As Arka noticed in his own independent research,
Arka has left a new comment on your post "How Vism. differentiates between the rupa in their...":
Thanks a lot frankk. I was looking at sutta 41.8 from the Samyutta Nikaya, where Nigantha Nataputta asks Citta the householder, that whether there is a concentration without thought and examination, and that stopping thoughts and examination is like catching wind in a net, and also in MN 44 it is said vitakka-vicara is verbal fabrication. This leads to only one conclusion that it is indeed thoughts and examination, I don't know how can people try to misconstrue this.
They misconstrue it because they have an agenda to redefine Jhana into something that resembles Vism. redefinition.
SN 41.8 is a great example. Nigantha is the founder of the Jain religion, yet Sujato's translation of V&V as "placing the mind" would mean that he has to understand Sujato's corrupted understanding of vitkaka for that to work in that context. Completely insane and illogical. For it to work, Sujato and Ajahn Brahm would need to go back in the time machine and inform Nigantha that the Buddha has a special meaning for vitakka in first jhana:
frankk:
Hi Arka,
I don't know all the reasons why they cling to their deluded misunderstandings about jhana, but there's no reason to conflate perception of light with jhanas. AN 6.29 clearly separates out the perception of light as a practice that leads to knowledge in vision. Perceiving bright light is no big deal, if one meditates regularly, maintains celibacy, your battery will get charged in a few months, to a few years depending on health and age. And you don't have to go into a frozen state of wrong samadhi to perceive light. You can perceive light and do other things while in the four jhanas, or 4 iddhi pada. You can even perceive light walking around with your eyes open. You'll know it's different because it's a little bit brighter in the center, and it gets tinted red when you're outside and the sun is shining bright.
Arka has left a new comment on your post "How Vism. differentiates between the rupa in their...":
Thanks a lot frankk. I was looking at sutta 41.8 from the Samyutta Nikaya, where Nigantha Nataputta asks Citta the householder, that whether there is a concentration without thought and examination, and that stopping thoughts and examination is like catching wind in a net, and also in MN 44 it is said vitakka-vicara is verbal fabrication. This leads to only one conclusion that it is indeed thoughts and examination, I don't know how can people try to misconstrue this.
They misconstrue it because they have an agenda to redefine Jhana into something that resembles Vism. redefinition.
SN 41.8 is a great example. Nigantha is the founder of the Jain religion, yet Sujato's translation of V&V as "placing the mind" would mean that he has to understand Sujato's corrupted understanding of vitkaka for that to work in that context. Completely insane and illogical. For it to work, Sujato and Ajahn Brahm would need to go back in the time machine and inform Nigantha that the Buddha has a special meaning for vitakka in first jhana:
Ajahn Brahm and the time machine: DN 21 B. Sujato's erroneous translation of vitakka & vicara explained.
As you pointed out with MN 44, vitakka and vicara are essential concepts in human language and communication, and there it's linking it with that common usage AND the samadhi context of 4 jhanas, so that's incontrovertible that V&V means 'that activity you do in order to comprehend the listening of spoken language': thinking and pondering/evaluation.
More responses to comments:
@Frank Here I found a guy you probably know named Sylvester who uses grammatical pali loopholes to misconstrue the jhanas to fit Ajahn brahm's description . Here is what I found in a blog where he comments :
This does suggest that each attainment in the series is attained by entering and surmounting the preceding one.
Which leads to the next question - can one will one's way from one jhāna to the next? I think Ajahn Brahm is squarely with the suttas on this issue, when he says that in a jhāna, it is not possible to intend or will. See for example what DN 9 says - one cannot think (ceteti) nor intend (abhisaṅkharoti) within the jhānas. If you think or intend, a gross perception (oḷārikā saññā) replaces the jhāna -
Cetayamānassa me pāpiyo, acetayamānassa me seyyo. Ahañceva kho pana ceteyyaṃ, abhisaṅkhareyyaṃ, imā ca me saññā nirujjheyyuṃ, aññā ca oḷārikā saññā uppajjeyyuṃ.
'Thinking is bad for me. Not thinking is better for me. If I were to think and will, these perceptions of mine would cease, and a grosser perception would appear.
It is clear from that sutta that this gross perception refers to kāmasaññā, ie the perception of the kāmā (the 5 sense data of sight, sound, smell, taste and touch).
These seem to suggest that one first needs to leave a jhāna, go back to square one and start sliding in from there, as square one is the only place where you can think.
But in DN9 this part of it, refers to the cessation of perception and feeling , and somehow he deduces it has to be kāmasaññā . I actually feel bad for them as once they have an experience of that light, they cling to it and when people try to say to them that it is not the case, they are in a state of denial and try to manipulate things.
This does suggest that each attainment in the series is attained by entering and surmounting the preceding one.
Which leads to the next question - can one will one's way from one jhāna to the next? I think Ajahn Brahm is squarely with the suttas on this issue, when he says that in a jhāna, it is not possible to intend or will. See for example what DN 9 says - one cannot think (ceteti) nor intend (abhisaṅkharoti) within the jhānas. If you think or intend, a gross perception (oḷārikā saññā) replaces the jhāna -
Cetayamānassa me pāpiyo, acetayamānassa me seyyo. Ahañceva kho pana ceteyyaṃ, abhisaṅkhareyyaṃ, imā ca me saññā nirujjheyyuṃ, aññā ca oḷārikā saññā uppajjeyyuṃ.
'Thinking is bad for me. Not thinking is better for me. If I were to think and will, these perceptions of mine would cease, and a grosser perception would appear.
It is clear from that sutta that this gross perception refers to kāmasaññā, ie the perception of the kāmā (the 5 sense data of sight, sound, smell, taste and touch).
These seem to suggest that one first needs to leave a jhāna, go back to square one and start sliding in from there, as square one is the only place where you can think.
But in DN9 this part of it, refers to the cessation of perception and feeling , and somehow he deduces it has to be kāmasaññā . I actually feel bad for them as once they have an experience of that light, they cling to it and when people try to say to them that it is not the case, they are in a state of denial and try to manipulate things.
frankk:
Hi Arka,
I don't know all the reasons why they cling to their deluded misunderstandings about jhana, but there's no reason to conflate perception of light with jhanas. AN 6.29 clearly separates out the perception of light as a practice that leads to knowledge in vision. Perceiving bright light is no big deal, if one meditates regularly, maintains celibacy, your battery will get charged in a few months, to a few years depending on health and age. And you don't have to go into a frozen state of wrong samadhi to perceive light. You can perceive light and do other things while in the four jhanas, or 4 iddhi pada. You can even perceive light walking around with your eyes open. You'll know it's different because it's a little bit brighter in the center, and it gets tinted red when you're outside and the sun is shining bright.
sati-karaṇīyam-eva hoti — ‘etā VAR gāvo’ti.
@Frank Here I found a guy you probably know named Sylvester who uses grammatical pali loopholes to misconstrue the jhanas to fit Ajahn brahm's description . Here is what I found in a blog where he comments :
ReplyDeleteThis does suggest that each attainment in the series is attained by entering and surmounting the preceding one.
Which leads to the next question - can one will one's way from one jhāna to the next? I think Ajahn Brahm is squarely with the suttas on this issue, when he says that in a jhāna, it is not possible to intend or will. See for example what DN 9 says - one cannot think (ceteti) nor intend (abhisaṅkharoti) within the jhānas. If you think or intend, a gross perception (oḷārikā saññā) replaces the jhāna -
Cetayamānassa me pāpiyo, acetayamānassa me seyyo. Ahañceva kho pana ceteyyaṃ, abhisaṅkhareyyaṃ, imā ca me saññā nirujjheyyuṃ, aññā ca oḷārikā saññā uppajjeyyuṃ.
'Thinking is bad for me. Not thinking is better for me. If I were to think and will, these perceptions of mine would cease, and a grosser perception would appear.
It is clear from that sutta that this gross perception refers to kāmasaññā, ie the perception of the kāmā (the 5 sense data of sight, sound, smell, taste and touch).
These seem to suggest that one first needs to leave a jhāna, go back to square one and start sliding in from there, as square one is the only place where you can think.
But in DN9 this part of it, refers to the cessation of perception and feeling , and somehow he deduces it has to be kāmasaññā . I actually feel bad for them as once they have an experience of that light, they cling to it and when people try to say to them that it is not the case, they are in a state of denial and try to manipulate things.
i've responded in the post
Delete