Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

The cultivation of calm or tranquility and the development of concentration
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by daverupa »

I don't understand why it is being taken as referring to five senses only, and not six. Can you elaborate? I understand that the five cords are five in number, of course, but kamachanda doesn't seem limited to just those five...
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by reflection »

Thanks for the question daverupa.

I can approach that from different directions, depending on why you don't understand it. Perhaps you could explain where you don't understand.

Jhana aside, another the reason the Buddha made this distinction between the mind and the other senses, is that craving for bodily sense activities has to be be let go before craving for mind activities can be let go. That's because the 5 senses are coarser than the 6th sense, which also is the master of the others, always follows the others.

In other words, non-returning comes before arahantship. The craving for mind sense is included in the fetters specific to the arahant. If it were not, but were part of kamacchando, there would be no reason for a non-returner to have another life in another realm, because there is nothing else to cling to but the 6 senses.

Hope this helps. If it's not clear yet, feel free to illustrate where you don't understand.

With metta,
Reflection
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by daverupa »

Well, the entry for kama in the PED does not say that only five of the six senses are meant. Sense desire can operate across all six senses, based on contact, feeling, and craving, so to limit this word to encompass only five of the six senses seems artificial. So, I was hoping to see your reasoning with respect to a five-sense understanding of this term.

The five cords of sensual pleasure (kamaguna) seem to set the mentality sphere aside, so is there some other sort of desire and craving which operates in that sphere? For example, kamacchanda is a mental phenomenon, as I understand it, and there is the case of kam'asava, a mental influx. So while kamaguna is the five physical senses, kama itself as a term doesn't appear to me to be limited to 5/6.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by reflection »

Craving in the most general use of the word applies to all 6 senses, that's sure. And indeed there is another term for all those together, the Buddha used the word tanha for that. When sense activity (kama) or sense desire (kamachanda/kamatanha), is mentioned, it inexplicitly refers to just 5 senses. That's a bit confusing, I can agree, but that's a problem in the translations.
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by danieLion »

marc108 wrote:
danieLion wrote: It does not follow that being successful at jhāna means one should ordain.
not successful, easy. if you find it easy you should!
As Kant noted, "ought implies can."

Jhāna's easy BECAUSE we're all capable of succeeding at it.

The jhāna factors are part of ordinary human psychology. That's why it's easy to SUCCSEFULLY manipulate the factors into discrete jhānas (it also relates to the fact that there are a plurality of methods by which one can be successful at jhāna; the Brahm-Sujato "method" is not one of them).

BUT: I also said there's something HARD ABOUT jhāna. Do you recall that?
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by danieLion »

@ reflection, Daverupa,
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?
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by danieLion »

reflection wrote:So rather than a debate, I would like to use this thread as a sort of sutta reference for those who think or experience concentration can go into states where there is no contact with the 5 senses....
You're conflating this with the Brahm-Sujato view on jhāna. For centuries humans have practised a variety of ways of getting into mental states where there is no awareness of contact with the five senses. The "immersed in the body 'school'" does not contend with that fact. It's contention is with the methodological uniformism of the Brahm-Sujato view.
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by danieLion »

reflection wrote: Again I would prefer to keep matters of interpretation (rather than translation) outside of this thread, because we already have many of these threads. So feel free to revive the jhana debate on this issue. But if you can feel where I'm coming from and think you add to this thread in a new and positive way, please go ahead here.


With metta,
Reflection
The distinction between interpretation and translation is not very pragmatic. Your Pāli studies should help you see that soon enough though.

My intention is not to debate. My intention is to participate in an open exchange (as opposed to a guided exchange--save where we are guided by the DW forum rules we agreed to when we joined).
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by reflection »

Dear danieLion,

You're right about the distinction between translation and interpretation, the line is thin and I should have been more clear or even said nothing at all about it. Thank you for pointing out. I had a certain intention behind what I said, but it didn't come out right. I apologize.

To get to your other point adressed to me, yes, this is a forum so it's natural there is some exchange. I just want to try and prevent a repetition of moves in those threads which already exist, where the exchange is sometimes all but creating a sense of harmony. Here I wanted a thread not to convince or argue, but a place to create some understanding of the interpretation of others and why it is incorrect calling it a "vishudimagga" interpretation. So the basis is different than other threads already existing. It's a bit of a balance I tried to create, the words to achieve this are hard to find and perhaps I'm desiring the impossible, but I hope you can understand the intentions behind it. But I'm happy so far, I think this thread has gone quite well, more considerable than I expected to be honest. I think I have explained this enough now and I hope it this thread may stay a friendly place and prove useful in creating harmony.

But let's get back to the topic at hand. To answer your question:
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.

With metta,
Reflection
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by Sylvester »

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.
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.
Post Reply