This is emerging from Neither perception nor non-perception.
It is understandable.
How about other seven Jhana?
Can you give something similar?

An irrelevant and sarcastic comment, as you quote an arupa jhana. We were looking at factors of the 1st Jhana. Your quote only serves to highlight the difference between them - the arupa are different. What AB is describing for the form jhanas could perhaps be attributed to the formless.robertk wrote:Perhaps in your extensive study of the suttas you somehow overlooked ones like this:
Which I agree with but it's not what AB teaches. He teaches that insight is always post-jhana, which begs the question what insight is there within an AB jhana.Also jhana is not At all oblivion. There is profound awareness of the object, it is not like some sort of unconsciouness or deep sleep.
The Theravada interpretation would be that they are useful preparations that purify the mind, so in that sense they could "lead" to insight. However, as Robert points out, if on is in jhana (and Ajahn Brahm's/the Commentators' definition is correct) then insight is only possible after emerging.waterchan wrote:Is it right to say that the first two don't?mikenz66 wrote:The sutta lists four ways of developing samadhi, which is translated as concentration. The last two lead to mindfulness and insight.
Mike
Abhidhamma rather than sutta - but I've just noted the link in your signature to your Abhidhamma site, so I've nothing further to add.robertk wrote:Patthana:
(Faultless Triplet, Kusala-ttika, VII, Investigation Chapter, pañha-våra,
Object, § 404):
Faultless state (kusala dhamma) is related to faultless state by object-condition.
Having emerged from
jhåna, (one) reviews it. (One) reviews (such acts) formerly well done.
Having emerged from jhåna, (one) reviews the jhåna. Learners or common
worldlings practise insight into impermanence, suffering and
impersonality of the faultless (state"
Did you read any of the two links I posted before? Like I said, vitakka and vicara does not mean "directed thought & evaluation", even though it is sometimes translated as such.srivijaya wrote:waterchan wrote:the part of the sutta you quoted does not say that this insight happened during the first jhana.There's a dynamic process of investigation and relinquishment going on which would be impossible in an unconscious or unaware state. The first jhana is even described as "accompanied by directed thought & evaluation". No sign of any of that in AB's description of 1st jhana.Known to him they arose, known to him they remained, known to him they subsided
Also, nowhere in the suttas does it explain that this process of insight happened after the monk arose from a state of oblivion.
[See link for some quotes from the sutta.]Zom wrote:SN 48.40 says that pleasant bodily feeling ends only in the 3rd jhana.
Evaluation is not limited to coarse verbalised thoughts. Awareness is also not predicated on them, so I don't exactly see your point. Perhaps I'm missing something?waterchan wrote:Did you read any of the two links I posted before? Like I said, vitakka and vicara does not mean "directed thought & evaluation", even though it is sometimes translated as such.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was contrasting the standard Theravada interpretation of jhana as a highly-absorbed and difficult-to-attain state (with which AB seems to largely agree) with the modern "jhana-lite" interpretations.Sylvester wrote:Errh, I don't think it's a Theravada thingy. If insight is the product of mental examination, then it would be impossible in the Attainments - DN 9 and DA 28. If one thinks (ceteti) or generates a volition (abhisaṅkharoti) in any of the Attainments, one crashes out and lands back in familiar territory, ie kāmasaññā .
One could try arguing that insight happens silently, but given one of insight's proxy verb samanupassati (considers), I seriously doubt that interpretation.
Can I say the first two are Samatha and the last two are as Vipassana?mikenz66 wrote:The sutta lists four ways of developing samadhi, which is translated as concentration. The last two lead to mindfulness and insight.
Mike
In this thread I have only being referring to the op post about hearing in jhana.srivijaya wrote:Which I agree with but it's not what AB teaches. He teaches that insight is always post-jhana, which begs the question what insight is there within an AB jhana.Also jhana is not At all oblivion. There is profound awareness of the object, it is not like some sort of unconsciouness or deep sleep.
I would say that the first two are developments that tend towards development of strong samatha, and the last two are developments that tend towards the development of vipassana.SarathW wrote:Can I say the first two are Samatha and the last two are as Vipassana?mikenz66 wrote:The sutta lists four ways of developing samadhi, which is translated as concentration. The last two lead to mindfulness and insight.
Mike
The Satipatthana Sutta contains elements of development all four types of samadhi mentioned in AN 4.41. The Body/Feeling/Mind foundations (particularly body) tend to lean more towards the first type mentioned in AN 4.41, and the fourth more towards the third and fourth types mentioned in AN 4.41.SarathW wrote: How does these for Samadhi, reconcile to Satipatthana Sutta?
mikenz66 wrote:Hi Sylvester,Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was contrasting the standard Theravada interpretation of jhana as a highly-absorbed and difficult-to-attain state (with which AB seems to largely agree) with the modern "jhana-lite" interpretations.Sylvester wrote:Errh, I don't think it's a Theravada thingy. If insight is the product of mental examination, then it would be impossible in the Attainments - DN 9 and DA 28. If one thinks (ceteti) or generates a volition (abhisaṅkharoti) in any of the Attainments, one crashes out and lands back in familiar territory, ie kāmasaññā .
One could try arguing that insight happens silently, but given one of insight's proxy verb samanupassati (considers), I seriously doubt that interpretation.
![]()
Mike
I have no doubt that AB is talking from personal experience. I think the deep state he describes is one in which no senses are operational and any insight gained is a subsequent occurrence. His A&E dead-on-arrival anecdote hardly leaves room for much experience within his definition of jhana. As far as I have seen, this is one reason why dry-insight folks consider jhana to be a waste of time and from this POV their objections make real sense. Being able to note negative mental states as they arise etc. is of huge benefit in cultivation and this is clearly impossible in AB's scenario.robertk wrote:In this thread I have only being referring to the op post about hearing in jhana.
If AB is saying eleswhere that in jhana there is no awareness at all- like deep sleep or something- then that is possibly even worse than the idea that there can be hearing or conceptual thinking in jhana.
If doctrine says that there can be no insight into the three marks while in jhana, what does it say about what is actually experienced (if anything) whilst in jhana?But if he is saying that there can be no insight into the three marks while in jhana then he is quite correct as per Theravada doctrine.
I don't see how one can make such a judgment, given that the ajahn's anecdote reports only the meditator's alleged unresponsiveness to external stimuli, while relating nothing at all about his subjective experience.srivijaya wrote:His A&E dead-on-arrival anecdote hardly leaves room for much experience within his definition of jhana.
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 9 guests