AN 3.60 vitakka & vicāra (B. Sujato) doesn't make sense here

It ain’t what you do, it’s how you do it. Ajahn Dtun, also a famous disciple of Ajahn Chah, when asked what jhāna is, the first thing he said, (from my memory I heard the translator translate from Thai in person), “This is my opinion, and I might be wrong…”. Ajahn Dtun is a proponent of studying the life and practice of Arahant Thai Forest masters (Ajahn Mun and his famous disciples), and that the Dhamma is somewhat corrupted nowadays and not as reliable as following the personal examples of arahants.

And here’s Ajahn Thate, from “Steps along the path”. The “appana samadhi” he proposes is far more reasonable. It’s not appana samadhi until the breath stops (which doesn’t happen until fourth jhana). Whereas Ajahn Brahm and VRJ (vism. redefinition of jhana) has that as a prequisite to first jhana. And the important, which I bolded and italicized below, ajahn Thate recognizes that there are many ways and controversies in interpretation of 4 jhanas, and to not take his opinion as an authority.

An item deserving a little more explanation here is the term fixed penetration (appana samadhi). Fixed penetration is a superior human attainment. By and large, people who reach fixed penetration tend to focus on the in-and-out breath (anapana) as their object of meditation. As they focus on the breath and come to pay attention to its arising and falling away, or just to its falling away, the mind gradually becomes more and more refined until, step by step, it lets go of all its preoccupations and gathers together to become fixed, as explained above. The stilling of the in-and-out breath is what indicates fixed penetration. In some instances it is called fixed jhana because it comes from the act of becoming absorbed in the breath. It is called fixed concentration because even though there is no in-and-out breath when the mind reaches that point, mindfulness is still absolutely full.

When you’re in this state you can’t examine anything, because the mind is totally uninvolved with anything at all. Only when the mind comes out of this state and enters threshold concentration can you begin examining things again. You will then see clearly into all the truths that the Buddha said are to be known, and into other matters as well. There will be no visions and signs, as mentioned above, but the knowledge here will be based on cause and effect, complete with analogies and similes that will utterly erase all doubt.

In some cases, meditators will be considering objects of meditation other than the in-and-out breath, and yet will still be able to reach fixed penetration in the same way as those who practice mindfulness of breathing. When the mind gathers to a point where there is no more in-and-out breathing, that’s fixed penetration.

This, at any rate, is my opinion on the matter. Meditators shouldn’t take my opinion as their criterion, because the thoughts and opinions of people in this world — even when we see the same things under the same conditions in the same place — can formulate different names for, and reach different understandings about, those same things, and thus give rise to endless disputes and arguments. Simply let us all work with our own objects of meditation so as to reach fixed penetration as discussed above and then — with a fair mind free from bias — compare what we experience with what has been formulated in the various texts. Our knowledge will then be paccattam — arising exclusively from within ourselves. That is what I would like to see in this regard.

If Ajahn Brahm followed their examples, by prefacing, “this is my opinion, I might be wrong”, then there would be no problem, I and others would not raise an objection criticizing him. Instead, in his book, “meditation, bliss , beyond”, based on his other free jhana publications, he authoritatively states his interpretation is the correct one, that others who don’t follow his interpretation of the mind being divorced form the 5 senses in the 4 jhanas are misunderstanding the EBT. He also stated most jhana teachers agree with him, that it’s just a minority that don’t. That is completely untrue. Early Theravada, Vimuttimagga, early Abhidhamma, the whole Sarvastivada EBT school, for all we know which might be larger and much more influential than the Theravada school, not to mention great masters like Ajahn Lee, and even Ajahn Brahm’s own teacher Ajahn Chah(!) stated the physical body is experienced in the 4 jhanas.

IMO, that is a completely irresponsible and unreasonable to take a position in that manner.

IMO, it would be perfectly reasonable to say, as one example:
The standard EBT formula for jhanas is too brief to give a clear unambigous teaching on how to attain jhanas, I believe this way of developing arupa samadhi using a visual light nimitta works better as a way to develop 4 rupa jhanas. This way you don’t redefine kaya, rupa, vedana, sati&sampajano, and clobber a working system taught by Sarvastivada, early Theravada, Ajahn Lee, etc. This way other systems can coexist peacefully without damaging the integrity of important fundamental EBT concepts like kaya, rupa, vedana, S&S, etc.

If you really want the arupa samadhi meditation technique of focusing on visual light, there are ways you can reasonably interpret certain EBT passages. For examples, the standard formula of “aloka sanna manasi karoti”, developing perception of light for knowledge and vision, ajahn brahm and VRJ could fit perfectly well here. Or as a pure citta anupassana as one of the 4sp could work.

Or, just latch on to the white kasina or light kasina, which may not be genuine word of the Buddha, but is in the EBT pali suttas, so that’s a very appropriate place to fit it in.

Like I said in an earlier message, the meditation technique works, and for people of certain dispositions and skill level, is a fine meditation technique. Just promote in such a way that doesn’t break the other EBT schools by redefining important fundamental terms. IMO.

2 Likes

What a great quote! And an awesome rant - best I have read on this site.

I would just like to add a small request: That Ajahns Brahm, Sujato, Brahmali, Vimalaramsi, Than. Bhikkhu, etc. Please stop criticizing each others methods. Certainly among you guys there are some adults that can let go of this authenticity stuff. Isn’t this “I am right and you are wrong” language not even right speech? Surely we can reach a point where you can acknowledge that though your methods may differ they are all valid and effective. Certainly we can go beyond this bickering. Show some respect for each other. Is this too much to ask?

Thanks @frankk. This stuff has been bothering me for a few years now. I feel much better!

3 Likes

I agree. I like it when people are careful to present what they say as their opinion and to acknowledge that others may see things differently, or may find different approaches more useful. Ven Analayo is an exemplar of that. There are other teachers whose teachings I actually find very useful, but I can only listen to them by ignoring their rants about other approaches. ("La La La! I can’t hear you!.:sunglasses:). [Of course, reasoned arguments about shortcomings are valuable, but that’s not what one gets from some famous teachers.]

Hi Charlie, I don’t feel any of the Venerables you mentioned were being disrespectful to each other, and with the indispensable role of right samadhi in freedom from suffering, much is at stake. IMO respectful criticism from all sides is important and necessary to keep the Dhamma healthy, free of disease and corruption.

What happened in Mahayana, where they IMO went too far with harmony and validating each other’s views, you end up with syncretism, a hodge podge of Dhamma and non-dhamma that becomes confusing, misleading, and harmful.

It’s always important, the further in time we are from the Buddha, to check against the 4 great standards and scrutinize everything carefully.

For example, in the Sarvastivada EBT school,

When the Abhidharmikas asserted things that contradicted the Agama Sutras, the Surtrantikas took a stand and said, “no way, the suttas take precedence of the Abhidharma, and when cases where they contradict, the Sutras are correct.”

Bickering and disharmony should be avoided as much as possible, but if genuine Dhamma is to survive, there are times when you have to plant your feet and take a stand.

As AN 4.3 says, it can be really bad kamma to not criticize what deserves serious criticism.

https://suttacentral.net/an4.3/en/sujato

1 Like

Yes, I agree. My request for respect was not to imply that there was disrespect but rather a lack of respect. Let me give a couple of examples: There is a youtube video from a few years back where Bhante Sujato talks about Goenka and Mahasi traditions. He does a great job here.

Another example is a recent post he made where he states that Than. Bhikkhus translation of a specific phrase is wrong. It is a very different approach. Perhaps TB’s translation is wrong or perhaps Sujato is overly confident in his view - everyone has had the experience of being certain of something only to find later they were wrong. Or perhaps TB simply looks at the issue from a different perspective. The response could have been along the lines of: TB translates it like that but as I see it this phrase should be translated as … In general I think he does a great job and so I would be interested in understanding his reasoning here. But for now, I have to go with my own understanding…

So yes, respectful criticism - this I think is the key. I think we can disagree with each other while avoiding combative language like ‘I am right and you are wrong’. That kind of approach is a dead end.

Ajahn Brahm has IMO stretched terminology pretty thin. I think his methods are sound and effective - but to imply that his version is the authentic version is unnecessary and counter productive.

1 Like