The Great Jhana Debate

The cultivation of calm or tranquility and the development of concentration
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Tha jhana debate

Post by Nyana »

Hi Retro & Modus.Ponens (I don't mind you posting it at all).
Freawaru wrote:during first jhana one can still sense the body - but are you all really sure it is the physical body we sense?
Hi Freawaru,

I suspect that we are coming to this discussion from somewhat different perspectives. For myself, it doesn't really matter what you or I or anyone else thinks jhāna is; for the purposes of discussion I'm mainly interested in what the discourses have to say on the matter. And from the statements I cited on my previous post from M i 293 and A iv 426, there is no reason to exclude the body, or any other phenomena, from what can be experienced in jhāna.

Neither of those statements from M i 293 or A iv 426 are of interpretive meaning (neyyattha). They aren't in need of further interpretation. They are of definitive meaning (nītattha). They speak directly in terms of the faculties (indriya-s) and sense spheres (āyatana-s). A iv 426 is very explicit. Venerable Ānanda states that when not experiencing the form, sound, etc., āyatana-s, one is percipient of one of the three formless perception attainments, or aññāphala samādhi.

If it were the case that one cannot experience any of these āyatana-s while abiding in the four jhāna-s, then this discourse would have included the four jhāna-s along with the three formless perception attainments and aññāphala samādhi.

The same holds true for S v 214 and S v 211 regarding the pleasure and equanimity faculties (sukhindriya & upekkhindriya).

Of course, the abhidhammikas reinterpreted all of this. And if one wants to follow that interpretation, that's fine by me.
Freawaru wrote:So I think it is the mind-made body that is sensed during it.
According to the post-canonical abhidhammika analysis, it is designated as cittaja rūpa: "mind produced form."
Freawaru
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:26 pm

Re: Tha jhana debate

Post by Freawaru »

Hi Geoff,
I suspect that we are coming to this discussion from somewhat different perspectives.
Frankly, I just come from a perspective of experience and struggle to get the correct terminology describing them in Theravada.

So let's see whether we can get our perspectives to converge somewhat...
And from the statements I cited on my previous post from M i 293 and A iv 426, there is no reason to exclude the body, or any other phenomena, from what can be experienced in jhāna.
I don't see that. There are the three realms and in the form (rupa) realm one experiences a form body. We have quoted translations of the Potthapada sutta here: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=4580" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; describing the three kinds of acquisition of self. The form body experienced in the rupa realm of the first jhanas is supposed to be "Possessed of form, mind-made, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties".
"Potthapada, there are these three acquisitions of a self: the gross acquisition of a self, the mind-made acquisition of a self, and the formless acquisition of a self. [9] And what is the gross acquisition of a self? Possessed of form, made up of the four great existents, feeding on physical food: this is the gross acquisition of a self. And what is the mind-made acquisition of a self? Possessed of form, mind-made, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties: this is the mind-made acquisition of a self. And what is the formless acquisition of a self? Formless and made of perception: this is the formless acquisition of a self.
It seems to me that it is not that difficult to identify the formless acquisitions of a self, I mean, when one experiences, say, infinite space it is rather easy to name it. But the difference between the "gross" and the "mind-made" bodies is not that easy to discern because they feel so similar. The rupa body has form (usually takes the form of our physical body but is changeable), one can see with it, hear, touch, etc. How to discern it from the "gross"?

Neither of those statements from M i 293 or A iv 426 are of interpretive meaning (neyyattha). They aren't in need of further interpretation. They are of definitive meaning (nītattha). They speak directly in terms of the faculties (indriya-s) and sense spheres (āyatana-s). A iv 426 is very explicit. Venerable Ānanda states that when not experiencing the form, sound, etc., āyatana-s, one is percipient of one of the three formless perception attainments, or aññāphala samādhi.
Yes, and I agree to that. But I think that there are "fine-material" form, sound etc, to be sensed in the rupa realm. And if you ask me they can seem more "real" than physical reality.
Freawaru wrote:So I think it is the mind-made body that is sensed during it.
According to the post-canonical abhidhammika analysis, it is designated as cittaja rūpa: "mind produced form."
Do you know the Pali terms used in the Potthapada sutta for "the gross acquisition of a self", "the mind-made acquisition of a self", and "formless acquisition of a self"? Also, what is the Pali term translated as "perception" here (cause this translation translates the very same term as "consciousness"?) http://www.leighb.com/dn9.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (my Pali is lousy, you know)
wouter_doorn
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 10:24 pm

Re: Tha jhana debate

Post by wouter_doorn »

Ñāṇa wrote: Oh my, that is a very old draft of that essay....
Hello Geoff,

could you put the newest version of your essay online (or send it to me via PM)?
The old one is very good already (even though I am more of the abhidhamma inclination ;)), but if you have made additions to it I'm definately interested in what they are!
Keep up the good work :twothumbsup: .

Metta,

Wouter
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Tha jhana debate

Post by Nyana »

wouter_doorn wrote: could you put the newest version of your essay online (or send it to me via PM)?
Hi Wouter,

It's been in a sorry state of disarray for a couple of years now.... I will try to assemble it to some degree of readability in the next few weeks. I'll PM you when I have something ready.
Freawaru wrote:The form body experienced in the rupa realm of the first jhanas is supposed to be "Possessed of form, mind-made, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties".
Hi Freawaru,

Traditionally it's maintained that some advanced meditators can produce the mind-made body (manomaya kāya) after perfecting the fourth jhāna. This is not the same thing as the inner felt-sense of the body pervaded with joy and pleasure in the first two jhāna-s (pleasure in third jhāna, and equanimity in fourth jhāna). That said, it is probably related to these meditative experiences, as one can feel very expansive, blissful, open-hearted, and even weightless while abiding in jhāna. In colloquial terms, "heavenly" or "divine" feelings.
Freawaru wrote:The rupa body has form (usually takes the form of our physical body but is changeable), one can see with it, hear, touch, etc. How to discern it from the "gross"?
As DN 11 states, "And what is the gross acquisition of a self? Possessed of form, made up of the four great existents, feeding on physical food: this is the gross acquisition of a self. And what is the mind-made acquisition of a self? Possessed of form, mind-made, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties: this is the mind-made acquisition of a self. And what is the formless acquisition of a self? Formless and made of perception: this is the formless acquisition of a self."

The first type of "form" (rūpa) is made of the "four great elements" (cātu-mahābhūta), i.e. matter, etc.. The second type of "rūpa" is "mind-made" (manomaya). The third is formless (arūpa) and made of perception (saññāmaya). As best as I can remember, tradition maintains that deities of the higher form-realm planes don't have all of the six senses (but I can't remember the specifics).
Freawaru wrote:Do you know the Pali terms used in the Potthapada sutta for "the gross acquisition of a self", "the mind-made acquisition of a self", and "formless acquisition of a self"?
They are oḷāriko attapaṭilābho, manomayo attapaṭilābho, arūpo attapaṭilābho.
Freawaru wrote:Also, what is the Pali term translated as "perception" here (cause this translation translates the very same term as "consciousness"?) http://www.leighb.com/dn9.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (my Pali is lousy, you know)
It is saññā.
Brizzy

Re: Tha jhana debate

Post by Brizzy »

What is one thing that the Buddha continuously asked his followers to practice? - Mindfulness of Body.

What is the most common reference to meditation the Buddha makes? - Jhana.

Now without being a genius, would'nt the jhana taught by the Buddha be the actual means for the the fulfillment of Mindfulness of Body.

Why would the Buddha exhort his followers to practice a meditation that cut off the tie between body & mind?

Would'nt he rather teach a means of experiencing a calmed body with a perfectly calm mind?

:smile:
User avatar
IanAnd
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:19 am
Location: the deserts of Arizona

Re: The jhana debate

Post by IanAnd »

Brizzy wrote:What is one thing that the Buddha continuously asked his followers to practice? - Mindfulness of Body.
Yes. Indeed.

What is the most common reference to meditation the Buddha makes? - Jhana.
Yes, again.

Now without being a genius, wouldn't the jhana taught by the Buddha be the actual means for the the fulfillment of Mindfulness of Body.
Yes, once again.

Why would the Buddha exhort his followers to practice a meditation that cut off the tie between body & mind?
Don't know. Don't think he ever did, either.

Wouldn't he rather teach a means of experiencing a calmed body with a perfectly calm mind?
Now that's pure genius! :smile:
Finally. Someone (besides Geoff) who makes some sense in this thread.

For those who wish to make more sense of this topic see the following: The Path of Concentration & Mindfulness Sneak preview: "Now, when you're with the body as a whole, you're very much in the present moment. You're right there all the time. As the Buddha says, the fourth jhana — in which the body is filled with bright awareness — is the point where mindfulness and equanimity become pure."
"The gift of truth exceeds all other gifts" — Dhammapada, v. 354 Craving XXIV
Kenshou
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: Tha jhana debate

Post by Kenshou »

It's been in a sorry state of disarray for a couple of years now.... I will try to assemble it to some degree of readability in the next few weeks. I'll PM you when I have something ready.
I think there's more than a few people that would be glad to read it, actually. (no pressure)
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The jhana debate

Post by tiltbillings »

IanAnd wrote: Finally. Someone (besides Geoff) who makes some sense in this thread.
Well, okay, but it still does not answer the question of what is jhana and jhana practice. I see a lot of opinions here. Some of them, on both sides, are well grounded. Over all I see all this hand-wringing and to-do with little to show for it.

Solution? Damdifino. For me the Mahasi Sayadaw/U Pandita tradition actually neatly encompasses both side: the Visuddhimagga type of jhana and the sutta type, which it calls the vipassana jhanas. It is not that people should not argue about this, trying to get a handle on it, but one also needs to be cognizant that one's opinions here are just that - opinions. The cushion is over there.
>> 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
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Tha jhana debate

Post by Sylvester »

Dear All

Geoff's essay advances some interesting arguments against the "absorption" model of Jhana.

I would like to offer some thoughts on his main propositions, and hopefully argue that the Visudhimagga and sutta models are very similar, if not identical.

1. What does "vivicceva kàmehi" mean?

Geoff takes the position that the Abhidhamma commentarial tradition interprets this to mean complete cessation of what the Buddha "metaphorically" called the 5 strings of sensuality. In addition, he posits -

"And so it isn’t all forms, etc., that the meditator need to withdraw from (as stated in the jhana formula), the meditator simply needs to withdraw from those which tempt him or her, giving rise to lust, as stated here. As always, this makes perfect sense and is borne out by experience."

His basis for this is the translation of the Niramisa Sutta, SN 36.31 which reads -

"There are these five strings of sensuality (kàmagunà): forms cognizable by the eye that are wished for and desired, agreeable and endearing, associated with sense-desire and tempting to lust. Sounds cognizable by the ear... odors cognizable by the nose... flavors cognizable by the tongue... tangibles cognizable by the body, wished for and desired, agreeable and endearing, associated with sense-desire and tempting to lust." (underlining mine)

The Pali for the eye/form formula reads -

“Cakkhuviññeyyā rūpā iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṃhitā rajanīyā …”

The translation offered by Geoff above for SN 36.31 renders the predicates for rupa to be particular predicates, rather than a universal predicate for all rupa by inserting “that are” into the translation.

Contra the translation offered by Ven Thanissaro for the Nibbedhika Sutta AN 6.63 where the same kamaguna formula is translated with the predicates being universal, rather than particular –

“Forms cognizable via the eye -- agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing…”

The Five Kings Sutta SN 3.12 reads quite clearly that all of forms, sounds, odours, flavours and tactility have these predicates. It clearly suggests that the objective predicates of the 5 external ayatanas hold true, regardless of the observer's subjective response to the phassa with that object. That seems to me to be the crux of the message in AN 6.63's verse -

"The beauties remain as they are in the world, while the wise, in this regard, subdue their desire."

In the CPD entry on "kama", kama in the singular will typically refer to kamacchanda, while kama in the plural always refers to the panca kamaguna. The kamaguna are in turn defined as forms, sounds, odours, flavours and tactility, without any qualifier. "Kamehi" being the plural ablative for kama would mean the kamagunas.

So, a rather more literal translation of the 1st Jhana formula would probably read as -

“Here monks, quite secluded from the kamagunas, secluded from unskillful qualities, a monk enters and abides in the first jhana, which includes vitakka vicara, as well as happiness and pleasure born from seclusion.”

I am interested to see which Commentary actually says what Geoff attributed to it, namely cessation of kamagunas in Jhana. I don't believe that is the Commentarial explanation as to why the Jhanas are bereft of cognition of the kamagunas.

2. That the Commentaries posit the Jhanas to be "contentless trance states ... devoid of all sensory consciousness."

Again, I would like to see this properly attributed to the Commentaries. The absence of kayika vedana does not entail the absence of cetasika vedana.

3. The problem of the Infinite Space formula, and the affliction formula for 1st Jhana.

These are 2 closely allied issues. For the 1st, Geoff posits that the Infinite Space formula -

"Furthermore, there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of perceptions of [physical] form, with the disappearance of perceptions of resistance, and not heeding perceptions of diversity, thinking, 'Infinite space,' enters & remains in the dimension of the infinitude of space. ..." (underlining mine)

must mean that "perceptions of form" continue in the Rupa Jhanas.

Secondly, he posits that the 1st Jhana afflication formula -

"Now there is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. If, as he remains there, he is beset with attention to perceptions dealing with sensuality (kàmasahagatà saññàmanasikàrà), that is an affliction for him."

must be referring only to "attention and perception accompanied by desire", and not the perception of sensory forms.

Taking the 1st point, what does rupasanna (perception of form) in the Infinite Space formula mean? How is “space” defined? If the Dhatuvibhanga Sutta MN 140’s analysis of space is considered, it should be obvious that “space” is simply the absence of rupa. “Infinite space” should be that dhatu where rupa is completely absent.

Is the “sanna” in rupasanna of the Infinite Space formula, “perception” as in the effect of apperception consequent on phassa/contact with rupa, or can it mean something other than that? The PED attests to sanna’s polysemous character and includes “idea” as a meaning of sanna (4th entry). This is perhaps the most congruent reading of “rupasanna” in the context of the attainment of “Infinite Space”. One abandons the “idea” of rupa so totally to arrive at “Infinite Space”.

As for the 2nd point, does kàmasahagatà really mean "accompanied by desire"? Note that Ven Thanissaro elects the more ambiguous "sensuality" to render kama here. The reason being that in such Pali compounds expressed in the singular, they may also be taken to refer to the plural (see Warder p.77). An example of such a compound is "ragasahagata" in the 2nd Noble Truth, where the context reveals "raga" to be kamaraga, ruparaga and aruparaga. In this case, kàmasahagatà can be just as easily interpreted as referring to "accompanied by the kamagunas".

For argument's sake, let's allow kamasahagata to mean only “accompanied by desire”. This then has a rather unusual effect on the sanna/perception that destabilises 1st Jhana. Since 1st Jhana is supposed to be bereft of kamacchanda, the “kamasahagata sanna” flaw cannot mean “perception” as a consequence of contact with kamagunas, but must refer to the memory of kama. In fact, if one looks at the entire chain of flaws that afflict each level of Jhana, it is manasikara to sanna of something from the preceding Jhana which is abandoned in the current Jhana. Suttas like AN 9.34 make it very clear that the sanna that afflicts each Jhana is not apperception consequent on phassa with that "thing perceived", but either ideas or memories of certain states from the previous Jhana lingering.

4. The kaya problem - which "kaya" is suffused with Jhanic bliss?

I think the Commentaries are right to equate this "kaya" with the cetasika kaya for the following reasons -

(i) if the suttas (eg MN 66) are unanimous in describing the pleasure from the kamagunas as low and ignoble, it's quite hard to see why the Buddha would suddenly extol the suffusion of Jhanic bliss to be felt by the material body (presumably as tactile pleasure?)

(ii) more importantly, the Mahavedalla Sutta, MN 43 makes it clear that the range of each of the 5 material indriyas are such that they cannot experience the range of the ayatanas experienced by the other indriyas. The only faculty that can experience all 6 ayatanas is Mind. If this is correct, how will the material body experience the "pleasure that has nothing to do with kamas" (MN 36)? The Buddha was quite clear in the Mahasaccaka Sutta that Jhanic pleasure -

"Tassa mayhaṃ, aggivessana, etadahosi— ‘na kho ahaṃ tassa sukhassa bhāyāmi, yaṃ taṃ sukhaṃ aññatreva kāmehi aññatra akusalehi dhammehī’ti. "

The kama in question is again in the ablative plural, suggesting that kamagunas are out of the Jhana experience. Neither is it possible to argue that perhaps the body does not feel pleasure, but is purely equanimous. Here, the Mahaniddana Sutta DN 15 will permit only one feeling to be experienced at a time. If it's sukha, the dukkha and neutral feelings cannot be present at that time.

Perhaps that's enough for today. I'll try to address the cetana and satipatthana-within-Jhana issues when I return from my retreat.

With metta
User avatar
IanAnd
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:19 am
Location: the deserts of Arizona

Re: The jhana debate

Post by IanAnd »

tiltbillings wrote:
IanAnd wrote: Finally. Someone (besides Geoff) who makes some sense in this thread.
Well, okay, but it still does not answer the question of what is jhana and jhana practice. I see a lot of opinions here. Some of them, on both sides, are well grounded. Over all I see all this hand-wringing and to-do with little to show for it.

Solution? Damdifino. For me the Mahasi Sayadaw/U Pandita tradition actually neatly encompasses both side[s]: the Visuddhimagga type of jhana and the sutta type, which it calls the vipassana jhanas. It is not that people should not argue about this, trying to get a handle on it, but one also needs to be cognizant that one's opinions here are just that - opinions. The cushion is over there.
Now that you bring up Mahasi Sayadaw and U Pandita, Tilt, you encourage me to post a comment I wrote the other day, but decided at the last minute not to post because I thought it might be misunderstood. Now, it seems, at least one person will understand it, and from that perhaps others will, however gradually, come to understand it as well. Below is the comment that almost never made it to publication, slightly revised from its original form.


It is unfortunate that people continue to be confused by different writers on the issue of how deep is deep enough when it comes to absorption and the application of insight contemplation. It is threads like this that can only add to the already prolific confusion being spread on the web. And by this last statement I mean to focus mostly on the confusion among new and inexperienced practitioners who are endeavoring to delineate between what is true and what is being exaggerated in the differing instruction.

If people just understood a few simple concepts about absorption and its application with regard to this issue, it might not become such a hot-button topic in Buddhist forums. Unfortunately, people tend to become attached to certain viewpoints (either based on their perception of their own experience or on which method aligns more closely with their own predispositions and ideas) without stopping to fully examine and understand the basic underlying fundamentals involved. I am speaking here in terms of rather broad generalities with regard to these practices rather than of specifics. There's always room to analyze specific practices later.

Although generally speaking and for clarification, I wholly agree with Thanissaro's interpretation of the discourses when he differentiates between two opposing views of absorption, saying that, on the one hand, some see jhana as being "a very intense trance-like state that requires intense staring and shutting out the rest of the world." And on the other hand that this description "sounds nothing like mindfulness at all. But if you look in the Canon where the Buddha describes jhana, that's not the kind of state he's talking about. To be in jhana is to be absorbed, very pleasurably, in the sense of the whole body altogether. A very broad sense of awareness fills the entire body."

Overall I have been meditating for 30 years, but only in the last ten years have I used Buddhist meditation techniques and instruction in the quest for better self-understanding and hence understanding and integration of the Dhamma taught by Gotama Buddha. So, based on that preface, people can make their own determination as to whether or not there is any merit to my opinions.

By the time I got around to being able to study Buddhism in more depth, I had already been through the ringer with regard to various "spiritual" personalities attempting to "win" my allegiance to their way of viewing things. So, it came as a breath of fresh air to read of a "master" who simply said, "Come and see for yourself what is true about what I teach. You be the judge based upon your direct experience."

What attracted me back to a study of Buddhism some twenty odd years ago was coming across a translated passage from the Kalama Sutta that I had not heretofor ever come across until that moment. I appreciated the straightforward appeal to one's own sensibilities of discernment and to a teaching that was unbiased in its presentation if you but took the time to understand what was being said over and above what other's opinions (interpretations) about this might have been.

What struck me about the link to an introduction on absorption provided by Modus.Ponens were the similarities and not the differences being expressed by the various personages under examination. Are there subtle differences in how one approaches this subject? Undoubtedly, there are. But are these differences enough to waste time arguing about? In some cases, perhaps. But generally speaking, possibly not. Simply do what works for you and let go of all the rest.

Not totally unexpected is the approach of two of the monastic personalities mentioned in the link. Both Pa Auk and Ajahn Brahmavamso are presented as proponents of the so-called "Visuddhimagga Jhana" instruction contingent. It should come as little surprise that a monastic teacher would expect more out of his students than a non-monastic teacher might. This is not to say that all monastic teachers follow the same path with regard to their monastic students. Only that these two in particular present the same teaching methodology to both their monastic students and to their non-monastic students. They expect their students to achieve the highest abilities possible to achieve and will not settle for anything less.

On the other side of the fence are five monastic personalities (Ayya Khema, Ven. Amathagavesi, Bhante Gunaratana, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, and Bhante Vimalaramsi) who teach a variety of possibilities that their students might aspire to achieve and who seem to endeavor to use any progress possible as a stepping stone to higher achievement. It would seem that the main differences here (between these two schools of monastic teachers) would be in the basic approach that they use in teaching students. One is a bit more lenient than the other with regard to basic attainments, while the lesser of the two still expects his students to eventually measure up.

What they all seem to agree on is that absorption can be an invaluable tool to use when one is attempting to discern and realize the Dhamma that Gotama taught. The differences in approach generally speak to differences in the kind of students that each are attempting to work with. Just as the Buddha used differing techniques on his own students depending upon the ability of the student, these teachers have learned to use what works for them and to work with those students who find them more engaging than not.

For instance, a person might attend a Pa Auk or Ajahn Bramavamso retreat and not respond very well to the instruction given there. He might subsequently attend a retreat sponsored by Bhante Gunaratana or Thanissaro Bhikkhu and begin to make palpable progress in his practice. Just as likely an outcome is the opposite of this scenario. Someone who could not make progress with the latter retreatant methodology might make better progress with the former. When push comes to shove, the approach that works for one doesn't always work for all. Each student has individualized needs, and differing approaches can oftentimes handle those needs in a positive manner.

As for the basics themselves, they remain the same: absorption calls for a considerable amount of concentration ability to be able to enter at all. It calls for a unification of the mind on an object or a subject. There can be nothing wrong with utilizing differing methods for achieving that concentration ability. Some people respond more positively to practicing the Brahma Viharas for entering absorption while others are able to achieve absorption using the simplicity of concentration on the breath.

Once the correct level of concentration (samadhi) is achieved, however, there is generally no difference of opinion as to what must come next. The most direct method would be the practice of the instruction given in the Satipatthana Sutta. In modern times, the difference between those teachers who insist on their students achieving a deep absorption as opposed to those who proposed that a lighter absorption is acceptable for insight practice is no better illustrated than in the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition.

Mahasi Sayadaw was keenly aware that his lay students were not always able to attend to their meditation practice with quite the same amount of diligence and determination as his monastic students were, that they were more likely to be distracted by their lay lives and might not always be able to achieve deep levels of absorption. And so he devised a system of training for those students which required an absorption level that was not as deep in its requirements yet was more than adequate for insight work. He wanted to help his lay students make progress from whatever level they were currently at. Any ability at all which allowed the mind to remain concentrated upon a single object or subject for an extended period of time was worth cultivating, in his opinion. And so he was committed to helping his students achieve whatever they could from where they stood.

Having been on both sides of this question myself within my own practice, I can say without any hesitation that deep concentration states help train the mind to more thoroughly remain concentrated (even and especially after meditation practice, which is a valuable consideration when it comes to the pursuit of realization) than do shallower levels of concentration. I am able to maintain mindfulness and concentration for longer and longer periods of time after meditation when I take the time to achieve a deeper absorption, than I am when I only achieve the concentration necessary for the practice of insight, which doesn't need to be that deep. If you can remain concentrated for two to five minutes at a time without break or unnoticed break, that is enough time to be able to avert the mind from samatha to vipassana practice, and to benefit from such a transition.

(Yet, it should be understood that I am not a proponent of those who teach that only during meditation is one able to reach certain realizations about the Dhamma; it is also possible to reach those realizations outside of meditation contemplation. The main ingredient that is important in such endeavors is the ability to remain concentrated on the subject of contemplation long enough for the realizations to arise in the mind. And those realizations can occur either during or outside of strict sessions of meditation — i.e. during moments of non-meditative contemplation.)

So, does my experience mean that I endorse the necessity for deep states of concentration proposed in such works as the Visuddhimagga and so-called "visuddhimagga jhanas"? Or that I endorse the level of jhana described in the suttas and so-called "sutta jhanas"? In one sense, it means neither. From my experience there's a place for both in a person's practice. In other words, this argument, from a certain point of view, could be seen as a red herring, only meant to confuse and, in some cases, to discourage practice. Those who are not able to achieve deep levels of absorption need not be discouraged, for it is still possible to achieve awakening with whatever intensity of samadhi that you have achieved.

What I know for sure is that in whatever way you personally can find to be able to enter into absorption, you should use that method to continue to enter into absorption and to improve your abilities at being able to maneuver in that state. Do I think it is necessary that someone be able to achieve deep levels of concentration in order for them to be able to come to the realizations necessary for achieving awakening? I have already answered that. No. I do not. Awakening can be achieved with only a modicum of concentration ability rightly practiced and rightly focused.

Do I think that deep levels of absorption are important for being able to maintain one's practice in mindfulness and concentration? Yes, they can be. And you might think so too if you had experienced what I (and many others) have experienced who have been able to attain deep levels of quietude and the benefits thereof. Do I think that it is possible to work at attaining awakening first, and then, after having attained it, to turn one's attention toward deepening one's experience of absorption? Yes. I see no reason why not. Though I was essentially able to achieve deep levels of absorption during the time before being able to achieve awakening, the greater part of my awakening was achieved during moments of contemplation outside of formal meditation, meaning outside of having attained intense absorption states. It was only afterward that I was able to more easily take advantage of these deep levels and to more fully develop my ability to maneuver within absorption.

This last sentiment can be seen to speak to those who say that it is possible to practice a "dry" insight method (without absorption) as opposed to a "wet" insight method (with absorption) and still be able to achieve awakening. Overall, I think that those who work at achieving insight accompanied by absorption are more likely to be able to hold onto their achievement throughout their lives than those who achieve it without the assistance of absorption who yet also don't work to improve their concentration practice. Samadhi (absorption) brings so many mental benefits with it as to out weigh any opposing method or tool, which is why the Buddha had so much to say about it in the discourses. Those who practice and achieve mastery over absorption have a much higher probability of achieving awakening than those who are so unfortunate as to not achieve absorption.

To paraphrase a related saying of the Buddha ("But mindfulness, monks, I say is always useful."), deepening one's absorption is always useful. Among other reasons, this is because it helps one to be able to maintain mindfulness (presence of mind, or sati) for longer and longer periods outside of meditation, which is what is needed for the alleviation of dukkha and all that word implies.
"The gift of truth exceeds all other gifts" — Dhammapada, v. 354 Craving XXIV
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Tha jhana debate

Post by Sylvester »

Hello again. A little postscript on the kamaguna formula, even if I risk sounding obsessive.

“Cakkhuviññeyyā rūpā iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṃhitā rajanīyā …”

ie forms cognisable by the eye - agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing.

Are the predicates that follow "form" adjectives that limit the kamaguna to only forms which are agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing?

Another set of well-known phrases from the First Sermon share the same grammatical construction as the panca kamaguna formula:-

"... kàmasukhallikànuyogo hino gammo pothujjaniko anariyo anatthasamhito" and

"...attakilamathànuyogo dukkho anariyo anatthasaühito".

If the predicates that follow kàmasukhallikànuyogo and attakilamathànuyogo are interpreted as limiting adjectives that restrict the 2 Extremes to only

- Indulgence in Sense Pleasure which is base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and
- Self Affliction which is painful, ignoble, unprofitable,

we would have to re-write the First Sermon to allow for Indulgence in Sense Pleasure which is not base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable. It's clear that this grammatical construction used in the formulae for the kamagunas and the 2 Extremes are not limiting adjectives.

It therefore seems very clear that the Visudhimagga description of Jhanas being bereft of all consciousness of external objects is founded in the suttas' standard formula for 1st Jhana. When that formula declares "vivicceva kàmehi", its plain meaning is "quite secluded from the kamagunas", ie "quite secluded from all sights, sounds, flavours, odours and tactility".
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Tha jhana debate

Post by Nyana »

Hi Ian and tilt, it's been a while.

Ian, I agree with your post. There isn't only one correct way. As I said previously, for myself, this discussion is merely about what the discourses have to say. It isn't anything more. IMO it should probably be in the Early Buddhism forum.

Sylvester wrote:The Five Kings Sutta SN 3.12 reads quite clearly that all of forms, sounds, odours, flavours and tactility have these predicates. It clearly suggests that the objective predicates of the 5 external ayatanas hold true, regardless of the observer's subjective response to the phassa with that object.
Hi Sylvester. SN 3.12 highlights what I’ve been saying, i.e. what constitutes a “string of sensuality” for person A, may very well be revolting to person B, and hence, not a “string of sensuality” for them at all. It’s entirely subjective.

Ven. Bodhi’s Translation: “Those same forms [etc.] that are agreeable to one person, great king, are disagreeable to another.”

Mary loves blue cheese. Tom thinks it’s disgusting.

Sylvester wrote:"Kamehi" being the plural ablative for kama would mean the kamagunas.

So, a rather more literal translation of the 1st Jhana formula would probably read as -

“Here monks, quite secluded from the kamagunas, secluded from unskillful qualities, a monk enters and abides in the first jhana, which includes vitakka vicara, as well as happiness and pleasure born from seclusion.”
I never said otherwise. One should certainly be secluded from whatever, for them, is “wished for and desired, agreeable and endearing, associated with sense-desire and tempting to lust.”

The reason for this is so that one doesn’t give rise to apperceptions of kāma in the first jhāna.

Let’s look at the relevant bit from AN 6.63 (A iii 410):

Api ca kho, bhikkhave, nete kāmā, kāmaguṇā nāmete ariyassa vinaye vuccanti –
Saṅkapparāgo purisassa kāmo,
Nete kāmā yāni citrāni loke.

Here:

kāmā ≠ kāmaguṇā
kāma ≠ yāni citrāni loke
kāma = saṅkapparāgo

This is the point of this section of the discourse.


AN 9.31 (A iv 409): Anupubbanirodha Sutta:

Paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ samāpannassa kāmasaññā niruddhā hoti.
For one who has attained the first jhāna, apperceptions of sensuality have ceased.
Sylvester wrote:In the CPD entry on "kama", kama in the singular will typically refer to kamacchanda, while kama in the plural always refers to the panca kamaguna.
AN 6.63: kāmā (plural) ≠ kāmaguṇā
Sylvester wrote:2. That the Commentaries posit the Jhanas to be "contentless trance states ... devoid of all sensory consciousness."

Again, I would like to see this properly attributed to the Commentaries. The absence of kayika vedana does not entail the absence of cetasika vedana.
That phrasing was edited out of the essay long ago.
Sylvester wrote:3. The problem of the Infinite Space formula, and the affliction formula for 1st Jhana.

Is the “sanna” in rupasanna of the Infinite Space formula, “perception” as in the effect of apperception consequent on phassa/contact with rupa, or can it mean something other than that? The PED attests to sanna’s polysemous character and includes “idea” as a meaning of sanna (4th entry). This is perhaps the most congruent reading of “rupasanna” in the context of the attainment of “Infinite Space”. One abandons the “idea” of rupa so totally to arrive at “Infinite Space”.
The sphere of infinite space formula also states “with the disappearance of perceptions of resistance (paṭighasaññāna)....”

DN 15 states:

"If, Ānanda, all those modes, characteristics, signs and exponents, by which the form-group is designated were absent, would there be manifest any resistance-contact (paṭighasamphasso) in the name-group?" "There would not, lord."

The form group is the four great existents and derivatives of them. So the implication is that resistance contact is present in the four jhāna-s.

As I said in a previous post, M i 293 and A iv 426 both explicitly state that it is only when abiding in the fully purified formless attainments that the mind is isolated from the five sense faculties and doesn’t attend to any apperceptions of the five sensory spheres.

Neither of those statements from M i 293 or A iv 426 are of interpretive meaning (neyyattha). They aren't in need of further interpretation. They are of definitive meaning (nītattha). They speak directly in terms of the faculties (indriya-s) and sense spheres (āyatana-s). A iv 426 is very explicit. Venerable Ānanda states that when not experiencing the form, sound, etc., āyatana-s, one can be percipient of one of the three formless perception attainments, or aññāphala samādhi.

If it were the case that one cannot experience any of these āyatana-s while abiding in the four jhāna-s, then this discourse would have included the four jhāna-s along with the three formless perception attainments and aññāphala samādhi.

The same holds true for S v 214 and S v 211 regarding the pleasure and equanimity faculties (sukhindriya & upekkhindriya).

Of course, the abhidhammikas reinterpreted all of this. And if one wants to follow that interpretation, that's fine by me.
Sylvester wrote:4. The kaya problem - which "kaya" is suffused with Jhanic bliss?

I think the Commentaries are right to equate this "kaya" with the cetasika kaya
S v 214 states that the pleasure faculty (sukhindriya) doesn’t cease until the third jhāna, and S v 211 defines the pleasure faculty as pleasure born of body contact. S iv 236 further tells us that nirāmisā pīti and sukha are what is experienced in jhāna – hence the pīti and sukha of jhāna are non-sensual, yet sukha is still born of body contact according to suttantika analysis.
Sylvester wrote:Neither is it possible to argue that perhaps the body does not feel pleasure, but is purely equanimous. Here, the Mahaniddana Sutta DN 15 will permit only one feeling to be experienced at a time. If it's sukha, the dukkha and neutral feelings cannot be present at that time.
Please refer to S v 214 for which feeling faculties cease in which jhāna-s.
Sylvester wrote:1. What does "vivicceva kàmehi" mean?

The Pali for the eye/form formula reads -

“Cakkhuviññeyyā rūpā iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṃhitā rajanīyā …”

The translation offered by Geoff above for SN 36.31 renders the predicates for rupa to be particular predicates, rather than a universal predicate for all rupa by inserting “that are” into the translation.

Contra the translation offered by Ven Thanissaro for the Nibbedhika Sutta AN 6.63 where the same kamaguna formula is translated with the predicates being universal, rather than particular –

“Forms cognizable via the eye -- agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing…”

“Cakkhuviññeyyā rūpā iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṃhitā rajanīyā …”

ie forms cognisable by the eye - agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing.

Are the predicates that follow "form" adjectives that limit the kamaguna to only forms which are agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing?
Do you truly experience all sights, sounds, odors, flavors, and tactile sensations as “agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing”? What about the odor and flavor of uncooked, rotting meat? Or feces? How about the tactile sensations which arise from placing your hand on a red hot electric stove element? Or taking a bath in sulphuric acid? I can say with certainty that I don’t find any of those sense experiences agreeable in any way.
Sylvester wrote:When that formula declares "vivicceva kàmehi", its plain meaning is "quite secluded from all sights, sounds, flavours, odours and tactility".
See above.

[edit: typo]
Last edited by Nyana on Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:37 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Tha jhana debate

Post by Alex123 »

Brizzy wrote:What is one thing that the Buddha continuously asked his followers to practice? - Mindfulness of Body.
What is the most common reference to meditation the Buddha makes? - Jhana.
Now without being a genius, would'nt the jhana taught by the Buddha be the actual means for the the fulfillment of Mindfulness of Body.
Why would the Buddha exhort his followers to practice a meditation that cut off the tie between body & mind?
Would'nt he rather teach a means of experiencing a calmed body with a perfectly calm mind?

:smile:
Unfortunately as one considers suttas more, it is not such a sure thing.

Buddha has talked about insight practices as much, if not more than about Jhana as the path.

In patisambidamagga there are plenty of references that say that jhana/vipassana happen during transcendental path moment. Thus, the actual jhana that is required *could* happen at the moment of path/fruit. In the suttas we often hear about a person who entered a certain Jhana and then became awakened. Maybe that jhana was the jhana of the path moment and not a preliminary worldly jhana.


Losing awareness of 5-6 senses may have zero effect on underlying tendencies. We all shut off 5 senses, and have no restlessness in deep sleep every night. At that time there is no experience of lust, anger or delusion at that time, simply because there are no objects and no active mind to lust. This has nothing to do with wisdom nor is a result of wisdom. Yet when we awaken from the deep sleep, we aren't Enlightened and unwholesome actions return because they were merely suppressed.

When it comes to access or momentary concentration, same thing. Only the degree of sensory suppression is different. Maybe actually this kind of state is better simply because one is still aware and could gather more wisdom, while no wisdom can be gathered when one can't see,hear, sense, or be aware of anything.
Kenshou
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: Tha jhana debate

Post by Kenshou »

Buddha has talked about insight practices as much, if not more than about Jhana as the path.
But the important thing is that he talks about -both-, often side by side.

Nothing stated in Brizzy's post has any implications which exclude the importance of insight practice, as far as I can see. The discourses are pretty straightforward, I think, in maintaining that jhana neither is the path nor is somehow superior to insight, rather it is simply a tool, a wholesome skill that is useful on the path and conductive to insight. Concentration and insight practices are not mutually exclusive but mutually supportive. People make a dichotomy out of this far too often, IMO.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Tha jhana debate

Post by Alex123 »

Kenshou wrote:
Buddha has talked about insight practices as much, if not more than about Jhana as the path.
But the important thing is that he talks about -both-, often side by side.
These could form a part of what is known as path/fruition moment.
Nothing stated in Brizzy's post has any implications which exclude the importance of insight practice, as far as I can see.
Insight is an attainment. Strictly speaking, one cannot practice "insight". One can learn and study, and as a result of that, one day insight will come.

"Friend, there are two conditions for the arising of right view: the voice of another and appropriate attention. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"When the Doctrine & Discipline declared by the Tathagata is being taught, he does not listen well, does not give ear, does not apply his mind to gnosis, grabs hold of what is worthless, rejects what is worthwhile, and is not endowed with the patience to conform with the teaching.

"Endowed with these six qualities, a person is incapable of alighting on the lawfulness, the rightness of skillful mental qualities even when listening to the true Dhamma.

"When the Doctrine & Discipline declared by the Tathagata is being taught, he listens well, gives ear, applies his mind to gnosis, rejects what is worthless, grabs hold of what is worthwhile, and is endowed with the patience to conform with the teaching.

"Endowed with these six qualities, a person is capable of alighting on the lawfulness, the rightness of skillful mental qualities even while listening to the true Dhamma."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
No mention of concentration (especially of the don't see, don't hear) for stream-entry.
Post Reply