Preston asked Ven. Sunyo why MN 43 and AN 9.37 very conspicuously avoids listing the 4 jhānas, when listing what meditative attainments have the 5 senses of the body shut off, divorced from the mind.
Ven. Sunyo replied:
Thanks for the clarification, Preston. I did indeed overlook the quotes [from the two suttas showing absence of 4 jhānas in list of states that are formless], reading too quickly. But these texts also don’t say that the 5 senses cease only in the formless attainments.
They just say the formless attainments “can be known with purified (parisuddhena) mind consciousness released from the five senses”. Where does it say “explicitly” that in the jhanas there are still the five senses, and that they cease only in the formless attainments? To me, that is what you add to it.
I belief the key aspect in this statement is parisuddhena, not the five senses. It’s only in the fourth jhana that the mind becomes purified, namely in equanimity and mindfulness, (upekkha-sati-parisuddhim). Then this purity continues in the formless states. But the five senses already ceased in the first jhana (or even before that generally).
It’s a bit like I would say to my (hypothetical) child: When you get your driver’s license, then with our car you can go into town. This doesn’t mean the car appears the at the moment he gets his driver’s license. We had that car already. Likewise, in the jhanas the 5 senses were already abandoned, but only at the fourth does it become purified in equanimity—with which the 4 formless attainments “can be known”.
Not the greatest analogy, but I think you get my argument.
But that discussion aside, this passage clearly speaks favorably of abandoning the five senses. So that kind of “absorption” (I prefer ‘unification’) away from the five senses was something encouraged by the Buddha, at whatever level we think it is achieved (at the first jhana or the formless states). Therefore, as DeadBuddha pointed out before, if people try to aim for these mind-only states, they are safe either way.
Let’s say (just hypothetically) that I and others with similar ideas are wrong about the jhanas and there was still physical sense perception them. In that case, if people practice to go into the mind-only realm, they’ll at worse just overshoot the mark, and end up in the formless states. That’s way less problematic than if I were right, and they were satisfied with something lower than the jhanas.
However, I know this may sound arrogant, but I’m sure I’m not wrong.
(end of Ven. Sunyo's post)
Start of Frankk's translation and rebuttal
MN 43 mind divorced from 5 body faculties can know what?
♦ 451. “nissaṭṭhena hāvuso, pañcahi indriyehi | [Ven. Mahā Koṭṭhita]: “divorced ****** (from the) five sense-faculties, |
parisuddhena mano-viññāṇena | (with a) purified mind-consciousness, |
kiṃ neyyan”ti? | what can-be-known?" |
♦ “nissaṭṭhena āvuso, pañcahi indriyehi | [Ven. Sāriputta]: “divorced ****** (from the) five sense-faculties, |
parisuddhena mano-viññāṇena | (with a) purified mind-consciousness, |
‘ananto ākāso’ti ākāsān-añc-āyatanaṃ neyyaṃ, | ‘infinite space,’ the-space-infinitude-dimension (can be) known, |
‘anantaṃ viññāṇan’ti viññāṇ-añc-āyatanaṃ neyyaṃ, | ‘infinite consciousness,’ the-consciousness-infinitude-dimension (can be) known, |
‘natthi kiñcī’ti ākiñcaññ-āyatanaṃ neyyan”ti. | ‘There is nothing.’ the-nothingness-dimension (can be) known." |
AN 9.37 mind divorced from 5 body faculties stated different way
tadeva nāma cakkhuṃ bhavissati te rūpā | (1) That very eye will-be-present (with) those forms |
Tañc-āyatanaṃ no paṭisaṃvedissati. | [and yet] that-base [one] {will} not experience. |
tadeva nāma sotaṃ bhavissati te saddā | (2) That very ear will-be-present (with) those sounds, |
Tañc-āyatanaṃ no paṭisaṃvedissati. | [and yet] that-base [one] {will} not experience. |
tadeva nāma ghānaṃ bhavissati te gandhā | (3) That very nose will-be-present (with) those odors, |
Tañc-āyatanaṃ no paṭisaṃvedissati. | [and yet] that-base [one] {will} not experience. |
sāva nāma jivhā bhavissati te rasā | (4) That very tongue will-be-present (with) those tastes, |
Tañc-āyatanaṃ no paṭisaṃvedissati. | [and yet] that-base [one] {will} not experience. |
sova nāma kāyo bhavissati te phoṭṭhabbā | That very body will-be-present (with) those tactile-objects, |
Tañc-āyatanaṃ no paṭisaṃvedissati. | [and yet] that-base [one] {will} not experience. |
ti. | “ |
(What is one percipient of when divorced from 5 sense faculties?)
♦ evaṃ vutte āyasmā udāyī | with-that said, Venerable Udāyī |
āyasmantaṃ ānandaṃ etadavoca — | (to) Venerable Ānanda {said}-this: |
“saññīm-eva nu kho, āvuso ānanda, | "(Is one) percipient-*** ***, friend Ānanda, |
tad-āyatanaṃ no paṭisaṃvedeti | (while) that-base (is) not experienced, |
udāhu a-saññī”ti? | or (is one) not-percipient?" |
“saññīm-eva kho, āvuso, | "[One is] Percipient-*** indeed, *****, |
tad-āyatanaṃ no paṭisaṃvedeti, | (while) that-base (is) not experienced, |
no a-saññī”ti. | not un-percipient." |
♦ “kiṃ-saññī panāvuso, | "What-(is one)-percipient (of), friend, |
tad-āyatanaṃ no paṭisaṃvedetī”ti? | (while) that-base (is) not experienced?" |
Answer is same 3 formless attainments as MN 43, plus na ca sa-saṅkhāra-niggayha-vārita-gato
Frankk points out some of Ven. Sunyo's logical fallacies
1. red herring: He tries to shift attention away from mind divorced from 5 senses to the term 'purified' (pari-suddha) of fourth jhāna. (regarding MN 43)
But he neglects to notice that AN 9.37 does not say anything about a purified consciousness/mind, using a different way to expresss 5 senses separated from mind.
2. eel wriggling, sophistry: (my paraphrase of what he said) "just because that list of formless attainments did not list the 4 jhānas, doesn't mean 4 jhānas is not a formless attainment."
a. Well, the fact that the 4 jhānas are called rūpa (form) attainments, and formless is a-rūpa (literally not form), should be your first clue.
b. the fact that AN 9.36, the sutta immediately and thematically connected to AN 9.37, explicitly states that the 4 jhānas perceive and examine all 5 aggregates (rūpa/form is first of the 5), should be a second clue.
c. the fact that every single reference to first jhāna in the suttas,
If you look at what happens right before first jhāna, does not say anything explicitly, or even vaguely hinting at the 5 senses of the body disappearing.
d. Ven Sunyo's analogy with child driving car? Priceless. A master class on sophistry.
But for the sake of argument, let's say his reasoning is valid.
Then why, in the sequence of 9 attainments, where infinite space, the 5th attainment which is formless (a-rūpa), follows the 4th jhāna which is form (rūpa), would the Buddha need to give 3 separate ways of showing how the mind becomes divorced from the 5 senses of the body?
Did someone steal the car from Ven. Sunyo's son after fourth jhāna, and then have to buy a new car for him on the base of infinite space so we'd have to go through the body divorcing the mind again?
In other words, if first jhāna the kāmehi already supposedly divorces the mind from the 5 senses, why would the base of infinite space need to divorce it again?
Did it get remarried to the body somewhere in 2nd or 3rd jhāna?
Using Ven. Sunyo's eel wriggling from (2), just because vitakka (thought) disappears in first jhāna, doesn't mean it can't reappear in 4th jhāna because the 4th jhāna formula does not explicitly exclude vitakka.
So we can also smuggle the 5 senses of the body back into 2nd, 3rd, and 4th jhāna since only the first jhāna explicitly omits 5 senses with kāmehi.
But Ven. Sunyo would probably object, "but obviously 9 attainments are a gradual sequence so it's implied vitakka doesn't need to be explicitly removed each time in each higher attainment."
But then Frank would reply, "then why would infinite space attainment need to divorce mind from 5 senses of the body again, if it was already divorced in first jhāna?"
You can't have it both ways Ven. Sunyo.
You have to apply the same reasoning consistently.
Otherwise you can make any set of words mean anything you want to, without any rhyme or reason.
No comments:
Post a Comment