Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

The cultivation of calm or tranquility and the development of concentration
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by danieLion »

reflection wrote:But let's get back to the topic at hand. To answer your question:
DanieLion wrote:When the Buddha distinguished "mind" from other things (e.g., the other five senses) do you interpret this to mean he thought "mind" and other things (e.g., the body) are independent?
I don't. I think it is quite clear they are interconnected.
Then how can you be sure that when you're in jhāna it's purely mental?
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by danieLion »

Sylvester wrote:The real issue to be posed to Ven T is why he chooses the singular noun "sensuality" to obscure the very clear Pali and Middle-Indic meaning conveyed by the plural kāmā. A lot of the translations floating out there, whether knowingly or unknowingly, use the Abhidhamma definition of kāmā, including Ven Nanamoli in his original translation of the MN. BB makes a global change of that to "sensual pleasures" in the MLDB, following a stricter philological approach.
I don't see much practical difference between "sensuality" and "sensual pleasures".
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by Sylvester »

danieLion wrote:
Sylvester wrote:The real issue to be posed to Ven T is why he chooses the singular noun "sensuality" to obscure the very clear Pali and Middle-Indic meaning conveyed by the plural kāmā. A lot of the translations floating out there, whether knowingly or unknowingly, use the Abhidhamma definition of kāmā, including Ven Nanamoli in his original translation of the MN. BB makes a global change of that to "sensual pleasures" in the MLDB, following a stricter philological approach.
I don't see much practical difference between "sensuality" and "sensual pleasures".
What do you understand to be "sensuality" and "sensual pleasures"? Do you have any specific sutta in mind?
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by reflection »

Sylvester wrote:
reflection wrote: Now there are two ways one can interpret sensuality (kama):
1. 5 senses (activity)
2. 5 sense (activity) desire
(See critical pali dictionary and elsewhere)
Hi reflection

Actually, the CPD entry on kāma (singular) and kāmā (plural) makes the following points about their meanings in the different strata of the Canon.

In the Suttas and Vinaya, kāma (singular) refers to wish, desire, pleasure, while kāmā (plural) refers to the 5 sense objects of rūpa, sadda, gandha, rasa, phoṭṭhabba. CPD makes the contrast to the sutta definition of kāmaguṇa. You can find this distinction between kāmā and kāmaguṇa set out in several suttas (sorry, too lazy to pull them out from the old threads).

It is only in the Abhidhamma, starting with the Vibhanga, that the meaning of kāmā (plural) evolves into the set of "chando ~o rāgo ~o chanda-
rāgo ~o saṅkappo ~o saṅkapparāgo ~o
". This unfortunate turn of course changed the meaning of the 1st Jhana's kāmā seclusion pericope, leaving poor Ven Buddhaghosa struggling to explain away the difference in the "eva" emphatic between the 2 seclusion pericopes.

The real issue to be posed to Ven T is why he chooses the singular noun "sensuality" to obscure the very clear Pali and Middle-Indic meaning conveyed by the plural kāmā. A lot of the translations floating out there, whether knowingly or unknowingly, use the Abhidhamma definition of kāmā, including Ven Nanamoli in his original translation of the MN. BB makes a global change of that to "sensual pleasures" in the MLDB, following a stricter philological approach.
Thank you sylvester, for pointing this out. I will look into it in the future and may edit my post a bit to make this clearer.

For now I think it's good enough, though. Because I think we can even use existing translations to see there is at least something there which could use another interpretation.
Last edited by reflection on Wed Aug 22, 2012 8:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by reflection »

danieLion wrote:
reflection wrote:But let's get back to the topic at hand. To answer your question:
DanieLion wrote:When the Buddha distinguished "mind" from other things (e.g., the other five senses) do you interpret this to mean he thought "mind" and other things (e.g., the body) are independent?
I don't. I think it is quite clear they are interconnected.
Then how can you be sure that when you're in jhāna it's purely mental?
How do you know water is wet?

You know it through experiencing it. Somebody else can tell you everything about water, but they can never portray how its wetness feels. Even two people who have experienced water to be wet can't find the words to explain it 100% accurately. But at least they can agree on water not being solid.

To describe accurately what certain meditation experiences feel like is impossible, but those who experience such things can agree on that it was without the 5 senses. Since this happens before jhana already, also people who don't experience jhana may already agree.
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by danieLion »

Sylvester wrote:
danieLion wrote:
Sylvester wrote:The real issue to be posed to Ven T is why he chooses the singular noun "sensuality" to obscure the very clear Pali and Middle-Indic meaning conveyed by the plural kāmā. A lot of the translations floating out there, whether knowingly or unknowingly, use the Abhidhamma definition of kāmā, including Ven Nanamoli in his original translation of the MN. BB makes a global change of that to "sensual pleasures" in the MLDB, following a stricter philological approach.
I don't see much practical difference between "sensuality" and "sensual pleasures".
What do you understand to be "sensuality" and "sensual pleasures"? Do you have any specific sutta in mind?
Did you not mean all the suttas when you said "global"?
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by danieLion »

reflection wrote:To describe accurately what certain meditation experiences feel like is impossible....
Really? Would Brahm or Sujato agree?
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by Sylvester »

danieLion wrote: Did you not mean all the suttas when you said "global"?
Hi

I'm not sure I understand. I was referring to BB's work in revising Ven Nanamoli's translation of the MN only. Does that help?
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by reflection »

danieLion wrote:
reflection wrote:To describe accurately what certain meditation experiences feel like is impossible....
Really? Would Brahm or Sujato agree?
Ask them.

But I think it's quite obvious experiences can never accurately be described in words, it doesn't even have to be a meditation experience. I think the Buddha did quite well, though.
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by danieLion »

Sylvester wrote:
danieLion wrote: Did you not mean all the suttas when you said "global"?
Hi

I'm not sure I understand. I was referring to BB's work in revising Ven Nanamoli's translation of the MN only. Does that help?
Yes, that does help. Thanks. I should've said "in all the MN suttas where kāma and kāmā appear" too. My bad.
:reading:
Last edited by danieLion on Thu Aug 23, 2012 12:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by danieLion »

reflection wrote:
danieLion wrote:
reflection wrote:To describe accurately what certain meditation experiences feel like is impossible....
Really? Would Brahm or Sujato agree?
Ask them.

But I think it's quite obvious experiences can never accurately be described in words, it doesn't even have to be a meditation experience. I think the Buddha did quite well, though.
I hope to get the chance some day.

I should've just said what I was thinking and that's that Reverend Brahm goes into great detail describing his meditation experiences. Brahm's got the "beautifal breath", the "wobbles" and all the pretty light he's so fond of, etc....

In general, I agree. These experiences are ineffable. Yet, Brahm talks and writes like they're effable (or at least effable enough for him to teach from).
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by danieLion »

Sylvester wrote:
The real issue to be posed to Ven T is why he chooses the singular noun "sensuality" to obscure the very clear Pali and Middle-Indic meaning conveyed by the plural kāmā. A lot of the translations floating out there, whether knowingly or unknowingly, use the Abhidhamma definition of kāmā, including Ven Nanamoli in his original translation of the MN. BB makes a global change of that to "sensual pleasures" in the MLDB, following a stricter philological approach.
At MN 19.26/i 118 (Dvedhāvitakkasuttaṃ) both have it as "sensual pleasures" from kāmānametaṃ.

Again, at MN 22.9/i 133 (Alagaddūpamasuttaṃ), look at the way they both translate this passage:
So vata bhikkhave aññatreva kāmehi aññatra kāmasaññāya aññatra kāmavitakkehi kāme paṭisevissatīti netaṃ ṭhānaṃ vijjati.

BB: "Bhikkhus, that one can engage in sensual pleasures without sensual desires, without perceptions of sensual desires, without thoughts of sensual desire--that is impossible."

TB: "For a person to indulge in sensual pleasures without sensual passion, without sensual perception, without sensual thinking: That isn't possible."

Looking at: MN 13.7/i 86 & ff. (Mahādukkhakkhandha suttaṃ); MN 26.31/i 174 & ff. (Ariyapariyesanasuttaṃ); MN 54.15/i 364 & ff. (Potaliya suttaṃ); MN 66.16/i 454 & ff. (Laṭukikopama suttaṃ); MN 75.13 & ff. (Māgandiya suttaṃ); MN 105.7/ii 254 & ff; (Sunakkhatta suttaṃ); MN 106.3/ii 261 & ff. (Āneñjasappāya suttaṃ); and MN 122.14/iii 114 & ff. (Mahāsuññata suttaṃ)--in the broader contexts of these passages, TB's uses of the term "sensuality," while syntactically singular in English, are clearly plural denotations/connotations.

The only sutta in the MN where I could find TB being ambiguous on this is at MN 45.3/i 305 & ff (Cūḷadhammasamādāna suttaṃ). But in the context of the above, it is again clear he's not suggesting singularity. Which makes me wonder why BB opted for a global approach? I don't know how many times I've heard him respond to questions with comments like, "We have to interpret this in light of all the suttas."

OR, as I originally stated, there's not much practical difference among BB's & TB's variations. Now, I would add, IF THERE IS A PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE IT'S TOO NEGLIGIBLE TO BE RELEVANT IN ANY PRAGMATIC SENSE.

Also, what exactly do you mean by translations "floating around out there"? Are you alluding to the nature of the differences among translators or to the way they exchange among each other? The way you put it makes it sound like they're at war.

They're not. In other words, this can't be, as you say, "the real issue to pose to Ven B".
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by Sylvester »

Thanks dL for some really interesting quotes.
Looking at: MN 13.7/i 86 & ff. (Mahādukkhakkhandha suttaṃ); MN 26.31/i 174 & ff. (Ariyapariyesanasuttaṃ); MN 54.15/i 364 & ff. (Potaliya suttaṃ); MN 66.16/i 454 & ff. (Laṭukikopama suttaṃ); MN 75.13 & ff. (Māgandiya suttaṃ); MN 105.7/ii 254 & ff; (Sunakkhatta suttaṃ); MN 106.3/ii 261 & ff. (Āneñjasappāya suttaṃ); and MN 122.14/iii 114 & ff. (Mahāsuññata suttaṃ)--in the broader contexts of these passages, TB's uses of the term "sensuality," while syntactically singular in English, are clearly plural denotations/connotations.
I think it should be apparent that my grouse with Ven T's use of "sensuality" is in the 1st Jhana's kāmā seclusion pericopes. Good that you can see that "sensuality" connotes a plural, although there may not be others who are as sensitive to the term as you are.

OR, as I originally stated, there's not much practical difference among BB's & TB's variations. Now, I would add, IF THERE IS A PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE IT'S TOO NEGLIGIBLE TO BE RELEVANT IN ANY PRAGMATIC SENSE.
I'm still curious what exactly you understand to be kāmā in the seclusion pericope. It's not apparent from the passages you cite how exactly you view kāmā. Would you mind stating what you think kāmā in the seclusion formula means?
Also, what exactly do you mean by translations "floating around out there"? Are you alluding to the nature of the differences among translators or to the way they exchange among each other? The way you put it makes it sound like they're at war.
I'm alluding to the former.
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by danieLion »

Sylvester wrote:I'm still curious...
Why "still"? This is the first indication you've made.
Sylvester wrote:...what exactly you understand to be kāmā in the seclusion pericope.... Would you mind stating what you think kāmā in the seclusion formula means?
I could be persuaded to indulge you that, but first you have to admit your trying to change the subject.
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by Sylvester »

Hi dL
danieLion wrote:
Sylvester wrote:I'm still curious...
Why "still"? This is the first indication you've made.
That's odd. I thought I had previous asked -
What do you understand to be "sensuality" and "sensual pleasures"? Do you have any specific sutta in mind?
In case I was unclear then, the "sensuality" and "sensual pleasures" abovementioned are the translations of kāmā in the kāmā seclusion pericope. But I think it was quite obvious to you what I referring to since you had earlier said -
Sylvester wrote:
The real issue to be posed to Ven T is why he chooses the singular noun "sensuality" to obscure the very clear Pali and Middle-Indic meaning conveyed by the plural kāmā. A lot of the translations floating out there, whether knowingly or unknowingly, use the Abhidhamma definition of kāmā, including Ven Nanamoli in his original translation of the MN. BB makes a global change of that to "sensual pleasures" in the MLDB, following a stricter philological approach.
I don't see much practical difference between "sensuality" and "sensual pleasures".
I hope that clarifies.
Sylvester wrote:...what exactly you understand to be kāmā in the seclusion pericope.... Would you mind stating what you think kāmā in the seclusion formula means?
I could be persuaded to indulge you that, but first you have to admit your trying to change the subject.
I thought the subject was whether or not the physical body could be felt in Jhana, or whether that physical body could contact/phusati the vivekaja pītisukha (rapture and pleasure born of seclusion). The external āyatana of the physical body is phoṭṭhabba, itself one of the kāmā. I don't think I've strayed from the range of the issue, so it would be quite nice of you to indulge my query. Thank you.
Post Reply