I’ve never seen jhānaṁ translated as trance. Is this a PTS translation?
1 Like
Yes, it was used by F. L. Woodward in Kindred Sayings. But like the other former PTS favourite, “musings”, it doesn’t seem to have many takers among current translators.
1 Like
My impression of a trance, like a state of hypnosis or semi-conscious, is the opposite of a jhana, a clear, steady awareness of a penetrating mind. Musings doesn’t ring any better. I think trance is diametrically opposed to any Buddhist meditation.
2 Likes
Frank Lee Woodward (13 April 1871 – 27 May 1952) lived in Sri Lanka from 1903 to 1919 and worked as an editor/translator of Pali after he retired to Tasmania. Nice Wikipedia entry, but his early dates suggest that we should read trance as an early best guess.
2 Likes
The pioneering PTS translators who gave us Kindred Sayings, Gradual Sayings, Further Dialogues, Psalms of the Brethren, etc. were all heavily influenced by both the diction and style of the King James Bible. Hence the common description of their work as “pseudo-Jacobean”.
I think “trance” is probably an example of this. Though the primary modern sense of the word is quite inapt, the KJV Biblical one (where it’s used to render the NT Greek ἔκστασις) doesn’t seem too far astray.
5 Likes
I prefer “concentration”. I see that Sujato uses “immersion”.
“Semi-consciousness”, hynotic states are not, unless the hypnotist suggests drowsiness or sleep. So far as I know.
I recently wrote about Gautama’s instructions for the extension of ease (zest and ease, in Woodward’s translations) in the first three of the numbered concentrations:
Gautama described the “first trance” as having feelings of zest and ease, and he prescribed the extension of those feelings:
… (a person) steeps, drenches, fills, and suffuses this body with zest and ease, born of solitude, so that there is not one particle of the body that is not pervaded by this lone-born zest and ease.
(AN 5.28, tr. PTS vol. III pp 18-19, parenthetical paraphrases original)
Words like “steeps” and “drenches” convey that the weight of the body accompanies the feelings of zest and ease.
The weight of the body sensed at a particular point in the body can shift the body’s center of gravity, and a shift in the body’s center of gravity can result in what Moshe Feldenkrais termed “reflex movement”. Feldenkrais described how “reflex movement” can be engaged in standing up from a chair:
…When the center of gravity has really moved forward over the feet a reflex movement will originate in the old nervous system and straighten the legs; this automatic movement will not be felt as an effort at all.
(“Awareness Through Movement”, Moshe Feldenkrais, p 78)
“Drenching” the body “so that there is not one particle of the body that is not pervaded” with zest and ease allows the weight of the body to effect “reflex movement” in the activity of the body, wherever “one-pointedness” takes place.
In falling asleep, the mind can sometimes react to hypnagogic sleep paralysis with an attempt to reassert control over the muscles of the body, causing a “hypnic jerk”. The extension of a weighted zest and ease can pre-empt the tendency to reassert voluntary control in the induction of concentration, and make possible a conscious experience of “reflex movement” in inhalation and exhalation.
Similarly in the fourth concentration, where ease ceases and “purity by the pureness of mind” is to be extended, such that “there is not one particle of the body that is not pervaded with purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind” (AN 5.28, tr. PTS vol. III pp 18-19). The purity of the absence of any will or intent with regard to the activity of the body is set up, and “one-pointedness of mind” generates the activity of inhalation and exhalation purely by location, as “reflex movement”.
I think concentration is another outdated translation of samadhi used out of misunderstanding. It’s a collected, settled, composed mind.
2 Likes
Thanks for this. That was my impression but I didn’t know the specific background. It makes sense that they would view Buddhist texts through the lens of their conditioning and expressed through that vocabulary.
1 Like
And what… is the (noble) right concentration with the causal associations, with the accompaniments? It is right view, right purpose, right speech, right action, right mode of livelihood, right endeavor, right mindfulness. Whatever one-pointedness of mind is accompanied by these seven components , this… is called the (noble) right concentration with the causal associations and the accompaniments.
(MN 117, tr. Pali Text Society vol III p 114; “noble” substituted for Ariyan; emphasis added)
Bhikkyu Sujato, so far as I can tell from his translations, sees one-pointedness as a thing that goes away after the first concentration (or “immersion”, in his translations). From the above passage, I would say that “one-pointedness” is present whenever “right concentration” is present–that would be in all the concentrations Gautama described.
The question is really what constitutes “one-pointedness”, and from what I’ve read, there are many different viewpoints on that in the Theravadin sangha.
My own description would be:
“One-pointedness” occurs when the movement of breath necessitates the placement of attention at a singular location in the body, and a person “lays hold of one-pointedness” when they remain awake as the singular location shifts
I am indebted to the translators and the translations of the Pali Text Society. I wouldn’t dismiss their work as something outdated or parochial.
Theravadin monks do not all see the teachings in the same light, witness the viewpoints on “one-pointedness” as I mentioned in my last reply. Translators who are also Theravadin monks are bound to have their own viewpoint reflect in their translations.
To my knowledge, the translators of the Pali Text Society who translated the first four Nikayas were not members of any Buddhist order.
Therefore… be ye lamps unto yourselves. Be ye a refuge unto yourselves. Betake yourselves to no external refuge. Hold fast to the Truth as a lamp. Hold fast as a refuge to the Truth. Look not for refuge to any one besides yourselves. And how… is (one) to be a lamp unto (oneself), a refuge unto (oneself), betaking (oneself) to no external refuge, holding fast to the Truth as a lamp, holding fast as a refuge to the Truth, looking not for refuge to any one besides (oneself)?
Herein, … (one) continues, as to the body, so to look upon the body that (one) remains strenuous, self-possessed, and mindful, having overcome both the hankering and the dejection common in the world. [And in the same way] as to feelings… mind… mental states, (one) continues so to look upon each that (one) remains strenuous, self-possessed, and mindful, having overcome both the hankering and the dejection common in the world.
(DN 16, tr. Pali Text Society vol II p 108; Horner’s “body, feelings, mind, and mental states” [e.g. MN 118] substituted for Rhys Davids’ “body, feelings, moods, and ideas”)
1 Like
I certainly have no intention to disparage the PTS Society or their fantastic work. What I am saying is that a translator needs to convey the closest possible meaning of a word or phrase in its context from its original usage into the present vernacular. I think that in today’s English trance points to something very different than what I understand the suttas to mean by samadhi. When REddison explained why, it makes perfect sense to me. Language is a fluid, ever changing thing. Many words that were used 100 years ago have changed meaning to many differing degrees. Many words that meant one thing mean the exact opposite now!
So when translating something as important as samadhi or jhana, I think it’s challenging enough to convey what that means without introducing archaic words that evoke a different concept. Nobody wants people to make wrong assumptions and end up getting confused about the Dhamma.
“lone-born” is another archaic word that I found odd but couldn’t find in any dictionary.
Yes, that might be more of a Theravada viewpoint, I don’t know. Are you discussing Theravada Buddhism here? I’m here because I’m interested in the Early Buddhist texts and I’m not really interested in Theravada Buddhism. I’m no scholar and I might be wrong, but I don’t think of one-pointedness of the mind like your description.
I would say the question is whether or not you can find a translation that carries over into your practice. The Pali Text Society translations have done that, for me.
”Lone-born” is indeed interesting, the notion of seclusion as a necessity for concentration. I think there’s a sermon where he redefines that seclusion as something other than the roots of a tree far from civilization, but I don’t recall the sermon.
Another perspective on “one-pointedness of mind”:
“How Pointy is One-pointedness?”, by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
Thanissaro is arguing for “one-pointedness” as focused attention on some object of meditation. Zen Buddhist teacher Koun Franz described that kind of focused attention as a form of “navel gazing”:
Okay… So, have your hands in the cosmic mudra, palms up, thumbs touching, and there’s this common instruction: place your mind here. Different people interpret this differently. Some people will say this means to place your attention here, meaning to keep your attention on your hands. It’s a way of turning the lens to where you are in space so that you’re not looking out here and out here and out here. It’s the positive version, perhaps, of “navel gazing.”
The other way to understand this is to literally place your mind where your hands are–to relocate mind (let’s not say your mind) to your centre of gravity, so that mind is operating from a place other than your brain. Some traditions take this very seriously, this idea of moving your consciousness around the body. I wouldn’t recommend dedicating your life to it, but as an experiment, I recommend trying it, sitting in this posture and trying to feel what it’s like to let your mind, to let the base of your consciousness, move away from your head. One thing you’ll find, or that I have found, at least, is that you can’t will it to happen, because you’re willing it from your head. To the extent that you can do it, it’s an act of letting go–and a fascinating one.
(“No Struggle (Zazen Yojinki, Part 6)”, by Koun Franz, from Koun’s “Nyoho Zen” site)
An act of letting go”–shades of “making self-surrender the object of thought”:
Herein… the (noble) disciple, making self-surrender the object of (their) thought, lays hold of concentration, lays hold of one-pointedness.
(SN 48.10, tr. Pali Text Society vol V p 174; parentheticals paraphrase original)
The difficulty is that we all get used to consciousness being stationed in place, rather than as Franz suggested, relocating through “an act of letting go”. Gautama spoke to that:
That which we will…, and that which we intend to do and that wherewithal we are occupied:–-this becomes an object for the persistence of consciousness. The object being there, there comes to be a station of consciousness….
But if we neither will, nor intend to do, nor are occupied about something, there is no becoming of an object for the persistence of consciousness. The object being absent, there comes to be no station of consciousness.
(SN 12.38; tr. PTS SN vol. II p 45; “persistance” in original)
We know that Gautama returned to “one-pointedness” after he spoke:
And I… at the close of (instructional discourse), steady, calm, make one-pointed and concentrate my mind subjectively in that first characteristic of concentration in which I ever constantly abide.
(MN 36, tr. Pali Text Society vol I p 303.)
and there is no “right concentration” without “one-pointedness”, or “one-pointedness of mind” (I quoted MN 117 previously).
To the best of my knowledge, Gautama never gave a more explicit explanation of “one-pointedness”. I know that the explanation I’m offering here differs from that of Sujato Bhikkyu, and as far as I can determine Sujato’s explanation differs from Thanissaro’s.
To my knowledge, there is no explanation beyond “making self-surrender the object of thought, one lays hold of concentration, one lays hold of one-pointedness” in the EBT’s.
Unfortunate, I think, that the moderator chose to split this thread from the original topic.
Here is Sujato’s take on “one-pointedness”, from his “A Swift Pair of Messengers”. I would agree with him, to the extent that has been outlined here, and I greatly appreciate his effort to distinguish what is based on the EBT from the subsequent commentary and tradition.
Samādhi
Samādhi is a regular synonym for ‘one-pointedness of mind’ (cittekaggatā) or ‘unification’ (ekodibhāva). Both ‘samādhi’ and ‘unification’ occur in the formula for the second jhāna, while elsewhere ‘one-pointedness’ is also said to already occur in first jhāna. The verb forms of ‘unification’ (ekodihoti or ekodikaroti), which regularly occur alongside samādhiyati, may also refer to first jhāna. Here is a standard definition of samādhi from the suttas:
‘One-pointedness of mind with seven [path] factors as requisites is called noble right samādhi with its vital conditions and requisites.’
Right samādhi, or one-pointedness of mind in the context of the path, is the four jhānas. We shall see below that whenever samādhi is explicitly defined in core doctrinal categories, it is always the four jhānas.
This is by far the most important meaning of samādhi in the suttas. Nevertheless, it is possible, with a little hunting, to find cases which suggest samādhi can have a broader meaning.
In a very few contexts the meaning, not clarified by the context, may be jhāna, or possibly mere ‘concentration’ in the ordinary sense of the word. One passage speaks of a monk establishing the ‘mind one-pointed in samādhi’ while in all four postures, including walking. This would seem to be difficult to square with the usual understanding of jhāna, although it would not necessarily directly contradict anything in the suttas. Everything else in this sutta, though, is quite standard—virtue, abandoning the hindrances, energy, mindfulness, bodily tranquillity (which strikes me as slightly odd in the context of walking), and samādhi, with a verse extolling both samatha and vipassanā. Perhaps we might suspect some slightly clumsy editing; and we should not forget the many times when the meditator sits down cross-legged before entering samādhi.
More often, samādhi is used to describe meditative states of vipassanā or liberation. These include three of the four kinds of ‘development of samādhi’, the ‘basis of reviewing’, and the ‘signless heart-samādhi’. These are not substitutes for jhāna in any important doctrinal categories; in fact, they regularly follow after jhāna. It may be noted that ‘development’ (bhāvanā) often refers not to the basic establishing of a meditation subject, but to its further, advanced development. Presumably, establishing one-pointedness in jhāna enables the mind to maintain a comparable level of one-pointedness in the more complex task of vipassanā, justifying the term samādhi.
Very rarely, samādhi is used of a state of meditation that may precede jhāna. The following unique passage describes such a pre-jhanic samādhi.
‘For a monk devoted to the higher mind, there are coarse taints—misconduct of body, speech, and mind. The aware and competent monk abandons, dispels, eradicates, and annihilates them.
‘When they are abandoned… there are middling taints—thoughts of sensual pleasures, ill will, and cruelty…
‘When they are abandoned… there are subtle taints—thoughts of family, country, and reputation. The aware and competent monk abandons, dispels, eradicates, and annihilates them.
‘When they are abandoned and eradicated, from there on there remain only thoughts about Dhamma. That samādhi is not quite peaceful, nor refined, nor possessed of tranquillity, nor unified, but is actively controlled and constrained. There comes a time when the mind is steadied within, settled, unified, and concentrated in samādhi. That samādhi is peaceful, refined, possessed of tranquillity, unified, and is not actively controlled or constrained.
One can incline the mind to witness with direct knowledge whatever principle can be witnessed with direct knowledge, and become an eye-witness in every case, there being a suitable basis.’
It is only when the samādhi is ‘peaceful and refined’, in other words real samādhi, that it leads to the fruits of practice. These higher attainments of the path are regularly said to be the outcome of jhāna, so in such contexts it is only reasonable to infer that samādhi here means jhāna, as usual. Until the minor hindrances have been fully overcome, and the mind stops thinking, even ‘thinking about the Dhamma’, the mind cannot enter jhāna and realize the deeper insights. The only significance of pre-jhānic samādhi is to precede true samādhi, and hence it is ignored in all expositions of right samādhi.
I notice that regularly people translate citta as mind, does this not cause further confusion?
In your case, do you differentiate between mana(mind), and citta(heart)?
In suttas mana is defined as sixth sense base with dhamma as its sense object.
Citta is quite different, it is not defined as a sense base, right? Rather the whole goal of the path is to achieve irreversible freedom of citta (10th step in the 10 fold path, right freedom).
Unifying mind with seven factors as prerequisites for right samadhi is quite different to unifying heart with seven factors as prerequisites for right samadhi, right?
Just to throw in my 2 cents here, my impression is that samadhi means concentration, as at;
Tassa mayhaṁ, brāhmaṇa, etadahosi:
‘ye kho keci samaṇā vā brāhmaṇā vā asamāhitā vibbhantacittā araññavanapatthāni pantāni senāsanāni paṭisevanti,
asamāhitavibbhantacittasandosahetu have te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā akusalaṁ bhayabheravaṁ avhāyanti.
Na kho panāhaṁ asamāhito vibbhantacitto araññavanapatthāni pantāni senāsanāni paṭisevāmi;
samādhisampannohamasmi.
Ye hi vo ariyā samādhisampannā araññavanapatthāni pantāni senāsanāni paṭisevanti tesamahaṁ aññataro’ti.
Etamahaṁ, brāhmaṇa, samādhisampadaṁ attani sampassamāno bhiyyo pallomamāpādiṁ araññe vihārāya.
if vibbhantacittā is the opposite of samādhisampannā, and our rule is that we should
then the most obvious and straightforward opposite of what i want from a student who is distracted or has a “wandering mind” is that they should concentrate!
the first two terms you give are literally less common english synonyms of “concentrate” and the third misleadingly includes the possibility of “made up” or “elaborately prepared” rather than “drawn together”.
Jhana means something like “brooding, rumination, to be entranced by, to obsess over, to concentrate exclusively on (a particular thing)”
We can see this by looking at how it’s used in the Mahabarata, whee it is almost always used for a young prince or young girl who has fallen in love and for some reason is unable to unite with their lover, and withdraws to their room, “tears on their face, deep in jhana”, unable to be made to think of anything (or anyone) else, as at:
01,094.053c pratyayād dhāstinapuraṃ śokopahatacetanaḥ
01,094.054a tataḥ kadā cic chocantaṃ śaṃtanuṃ dhyānam āsthitam
Now, I am not for one second saying that the buddhist jhana is anything like the brooding of a disconsolate victim of unrequited love in terms of it’s phenomenological features, but there is a tendency in buddhist translators to remain cryptically, esoterically silent on the actual broad context of terms in the wider corpus of ancient indian literature, to the great detriment of the semantic depth of the terms in the buddhist context.
Yes, the buddha repurposed the terms, but part of the purpose of selecting these particular terms in the first place must have been to so that his listeners had a sense of the depth of these states, and so I think it’s a shame that so few people have this comparison from which to draw out the profundity of the jhanas.
so samadhi means to concentrate, and jhana means to concentrate as deeply as a lovesick teenager concentrates on their absent boyfriend 
(oh and sati means recollection and/or attention).
Metta
1 Like
I have placed the passage from Sujato in a quote box now, maybe there was some confusion on account of my not having done so sooner–if so, I apologize for that, most of my last post was actually Sujato.
I don’t read Pali. Maybe you could cite examples in sutta translations for the points you’re making as questions? Thanks!
I can say that Bhikkyu Sujato, Bhikkyu Thanissaro, and F. L. Woodward all translated the Pali as “one-pointedness of mind”. Sujato says that’s the translation of “cittekaggatā”, in the excerpt above.
But yes, the goal is the knowledge and freedom of the ten-fold path:
As to this… right view comes first. And how … does right view come first? Right purpose… proceeds from right view, right speech proceeds from right purpose; right action proceeds from right speech; right mode of livelihood proceeds from right action; right endeavor proceeds from right mode of livelihood; right mindfulness proceeds from right endeavor; right concentration proceeds from right mindfulness; right knowledge proceeds from right concentration; right freedom proceeds from right knowledge. In this way the learner’s course is possessed of eight components, the perfected one’s of ten components.
(MN 117, tr. Pali Text Society p 119)
And what… is the ceasing of action? That ceasing of action by body, speech, and mind, by which one contacts freedom,–that is called ‘the ceasing of action’.
(SN 35.146, tr. Pali Text Society vol IV p 85)
What will be the difference? You have freedom, you know, from everything. That is, you know, the main point.
(Sesshin Lecture, Shunryu Suzuki; Day 5 Wednesday, June 9, 1971 San Francisco)
Even for those in whom the cankers (asavas) are completely destroyed, there is still a path.
The debate that started the original thread (from which this discussion has been split off) concerned teaching techniques to overcome craving, and the futility of such intentional efforts as far as the complete destruction of the cankers.
The abandonment of will and intention in the activity of the body in the fourth concentration (the abandonment of volition and habit in the activity of the body in inhalation and exhalation) is not the abandonment of will and intention in the activity of the mind. Gautama taught the extension of ease, and then the extension of purity of mind, in the four numbered jhanas–these could be called “techniques”, that was my contention in the prior thread.
The techniques Gautama taught, if they may be called such, are not going to make an immediate difference with regard to the cravings–that much is true. But to advise a total mental passivity is not likely to result in freedom, either:
So most teacher may say shikantaza is not so easy, you know. It is not possible to continue more than one hour, because it is intense practice to take hold of all our mind and body by the practice which include everything. So in shikantaza, our mind should pervade every parts of our physical being. That is not so easy.
(“I have nothing in my mind”, Shunryu Suzuki, July 15, 1969)
From Gautama’s description of the fourth jhana:
… seated, (one) suffuses (one’s) body with purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind so that there is not one particle of the body that is not pervaded with purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind.
(AN 5.28, tr. PTS vol. III pp 18-19, parentheticals paraphrase original)
“The pureness of mind” Gautama referred to is the pureness of the mind without any will or intent with regard to the activity of the body.
like to give you two hearts on that one, josephzizys.
Gautama does include a mention of concentration on different colored disks (kasinas). I think “one-pointedness of mind” is not concentration on an object at all, as I explained before the discussion of the relative merits of translations arose that resulted in this thread being split off.
”New translations for old; new translations for old”…
I wrote here to add Sujato’s take on “one-pointedness”, which somehow seems at odds with his translations of the descriptions of the four jhanas, as in MN 119. He doesn’t speak of “one-pointedness” in the first concentration, but only says “while placing the mind and keeping it connected”, and then in his translation “placing and connecting” ceases in the second concentration.
I wonder if you can shed light on how he would translate the Pali that way–seems unique. Wish he were here…
You and I have a striking difference of understanding what jhana is. To me, it’s OK when someone has a different view, it doesn’t bother me and I hope it doesn’t bother you. I’'m just saying that my thoughts about jhana are different from yours. How are they different and why?
Almost every day for the last few months I’ve listened to dozens of BSWA videos of talks and workshops by Ajahn Brahm, Ajahn Sujato and mainly Ajahn Brahmali. I find them super inspiring for my practice and these talks have helped clear up many Dhamma things for me that I’ve encountered over the last 15 years.
Over and over again I hear Ajahn Brahm and Ajahn Brahmail give the instruction for a distracted or wandering mind is to 1) make sure your sila is pure 2) incline the mind away from attachment to worldly concerns and things 3) cultivate stillness 4) let go, let the stillness come, let the breath come to you without doing anything.
This is in line with Ven. Sujato:
So when you say
That approach feels confining to me. Not that investigation isn’t a part of the 7 awakening factors, but by the time one is in samadhi, the mind is in a very different state.
In the last few days I’ve been engrossed in Ajahn Brahmali and Ajahn Sunyo’s 3 part workshop Sammasamadhi (right stillness) Workshop.
I pulled out a few quotes/excerpts by Ajahn Brahmali from part 1 regarding what samadhi means:
Jhana is another word for sammasamadhi. It’s absolutely everywhere. And so it is rather curious why it is so controversial in modern Buddhist circles. Lots of misunderstandings in about this in Buddhism.
So again sammasamadhi is right stillness. This is according to Ajan Brahm’s translation.
The idea of Jhana, it is an opening amid confinement.
So what is confinement? Confinement is the sensory world. It is the world that we are trapped in right now. Right now we are in the sensory world. We are seeing and hearing and tasting a bit of coffee and all of that is part of the same sensory world. Right? So it is a confinement. It is like the mind is narrowed down. It’s like the mind is trapped. The mind is limited. The mind is bounded by these things and of course with that is not just the confinement of the sensory realm itself but it’s also all the defilements that arise in that particular realm.
So this is a confined reality and the opening then of course is the Jhana states, it is sammasamadhi where the mind opens up, the mind becomes vast and large and it also imbued with all of these exceptional qualities that make the mind very powerful very happy and very joyful etc.
–
Those are just a few quotes to give the flavor of what he was saying over and over again. To me, it’s quite different to
I may be wrong but what a way to go!
2 Likes
I a tually think we agree more or less completely on what jhana is, i think we kust disagree on what the word jhana means, if you follow me.
More to follow.
1 Like
No, no, there’s no need to apologize. The point I am making that in Pali, Suttas differentiate between mana and citta, but in current English translation this differentiation is dropped usually by using translation “mind” for both.
I believe that most people have no trouble of knowing what is eye, ear, nose and even mind, however when it comes to citta - it seems it gets a bit trickier. And due to the lack of differentiation in current translation, it seems to me as this difference might not be understood - otherwise who would use the same word for both.
This is a good similie, thou not because of depth, but mainly because it illustrates that jhana is a matter of emotional heart - not rational mind.