Dear venerable @Matthias-Lentrein ,
> "Andhakāro antaradhāyīti so kira cintesi – ‘‘ahaṃ ekakoti saññaṃ karomi, anuyuttāpi me atthi, kasmā bhāyāmī’’ti sūro ahosi. Athassa balavā buddhappasādo udapādi. Tasmā andhakāro antaradhāyīti. "
→ The commentary on the Sudatta Sutta, however, does not suggest that there was any light arising from Sudatta at the time he left his home. We know from the commentary that he left only after the end of the third watch of the night: “Pacchimayāmāvasāne pana balavapaccūseyeva uṭṭhāya ākāsatalaṃ āgantvā mahādvārābhimukhova ahosi, sattabhūmikadvāraṃ sayameva vivaṭaṃ ahosi.” Instead, after the ogre spoke to Sudatta, the Commentary says that “darkness disappeared.” The darkness, as explained earlier in the text, was caused by flies, bad smell, in addition to a reduction in his Buddhānussati:
“Makkhikā uppatitvā parikiriṃsu. Duggandho nāsapuṭaṃ abhihani. Buddhappasādo tanuttaṃ gato. Tenassa āloko antaradhāyi, andhakāro pāturahosi.”
→ Note that the powerful faith in the Buddha arose in Sudatta only after he lost the light (“… so kira cintesi – ‘‘ahaṃ ekakoti saññaṃ karomi, anuyuttāpi me atthi, kasmā bhāyāmī’’ti sūro ahosi. Athassa balavā buddhappasādo udapādi.”). The light was not caused by his Buddhanussati (it was simply the light of early dawn because there would be no other way for him to get out of his house), and it is not indicated anywhere in the sutta or the Commentary that Buddhanussati would cause the light at the time after the third watch of the night. However, it is true that his faith in the Buddha made him so resolved that he was able to remove the flies and overcome the bad smell he encountered on his way and thus continue further.
We get there, however, a different mention, which is worth mentioning here - the light caused by pīti, joy. This joy, however, though it causes “light,” as the Commentaries say, did not reduce Sudatta’s desire to sleep: “paṭhamayāme tāva vītivatte uṭṭhāya buddhaṃ anussari, athassa balavappasādo udapādi, pītiāloko ahosi, sabbatamaṃ vigacchi”. I worry that the Commentarial gloss that the light was as intense as the light when the sun or moon rises is not tenable because then Sudatta might not be able to fall asleep again (but he did, two times). The Sub-Commentaries agree that the light was caused by joy and that the joy was caused by faith. There is no talk about concentration or wisdom. It was this particular light that was caused by mind & temperature:
“Balavappasādoti buddhārammaṇā balavatī saddhā. Pītiālokoti purimabuddhesu cirakālaṃ paricayaṃ gatassa balavato pasādassa vasena ‘‘buddho’’ti nāmaṃ savanamattena uppannāya uḷārāya pītiyā samuṭṭhāpito vipassanobhāsasadiso sātisayo āloko hoti cittapaccayautusamuṭṭhāno.”
The problem of vipassanā obhāsa is explained in Sāratthadīpanī-Ṭīkā MM vol. 2 p. 236, where it is explained only as upakkilesa. A yogi misperceives it as the Path or Fruition and does not progress:
“Tassa amaggaṃ ‘‘maggo’’ti aphalaṃ vā ‘‘phala’’nti gaṇhato vipassanāvīthi ukkantā nāma hoti. So attano mūlakammaṭṭhānaṃ vissajjetvā obhāsameva assādento nisīdati.”
“As for your statement on the light, which would be the mere absence of nīvarana in MN 49 Atthakathā, I didn’t find it.
Please you can quote, and we will see the statement.
But how it could be, for example, Patibhāga nimitta if the light not existing really? How it could be a light of Vipassanā that becomes Upakkilesa when the yogi misinterpret it? It doesn’t match Bhante.”
→ It seems there is confusion regarding two different phenomena, Paṭibhāga nimitta of meditation on the breath and Upakkilesa light. There is light that is desirable, namely Paṭibhāga nimitta of breath. There is light that is not desirable, namely Upakkilesa light. They are different because their causes are different. Paṭibhāga nimitta of meditation on the breath is caused by concentration on the breath; some people see various things in place of the breath jhāna nimitta, which are not necessarily mainly light, such as when they see a lump of cotton. The object of breath produces these images probably because the air that is breathed is cool and soft, which may cause the perception of a similarly experienced phenomenon - light. However, loving-kindness has no “lighteness” or “softness,” likewise Buddhānussati. Both of these objects are purely mental. In the case of upakkilesa, the light there is caused by a delusion of the mind, just like when the mind starts to create poems or reminds the person of important plans or duties so that the mind does not have to deal with the object of concentration (cf. the simile of a wild elephant tied up at a post).
→ Dear venerable sir, I am sorry for the inaccuracy. The text for Brahmanimantanika Sutta, which explains light as the absence of defilements, was not a Commentary but a Sub-Commentary. Here I am copy-pasting from the document I have already shared elsewhere in this forum:
"Atha vā pabhanti titthassa nāmaṃ, sabbato pabhamassāti sabbatopabhaṃ. Nibbānassa kira yathā mahāsamuddassa yato yato otaritukāmā honti, taṃ tadeva titthaṃ, atitthaṃ nāma natthi. Evamevaṃ aṭṭhatiṃsāya kammaṭṭhānesu yena yena mukhena nibbānaṃ otaritukāmā honti, taṃ tadeva titthaṃ. Nibbānassa atitthaṃ nāma kammaṭṭhānaṃ natthi. Tena vuttaṃ sabbatopabhanti.” (MNA 2.310)
→ The Sub-Commentary further explains that (a) because there is no darkness (tamo), Nibbāna shines; (b) how the word “pabha” is a different form of “pabhū” (better), thus exalting the great element of Nibbāna, (c) that Nibbāna “shines” by the absence of immaterial phenomena, or (d) that is in fact a different way of pronouncing “pavisa” (entering the shore of Nibbāna) - Apabhassarabhāvahetūnaṃ sabbaso abhāvā sabbato pabhāti sabbatopabhaṃ. Tenāha ‘‘nibbānato hī’’tiādi. Tathā hi vuttaṃ – ‘‘tamo tattha na vijjatī’’ti. (Netti. 104) pabhūtamevāti pakaṭṭhabhāvena ukkaṭṭhabhāvena vijjamānameva. Arūpībhāvena adesikattā sabbato pabhavati vijjatīti sabbatopabhaṃ. Tenāha ‘‘puratthimadisādīsū’’tiādi. Pavisanti etthāti pavisaṃ, tadeva sa-kārassa bha-kāraṃ, vi-kārassa ca lopaṃ katvā vuttaṃ ‘‘pabha’’nti. Tenāha ‘‘titthassa nāma’’nti. (MNṬ 2.317)
The Dīgha Nikāya Sub-Commentary explains “pabha” as a different way of pronouncing “papa” (water), thus elaborating on the Commentarial explanation of the same words (Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ, anantaṃ sabbatopabhaṃ) mentioned in DN 11. Kevaṭṭa/Kevaddha Sutta and adds that “shining all around” means that Nibbāna “shines by the total absence of defilement” – “Titthassa nāma’’nti vatvā tattha nibbacanaṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘papanti etthāti papa’’nti vuttaṃ. Ettha hi papanti pānatitthaṃ. Bha-kāro kato niruttinayena. Visuddhaṭṭhena vā sabbatopabhaṃ, kenaci anupakkiliṭṭhatāya samantato pabhassaranti attho.” (DNṬ 1.393)
“The brightness of Vipassanā is bright materiality produced from the Vipassanā mind and also with this same lineage ( of materiality), materiality produced from temperature.”
→ I do not see any reason why would Visuddhimagga Mahāṭīkā be anything more than attano mati (personal opinion) of its author. Whatever these statements that are providing a requirement for meditators, they should be well supported by the Mūḷa and Aṭṭhakathā. As the Buddha explained a short time before He passed away, if someone claims they have heard something from the Buddha, etc., but it is not in accordance with the original Dhamma Vinaya, it should be rejected.
Without decisive scriptural support, the conclusions that all upacāra samādhi and jhāna samādhi produce light are far-fetched exaggerations. They will need a direct quote from the scriptures; otherwise, they are again attano-mati, like there was this idea that Nibbāna is the same as Saṃsāra. Again, this is a far-fetched exaggeration, requiring a quote from Buddha-Dhamma.
Dear @RobertK,
It seems that we are here mixing two different things - meditation and contemplation. Meditation is samatha-vipassanā, contemplation is sammasana, which is always conceptual and does not count as the essential meditation practice. See here what the great Burmese master venerable Paṇḍābhivaṃsa wrote about it in his book “Paṭipattikkama Ṭīkā” (my translation from Burmese) -
p. 348 Kalāpasammasana ñāṇa is a summarized understanding of all past, present, and future (both in momentary perception as well as longer period perception) phenomena in all three worlds (kāma, rūpa, arūpa) and repeated, continuous observing of their impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and not-self, The practice is based on conceptual perceptions. …
p. 351 … all of the three times - past, present, future -cease on their own without ever exceeding the other time or mixing with the other, e.g., past never gets into the present, present never gets into the future, future never reaches the present - all three times of time are however conceptual, they are not real. This considering three times is for each and every one of the five aggregates - body, feelings, perceptions, intentions, and consciousness.
p. 348 Kalāpasammasana practice was practiced by people in the Buddha’s time in India as observing anicca, dukkha, anatta in body and mind. It is a practice to be followed, especially at the level of cittavisuddhi. An author of a Tika scripture suggests that because kalāpasammasana is only for teaching purposes, it should not be added to any of the visuddhis.
→ Note that this practice is dependent on observing the past and future, which was discouraged by the Buddha, e.g., in MN Bhaddekaratta Sutta. Ven. Paṇḍābhivaṃsa suggests that this was said in reference to a “must” case, i.e., it “may” be added into a visuddhi level; however, it is not a must. [p. 357 In Sri Lanka it is called naya vipassanā.]
