Sylvester wrote:Hi Bakmoon
Thanks for your thoughts.
I was about to send you my reply, when I hit the close button. Being late and lazy, I'll just summarise in the hope that what follows makes sense.
The common thread in MN 111 describing
vipassanā is the knowledge -
‘evaṃ kirame dhammā ahutvā sambhonti, hutvā paṭiventī’ti
'So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.'
This runs through all 9 attainments as the common thread to the series. On the other hand, the
vavattheti and
vindati actions only occur in relation to the first 7 attainments. As a matter of convention, would something that does not form part of the common denominator defining
vipassanā qualify as
vipassanā? I do not know of any other sutta that does not conform to this convention.
Secondly, the limits of perception are reached in the Base of Nothingness, according to AN 9.36. Might this not suggest that
vavattheti and
vindati are therefore functional aspects of perception, rather than
vipassanā? Certainly, if one takes any Pali dictionary,
vavattheti is given a very ruminative definition, owing no doubt to that word's usage in the Paṭisambhidāmagga. But given how AN 9.36 furnishes a clue as to why one cannot
vavattheti beyond the 7th attainment, won't it make more sense to tie
vavattheti to being a functional aspect of mere perception, instead of the discursive character of
vipassanā?
Hi, Sylvester. Thank you for your excellent response. I greatly enjoy engaging with someone as steeped in the Dhamma as you, and I relish the opportunity to engage in discussion with you. May we have many more fruitful exchanges!
I would definitely agree with you that the essence of the Vipassana which the Ven. Sariputta developed is encapsulated in the quote:
'So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.'
Indeed, this is the very basis of me saying that Vipassana occurred during Jhana. I say this because in the case of all of the attainments up until the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, the process is described the same. Using the first Jhana as an example:
There was the case where Sariputta — quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities — entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. Whatever qualities there are in the first jhana — directed thought, evaluation, rapture, pleasure, singleness of mind, contact, feeling, perception, intention, consciousness,[2] desire, decision, persistence, mindfulness, equanimity, & attention — he ferreted them out one after another. Known to him they arose, known to him they remained, known to him they subsided. He discerned, 'So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.' He remained unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those qualities, independent, detached, released, dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers. He discerned that 'There is a further escape,' and pursuing it there really was for him.
At first glance, the text seems to imply that this occurs during Jhana. One must consider the possibility that post-Jhana review is occurring here, but that leads to a strange construction of the text. I say this because in the case of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, the text explicitly states that the Ven. Sariputta withdrew from Jhana and reviewed the factors afterwards. It says:
Furthermore, with the complete transcending of the dimension of nothingness, Sariputta entered & remained in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. He emerged mindfully from that attainment. On emerging mindfully from that attainment, he regarded the past qualities that had ceased & changed: 'So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.' He remained unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those qualities, independent, detached, released, dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers. He discerned that 'There is a further escape,' and pursuing it there really was for him.
So in this case, it states that he withdrew from the Jhana and then examined the factors. In the prior cases, it makes no mention of withdrawal first. If we assume that the Ven. Sariputta was engaged in the review of the Jhanic factors after withdrawral in the case of every Jhana, we could expect one of two things. On the one hand, we could expect that the text would explicitly state that he withdrew from Jhana and reviewed the factors, or we could expect that the text would simply leave it implied that he withdrew first in the case of all the Jhanas. In otherwords, if he examined the factors for each Jhana in the same way, one would expect the text to describe his examination of the factors in the same way.
However, that is not what happens. The text describes withdrawal for the last Arupajhana and nirodha-samapati, but not for the first 7 Jhanas. In other words, if the ven. Sariputta was withdrawing and reviewing after every Jhana, then the text wouldn't bother to point out his withdrawal specifically for the last two attainments but leave it implied for the other 7. It would have described the withdrawal explicitly for all of them, or would have left it implied for all of them, but not explicit for some and not for others.
Therefore, the most reasonable construction of the text is that the occurrence of the Ven. Sariputta's "[R]egard[ing] the past qualities that had ceased & changed: 'So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish'" occurred during Jhana in the case of the first 7 Jhanas, and occurred during review in the case of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception and in the case of nirodha-samapati.
We both agree that the essence of the Ven. Sariputta's engagement in Vipassati was in his understanding of
'So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish'
So therefore, he was engaged in Vipassati during Jhana in the case of the first 7 Jhanas, and was engaged in Vipassati in post-Jhana review in the case of the dimension of infinite space and of nirodha-samapati.
[Just a side-note here. I think we may have gone a bit beyond the scope of the OP's question, so maybe we should ask a moderator to put this particular exchange in a new thread called "Can Vipassana be developed during Jhana?" or something similar. What do you think, Sylvester?]
[added in later]:
I realized I made an editing error in what I meant to say in the fourth paragraph from the bottom. I wanted it to say:
Therefore, the most reasonable construction of the text is that the occurrence of the Ven. Sariputta's action which lead to his understanding "'So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish'" occurred during Jhana in the case of the first 7 Jhanas, and occurred during review in the case of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception and in the case of nirodha-samapati.