SA 559, AN 9.37 relating to animitta samadhi, not hearing sounds in jhana and mind divorced from body
https://lucid24.org/an/an09/an09-0037/t ... index.html
AN 9.37 parallels, SA 557-559
SA 557 is listed on Suttacentral as a partial parallel to AN 9.37. When one compares the Pali AN 9.37 to SA 559, there seems to be a contradiction. Dr. Chu’s commentary clears up the seeming contradiction in detail, but the quick answer is, the Agama sutra is talking about a very specific Animitta Samādhi, while the Pali AN 9.37 is talking about a samādhi where the mind is divorced from 5 sense faculties.
Commentary by Dr. Chu
SA557-SA559 should be treated as a cluster of suttas on the same theme, i.e., that of animitta samadhi.
This is not a controversial observation. It has been pointed out by a few Agama specialists, including Yinshun (see, for example, Kong zhi tanjiu (1985), p. 36). Also, in the Chinese Agamas, Ananda is most often the main interlocutor or expounder of animitta samadhi. And here, in all three suttas, Ananda was the protagonist.
Animitta samadhi is a tricky matter, both in the context of the Pali canon and that of the Chinese Agamas. In both contexts, animitta could refer to a variety of very different attainments: it could be synonymous with the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; it could be an unskillful, coma-like state of general non-differentiation (an instance of Wrong Concentration which the Sarvastivadins and the Sautrantikas classify as one possible manifestations of the fourth jhana, and the Theravadins classify as unskillful but nonetheless above the realm of the fourth jhana); it could be a characteristic of the Unbinding itself; it could be the cessation [of feeling and perception] attainment; or it could be this unspecified but highly revered attainment where all disturbances cease (c.f. Culasunnata Sutta).
In the Chinese context, animitta is variously translated as wuxiang 無想 and wuxiang 無相. Given the context of SA557-SA559, there’s little doubt that wuxiang 無想 and wuxiang 無相 are indeed treated as the same thing.
With this in mind, there’s nothing particularly controversial about the doctrinal stance of SA559.
Typically, jhanas in the major Nikayas/Agamas are primarily described in somatic terms (related to the body). There’s good continuity on this issue between the “early of the early suttas” (e.g. portions of KN) and the major Nikayas/Agamas. The former talks often of “staying in touch with bodily bliss” as among the primary duties of a monk, that it is perfectly sensible that the same theme is picked up and elaborated in the other Nikayas/Agamas. It also leaves little doubt that, jhanas, as envisioned in the early suttas, entail tactile/corporeal sensory experience.
In contrast, the formless are differentiated from the jhanas by the experience of sensory shutoff: bodily perception is transcended, the mind is no longer sensitive of the dimension [of the five senses], there’s not the perception of multiplicity, feelings and somatic metaphors are absent in their standard descriptions…
But there’s an exception to this general rule. This is where the animitta is shown to be unique. And in fact, SA557-SA559 are precisely about Ananda being asked about the special status of animitta. When first jhana all the way to the dimension of not-a-thing-ness are practiced in the animitta way, the mind can be “noncognizant [of the sensory dimension]” but still perceiving perceptual data; and when neither-perception-or-non-perception is practiced in the animitta way, the mind can be “noncognizant [of the sensory dimension]” AND also not perceiving perceptual data.
In other words, the main point of the SA suttas in question is to point out the unique nature of the animitta attainment, which subverts the norm. The norm is of course that, in jhanas, one is cognizant of the sensory dimension and perceiving perceptual data.
Although AN9.37 is identified as a parallel sutta to SA557 & SA559 taken as a cluster, AN9.37 is, unlike its supposed SA parallel, actually spelling out the norm: first, it makes no mention of the animitta at all (this is significant, and it brings to question whether we are dealing with sister suttas after all). It is simply talking about the formless attainments. Second, it proceeds to describe the formless attainments as having the characteristic of “not being sensitive to the sensory dimension.” And of course you cannot apply that same description to jhanas, which is precisely why AN9.37 didn’t include the jhanas in its list of “not-sensitive to that dimension.”
Re: SA 559 English Translation?
I asked Dr. Chu for comment on your thoughts and here's his response:
This sutra, SA559, has been rampantly mistranslated and misinterpreted, leading to the common impression that it is enigmatic.
The mistake here is to read youxiang bujuezhi 有想不覺知 as “having perception but being unaware,” and wuxiang bujuezhi 無想故不覺知 as “having no perception and being unaware.”
The correct interpretation/translation should include an abbreviated part (abbreviation being a common practice in classical Chinese): “having perception [of the sensory experience of eyes, ears…] but being unaware [of the presence of covetousness and other defective states].
This part--若比丘離欲、惡不善法…如是，有想比丘有法而不覺知—shows that that which the bikshu in question was not aware of, was the presence of the five hindrances.
So what is the sutra really saying?
In the four jhanas, one is aware of sensory experience [i.e. eyes, ears…] and is free from the hindrances. In the animitta state, one is unaware of sensory experience and is free from the hindrances.
Another way to summarize the sutra is with Ananda’s rhetorical question: 「有想者亦不覺知，況復無想！」--One can be free from the hindrances when one has sensory experience; how much more would one be free from the hindrances when one has no sensory experience (lit. “[Even in the state where] one is percipient of [sensory experience], one can be unaware [of the presence of covetousness and other defective states]; how much more would one be unaware [of the presence of covetousness and other defective states] when one is non-percipient [of sensory experience].
If anything, this sutra is yet another incontrovertible evidence that jhanas do not involve sensory shutdown.
Comments
Post a Comment