Five Hindrances - From Post-canonical Pali Literature

From Post-canonical Pali Literature

method of
suppression		 path of
eradication
sensual
desire		 first jhana based
on bodily foulness		 nonreturning or
arahantship
ill will first jhana based
on metta		 nonreturning
sloth and
torpor		 perception of light arahantship
restlessness
and worry		 serenity arahantship and
nonreturning
doubt defining of phenomena
(dhammavavatthāna)		 stream-entry
The Pali commentary's methods
and paths for escaping the hindrances.

According to the first-century CE exegetic Vimuttimagga, the five hindrances include all ten "fetters": sense desire includes any attachment to passion; ill will includes all unwholesome states of hatred; and, sloth and torpor, restlessness and worry, and doubt include all unwholesome states of infatuation. The Vimuttimagga further distinguishes that "sloth" refers to mental states while "torpor" refers to physical states resultant from food or time or mental states; if torpor results from food or time, then one diminishes it through energy; otherwise, one removes it with meditation. In addition, the Vimuttimagga identifies four types of doubt:

  • doubt regarding self is a hindrance to tranquility;
  • doubt regarding the Four Noble Truths and three worlds is a hindrance to insight;
  • doubt regarding the Triple Gem is a hindrance to both tranquility and insight;
  • doubt regarding places and people is a hindrance to "non-doctrinal" things;
  • doubt regarding the Discourses is a hindrance to solitude.

According to Buddhaghosa's fifth-century CE commentary to the Samyutta Nikaya (Sāratthappakāsinī), one can momentarily escape the hindrances through jhanic suppression or through insight while, as also stated in the Vimuttimagga, one eradicates the hindrances through attainment of one of the four stages of enlightenment (see Table 1).

Read more about this topic:  Five Hindrances

Famous quotes containing the word literature:

    “Despite your best efforts, you could not invent a better police force for literature than criticism and the author’s own conscience.”
    —Anton Pavlovich Chekhov (1860–1904)