Why does a brief moment of metta mean you have jhana?

Q & A
21

Can you see how there might circular reasoning here? A translator has chosen to render the ‘jhāna’ in this context as ‘absorption’, but as it has been shown in this thread, the word can have other connotations.

So, yes, the English translation choice ‘absorption’ means ‘jhāna’, but the Pali word ‘jhāna’ can mean something aside from ‘absorption’.

(Those more skilled than I am in Logic can probably map this out better with an equation of some sort)

22

I’m not a Pali translator, but a little poking around in the PTS dictionary yielded this:

The term being translated as “not devoid” is aritta, which is being read as a-ritta. I.e., the negation of ritta. So what does ritta mean?

Ritta is the past particle of the verb riñcati, which means “to leave, abandon, leave behind, give up, neglect,” which is a bit different than “devoid.”

So, I would think the passage should read something more like “has not abandoned absorption,” and it makes more sense as well. [Or, more grammatically parallel would be: “the mendicant’s absorption is unabandoned.”]

1 Like
23

Ritta is found in SN 22.95.

2 Likes
24

Yes, that’s why I began by saying I’m not a Pali translator. Many words have typical usage that corrals us into reading them a particular way. Bhikkhu Bodhi translates it the same way.

1 Like