Thank you for these links! I’m having a great time wading through all the material! In fact, I just realized that I’ve spent the last 1 hour glued to the screen… my mind was so engrossed in the discussions, I failed to hear the 15 min Mindfulness interval chimes, completely lost all touch with the sensations in the body (my back is now protesting!) and also with taste (my throat is parched) and smell (is that dinner cooking?)!! No, No - I was not in Jhana.
Which brings me to the notion … why can’t both parties be right in these discussions of Jhana? Perhaps the extent to which bodily sensation switches off just depends on the extent of immersion of the Mind. As common everyday experience shows, the mind is fully capable of switching off various parts of the sensory system as long as it is suitably focussed on something. A suitably strong stimulus might be able to break through the immersion when its shallow… that is why the idea of sound being a ‘thorn’… but not always… hence the way in which the Buddha recounts the way in which he remained oblivious of the lightning. That story has the sense of being something special, not everyday … why would the Buddha recount his experience if every meditating monk in first Jhana routinely became similarly oblivious of loud sound?
The SN shows the least overlap of jhana/samadhi and anatta. But in none of these suttas does the Buddha actually teach both frameworks together:
SN 22.76 says that arahants have cut off the ‘pride of self’ (asmimāna), and later that arahants are samāhita, i.e. collected in mind – a reference to samādhi
In SN 22.90 a monk practices not-self (anattā) and later on spontaneously develops pītipāmojja, joy and gladness, which can refer at most to the first two jhānas
And in the connected SN 28.1-9 it is said that Sāriputta easily attains all levels of samādhi because he has long eradicated ahaṅkāra, i.e. ‘I-making’.
The AN contains four more direct exceptions to the rule:
In AN 3.32 the Buddha explains that there is a type of samādhi that contains no ‘I-making’ or ‘mine-making’.
AN 4.124 and AN 9.36 (copied into MN 64) teach that meditators after reaching any of the four jhānas contemplate phenomena as not-self (“as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a boil, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as
alien, as disintegrating, as empty, as non-self”).
And AN 3.94 teaches that the erroneous ‘view that one exists as a true
entity’ (sakkāyadiṭṭhi) is given up before attaining the first jhāna.
Beyond that we have three suttas (AN 4.38, AN 4.200, AN 6.29) which list several practices without connecting them doctrinally – among them removing the conviction of ‘I am’ (asmimāna) and attaining jhānas.
In the MN it can be expected to find more exceptions because the MN mixes more content from different sources. Overall we have five MN suttas which include some kind of overlap…
MN 2 teaches samādhi (as part of the bojjhaṅgas) and removing views involving ‘self’ (attā).
MN 8 teaches that views connected with attavāda (teaching of self) are to be given up, loosely followed by the practice of jhāna.
MN 28 combines contemplations of not-self and having the ‘mind unified in samādhi’ (samāhitaṃ cittaṃ ekaggaṃ).
In MN 44 (and similarly MN 64) the nun Dhammadinnā mentions that personality-view is wrong, and then teaches the jhānas as a tool to remove it.
SN45.12:2.8: There’s feeling conditioned by wrong immersion and by the stilling of wrong immersion, by right immersion and by the stilling of right immersion.
I don’t think Ven Analayo is saying that jhana is more profound than insight (I’m sorry I can’t just post the entire article) he’s simply reflecting on modern discussions of what depth of absorption is actually jhana (as in the thread list from Ven Dhammanando). And I agree that his equating of “sutta jhana” with what Ven Mahasi was pointing to is a little unconvincing. As you say, what is sometimes called “sutta jhana” may well be what you call “shallow samatha states”. My overall impression of his position is that Ven Mahasi’s conclusions are firmly grounded in the texts (which in his case, of course, includes the Commentaries and the Visuddhimagga), but that at least some of the “sutta jhana” ideas are wishful thinking.
Here is the conclusion of the article:
From an overall perspective, it is worthy of note that each of
the positions taken in the course of the development sketched
above has had some unintended side effects. The firm position
taken by traditional monastics in support of the need for ab-
sorption, in their debate with the proponents of dry insight
meditation, has elicited an undermining of the very notion of
what absorption entails. This has and still is of pervasive in-
fluence in meditation circles. As a result, even those sincerely
interested in learning to cultivate absorption are often at a loss
to know who teaches genuine absorption attainment.
The creation of the notion of insight-absorption (vipassanā
jhāna) to defend the validity of dry insight, despite its success
in the debate, has unwittingly triggered the emergence of se-
rious contestants for meditation disciples. The prestigious la-
bel of “absorption,” the supposed intrinsic potential of absorp-
tion to produce insight, and the encouragement for meditators
to cultivate concentrative types of joy and happiness from the
outset result in an attractive presentation that promoters of dry
insight find difficult to compete with.
The identification of meditation experiences in which some
absorption factors are weakly present as full-fledged absorp-
tion, in spite of its attraction among prospective disciples, has
the net result of potentially foreclosing meditative progress to
genuine absorption. This can to some extent be seen reflected
in a practical advice offered by Catherine (2008, p. 155):
“should you choose to apply the term jhana liberally to states
lightly saturated by jhanic factors, please don’t presume such
states represent the full potential of jhana.” When meditators,
who are only experiencing absorption factors in a state of
mind corresponding to what exegetical texts call “access con-
centration,” believe to have already mastered the four absorp-
tions, this can have the result that they settle for that much
instead of deepening their concentration to the level of actual
absorption attainment.
As for psychological research on meditative experiences,
mentioned at the outset of this article, the historical develop-
ment sketched here implies that there are a range of quite
different experiences promoted under the label of “absorp-
tion” by various practitioners and teachers. It follows that, as
a precondition for any research, there is a need to ascertain
first of all what type of absorption a practitioner claims to have
reached. For example, Yates and Immergut (2015 p. 386) dis-
tinguished absorptions into three types: “whole-body jhānas,”
glossed as “very lite,” “pleasure jhānas,” explained to be
“lite,” and “luminous jhānas,” with the last being of the “deep”
type among these three. Although the terminology employed
is not necessarily ideal, the idea that there are substantially
different types of absorption constructs in current meditation
circles is certainly meaningful and should be taken into ac-
count in future research.
That is Ven Analayo’s paragraph. I italicized the paragraphs he quoted from Brasington.
I think that this is a reasonable approach:
However, I would be inclined to rephrase as:
The important thing is for a practitioner to recognise that they still have defilements, so that they will continue to practice the eightfold path and their meditation will deepen as a consequence. …
Isn’t that just the danger of debate!! Sixty potential minutes on the cushion down the drain.
I wonder this too.
After all there must be some sort of variation among those who are successful (for eg, if both Sayadaw Mahasi and Ajahn Chah were successful in their quests).
Where does the notion that there must be a single correct version of experience come from?
Is there a textual basis for it?
(These are serious questions.)
According to a book I’m reading, the author suggests that there are some indications respect the kinds of meditation that are not recommended for trainee under the Dhamma; for instance, we have Sandha Sutta:
They meditate dependent on earth, water, fire, and air. They meditate dependent on the dimension of infinite space, infinite consciousness, nothingness, or neither perception nor non-perception. They meditate dependent on this world or the other world. They meditate dependent on what is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, or explored by the mind. That’s how a wild colt meditates.
Simplifying the analysis, one could say that if some method goes against this perspective, then it is not recommended as a proper meditation practice.
What exactly it is being said in this discourse? It is telling us that using objects coming from our senses is a form of wrong samadhi?
I think it is the preceding sentence, to your quote, that is the crucial factor
“Harboring doubt within they meditate and concentrate and contemplate and ruminate”.
I interpret this that it is beneficial and skillful, to be like the thoroughbred - active choice of meditation object from a detached perspective, rather than a reactive one based on what comes in through the senses.
“They (throughbreds) don’t meditate dependent on what is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, or explored by the mind. Yet they do meditate”.
You’re probably right. It makes more sense if one takes it in its context.
One thing that strikes me as, at least, a curiosity, is the lack of instructions in most of the suttas I’ve read in respect of what to do (besides the classic stock phrases about the bodily posture, the halting of the nivaranas and the necessary seclusion) to enter the jhanas. Why it is not specified the role of meditation objects in the process towards the attainment of jhana (at least in the suttas I’ve read so far)?
I’ve seen some people say that anapanasati is a previous practice leading to jhana; I’ve seen other stating that both are two different things altogether, and not a sequence of practices, one leading to the other; I’ve seen some saying that “letting go” should be the object of meditation, and so on. But if we take the interpretation I gave to the above mentioned sutta, maybe the last recommended practice makes more sense.
At this point, I’m full of doubts and mixed (and sometimes incompatible) views on what method should I follow, and I cannot pick one specific practice.
What are your thoughts on this? (I’m asking about the sutta and its interpretation, gives the aditional info I gave, and not about the practical matters, considering the rules of the forum).
In this respect, the suttas are very similar to the manuals of surgery that I have studied.
Surgical textbooks will usually give the indications, contraindications, pre requisites (anaesthesia, positioning etc), main steps, the main complications and what to do about them…and that’s it! No surgical textbook can teach a trainee how to operate. That is a skill that must be picked up by observing expert surgeons, performing surgery oneself under the guidance of a teacher, finding out the ‘trouble zones’ where one tends to get stuck, consulting with peers and senior surgeons about how to overcome difficulties…and relentless practice! Certainly, there are many times when one wonders how two surgeons can have such differing techniques for the same operation, yet have similar results! As time passes, skill increases, one learns which techniques suit one’s own temperament…and voila- the Trainee transforms into a Master!
IMHO, this is due to Cognitive Bias of various sorts. Interestingly enough, its usually the trainees/ followers who insist that their Master’s way is the sole correct way… Enlightened Masters themselves are usually aware enough that there are other ways besides theirs! Of course, there is one particular way that suits their temperament, which they choose to follow… but they are usually open enough to suggest an alternative way when they see the Trainee struggling.
This can be well seen in the texts - both ancient and modern. For example, the Buddha’s usual meditation was on Emptiness. Some of the preparatory meditations that can lead to that being developed are the reflections on Death and the loathsomeness of the body. Yet, when the Buddha taught these to the monks, the meditation subjects were so unsuited to the temperament of some monks that they committed suicide. That led the Buddha to teach Anapanasati. Of course, as The True Master, he would be familiar with many different ways of practice… and the results thereof! A similar attitude can be seen in the practical advice given by Ajahn Chah to his various disciples (last para on pg 10).
So I contemplated this. “Oh, teachers meditate in line with the language of their own minds. They don’t go groping around in the formulations in the books the way we do. Their own formulations arise from reality.”
- Ajahn Chah
I agree, at least for the most part. But I think we should be cautious when taking some method, for two main reasons (the second following the first one):
There were some methods which were described as wrong samadhi, because they could be unwholesome and take us away from the path.
There could be some texts describing techniques which could be influenced by outer and/or posterior sources (brahmanism, jainism, the vedas, the upanisads, yogic methods, etc.), which in part could be included to fill some conceptual voids and vagueness (and I hypotesize that that was one of the reasons underlying and motivating the formation of the corpus of texts and concepts of the abhidhamma); if monks/nuns couldn’t understand all the details of how to attain jhana, I don’t think is that to suppose the possibility of them taking ideas from the surrounding traditions.
So, having these two reasons in mind (or at least considering the chance of them being actual reasons), maybe it could be a good idea to try to have a criteria (and justifications for choosing that criteria) for picking some method over the other. In summary, by knowing the fact that the Buddha allowed a multiplicity of method should not necessarily led us to assume that all methods contribute to the eradication of the taints.
According to SN/SA suttas, e.g SN22.101 = SA 263, the ending of dukkha ‘suffering’ requires one knows (jaanaati) and sees (passati) the arising and cessation of dukkha, not by not knowing, not by not seeing. So, the ending of dukkha is not mainly by samadhi/jhana, according to SN/SA suttas. See pp. 34, 52-53 in Choong MK, the Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism.
But it’s also good to keep in mind that methods and tools will always have only a limited value. What gives them their power is ultimately the theory / philosophy / soteriology behind them.
You probably know how it is in meditation groups. People have experiences and then get super passionate and convinced that they made substantial progress. In the end it doesn’t matter if they did anapanasati or corpse meditation right - dispassion, calm, patience, and knowing that this excitement will subside are in the end more important. So there is a nice dynamic between method and views/wisdom that is necessary.
You might consider Analayo’s book “Compassion and Emptiness in Early Buddhist Meditation” He extensively unpacks the Culasunnata sutta, which mirrors the Sandha sutta in content and language except here he’s giving Ananda a detailed description of how he personally meditates in emptiness. It’s a great book that helped me develop two distinctly different meditation options: Brahmaviharas and Emptiness (the perception of emptiness).
Yes, I agree.
But, I would say that it’s not mere theory what liberates, but internalized knowledge, a kind of knowledge that becomes ingrained in our world-view, and which modifies our perception; it’s a knowledge that doesn’t requiere one remembering by force what constitutes right view, because one has convinced the mind beyond all doubts about the differences (and the logic behind those differences) between the wholesome and the unwholesome.
Another related problem which arises from taking into account this internalized knowledge is this:
Why us samadhi so important, to the point of being part of the Eightfold Path (a path which I assume is composed from the minimal necessary and sufficient factors to be cultivated in order to attain the goal)?
What is the role played by samadhi in the attainment of the internalized knowledge?
Or, in other words: why is constant study and reflexion not enough? Why is samadhi requiered?
Maybe these questions are answered in the suttas. I have a lot (most) of them to read, yet. So I apologize in advance if these come as obvious and common knowledge.
I don’t think it’s mere theory either. My understanding is that before one fully awakens, one has a perception of emptiness, a glimpse of what sunnata is.
Hey everyone, thanks for the interesting thread. I’ve written on these topics extensively, so I won’t bore you with rehashing my arguments. But let me comment briefly on a few points raised.
This is a complex area, and I appreciate the note of reserve you bring to it. A full appreciation of the teachings of forest masters such as Ajahn Chah is no easy matter, and bringing them into light of the suttas is another thing altogether. So far, my own personal belief is that no-one has really done this satisfactorily, as the analyses are too partial, too shallow, and too driven by personal assumptions. I made some efforts to reconcile the forest Ajahns and the suttas when I was younger, but as time went on I effectively gave up on the task, as I found all I needed in the suttas.
The basic problem is that the forest Ajahns teach in a way that is highly pragmatic and specific to context. With rare exceptions they did not write handbooks or create systems of practice, nor did they in any meaningful sense attempt to reconcile their ideas with the suttas.
What they did was to give pragmatic advice to the people in front of them. With understanding who those people were, what their concerns were, and how they were practicing, it is hard to draw specific conclusions about particular details.
Ajahn Chah, and other forest monks, disliked being recorded for this very reason. I remember visiting an old monk, Luang Poo Dun, and when he saw a tape recorder, he forbade it right away, saying “record it in your heart!” Many of the recorded talks of Ajahn Chah are 30 minutes long; the monks used to smuggle illicit tape recorders into talks, and they would reach the end of the C-60 tape with an awkward click as Ajahn Chah glared at the naughty monks!
Almost all of the teachings that we have from Ajahn Chah were given in the last years of his life, when he was a famous teacher, and his monastery was full of new students with stars in their eyes. Such students are often bedazzled by talk of high states of meditation or psychic abilities, and a teacher will want to redirect their energies in a more useful way. Ajahn Chah remarked one time that he has built many monasteries, but few monks.
There are a small number of recordings from earlier years where Ajahn Chah is speaking on deeper states of samadhi. As for his own practice, the word in the Sangha was that Ajahn Chah’s mastery of jhana was such that he did not have to wait for the out-breath: just breath in and he’s already in jhana. Whether that is so, I cannot say, but it is clear that within the Sangha there is, at least among certain monks, a great respect for samadhi.
Finally, it should also be borne in mind that many of his translations were made by monks who themselves did not have good meditation, or whose ideological bent was away from jhanas. I was told by monks of that generation that Ajahn Sumedho, for example, mainly learned Buddhism from the Zen teachings of DT Suzuki. Others were from a vipassana background. This obviously influenced both the selection and interpretation of material.
No, the word kasiṇa means “universal” or “totality”. In the suttas it is a term describing jhanas, similar to a term such as “measureless”.
The words for “mental image” in the suttas are either rūpa in a general sense, or light as obhāsa, paribhāsa etc.
Perhaps the issue here is that we are looking for the wrong thing. Modern interpreters often quietly deprecate the context within which jhana is taught—the whole gradual training—then complain that there is not enough detail. Perhaps, after all, the important details are the ones that the Buddha himself emphasized—renunciation, ethics, sense restraint, contentment—and these are the keys to jhana, not fancy methodologies.
Just to note that the word jhana itself means “illumination”, and other terms for light are found constantly throughout the suttas in this context. So “luminous jhana” is a tautology, which suggests that a better classification would be jhana and not-jhana.
What Ajahn Brahm is talking about here is a skilful means, which is adopted consciously by a meditator. It’s a way of playing with perception, and might be compared with the suttas where they say to see the beautiful as ugly and so on.
The actual problem is not this, it is conceit. When someone believes they have the real juice, they can then easily think they’re enlightened, teach followers the same thing, write books explaining why they’re wrong, and get further and further stuck in a mire of wrong view. Even not as a teacher, it is easy, and common, for meditators to simply get complacent. One meditator told me once that he was thinking of ordaining, but he was worried that he’d get bored just sitting in jhanas all day.
This is not jhana.
This quote from Leigh Brasington is a just-so story. There’s a difference between proposing a hypothesis, even a speculative one, to make sense of evidence, and inventing a story to justify your beliefs.
Sure, it wasn’t presented as history. But that isn’t good enough. You can’t just throw things out there and then protest innocence; words have meanings, and you have to be accountable.
History, to be sure, is not, and should not, be free of ideological bias and values. History works by assessing evidence and organizing it according to a meaningful narrative. Your beliefs and values should inform historical inquiry, shaping the kinds of questions asked and the kind of narrative that you’re interested in. A fertile ideological perspective enriches history by opening up unseen perspectives. Consider, for example, the new perspectives we have learned from feminist or Marxist or black or queer readings of history. A historian is aware of this and acts in good faith, not suppressing or hiding facts or opinions that don’t fit their narrative.
@irene @ Erik
Erik is correct; VenAnalyo is critiquing Leigh Brasington’s idea and thinks it’s utterly unconvincing. The article will probably eventually be available under Ven Analayo’s list of publications here As to when, my understanding is it depends on the copyright restrictions of the publication it’s in.
I’m quite surprised that Bhikkhu Analayo seems to have missed this very basic point: that even the Visuddhimagga doesn’t believe absorption is the “deep” end of the path…
I don’t think that’s what Ven Analyo’s conclusion is. Perhaps things get a bit confusing using terminology like ‘samatha jhana’ and ‘vipassana jhana’ as these terms are basically meaningless as far as the suttas go–he was summarizing and critiquing the position taken by some teachers (such as Leigh B) who use those terms. Also it’s difficult to discuss the paper, and Ven Analayo’s position, since it’s not available to read in full and thus see the quotes in context. Ven Analyo would totally agree that insight leading to wisdom is the key.
right immersion
