Jhāna: Buddhist or not?

The cultivation of calm or tranquility and the development of concentration
User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: Jhāna: Buddhist or not?

Post by LonesomeYogurt »

tiltbillings wrote:It is not my response to "any objection towards the Mahasi's undue emphasis on insight over tranquility." It is simply the fact of the matter when it comes to the question of what jhana actually means, which we have seen in the various debates on the forum (many of which I have not been part of), opinions vary.
And I'm arguing that the debate in the Jhana camp is not nearly as divided as you claim. In all the debates here as well as other more scholarly ones in the public arena, the vast majority seem to come down to one group just rejecting Jhana completely and the other group arguing for its necessity; within the latter there are disagreements over minor issues, but you seem to be painting it as a far more divisive free-for-all than it is. In truth, most advocates of Jhana can agree on enough of a basic general structure to allow for hassle-free practice.
And regarding such terminology as vitaka and a vicara, can you say with absolute certainly what they mean? And it is not at all a distraction to ask the question. It is a reasonable question to ask of those who are jhana advocates.
There is historical and linguistic evidence abounding for the standard definitions given to the Jhana factors, but they're secondary anyway because we can know just from direct experience of meditation whether or not piti is arising, when vicara ceases, etc.

It's not like the Buddha is naming five types of plants in a far-away jungle we can never get to; it's far more like he's describing sights we'll see along the way as we go there ourselves. The job is matching the points on the map, i.e. the terms like vicara and vitaka, to the real experiences of Jhana itself, and I don't think there is a huge diversity of experience when it comes down to that actual examination.

I think the real "Jhana debate" is far more the role of Jhana in practice and far less what "Jhana is," although honestly I think that both questions are easily put to rest if one simply makes recourse to the suttas.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Jhāna: Buddhist or not?

Post by tiltbillings »

LonesomeYogurt wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:It is not my response to "any objection towards the Mahasi's undue emphasis on insight over tranquility." It is simply the fact of the matter when it comes to the question of what jhana actually means, which we have seen in the various debates on the forum (many of which I have not been part of), opinions vary.
And I'm arguing that the debate in the Jhana camp is not nearly as divided as you claim.
And how divided is that, since you are making that claim? My point is that opinions can vary and have varied considerably. Just take a look at the negative response to Ajahn Brahm's version of jhana, dismissively characterized here as "ambulance jhana."
In all the debates here as well as other more scholarly ones in the public arena, the vast majority seem to come down to one group just rejecting Jhana completely and the other group arguing for its necessity; within the latter there are disagreements over minor issues, but you seem to be painting it as a far more divisive free-for-all than it is. In truth, most advocates of Jhana can agree on enough of a basic general structure to allow for hassle-free practice.
Firstly, I do not reject jhana completely. I don't reject it at all. And whether you want to admit it or not, which is up to you, but there is a fair amount of variation as to what is meant by jhana, as Brasington neatly points out.
And regarding such terminology as vitaka and a vicara, can you say with absolute certainly what they mean? And it is not at all a distraction to ask the question. It is a reasonable question to ask of those who are jhana advocates.
There is historical and linguistic evidence abounding for the standard definitions given to the Jhana factors, but they're secondary anyway because we can know just from direct experience of meditation whether or not piti is arising, when vicara ceases, etc.
Standard definitions? Whose standard definitions?
I don't think there is a huge diversity of experience when it comes down to that actual examination.
But you do not know.
I think the real "Jhana debate" is far more the role of Jhana in practice and far less what "Jhana is," although honestly I think that both questions are easily put to rest if one simply makes recourse to the suttas.
Sure, but what about the Visuddhimagga?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: Jhāna: Buddhist or not?

Post by LonesomeYogurt »

tiltbillings wrote:And how divided is that, since you are making that claim? My point is that opinions can vary and have varied considerably. Just take a look at the negative response to Ajahn Brahm's version of jhana, dismissively characterized here as "ambulance jhana."
This is only a problem if you assume that anyone is arguing for a rigid, one-size-fits-all Jhana and I think most don't. Obviously there are different opinions, but to assume 1) that everyone thinks there is only one possible experience of Jhana or, more importantly, 2) that the majority of different experiences of Jhana can't be seen through the lens of a general framework is an odd position to take.
Firstly, I do not reject jhana completely. I don't reject it at all. And whether you want to admit it or not, which is up to you, but there is a fair amount of variation as to what is meant by jhana, as Brasington neatly points out.
No disagreement, but that doesn't render the standard formula meaningless; it just renders it accurately for what it is, which is a general framework for samatha practice.
Standard definitions? Whose standard definitions?
The standard definitions of the Jhana factors are, as I said before, hardly up for debate except in nuance.
But you do not know.
I have no reason to believe.
Sure, but what about the Visuddhimagga?
What about it? If it contradicts the suttas, then I think the answer is clear.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Jhāna: Buddhist or not?

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi LY,
LonesomeYogurt wrote: That seems to be your response to any objection towards the Mahasi method's undue emphasis on insight over tranquility, but I don't particularly buy it.
On what do you base this assertion? My experience of retreats practising this method is that quite a lot of tranquillity is built up. Certainly, the Visissudhimagga/Ajahn Brahm level jhanas are not normally encouraged, but the level of concentration normally encouraged is non-trivial in my experience.

Furthermore, as Tilt says, many teachers who primarily teach a Mahasi-based approach have tried a varierty methods and are quite happy to guide students who want to pursue that path. That's certainly what I've seen.

So, the question is very much to the point. Some, based on reading of Suttas or Commentaries, define Jhana as the very concentrated states described in the Visuddhimagga. Others, based on reading Suttas, define it as much less concentrated, and, in fact, similar to the "access concentration" level said to be suitable for "dry insight" in the Visuddhimagga, which is what the Mahasi teachers are generally advocating.
[In fact, reading between the lines of some of U Pandita's comments in various places, such as what I quoted in this post it's possible that he coined the term "vipassana jhana" rather than just come out and say "the sutta version of jhana seems to be a lot shallower than the Visuddhimagga version."]

My view is:
1. There is no general agreement of what the suttas define as Jhana (Visuddhimagga/Ajahn Brahm definition at one end through to a very shallow definition at the other).
2. There are a variety of valid interpretations and hence approaches.
3. No amount of analysis of texts can replace getting good advice from competent teachers and actually trying it out.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Jhāna: Buddhist or not?

Post by tiltbillings »

mikenz66 wrote:Hi LY,
LonesomeYogurt wrote: That seems to be your response to any objection towards the Mahasi method's undue emphasis on insight over tranquility, but I don't particularly buy it.
On what do you base this assertion? My experience of retreats practising this method is that quite a lot of tranquillity is built up. Certainly, the Visissudhimagga/Ajahn Brahm level jhanas are not normally encouraged, but the level of concentration normally encouraged is non-trivial in my experience.
And this really cannot be over-emphasized.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Jhāna: Buddhist or not?

Post by mikenz66 »

LonesomeYogurt wrote:
Sure, but what about the Visuddhimagga?
What about it? If it contradicts the suttas, then I think the answer is clear.
As I said above, the range of interpretation of jhana by "sutta practitioners" such as Ajahn Brahm, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Bhante Vimalaramsi, etc, is just as wide as any disagreement between the Visuddhimagga and any one interpretation of the suttas, so this talk of "contradiction between sutta and commentary" appears to be a moot point, overshadowed by the "contradiction between sutta interpretations".

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Jhāna: Buddhist or not?

Post by tiltbillings »

LonesomeYogurt wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:And how divided is that, since you are making that claim? My point is that opinions can vary and have varied considerably. Just take a look at the negative response to Ajahn Brahm's version of jhana, dismissively characterized here as "ambulance jhana."
This is only a problem if you assume that anyone is arguing for a rigid, one-size-fits-all Jhana and I think most don't.
Interesting, but we certainly do see arguments for particular understandings of what jhana supposedly is that are not always conguent.
Obviously there are different opinions, but to assume 1) that everyone thinks there is only one possible experience of Jhana or, more importantly, 2) that the majority of different experiences of Jhana can't be seen through the lens of a general framework is an odd position to take.
Of course the variations in jhana can be seen through a highly generalized framework. This is Brasington's point. The issue arise when one starts getting into particulars.
Firstly, I do not reject jhana completely. I don't reject it at all. And whether you want to admit it or not, which is up to you, but there is a fair amount of variation as to what is meant by jhana, as Brasington neatly points out.
No disagreement, but that doesn't render the standard formula meaningless; it just renders it accurately for what it is, which is a general framework for samatha practice.
I certainly did not say or even remotely suggest that the standard formula is "meaningless," but as to what the components of those formulae mean, opinions can vary, and at times significantly.
Standard definitions? Whose standard definitions?
The standard definitions of the Jhana factors are, as I said before, hardly up for debate except in nuance.
So, you can tell us what vitaka and vicara mean, laying to rest any questions about these terms?
But you do not know.
I have no reason to believe.
So, you are saying that you know, without question?
Sure, but what about the Visuddhimagga?
What about it? If it contradicts the suttas, then I think the answer is clear.
The author certainly did not think what he said contradicted the suttas, but do you actually know what the Visuddhimagga says?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: Jhāna: Buddhist or not?

Post by LonesomeYogurt »

tiltbillings wrote:
Mike wrote:On what do you base this assertion? My experience of retreats practising this method is that quite a lot of tranquillity is built up. Certainly, the Visissudhimagga/Ajahn Brahm level jhanas are not normally encouraged, but the level of concentration normally encouraged is non-trivial in my experience.
And this really cannot be over-emphasized.
It's definitely non-trivial, and it's not Wrong Concentration; and if you are following the "Vipassana Jhana" model, then that's fine too. All I'm saying is that Jhana is a fundamental part of the Buddha's path, and relegating it to this "warm-up" position gives an emphasis to insight that I think is unwarranted.

As for disagreements in reference to sutta vs. commentary and sutta vs. sutta, I agree that in terms of what Jhana is there is quite a variation - although I have made it clear that I think such variation is not only not really an issue, but in fact a good thing. What I am referring to is the role of Jhana and the somewhat "disrespectful" treatment it gets in the commentaries vs. the suttas.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.
User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: Jhāna: Buddhist or not?

Post by LonesomeYogurt »

tiltbillings wrote:Interesting, but we certainly do see arguments for particular understandings of what jhana supposedly is that are not always conguent.
No disagreement there.
Of course the variations in jhana can be seen through a highly generalized framework. This is Brasington's point. The issue arise when one starts getting into particulars.
And I'm saying that the formula not only "survives" such examination of particulars, but actually is enriched by the possible variations of depth, insight, etc.
I certainly did not say or even remotely suggest that the standard formula is "meaningless," but as to what the components of those formulae mean, opinions can vary, and at times significantly.
My apologies, I never meant to imply that you did.
So, you can tell us what vitaka and vicara mean, laying to rest any questions about these terms?
I can tell you a working definition that aligns with Jhana experience and allows for an accurate-enough roadmap for measuring Jhana progress.
The author certainly did not think what he said contradicted the suttas, but do you actually know what the Visuddhimagga says?
I've had the privilege of reading large portions of the Visuddhimagga, and although I am no expert, I am at least familiar with it.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Jhāna: Buddhist or not?

Post by tiltbillings »

LonesomeYogurt wrote:relegating it to this "warm-up" position gives an emphasis to insight that I think is unwarranted.
I am not sure what you are talking about here.
What I am referring to is the role of Jhana and the somewhat "disrespectful" treatment it gets in the commentaries vs. the suttas.
If taking the Visuddhimagga as being indicative of the commentaries, I do not think that the commentaries are at all disrespectful to jhana. Quite the contrary.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Jhāna: Buddhist or not?

Post by mikenz66 »

LonesomeYogurt wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Mike wrote:On what do you base this assertion? My experience of retreats practising this method is that quite a lot of tranquillity is built up. Certainly, the Visissudhimagga/Ajahn Brahm level jhanas are not normally encouraged, but the level of concentration normally encouraged is non-trivial in my experience.
And this really cannot be over-emphasized.
It's definitely non-trivial, and it's not Wrong Concentration; and if you are following the "Vipassana Jhana" model, then that's fine too. All I'm saying is that Jhana is a fundamental part of the Buddha's path, and relegating it to this "warm-up" position gives an emphasis to insight that I think is unwarranted.
It's hardly a "warm up". One could just as well say that the standard sutta approach: "Go through jhanas then turn the mind to insight":
"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, the monk directs and inclines it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental fermentations. ...
as in MN 27 is the "warm up" model.

Approaches such as taught by Mahasi involve the development of strong levels of mindfulness and concentration as a basis for insight, which is what I take the point of Jhana to be. Since the concentration that the Mahasi approach involves is comparable to some of the "Sutta Jhana" models taught by some teachers, I don't see any particular disrespect the development of concentration, and, of course U Pandita discusses specifically the importance of the development of the Jhana factors in his "Vipassana Jhana" chapter here.

It's common for "sutta jhana" teachers to quote suttas such as MN111 MN111, which seems to be talking about building insight and concentration together, to argue that the extremely deep levels of jhana are not necessary. Those approaches don't seem so different from U Pandita's description of "vipassana jhana". In fact, I've found that sutta quite valuable in my retreat practice:
MN 111 wrote:... 'So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.' He remained unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those qualities, independent, detached, released, dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers. He discerned that 'There is a further escape,' and pursuing it there really was for him.
I think that these suttas are a wonderful resource for practice...

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Jhāna: Buddhist or not?

Post by Modus.Ponens »

The Buddha said one of the causes of the decline of the dhamma would be the disrespect for concentration. So teachers should be very careful not to do this, because doing so contributes to the extinction of the most precious treasure humanity has.
'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' - Jhana Sutta
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Jhāna: Buddhist or not?

Post by tiltbillings »

Modus.Ponens wrote:The Buddha said one of the causes of the decline of the dhamma would be the disrespect for concentration. So teachers should be very careful not to do this, because doing so contributes to the extinction of the most precious treasure humanity has.
Are there any teacher you are aware of that are being "disrespectful" of concentration?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Jhāna: Buddhist or not?

Post by mikenz66 »

tiltbillings wrote:
Modus.Ponens wrote:The Buddha said one of the causes of the decline of the dhamma would be the disrespect for concentration. So teachers should be very careful not to do this, because doing so contributes to the extinction of the most precious treasure humanity has.
Are there any teacher you are aware of that are being "disrespectful" of concentration?
Certainly not Mahasi Sayadaw and his students...
Mahasi Sayadaw wrote: The practice of the Dhamma enables the meditator to overcome defilements. By observing morality, the meditator seeks to avoid active defilements (vitakkama kilesā) such as greed and hatred, which lead to killing, stealing, and other misdeeds. The meditator who develops concentration overcomes the defilements that habitually arise in the mind (pariyutthāna kilesā). Finally, the meditator eradicates dormant defilements (anusaya kilesā) through the development of insight knowledge and wisdom.

http://www.aimwell.org/Books/Mahasi/Ari ... avasa.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
U Pandita wrote: There are yet deeper aspects to this business of not wandering. The mind that is not wandering is the mind that is penetratively mindful of what is happening. The word “penetrative” is not used casually. It refers to a jhānic factor that must arise in the mind. Jhāna is usually translated as “absorption.” Actually, it refers to the quality of mind that is able to stick to an object and observe it.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pesala/Pan ... ml#Blowing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Chanmyay Sayadaw wrote: So Vipassana meditation is of two types: The first, Vipassana meditation, insight meditation is preceded by Samatha meditation. The second is the pure Vipassana meditation or insight meditation not preceded by Samatha meditation. The first type of Vipassana meditation or Insight Meditation is practised by those who have ample time to devote to their meditation. They have to spend maybe three or four months on Samatha meditation. And when they are satisfied with their attainment of jhana concentration they proceed with Vipassana meditation.

Pure Vipassana meditation is practised by those who haven't enough time to devote to their meditation like yourselves, because you do not have three or four months or six months or a year for your meditation. So you can spend about ten days on your meditation. For such meditators pure Vipassana meditation is suitable. That's why we have to conduct a ten days Vipassana meditation retreat. Actually ten days meditation is not enough. The period is too short a time for a meditator to succeed in any noticeable experience in his meditation. But there are some who have some experience in Vipassana meditation who when their meditation experience becomes major can attain the higher stages of insight knowledge of the body-mind processes of their true nature. Although you can spend just ten days on your meditation, if you strive to attain the deep concentration with a strenuous effort without much interval or break in the course of your meditation for the whole day, then you are able to have some new experience of meditation. So the point is to practise intensively and strenuously as much as you can.

http://www.buddhanet.net/vmed_1.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Jhāna: Buddhist or not?

Post by Modus.Ponens »

It was not directed at Mahasi Sayadaw. But you know perfectly well that there are teachers that do what I said, be it in a subtle way or in a direct way.
'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' - Jhana Sutta
Post Reply