SN 48.40 Ven. Sunyo's argument in favor of disembodied jhāna, uses argument from silence fallacy

What follows is Ven. Sunyo responding to some of my earlier criticism from this article:

SN 48.40 Ven. Sunyo's argument in favor of disembodied jhāna, uses argument from silence fallacy

He ends his post with this statement: "But again, I’m very open to other interpretations."

I have a hard time believing that, since we had a similar discussion, about a year ago discussing the same themes on whether jhāna is disembodied or not, sukha physical or not,

Relevant part of that conversation where I show niramisa ("not of the flesh") is not about formless as an escape as sensual pleasure, but renunciation of sensual pleasure as the escape.

Renunciation of sensual pleasure, seeing danger and the limitations in sensual pleasure, has nothing to do with whether one is in an embodied state with 5 senses active. 

MN 139, SN 36.11, MN 137, SN 48.40 Ven. Sunyo wrong about internal (ajjhatta) meaning "one's mind only", wrong about nirāmisa being 'mind only'

In the above article, he uses fallacy of argument by silence to dispute AN 9.37 in omitting 4 jhānas from the list of attainments where mind is divorced from the body "doesn't prove 4 jhānas are not part of the list".

Also, He couldn't produce evidence to refute my argument on niramisa sukha being physical, so his silence was taken as tacit acknowledgment.

Yet, a year later he is still using the same faulty reasoning.

Someone open to other interpretations would have to consider those interpretation, and explain if and why they didn't agree with it.

There's a lot wrong in his rebuttal, below, I'll address another time. 

@Sunyo wrote:

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/how-to-reconcile-these-2-suttas-with-absorption-jhana/34061/56

Sorry for bumping the discussion, but I just wanted to clarify the intent of my earlier post:

The question asked was not, “please provide sutta evidence for non-bodily jhanas”, 

but “how to reconcile these two suttas with non-bodily (“absorption”) jhanas”.

 So that is what I tried to answer.

 As I admitted, my suggested reconciliation is not the most natural reading of SN48.40, 

 but then, the most natural reading is one that I think nobody holds, 

 one that has no support in any other sutta—namely that the sukha in the first two jhanas would be bodily but in the third it would suddenly be mental.

But although it is not intuitive to read the cessation of bodily sukha in the third jhana in SN48.40 

as a reinforcement of the cessation of bodily sukha in all jhanas like I suggest, 

this does actually have a common precedence.

 This precedence is the standard fourth jhana formula, which says that dukkha is abandoned there 

 (dukkhassa ca pahānā).

 Dukkha (here usually understood to mean any kind of pain, whether mental or bodily) has already been abandoned earlier, in the first jhana.

 Yet this is restated at the fourth jhāna to emphasize its neutral quality.

 I suggest something similar is happening in SN48.40 with the faculty of (bodily) sukha.

 Its cessation reinforces that the sukha that is the sole object of the third jhana is mental.

As I’ve said, the only way I basically see to fit this text with the jhanas where sukha is “felt with the body” 

is to disregard this sutta as inauthentic.

 Or at least, so far nobody has suggested a reading that reconciles this text with such jhanas.

 I could have argued for its inauthenticity too, but that is the very opposite of reconciling the text, so it wouldn’t have answered the question.

And although my reading of SN48.40 is somewhat unnatural, 

disregarding the text as inauthentic I think is more unnatural.

 To reject a text as definitely inauthentic you need strong evidence from various places, 

 which I don’t see in this case.

 And difficult passages are actually more likely to be authentic, 

 that’s what the principle of lectio difficilior basically says.

 In this case, it is unlikely the composer of this sutta would be blind to the fact that sukha, 

 which still exists in the third jhana, is said to cease in the third jhana.

 If the faculty of sukha referred to the supposed bodily sukha of the third jhana itself, 

 this would be, as far as I know, the biggest logical blunder in the entire canon.

 Hence me going by the assumption that the text is authentic, that this was done for some purpose, which we are now left to figure out.

 It is also said that mental sukha (the faculty of somanassa) ceases at the fourth jhana, 

 which reinforces that the composer of this text held that sukha in the third jhana is mental.

My point with this post being, if the question was, “please show in the suttas that the sukha in the jhanas is mental”, I would go about it in a very different way, and these texts would be some of the last I would consider.

 So I just wanted to clarify my earlier post, so it doesn’t get misunderstood outside of the context of the very particular question asked in this discussion.

 (To make sure, I added some of the above as edits to my earlier post.)

But to finish with just one argument I don’t think I’ve shared before, which is somewhat relevant to this discussion:

 In AN2.68–70 the Buddha says that of all pleasant (sukha) feeling tones, whether mental or physical, 

 the best is that which is mental (cetasika) and non-physical (or literally “not of the flesh”, nirāmisa).

Now, an even better “sukha” is the neutral feeling tone of the fourth jhana and beyond, but as far as pleasant feelings go, the third jhana is the highest.

 This is why it is described by the noble ones in the standard jhana formula as “dwelling in sukha”, being in a sense the highest sukhavihāra (“pleasant abiding”).

 It makes little sense that this would be a bodily happiness, not only from our personal perspectives (I hope) but also from these texts.

 As these discourses say, the highest sukha feeling tone is mental, not bodily.

 And the sukha of all jhanas is elsewhere described as “non-physical” and continually opposed to the pleasure that comes from the five senses, which include the body.

For example SN36.31:

    And what is pleasure (sukha) of the flesh [i.e. physical]?

 Mendicants, there are these five kinds of sensual stimulation.

 What five?

 Sights known by the eye that are likable, desirable, agreeable, pleasant, sensual, and arousing.

 Sounds … Smells … Tastes … Touches known by the body that are likable, desirable, agreeable, pleasant, sensual, and arousing.

 These are the five kinds of sensual stimulation.

 The pleasure and happiness that arise from these five kinds of sensual stimulation is called pleasure of the flesh.

    And what is pleasure not of the flesh [i.e. non-physical/mental]?

 It’s when a mendicant, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected.

 As the placing of the mind and keeping it connected are stilled, they enter and remain in the second absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of immersion, with internal clarity and mind at one, without placing the mind and keeping it connected.

 And with the fading away of rapture, they enter and remain in the third absorption, where they meditate with equanimity, mindful and aware, personally experiencing the bliss of which the noble ones declare, ‘Equanimous and mindful, one meditates in bliss.’

 This is called pleasure not of the flesh.

Regardless of how we interpret “not of the flesh”, 

bodily feelings of sukha are here directly opposed to the jhanas.

 So the sukha of the jhanas can not be such feelings.

And this central point is what I suggest SN48.40 is reinforcing (in an uncommon and creative way), 

when saying that the sukha of the third jhana is not the faculty of bodily sukha.

But again, I’m very open to other interpretations.