A point which I disprove below.
Also discussing exactly what the Buddha means by sati (mindfulness), and how that can not exist in Ajahn Brahm's disembodied frozen state (his redefinition of jhāna).
Re: Ajahn Brahm declares* that the Buddha was wrong about the second noble truth: the cause of suffering is not 'craving
Ven. Sunyo wanted to bring up MN 111 again, piggy backing off of Analayo's explanation of 8th and 9th attainment explicit emerging with "mindfulness"
Namely, his fallacious use of circular reasoning.
He assumes attainments 1-7 are "absorption" states which requiring emerging from, and treats it as fact without ever proving it (what absorption is and why it needs emerging from).
Like saying the Bible is the word of god because God says so in the bible.
It's enough to discredit his fallacious analysis of MN 111.
It doesn't require the point he contests about emerging with 'mindfulness' to be valid.
Whereas if he wants to avoid the circular reasoning fallacy, he needs not just that emerging point to be true, he needs other things as well which he doesn't provide.
But let me address the point you bring up about the emergence with "mindfulness" in the 8th and 9th attainment, since you both seen to misunderstand something about how sati works.
The Buddha's definition of sati in SN 47.2 works everywhere sati is used in the suttas.
Sati means "do the 4 satipatthana, see body as a body as it truly is, with right effort, with sati and sampajāno (lucid discerning), etc. with all 4 frames".
The sati being recursively referenced within 4 satipatthana must be referring to the sati-indriya of recalling what was said and done long ago.
In other words, what the Buddha means by "mindfulness" (sati), is different than what Analayo, psychotherapists, and sadly, many Buddhist teachers think "sati" means.
The Buddha's authoritative definition of sati ("mindfulness") means remember and apply the Dharma at all times.
And the Default value of "Dharma" is the 4 satipatthana formula as defined in SN 47.2.
Even when the Dharma that sati remembers is overridden by a specific Dharma to apply in context (for example 16 steps breath meditation),
that specific Dharma, in every case I ever checked those specific Dharmas are subsets of the Dharma of Satipatthana formula.
This should not be surprising, since the very first sutta in satipatthana samyutta, describes the practice of it in a way that parallels very closely the four noble truths.
Whenever one remembers Dharma of 4 noble truths, it's relevant to seeing dukkha, seeing the cause and way to end dukkha.
That's what sati means, and it works in everywhere in the suttas. Plug it in and try it out.
So back to MN 111 and the point about the 8th and 9th attainment, if you want to emphasize that it's "sati" that's the more important issue, over "emergence", let's examine that.
The next line after "emerging with mindfulness" makes that very point,
about examining those "dharma-[phenomena] that had ceased & changed" while one was frozen.
So it's not "sati" being emphasized over emergence, it's simply pointing to the fact that one is remembering past dharmas from the frozen state.
Ultimately the problem with your position, Ajahn Brahm's redefinition of jhāna as a disembodied frozen state, is that it also is frozen, and would require one to emerge before one can examine past dharmas from the frozen state.
Which means the lack of that "emerging with sati" statement in the first 7 statements is further support that the 7 perception attainments are not frozen states.
I don't know what you and Ajahn Brahm define for sati ("mindfulness"), but I don't see how you can do that in Ajahn brahm's disembodied frozen state,
whereas we can state definitively you can't do the Buddha's definition of sati in Ajahn Brahm's disembodied frozen state.
AN 9.36 is a similar sutta, singling out the 8th and 9th attainment requiring emergence.
Furthermore, the 3 formless perception attainments (#5,6,7), unlike the first 4 attainments, only do vipassana on the latter 4 aggregates, omitting rūpa.
So if your position were true, that emergence from first 7 attainments is already known that it requires emerging without the Buddha having to explicitly state it, then why is the vipassana from attainments 5-7 avoid doing vipassana on rūpa?
If you've emerged from formless attainment, you should be able to look at rūpa, internal or external.
There's also a large burden of proof for you to show exactly why you think it's implied there's emergence from a frozen disembodied jhāna even though the passages in MN 111 and AN 9.36 seem to really go out of there way to specifically point out factors and activity that are trying to explain the limited range of things one can do while in an embodied non-frozen jhāna.
AN 9.36 lack of perception of rūpa in attainments 5-7 supports the embodiment.
MN 111 specifically references having will, intention, desire, things you can not do when in a frozen state.
If your position were correct, that automatic emergence from first 7 attainments is implied, it would suffice to say in those suttas that "then they contemplate the rise and fall of 5 aggregates, without having to pointedly say one has will, desire, and intention to examine those factors that are in that jhāna one is in.
If you disagree, looking forward to hearing your reasons.
metta,
Frank
Bhikkhu Sunyo wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2023 5:15 am...Addressing first item first:frank k wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2023 3:19 amIf emerging as you claim is already implied in the 4 jhanas, then why would 8th and 9th need an explicit emergence, if it's already understood one should already have emerged?In that case you may not have read Ven. Ānalayo's interpretation of MN111 properly, because he explains what this means. These two states (neither-perception-nor-non-perception and the cessation of perception) are followed not by just "emergence" as you say, but "emerging mindful". The key word here is not "emerging" but "mindful". And that is because perception has faded away in those two attainments, either totally or almost totally. This statement emphasizes that perception (i.e. mindfulness) comes back after the attainment. The first 7 attainments don't include that, because mindfulness/perception is still fully there.
So it has to do with the quality of awareness in the attainment, not with the ability to contemplate within them. Other suttas say you emerge from the jhānas as well, so that is still implied in this text too. But in the jhānas (and first three arūpas) it is just "emerge" not "emerge mindful".
I think Ānalayo's interpretation is quite convincing, because it is exactly only these two states where perception has ceased. (This is the mind consciousness fading out after reaching the peak of awareness in the fourth jhāna.) There's no indication anywhere that these are the only two states you emerge from to contemplate, and that you can contemplate in all others. How do you explain why this "emerging mindful" is only included with the last two states, of neither-perception-nor-non-perception and the cessation of perception?
Either way, earlier you said we could leave this text (MN111) aside, and I asked you to. But if you now want to keep discussing it, then I'll have a go too! Because I think it's actually a good text to show one can not contemplate in the first jhāna. Sariputta's realizations only come after the phenomena went away, which is to say, after the jhāna ended:He knew [i.e. was aware of] those phenomena as they arose, as they remained, and as they went away. He [ONLY THEN] understood: ‘So it seems that these phenomena, not having been, come to be; and having come to be, they flit away.’...
In that case you may not have read Ven. Ānalayo's interpretation of MN111 properly, because he explains what this means.I didn't address that part of Analayo's argument, because it's disconnected from the point I made, which I described in short, described in detail with the link to the audit, which you didn't contest so I assume you agree.
Namely, his fallacious use of circular reasoning.
He assumes attainments 1-7 are "absorption" states which requiring emerging from, and treats it as fact without ever proving it (what absorption is and why it needs emerging from).
Like saying the Bible is the word of god because God says so in the bible.
It's enough to discredit his fallacious analysis of MN 111.
It doesn't require the point he contests about emerging with 'mindfulness' to be valid.
Whereas if he wants to avoid the circular reasoning fallacy, he needs not just that emerging point to be true, he needs other things as well which he doesn't provide.
But let me address the point you bring up about the emergence with "mindfulness" in the 8th and 9th attainment, since you both seen to misunderstand something about how sati works.
The Buddha's definition of sati in SN 47.2 works everywhere sati is used in the suttas.
Sati means "do the 4 satipatthana, see body as a body as it truly is, with right effort, with sati and sampajāno (lucid discerning), etc. with all 4 frames".
The sati being recursively referenced within 4 satipatthana must be referring to the sati-indriya of recalling what was said and done long ago.
In other words, what the Buddha means by "mindfulness" (sati), is different than what Analayo, psychotherapists, and sadly, many Buddhist teachers think "sati" means.
The Buddha's authoritative definition of sati ("mindfulness") means remember and apply the Dharma at all times.
And the Default value of "Dharma" is the 4 satipatthana formula as defined in SN 47.2.
Even when the Dharma that sati remembers is overridden by a specific Dharma to apply in context (for example 16 steps breath meditation),
that specific Dharma, in every case I ever checked those specific Dharmas are subsets of the Dharma of Satipatthana formula.
This should not be surprising, since the very first sutta in satipatthana samyutta, describes the practice of it in a way that parallels very closely the four noble truths.
Whenever one remembers Dharma of 4 noble truths, it's relevant to seeing dukkha, seeing the cause and way to end dukkha.
That's what sati means, and it works in everywhere in the suttas. Plug it in and try it out.
So back to MN 111 and the point about the 8th and 9th attainment, if you want to emphasize that it's "sati" that's the more important issue, over "emergence", let's examine that.
so tāya samāpattiyā sato vuṭṭhahati.So the reason the Buddha talks about emerging with sati remembering dharma is because the 8th and 9th attainment are frozen states where one can not see those dharmas arising and passing in real time.
He emerged from that attainment remembering [Dharma].
so tāya samāpattiyā sato vuṭṭhahitvā
On emerging from that attainment with remembrance,
ye dhammā VAR atītā niruddhā vipariṇatā te dhamme samanupassati —
he regarded the past dharma-[phenomena] that had ceased & changed:
The next line after "emerging with mindfulness" makes that very point,
about examining those "dharma-[phenomena] that had ceased & changed" while one was frozen.
So it's not "sati" being emphasized over emergence, it's simply pointing to the fact that one is remembering past dharmas from the frozen state.
Ultimately the problem with your position, Ajahn Brahm's redefinition of jhāna as a disembodied frozen state, is that it also is frozen, and would require one to emerge before one can examine past dharmas from the frozen state.
Which means the lack of that "emerging with sati" statement in the first 7 statements is further support that the 7 perception attainments are not frozen states.
I don't know what you and Ajahn Brahm define for sati ("mindfulness"), but I don't see how you can do that in Ajahn brahm's disembodied frozen state,
whereas we can state definitively you can't do the Buddha's definition of sati in Ajahn Brahm's disembodied frozen state.
AN 9.36 is a similar sutta, singling out the 8th and 9th attainment requiring emergence.
Furthermore, the 3 formless perception attainments (#5,6,7), unlike the first 4 attainments, only do vipassana on the latter 4 aggregates, omitting rūpa.
So if your position were true, that emergence from first 7 attainments is already known that it requires emerging without the Buddha having to explicitly state it, then why is the vipassana from attainments 5-7 avoid doing vipassana on rūpa?
If you've emerged from formless attainment, you should be able to look at rūpa, internal or external.
There's also a large burden of proof for you to show exactly why you think it's implied there's emergence from a frozen disembodied jhāna even though the passages in MN 111 and AN 9.36 seem to really go out of there way to specifically point out factors and activity that are trying to explain the limited range of things one can do while in an embodied non-frozen jhāna.
AN 9.36 lack of perception of rūpa in attainments 5-7 supports the embodiment.
MN 111 specifically references having will, intention, desire, things you can not do when in a frozen state.
If your position were correct, that automatic emergence from first 7 attainments is implied, it would suffice to say in those suttas that "then they contemplate the rise and fall of 5 aggregates, without having to pointedly say one has will, desire, and intention to examine those factors that are in that jhāna one is in.
If you disagree, looking forward to hearing your reasons.
metta,
Frank
No comments:
Post a Comment