Irregular Order
Uppaṭika Sutta (SN 48:40)
“Monks, there are these five faculties. Which five? The pain-faculty, the distress-faculty, the pleasure-faculty, the happiness-faculty, the equanimity-faculty.1
“There is the case where, in a monk who is heedful, ardent, & resolute, there arises the pain-faculty. He discerns, ‘This pain-faculty has arisen within me. And that comes with an object, with a cause, with a fabrication, with a condition. That a pain-faculty would arise without an object, without a cause, without a fabrication, without a condition: That is impossible.’ He discerns the pain-faculty, he discerns the origination of the pain-faculty, he discerns the cessation of the pain-faculty, and he discerns where an arisen pain-faculty ceases without trace.
“And where does an arisen pain-faculty cease without trace? There is the case where a monk, quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first jhāna: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. Here is where an arisen pain-faculty ceases without trace.
“This, monks, is called a monk who knows the cessation of the pain-faculty. He gathers his mind for the sake of that reality.
“There is the case where, in a monk who is heedful, ardent, & resolute, there arises the distress-faculty. He discerns, ‘This distress-faculty has arisen within me. And that comes with an object, with a cause, with a fabrication, with a condition. That a distress-faculty would arise without an object, without a cause, without a fabrication, without a condition: That is impossible.’ He discerns the distress-faculty, he discerns the origination of the distress-faculty, he discerns the cessation of the distress-faculty, and he discerns where an arisen distress-faculty ceases without trace.
“And where does an arisen distress-faculty cease without trace? There is the case where a monk, with the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, enters & remains in the second jhāna: rapture & pleasure born of concentration, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation—internal assurance. Here is where an arisen distress-faculty ceases without trace.2
“This, monks, is called a monk who knows the cessation of the distress-faculty. He gathers his mind for the sake of that reality.
“There is the case where, in a monk who is heedful, ardent, & resolute, there arises the pleasure-faculty. He discerns, ‘This pleasure-faculty has arisen within me. And that comes with an object, with a cause, with a fabrication, with a condition. That a pleasure-faculty would arise without an object, without a cause, without a fabrication, without a condition: That is impossible.’ He discerns the pleasure-faculty, he discerns the origination of the pleasure-faculty, he discerns the cessation of the pleasure-faculty, and he discerns where an arisen pleasure-faculty ceases without trace.
“And where does an arisen pleasure-faculty cease without trace? There is the case where a monk, with the fading of rapture, remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhāna, of which the noble ones declare, ‘Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.’ Here is where an arisen pleasure-faculty ceases without trace.3
“This, monks, is called a monk who knows the cessation of the pleasure-faculty. He gathers his mind for the sake of that reality.
“There is the case where, in a monk who is heedful, ardent, & resolute, there arises the happiness-faculty. He discerns, ‘This happiness-faculty has arisen within me. And that comes with an object, with a cause, with a fabrication, with a condition. That a happiness-faculty would arise without an object, without a cause, without a fabrication, without a condition: That is impossible.’ He discerns the happiness-faculty, he discerns the origination of the happiness-faculty, he discerns the cessation of the happiness-faculty, and he discerns where an arisen happiness-faculty ceases without trace.
“And where does an arisen happiness-faculty cease without trace? There is the case where a monk, with the abandoning of pleasure & pain—as with the earlier disappearance of happiness & distress—enters & remains in the fourth jhāna: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. Here is where an arisen happiness-faculty ceases without trace.4
“This, monks, is called a monk who knows the cessation of the happiness-faculty. He gathers his mind for the sake of that reality.
“There is the case where, in a monk who is heedful, ardent, & resolute, there arises the equanimity-faculty. He discerns, ‘This equanimity-faculty has arisen within me. And that comes with an object, with a cause, with a fabrication, with a condition. That an equanimity-faculty would arise without an object, without a cause, without a fabrication, without a condition: That is impossible.’ He discerns the equanimity-faculty, he discerns the origination of the equanimity-faculty, he discerns the cessation of the equanimity-faculty, and he discerns where an arisen equanimity-faculty ceases without trace.
“And where does an arisen equanimity-faculty cease without trace? There is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters & remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. Here is where an arisen equanimity-faculty ceases without trace.
“This, monks, is called a monk who knows the cessation of the equanimity-faculty. He gathers his mind for the sake of that reality.”
Notes
1. The order in which the five faculties are listed here differs from that of the preceding suttas. There the order is: the pleasure-faculty, the pain-faculty, the happiness-faculty, the distress-faculty, the equanimity-faculty. This may be one of the reasons why the compilers of the suttas gave it the name, Irregular Order.
To understand this sutta, it’s important to know the way these faculties are defined in SN 48:38. The pleasure-faculty is equal to physical pleasure; the happiness-faculty, to mental pleasure. Both come under the category of feelings of pleasure. The pain-faculty is equal to physical pain; the distress-faculty, to mental pain. Both come under the category of feelings of pain. The equanimity-faculty is equal to feelings of neither comfort nor discomfort, whether those feelings are physical or mental. This faculty comes under the category of feelings of neither pleasure nor pain.
2. This passage appears to contradict the following passage from AN 5:176:
“When a disciple of the noble ones enters & remains in seclusion & rapture, there are five possibilities that do not exist at that time: The pain & distress dependent on sensuality do not exist at that time. The pleasure & happiness dependent on sensuality do not exist at that time. The pain & distress dependent on what is unskillful do not exist at that time. The pleasure & happiness dependent on what is unskillful do not exist at that time. The pain & distress dependent on what is skillful do not exist at that time. When a disciple of the noble ones enters & remains in seclusion & rapture, these five possibilities do not exist at that time.”
The phrase, “when a disciple of the noble ones enters & remains in seclusion & rapture,” would appear to be a reference to the first jhāna. If so, AN 5:176 is saying that both pain and distress have already ceased in the first jhāna, so there is no need to wait for the second jhāna for distress to cease.
3. Here is another discrepancy. The standard jhāna formula says clearly that pleasure is abandoned on entering the fourth jhāna, rather than in the third jhāna. And the formula for the third jhāna says clearly that it is a pleasurable abiding in which the monk, while equanimous, senses pleasure with the body. So the third jhāna could not be the stage at which pleasure ceases. The commentary explains this discrepancy by saying that “pleasure” (sukha) here denotes mental pleasure, because there can be no physical pleasure where there is no rapture, but that is obviously not true. There are many cases where there can be physical pleasure without rapture. And the commentary would need to explain how one can feel mental pleasure with the body. An argument might be made that the phrase, “with the body” in the formula for the third jhāna means, “with the mental body.” This, however, would contradict the passage in MN 119 stating that the monk in the third jhāna permeates and suffuses his body with the pleasure devoid of rapture, and in the context of that sutta, “body” clearly means the physical body.
4. Another discrepancy: The standard formula for the fourth jhāna states that happiness and distress were abandoned earlier. Because the monk in the third jhāna is said to be equanimous while experiencing pleasure with the body, that would seem to indicate that his feeling of equanimity is mental. So the third jhāna would be the point where happiness is actually abandoned, while pleasure is abandoned on entering the fourth jhāna.
This means that the discussion of the cessation of happiness and pleasure given here reverses the roles of the third and fourth jhāna in the standard description of the jhānas give here and throughout the Canon.
One possible way around this puzzle would be to assume that the order of the discussion in this sutta was originally even more irregular than it is now. As we noted, the order in which the five faculties are discussed in the suttas preceding this one was regular: positive physical, negative physical, positive mental, negative mental, neutral. The order here is different, but still regular in its own way: negative physical, negative mental, positive physical, positive mental, neutral.
As for the jhānas, they’re listed here in a totally regular order: first, second, third, fourth, and then skipping to the cessation of perception and feeling.
However, if we introduced a little more irregularity into the sutta, it would actually resolve the inconsistency between it and the standard description of the jhānas, at the same time making the title of the sutta even more appropriate.
The way to do it would be this: (1) Instead of saying that pleasure ends with the third jhāna, we could say that it ends with the fourth. That would fit with the description of the third jhāna, which mentions pleasure in that jhāna twice. (2) Instead of saying that happiness ends with the fourth jhāna, we could say that it ends with the third: where one is equanimous (apparently in mind) but experiences pleasure with the body. That would then fit with the statement in the standard description of the fourth jhāna that both distress and happiness had already been abandoned earlier.
Transposing things in this way would introduce more irregularity into either one of the two lists: of feeling faculties or of jhānas.
If we kept the order of the feeling faculties as it is, that would require ordering the four jhānas as: first, second, fourth, and third. If we kept the order of the jhānas as it is, the order of the feeling faculties would become even more irregular: negative physical, negative mental, positive mental, positive physical, neutral.
Perhaps the original sutta was ordered in either of these two more irregular ways, and at some point in time—after the sutta had been given a title but before the commentary to the sutta was composed—someone changed the order to make it seem a little more proper.
This proposal is purely conjectural, but it has the advantage of organizing the sutta in such as way that it would salvage this part of the sutta, allowing it to stand with the rest of the Sutta Piṭaka, in line with the principle stated in DN 16:
“Then there is the case where a monk says this: ‘In a monastery over there dwell many learned elder monks who know the tradition, who have memorized the Dhamma, the Vinaya, and the Mātikā. Face-to-face with those elders I have heard this, face-to-face have I received this: This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ His statement is neither to be approved nor scorned. Without approval or scorn, take careful note of his words and make them stand against the suttas and tally them against the Vinaya. If, on making them stand against the suttas and tallying them against the Vinaya, you find that they don’t stand with the suttas or tally with the Vinaya, you may conclude: ‘This is not the word of the Blessed One; this monk has misunderstood it’—and you should reject it. But if, on making them stand against the suttas and tallying them against the Vinaya, you find that they stand with the suttas and tally with the Vinaya, you may conclude: ‘This is the word of the Blessed One; this monk has understood it rightly.’” — DN 16
As for the apparent discrepancy between this sutta and AN 5:176—over where distress ceases in the jhānas—that’s harder to resolve. The standard description of the jhānas makes no mention of where, in the practice of jhāna, distress ends, and there are no objective textual grounds for privileging one of these two suttas over the other. This would be an issue that could be resolved only through actual practice.
