Someone practicing Dhyana only ?

[pyluyten]

Hi, most of my question is in the topic, still to clarify

- it is not a question about defining what jhana are
- it is not a question about whether one did attain step 1 or step 2 or step one hundred and sixty...

So, question is really : is there people here who practice what is now known as "Jhana" or "Samatha" and who do not practice Vipassana / whatever?
There might be several reason for so, like "not buddhist i just want to have special moments thanks to this technique" or "buddhist but i think insight comes from jhana". And the interesting part will come from reasons and cases i do not know yet =) so let me know !

I think to make sense, the question has to focus on sitting practice. When one walks or is mindful while eating, working or so, it's not really anymore part of the question.

w/ metta

[Derek]

You might find Richard Shankman's The Art and Skill of Buddhist Meditation helpful. It has been mentioned several times already on these forums. IIRC Shankman says that he only ever does samatha meditation, and that this is all that is needed. There's no need for any separate, so-called "mindfulness" meditation.

[User156079]

I think in other Traditions than Theravada one will see more of only Samatha training.

[Caodemarte]

You might find Richard Shankman's The Art and Skill of Buddhist Meditation helpful. It has been mentioned several times already on these forums. IIRC Shankman says that he only ever does samatha meditation, and that this is all that is needed. There's no need for any separate, so-called "mindfulness" meditation.

I believe Shankman says that he integrates (or does not stop them from naturally integrating themselves) Samatha and Insight, rather than attempt to artificially separate them into rigid categories.

[paul]

Q: So, question is really : is there people here who practice what is now known as "Jhana" or "Samatha" and who do not practice Vipassana / whatever?

A: Hindus practice that. Buddhism is based on Hinduism but the essential difference is vipassana, which was invented by the Buddha and leads to enlightenment. You cannot achieve the elimination of the defilements without practising the process of vipassana. Previously in western Buddhism there was an emphasis on vipassana but now the pendulum has swung towards jhana, which is easy to explain and understand whereas vipassana is difficult.

[Faelig]

Previously in western Buddhism there was an emphasis on vipassana but now the pendulum has swung towards jhana.

Hi Paul, I'm curious to know how you came up with that analysis?
For example, when I look for retreats or courses here in Western Europe, Burmese-style/vipassana/satipathana retreats are largely dominating in comparison to jhana-focused teachings or retreats. Hence, my curiosity about your analysis.

[paul]

I'm glad to hear vipassana teaching predominates there but it's either a time lag effect or more hopefully a difference between the conservative European school and the US/Australian school. The leading western teachers like Thanissaro Bikkhu and Ajahn Brahm are jhana focussed.

[pyluyten]

You might find Richard Shankman's The Art and Skill of Buddhist Meditation helpful. It has been mentioned several times already on these forums. IIRC Shankman says that he only ever does samatha meditation, and that this is all that is needed. There's no need for any separate, so-called "mindfulness" meditation.

I believe Shankman says that he integrates (or does not stop them from naturally integrating themselves) Samatha and Insight, rather than attempt to artificially separate them into rigid categories.

Hello Caodemarte

I did read most of Richard Shankman book now. And also other books (eg scholars like Vetter, Wynne, or more practically this excellent quick article about Nimitta : http://www.leighb.com/case_of_the_missing_simile.htm

Also, i did "challenge" practice. What i mean is, i tried to think honestly. This is an import point. Actually, on Shankman book, in interview part, you can find this concept of Honesty.

Now I totally share your view. Well, actually, first he does provide many explanations - his book is not so much about *deciding* a point of view (POV). he explains why and how, there are several POV in buddhism. And then, indeed as you say, his POV rather seems to integrate insight into Jhana.
One can also read, Richard F. Gombrich, inside "How Buddhism Began", there is a part "How insight worsted concentration". Appart Gombrich is scholar, this leads to the same conclusion : Jhana were, inside the canon, something different, that did include insight.

Insight was part of Jhana. But again, Shankman book is more about explaining why he thinks so, and why this does not matter so much after all.
While i found many asserts were arealdy known from other shcolars/monks/whoever, still his book is intelligent, clear. It's a superb sumup , a nice status of where research stands regarding this topic.
Only drawback is, if you already know this topic well, you will read many thinkgs you already know, but this is not that bad neither

Thanks Caodemarte!

[pyluyten]

Q: So, question is really : is there people here who practice what is now known as "Jhana" or "Samatha" and who do not practice Vipassana / whatever?

A: Hindus practice that. Buddhism is based on Hinduism but the essential difference is vipassana, which was invented by the Buddha and leads to enlightenment. You cannot achieve the elimination of the defilements without practising the process of vipassana. Previously in western Buddhism there was an emphasis on vipassana but now the pendulum has swung towards jhana, which is easy to explain and understand whereas vipassana is difficult.

Hi Paul!

Thanks for you input. I was not sure at first, and now is good time to reply.
First, I do not believe the pendulum swings because "jhana is easy to explain and understand whereas vipassana is difficult".

Dhammapada Verse 372, (Pali)
"Natthi jhanam apannassa
panna natthi ajhayato
yamhi jhananca panna ca
sa ve nibbanasantike."

"There is no jhana without wisdom
There is no wisdom without jhana
He who has both knowledge and meditation,
Is close to nirvana."

Many books provide rationale, why vipassana became a dedicated practice gradually, why in the suttas you cannot find Vipassana as a distinct practice. Then recently, teachers began to teach how to practice, totally skipping any Jhana.

Also, "Buddhism is based on Hinduism but the essential difference is vipassana". I do not believe this. I think this is a very complicated topic. One of the reason is, because Hinduism did evolve altogether with Buddhism.

[Garrib]

I practice different things at different times. Not as consistent and rigorous lately as I should be. But I would like to do a samatha retreat. I think that while jhana is not the goal of the path, it is a factor and I believe it helps one develop insight wisdom. It is a way to develop much needed good kamma and experience non-sensual pleasure which helps one to put down addictions. In the suttas you constantly read about how you should be cultivating jhana.

[m0rl0ck]

I would love to meet the master who can do only samatha, i dont think normal mortals even have the ability.

As soon as the mind gets a little calmer, insight into self and the nature of reality is a by product and the calmer the mind gets the greater the degree of insight.

"samatha only" is a mere concept imo and not really achievable.

[bodom]

I would love to meet the master who can do only samatha, i dont think normal mortals even have the ability.

As soon as the mind gets a little calmer, insight into self and the nature of reality is a by product and the calmer the mind gets the greater the degree of insight.

"samatha only" is a mere concept imo and not really achievable.

If that were so then the Buddha's first two teachers who mastered and instructed him in the highest material and immaterial jhanas would have realized nibbana.

[Garrib]

I would love to meet the master who can do only samatha, i dont think normal mortals even have the ability.

As soon as the mind gets a little calmer, insight into self and the nature of reality is a by product and the calmer the mind gets the greater the degree of insight.

"samatha only" is a mere concept imo and not really achievable.

If that were so then the Buddha's first two teachers who mastered and instructed him in the highest immaterial jhanas would have realized nibbana.

Of course, there is some controversy over whether Alara Kalama and Udakka Ramaputta were actually practicing 'Jhana' meditation as taught by the Buddha - my understanding is that it is made clear in the Suttas that their practices culminated in a certain immaterial absorption. However, when the Buddha is sitting under the Bodhi tree having made the determination to gain perfect liberation, his mind goes back to when he obtained the first Jhana as a child - this becomes his path for developing Samma Samadhi, not the more recent and extensive experience he had with immaterial absorptions under those two teachers. Something to consider!

[bodom]

I would love to meet the master who can do only samatha, i dont think normal mortals even have the ability.

As soon as the mind gets a little calmer, insight into self and the nature of reality is a by product and the calmer the mind gets the greater the degree of insight.

"samatha only" is a mere concept imo and not really achievable.

If that were so then the Buddha's first two teachers who mastered and instructed him in the highest immaterial jhanas would have realized nibbana.

Of course, there is some controversy over whether Alara Kalama and Udakka Ramaputta were actually practicing 'Jhana' meditation as taught by the Buddha - my understanding is that it is made clear in the Suttas that their practices culminated in a certain immaterial absorption. However, when the Buddha is sitting under the Bodhi tree having made the determination to gain perfect liberation, his mind goes back to when he obtained the first Jhana as a child - this becomes his path for developing Samma Samadhi, not the more recent and extensive experience he had with immaterial absorptions under those two teachers. Something to consider!

Fair enough. My point though was that Jhana by itself does not lead to insight. It needs to be practiced with the other seven path factors. Most importantly right view.

[CedarTree]

This would be the practice of Gyobutsuji Zen Monastery & Antai-ji.

Different methods though than seen in Theravada.