Jhāna According to the Pāḷi Nikāyas

Discussion of Samatha bhavana and Jhana bhavana.
User avatar
Dmytro
Posts: 1161
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Contact:

Re: Jhāna According to the Pāḷi Nikāyas

Postby Dmytro » Mon Jul 09, 2012 6:18 pm

Hi Sylvester,

Sylvester wrote:How about the other 5 old kamma in the Kamma Sutta, or perhaps the other 2 karajakāyā in the Karajakāya Sutta, AN 10.5.1.9?


Which two? http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/2S ... ggo-e.html

The Commentary is uncharacteristically vague on this point, methinks. I wonder why the physical body might have been understood as being saturated with pītisukha born of seclusion, since these states are not phoṭṭhabba and, therefore cannot possibly make contact with kāya.


Why they are not phoṭṭhabba?

:anjali:

Sylvester
Posts: 1647
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: Jhāna According to the Pāḷi Nikāyas

Postby Sylvester » Tue Jul 10, 2012 6:13 am

Hi Dmytro

Sorry, got my inflections mixed up. The karajakāya is in the singular. :embarassed:

This is how I interpret the karajakāya mentioned in the Karajakāya Sutta. Firstly, the entire vagga discussed kamma performed bodily (kāyakamma), verbally (vacīkamma) and by the mind (manokamma) - Saṃsappanīya Sutta, AN 10.5.1.6. The same broad division of kamma into 3 runs through suttas 1 to 8 and 10 of the vagga. The Karajakāya Sutta is the only sutta in the vagga that does not divide the kamma into bodily, verbal or mental; instead it addresses only "iminā karajakāyena pāpakammaṃ kataṃ" (bad kamma done by this karajakāya).

I take the kāya in karajakāya as not referring to the physical body, but as meaning "group", ie the group of 3 mediators of the 3 types of kamma. If this karajakāya were limited to only the physical body, we will have a problem accounting for manokamma. What else drew me to make this connection is the fact that the Karajakāya Sutta discusses the brahmaviharas as means to overcoming the results of pāpakamma. Now, I do not take this proposition as being limited to only kāyakamma. I refer to other suttas, eg DN 13 and SN 42.8 which also make the same point regarding the brahmaviharas as means of overcoming the future results of "limited kamma". No distinction is drawn between bodily kamma, verbal kamma or mental kamma in these suttas. This leads me to interpret karajakāya as "collection born of/arising from actions". I can agree with you that karajakāya belongs squarely in "old kamma", which the Kamma Sutta, SN 35.145 would identify with the 6 indriyas/ayatanas of vision, hearing, tasting, olfaction, touch and mind. The kāya in karajakāya seems therefore to also be capable of being read to refer to the set/collection of the 6 indriyas/ayatanas.

Which brings us nicely to the crux of the issue - were the Commentators saying that all six indriyas (or all 3 mediators of kamma) were saturated with Jhanic pitisukha, or only Mind? (This would be difficult to reconcile with the Vsm explanation of this in Chap IV, para 175). I think it is possible to interpret the kāya similes as pointing to all 6 indriyas, but there will be problems if we interpret this as Jhanic pitisukha being felt by the eye, ears, nose and tongue during the Jhana. This will run counter to Geoff's original argument -

There are a couple of points worth mentioning here. Firstly, these five strands of sensual pleasure are all external sensory objects. As such, they correspond to objects within the five external sensory spheres (bāhirāyatanā). Thus, these five sensory objects do not include in-and-out breathing, which is considered internal, nor the internal felt-sense of the body.


If I now agree with you that Jhanic pitisukha is phoṭṭhabba, we run into the greater problem of MN 43. Only the physical body can "contact" phoṭṭhabba. None of the other 4 indriyas of eye, ear, nose and tongue could possibly "contact" phoṭṭhabba/tactility.

Let us accept for argument's sake that the said 4 indriyas were not intended by the Commentators to be included within karajakāya. Let's test the hypothesis that Jhanic pitisukha is phoṭṭhabba/tactility.

Firstly, I do not quite know what to make of Geoff's original assertion above. Firstly, I thought that there are 6 (not only 5) external sensory objects. In the typical ayatana scheme, dhammas count as an external ayatana (eg DN 22 or SN 35.4). As for internal ayatanas, again the typical ayatana scheme identifies the 6 internal ayatanas with the 6 indriyas of seeing, hearing, tasting, olfaction, touch and mind. I am not aware of any sense object whatsoever being described in the suttas as being an internal ayatana. Might you know of any sutta that actually identifies in-&-out breathing as "internal"?

We are still back to square one as to what kāmā in the 1st Jhana pericope means. I could of course take the easy way of citing the CPD entry on kāma. Taking Geoff's citation of AN 6.63 does not really help -

Continuing with AN 6.63, we can see that a clear distinction is made between sensual pleasures (kāmā) and the five strands of sensual pleasure (kāmagunā). After defining the five strands of sensual pleasure in the previous passage, the Buddha states:

But monks, these are not sensual pleasures (kāmā). They are called strands of sensual pleasure (kāmagunā) in the discipline of the noble ones.

The resolve of passion is a man’s sensual pleasure.
The world’s beautiful things are not sensual pleasures.
The resolve of passion is a man’s sensual pleasure.
The beauties remain as they are in the world,
While the wise remove desire for them.

Here the Buddha is differentiating sensual pleasures (kāmā) which are the resolve of passion (saṅkapparāga), from the beautiful external sensory objects of that passion, pertaining to which the wise remove desire.


The Pali for the verse runs -

Saṅkapparāgo purissa kāmo,
Nete kāmā yāni citrāni loke;
Saṅkapparāgo purisassa kāmo,
Tiṭṭhanti citrāni tatheva loke;
Athettha dhīrā vinayanti chandanti.


Geoff translates the nominative singular of kāma (ie kāmo) as "sensual pleasure" (singular). It can also be legitimately translated as "sensual desire" (singular) - see the PED and CPD entries. I leave it to you to decide which reading is better, Geoff's reading that saṅkapparāga be conflated with an external sense object, or saṅkapparāga being identified with sensual desire.

Geoff also cites MN 13, as authority for the proposition that -

MN 13 Mahādukkhakhandha Sutta tells us that the strands of sensual pleasure are the allure of kāma.


Actually, MN 13 states that the pleasure that arises in dependence on the 5 cords of sensual pleasure are the allure of kāmā (plural!) (Ko ca bhikkhave kāmānaṃ assādo?). In fact, if one looks at an extended version of the allure, gratification, drawback and escape theme, SN 35.13 makes it explicit that the kāmā are just rūpā, saddā, gandhā, rasā and phoṭṭhabbā.

Would there be room for phoṭṭhabbā to be cognised when one is supposed to be secluded from the kāmā in 1st Jhana?

Thank you for your patience.
:anjali:

Nyana
Posts: 2227
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: Jhāna According to the Pāḷi Nikāyas

Postby Nyana » Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:59 am

Sylvester wrote:This is how I interpret the karajakāya mentioned in the Karajakāya Sutta.

None of these discourses require the readings that you are wont to impose upon them Sylvester.

Sylvester wrote:If I now agree with you that Jhanic pitisukha is phoṭṭhabba, we run into the greater problem of MN 43. Only the physical body can "contact" phoṭṭhabba. None of the other 4 indriyas of eye, ear, nose and tongue could possibly "contact" phoṭṭhabba/tactility.

Firstly, MN 43 explicitly states that the mano experiences all of these gocaravisaya. Secondly, there is nothing in MN 43 which requires the restrictions of your interpretation. For example, it wouldn't take much effort to use this passage in question to support a model of the mind which allows for concomitant cognitions, such as was proposed in Chapter 8 of the Abhidharmakośabhāsya specifically in the context of feeling in jhāna, or generally, as in the Yogācārabhūmiśāstra Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī.

Sylvester wrote:Firstly, I thought that there are 6 (not only 5) external sensory objects.

A non-starter. I never said that there were only five external ayatanas.

Sylvester wrote:Might you know of any sutta that actually identifies in-&-out breathing as "internal"?

MN 140.

Sylvester wrote:I leave it to you to decide which reading is better, Geoff's reading that saṅkapparāga be conflated with an external sense object, or saṅkapparāga being identified with sensual desire.

There's been no such conflation.

Sylvester wrote:In fact, if one looks at an extended version of the allure, gratification, drawback and escape theme, SN 35.13 makes it explicit that the kāmā are just rūpā, saddā, gandhā, rasā and phoṭṭhabbā.

Kāmā can either be sense objects or the sensual pleasures which arise in connection with those objects. Singular or plural is irrelevant.


Return to “Samatha Meditation and Jhana”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest