After my initial critique of his paper “A Brief History of Buddhist Absorption”, Ven. Anālayo kindly took the time to respond. To honour the good will in his reply, I decided to delay my further response and take the time to consider his position carefully. Having done this, now seems the right time to consider the details of his response.
Although we agree that samādhi is important on the path to awakening, it seems to me that we do not see quite eye to eye on a number of details, such as the exact meaning of samādhi, its relationship to other factors of the path, and at what point samādhi becomes critical for progress. This response is meant to further the discussion of these important details.
I am glad to hear this. I conclude that we agree on this matter. My personal preference would be to also change the heading of the relevant section from Potential Drawbacks of Absorption to a phrase that indicates that the real problem is attachment.
Yes, sometimes a definition would be required straightaway, but at other times not. The majority of definitions are found in the commentarial literature. Their purpose is to help us pin down the meaning of the Canonical texts, whether the suttas or the Vinaya. It is natural that questions of meaning would develop over time, as the consequences of the Canonical texts were worked out and as the Sangha moved to disparate parts of the Indian subcontinent and beyond. And so I do think it is true that definitions - generally speaking - tend to be later than the text they define.
Within the Canonical texts there are a significant number of free-standing suttas called Vibhaṅga, “analysis”, including definitions of the core aspects of the path to awakening. Such “analysis” suttas must logically be later than the suttas they define. A number of the suttas that define samādhi are precisely such Vibhaṅga suttas. A couple of obvious examples are SN 45.8, which defines the factors of the noble eightfold path, and SN 48.10, which defines the five spiritual faculties.
I cannot see any difference between these two. The purpose of both the noble eightfold path and the gradual training is awakening. Indeed, the gradual training is little more than a detailed expansion of the noble eightfold path, with the results of the practice added at the end.
I agree, the majority does not overrule the minority. What I intended are situations that are not clearly defined, that is, where samādhi occurs without further definition. Because the most important meaning of samādhi in the suttas is jhāna - and this is by a large margin - we should assume that this is the main meaning in such instances.
Moreover, I cannot see that this has anything to do with the principle of lectio difficilior potior, which is used to decide the best of two or more readings of the same text. Here is the description from Wikipedia:
Lectio difficilior potior (Latin for “the more difficult reading is the stronger”) is a main principle of textual criticism. Where different manuscripts conflict on a particular reading, the principle suggests that the more unusual one is more likely the original. The presupposition is that scribes would more often replace odd words and hard sayings with more familiar and less controversial ones, than vice versa.
In the present case, there is only one reading, namely samādhi, but we are trying to interpret it. Such interpretations should align with the general overall meaning found in the suttas, not with rare occurrences. This is equivalent to the idea that we should understand the suttas in line with the main teachings and not according to obscure and/or rare passages. This is simply a commonsense principle that unfortunately is all too often forgotten.
Here is an example to illustrate what I mean. If someone says they are going from New York to London, we can generally assume they will be flying, because that is how the majority of people travel between the two cities. The burden of proof lies with those who want to suggest that they will be going by boat or some other means, not with those who assume they will be flying.
I do not think this is the function of vā in these cases. We need to be careful not to assume that vā is an exact equivalent to “or” in English. As a general rule, there are few exact equivalents between different languages. A case in point is the use of vā in bhikkhunī pārājika 8. Here the vā needs to be understood as “and”. The rule has eight aspects, each of which needs to be fulfilled for the pārājika offence to be incurred, and so we would expect the conjunction “and”, yet instead we find vā, which normally means “or”. We are forced to conclude that vā in this context must be understood as “and”. Possibly the same is true in the relevant passage from the Satipāṭṭhana Sutta.
It is perhaps more likely, however, that the vā in MN 10 refers to the fact that things are contemplated at different times, and so one contemplates one mind quality or anther at any particular time. This reading is almost required by the phrasing which gives a vā between each and every contemplation. If we follow Ven. Anālayo’s suggestion, we have to conclude that any single contemplation is enough to fulfil the contemplation of mind, the cittānupassanā. This would mean, for instance, that one only needs to contemplate a mind with ill will to complete this part of the meditation. This does not seem likely. A similar argument holds for the factors of awakening.
I do not think this is difficult. Like all mind states, jhāna attainments have a beginning and an end. This can be contemplated. Moreover, the arising and passing away “refrain” is preceded by a refrain referring to internal and external observation. The internal observation seems a likely candidate for deep samādhi, a suggestion that is confirmed by DN 18:
It’s when a mendicant meditates by observing an aspect of the body internally—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of covetousness and displeasure for the world.
As they meditate in this way, they become rightly immersed in that, and rightly serene.Idha, bho, bhikkhu ajjhattaṁ kāye kāyānupassī viharati ātāpī sampajāno satimā vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṁ.
Ajjhattaṁ kāye kāyānupassī viharanto tattha sammā samādhiyati, sammā vippasīdati.
Yes, I was aware of this proposal when I wrote my previous comment. The problem is that I don’t find it persuasive. The jhāna formulas are standardised and so common in the suttas that I don’t think the textual context could ever cause such a failure of memory.
The use of the word “even” suggests to me a bias on the part of Ven. Anālayo. It suggests that this sutta should somehow be given priority. Yet the fact is that the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta is only a single sutta among many. Priority must be given to general and frequent descriptions of the path such as the gradual training. In any case, as we have seen, the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta itself allows for such an understanding, and so there is no real conflict.
The argument has been made that eka in ekāyana in fact refers to samādhi. This would hardly be surprising considering how often compounds with eka (ekaggata, ekodibhāva, etc) or derivations from eka (ekatta) refer precisely to samādhi. But even if this is not the case, the purposes mentioned in the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta refer to the endpoint of the path. The fact that jhāna is not mentioned could simply be because it is a preliminary attainment, not the final one.
Well, I do not agree with this. One of the important principles I mention that Ven. Anālayo has not replied to is the gradual nature of the path, which suggests that jhāna normally comes before streamentry, let alone full awakening. Letting go and insight into the five khandhas happen stage by stage until the complete insight of the sotāpanna. Such general principles are helpful in deciding the correct interpretation of controversial matters.
Absolutely! Yet as Dhamma teachers we both need to be clear about the real message of the Dhamma. A bit of friendly Dhamma discussion will normally be productive of broadening one’s appreciation of the suttas. I can only speak for myself, but I find this helpful. Thank you, Ven. Anālayo, for engaging in such a friendly and constructive way!
