What does it mean to have or not have direct meditative experience?

Intro to article by frankk:

The question explored is technical, 

so I introduce with a few lines explaining why you should read it:

(... cut and paste from my analysis after Sujato's translation and footnote...)

And that's why when Sudheera asked that question on suttacentral,

Sujato, Brahmali, or any of the other scores of Bhikkhus on suttacentral didn't answer (as of the time of this blog article).

They don't want to incriminate themselves,

and hope the problem just goes away.

Or if anyone dares to point out the truth of their corrupt translation and interpretation,

those users conveniently get censored, or banned permanently from suttacentral. 

Sudheera asked on suttacentral:

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/what-does-it-mean-to-have-or-not-have-direct-meditative-experience/37804

I find in suttas subject two terms.

 Just curious what’s the difference?

(then they quote Sujato's sutta passage from MN 70 and footnote, which have serious wrong views)

    And what person is freed both ways?

    katamō ca, bhikkhavē, puggalō ubhatōbhāgavimuttō?

    It’s a person who has direct meditative experience of the peaceful liberations that are formless, transcending form.

 And, having seen with wisdom, their defilements have come to an end.

 The first two of the seven are both fully perfected arahants.

 The arahant “freed both ways” is defined by their mastery of formless meditations, which they understand with wisdom

    “Direct meditative experience” is an oblique rendering of 

    kāyena phusitvā,

    since in the “formless” meditations,

    kāya

    cannot mean “body”.

 Like other meditative terms, the sense of the word gradually grows more subtle as meditation deepens.

 In preliminary passages it simply means “the body” as contemplated in meditation.

 As meditation deepens it takes more of a sense of experience as it happens in the body.

 Finally, as physical perception fades, kāya loses any sense of materiality and simply means direct personal experience of meditative states or even of Nibbana.

    idha, bhikkhavē, ēkaccō puggalō yē tē santā vimōkkhā atikkamma rūpē āruppā tē kāyēna phusitvā viharati paññāya cassa disvā āsavā parikkhīṇā hōnti.

 Variant:

 phusitvā → phassitvā (bj, pts1ed)

    This person is called freed both ways.

ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhavē, puggalō ubhatōbhāgavimuttō

    And I say that this mendicant has no work to do with diligence.

    imassa khō ahaṁ, bhikkhavē, bhikkhunō ‘na appamādēna karaṇīyan’ti vadāmi.

Why is that?

taṁ kissa hētu?

    They’ve done their work with diligence.

kataṁ tassa appamādēna.

They’re incapable of being negligent.

abhabbō sō pamajjituṁ.

    And what person is freed by wisdom?

    katamō ca, bhikkhavē, puggalō paññāvimuttō?

    It’s a person who does not have direct meditative experience of the peaceful liberations that are formless, transcending form.

 Nevertheless, having seen with wisdom, their defilements have come to an end.

 Of course these arahants have practiced absorption, which is an essential part of the eightfold path.

 But because of their strong insight, they have not needed to further develop the ultimate refinement of the formless attainments.

    idha, bhikkhavē, ēkaccō puggalō yē tē santā vimōkkhā atikkamma rūpē āruppā tē na kāyēna phusitvā viharati, paññāya cassa disvā āsavā parikkhīṇā hōnti.

This person is called freed by wisdom.

ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhavē, puggalō paññāvimuttō.

Frankk response

The question in the thread title is somewhat unclear:

 What does it mean to have or not have direct meditative experience? 

I see two possibilities for what they were trying to ask:

1) first the straightforward: having touched with the body, kāyena phusitva ("direct meditative experience"), is like the English phrase "eye witness". 

It means you personally witnessed something,

you didn't just hear it second hand (without witnessing yourself and verifying),

you didn't imagine it,

you didn't fabricate some lie out of thin air.

The arahant knows nirvana as an "eyewitness", not imagination or speculation or wishful thinking.

2) the question is trying to distinguish the difference between liberated by wisdom 

and liberated in mind (liberated by means of formless attainments).

"liberated both ways" means they have done both "liberated by wisdom" and "liberated in mind". 

The arahants who are only liberated by wisdom means they only have four jhānas, but no formless attainment.

What probably confused the questioner about Sujato's footnote:

  Sujato erroneously notes:

 kāya  cannot mean “body”.

 Like other meditative terms, the sense of the word gradually grows more subtle as meditation deepens.

 In preliminary passages it simply means “the body” as contemplated in meditation.

 As meditation deepens it takes more of a sense of experience as it happens in the body.

 Finally, as physical perception fades, kāya loses any sense of materiality and simply means direct personal experience of meditative states or even of Nibbana.

Back to frankk commenting on Sujato's wrong views:

So the questioner is probably rightly wondering, 

If Sujato claims kāya body has already disappeared from awareness in the four jhānas,

then what exactly is the difference between the disembodied frozen stupor of each of the four jhānas,

and the frozen stupor of the formless attainments?

Then why do the suttas say there is a difference between liberated by wisdom, liberated by mind, and freed both ways?

If a meditator can do a disembodied frozen stupor of four jhānas,

then they could certainly do the disembodied frozen stupor of the formless attainments.

Good question, and that's what more people should be asking.

That's actually a clue, and if you dig a little deeper, 

you realize that's proof of fraudulent sutta translation and interpretation of Jhāna and samādhi related terms by Ajahns Sujato, Brahmali, Brahm. 

And that's why when the questioner asked that question on suttacentral,

Sujato, Brahmali, or any of the other scores of Bhikkhus on suttacentral didn't answer (as of the time of this blog article).

They don't want to incriminate themselves,

and hope the problem just goes away.

Or if anyone dares to point out the truth of their corrupt translation and interpretation,

those users conveniently get censored, or banned permanently from suttacentral. 

Sujato's crime murdering the kāya (physical body) in third jhāna

In these other articles, I explain the type of sophistry and fallacious arguments 

Sujato tries to use to justify his wrong view on four jhānas as being a disembodied formless stupor 

(in the Ajahn Brahm and Vism. wrong view of jhāna). 

A primer on understanding eye-witness, body-witness, and when we can treat "eye" and "body" as metaphorical or literal

🔗📝 collection of notes for kāya-sakkhi = 'eyewitness', kāyena phusitvā = 'eyewitness' (lit. touched with the 'body')

KN Snp 5.15 Here lies B. Sujato's physical body from 3rd jhāna.

B. Sujato makes the body disappear in 3rd jhana