SuttaCentral
Are you sure about that? Because you were arguing with me that jhana is required for stream entry path in that thread.
Here is what you said back then. I wouldn’t normally care if you changed your position, only that you accused me of changing mine.
But you can see here I have had my same position even 2 years ago, describing with detail how jhana is required for stream entry fruit, back when I had a reddit account Proof you need jhana to attain stream entry : EarlyBuddhismMeditati
Nope, i said you need to see/know jhana even at Stream Enterer (Path, Magga).
Attaining path means the complete N8FP path. This means also magga attainer needs to see/know samma samadhi (jhana) even just a low 1st jhana will do.
Most stream enterer just hear the true dhamma, the mind already in jhana. No need any sitting meditation.
This seems to me a reasonable inference. But then there’s the thing of how to assess inferential arguments vs literal statements, and I think this case offers a good example: What do we make of the fact that several suttas explicitly present stream-enterers who have not reached jhāna? How to understand that fact vis à vis the (reasonable) inference of ‘stream equals path which implies jhāna’? To me, a case like Mahānāma’s would take precedence over inferences like these because it needs less interpretation, whereas privileging the inference requires that one explain away straightforward passages presenting Mahānāma and others as stream-enterers who have no experience of jhāna.
Another example are passages saying that stream-enterers have understood the four noble truths, or dependent arising, or the six-sense bases, etc. What does that mean exactly? They have grasped those teachings to what degree? Has each and every stream-enterer grasped all those teachings or are these several possibilities, like one may be a stream-enterer on account of having sufficient understanding of either dependent arising, OR of impermanence, etc.? And how to quantify ‘sufficient understanding’ so that it can be a criteria to determine a stage of awakening?
These also look like a systematic application of one formula to other formulas, and we know some textual development is like this (similar to Allon’s and Shulman’s ‘play of formulas’ theory). It’s like the canon redactors are spelling out what seems implied, by covering all possibilities. How to read those texts isn’t straightforward, and for all these reasons, to me, these are not the best passages to determine what is stream-entry—which is not to deny them any value!
In the thesis I dealt a lot with statements like these and I think a valid way of reading them is as more generic, I hesitate to say ‘informal’, non-technical statements. They are ways of saying: these people really practice, they have some/significant experience and understanding, they are really committed, etc. But they are ambiguous and approximate, and need to be interpreted alongside other more precise statements & passages, which is where natural disagreements may happen between interpreters.
I have hoped to turn my MA dissertation into an academic paper for a few years now, taking the chance to revise, narrow and improve my argument as well as its presentation. But if that happens it will certainly be after I submit my doctoral thesis in late 2023—which, by the way, is very positive about jhāna. So just in case: no I don’t have any war against jhāna, and I fail to see how pointing out that it’s not a requirement for stream-entry—as @silence agrees with!—leads people down the wrong path… (Sīla doesn’t require jhāna: does pointing this out harm the dharma? Will people then be reluctant to practice either sīla or jhāna?) In the meantime, I’m at peace with having uploaded the dissertation to a scholarly platform as an unpublished thesis and nowhere else.
So this feels a bit like pulling out a tweet from one’s past. Those are not two statements written in the same piece where someone will read them and go “
”, so they should not be treated as such. I’d happily nuance the second statement now. Criticism, strict scrutiny and all that is welcome (though I think you exaggerate my ‘infuential’ persona) and it can be generous and fair: responding to people’s strongest arguments, understanding that views evolve, acknowledging that someone can say both rubbish and accurate, useful things, etc. Good criticism is one of the learnings (in process, of course) I’m most grateful for in my academic training, and a wonderful dharma practice in its own right, ripe for personal insights.
I will read the most immediate replies but beyond that I’m unlikely to keep engaging with this thread much. Please don’t take that as any disrespect or lack of interest, I simply have to manage my time and energies, plus I doubt I have any more good/interesting things to say.
Hi Bernat, may you be well and happy
The whole question whether one needs jhana for stream entry to me is just silly. It’s like asking “do I need to be able to deadlift 100 kilos before I can deadlift 200 kilos?” No offense (I’m skinny myself!) but it’s something only people who haven’t ever lifted either would wonder about. 
But there are many more than just a single instance in the suttas that indicate jhanas to be a requisite for stream winning. The most unforgiving is probably AN11.3: “When there is no right concentration, the knowledge and vision of things as they really are lacks its proximate cause.” This knowledge and vision of things stands for stream entry.
Most passages that talk about people becoming stream enterers seemingly without jhana are narratives not spoken by the Buddha but by whoever narrated the suttas. IIRC Analayo has compared these naratives in parallels and concluded they are often quite different, indicating them to be late. It’s much more likely actual doctrinal statements such as the one I just quoted, which are quoted as the Buddhas words, are authentic instead. 
On taking a stream enterer to be someone who is just practicing seriously… Well, I’ve seen worse. Some have basically said a stream enterer is somebody who first comes into contact with Buddhism and then walks away from it! Which is truly the opposite of what a stream entry is in the suttas. There it is someone who has actual deep insight into the four noble truths and rebirth (SN12.28), knowledge not shared by others (AN6.104), who won’t decline and is destined for awakening (AN6.97). Such reinventions of stream entry are thinking one is Schwartzenegger while actually only lifting 1 or 2 kilos. 
Why would monastics of 40+ years in the robes still disagree on what jhana and nibbāna are? The answer to me is easy: Stream entry and jhana are rare. That’s exactly why there are all these debates and different opinions in the first place. 
Well, only problem is stream entry is easy. There are many example in Sutta and Vinaya. 
One just needs to hear true dhamma from sappurisa (true people, ariya), then one become stream enterer. There is no requirement to practice meditation yet for stream enterer. Then, continue maintain to practice dhamma (precepts and some samadhi) in daily life.
But, samma samadhi (jhana) is difficult. Maybe other micha samadhi (jhana) is easier because it skip the precepts.
My opinion is that the more the dhamma, as the Buddha taught it, gets dilluted, the more people “lower the bar” to say how easy it is, but in reality it gets harder because hearing the true dhamma is a requirement for attaining path and how are you going to hear the true dhamma if it’s already so dilluted and obscured between all the forms of buddhisms and interpretations. The dhamma was already subtle and hard to see during the Buddha’s time, and that’s even with a Samma Sambuddha holding your hand…
This is why I’m more focused on “core” dhamma, and removing any unnecessary fluff that is often taught today. It’s quite actually the same in the suttas from before Gotama became well known, like when Sariputta and Moggalana were looking for the core unique axiom, and it simply was
Whatever phenomena arise from cause:
their cause
& their cessation.
Such is the teaching of the Tathagata,
the Great Contemplative.
which changed everything and set them on the path.
But this just means to me that most ascetics during that time were already well aware of what jhana, vitakka, vicara, etc… was and what it meant (ths right interpretation), and there wasn’t any disputes over these terms, what was therefore new to them was Supermundane right view, which is what I call “core” dhamma, and that is
and these can only be properly understood if one has the proper interpretation for yoniso manasikara, sense restraint, vitakka/vicara, satipatthana, etc…
In short, it’s hard and rare to pierce the core dhamma, because the tools and dependencies we need to have to pierce the core dhamma, are already misinterpreted and misunderstood.
Regardless, the sankharas and remaining aggregates will fall a part at one’s death, so I believe if you have an inkling of understanding of Supermundane right view, that should come through at that time (whether or not there is actually rebirth).
This knowledge & vision of things seems generally used for the destruction of the asava & arahantship.
Immersion is a vital condition for truly knowing and seeing.
samādhūpanisaṁ yathābhūtañāṇadassanaṁ,
Truly knowing and seeing is a vital condition for disillusionment.
yathābhūtañāṇadassanūpanisā nibbidā,
Disillusionment is a vital condition for dispassion.
nibbidūpaniso virāgo,
Dispassion is a vital condition for freedom.
virāgūpanisā vimutti,
Freedom is a vital condition for the knowledge of ending.
vimuttūpanisaṁ khayeñāṇaṁ.SN 12.23
I think Bhikkhu Bodhi’s article on this subject is well-researched & convincing: The Jhanas and the Lay Disciple According to the Pāli Suttas 
No it isn’t. In that sutta that’s the knowledge of ending.
In his new book Developments in Buddhist Meditation Traditions Venerable Anālayo writes in support of the position that a) the jhanas are not required for stream entry and b) concentration cannot be Right until it is performed under the guiding context of Right View.
The development suggested above implies that the equation of right concentration with the four absorptions reflects a more evolved stage in the development of definitions of the eighth path factor. This certainly does not in any way imply a devaluation of the cultivation of absorption as such. At least as far as stream-entry is concerned, however, it seems as if the ability to attain absorption need not be required.
… the examples of the Buddha’s teacher Āḷāra Kālāma, who must have been highly proficient in concentrative abilities (the same probably also applies to Uddaka Rāmaputta), or of the various views based on absorption attainment surveyed in the Brahmajālasutta and its parallels, makes it clear that strength of concentrative ability does not necessarily mean that the respective concentration is of the right type. Instead, the directional input of right view is required above all, together with endowment with the other path factors, as these are the crucial ingredients that turn concentration into the right type.
"Most of the times the dhamma eye is presented as a shift in beliefs and, perhaps even more importantly, as an unlikely conversion. As such, it shares the sectarian competitiveness of the Fetters model and has a strong propagandistic function. "
“This chapter has also shown that the motto of stream-entry—that progress is assured and decline impossible is likely idealistic and has inspirational, consolatory and propagandistic purposes.”
interesting paper. It could be a Province report from the Mao Red Guards in the 60’s.
If there is a paper version it can be useful to feed the fireplace in the coming restrictions to own nothing and be happy.
Hello Bernat. Returning to this topic, I actually disagreed with both your & the other person’s interpretation of MN 6. I posted the term “jhana” seems to be a stock term in MN 6 because MN 6 says the following that is unrelated to jhana:
In other words, for me, MN 6 is not an exception. I recall Sujato quotes another, very general, sutta saying the stream-enterer must fulfil the Noble Eightfold Path but I disagree with Sujato’s interpretation here due to many more specific suttas on the subject matter.
There are suttas that literally say a stream-enterer & once-returner have not fulfilled jhana (eg. AN 3.86). Commentators such as Ajahn Brahm seem to suggest self-identity-view will dissolve with the 1st jhana:
It seems as if one might lose all control. And one will - blissfully so - if one would only let go of the “self” and trust in the nimitta! The one would experience desire and control overwhelmed by supramundane bliss, and, in consequence, much of what one took to be one’s self would vanish leaving a real sense of freedom.
Ajahn Brahm
Stream-enterers MUST understand the four noble truths & dependent arising, otherwise they cannot be stream-enterers because they must have no doubt about the Path (which is the Path of abandoning craving & grasping). However, this does not apply to jhana because merely fulfilling the Samma Sati path factor is sufficient for stream-entry. The Noble Eightfold Path is the Path to Nibbana therefore jhana is required for Nibbana.
MN 118 is an interesting sutta. The phrase: “He trains himself” seems to indicate stream-entry; given it seems to indicate being equipped with the Three Trainings to some degree. However, knowing of breathing remains in each stage of MN 118; therefore it seems MN 118 cannot refer to jhana. 
Thanks to @CurlyCarl for the link to Bhikkhu Bodhi’s article.
In his essay, BB turns his “spotlight on the unordained segment of the Buddhist community and look at suttas that discuss the spiritual practices and qualities of the lay noble disciple.”
and
“To draw upon suttas dealing with lay disciples is to approach the question of the need for jhāna from an angle somewhat different from the one usually adopted”
This is an interesting and fruitful perspective! He says:
"In the suttas dealing with the gradual training, all the stages of awakening are telescoped into one series, and thus no differentiation is made between the preparatory attainments required for stream-entry, once-returning, non-returning, and arahantship. We simply see the monk go off into solitude, attain the four jhānas, and then proceed directly to arahantship, called “the knowledge of the destruction of the taints.” From such texts, there can be no denying the role of the jhānas in bringing the path to fulfilment, but here I shall be concerned principally with the question whether or not they are categorically necessary to win the first fruit of the path.
In pursuing this question I intend to pick up an important but generally neglected clue the suttas lay at our doorstep. This is the fact that many of the Buddha’s followers who attained the first three stages of awakening, from stream-entry through non-returning, were lay people. The only stage that the Canon depicts as the near-exclusive domain of monks and nuns is arahantship.[3] This clue is more important than might appear at first glance, for a close examination of texts describing the personal qualities and lifestyles of noble lay disciples might bring to light just the material we need to unravel the knots tied into this perplexing issue.
A study of the Nikāyas as a whole would show that they depict classes of disciples in terms of paradigms or archetypes. These paradigms are generally constructed with extreme rigor and consistency, indicating that they are evidently governed by a precisely determined scheme. Yet, somewhat strangely, it is rare for the outlines of this scheme to be spelled out in the abstract. This puts the burden on us to elicit from the relevant suttas the underlying principles that govern the portrayal of types. The texts with which we are concerned delineate disciples at different levels of development by way of clusters of specific qualities and practices. These texts function both descriptively and prescriptively. They show us what kinds of qualities we can normally expect of disciples at particular stages of progress, and thereby they imply (and sometimes state) what kinds of practices an aspirant at a lower stage should take up to advance further along the path.
To draw upon suttas dealing with lay disciples is to approach the question of the need for jhāna from an angle somewhat different from the one usually adopted. Most participants in this discussion have focused on texts dealing principally with monastic practice. The drawback to this approach, as indicated above, lies in the predilection of the Nikāyas to compress the successive levels of monastic attainment into a single comprehensive scheme without showing how the various levels of practice are to be correlated with the successive stages of attainment.[4] So instead of working with these monastic texts, I intend to turn my spotlight on the unordained segment of the Buddhist community and look at suttas that discuss the spiritual practices and qualities of the lay noble disciple. For if the jhānas are truly necessary to attain stream-entry, then they should be just as much integral to the practice of the lay follower as they are to the practice of the monk, and thus we should find texts that regularly ascribe jhānic practice and attainment to lay disciples just as we find them in the case of monks. If, on the other hand, the texts consistently describe the practices and qualities of certain types of noble lay disciples in ways that pass over or exclude the jhānas, then we have strong grounds for concluding that the jhānas are not prerequisites for attaining discipleship at these levels."
The article proceeds from here.
Anyone who makes the effort to meditate, samatha (rousing calm abiding) and naturally vipasanna (insight) follows.
Meditation gives rise to concentration, calm and insight. This is the core function of meditation. This is what the jhanas are modelled off of (discoveries during the meditative process).
Hi @dhammapala,
Welcome to the D&D forum!
Enjoy the multiple resources here available; may these be of assistance along the path.
Should you have any questions about the forum, feel free to contact the @moderators.
Regards,
suaimhneas (on behalf of the moderators)
Hi @suaimhneas ,
I love what you have all done with the forum. The interface is absolutely wonderful and a joy to use. Quite the update from vBulletin back in the day!
Wishing wellness to you all and many thanks,
J.N
Hi @dhammapala,
I’m glad you like the forum interface! The forum interface itself is the work of others (the technical team here and those behind the more general Discourse platform). It’s always good to get positive feedback, anyway. Wishing wellness to yourself also, and we hope you continue to enjoy the forum!
Regards,
suaimhneas