Skip to main content

KN Snp 1.8 Metta [Karaṇīyamettā]: Commentary says this is done with jhāna in all four postures!

 


KN Snp 1.8 Metta [Karaṇīyamettā]

excerpt:

Mettañca sabba-lokasmi,
(With) goodwill (for the) entire-cosmos,
Mānasaṃ bhāvaye a-parimāṇaṃ;
(one's) heart should-be-developed without-limit.
Uddhaṃ adho ca tiriyañca,
above, below, & all-around,
A-sambādhaṃ a-veram-a-sapattaṃ.
without-obstruction, without-hostility-without-hate.
Tiṭṭhaṃ caraṃ nisinno va,
(Whether) standing, walking, sitting **,
Sayāno yāvatāssa vita-middho;
lying-down, as-long-as (one is) not-drowsy,
Etaṃ satiṃ adhiṭṭheyya,
this mindfulness (one) should-resolve (on),
Brahmam-etaṃ vihāram-idham-āhu.
{This} {they-call} Brahma-**** abiding-here [and now].
Diṭṭhiñca anupaggamma,
Not taken with views,
Sīlavā dassanena sampanno;
but virtuous & consummate in vision,
Kāmesu vinaya gedhaṃ,
Regarding-sensual-pleasures, subdued greed (for it),
Na hi jātug-gabbhaseyya puna-retīti.
No way [does one undergo] *****-conception-in-a-womb again *****.


Friend pointed out this:

Here jhana is explained as being done in all four postures. This must be jhana and not “meditation in general” because the commentary says it leads to Non-return, ie it is samma-samadhi.


Why is that astounding?

Because Vism. and commentary usually redefine "jhana" as a disembodied frozen stupor, which one has to "emerge from" before doing metta, or vipassana. Here we have the commentary describing "Jhana" consistent with EBT definition, such as AN 8.63 where 4bv brahmavihara is done as a way to get into 4 jhanas, and then maintained in all 4 postures.


B. Bodhi's translation of the Commentary to this part of the sutta, from his KN Snp translation:

excerpt:


151. Having thus shown the extension of the development of loving-kindness, now showing that there is no fixed posture for one intent on its development, he says: “Whether standing, walking . . . on this mindfulness.” This is its meaning: One developing this mind of loving-kindness in such a way [250] need not adopt a fixed posture as is prescribed for other meditation subjects thus, “He sits down, having folded his legs crosswise, straightening his body,” and so forth. Dispelling discomfort by adopting any posture as one pleases, whether standing, walking, sitting, or lying down, as long as one is not drowsy, one should resolve on this mindfulness of the jhāna of loving-kindness.

Or alternatively, having thus shown the extension of the development of loving-kindness, now showing mastery over it, he says: “Whether standing, walking.” For one who has achieved mastery wishes to resolve on this mindfuiness of the jhāna of loving-kindness as long as the posture lasts, whether standing, walking, sitting, or lying down. Or else by “standing or walking” he indicates that standing [and walking] are not obstacles to it. Moreover, for as long as one wishes to resolve on this mindfulness of the jhāna of loving-kindness, for just so long one resolves on it without becoming drowsy; there is no sluggishness in regard to it. Hence he says: “Whether standing, walking, or sitting, or lying down, as long as one is not drowsy, one should resolve on this mindfulness.”

This is the purport: “As to what was said, ‘And toward the whole world one should develop an unbounded mind of loving-kindness,’ one should develop it in such a way that, whatever posture one adopts, such as standing, etc., as long as the posture lasts, taking no notice713 that one is standing, etc., as long as one wishes to remain resolved on the mindfulness of the jhāna of loving-kindness, for just so long one can resolve on that mindfulness.”714

While showing what mastery in the development of loving-kindness entails, after enjoining one to dwell in loving-kindness with the words “one should resolve on this mindfulness,” the Blessed One now praises that dwelling with the words “They call this a divine dwelling here.” This is its meaning: They call this dwelling in loving-kindness — as described by the passage that extends from the words “May all beings be happy and secure” down to “one should resolve on this mindfulness” — a divine dwelling, the best dwelling here, in the noble Dhamma and discipline. It is best because it is devoid of faults and because it brings benefits to oneself and others, and a dwelling among the four dwellings: the celestial, divine, and noble [dwellings], and the postures.715 [251] Hence constantly and continuously, without interruption, one should resolve on this mindfulness whether standing, walking, sitting, or lying down, as long as one is not drowsy.




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