Note: In SN 28, only SN 28.10 has a parallel; and that parallel doesn't adress the issue of "I am".
SarathW wrote: ↑
Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:05 pm
SN28.1-10 Born of seclusion?
“Reverend, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, I entered and remained in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected. But it didn’t occur to me: ‘I am entering the first absorption’ or ‘I have entered the first absorption’ or ‘I am emerging from the first absorption’.”
My question is whether this Sutta is in contradiction with another teaching.
SN 8.1 does not have a parallel - yet it does not conflict with the Teaching.
The suttas of reference when it comes to "I am" are SN 22.47 (https://justpaste.it/vyhx
) and SN 22.89 (both with quite perfect parallels).
"I" and "mine" are a satta's process; a purely "wordly" view.
As per SN 35.82 (// SA 231), the Buddhist "world
- form, eye-consciousness, eye-contact, and whatever feeling arises with eye-contact as condition.
- ear, ear-consciousness…
- mano, mano-consciousness...
All disintegrating, ([危脆 (breakable) 敗壞 (decaying)]) .
In other words, the world is defined as the ajjhatika āyatana (internal field of sensory experience,) encountering the bāhira āyatana (external field of sensory experience,) the ensuing consciousness of that internal field, and the contact (transferred property from the external ayatana to the internal one) - that leads to one of the three feelings.
An experience that is intrinsically liable to decay.
This is what satta experiences in the "world".
The proper way to see things, is first to get rid of the "I am THIS". That is to say path 1 in this sketch [ https://justpaste.it/1n1ii
] - this is "seclusion" #1 ( https://justpaste.it/1lvy7
Then one must get rid of path 2 - the "I am" process. This happens when the khandhas from the nāmarūpa nidāna, descend (avakkanti) directly in the internal fields of sensory experience (ajjhatikāni āyatanāni). This is what makes us believe that there is a "I am" (although the khandhas are not "ours" (SN 22.33)) .
He regards feeling as self … perception as self … volitional formations as self … consciousness as self (viññāṇaṃ attato samanupassati), or self as possessing consciousness (viññāṇavantaṃ vā attānaṃ), or consciousness as in self (attani vā viññāṇaṃ), or self as in consciousness (viññāṇasmiṃ vā attānaṃ).
Thus this way of regarding things and the notion ‘I am’ (‘asmī’ti) have not vanished in him. As ‘I am’ has not vanished, there takes place a descent of the five faculties (indriyānaṃ avakkanti hoti)
Note: And it is this descent of the five internal indriyas ( https://justpaste.it/194od ) ["powering" the internal fields of sensory experience], that allows form, eye-consciousness, eye-contact, and whatever feeling arises with eye-contact... ear, ear-consciousness… etc., (the "wordly" process and the ensuing "I am THIS".
Note also that path #2 occurs first in "forward paṭiccasamuppāda", so to speak. Then path #1 occurs.
While in "rewind paṭiccasamuppāda" (escape/enlightenment), one must get rid of path #1 first; then of path #2.
As Satta enters the jhānic process, he/she transcends towards a purer and purer citta.
The citta gets more and more "established" (samadhi).
The cit is what sees and understands.
A "purer" citta is what sees and understands clearly, without the pollution of the external & the internal āyatanāni.
A liberated citta is a ceto that is liberated from the "world" (cetovimutti).
The citta sees and understands from the rupa-loka; not the kama-loka anymore.
That is to say that the "purer citta" sees now from the perspective of the nāmarūpa nidāna; not from the saḷāyatana nidāna anymore.
If we consider SN 28.1 as a plausible early sutta, then Venerable Sāriputta's seclusion (viveka) is absolute. Venerable Sāriputta is beyond Venerable Khemaka's attainment, in that he has totally cast the "wordly" internal away as well.
This sutta is not in contradiction with the Teaching.
Some working for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
In this world with its ..., māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
We are all possessed - more or less.
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”