I just think it’s all horribly subjective. There is no objective means of measuring mental states or insights.
1 Like
A teacher at a retreat I attended told the story of her jhanic experience - she thought she had attained enlightenment, but her teacher told her that it was “just” a jhana state. She was fortunate to have a qualified teacher available at the moment to correct her misinterpretation. This is just one anecdote, but I think your group 2 can easily contain a lot of people who have experienced some kind of state of altered consciousness, but misinterpret it, due to the lack of guidance from such a qualified teacher.
6 Likes
But different teachers define jhana differently. It’s not like there is some objective standard for these experiences.
2 Likes
Notice that I use the phrase “qualified teacher”. There are a lot of unqualified teachers running around, IMHO. For my own evaluation of teachers, I look for those who
- admit their own limitations
- refer to the suttas for definitions of things like jhana states, rather than creating their own definitions
2 Likes
There are more groups, but I 
this distinction.
1 Like
We could add to the list:
The silent ones who have experienced jhana but wisely say nothing about it.
And also, their opposite, the ones who say too much about jhana but have never experienced it.
Plus, I would add those to be wary of:
-
People whose “jhana” definition is unorthodox, idiosyncratic, self-verified, not recognised by teachers of jhana as jhana, does not fit with the suttas, the tradition, or with the lineage of meditation teachers practicing jhana.
-
Those who say jhana is simple and easy. Who devalue and diminish jhana, by taking something supramundane and making it mundane, taking something extraordinary and making it ordinary; rendering it meaningless by defining it in a way that makes it easier to “attain”, so that you can be practicing jhana whilst at the bus stop, or thinking about your groceries whilst doing jhana… Um.
No. -
And those who make claims out of conceitedness,
arrogantly overestimating their experience to puff up their egos, feel that they are somehow ‘special’ and that they are superior to others. If they had actually experienced jhana, it should have dissolved rather than solidified their sense of self!
These “experts” can greatly mislead others.
Watch out!!
13 Likes
Sure, but there is no objective standard here for “qualified” either. It comes down to personal faith in this or that teacher or interpretation, as with other aspects of Buddhist teaching and practice.
1 Like
Anyone can admit their limitations, especially those who have limitations regarding a particular aspect of practice. But it nevertheless helps…
Referring to suttas are essential. But many views can be justified this way too.
When I say group 1, I think 95% may not have attained jhana and in group 2 (the more certain ones) 95% may have attained jhana, and the others have some degree of samadhi at least.
You can measure time with a clock. You can’t measure a meditative state, you can only attempt a subjective description - and then compare it to a written text, which is itself based on subjective translation and interpretation. Or you can compare it to descriptions by “qualified teachers”, but those are varied and inconsistent. And are we talking about sutta jhana or commentarial jhana? There are degrees of piti for example, but what degree is sufficient to call it jhana? And so on.
1 Like
I agree that jhana isn’t easy. What I’m pointing to is the lack of consensus on how difficult it is, and the lack of an objective standard for what exactly qualifies as jhana.
2 Likes
I don’t disagree with your statement regarding the lack of objective standards, but I don’t understand why it is so important to you. “Objective” as you use it seems to be synonymous, or nearly so, with “scientific” and “measurable”. While I believe science should not be ignored, I don’t think science has developed to the point where it can offer us much that is specific and reliable regarding even mundane psychological states, let alone the supramundane. I’m not sure science will ever progress to that point, because science is led (now as always) by profit-making motives - and there is not much profit to be made in measuring jhana.
5 Likes
To clarify, this is not intended to be an exhaustive list of teacher qualifications, which is not the topic of this thread. I only listed some things I felt were relevant to the thread.
3 Likes
I’d be content with a commonly agreed standard, but even that is lacking. It depends who you talk to!
3 Likes
It seems like my brevity got me in trouble again! 
Please allow me to switch to a more suitable analogy which came to mind after posting the original one about time. I could go into the reason why clocks don’t measure time, and how this relates to jhāna, but I’d rather not!
Near-death experiences.
I think we’ll agree that no objective standards for what happens during NDEs exist. Nevertheless, despite the lack of objective standards, NDEs are real. Most people experience a lot of real peace and real love during their NDE. Their NDEs are largely unambiguous, despite the ambiguity in definitions and conceptions.
What I’d conclude is that something which is quite unambiguous can have differing, contradicting and ambiguous definitions and descriptions.
3 Likes
And they’ve only had 2600 years to work it out!!
6 Likes
I haven’t talked to a lot of teachers about their definitions of jhana states, and those I have talked to seem to be more or less in agreement (while also being rather vague so it is not so hard to be in agreement) so I don’t have the background to understand your statement. Mostly, the definitions I have heard consist of lists of jhana factors, which can be taken directly from the suttas. Can you be more specific - are there some extremely different definitions of jhana states that you can describe for us?
2 Likes
The jhana is a measure of samadhi, IMO
1 Like
As for me, I’d like to see the stigma of talking about jhana or attainments removed from lay people.
“Jhana experience is simply not something you talk about, and if anyone says to have had jhana it’s just a clear sign they didn’t have it” - this kind of attitude is silly and making a mystery out of a natural reaction of the mind when the right conditions have been met.
If someone wants to stay quiet about their experience for other reasons it’s of course fine. And yes, the whole field is horribly vague but we can try and communicate, and along the way several kinds of groups will become more transparent. We just have to qualify our experiences: “I felt great joy for an hour, that’s why I think it was jhana” for example. So, not just say “jhana-experience” without showing what we mean with it.
8 Likes
Add to that the “experts” who say jhāna is impossible and we should give up on it!
1 Like
Who says this? I’m just so mystified by this thread - I must be leading a sheltered life.
2 Likes