Kathavatthu - Of Perverted Perception or Hallucination (in Jhana)

Points of Controversy
OR
Subjects of Discourse
BEING A TRANSLATION OF THE KATHAVATTHU
FROM THE ABHIDHAMMA-PITAKA
BY
SHWE ZAN AUNG, B.A
AND
MRS. RHYS DAVIDS, M.A

3. Of Perverted Perception or Hallucination (in Jhana).
Controverted Point.—That in one who has attained
Jhana through the earth-artifice, etc.,
3
knowledge [of what
is seen] is perverted.
From the Commentary.—It is a belief among the Andhakas, that
when anyone has induced Jhana by the [self-hypnotizing] process of
gazing on [a portion of ] earth and being conscious of earth, the content
of consciousness becoming other than earth [though his gaze is still
fixed thereon], his cognition may be called perverted, seeing one thing,
namely, the physical earth, and being conscious of something else,
to wit, the percept, or concept.
4
The Theravadin's position is the

3
This, as heading the list of 'artifices' (kasina) for self-hypnosis,
is always cited as representing artifice in general. See p. 121 ; also
Bud. Psy. Eth., p. 43, and passim ; Vibhanga, 171,173.
4
The opponent's position is that the subject is really conscious of an
idea, which is never the original object, the mind being referred to
that by a process of hallucination.


specialization of the meaning of 'earth.' It may mean the ultimate
quality of extension, physical (literally, structural) earth, a percept
or concept, a [nature-] deva. The only real perversion of cognition is
to see permanence, persistence in the impermanent. There is no
hallucination or illusion, etc., properly so called, in Jhana.
1
[1] Th.—If your proposition is right, then do you imply
that this 'perversion' is the same as that involved in seeing
the permanent in the impermanent, happiness in Ill , a soul
in what is not soul, the beautiful in the ugly ? Of course
you deny.
[2] Again, you imply that such a person's knowledge
during Jhana is not proficient. But you do not wish to
imply this, but the opposite.
[3] You admit that the reversal of judgment which sees
permanence in impermanence is a bad judgment, and
those other judgments above-stated also. Yet you will not
admit that cognition during Jhana is badly accomplished.
[4] You hold on the contrary that it is well accomplished.
Yet a similar perversion in the case of those other four
judgments you consider bad.
[5] If it were an Arahant who so accomplished Jhana,
would you claim a perverted cognition for him? You
could not. [6] Or, if you could, you would have to make
him liable to reversals of perception, consciousness, and
views in general.
2
[7] A.—But if my proposition is wrong, do you hold
that, when any one attains Jhana by earth-cognition,
everything becomes earth to him ?
3
No, you reply. Then
surely his judgment is upset.

1
Because, when the subject is conscious of the percept or concept of
earth, the content of his consciousness is just that percept or concept.
2
Cf . Compendium, pi 216, n. 4; 67. Vipariyesa , viparita
here used are tantamount to the term [preferred in later idiom]
'vipallasa. '
3
There is even now a tendency among Burmese Buddhists, if not
well trained, to believe that Jhanic practice by any given ' artifice'—
say earth-gazing—is only successful when every external thing seems
to become earth. This would be true hallucination. But here the
opponent thinks that the mind of the Jhanic subject is upset, because
the Theravadin's denial in general includes the specific denial that the
content of consciousness becomes 'earth.'


[8] Th.—But you will admit that the earth is there,
and that the subject enters Jhana by regarding earth as
earth ? Where then is the perversion of cognition ?
You say that the earth is actually there, and that
in entering Jhana by the consciousness of earth as earth,
perception is perverted. Substitute for earth Nibbana:
•would you still say that perception was perverted ? . . .