Skip to main content

AN 5.176 seclusion, rapture, implied V&V of first jhana


https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/an-5-176-seclusion-rapture-implied-v-v-of-first-jhana/10564

excerpt:

viveka (seclusion) of first jhana, according to B. Sujato ‘viveka’ here means secluded from sensual pleasures, not the mind divorced from 5 sense faculties, such that one could not hear sounds, or feel the sting of mosquito bites.

The discourse is addressed to Anathapindika and other lay supporters known for generously providing requisites for the monks and sangha. They are being exhorted to enter and dwell in the pīti of seclusion from sensual pleasures from time to time. You would not expect lay people with busy lay lives to enter a formless samadhi where the mind is divorced from the body, as a first jhana.

While first and second jhana (they contain pīti) are not explicitly stated in this sutta, the Theravada commentary states that is what Sariputta is referring to, and there is no reason to doubt the commentary here.

So if first jhāna’s pīti is derived (in this sutta) from householders getting a strong emotional uplift reflecting on their generosity to sangha, what do you think V&V (vitakka & vicara) means for their first jhana?

Which is more likely:

thinking and pondering their generosity and it’s rewards, leading to rapture, bodily pacification, sukha, samadhi
“placing their minds and keeping it connected” (to what exactly?)
(V&V, jhana, not explicitly mentioned in this sutta)

...

According to AN 5.176, his translation mentions 5 things qualifying the viveka, and it doesn’t include the body disappearing and not being able to hear sounds. In the first jhana formula, B. Sujato may interpret viveka differently, but this just goes to show again the duck connundrum. Then you have all of these things, samadhi while walking, piti that is from first jhana and second jhana, but not actually jhana, levitating but not actually being in 4th jhana. How likely is it that the Buddha has hundreds of categories of sub duck species: access duck, neighborhood duck, momentary duck, walking duck, sitting duck, enraptured duck like he’s in jhana but he’s not actually in jhana, enraptured duck that is walking, but not in jhana, etc?

Or maybe the Buddha was a pragmatist and simply called all that “jhana”?
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, quietly abides in noble silence like a 2nd jhana duck, it’s a duck!


Straw man argument response to my original post:

Basically, Mat is slapping a sticker on his forehead announcing to the world he's unable to use reason and logic to argue his case, nor able or too lazy to supply counter evidence to prove his point. The internet remembers what you say forever, so think carefully before you post.

10 MONTHS LATER



It’s got feathers, so it must be a duck!


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Advice to younger meditators on jhāna, sex, porn, masturbation

Someone asked: Is porn considered harmful sexual.activity? I don't have a sex life because I don't have a partner and I don't wish to engage in casual sex so I use porn to quench the biological urge to orgasm. I can't see that's it's harmful because nobody is being forced into it. The actors are all paid well and claim to enjoy it etc. The only harm I can see is that it's so accessible these days on smart devices and so children may access it but I believe that this is the parents responsibility to not allow unsupervised use of devices etc. Views? Frankk response: In another thread, you asked about pleasant sensations and jhāna.  I'm guessing you're young, so here's some important advice you won't get from suttas   if you're serious about jhāna.  (since monastics are already celibate by rule)   If you want to attain stable and higher jhānas,   celibacy and noble silence to the best of your ability are the feedstock and prerequiste to tha

SN 48.40 Ven. Thanissaro comments on Ven. Sunyo's analysis

This was Ven. Sunyo's analysis of SN 48.40: https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2024/05/exciting-news-honest-ebt-scholars-like.html And here is Ven. Thanissaro's response to that analysis: I think there’s a better way to tackle the issue of SN 48:40 than by appealing to the oldest layers of commentarial literature. That way is to point out that SN 48:40, as we have it, doesn’t pass the test in DN 16 for determining what’s genuine Dhamma and what’s not. There the standard is, not the authority of the person who’s claiming to report the Buddha’s teachings, but whether the teachings he’s reporting are actually in accordance with the principles of the Dhamma that you know. So the simple fact that those who have passed the Buddha’s teachings down to us say that a particular passage is what the Buddha actually taught is not sufficient grounds for accepting it. In the case of the jhānas—the point at issue here— we have to take as our guide the standard formula for the jhānas, a

1min. video: Dalai Lama kissing boy and asking him to suck his tongue

To give more context, this is a public event,  * everyone knows cameras are rolling  *  it's a room full of children * the boy's mom is standing off camera a few feet away watching all of this * the boy initiated contact, he had already had a hug with Dalai Lama earlier and then asked Dalai Lama for another hug which triggered this segment  17 min. video showing what happened before that 1 min. clip and after, with some explanation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT0qey5Ts78 16min talk from Ajahn Acalo with his thoughts on Dalai Lama kissing boy, relevance to Bhikkhu monastic code, sexual predators in religion in general, and how celibate monastics deal with sexual energy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK2m0TcUib0 The child's comments about the incident in a filmed interview later https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/world-news/2023/04/18/643eba5d46163ffc078b457c.html The child: It's a great experience It was amazing to meet His Holiness and I think it's a great ex