SuttaCentral
This follows on a recent thread (now closed). An intersting discussion was developing amongst several people about the jhanas, independent of the original post. People might still want to continue that line of comments on this new thread.
For example:
Thanks, Quidam. I havenât seen Buddhist online communities that different from other traditions with their respective communities as it relates to how people discuss stuff. I mean, in terms of people maybe splitting hairs and focusing on labeling. In that regard, welcome to the club 
!
On the other hand, I have found that, eventually, I assign some labels to certain Buddhist teachings. That I find myself saying, Yes THAT is this and itâs not the other thing or somehow beyond definition.
That is, at some point, the definition â however weak or strong it may seem â is what helps me shape the practice. I start somewhere and, with lots of different inputs from teachers and experienced practitioners, I mold the practice toward awakening. (Or at least staying awake more and more because it doesnât sustain itself â Iâm not an arahant.)
It doesnât allow for a lot of metaphysical speculation. Or if the discussion starts going there, eventually a Buddhist practitioner will ask What Is This Based On? Because at its root the Buddhaâs teaching is rather empirically based.
My two cents, anyway.
Which is why I appreciate this from Ven. Brahmali:
Yeah! Unless someone is talking about dogs, it is used polemically to create a connotation to pedophilia. Itâs a really gross rhetorical device. These days it is especially used to vilify LGBTQ+ people.
To end on a more positive note, grooming dogs though, is very adorable. I think the human desire to give dogs a haircut points to the more silly and charming aspects of human nature 
I too very much appreciate Venerableâs quote. It gives me confidence to continue on the path that I know and what I donât know yet will become more accessible.
[quote="Erika_ODonnell, post:3, topic:37177â]
Unless someone is talking about dogs, it is used polemically to create a connotation to pedophilia. Itâs a really gross rhetorical device. These days it is especially used to vilify LGBTQ+ people.
[/quote]
I guess I donât spend enough time in the world to know that the term grooming has morphed into such a negative connotation. Another example of the plasticity of language!
I guess the discussion here might be fruitful (for myself & others), so allow me to drive on this topic, Bhante.
I like keeping things as simple as possible. As a lay practitioner of some time, hereâs what Iâd say the main important takeaways regarding jhanas:
Would you find anything lacking in this blueprint?
Respectfully, with metta. 
I believe MN52 cannot be missing when we speak about jhana. We can realise that jhana is conditioned and volitionaly produced. BUT what is conditioned and volitionaly produced is impermanent, liable to ceaseâŠOne who is firm in this realises dispassion, the cessation of the taints.
I read in MN52: What is the use of chasing states that are liable to cease? Have we not always, in all lifes before, been intent on volitionally producing states? Nice mental states, nice warm feelings, calm, comfort, pleasant abidings?
Must we even in this life, while meeting the teachings of the Buddha, still continue on this Path of passion and seek happiness, refuge, protection, worth in what is conditioned and impermanent? Or can we be firm in breaking with this ignoble search and become dispassionate?
The wordly stream in us is always occupied with producing, making, constructing. Always passionate for this or that to be constructed or produced. Always a carrot for the nose. When comes the time we connect to what is here and now pure, entirely wholesome, free from conceit. Do you really believe this is only present for an arahant? Do you really believe that mind is always conceited? Do you really believe that mind is always passionate? Do you really believe that mind is always distorted? Also this is not conducive. One must not think so. It is not that only an arahant knows dispassion. We also know this, but it disappears quit easily because we still have such a strong potential of passion with us. It easily arises but also a worldling is not always passionate (AN1.51).
What is the reason for singling out jhana as impermanent and hence to be shunned or not worthy of being developed according to you? Why not start with food? The logic is spurious and dangerous. The entire N8FP is conditioned and many people have used this argument to discard one or the other folds of the path to theirs and other peopleâs detriment, especially when it comes to Sila related aspects.
We also know this, but it disappears quit easily because we still have such a strong potential of passion with us. It easily arises but also a worldling is not always passionate
That is the qualitative difference and a quantum leap between a worldly person and an arahant. There is a category difference between occasional and small vs. zero all the time, like a discontinuous jump. Somewhat like Zenoâs paradox, covering half the distance every time doesnât get you to the end, even though the path is gradual. That doesnât mean one should not try to reduce the distance or develop each path factor.
Some people do not accept it but there is really a difference between what is based upon passion (mundane) and that was is based upon dispassion (the supramundane) (MN117).
Right views like there is rebirth, kamma and kamma vipaka etc, and right intention, good will etc. is still based upon passion and not really based upon the pure, an entriely wholesome base. They are called meritorious, karmically active, bright kamma with bright results. Some people believe that a meritorious act cannot be based upon avijja but it is. (SN12.51) For example, deeds that are good, meritorious, bright kamma with bright results, are still based upon projecting a self in others that suffers. They are not based upon true knowledge. They arise infected by conceit and conceiving. All that is karmically active is. There is always some element of avijja and passion involved in such.
What arises from an entirely wholesome base, pure, is not karmically active. That is the difference.
I believe one must never be sluggish in doing good. One must always abandon what is demeritorious and be engaged in what is meritorious. BUT one must never believe that this can end suffering. Doing good, beings still die, beings still grow old with trouble, beings still become sick, beings have still have internal fetters due to which they suffer, and it does not end rebirth. Doing good and abando evil is not a fundamental way to deal with the end of suffering. That must come from purifying mind, or in others words, make an end to all what distorts mind natural understanding, its natural awareness.
To see the difference between what is good and meritorious but still based upon passion and avijja And what is based upon dispassion (not karmically active) is crucial, i feel.
Such a sutta as MN52 about jhana i do not see as a sutta that demoralizes the development of jhana or whatever is meritorious! I also do not want to do this.
But i believe it says that we must see what is really crucial to the fundamentals of the spiritual life. That is not an ideology of volitionaly producing, because whatever is produced will cease to. The Dhamma eye sees this. And this is the start to become less eager, fanatic, obsessed, passionate for volitionaly producing this or that. The Dhamma eye sees the limitations of producing, making, constructing. It does not expact happiness from that, refuge, safety. It also does not reject it totally but it certainly does not see it as the means to end suffering. The Dhamma eye sees that peace, refuge, protection can only come from dismantling the inner tendencies to build and construct.
I agree. But, i believe, it is very important to see and know that defilements are: 1. not always present. Avijja is also caused, tanha is also caused, 2. always adventitious and incoming. (AN1.51).
It is never like this that mind is fundamentally distorted, or has fundamentally a wrong view. Not at all. Mind always BECOMES distorted by the influx of defilements.
They tend to hijjack the mind and distorts its natural awareness.
If the mind develops from a bare awareness into an awareness in which a strong notion of a self is established, that is not because mind is intrinsically defiled with this conceit, but this conceit has estalished at the mind at that moment, it has, as it were, infected minds natural bare awareness. For a bare awareness in the seen is merely the seen, in the heard merely the heard, in the felt merely the felt, in the known merely the known. There is no agitation. But arising defilements cause distortion and trouble arises.
Mind is really not always conceited, for example. One must not think about mind as something fundamentally distorted. Of no being. Not of an animal, not of a worlding, not of any being.
I feel it is good to develop jhana, especially also because 4th jhana is special and the mind is very receptive to receive info of the deep past. Furthermore i think that being able to enter at will a pleasant abiding here and now, is nice. But to be honest, i am not sure how fundamental this all is for living the holy life. And what i have seen here there is always debate about this.
I personally tend to see purity as the fundament of the holy life. That what is supra mundane.
Thanks for your reaction and not ignoring. I appreciate it.
Youâre absolutely right, it goes on in online Spiritualist ( and other religious) spaces too
I did have this idea tho, that the Buddha had figured all this stuff out, left behind the info, and that was that - nothing to debate. Haha, how wrong I was 
Yeah, fair, I do that too on certain Spiritualism topics. Some Iâm absolutely rigidly inflexible with, but I do , where I can, try to present multiple viewpoints ( even from other faiths at times) since Iâm open about not having all the answers, and then add what my view is, why, what I have to back it up etc ⊠and whilst generally well received, I have also inadvertently peeved off a few people too coz they didnât like my answer - generally if the answer didnât support an inflated sense of themself or their abilities. Oh well, canât please them all. 
Looks good to me! If you can do this, fully and with perseverance, you will go a long way on the path!
I just have a few questions. From the point of view of EBT, is it possible to abide in the jhanas without first focusing on the nimittas (by pointing awareness towards those during meditation), simply by utilising e.g. breathing meditation techniques until the mind becomes still enough for the absorption to happen by itself? And on the other hand, arenât there examples in the suttas of people gaining stream entry without having experienced the jhanas? What then is the meaning of the often quoted view earlier, that âIf you get them wrong, you wonât fulfil the path.â?
Hi Spruce,
Welcome to the D&D forum! We hope you enjoy the various resources, FAQs, and previous threads. You can use the search function for topics and keywords you are interested in. Forum guidelines are here: Forum Guidelines. May some of these resources be of assistance along the path.
If you have any questions or need further clarification regarding anything, feel free to contact the moderators by including @moderators in your post or a PM.
Regards,
Alex (on behalf of the moderators)
A little context first: in the EBTs, the word nimitta in relation to absorption means a cause. So e.g. the four satipatthanas are called samadhi-nimitta, meaning they are the cause of gaining samadhi.
In the later Theravada tradition, the word nimitta is used in a slightly different way. Sometimes just for lights and/or forms that appear in the mind. These lights/forms are also causes of entering the first jhana, but itâs taking on more specific meanings than in the EBTs, as far as I can see tell.
It also becomes a little bit tricky because there are states of absorption, i.e. being withdrawn from the five senses, that are not jhanas.
E.g. itâs possible to withdraw from the five senses but then not much is happening, but the problem is then when people think that it was an immaterial state, an experience of cessation so now theyâre a stream winner â or they might think it was the fourth jhana because it was calm without bliss.
So teachers like Ajahn Brahm will tell you that the lights (or nimittas) are a normal part of breathing meditation. It does all happen by itself.
The light nimitta is almost like a standard way of entering the first jhana, and it can be developed through breathing meditation.
But if you have an absorption and no nimitta develops, and e.g. think this lesser state than the first jhana was the fourth jhana, you might get some things wrong which might cause some trouble on the path.
I can imagine that sitting near an actual Buddha, hearing teachings youâve literally never heard before â that no one in your culture has heard before â that the power of inspiration and awe would be enough to suppress the five hindrances in the same way jhanas would.
When youâre also there hearing the actual Dhamma at the same time, yeah, that makes sense to me
Buddha learned the highest arupa jhanas of his teachers and was not satisfied with them. He was able to enter at will the base of nothingness and the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.
" Not being satisfied with that Dhamma (both bases, Green), disappointed with it, I left (MN26)
âStill in search, bhikkhus, of what is wholesome, seeking the supreme state of sublime peace"âŠBuddha wandered on. (MN26)
Buddha did not recognise these peaceful supreme jhana states as that supreme state of sublime peace that he sought, Nibbana.
An important element of his dissatisfaction is, i believe, that the peace of jhana is only temporary, conditioned, volitionally produced, impermanent. One can enter that peaceful state for some time and then leave itâŠlike entering a comfortable warm house but after leaving that house, one is again in the cold, as it were. Probably, when it is like this, jhana only becomes a cause for attachment (arupa raga). One probably wants to abide in it because of the comfort involved. It does not lead to dispassion, purity. It is not that abiding in jhana an sich is purifying. I believe this is not supported, orâŠ?
Still MN36 presents it like this that after his period of asceticism The Buddha came to the insight that jhana IS the path to awakeningâŠ(based upon a memory in his childhood whent he entered first jhana).
In what way did the Buddha see Jhana as the Path to awakeningâŠif the suttaâs also teach that Buddha was not satisfied with even the highest most subtle arupa jhanaâs and did not see this as his Path?
Maybe because in fourth jhana one can direct the mind to special knowledge? 1. Knowledge of ones own former lifes; 2. knowledge about the passing away and rebirth of beings according their views and deeds based upon them; 3.
knowledge about the cessation of taint and 4Noble Truths.
The suttaâs always share that Buddha got these 3 kinds of true knowledge in 4th jhana while directing his mind towards that knowledgeâŠThis drove away his ignorance.
With all these three kind of knowledges it is always said⊠âWhen my concentrated mind was thus purified, bright, unblemished, rid of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, I directed it to knowledge ofââŠformer lifes, rebirth, cessation of taints, Noble Truths.
I feel this is also interesting. Some seem to believe that one cannot even apply mind in 4th jhana but such cannot be true. 4th jhana is so special exactly because one can apply mind extremely easy⊠it is extremely malleable, wieldy, steadyâŠsays the sutta.
But does every arahant have this 3 kinds of special knowledge? It drove the ignorance of Buddha away the suttaâs sayâŠ
"Ignorance was banished and true knowledge arose, darkness was banished and light arose, as happens in one who abides diligent, ardent, and resolute. But
such pleasant feeling that arose in me did not invade my mind and remain. (MN36)
If this was the Path for Buddhas awakening, does this mean that it is the Path for everybody? Most we all have these 3 knowledges to awaken and abandon avijja? Or is such typical for the awakening of a sammasambuddha but not for sravakaâs, pratyeka buddhaâs, others?
Good point, i feel.
So if there is one pointedness of the mind present together with the nimittas (e.g. as lights), and yet the meditator does not focus on those nimittas (cause it would disturb the already established stillness of the mind), then could it be considered possible for the meditator to enter a jhana without deliberately accessing the absorption through the nimittas? I think that Ven. Dhammavuddho proposed during one of his talks on Digha Nikaya, that only the five jhana factors are important for bringing the meditator into jhana, and the nimittas arenât listed as one of the five jhana factors. Hence it would seem, that focusing on the nimittas isnât necessarily required for entering the jhanas.
However, it was already mentioned on this threat that there are different âtraditionsâ regarding whether the nimittas are considered as necessary or rather as a distraction. Iâm still wondering though, could it be possible that both views are right in a way. Maybe the nimittas provide practical stepping stones into jhanas especially for those meditators who otherwise cannot establish strong enough and refined enough stillness? Maybe concentrating on the nimittas can provide additional help for those who need it to refine the consciousness further? Yet maybe it is also not absolutely necessary to access the jhana through the nimittas.
I am not sure, but I think the danger in entering a jhana in a ânon-standardâ way would be overestimation [i.e. it wasnât a real jhana after all]
I think there are profound states of meditation that are still less than the first jhana.
There is a part of the mind that wants to be a âcool jhana attainerâ, so the danger is thinking âactually, Iâm just attaining jhanas in a different wayâ when thereâs actually more training in virtue and ethics needed to get there.
Nevertheless, I donât think we should underestimate the ability of people to experience the âsameâ thing but perceive and talk about it in different ways. On the other hand, there is a need to talk about the those experiences that will apply to most people and the danger of getting it wrong.
I think sometimes people speak past each other and that creates debates and arguing
In one way, nimitta means cause, and since all meditation is conditioned, you always âneedâ a nimitta in the sense that you need a cause.
In another way, you donât really have to âdoâ anything with an arising nimitta. Some of the great advice (given by some of the monastics on this forum even) that Iâve heard is just to chill out, relax and enjoy.
In yet another way, maybe the way someone is taught to conceptualize the process of meditation influences how it is experienced, even though the results [e.g. suppressing the five hindrances] are the same.
So I think itâs possible to be really generous when interpreting peoplesâ ideas about meditation, and at the same time, being careful about not choosing an interpretation based on it being personally gratifying, if that makes sense.
Ven. Dhammavuddhoâs teachings again come to mind. During one of his talks he was talking about Buddhaâs teachings on two kinds of happiness that are available for people: happiness to be avoided and happiness to be pursued. The happiness to be avoided comes from e.g. sensual pleasures, pursuing of which increases unwholesome states, and is accompanied with thinking and pondering mind. The happiness which is to be pursued comes from jhanic bliss, which increases wholesome states and is not accompanied with the thinking and pondering mind (rather helps to quiet the mind). So in that sense, I think you could say that abiding in jhana can be purifying in itself (increases wholesome states and calms the mind).
What you wrote about Buddhaâs directing the mind in the 4th jhana⊠I donât think that sutta can actually mean that Buddha directed his mind while he was abiding in the absorption, it has to have occurred after he came out of it. I really donât believe there would be any possibility to direct the mind towards any kind of knowledge or to be able to think about the past lives during those states.
Hi. Yes. I donât agree with any of this other stuff being passed around here. Itâs more on the basis of sources within the suttas that could be called proto-madhyamika in their indications of absolutism as either devolving into infinite regress or absurdity. As well as ones that talk about jhana practitioners as socializing with themselves or seeking ease (sukha) who not only will be reborn into these conditions, but also have practically nary a chance for liberation.
I also found suttas that indicate right view is non-self. And without right view there is no arising of the noble path. People who refuse to accept non-self will never get anywhere with the jhana. Itâs delusion.
I found that the Ne36: The Plotting of Directions, Guidelines, MettÄ, KaruáčÄ, MuditÄ, UpekkhÄ sutta gives a lot of information about jhana and other factors.
If I understood the sutta correctly to at least some degree it states that:
Apart from this the sutta also states what is disruptive towards each 1, 2, 3, 4 ways.
PS: If manosañcetana is translated as âwillâ - the fourth path according to Ne36 would include not identifying with âwillâ and considering it as mine. Surprisingly, in Bible, we too find the teaching to give up doing âour willâ as is shown in the prayer âYour will be done.â âNot my Will, but Yours be doneâ. I suppose its hard for people even to think to give up âtheir willâ - for how will they then make any decision? What does that even mean? In suttas, it is shown that the mendicants are governed by the teaching - so it might mean that they live according to the teaching and not against it even if there would be will to do so.
There is wrong samÄdhi, micchÄsamÄdhi, which I believe is best understood as jhÄna without right view; see for instance SN 45.1. This is the samÄdhi that brahmanical ascetics seem to have achieved prior to the advent of the Buddha.