Jhana meditation and attachment to pleasure

[nibbuti]

Isn't it still theoretically possible to become totally attached and "crave" the bliss of such an absorptive meditative state?

Hi phil-zero

If one gets "attached to meditation" it is wrong meditation. If one gets attached to "absorptive meditative state" it is wrong absorbtion.

There is nothing more to say.

[Assaji]

Hello Mike,

Another advantage to this mindful, concentrated state is that as you feel more and more at home in it, you begin to realize that it's possible to have happiness and pleasure in life without depending on things outside of yourself — people, relationships, approval from others, or any of the issues that come from being part of the world. This realization helps pry loose your attachments to things outside. Some people are afraid of getting attached to a state of calm, but actually, it's very important that you get attached here, so that you begin to settle down and begin to undo your other attachments. Only when this attachment to calm is the only one left do you begin work on loosening it up as well.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... cmind.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks for the excellent quote. There inevitably arises attachment to jhanas, which has to be dealt with later.

Like James I don't have experience with deep states that would correspond to Ajahn Brahm/Visuddhimagga-strength jhana. However, I have had some quite pleasurable experiences on retreats. I've never had teachers tell me to "fear" these states. What they do encourage is to be sure to maintain strong mindfulness. My experience is that if I don't maintain strong mindfulness and energy then I slip into blank states which aren't much good for anything...

Yes, without awareness and wisdom these states are not much good.

[Kumara]

MN 139
<snip>
“Here, bhikkhus, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the first jhāna…the second jhāna…the third jhāna…the fourth jhāna. This is called the bliss of renunciation, the bliss of seclusion, the bliss of peace, the bliss of enlightenment. I say of this kind of pleasure that it should be pursued, that it should be developed, that it should be cultivated, and that it should not be feared.

What then, makes the bliss inherent in jhana states different from the more "coarse" forms of sensual pleasure? Isn't it still theoretically possible to become totally attached and "crave" the bliss of such an absorptive meditative state? Though the jhana state is more skillful, it still appears liable to the same pitfalls as ordinary pleasures, ie: attachment, craving and wanting more.

Perhaps i am missing a key point?

That's a healthy doubt.

As I see it, the whole trouble many people have with this has to do with the translation. The translator has injected classical Mahavahara-Theravadin view of jhana into his translation. See the original text: "Idaṃ vuccati nekkhammasukhaṃ pavivekasukhaṃ upasamasukhaṃ sambodhisukhaṃ āsevitabbaṃ bhāvetabbaṃ bahulīkātabbaṃ. Na bhāyitabbaṃ etassa sukhassāti vadāmi."

If he had rendered all the occasions of sukha literally as happiness, instead of bliss and pleasure (which is rather inconsistent and selective), you may have gotten a different picture.

Theravadin orthodoxy generally use the word jhana as the Visuddhimagga describes it. Indeed for this kind of jhana, the sukha that is experienced can be aptly translated as bliss and pleasure. For the Sutta type, they would be inappropriate. Having sukha as simply happiness would be just perfect.

The matter about 2 kinds of jhana has already been very well researched and explained by Richard Shankman in his book "The Experience of Samadhi". Geoff Shatz has also done a good share of research, presented here in Dhammawheel (by the name Ñana). E.g. Jhana According to the Pali Nikayas. http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=5761" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As I can tell from their writing, both of them are experienced meditator. They quote much from texts to substantiate their view points, but aren't speaking from mere textual understanding. They are well qualified to speak on the matter.

[Kumara]

Isn't it still theoretically possible to become totally attached and "crave" the bliss of such an absorptive meditative state?

It's not just a theory, I can assure you.

[Polar Bear]

"Even though a disciple of the noble ones has clearly seen as it actually is with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, still — if he has not attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful mental qualities, or something more peaceful than that[4] — he can be tempted by sensuality. But when he has clearly seen as it actually is with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, and he has attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful mental qualities, or something more peaceful than that, he cannot be tempted by sensuality.

"I myself, before my Awakening, when I was still an unawakened bodhisatta, saw as it actually was with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, but as long as I had not attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful mental qualities, or something more peaceful than that, I did not claim that I could not be tempted by sensuality. But when I saw as it actually was with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, and I had attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful mental qualities, or something more peaceful than that, that was when I claimed that I could not be tempted by sensuality.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[marc108]

I ask this, because, i feel in a way, that I have almost developed an attachment to the pleasurable and detached state of meditation. If i enter a state of meditation for 30 minutes before i go to work, for example, I realize how much less pleasurable the act of "work" is in comparison to the relaxed, detached, and empty mind of meditation. Now theoretically, my meditation should ALLOW me to get in better touch with my feelings TOWARDS work, but this doesn't always occur. It's almost like i enjoy meditation so much that i just want MORE of it, just like any pleasure.

So once again, what exactly IS the difference between the pleasure of meditation and any other sort of sensual pleasure? Or is there none?

attachment to meditation is ok... not even ok, but desirable. it's perfectly normal and i believe most people who pursue meditations seriously experience this. people trip out way too much about this idea that attachment to meditative pleasure being bad. as far as I know, the Buddha never said attachment to meditative pleasure is bad (other than not wanting drop off the coarse piti to get into the 2nd Jhana). The Budhha praised & praised the pleasure from meditation, and said it was 'blameless'. so if you're talking about loving meditation so much you enjoy it more than work, and you find yourself drawn more towards meditation than worldly things, then that's GREAT, its working, keep going.

meditation isnt supposed to make the unpleasurable things of the world seem better. approached from a Canonical standpoint, its supposed to help you develop dispassion towards the world to the point where you give up the worldly life and become a monk.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"I myself, before my Awakening, when I was still an unawakened bodhisatta, saw as it actually was with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, but as long as I had not attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful mental qualities, or something more peaceful than that, I did not claim that I could not be tempted by sensuality. But when I saw as it actually was with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, and I had attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful mental qualities, or something more peaceful than that, that was when I claimed that I could not be tempted by sensuality.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"And, Udayin, there are these five strings of sensuality. Which five? Forms cognizable via the eye — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. Sounds cognizable via the ear... Aromas cognizable via the nose... Flavors cognizable via the tongue... Tactile sensations cognizable via the body — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. These are the five strings of sensuality. Now, any pleasure & happiness that arises dependent on these five strings of sensuality is called sensual pleasure, a filthy pleasure, a run-of-the-mill pleasure, an ignoble pleasure. And of this pleasure I say that it is not to be cultivated, not to be developed, not to be pursued, that it is to be feared.

"Now, there is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. With the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of concentration, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance. With the fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.' With the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is called renunciation-pleasure, seclusion-pleasure, calm-pleasure, self-awakening-pleasure. And of this pleasure I say that it is to be cultivated, to be developed, to be pursued, that it is not to be feared.

I think what this is pointing to is that the pleasure in meditation, beyond its function in deepening meditation, allows the mind to loosen its grips on sensual pleasure. if you think you're going to will yourself out of the desire to experience pleasure in one form or another... good luck with that. the idea is to be 'attached' to the type of pleasure that is skillful and helps us move towards awakening.

The matter about 2 kinds of jhana has already been very well researched and explained by Richard Shankman in his book "The Experience of Samadhi".

this is an excellent book. there is also a companion series of talks:
Samadhi: Exploring the Range of Teachings and Controversies on Concentration & Jhana
http://audiodharma.org/series/135/talk/1854/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Spiny Norman]

Good, get addicted to meditation, that's not a problem if you ask me. But there is quite a difference between the types of pleasure as explained before.

[Kumara]

Good, get addicted to meditation, that's not a problem if you ask me. But there is quite a difference between the types of pleasure as explained before.

"Addicted" sounds like a serious form of attachment to me. How about "interested", or even "enthusiastic". As our Teacher advised: Sabbe dhammā nālaṃ abhinivesāyāti (All things are unworthy of attachment.)

[Sylvester]

Theravadin orthodoxy generally use the word jhana as the Visuddhimagga describes it. Indeed for this kind of jhana, the sukha that is experienced can be aptly translated as bliss and pleasure. For the Sutta type, they would be inappropriate. Having sukha as simply happiness would be just perfect.

Hi Bhante

Might it be possible that sukha ought to be translated as pleasure, but happiness should be reserved instead for somanassa? See MN 13 on the 2 types of feelings that arise in dependance on the 5 cords of sensual pleasure. There seems to be enough suttas to justify this bifurcation of feelings into kāyika (bodily) and cetasika (mental).

[Assaji]

A passage from Buddhacarita might help:

atho viviktaṁ kāmebhyo vyāpādādibhya eva ca |
vivekajamavāpnoti pūrvadhyānaṁ vitarkavat || 12.49

49. ‘Then he reaches the first stage of contemplation, which is separated from desires, evil intentions and the like, and arises from discrimination and which involves reasoning. 10

tacca dhyānaṁ sukhaṁ prāpya tattadeva vitarkayan |
apūrvasukhalābhena hriyate bāliśo janaḥ || 12.50

50. ‘And having obtained this ecstatic contemplation, and reasoning on various objects, the childish mind is carried away by the possession of the new unknown ecstasy.

śamenaivaṁvidhenāyaṁ kāmadveṣavigarhiṇā |
brahmalokamavāpnoti paritoṣeṇa vaṁcitaḥ || 12.51

51. ‘With a tranquillity of this kind, which disdains desire or dislike, he reaches the world of Brahman, deceived by the delight.

jñātvā vidvān vitarkāṁstu manaḥsaṁkṣobhakārakān |
tadviyuktamavāpnoti dhyānaṁ prītisukhānvitam || 12.52

52. ‘But the wise man, knowing that these reasonings bewilder the mind, reaches a (second) stage of contemplation separate from this, which has its own pleasure and ecstasy.

hriyamāṇastayā prītyā yo viśeṣaṁ na paśyati |
sthānaṁ bhāsvaramāpnoti deveṣvābhāsureṣvapi || 12.53

53. ‘And he who, carried away by this pleasure, sees no further distinction, obtains a dwelling full of light, even amongst the Ābhāsura deities.

yastu prītisukhāttasmādvivecayati mānasam |
tṛtīyaṁ labhate dhyānaṁ sukhaṁ prītivivarjitam || 12.54

54. ‘But he who separates his mind from this pleasure and ecstasy, reaches the third stage of contemplation ecstatic but without pleasure.

tatra kecidvyavasyaṁti mokṣa ityapi māninaḥ |
sukhaduḥkhaparityāgādavyāpārācca cetasaḥ || 12.55 (57)

55. ‘Upon this stage some teachers make their stand, thinking that it is indeed liberation, since pleasure and pain have been left behind and there is no exercise of the intellect.

yastu tasminsukhe magno na viśeṣāya yatnavān |
śubhakṛtsnaiḥ sa sāmānyaṁ sukhaṁ prāpnoti daivataiḥ || 12.56 (55)

56. ‘But he who, immersed in this ecstasy, strives not for a further distinction, obtains an ecstasy in common with the Śubhakṛtsna deities.

tādṛśaṁ sukhamāsādya yo na rajyannupekṣate |
caturthaṁ dhyānamāpnoti sukhaduḥkhavivarjitam || 12.57 (56)

57. ‘But he who, having attained such a bliss desires it not but despises it, obtains the fourth stage of contemplation which is separate from all pleasure or pain.

http://www.buddhanet-de.net/ancient-bud ... ok-XII.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[reflection]

Good, get addicted to meditation, that's not a problem if you ask me. But there is quite a difference between the types of pleasure as explained before.

"Addicted" sounds like a serious form of attachment to me. How about "interested", or even "enthusiastic". As our Teacher advised: Sabbe dhammā nālaṃ abhinivesāyāti (All things are unworthy of attachment.)

Yeah, those words may be better. Good suggestion.

Just to take it a bit further and aimed toward everybody here: If there is anything in the world worth getting addicted to, I think it's meditation. Meditation is not just a tool to get enlightened. It's supposed to be fun. The Buddha also continued to meditate after his enlightenment. If the mind sees the peace it can get from meditation, it's only natural it will leap towards it and become 'addicted' to it. It's our attitude and what we add to this 'addiction', which could turn into a problem. There can be desire for peace and craving for peace; the two are slightly different. There can be a draw towards meditation and attachment to it. So it's all words here which are unable to accurately describe what goes on. But that's just the thing with words. Still, my main point is I think it's only natural for the mind to develop a tendency to want to meditate more. If this is not arising, meditation is not going as it should.

People say one can get attached to jhana, in a way maybe true, in another way not. You are already attached to jhanas before experiencing it. We already have the fetters of attachment before we experience jhana, they don't suddenly arise after jhana experiences, but where hidden in us all the time. So if I hear a warning for addiction to jhana by practicing jhana, I don't agree. I think it is through samadhi that we can leave those most subtle of attachments behind. Because in samadhi we see the most basic mind. We can see even such basic existence is suffering and can let the attachments to existence go. At least, that's how it seems to me.

[Kumara]

Theravadin orthodoxy generally use the word jhana as the Visuddhimagga describes it. Indeed for this kind of jhana, the sukha that is experienced can be aptly translated as bliss and pleasure. For the Sutta type, they would be inappropriate. Having sukha as simply happiness would be just perfect.

Hi Bhante

Might it be possible that sukha ought to be translated as pleasure, but happiness should be reserved instead for somanassa? See MN 13 on the 2 types of feelings that arise in dependance on the 5 cords of sensual pleasure. There seems to be enough suttas to justify this bifurcation of feelings into kāyika (bodily) and cetasika (mental).

If we translate "sukha" as "pleasure", we have a problem of explaining how it is different from piti. Isn't piti pleasure too? Besides, if we look at the various contexts in which sukha occurs, we would find that pleasure can't work at all in some cases.

Case in point is "nibbānaṁ paramaṁ sukhaṁ". Nibbāna can't possibly be pleasure or pleasurable. The English word "pleasure" refers to a sukha vedana, which is a form of dukkha, though not dukkha vedana. So translating "nibbānaṁ paramaṁ sukhaṁ" as "Nibbana is the highest pleasure" is problematic, besides potentially suggestive.

Also, in Laṭukikopama Sutta (MN66) and Araṇa·vibhaṅga Sutta (MN139), we find the Buddha saying that the jhanas are sukha, but the 4th jhana is devoid of sukha. Obviously "sukha" has a much wider meaning than a feeling (just as dukkha is much wider in meaning compared to dukkha vedana).

Happiness is an English words with a wide usage. It fits in perfectly with sukha, which is just as wide in usage: from sensual happiness (kamasukha) to jhanic happiness to Nibbanic happiness. (Btw, suka is very much a living word in Malay lauguage, which is largely based on Sanskrit. It means happiness too.)

[Sylvester]

Thanks Bhante, for your thoughts. I guess this is where we disagree on the classification of the jhana formulae's pīti and sukha within the kāyika versus cetasika division of feelings. Looking at the standard 4th jhana formula, it appears to me more plausible that jhanic sukha is kāyika feeling, as somanassa (the cetasika feeling) is said to have disappeared earlier.

Just for clarification -I don't follow the Abhidhamma and Comy in limiting kāyika feelings to those arising from contact at the 5 sense faculties. I take it that sukha/dukha and neutral feelings can also arise at the mind-base. I think it might be better to tie kāyika feelings with hedonic tone, while cetasika feelings are the affective sequel to the initial contact.



PS - Bhante bermastautin di Sasanarakkha?

[manas]

Hi phil

you might find this useful

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDmEFFfYNP0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In this talk, Ajahn Thanissaro discusses useful strategies for dealing with sensual desires, and how the pleasure born of seclusion (of the first jhana) is useful in this. Of course we also need to ultimately transcend that pleasure also, but hey, 'first things first'...

kind regards

[Kumara]

PS - Bhante bermastautin di Sasanarakkha?

Betul.