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 »

I've PM'd Sylvester an apology. This topic is clearly in the hands of more competent minds than mine. :popcorn:
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by Sylvester »

danieLion wrote:I've PM'd Sylvester an apology. This topic is clearly in the hands of more competent minds than mine. :popcorn:
And I hope you'll also forgive my silly transgression. :hug:
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:I've PM'd Sylvester an apology. This topic is clearly in the hands of more competent minds than mine. :popcorn:
And I hope you'll also forgive my silly transgression. :hug:
Of course. I wouldn't be able to continue learning from you if I held a grudge.
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by Sylvester »

daverupa wrote: I note that I don't have the Pali for
Just as if a skilled bathman or bathman's apprentice would pour bath powder into a brass basin and knead it together, sprinkling it again and again with water, so that his ball of bath powder — saturated, moisture-laden, permeated within and without — would nevertheless not drip; even so, the monk permeates, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of withdrawal.
which may be pertinent?

That would be -
Evameva kho bhikkhave bhikkhu imameva kāyaṃ vivekajena pītisukhena abhisandeti parisandeti paripūreti parippharati.
And what might you think kāya means there? Physical body, mental collection? Just note the bar in MN 43.21 against the body faculty experiencing any external āyatana besides phoṭṭhabba...

Other considerations - kāya figures in some common idioms, such as -
kāyena ceva paramasaccaṃ sacchikaroti,

he realises the ultimate truth with the body
eg MN 95
Doesn't look like the physical body were meant here.

In SN 18.21, the term saviññāṇaka kāya refers to the 5 Aggregates, leading one to the reading that kāya refers to perception, feeling, formations and form.

Other occurences of kāya as "collection" includes saññākāyā (collections of perception, DN 33), vedanākāyā (DN 33, SN 12.2), viññāṇakāyā etc. And we of course have the well-known rūpakāya and nāmakāya in DN 15's fabulous exposition on bare contact and conceptualising contact. Not forgetting nāmakāya in Sn 5.6, which appears conceptually similar to DN 15's nāmakāya as the naming process/activity.

Given the breadth of kāya's usage in the suttas as a collator of mental states, what might it mean in the jhana pericopes?
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by daverupa »

Sylvester wrote:Just note the bar in MN 43.21...
Well, that Sutta says first jhana has five factors... I'll just plant a flag there, and we can move on.
Sylvester wrote:Given the breadth of kāya's usage in the suttas as a collator of mental states, what might it mean in the jhana pericopes?
It must be something that allows for seclusion from kaya, such that kaya can be infused with piti-sukha like water through a bath ball, or like cool water welling up into a lake from below. Permeation seems to be the theme of the metaphors...

I think there's a hint in the third line of the first tetrad in anapanasati, which enjoins the practitioner to experience all the bodies (or, the entire body) which, to me, looks like an injunction to make the whole thing a single percept; something along these lines, though I'm still examining the issue...
  • "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]
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by Sylvester »

Hello again!
daverupa wrote:
Sylvester wrote:Just note the bar in MN 43.21...
Well, that Sutta says first jhana has five factors... I'll just plant a flag there, and we can move on.
Too Abhidhammic for you? :stirthepot:

I suppose your discomfort with MN 43’s characterization of 1st Jhana as having 5 factors stems from the presence of cittekaggatā (singleness/unification of mind) in the listing of factors? Granted, as a compound, cittekaggatā occurs just a few times (MN 111, a variant reading of MN 122) in the suttas.

However, if the compound were resolved into citta + ekagga, a wild card search on VRI shows up many occurrences. You have –

- cittaṃ ekaggaṃ (the mind [was] unified) in MN 4, MN 19

- cittassa ekaggatā (unification of the mind) in MN 44, MN 117, MN 125, SN 45.28 (mirroring MN 117), SN 48.9 – 11, SN 48.50

- ekaggacittā in SN 47.4 and AN 2.43 in the context of satipaṭṭhāna,

In fact, its occurrence as cittaṃ ekaggaṃ (the mind was unified) in MN 4 and MN 19 within the context of satipaṭṭhāna just before the 1st Jhana would suggest that it is not a quality that shows up only in the Jhanas.

I wonder if the Buddha was doing a pun on agga in the above suttas, when He described each jhana as a “peak of perception” (saññagga) here -
Ekaññeva nu kho bhante bhagavā saññaggaṃ paññapeti udāhu puthū'pi saññagge paññapetī?"Ti.

"Ekampi kho ahaṃ poṭṭhapāda4 saññaggaṃ paññapemi. Puthū'pi saññagge paññapemī"ti.

But, lord, does the Blessed One describe one peak of perception or many peaks of perception?"
"Potthapada, I describe one peak of perception and many peaks of perception."

DN 9
It must be something that allows for seclusion from kaya, such that kaya can be infused with piti-sukha like water through a bath ball, or like cool water welling up into a lake from below. Permeation seems to be the theme of the metaphors...
I agree that is the thread unifying the similes. What do you think of this previous discussion of the "permeation" here - http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... ng#p195521" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When you say "It must be something that allows for seclusion from kaya, such that kaya can be infused with piti-sukha", did you mean to say that the rapture and pleasure overwhelms the rest of the senses, such that nothing is experienced other than the otherworldly rapture and pleasure? Quite a nice simile.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by daverupa »

Sylvester wrote:Too Abhidhammic for you?
:shrug: So, was it an oversight of the Buddha's? It's simply odd to find a way to work it in, when it isn't there in the first place and could have easily been clearly mentioned.
Sylvester wrote:When you say "It must be something that allows for seclusion from kaya, such that kaya can be infused with piti-sukha", did you mean to say that the rapture and pleasure overwhelms the rest of the senses, such that nothing is experienced other than the otherworldly rapture and pleasure? Quite a nice simile.
I've underlined some troublesome phrases. I'm simply pursuing the oddity of the idea that detachment from kaya lets one infuse kaya with pitisukha born of that very detachment. So, I think detachment still allows for contact, as in the phrase "he feels it detached" in SN 12.6, or MN 140. After all, the third jhana contains the line "sukhañca kāyena paṭisaṃvedeti", and since
SN 48.37 Dutiyavibhaṅga Sutta informs us that the pleasure and pain faculties are born of body contact (kāyasamphassaja), whereas the happiness and unhappiness faculties are born of mind contact (manosamphassaja).
things seem fairly clear...
  • "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]
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by Sylvester »

Hi dave
So, was it an oversight of the Buddha's? It's simply odd to find a way to work it in, when it isn't there in the first place and could have easily been clearly mentioned.
Perhaps an explanation might be to accept the inclusion of cittekaggatā in MN 43 as being commentary, but commentary that is obvious from its occurrences elsewhere in the suttas? In any event, I’m happy to report that the Chinese parallel to MN 43, 大拘絺羅 MA 211 says the same –
初禪有五支。覺.觀.喜.樂.一心。是謂初禪有五支。
Cittekaggatā is rendered as 一心.

If I had to guess why cittekaggatā is missing from the Jhana pericopes, it may have been motivated by the concern that the pericopes serve to distinguish these mental states from "normal" consciousness. Its inclusion might have led to the inference that cittekaggatā is not also a hallmark of well-established satipaṭṭhāna, when other suttas indicate otherwise.

I've underlined some troublesome phrases. I'm simply pursuing the oddity of the idea that detachment from kaya lets one infuse kaya with pitisukha born of that very detachment. So, I think detachment still allows for contact, as in the phrase "he feels it detached" in SN 12.6, or MN 140.
Let’s get the technicalities out of the way first. The 1st Jhana periscope does not read vivicceva kāyā/kāyasmā (quite secluded from the kāya). It reads vivicceva kāmehi (quite secluded from the kāmā). The seclusion is from the 5 external āyatanā, not from the internal āyatana of the kāya. Consider MN 28’s explanation of contact –
(taking just the kāya analysis)

Now if internally the body is intact but externally tangibles do not come into range, nor is there a corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. If internally the body is intact and externally tangibles come into range, but there is no corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. But when internally the body is intact and externally tangibles come into range, and there is a corresponding engagement, then there is the appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness.

Ajjhattiko ce āvuso kāyo aparibhinno hoti, bāhirā ca poṭṭhabbā na āpāthaṃ āgacchanti, no ca tajjo samannāhāro hoti, neva tāva tajjassa viññāṇabhāgassa pātubhāvo hoti. Ajjhattiko ce āvuso kāyo aparibhinno hoti, bāhirā ca poṭṭhabbā āpāthaṃ āgacchanti, no ca tajjo samannāhāro hoti, nevatāva tajjassa viññāṇabhāgassa pātubhāvo hoti. Yato ca kho āvuso ajjhattiko ce kāyo aparibhinno hoti, bāhirā ca poṭṭhabbā āpāthaṃ āgacchanti, tajjo ca samannāhāro hoti, evaṃ tajjassa viññāṇabhāgassa pātubhāvo hoti.
This analysis survives also in the Chinese parallel 象蹟喻, MA 30 , save that instead of using the stylized tajja samannāhāra, the Indic loan word was equivalent to the Pali manasikāra, thereby agreeing with the Commentary’s gloss of tajja samannāhāra. What this analysis suggests is that an external āyatana could bump into its corresponding internal āyatana, but consciousness of it does not arise in the absence of attention. The tajja (correspondance) concept does make its appearance elsewhere, including MN 140 which you cited.

Speaking of MN 140, the “he feels it detached” phrase employs visaṃyutta (not yoked) which BB renders as “detached”. It does not look anything like the 1st Jhana pericope’s vivicca, nor can I find any references to suggest that these are synonyms. If anything, the passage in MN 140 preceding the “detachment” analysis suggests that it is the realization of the lack of a basis for delight (anabhinanditā) in the 3 kinds of feelings that leads to the detachment. This “does not delight” (na abhinandati) kind of analysis is always associated with full awakening, not the jhanas.

SN 48.37 Dutiyavibhaṅga Sutta informs us that the pleasure and pain faculties are born of body contact (kāyasamphassaja), whereas the happiness and unhappiness faculties are born of mind contact (manosamphassaja).

things seem fairly clear...
Slurp! Let me track down my old posts on this kāyasamphassaja and manosamphassaja dichotomy. Essentially, it establishes a dichotomy of feelings as either kāyika or cetasika. There are ample suttas which suggest that kāyasamphassaja vedanā includes the vedanā simpliciter (affective tone) born of mano and dhamma contact, while manosamphassaja vedanā refers to the resulting emotive tone of joy (somanassa ) or grief (domanassa) or upekkhā.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by daverupa »

Sorry, what a sloppy post I've made, alas! :tantrum:

But yes: secluded from kama such that one infuses kaya. Lack of an ability to quickly reference Pali editions for the words used is still one helluva barrier; setting aside "detached" then to avoid false synergy, the idea is that most external ayatanas are secluded away and that their internal ayatanas + vinnana are never triggered, leaving just the mano sphere, if I understand what's being said.

It makes sense when we consider sound a thorn for first jhana - kicks awareness to an external sphere, bugger all - but it doesn't really touch kaya yet, unless kaya just means "whatever else there is" in the jhana context. The metaphors of permeation are just so embodied that I have a hard time getting these two themes aligned. None of the five ayatanas, but infuse the kaya... such a laborious and indirect way of saying it, if that's what is meant, which is why this doesn't yet satisfy my mind.

:thinking:
  • "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
piotr
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Khettadesa

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by piotr »

Hi Sylvester,
Sylvester wrote: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).
I think that you should point out in your analysis that according to this dictionary kāma in singular usually refers to desire, while in plural it usually referes to five sense objects. This means that there are some exceptions in the Suttas, and you can't make a clear cut rule. For example in 3rd out of 10 unskilfill courses of action, kāma is found in locative case in plural, but it undoubtedly means “desires”.
Bhagavaṃmūlakā no, bhante, dhammā...
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Purely mental absorption (jhana) in the suttas

Post by Sylvester »

piotr wrote:Hi Sylvester,
Sylvester wrote: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).
I think that you should point out in your analysis that according to this dictionary kāma in singular usually refers to desire, while in plural it usually referes to five sense objects. This means that there are some exceptions in the Suttas, and you can't make a clear cut rule. For example in 3rd out of 10 unskilfill courses of action, kāma is found in locative case in plural, but it undoubtedly means “desires”.

Thanks piotr!

I am aware of this. Interestingly, Anuruddha points out that kāmesu, although expressed in the locative plural, carries an idiomatic singular sense, so that kāmesu micchācāra refers to misconduct with reference to sensual desire (sg). He does not cite the source of this explanation, however.

One of the places where the exception you mentioned may be found is AN 6.63, where the text vaccilates between kāma as sensual desire (sg), kāmā as sense objects, and then kāmā as sensual desires (pl). The verse part seems to be the oldest kernel of the sutta, where kāma refers to sensual desire (sg), and kāmā refers to sense objects and not sensual desires. It is only in the prose analysis of sensual desire that the plural kāmā is used. My theory is that the analysis on kāmā might have suffered a textual corruption, owing to how the subsequent analyses were done.

The subsequent states analysed are vedanā, saññā, āsavā, kamma, and dukkha. Each of these (plus sensual desire) are then analysed according to a standard template of vedittabbā (should be known), nidānasambhavo veditabbo (the cause should be known), vemattatā veditabbā (diversity should be known), vipāko viditabbo (result should be known), nirodho veditabbo (cessation should be known) and nirodhagāminī paṭipadā veditabbā (the path to cessation should be known).

What's interesting to note is how the future passive participle veditabba is conjugated to agree with its subject in case and number. You have the singular conjugation veditabbo for the singular nouns (nidānasambhavo, vipāko, nirodho) and the plural conjugation veditabbā for the plural nouns (the primary subjects, vemattatā, paṭipadā (sg?)).

When it comes to the analyses of each of the primary subjects, it goes as -
Kāmā, bhikkhave, veditabbā
Vedanā, bhikkhave, veditabbā
Saññā, bhikkhave, veditabbā
Āsavā, bhikkhave, veditabbā
Kammaṃ, bhikkhave, veditabbaṃ
Dukkhaṃ, bhikkhave, veditabbaṃ
I suspect, that instead of its current "Kāmā, bhikkhave, veditabbā", the correct reading should have been "Kāmo, bhikkhave, veditabbo". After all, the verse itself clearly referred to kāmo as sensual desire. The current reading may have been the redactor mistakenly following the plural patterns used for vedanā, saññā and āsavā.

Just a guess.
Post Reply