amends is important, far more important is the inner search for how those red buttons are wired and how they came to be. Anger grows from craving as its defense. Focusing on remorse is a subtle defense that allows us to skip the crucial step of disarming the craving. Living in remorse we can keep our cravings. So remorse is a distraction. We waste time feeling bad when we should be digging into the dirt to see where the craving wires run to the panic red buttons. When we disarm the craving, the anger doesn’t arise because there’s nothing to defend.
Two steps forward one step back. Dust yourself off, and keep up the fight. Learn from each time the defilement overcome you, while it’s important to take ownership of what happens. Aim for even a little bit less anger, hopefully there won’t be a next time.
I was using the Chinese distinction between modern vs older Chinese, which in Chinese is simply known as 文言文; I’m not familiar with the dialect distinctions you describe, which might be from Western Sinology.
I should perhaps have caveated that there are two versions of older Chinese: the poetic form (which is the oldest version of ancient Chinese) and the old “spoken Chinese” (which nowadays is still treated as 文言文, even if it was “modern” back in the day). You can observe both styles in the Chinese Agamas, with the poetic utterances of the Buddha (amazingly) translated into equally poetic Chinese (which read like some of the classic Tang poetry), while the vernacular spoken parts of the suttas read more like “Romance of Three Kingdoms” (which was in the old spoken Chinese).
There is actually no distinction of dialects in written Chinese: meanings are largely the same across different dialects.
).
One of us might start a new thread in the Discussion category, if we’re interested in discussing experiential ramifications further. … I’m off to read MN44 and see what it says about immersion.
♂:pray:t2: