i’ve read Bhante’s post several times and mulled it over the past few days. i quote the relevant passage of the 10 thorns in the post immediately above this one for reference.
#6, #7, #9, are the 3 items from 10 thorns that stand out to me as the insuperable obstacles according to frequent EBT passages.
(i have no idea why SC is using super big font bold for above sentence)
the other 7 out of 10 would be a majority where ven. Thanissaro’s more permissive definition of thorn fits better.
also consider that the first 4 items are right on the border of the types of thoughts one trying to enter or stabilize first jhana might encounter. they’re on the border of being included under the 5 hindrances, but are just momentary blips of sankharas and perception that haven’t fully formed into thoughts and evaluations.
unless there are other EBT passages on sound in jhana that strongly indicate one way or the other, personally i favor an interpretation that is more conservative, meaning not a narrow interpretation that excludes other possibilities. ven. Thanissaro’s interpretation is more conservative by that definition.
also we should note that once we invoke the “the buddha was pragmatic” line of reasoning, it can be used to support many positions, not just the one we favor.
i’m completely sympathetic to preventing an overly relaxed interpretation of jhana that is so watered down as to make enlightenment impossible. i just don’t think ajahn brahm’s way is the only way or best way to accomplish that.
Hi Frank,
I think you make a good point. Here are some others that I think are relevant (apologies if they have already been mentioned):
"A monk endowed with these five qualities is incapable of entering & remaining in right concentration. Which five? He cannot withstand [the impact of] sights, he cannot withstand sounds… aromas… tastes… tactile sensations. A monk endowed with these five qualities is not capable of entering & remaining in right concentration.
“A monk endowed with these five qualities is capable of entering & remaining in right concentration. Which five? He can withstand [the impact of] sights… sounds… aromas… tastes… tactile sensations. A monk endowed with these five qualities is capable of entering & remaining in right concentration.”
— AN 5.113
If the five senses are shut down in the jhanas then there would be no reason to talk about withstanding sights, sounds, etc. to remain in jhana.
"And how is a monk resilient to sounds? There is the case where a monk, on hearing a sound with the ear, feels no passion for a sound that incites passion and can center his mind. This is how a monk is resilient to sounds. - AN 5.139
This sutta – though not specifically mentioning jhana - picks up a very similar theme as the thorns sutta you mentioned and also AN 5.113 above.
"A monk who has not abandoned these six qualities is incapable of entering & remaining in the first jhana. Which six? Sensual desire, ill will, sloth & drowsiness, restlessness & anxiety, uncertainty, and not seeing well with right discernment, as they actually are present, the drawbacks of sensual pleasures…
“A monk who has not abandoned these six qualities is incapable of entering & remaining in the first jhana. Which six? Thoughts of sensuality, thoughts of ill will, thoughts of harmfulness, perceptions of sensuality, perceptions of ill will, perceptions of harmfulness.”
— AN 6.73-74
Sensual desire is not the senses. Further more, thoughts in general are not ruled out. If there could be no thoughts at all then why would the Buddha specify only certain types of thoughts as preventing one from entering and remaining in jhana?
it would be for the group to collect all such passages related to sound in jhana. even if we get our conclusions wrong, at least we leave a valuable set of clear notes and exact sutta referernces for future generations to audit.
Then the Venerable Mahāmoggallāna addressed the monks: “Friends, after attaining an imperturbable samādhi on the banks of the river Sappinikā, I heard the noise of elephants plunging in, emerging and trumpeting.”
The monks criticised and denounced him: “How can Venerable Mahāmoggallāna say such a thing. He is claiming a super-human achievement.” They informed the Master.
“Monks, there is such a samādhi, but it is not wholly purified. Moggallāna spoke truly. There is no offence for Moggallāna.”
from other sutta references, the imperturbable samadhi refers to 4th jhana or formless attainments. so the important point to take away here is even with an imperturbable samadhi being impure, the buddha only said it was impure, not that it doesn’t qualify as being called imperturbable, just as in the SN 40 moggallana (first 8 suttas) is practicing impure versions of the the 4 jhanas and formless attainments.
Isn’t this (AN 5.113) just referring to the sense restraint (which is a necessary precursor to jhana) though? I mean, there’s no reason to talk about withstanding sights if you have your eyes closed. Or to withstand taste if you’re not eating.
From DN 9:
“Quite withdrawn from sensual pleasures, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, the monk enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. His earlier perception of sensuality ceases, and on that occasion there is a perception of a refined truth of rapture & pleasure born of seclusion. On that occasion he is one who is percipient of a refined truth of rapture & pleasure born of seclusion. And thus it is that with training one perception arises and with training another perception ceases.
Like in AN 6.73-74, it’s the perception of sensuality that ceases and a new perception that arises.
A bit further down in DN 9:
“Now, when the monk is percipient of himself here, then from there to there, step by step, he touches the peak of perception. As he remains at the peak of perception, the thought occurs to him, ‘Thinking is bad for me. Not thinking is better for me. If I were to think and will, this perception of mine would cease, and a grosser perception would appear. What if I were neither to think nor to will?’ So he neither thinks nor wills, and as he is neither thinking nor willing, that perception ceases and another, grosser perception does not appear. He touches cessation. This, Potthapada, is how there is the alert step-by step attainment of the ultimate cessation of perception.
In each jhana (as described in DN 9) a grosser perception is replaced by a finer one. The method to achieve this is described in the quote above: not thinking and not willing.
If one were to think and will a “grosser perception would appear.”
So if you were to think in a first jhana, the perception of a “refined truth of rapture & pleasure born of seclusion” would disappear, and the perception of sensuality would appear again. That’s how I interpret it anyway
That’s a good one, Erik, but it would be considerably clearer if we just chuck Ven Thanissaro’s translation of kāmā in this pericope and go straight to the CPD.
Instead of translating the word as the singular “sensuality”, we should just accept that kāmā is plural as follows -
kāma, m. [ts., cf. BHSD, SWTF, Encyclop. of Bud-
dhism VI, 1 1996 s.v.; Hôb. s.v. ai], 1. (mostly in sg.)
wish, desire, pleasure; 2. (in pl.) the objects of sensual > pleasure viz. rūpa, sadda, gandha, rasa, phoṭṭhabba,
cf. kāmaguṇa,
See especially how MN 75 distinguishes the “cords of sensual pleasure” (kāmaguṇā) from plain old kāmā.
It’s only in Ven Thanissaro’s translation of the First Jhana pericope that the meaning of being secluded from the objects of the 5 senses is completely obscured by his rendering kāmā as singular, when it is plainly plural.
I consider AN 9.37 to be conclusive on this matter, if one is not persuaded by the lexical analysis of kāmā as used in the First Jhana pericope. But whose translation of AN 9.37 should one refer to?
First, the uncontentious bits. There are 2 narratives in that sutta, one setting out Ven Ananda’s hiatus at Ghosita’s monastery and his conversation with Ven Udayin and company. Nestled within that narrative, Ven Ananda recounts a narrative setting out his earlier encounter with Jatila Bhagika in the Black Forest.
Secondly, the uncontentious doctrinal subject discussed in both narratives. Both narratives discuss the loci and contents of this situation -
where the eye will be, and forms, and yet one will not be sensitive to that dimension; where the ear will be, and sounds… where the nose will be, and aromas… where the tongue will be, and flavors… where the body will be, and tactile sensations, and yet one will not be sensitive to that dimension
In the Ghosita monastery narrative, the loci where one is percipient and yet not sensitive to the objects of the 5 senses are clearly the formless attainments.
In the Black Forest monastery narrative, the locus where one is percipient and yet not sensitive to the objects of the 5 senses are described as follows -
samādhi na cābhinato na cāpanato na ca sasaṅkhāraniggayhavāritagato, vimuttattā ṭhito, ṭhitattā santusito, santusitattā no paritassati.
One could nit-pick on the differences between Ven T’s and Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translations of the above, but I do not propose to be detained by these for now. Using BB’s translation, we have -
the concentration that does not lean forward and does not bend back, and
that is not reined in and checked by forcefully suppressing [the
defilements]—by being liberated, it is steady; by being steady,
it is content; by being content, one is not agitated.
What is also uncontentious is Ven Ananda’s assertion that in this samādhi, one does not experience the objects of the 5 senses.
We now come to the really contentious part about Ven T’s translation of this part that follows the above -
‘yāyaṃ, bhante ānanda, samādhi na cābhinato na cāpanato na ca sasaṅkhāraniggayhavāritagato, vimuttattā ṭhito, ṭhitattā santusito, santusitattā no paritassati. Ayaṃ, bhante ānanda, samādhi kiṃphalo vutto bhagavatā’ti?
The concentration whereby—neither pressed down nor forced back, nor with fabrication kept blocked or suppressed—still as a result of release, contented as a result of standing still, and as a result of contentment one is not agitated: This concentration is said by the Blessed One to be the fruit of what?’
I’ll leave it to you chaps to read BB’s analysis of the bolded compound (fn 1930 & 1931). Ven T has rendered it as a genitive tappurisa, while BB offers his reasons as to why it should be a bāhubbīhi compound. One can also refer to Cone’s entry for ka, and see how it is used in compounds and whether or not kiṃphalo is more probably a tappurisa or bāhubbīhi. In any event, BB reads it as a bāhubbīhi, giving -
Bhante Ananda, the concentration that does not lean forward
and does not bend back and that is not reined in and checked
by forcefully suppressing [the defilements]—by being liberated, it is steady;
by being steady, it is content; by being content,
one is not agitated.1929 Bhante Ananda, what did the Blessed One
say this concentration has as its fruit?'1930
(9) “When she asked me this, I replied: 'Sister, the concentration that does not
lean forward and does not bend back, and
that is not reined in and checked by forcefully suppressing [the
defilements]—by being liberated, it is steady; by being steady,
it is content; by being content, one is not agitated. The Blessed
One said this concentration has final knowledge as its fruit.'1931
When one is thus percipient too, friend, one does not experience that base.”
Now, leaving aside the linguistic analysis for why the bāhubbīhi is preferable, there is also the doctrinal reading to suggest why the tappurisa reading is nonsensical. Taking Ven T’s translation -
‘The concentration whereby—neither pressed down nor forced back, nor with fabrication kept blocked or suppressed—still as a result of release, contented as a result of standing still, and as a result of contentment one is not agitated: This concentration is said by the Blessed One to be the fruit of what?’
“I said to her, ‘Sister, the concentration whereby—neither pressed down nor forced back, nor with fabrication kept blocked or suppressed—still as a result of release, contented as a result of standing still, and as a result of contentment one is not agitated: This concentration is said by the Blessed One to be the fruit of gnosis.’ This is another way of being percipient when not sensitive to that dimension.”
On Ven T’s translation, it would appear that each time an arahant (implied by the aññāphala) accesses this samādhi, he/she will then have to go through the entire sequence leading up to non-agitation. That is plainly ridiculous, as the arahant is beyond the clinging that gives rise to agitation in the first place.
The 2nd doctrinal analysis looks at the predicate of this samādhi being na sasaṅkhāraniggayhavāritagata. Where else do we find such a state? In AN 3.101, we find that -
"But, bhikkhus, there comes a time when his mind becomes internally steady, composed, unified, and concentrated… That concentration is peaceful and sublime, gained by full tranquilization, and attained to unification; it is not reined in and checked by forcefully suppressing [the defilements] (na sasaṅkhāraniggayhavāritagata ).561.Then, there being a suitable basis, he is capable of realizing any state realizable by direct knowledge toward which he might incline his mind.
Doesn’t this passage militate against reading that word in AN 9.37 as a tappurisa? This is placed right smack in the nexus between what appears to be the supernormal powers and mental development, which is the place occupied by the jhanas.
Thirdly, we have DN 34 saying point blank that sammāsamādhi is, inter alia, na sasaṅkhāraniggayhavāritagata -
Given the weight of this evidence, AN 9.37 is about as equivocal as one can get for an EBT assertion that one is not percipient of the objects of the 5 senses in the jhanas.
It specifically speaks of entering and remaining so it doesn’t seem so. Did Buddha instruct monks to close their eyes? I don’t know. As far as taste goes – maybe they didn’t brush their teeth?
With regard to DN 9, I think you have to keep in mind the statement that Buddha makes that precedes this discussion:
“In this regard, Potthapada, those brahmans & contemplatives who say that a person’s perception arises & ceases without cause, without reason, are wrong from the very start. Why is that? Because a person’s perception arises & ceases with a cause, with a reason. With training, one perception arises and with training another perception ceases. And what is that training?”
His talk is all about how perception is not random. He sets out to show how each stage of the path – starting with virtue – unfolds as a result of effort made at the preceding stage. At each stage, the perception that ceases is that of the previous stage (for example 1st jhana) and the perception that arises (for example 2nd jhana). It is no different than if I am looking at the table and I turn my head to look out the window, the perception of the table ceases and the perception of the window arises. So the perception of sensuality here refers to the hindrances ceasing and the arising of seclusion from sensuality – but I think this refers to passion for the senses not the senses themselves.
I think you will find that he only makes that statement in the 7th jhana (and he is thinking!). Basically, thought has been present all the way up through the 7th jhana and it is only at this point that he reflects on the possibility of ceasing thought and will.
is what is known as a periphrastic construction, where the “remaining” is merely an auxillary verb to the governing verb upasampajja/having entered. It does not function as an independent verb as such, as this periphrasis is intended to bring out a durative aspect. The same periphrasis is seen in the Jhana pericopes, eg -
That’s the problem in reading too much into the English translation for something that is not in the Pali. I agree with @Erika_ODonnell that that sutta is concerned with sense restraint. There are 3 other suttas in AN 5 that deal with this business of “intolerance” and the most explicit one in its definition of the 5 intolerances is AN 5.139. That suttas also gives the causal link for each intolerance to the inability to attaining concentration. It explicitly identifies intolerance with passion for the 5 sense objects. This is standard fodder for sense restraint, no?
Again, this is going to be a lexical problem that exists only in Ven Thanissaro’s translations. What he renders as “sensuality” is kāmā, a plural verb, not singular. He’s employing Abhidhamma terminology; see my earlier post about the CPD entry for this word. If you look further down the CPD entry for the meanings in the different piṭakas, it is only in the Abhidhamma that kāmā lost its EBT meaning and acquired the meaning that Ven T now gives in his translations. There is only one sutta in the Pali Canon which uses kāmā to mean “sensual desires”, but the prose version is contradicted by the verse which makes a clear distinction between kāma (= saṅkapparāga/lustful intention), kāmā (= the diverse 5 sense objects) and kāmaguṇā (= 5 cords of sensual pleasure) - AN 6.63
Well, I think I understand your position and it may be best to just agree to disagree on some of these points.
I am of a similar view as Frank when he wrote:
“i’m completely sympathetic to preventing an overly relaxed interpretation of jhana that is so watered down as to make enlightenment impossible. i just don’t think ajahn brahm’s way is the only way or best way to accomplish that.”
I think there are some other issues going on behind much of this debate that tends to complicate things but that is best presented in a separate thread.
On a different topic you wrote:
“On Ven T’s translation, it would appear that each time an arahant (implied by the aññāphala) accesses this samādhi, he/she will then have to go through the entire sequence leading up to non-agitation. That is plainly ridiculous, as the arahant is beyond the clinging that gives rise to agitation in the first place.”
There are at least a couple suttas that say that the arahant should continue to practice jhana ‘for a calm abiding in the here and now’ - implying that without doing so things might not be so calm. One of these (SN 22.122) states that the arahant still experiences the clinging aggregates. I was surprised to find this – there is a close parallel in the agamas as well.
“Then which things should an arahant attend to in an appropriate way?”
“An arahant should attend in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. Although, for an arahant, there is nothing further to do, and nothing to add to what has been done, still these things — when developed & pursued — lead both to a pleasant abiding in the here-&-now and to mindfulness & alertness.”
walshe’s translation of DN 34 passage regarding samma samadhi that is nonpercipient of 5 senses
(8) ‘Which five things are to be made to arise? The fivefold knowledge of right concentration (pañcañāṇiko sammā samādhi): the knowledge that arises within one that: (a) “This concentration is both present happiness and productive of future resultant happiness” (āyatiñ ca sukha-vipāko), (b) “This concentration is Ariyan and free from worldliness” [2791 (nirdmiso),1144 “” (c) “This concentration is not practised by the unworthy” (akāpurisasevito), 1145 “” (d) “This concentration is calm and perfect, has attained tranquillisation, has attained unification, and is not instigated,1146 “” it cannot be denied1147 “” or prevented”, 1148 “” (e) “I myself attain this concentration with mindfulness, and emerge from it with mindfulness.”
ariyans are disciples who have the meditative attainment of directly experiencing nibbana. not just unenlightened disciples who are doing samma samadhi. this is consistent with the AN 9.37 passage where what the nun describes sounds like while she, an Aryiyan, is experiencing nibbana, she’s percipient of something but not of those 5 sense base activities. Whether it’s an arahant, a stream enterer, whether it’s similar to animitta samadhi, in any of those cases it sure isn’t the ordinary four jhanas. it sounds more like the nonpercipience of nibbana that is described in AN 10.6 and AN 10.7 regarding earth, wind, fire.
on the grammar arguments, i can only defer to the experts, but ven. thanissaro’s translation seems more coherent to me.
is DN 34 even EBT?
in the AN 3.101 goldsmith passage, it doesn’t say jhanas explicitly. the ekaggata we can infer second jhana or higher. the attainment of 6 abhinna follow fourth jhana typically. so without the buddha specifically saying which jhana, it’s not so clear to me how much asaṅkhāraniggayhavāritagato can be pressed into service to support your argument from this passage.
I don’t have much time to respond in full to your post as I’m rushing off to surgery. I’ll try to reply when the GA wears off.
In the above, I use kāmā as a lemma, not an inflected form. Kāmehi would therefore be “from the kāmā”. Hope to do justice to the rest of your queries later.
i’m not sure what is ridiculous about that. to describe the process in words may seem slow and clumsy, but unless we have an arahant here to explain for us, how do we know whether it can’t be done very quickly? an arahant is able to experience physical pain and pleasure, so clearly they’re percipient of the 5 sense activity by default and it takes SOME amount of time and intention to enter that special samadhi.
Actually, the Vsm cited the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma on this, so that kāmā was defined as the 3 types of kāma.
You might recall that this was puzzling enough that in both the Vsm and Vimuttimagga, both asked why the need to specify a separate seclusion clause for sensual desires, when it’s already covered by the 2nd seclusion passage.
Do you find their justification for the Abhidhamma definition compelling, such that sensual desire is singled out for mention under the intensified seclusion pericope?
PS - thanks for your well wishes. I’m out and now craving morphine.
This is not so surprising, provided we relook SN 22.48’ distinction between the aggregates simpliciter and the “clinging-aggregates”. This calls for a robust examination of its sāsavā. Does the sa import the meaning of "being bound up with asavas " or the sense of "being liable to give rise to asavas " ?
I prefer the latter; see the definition of the first member in the compound upādānakkhandha as being the adjective upādāniyā (clingable) , rather the substantive noun “clinging”.
This is consistent with the standard exposition that an arahant does not cling at all.
pārājikapāḷi