Shades of meaning from concrete to abstract in most all highly developed languages. As per the “How language evolves” section in V. Sujato’s original essay (“Why vitakka doesn’t mean ‘thinking’ in jhana”). I’ve run good documentation of this also, for instance, in ancient Chinese medical language.
V. Thanissaro apparently interprets interchanging abstraction for the more specific here, as it might be argued to fit more easily in English.
It’s apparently quite fashionable to criticize V. Thanissaro’s translations, but that’s in itself just another interpretation, as much as it might pretend to some sort of higher, philological ground. A thicket of views, no matter how you cut it.
My understanding of this:
kama = sensuality (as in a broad, nebulous concept of ‘pleasures’)
kamaguna = the specific modalities in which these pleasures are experienced
kamaraga= desire for kama.
sukha vedana (pleasant sensations) gives rise to kama, in the presence of ignorance. In an arahanth where ignorance is abandoned it doesn’t give rise to kama, but is experienced as sukha vedana.
In the first jhana, kama cannot arise due to the suppression of the hindrances, therefore only sukha vedana can arise (this is why piti and sukha are felt).
Sound distracts from the object of concentration in the first jhana and is not helpful in stabilising concentration in it. Therefore it is ‘a thorn’. This is rupa jhana and sound is rupa as well. It is also in the rupa plane and not in the kama plane; therefore any sound, sight, sensation etc experienced wont give rise to sensual pleasure (kama).
Bhante, I have not had the time to read all of the 115 posts in this thread, but I have seen the following point mentioned in one of them, although not addressed directly to the discussion about “thorns”, so I thought I would chip in my 2 cents.
Here is a quote from AN 9.41:
"So at a later time, having seen the drawback of directed thought, I pursued that theme; having understood the reward of being without directed thought, I familiarized myself with it. My heart leaped up at being without directed thought, grew confident, steadfast, & firm, seeing it as peace. With the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, I entered & remained in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance.
"As I remained there, I was beset with attention to perceptions dealing with directed thought. That was an affliction for me. Just as pain arises as an affliction for a healthy person, even so the attention to perceptions dealing with directed thought that beset me was an affliction for me.
It seems that the expression “I was beset with attention to perceptions dealing with directed thought”, which describes vitakka as “an affliction” just like “pain arises as an affliction in a healthy person” corresponds quite closely to the concept of “a thorn”.
So if we interpret the “thorn” in AN 10.72 as meaning the “affliction” that represent “attention to perceptions dealing with directed thought” (vitakka-sahagatā saññā-manasikārā), then the thorn simile is consistent throughout AN 10.72 in the understanding that it represents “something that creates difficulties for what it touches” rather than “something that cannot be present without destroying what it pierces”, since in AN 9.41, “attention to perceptions dealing with directed thought” do not “destroy” the first jhana but bring some kind of “pain” into it, arguably like a thorn.
It would be consistent with “seclusion/company”, “developing the sign of loathsomeness/an agreeable sign”, being “protected in the mental faculties/sight seeing”, “leading a celebate life/the behavior of a woman”. For each jhana, an interpretation along the lines of AN 9.41 would continue with a consistent image of “thorn” mirroring “affliction” or “pain”, while not “destroying” the state it afflicts. This understanding is also supported by the last three items:
"Greed is a thorn. Hate is a thorn and delusion is a thorn.
Here thorn is also quite clearly understandable as “affliction” or “pain”.
So AT may have expressed himself in a dubious manner at some points, but there is an understanding that seems to be consistent with the suttas and with the general arguments he makes regarding the interpretation of AN 10.72.
I still think there is a problem. Imagine that you are peacefully reading a book. If there is a loud noise, it is very likely you will be disturbed, at least momentarily. This is analogous to Ajahn Thanissaro’s understanding of how noise disturbs you in the first jhāna.
Now imagine that you are reading the same book, but this time with a pair of noise-proof earmuffs. The external sound will no longer disturb you. But when you are finished reading and remove the earmuffs, you will again here sounds - and what a pain they are! This is how I understand the first jhāna.
Let’s look at this from the point of view of the second jhāna. Vitakka and vicāra are quite different from sounds in that they are phenomena internal to the meditator. When you enter jhāna, you do so with a certain "momentum"of stillness. In the second jhāna, vitakka and vicāra are kept at bay until that momentum is used up. Once the momentum is used up, you naturally emerge from the jhāna. The first thing you will experience is vitakka and vicāra, and they will indeed appear unpleasant, like a thorn even. But they haven’t penetrated the jhāna in the same way that noise penetrates ordinary consciousness.
I say this idea of “momentum” is also applicable to the first jhāna. If noise penetrates the first jhāna, however, the momentum of the attainment is itself interrupted. This would be different from what happens in second jhāna. The meditation does not come to a “natural” conclusion, but is cut of by the sound. In AT’s words: “noise is a thorn for the first jhana simply means that noise makes it difficult to enter or remain there.” “Makes it diffcult to … remain,” must mean the attainment is cut off.
That vitakka and vicāra are incompatible with the second jhāna follows from the definition of this attainment. Using this as an analogy for the first jhāna, noise should be incompatible with the first jhāna, and thus no interruption of the momentum should be possible. But if I understand AT correctly, he is saying that such an interruption of the momentum is possible, and perhaps even that sounds can be heard within the attainment itself.
if first jhana is that cut off from sensory perception (sounds, mosquito bites), then why is noise said to be a thorn for first jhana? it wouldn’t even be worth mentioning by the buddha, if you had to “remove the headphones”, that is, actually exit such a pristine samadhi for noise to be a thorn.
if the buddha has to make a point of saying sound is a thorn, i would think rather than having sound proof earmuffs, those are actually poor quality ear muffs that reduce sound, but are still “thorny” in the samadhi of a plain reading of standard first formula jhana.
a sutta (SN 36 something?) says vāca/speech ceases in the first jhana, and the numerous suttas say 5 hindrances are close by, like they’re a threat to pull you out of first jhana at any moment. speaking and having five hindrances close by are very coarse activities compared to a samadhi where you’ve already got an imperturbable momentum to stay unaffacted by thorns for a period of time.
“Lord, when a disciple of the noble ones enters & remains in seclusion & rapture, there are five possibilities that do not exist at that time: The pain & distress dependent on sensuality do not exist at that time. […]
This seems to indicate that a noise thorn can not be present during jhanas.
From my reading of the suttas, it seems like sensory perceptions from the 5 senses (e.g. sound) only cease upon the first formless attainment. For example, in MN 8:
“It is possible here that with the abandoning of pleasure and pain, and with the previous disappearance of joy and grief, some bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the fourth jhāna, which has neither-pain-nor-pleasure and purity of mindfulness due to equanimity. He might think thus: ‘I am abiding in effacement.’ But it is not these attainments that are called ‘effacement’ in the Noble One’s Discipline: these are called ‘pleasant abidings here and now’ in the Noble One’s Discipline.
“It is possible here that with the complete surmounting of perceptions of form, with the disappearance of perceptions of sensory impact, with non-attention to perceptions of diversity, aware that ‘space is infinite,’ some bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the base of infinite space. He might think thus: ‘I am abiding in effacement.’ But it is not these attainments that are called ‘effacement’ in the Noble One’s Discipline: these are called ‘peaceful abidings’ in the Noble One’s Discipline.
Based just on reading this description of the jhanas and 1st formless attainment, it seems clear that perceptions of form and perceptions of sensory impact still remain in the 4 jhanas, only leaving completely in the 1st formless attainment. The bolded part being put there in the descriptions strongly implies that such perceptions of form and sense-impact have not disappeared in the earlier jhanas.
However, the Vism. takes a different point of view. I don’t find the reasons it gives for the claimed lack of sense-perceptions in the first jhana very convincing. Below is a rough copy-paste of part of page 324-325 from the online Vism. found here. (For some reason, the numbering is being auto-formatted to start at 1 here when it should start at 16.)
With the disappearance of perceptions of resistance: perceptions of resistance
are perceptions arisen through the impact of the physical base consisting of the
eye, etc., and the respective objects consisting of visible objects etc.; and this is a
term for perception of visible objects (rúpa) and so on, according as it is said:
“Here, what are perceptions of resistance? Perceptions of visible objects,
perceptions of sounds, perceptions of odours, perceptions of flavours, perceptions
of tangible objects—these are called ‘perceptions of resistance’” (Vibh 261);
with the complete disappearance, the abandoning, the non-arising, of these ten
kinds of perceptions of resistance, that is to say, of the five profitable-resultant
and five unprofitable-resultant;6
causing their non-occurrence, is what is meant.
Of course, these are not to be found in one who has entered upon the first
jhána, etc., either; for consciousness at that time does not occur by way of the five
doors. Still [330] the mention of them here should be understood as a
recommendation of this jhána for the purpose of arousing interest in it, just as in
the case of the fourth jhána there is mention of the pleasure and pain already
abandoned elsewhere, and in the case of the third path there is mention of the
[false] view of personality, etc., already abandoned earlier.
Or alternatively, though these are also not to be found in one who has
attained the fine-material sphere, still their not being there is not due to their
having been abandoned; for development of the fine-material sphere does not
lead to fading of greed for materiality, and the occurrence of those [fine-material
jhánas] is actually dependent on materiality. But this development [of the
immaterial] does lead to the fading of greed for materiality. Therefore it is allowable
to say that they are actually abandoned here; and not only to say it, but to
maintain it absolutely.
In fact it is because they have not been abandoned already before this that
it was said by the Blessed One that sound is a thorn to one who has the first
jhána (A V 135). And it is precisely because they are abandoned here that the
imperturbability (see Vibh 135) of the immaterial attainments and their state of
peaceful liberation are mentioned (M I 33), and that Á¿ára Káláma neither saw
the five hundred carts that passed close by him nor heard the sound of them
while he was in an immaterial attainment (D II 130).
Infinite space abiding:
“with the complete surmounting of perceptions of form, with the disappearance of perceptions of sensory impact, with non-attention to perceptions of diversity, aware that ‘space is infinite,’ some bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the base of infinite space”
Rupa Jhana 1~4 abiding:
“with the complete surmounting of perceptions of form, with the disappearance of perceptions of sensory impact, aware that 'mind object,’ some bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the rupa jhana”
Upacara samadhi abiding:
“with the complete surmounting of perceptions of bodily form, some bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the upacara samadhi”
Here’s a thought that I’ve often had about the jhanas:
If you assume the jhanas are without the five senses, then if you aim for that and it turns out to be wrong, there’s no danger because letting go of stuff is what you have to do anyway.
By erring on the side of letting go of things, there’s no danger.
However, if you assume that you don’t have to let go of the five senses to have right samadhi, but this happens to be wrong, then you won’t be able to attain right samadhi, because you’re stopped by a lack of letting go (aka clinging). This is a danger.
I mean, it’s nice to retain a little bit of the senses, because then you can practice the path without having to completely give up the world. But what if the point is precisely to give up the world?
Seems safer to assume you have to let go big time. If you overshoot, so what?
Rupa Jhana 1~4 abiding:
“with the complete surmounting of perceptions of form, with the disappearance of perceptions of sensory impact, aware that 'mind object,’ some bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the rupa jhana”
You’re of course free to read it however you’d like, but those words simply aren’t in the rupajhana formulas themselves. There is also the phrase “still feeling pleasure with the body” in the 3rd jhana formula, implying that bodily feeling is still arising in that state (and some time before it). That requires contact, consciousness, and sense base and object at the body-door.
edit: I’m basing this on the English translation, so if someone who knows Pali well has a good rebuttal I’m all ears
The point, as I see it, is that the mind takes the sense objects as its own objects, as in a dream for instance. Here is the relevant passage from MN43:
Friend, these five faculties — each with a separate range, a separate domain, not experiencing one another’s range & domain: the eye-faculty, the ear-faculty, the nose-faculty, the tongue-faculty, & the body-faculty — have the intellect as their [common] arbitrator. The intellect is what experiences [all] their ranges & domains.
In other words, there is an echo of the five senses still remaining in the jhānas, but the senses themselves are no longer available. The phrase “the perception of sensory impact” just means that all residual traces of the senses have not yet come to an end.
There are a number of passages where kāyena cannot mean “with the physical body,” but rather refers to direct personal experience. It is important to get away from the idea that kāya always refers to the physical body in Pali. Often it just refers to an accumulation.
[quote=“Brahmali, post:132, topic:2589, full:true”][quote=“Mkoll, post:127, topic:2589”]
Based just on reading this description of the jhanas and 1st formless attainment, it seems clear that perceptions of form and perceptions of sensory impact still remain in the 4 jhanas, only leaving completely in the 1st formless attainment.
[/quote]
The point, as I see it, is that the mind takes the sense objects as its own objects, as in a dream for instance. Here is the relevant passage from MN43:
Friend, these five faculties — each with a separate range, a separate domain, not experiencing one another’s range & domain: the eye-faculty, the ear-faculty, the nose-faculty, the tongue-faculty, & the body-faculty — have the intellect as their [common] arbitrator. The intellect is what experiences [all] their ranges & domains.
In other words, there is an echo of the five senses still remaining in the jhānas, but the senses themselves are no longer available. The phase “the perception of sensory impact” just means that all residual traces of the senses have not yet come to an end.[/quote]
So you read the “perception of sensory impact” as being memories of past sensory impact that are still accessible in the jhanas, similar to how the mind experiences the senses in a dream, and one of those perceptions is what is taken up as the object of the mind in the form jhanas? Is that correct?
[quote=“Brahmali, post:132, topic:2589, full:true”][quote=“Mkoll, post:131, topic:2589”]
There is also the phrase “still feeling pleasure with the body” in the 3rd jhana formula, implying that bodily feeling is still arising in that state (and some time before it).
[/quote]
There are a number of passages where kāyena cannot mean “with the physical body,” but rather refers to direct personal experience. It is important to get away from the idea that kāya always refers to the physical body in Pali. Often it just refers to an accumulation.
[/quote]
Thank you for that information. A few questions from that:
So do you think that the 3rd jhana kāyena in fact refer to “accumulation” here? If so, what exactly is kāyena referring to? The citta?
Are there places in the suttas where kāyena does unambiguously refer to the physical body in the context of practicing the Dhamma?
Do you see the “permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body” (Ven. Thanissaro translation) in the AN 5.28 jhana similes as also referring to an accumulation and not the physical body itself? It looks like those similes are using the word kāyaṃ for body/accumulation.
It’s like picturing something in your mind. In a sense it is based on memory, but the picturing happens in the present moment. Of course in the jhānas what is left is a very rudimentary form of this, in fact the most rudimentary form possible. You have a stable perception of bliss, but there is an aspect to that which still is not entirely free of the echo of the senses.
Essentially is refers to the mind. The commentaries call it the nāmakāya (the mental body), a term also found in the suttas, e.g. DN15. But it is an idiom that means direct experience, as opposed to inference. In the third jhāna you have your first ever direct experience of sukha with no concomitant pīti.
Kāyena does indeed refer to the physical body in a number of places, especially in the context of the sense of touch: you touch “with the physical body.”
Yes, the whole mental body. Your entire experience is one of bliss.
