What Ven. Anālayo gets wrong about samādhi, part II

[Viveka]

Greetings, and thank you for this interesting discussion. I humbly offer a slightly different perspective or way of framing things, that may perhaps assist in bridging the gap a little. Obviously I am no scholar and, as such, won’t be using many technical terms, but am working from the basis of the principle inherent in Iddapaccayata - Dependent Conditionality or Dependent Arising.

@Brahmali

So if, as Venerable Brahmāli would argue, all once-returners are jhāna -attainers (and have not lost that ability by the time of their death), they would all be reborn in the Brāhma realm.

First of all, as you can see above, I have not actually said this. Second, the sutta at AN 4.123 shows that attaining jhāna once or a few times is not enough for rebirth in the brahma world. You have to be proficient at it, especially at the time of death.

I actually interpret this in the same way as Ajahn Brahmali - if the (not yet enlightened) person enjoys Jhana and clings to it, THEN they are reborn in the Brahma realms. But, rather than it being about their not having lost the ability by the time of their death, it is about the state of their consciousness and grasping at the time of death. This is in line with one of my favourite suttas Iti 73
'Those beings who reach the form realm
And those established in the formless,
If they do not know cessation
Come back to renewal of being.

Those who fully understand forms
Without getting stuck in the formless,
Are released into cessation
And leave Death far behind them.

After-all part of understanding conditionality (dispelling Delusion), is also understanding the conditionality of Jhana, which leads to not grasping it and most importantly not being trapped/reborn in those realms. This is why an arahant would not be reborn there, nor in any realm what-so-ever, whether they regularly practice Jhana or not. Ajahn Brahmali addressed this here in the original thread;

@Brahmali

Just as in AN 4.178, the problem is the grasping, not the jhāna. In fact, the parallel sutta at MĀ 164 has an interesting alternative reading, in which the attached mind is said to be “not settle within”, asaṇṭhita. “Settled within” is a common sutta metaphor for samādhi. What this suggests, then, is that the attachment becomes an obstacle for samādhi. If this reading is authentic, it becomes abundantly clear that it is the attachment that is the problem, not the meditative state.

However,

@Brahmali

When there is sammāsamādhi, one who has fulfilled sammāsamādhi has fulfilled the vital condition for true knowledge and vision. (AN 10.3)

@Brahmali

As it happens, it is quite clear that this cannot be about depth of samādhi, but about ease of access to samādhi. “Limited samādhi” is here used as a description of all streamenterers and oncereturners, and yet no-one disputes that streamenterers may have achieved jhāna, even the higher ones. In fact, it is clear from the suttas that the even the highest samādhi attainments are available to ordinary people, let alone the noble ones. This means that fulfilling samādhi must refer to something else.

The obvious solution is that this is about access to samādhi. The nonreturners, those who have fulfilled samādhi, are able to access samādhi easily, whereas for streamenterers it may not be as straightforward. Nonreturners have eliminated the main fetters that obstruct one form achieving samādhi, most prominently sensory desire. The streamenterer, on the other hand, still has some degree of interest in the world of the five senses.

@Brahmali

Yes, this sutta says that the faculty of samādhi, the samādhindriya, is stronger for the arahant than for the stream-enterer. In line with the discussion above, I take this to mean that the arahant gains samādhi more easily. This includes generally having deeper samādhi than the stream-enterer.

For me this sutta is a demonstration of iddapaccayata, talking about the vital conditions to cause a sequence of mental states from non-regret to Nibbana.

However, I see this from another perspective… Another way of framing it is that there is a higher degree of Right View in conjunction with Samadhi. That both RV and Samadhi are empowered by each other as a feed back loop, gaining in penetrative ability until the final breakthrough where Ignorance is completely and irreversibly destroyed.

Note - I am not disputing that Jhana / samadhi is a necessary condition, just that it is not sufficient (that it will automatically lead to Awakening on its own) - I don’t hold the view that there is some magical power housed within a certain ‘level’ of samadhi - Jhana is just Jhana and Arupa is just Arupa… The crucial thing is that it needs to be in conjunction with Right View.

This is where I get a bit lost in these arguments… It is the assertion that stream-enterers have perfected Right View that I find perplexing. There is ample evidence, as cited, that ordinary people can attain Jhana, and arupas etc. But without Right View they are still subject to Delusion. To say nothing of the fact that there are still defilements - even if temporarily absent while in Jhana.

From suttas cited, it is clear that perfecting Right View requires Jhana as condition. But if all of this is satisfied at stream entry then how is it differentiated from Awakening? I have always understood that stream-entry involves abandonment of certain defilements, and a significant step towards Right View, as in having understood Non-Self - at least in a conceptual way (ie there is still conceit of self which means it has only been partially seen).

For me the work that is done from Stream entry to Arahantship is actually perfecting Right View to the point that the mechanism of Delusion itself is fully seen and thus dispelled - Knowledge and vision of things as they really are; ie one can see how and why Delusion has occurred, to transcend it and to no longer be subject to it ( and thus to have transcended conceit of self).
Perfected RV = yathabhutananadassana.
It is this that is the critical thing, and samadhi is a vital condition for that to occur, but is not sufficient in itself… It has to be accompanied by ‘knowing’ and ‘seeing’ and ‘uprooting’ Delusion - finally once and for all, with no chance to re-arise. This does not automatically occur via Jhana, though Jhana is required for it to occur.

It is like I need to have certain cognitive and sensory (mental/physical) abilities to be able to drive a car, but these are not enough to do it. True, I can’t drive a car without these abilities but it is not sufficient. I also need to understand what a car is and how it operates - and then to apply the mental and cognitive abilities specifically to that to be able to drive… for me Jhana is a specific mental ‘ability’, (though t is a bit more complicated) that when applied to a specific thing (existence/suffering) in the right way (yoniso manasikara), yields a specific outcome (Liberation from Delusion). A condition that enables knowledge and vision to arise is Jhana, but Jhana is not sufficient, it also requires Right View which is a result of understanding how the khandas operate.

• So it requires both Samatha AND “knowledge and vision” Insight - two sides of the same coin… you can’t just have one - you need both. so Sammasamadhi is a vital condition for yathabhutananadassana. Another way of phrasing this could be that samatha and vipassana are two sides of the same coin and both are necessary.

‘When there is no right immersion, one who lacks right immersion has destroyed a vital condition for true knowledge and vision.
sammāsamādhimhi asati sammāsamādhivipannassa hatūpanisaṁ hoti yathābhūtañāṇadassanaṁ’; SuttaCentral

I suppose that there is an argument that there can only be Sammasamadhi when there is perfected Right View, that prior to this there is partial right samadhi and partial right view… it all comes down to semantics, but I hope that the principle I have presented is still evident, how it is the mutually empowering feedback between these two that is required for both to become perfected.

Depending on the specific semantics and conceptualisations of the factors… ie taking into account Right Effort and Right Mindfulness which are the skills/activities that need to be developed and deployed for knowledge and vision to be the result. SO it depends to what degree these attributes are taken to be represented in the 9th factor. I tend to look at the 9th factor as the result/insight issuing from those activities - but as I said, this is more an issue of categorisation and does not affect the underpinning principle of iddapaccayata. From this perspective I have a theory that these elements are not ‘absolutely’ sequential. I feel that Sammasamadhi and yathabhutananadassana are both required - 2 sides of the same coin (requiring a mutually conditioning feedback loop that gets more and more empowered - 1+1=3). This presents a bit of an echo to how N/R and Consciousness are not truly sequential but mutually conditioning. So whether you want to have that loop operating between the (6 +7) and (8th) factors or represent it as occurring between the 8th and 9th factors, the principle remains the same, simply depending on the specific definitions you apply.

As Right View gets closer to being perfected, so the ability to apply the Jhana Mind in the right way is enhanced, which enhances the ability to penetrate delusion to a greater degree - round and round - growing in power all the time. Jhana enables Super-power Mindfulness (absent any distortions). Super-power Mindfulness makes Jhana easily accessible… round and round, up ever more powerful - penetrative and Delusion-busting. Iddapaccayata in action (like a roaring furnace or avalanche) - beautiful… and this is where I trail off into a homage to the Buddha for showing us the path of conditioning, all the way to Enlightenment.

One can have Jhana, and one can have partial RV, but they can only become actuated when they are united. When compounded and amplified together in this way (Knowledge and Vision being the result), they become the cause or condition for Nibbana.

I can understand why the Vipassana movement came to be established. It is emphasising that side of the coin. However, I strongly feel that BOTH aspects are necessary, but neither is sufficient. Neither should be emphasised (or grasped) above the other, both are required - attaining this balance across the skills and abilities and application is the elusive key…

This theory gains some traction when we look at the different ways or tendencies that are displayed by individuals in their journey to arahantship. Both sides are required, but some are more talented in one side of the coin, others in the other, but both sides are necessary at least to a minimal/necessary degree. The one who is Liberated both ways has both of these faculties equally strong.

As Ajahns last post could be interpreted to not quite align with some of what I was saying I’ll just quickly address this…

@Brahmali

Yes, there is still a remnant of delusion, but the hindrances, which bias the mind, are gone, and so the supports of delusion have been removed. The mind is clear, bright, and powerful, and ready see nonself:

I say that delusion (avijjā) is fueled by something, it’s not unfueled.
And what is the fuel for delusion?
You should say: ‘The five hindrances.’ (AN 10.61)

While there may not be the bias or distortions of the hindrances active while in the Jhana states, this does not necessarily mean that non-self WILL be seen. One can focus on all kinds of things… including development of psychic powers for example. Additionally, before RV is perfected one can come up with all kinds of explanations for what was occurring after one has emerged, and we see this all the time. It is not ‘natural’ to reach specific conclusions about ‘non-self’ as a result, or else everyone who has powerful Samadhi would reach these conclusions and we know this is not the case. One has to know where and how to look. It is the combination of the experience in Jhana, free from hindrances and distortions, and the resultant pliability and agility of mind, together with right reflection that enables the insight to occur. Just as the Buddha had to apply yoniso manasikara to be able to derive the DO formula. Even though not impeded by hindrances, this wouldn’t have been possible without a very specific way of reflecting that went to the root of cause of suffering.

I apologise if I have misunderstood the nuances of the argument …

Anyway, I don’t raise this to argue or to try to convince anyone, but respectfully to offer a different angle for reflection - perhaps a bridge across perspectives… If it is not helpful, then please disregard.
with metta, and best wishes for everyones journey