A post was split to a new topic: Jhanas & the body
I agree with you, however, I wasn’t referring to your post, and I wasn’t alluding to people with a psychological disorder (although, I am of the opinion that false attainments are particularly harmful for such people, in some cases prolonging their condition, or worsening it).
I was simply referring to psychologically healthy/normal people, who from following teachings such as “jhāna-lite,” also end up with delusional/false attainments.
1 Like
Leigh, saying something is “only a word/concept,” and that “since a word is only a concept, my interpretation is as valid as yours” is fallacious, and in two ways:
-
A word is a word, but it isn’t only a word. Words, and in particular nouns, each represent something that actually exists—regardless of one’s interpretation of that word.
-
It does not follow. To say something like “it’s only a concept, and like you, it’s my interpretation of it” doesn’t in any way support the interpretation as being valid.
Jhāna is a physiological and mental, meditative state. The word “jhāna” is simply what is used in written and verbal discussions of it. However, regardless of the word—whether it even exists or not—it represents something that actually exists, and our understanding of it must be in accordance with actual reality.
(And, in taking a similar relativist stance that “the word ‘jhāna’ is simply a concept” and that somehow anyone can have their own valid interpretation of it, this only further supports my claim that “jhāna-lite” is mostly just a “re-defining” of jhāna.)
I didn’t say “my concept is based on the Suttas.” What I said is: your claims and your understanding of jhāna directly contradict the Suttas.
It has nothing to do with “wobbling.”
Here is your claim regarding thinking in “eighth jhāna” (fourth arūpa-jhāna):
Leigh: “In eight [fourth arūpa-jhāna], you might have time for one simple sentence, that doesn’t contain the words, ‘me,’ ‘my,’ or ‘I’.”
Source (0:27)
There isn’t “my” version of jhāna, Leigh—exactly in the same way that there isn’t “your” version of jhāna.
If your students are taught a “jhāna” that wasn’t taught by the Buddha—which you’ve said yourself…
On long retreats, particularly during the two retreats I’ve done with Pa Auk Sayadaw, I was able to get deeply concentrated and then work with the same jhāna states I initially learned from Ayya Khema. The experiences I had during those retreats more closely matched the way they’re described in the suttas.
So then the question becomes, “If what I’m teaching is at a lesser level of concentration than what the Buddha was teaching, is that of any value, or should I just be teaching what he taught?” I’ve decided that, given that I’m working with lay students who come on retreat for ten or twenty days, it’s much more important to teach something that people can actually learn and use than to hold out for something that most people don’t have the time to properly develop.
…then, that they haven’t reached jhāna as was taught by the Buddha, is by definition, very likely.
The only case in which one of your students were to actually reach jhāna as taught by the Buddha, would be if they were to accidentally come upon it during their meditation—or if you were to teach them jhāna as taught by the Buddha, rather than “your” jhānas.
Your students/readers are quite vocal, in saying things like, that every single person’s understanding of jhāna—lay or monastic, from modern times, all the way to 2564 years in the past—is wrong. Everyone wrong… except you and Bhante Vimalaramsi (and by extension, them). They have many similarities with conspiracy theorists, in a way. They’re really not that difficult to spot.
(Advertising a bit, there, maybe?)
That’s quite an appeal to authority. 
Teaching doesn’t make someone right, Leigh. Sogyal Rinpoch, Chögyam Trungpa, and the Church of Scientology each had/have a much larger following than yours—so based on your logic, their teachings are even more right?
I’m not saying you’re like such people, however, what I am saying is that: like many of the things you say, the logic simply doesn’t hold up (i.e., illogical).
That you say the above clearly indicates how distorted/lacking your understanding of the Suttas and of jhāna is.
According to you, Leigh: “If all thinking is gone in the second jhāna, then how can one move on to the third jhāna”?
1 Like
At this point, Leigh, you’ve taken the discussion in almost every direction, other than that of the main objections raised in the OP itself.
In your presentation, mentioned in the OP, you say the following:
Leigh: “In eight [fourth arūpa-jhāna], you might have time for one simple sentence, that doesn’t contain the words, ‘me,’ ‘my,’ or ‘I’.”
Source (0:27)
As described throughout the Sutta Piṭaka—with nearly the exact same stock passage present in dozens of Suttas, and in every Nikāya—the mental factors of thought-conception (vitakka) and discursive thinking (vicāra) subside at the second jhāna:
“Here, secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters and dwells in the first jhāna, which consists of rapture and pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by thought and examination. With the subsiding of thought and examination [avitakkaṃ avicāraṃ], he enters and dwells in the second jhāna, which has internal placidity and unification of mind and consists of rapture and pleasure born of concentration, without thought and examination.”
“Idha, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako vivicceva kāmehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakkaṃ savicāraṃ vivekajaṃ pītisukhaṃ paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharativitakkavicārānaṃ vūpasamā ajjhattaṃ sampasādanaṃ cetaso ekodibhāvaṃ avitakkaṃ avicāraṃ samādhijaṃ pītisukhaṃ dutiyaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharati”
—AN 5.14 (transl., Bhikkhu Bodhi)
It therefore appears, based on the Suttas, that your understanding of the “eighth jhāna” (fourth arūpa-jhāna)—for one, contradicts the Suttas—and, would instead be the first jhāna, or not jhāna at all.
That’s wobbling! You can wobble in any jhana, but if you wobble in J8, it’s quite likely there will be no trace of it left when you come out of the wobble - unless your wobble is really tiny.
You seem to have mistaken what I said for something - something I really don’t have a clue what you are going on about.
I’m sorry, I do not see any point in continuing this discussion with you. Once again, the Buddha was correct - about his teaching on views in Snp 4.
3 Likes
Nope, it’s the physical body - at least in the jhana pericope. Here’s the results of my research - from the chapter Insight Knowledge in my book on the jhanas:
The Pali word translated as “body” in the above description of insight practice is “kaya” and is clearly referring to the physical body since it is said to be rupi and catummahabhutiko, meaning “having material form and composed of the four primary elements.” This is the same as the body (kaya) that one is to drench, steep, saturate and suffuse.
The insight step of the Gradual Training follows immediately after the 4 jhanas in multiple suttas (as you can see from the linked chart) and read in the associated suttas (e.g. DN 2). I seriously doubt the Buddha was switch contexts so dramatically to start using “kaya” differently. I do agree that at times “kaya” means “group” or “collection” - that’s obvious. But the nearest use of “kaya” to its use in the jhanas is definitely physical body.
6 Likes
Aside from the concrete metaphors for the experience of bliss found in DN2 and MN 119, what was the basis for this definition? It isn’t the Abhidhamma because the gloss in the Vibhanga reads:
“Experiences pleasure by way of the body (of mental aggregates)” means: Therein what is pleasure? That which is mental ease, mental pleasure, easeful pleasant experience born of mental contact, easeful pleasant feeling born of mental contact.
This is called pleasure.
Therein what is the body (of mental aggregates)? The aggregate of perception, aggregate of mental concomitants, aggregate of consciousness. This is called the body (of mental aggregates). This pleasure he experiences by way of this body (of mental aggregates). Therefore this is called “experiences pleasure by way of the body (of mental aggregates)”.
This passage agrees with other early Abhidharma opinions found in Sarvâstivāda and Dharmaguptaka texts (and the Dharmaguptaka Abhidharma opinion is very similar to Theravada Abhidhamma, almost verbatim).
On top of this, in the Madhyama Agama of the Sarvâstivādins, the concrete metaphors that are set alongside the jhānas in Theravada suttas aren’t set directly with the dhyānas. Rather, they are associated with mindfulness of the body practice. But we find them associated with dhyāna in the Dharmaguptaka’s Dīrgha Agama parallel to DN 2 the same treatment of the dhyānas.
It may sound complicated, but the upshot is that those bliss metaphors appear meant to communicate the thoroughness of the experience, not the physicality, and associating them directly with jhāna wasn’t consistent across sectarian canons. But the Abhidharma opinions are consistent that kāya doesn’t mean the physical body. As you might know, there are many kāyas in Buddhist thought: A kāya of feelings, a kāya of perceptions, a kāya of cravings, etc.
[Edit: In the late Northern tradition, there was a controversy over how to read the kāya in the third dhyāna. Vasubandhu summarizes it in the Kośa, which can be read in English pp. 1231-1234 of the Poussin-Pruden translation. The logical issues that arise from claiming that mental happiness somehow permeates the physical body gets a bit difficult to maintain, but the Darstantikas doggedly tried nonetheless in Vasubandhu’s account of the debates.]
So, my question is, what other support have you found for taking kāya in the third jhāna as being specifically the physical body?
17 Likes
You may be interested in the following:
SN46.54:12.1: And how is the heart’s release by love developed? What is its destination, apex, fruit, and end?
SN46.54:12.9: The apex of the heart’s release by love is the beautiful, I say, for a mendicant who has not penetrated to a higher freedom.
SN46.54:13.1: And how is the heart’s release by compassion developed? What is its destination, apex, fruit, and end?
SN46.54:13.7: The apex of the heart’s release by compassion is the dimension of infinite space, I say, for a mendicant who has not penetrated to a higher freedom.
SN45.54 gives the destination of the brahmaviharas, which ties them into the formless. And they are also progressive as defined here:
DN34:2.2.79: Nine progressive cessations.
DN34:2.2.80: For someone who has attained the first absorption, sensual perceptions have ceased.
DN34:2.2.81: For someone who has attained the second absorption, the placing of the mind and keeping it connected have ceased.
DN34:2.2.82: For someone who has attained the third absorption, rapture has ceased.
DN34:2.2.83: For someone who has attained the fourth absorption, breathing has ceased.
DN34:2.2.84: For someone who has attained the dimension of infinite space, the perception of form has ceased.
DN34:2.2.85: For someone who has attained the dimension of infinite consciousness, the perception of the dimension of infinite space has ceased.
DN34:2.2.86: For someone who has attained the dimension of nothingness, the perception of the dimension of infinite consciousness has ceased.
DN34:2.2.87: For someone who has attained the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, the perception of the dimension of nothingness has ceased.
DN34:2.2.88: For someone who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling, perception and feeling have ceased.
The progression is useful in that it provides insight into the transitions between states. For example, one may ask here, “What are the drawbacks of infinite space that would lead to a transition to infinite consciousness?” Examining transitions provides very useful insights.
In other words, worrying less about “Where’s Waldo?” in the nine progressive cessations, one can more usefully understand the transitions as seeds to insight. Additionally, a useful way to approach the progressions is to treat them as a spiral rather than a line. In this spiral contemplation the transitions happen cyclically at ever more subtle depths of insight. By adopting a spiral (vs. linear) progress perspective we can escape the trap of asserting or assuming attainments. By adopting a spiral perspective to practice, one revisits transitions endlessly as well as progressively. And that very spiral practice also fulfills:
DN33:1.9.34: To never be content with skillful qualities, and to never stop trying.
The interesting thing about Leigh Brasington is not really the veracity of “Jhana” vs “Jhana-lite”. That just leads to endless one-upmanship. The interesting thing about Leigh Brasington is to understand his perspective on the transitions between states. With a spiral perspective to practice we can all learn from each other.
Amusingly, a screw is a spiral. Screws are a modern invention, so perhaps not available 2500 years ago. Still, one does wonder about “righty tighty, lefty loosey” and what the Buddha might have said. Perhaps we’ll need to wait for the next Buddha to hear about…“Righty View…”
5 Likes
Yes, that might become a problem for some. On the other hand, to put labels like lite, hard or right, and so on, to jhanas could also result in people regard states like Jhana’s to be impossible due to their life situations. And thereby resulting in that they give up Buddha’s teachings, or maybe send them in search of other instructions, sects, and guru’s that mess their minds up to a more significant extent than a relatively common/innocent and hopefully momentary misconception of their attainments would.
1 Like
So the scenario that you outlined justifies making up a false version of '“jhāna”?
And why do such people care so much about the label “attained jhāna” in the first place? They require such a label to stay with the practice?
1 Like
Who knows what’s false, especially when communication happens indirectly? Of course, nothing justifies leading people astray, especially when it comes to spiritual seeking. And I would say it’s as severe about closing off anybody when one hasn’t the opportunity to see eye to eye. The word “attain” is problematic if it’s all about letting go into layers of deep stillness.
1 Like
Anjali Bhante and metta filled greetings All,
I have read most of this discussion that at some point was split. I got through most of the discussion with Leigh Brasington. For some reason I feel compelled to join the discussion or at least comment.
It can get confusing with so many different ways the jhanas are described by respected teachers. Keeping sila and overcoming the hindrances are essential as well as faith in the Triple Gem are taught in the suttas for preparing the mind for Jhana. So I respect teachers who include this in their instructions.
I appreciate Bhante’s comments regarding how to approach to elements in the suttas. It seems best not to get too analytical. I also like to err on the side of kindness instead of who can prove their point.
Maybe after sitting with a cup of tea we could sit on our cushions and see if we can put the teachings
Into practice.
I find the EBT very pragmatic. The Dhamma is meant to be experienced individually by the wise. A good balance of study and practice seems the best approach.
I appreciate everyone’s efforts to penetrate the teachings.
May we all attain the wholesome states not yet attained and realize the Deathless.
Suvijjana Bhikkhuni
15 Likes
That’s quite a combination of terms/statements—which has little or no basis in the Suttas.
Here, I’ve highlighted the parts in which you contradict both the Suttas and yourself:
Leigh: "In eight [fourth arūpa-jhāna], you might have time for one simple sentence, that doesn’t contain the words, ‘me,’ ‘my,’ or ‘I’.”
In your above statement, you undeniably say: "In eight [eighth jhāna], you might have time for one simple sentence.”
Again, as described throughout the Sutta Piṭaka, the factors of thought-conception (vitakka) and discursive thinking (vicāra) subside at the second jhāna—let alone the fourth arūpa-jhāna of nevasaññā-n’asaññāyatana (of which—at least based on the Suttas—would appear that you falsely claim to reach).
You’ve put an end to the conversation with, yet again, another ad hominem—even using the Buddha’s teaching to do so.
One thing is for sure, anger, arguments, harsh speech, holding on to views, and righteousness etc is guaranteed to hinder deep meditative states…
The more you let go - the deeper you go
15 Likes
I fully agree. 
I think it would be great to have a neutral and independent party here to summarise how the approaches and interpretations oppose and how these stand against the content of EBTs
I really think we should avoid focusing too much on how @lbrasington’s teaches his lay students or chooses to write his books.
That pertains to his choice of offering himself as trance instructor and really is not something comparable to the more holistic teaching of the eightfold path by those able and properly qualified to do so (e.g. experienced monastics developing themselves the path in its totality).
Instead, the discussion here should be to list in a neutral and straightforward way how adopting @lbrasington framework for interpreting and developing the eighth factor of the path may or not be at odds with what the earliest or core strata of Buddhist texts say.
If the case is that there is a material incompatibility then we should stop at it and not try to convince or make a point to @lbrasington and/or his customers.
This is because we are all entitled to our opinions and views about things and it is quite delusional to think that we can really change people’s minds so dramatically via just an online exchange of words.
One thing that always comes to my mind when I see and reluctantly take part in these discussions about this topic is that the fact we are still debating on such things may be one of the key reasons we are still around in the samsara some 2,500 years after the awakening of a Samma Sambuddha and his teaching… 
In the end, Mara always wins… 
7 Likes
Sadhu. Sadhu. Sadhu.
Please, those of you who feel compelled to find just the right label in English to match subtle experiences remember that everyone here is engaged in the same enquiry, and treat those that you can’t agree with with respect.
It can be difficult at times, can’t it!
13 Likes
Yes, the collective witch hunting in this thread is really disgusting. I would like to remind those who attack Leigh Brasington as a person that he just teaches the methods developed by renown nun Ayya Khema, - often without any remuneration. Ayya Khema’s approach is highly valued worldwide, and used by some German monks.
Personally, I don’t endorse Ayya Khema/Leigh Brasington’s approach - but to criticize it meaningfully, you have to experience it first-hand, observe whether it helps other people, and be able to propose better approaches. Wild speculations that his approach may harm some imaginary people are useless and even detrimental, since they produce a sense of cult-like aggressive imaginary superiority.
14 Likes
Yes, I have to agree.
There is actually a valid point in the OP about vicara-vitakka. There is probably a wide possible spectrum of viewpoints on what this might be, which still all arguably potentially fit within the sutta checkpoints for vicara-vitakka. Having sentences still occurring in the immaterial attainments does seem to be really pushing things in terms of vicara-vitakka (IMO too far in terms of this sutta checkbox). This seems to be the sticking point around which this whole thread is based.
The stuff on bodies and jhana depth was farmed off to another thread, though stances on jhana depth do impact on how vicara-vitakka is interpreted (deeper stances will obviously take a more minimalist interpretation of what it is and lighter/lite jhana stances will take a looser more maximalist interpretation). Some of these questions are not so easily disentangled.
There’s a valid question to be answered on the vicara-vitakka point, but IMO much of this thread has been rather nasty in tone and unedifying.
4 Likes
The only thing I notice in these discussions is a lot of clinging to views, which sometimes leads to personal attacks which is uncalled for. No one has reached Jhana by arguing about Jhana. It seems more and more like a debate contest.
4 Likes