Ven Sunyo (Ajahn Brahm disciple) uses eel wriggling, red herrings to try to explain why first jhāna is a formless attainment

 

Preston asked Ven. Sunyo why MN 43 and AN 9.37 very conspicuously avoids listing the 4 jhānas, when listing what meditative attainments have the 5 senses of the body shut off, divorced from the mind. 

Ven. Sunyo replied:

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/if-jhana-is-total-absorption-without-physical-sensation-why-is-pain-only-abandoned-in-the-fourth-jhana/29410/50

Thanks for the clarification, Preston.  I did indeed overlook the quotes [from the two suttas showing absence of 4 jhānas in list of states that are formless], reading too quickly. But these texts also don’t say that the 5 senses cease only in the formless attainments.

They just say the formless attainments “can be known with purified (parisuddhena) mind consciousness released from the five senses”. Where does it say “explicitly” that in the jhanas there are still the five senses, and that they cease only in the formless attainments? To me, that is what you add to it.

I belief the key aspect in this statement is parisuddhena, not the five senses. It’s only in the fourth jhana that the mind becomes purified, namely in equanimity and mindfulness, (upekkha-sati-parisuddhim). Then this purity continues in the formless states. But the five senses already ceased in the first jhana (or even before that generally).

It’s a bit like I would say to my (hypothetical) child: When you get your driver’s license, then with our car you can go into town. This doesn’t mean the car appears the at the moment he gets his driver’s license. We had that car already. Likewise, in the jhanas the 5 senses were already abandoned, but only at the fourth does it become purified in equanimity—with which the 4 formless attainments “can be known”.

Not the greatest analogy, but I think you get my argument.

But that discussion aside, this passage clearly speaks favorably of abandoning the five senses. So that kind of “absorption” (I prefer ‘unification’) away from the five senses was something encouraged by the Buddha, at whatever level we think it is achieved (at the first jhana or the formless states). Therefore, as DeadBuddha pointed out before, if people try to aim for these mind-only states, they are safe either way.

Let’s say (just hypothetically) that I and others with similar ideas are wrong about the jhanas and there was still physical sense perception them. In that case, if people practice to go into the mind-only realm, they’ll at worse just overshoot the mark, and end up in the formless states. That’s way less problematic than if I were right, and they were satisfied with something lower than the jhanas.

However, I know this may sound arrogant, but I’m sure I’m not wrong.

(end of Ven. Sunyo's post)

Start of Frankk's translation and rebuttal

MN 43 mind divorced from 5 body faculties can know what?

♦ 451. “nissaṭṭhena hāvuso, pañcahi indriyehi	[Ven. Mahā Koṭṭhita]: “divorced ****** (from the) five sense-faculties,
parisuddhena mano-viññāṇena	(with a) purified mind-consciousness,
kiṃ neyyan”ti?	what can-be-known?"
♦ “nissaṭṭhena āvuso, pañcahi indriyehi	[Ven. Sāriputta]: “divorced ****** (from the) five sense-faculties,
parisuddhena mano-viññāṇena	(with a) purified mind-consciousness,
‘ananto ākāso’ti ākāsān-añc-āyatanaṃ neyyaṃ,	‘infinite space,’ the-space-infinitude-dimension (can be) known,
‘anantaṃ viññāṇan’ti viññāṇ-añc-āyatanaṃ neyyaṃ,	‘infinite consciousness,’ the-consciousness-infinitude-dimension (can be) known,
‘natthi kiñcī’ti ākiñcaññ-āyatanaṃ neyyan”ti.	‘There is nothing.’ the-nothingness-dimension (can be) known."

AN 9.37 mind divorced from 5 body faculties stated different way

(for example one would not be able to hear sounds, feel mosquito bites in this state)

tadeva nāma cakkhuṃ bhavissati te rūpā	(1) That very eye will-be-present (with) those forms
Tañc-āyatanaṃ no paṭisaṃvedissati.	[and yet] that-base [one] {will} not experience.
tadeva nāma sotaṃ bhavissati te saddā	(2) That very ear will-be-present (with) those sounds,
Tañc-āyatanaṃ no paṭisaṃvedissati.	[and yet] that-base [one] {will} not experience.
tadeva nāma ghānaṃ bhavissati te gandhā	(3) That very nose will-be-present (with) those odors,
Tañc-āyatanaṃ no paṭisaṃvedissati.	[and yet] that-base [one] {will} not experience.
sāva nāma jivhā bhavissati te rasā	(4) That very tongue will-be-present (with) those tastes,
Tañc-āyatanaṃ no paṭisaṃvedissati.	[and yet] that-base [one] {will} not experience.
sova nāma kāyo bhavissati te phoṭṭhabbā	That very body will-be-present (with) those tactile-objects,
Tañc-āyatanaṃ no paṭisaṃvedissati.	[and yet] that-base [one] {will} not experience.
ti.	“

(What is one percipient of when divorced from 5 sense faculties?)

♦ evaṃ vutte āyasmā udāyī	with-that said, Venerable Udāyī
āyasmantaṃ ānandaṃ etadavoca —	(to) Venerable Ānanda {said}-this:
“saññīm-eva nu kho, āvuso ānanda,	"(Is one) percipient-*** ***, friend Ānanda,
tad-āyatanaṃ no paṭisaṃvedeti	(while) that-base (is) not experienced,
udāhu a-saññī”ti?	or (is one) not-percipient?"
“saññīm-eva kho, āvuso,	"[One is] Percipient-*** indeed, *****,
tad-āyatanaṃ no paṭisaṃvedeti,	(while) that-base (is) not experienced,
no a-saññī”ti.	not un-percipient."
♦ “kiṃ-saññī panāvuso,	"What-(is one)-percipient (of), friend,
tad-āyatanaṃ no paṭisaṃvedetī”ti?	(while) that-base (is) not experienced?"

Answer is same 3 formless attainments as MN 43, plus na ca sa-saṅkhāra-niggayha-vārita-gato

Frankk points out some of Ven. Sunyo's logical fallacies

1. red herring: He tries to shift attention away from mind divorced from 5 senses to the term 'purified' (pari-suddha) of fourth jhāna. (regarding MN 43)

But he neglects to notice that AN 9.37 does not say anything about a purified consciousness/mind, using a different way to expresss 5 senses separated from mind.

2. eel wriggling, sophistry: (my paraphrase of what he said) "just because that list of formless attainments did not list the 4 jhānas, doesn't mean 4 jhānas is not a formless attainment."

a. Well, the fact that the 4 jhānas are called rūpa (form) attainments, and formless is a-rūpa (literally not form), should be your first clue.

b. the fact that AN 9.36, the sutta immediately and thematically connected to AN 9.37, explicitly states that the 4 jhānas perceive and examine all 5 aggregates (rūpa/form is first of the 5), should be a second clue.

c. the fact that every single reference to first jhāna in the suttas, 

https://lucid24.org/sted/4j/allref/index.html

If you look at what happens right before first jhāna, does not say anything explicitly, or even vaguely hinting at the 5 senses of the body disappearing.

d. Ven Sunyo's analogy with child driving car? Priceless. A master class on sophistry.

But for the sake of argument, let's say his reasoning is valid.

Then why, in the sequence of 9 attainments, where infinite space, the 5th attainment which is formless (a-rūpa), follows the 4th jhāna which is form (rūpa), would the Buddha need to give 3 separate ways of showing how the mind becomes divorced from the 5 senses of the body? 

https://lucid24.org/tped/g/goldcraft/index.html#9.1.5.1

Did someone steal the car from Ven. Sunyo's son after fourth jhāna, and then have to buy a new car for him on the base of infinite space so we'd have to go through the body divorcing the mind again?

In other words, if first jhāna the kāmehi already supposedly divorces the mind from the 5 senses, why would the base of infinite space need to divorce it again?

Did it get remarried to the body somewhere in 2nd or 3rd jhāna? 

Using Ven. Sunyo's eel wriggling from (2), just because vitakka (thought) disappears in first jhāna, doesn't mean it can't reappear in 4th jhāna because the 4th jhāna formula does not explicitly exclude vitakka.

So we can also smuggle the 5 senses of the body back into 2nd, 3rd, and 4th jhāna since only the first jhāna explicitly omits 5 senses with kāmehi.

But Ven. Sunyo would probably object, "but obviously 9 attainments are a gradual sequence so it's implied vitakka doesn't need to be explicitly removed each time in each higher attainment."

But then Frank would reply, "then why would infinite space attainment need to divorce mind from 5 senses of the body again, if it was already divorced in first jhāna?"

You can't have it both ways Ven. Sunyo.

You have to apply the same reasoning consistently.

Otherwise you can make any set of words mean anything you want to, without any rhyme or reason.

Forum discussion

Re: Ajahn Brahm declares* that the Buddha was wrong about the second noble truth: the cause of suffering is not 'craving

Post by frank k » Fri Jun 23, 2023 2:02 am

Bhikkhu Sunyo wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2023 4:08 pm

frank k wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2023 1:49 am

Bhikkhu Sunyo wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2023 8:33 am...
Kāma doesn't mean 'sensuality'. It either means sense desire or the objects. In the case of kāmataṇhā it is the latter, otherwise we get "desire for sense desire", which makes no sense.
...

You can quibble about kāma not meaning 'sensuality', but you still have to explain how the Buddha's gloss of kāmehi in AN 6.63, is less valid than your gloss of it, as well as the other sutta I examine here AN 6.74, clearly giving kāmehi the first jhāna context.

I do not see kāmehi in AN6.63, so I don't know what you're asking of me, Frank. I also see a lot of ad-hominens on your blog. To say I'm quibbling is also not very nice. Anyway, to quibble means to object to a trivial matter, and the matter I was objecting to was on your blog. 

Upon consideration, I think this forum is not the place for me. But I'll address a few more others before I leave.

Frankk responds:

I didn't realize 'quibble' was such an offensive word.
What I mean is, there are a lot more important salient issues to consider that are far more heavily weighted in deterimining the issue in dispute, than the grammar.

again, AN 6.74 which I asked you about, along with AN 6.63, is giving kāma-sañña, kāma vitakka an extremely clear first jhāna context linking it with samma sankappo, the vitakka that feeds into first jhāna vitakka, and just because 'kāmehi" does not appear in the sutta, it means that sutta has no bearing on the first jhāna formula?

http://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/20 ... ng-in.html


There's also the issue of abhidhamma vibhanga jhāna book explicitly confirming with the gloss of "kāmehi" what AN 6.63 said about kāma being desire as the issue, not the "Objects".
Which I mentioned in the linked article I referred to you earlier.
So somehow the grammar knowledge of the Abhidhammikas allowed them to make the connection you deem invalid.
There are a lot of logical fallacies I've pointed out, again in the same linked article I assume you read, which does not depend on grammar.
For example, I point out that even if we accept your understanding of kāmehi being 'objects' in first jhana:


3. Even if for the sake of argument, we assume kāmehi was referring to "objects" and not sensual-desire for objects in the first jhāna formula, being secluded from those objects does not mean you have to be in a disembodied formless attainment.

For example, Ven. Sabbamitta can go into an empty cave, lock the door, and she would be 'secluded from objects'. She can still walk, talk, think. All 5 sense faculties working.

I show how one can be secluded without being in a formless samadhi.
What sutta shows that seclusion from kāmehi is what you say it is?

Re: Ajahn Brahm declares* that the Buddha was wrong about the second noble truth: the cause of suffering is not 'craving

• Edit
• Delete
• Report
• Quote

Post by frank k » Mon Jul 10, 2023 4:11 am

frank k wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 7:46 am

Bhikkhu Sunyo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 5:42 am...
But Frank... You didn't address the grammar; ...

Direct link to msg. earlier in thread where I addressed grammar quoting your msg so you'd see it, and you didn't respond.
viewtopic.php?p=730339#p730339

SN 46.2 (which I discuss in that msg) is especially salient to showing the limitations of grammar.

For the record, still waiting for Ven. Sunyo's response to my last msg.
Today is July 10th, the last msg. he wrote to me was in
Post by Bhikkhu Sunyo » Tue Jun 27, 2023 5:42 am,
about 13 days ago.

To recap what happened for our whole exchange on this thread,
he was happy to engage in the thread when he noticed a grammar error on my blog post.
I pointed out the real problems were not grammar, but the problems in the post I quote below.
I tried to steer him to the real issues, but he kept trying to insist grammar needed to be settled first.
I replied with an explanation showing why I didn't think grammar was the issue here (quoted msg. above),
which he didn't acknowledge reading or responding to the grammar points I made.
I posted again asking for a response to the grammar issue.
Several people on the thread expressed appreciation for his participation and asked them to defend the honor of Ajahn Brahm and Vism.'s redefinition of jhāna.
No response from him going on 13 days, so at this point it doesn't look like he has any defense for the problems I point out in the quoted post below.

frank k wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 8:34 am

Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2023 9:05 amThat sounds a bit odd, doesn't it!

Have you tried contacting him to see what he makes of that interpretation? And have you tried to find a charitable way of resolving that apparent anomaly before publishing the inference that he is making an egregious error?

I'd love to have an open discussion with him, and Sujato.
The main issue, the number one issue I have with them, is not that they have wrong interpretations, but that they do it in a disingenuous and dishonorable way, not becoming of an ordained disciple of the Buddha.
Out of the, let's say 50 suttas relevant to the nature of jhāna, they cherry pick about 5 of them, and pretend to not see the other 45 sutta passages that contradict their interpretation of jhāna.
If they made an honorable, transparent, good faith attempt to address the most important of those 50 sutta passages and explain that in writing, then I would not be continually calling them out publicly.
I could simple point to the webpage where they explain their position,
and the webpage where I explain the incoherence of their positon,
and that would be the end of it.
I'd just refer people to those links whenever an issue on the forums came up.