Thank you @Sunyo for your detailed response and @Vaddha for your well written and detailed posts. I am very interested in this topic, and I would like to offer my thoughts, but on the other hand I am conflicted about responding. There has already been a lot of ink spilled on this issue (often in the form of a debate). I do not know how much value my voice will bring to the conversation because I have far less personal experience with these states than many of the other people who have weighed in on the topic! On the other hand, perhaps having less personal experience makes me less biased? It is easy to imagine how experiencing a profound state of meditation could lead one to believe that, “this has to be jhāna.” Then another person could experience a different profound state of meditation and conclude “this has to be jhāna.” When the two meditators compare notes, they find that they are describing different things!
Okay, with all of that being said, let me wade in. Although I will be making some arguments I don’t want to enter a debate. To that end, I probably won’t respond to counterarguments, so anybody who wants to reply can feel free to have the last word. What follows merely reflects my current understanding of this at the time being and is liable to change.
- The question title asked about the nature of Sāmma Samādhi. The OP then clarified that the basic question was “are the four jhānas always experientially and phenomenologically the same state?” Replies to the OP then discussed this question. However, there is an interesting unasked question here: Is Sāmma Samādhi identical to the four jhānas? On the one hand, this is an easy yes, as SN 45.8 shows:
And what is right immersion? It’s when a mendicant, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected. As the placing of the mind and keeping it connected are stilled, they enter and remain in the second absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of immersion, with internal clarity and mind at one, without placing the mind and keeping it connected. And with the fading away of rapture, they enter and remain in the third absorption, where they meditate with equanimity, mindful and aware, personally experiencing the bliss of which the noble ones declare, ‘Equanimous and mindful, one meditates in bliss.’ Giving up pleasure and pain, and ending former happiness and sadness, they enter and remain in the fourth absorption, without pleasure or pain, with pure equanimity and mindfulness. This is called right immersion.
On the other hand, I think there is room to argue that Sāmma Samādhi is a broader category.
- (1a) In general, when I see statements like the above in the Suttas it is never clear to me if they are intended to be exhaustive. I raised the same point in this thread What are bodily fabrications? over the meaning of the term bodily fabrications. In the pre-literate society that the Buddha lived in I am not sure if the average person the Buddha would have been teaching had the attitude that definitions were rigorous categories with clearly defined boundaries. I studied mathematics as an undergraduate and so I am quite familiar with giving precise definitions to terms and then extrapolating based on these definitions. Western education in general offers useful training in this style of thinking, but maybe we forget that the minds of our ancestors operated a little differently.
- (1b.i) Specifically, MN 117 potentially gives a broader definition:
And what is noble right immersion with its vital conditions and its prerequisites? They are: right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, and right mindfulness. Unification of mind with these seven factors as prerequisites is what is called noble right immersion ‘with its vital conditions’ and also ‘with its prerequisites’
- (1b.ii) DN 13 also potentially hints at the broader meaning. It is interesting reading DN in order. The general pericope of the path gets described, with the four jhānas occupying their usual position. In DN13 the Buddha is instead describing the path to Brahmā. The pericope remains the same, except that where the four jhānas were previously located there is instead the Brahmāviharas.
It’s when a Realized One arises in the world, perfected, a fully awakened Buddha … That’s how a mendicant is accomplished in ethics. … Seeing that the hindrances have been given up in them, joy springs up. Being joyful, rapture springs up. When the mind is full of rapture, the body becomes tranquil. When the body is tranquil, they feel bliss. And when blissful, the mind becomes immersed.
They meditate spreading a heart full of love to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of love to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.
Suppose there was a powerful horn blower. They’d easily make themselves heard in the four quarters. In the same way, when the heart’s release by love has been developed like this, any limited deeds they’ve done don’t remain or persist there. This is a path to company with Brahmā.
Furthermore, a mendicant meditates spreading a heart full of compassion …
They meditate spreading a heart full of rejoicing …
They meditate spreading a heart full of equanimity to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of equanimity to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.
Suppose there was a powerful horn blower. They’d easily make themselves heard in the four quarters. In the same way, when the heart’s release by equanimity has been developed and cultivated like this, any limited deeds they’ve done don’t remain or persist there. This too is a path to company with Brahmā.
This suggests that the Brahmāviharas are not technically the same things as four jhanas (although the fact that both of them are four states and the final state is purified equanimity is suggestive). However, they are still unification of mind based on the wholesome, the Buddha encouraged their development, and so they probably deserve to be called Sāmma Samādhi.
-
(1c) I think it could be very useful to look into how the term Samādhi was used prior to the Buddha, and how it was used during the Buddha’s lifetime by his contemporaries. This might give a lot of insight into the questions initially raised by the OP.
-
(1d) I propose the following definition of Samādhi: Samādhi is a blissful state of mind which occurs when the mind drops perceptions of multiplicity/diversity and instead becomes wholly unified in a single perception. Sāmma Samādhi has two additional things: the other 7 factors of the N8FP, and the unified single perception of mind should be based on the wholesome (things like renunciation, non-ill-will, non-aversion, etc.)
-
(1d.i) Given that Wrong Samādhi is discussed in the Canon, it is possible to enter a (possibly blissful) state of mind wholly unified in a single perception where that perception is not wholesome. For example, folk magic which concentrates the mind for the purposes of casting a spell is Wrong Samādhi.
-
(1d.ii) If one accepts this definition, then there is still room for both interpretations of jhāna to fit. If jhāna is always phenomenologically the same, then it is just a particular (and the best) type of Sāmma Samādhi. For the other interpretation, the jhanas refer to a deepening of whatever particular type of Sāmma Samādhi a meditator is currently in. (This point is relevant to 1b.ii).
-
(1e) Even among meditation teachers who teach that jhana is always the same state, it does not seem as if they remain fully consistent with that viewpoint. Ajahn Brahm, for example, says that the jhānas can be entered through the Brahmaviharas and that when doing so this gives the jhāna a different “flavor” - so there is some room for difference.
-
(1f) The point here is not to say “gotcha! - your question title and OP are slightly inconsistent.” Just that sometimes one can find answers to their original question by actually trying to answer a broader question.
Indeed, I agree, this is the strongest argument, and I think it is a quite persuasive argument that needs to be taken seriously. I am going to raise some objections to this argument, but again, read this in an exploratory tone please. I hope in this lifetime to get to these states and decide for myself at that point!
-
(2a) See 1e again. If you really press those with the identical jhāna view I think it is quite likely many of them would concede that yes there can be at least some variation.
-
(2b) The argument maybe becomes less convincing when you consider that there are, in my opinion, expert meditators who have been focusing almost exclusively on “jhana” for 30+ years who describe different varieties of jhāna. See, for example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCiVxcOCrtE&t=2830s at 47:10. I only speak English, and I am a Westerner, so my sample population is biased, but my impression is that the majority of ordained monastics who I regard as experts are of the view that jhāna admits diversity. Here is an analogy: expert golf or tennis players develop highly refined strokes as they master their sports. There are clear factors in common that all professional golf and tennis player share with regard to their strokes, but there is still diversity between the players. However, if you look at professionals who have been trained by the same coach you notice that their strokes are close to exactly identical! Does this mean that there is one ideal platonic “perfect stroke” for that sport? No, not necessarily. It just means that that particular group of students all learned the same stroke (more on this later in 2d). Furthermore, those of the “jhāna is identical” view seem to deliberately enter a type of jhāna which by its very nature could not possibly admit much variation. By dropping the five sense, focusing purely on a nimitta, and then staying in the state of one-pointed focus on vedana, how could this not lead to nearly identical state? It just seems to be that this type of jhāna is closer to the formless states; states which do seem identical. On the other hand, if you try to stay with the meditation object and “merge” the nimitta with the body/meditation object, you would naturally get more diversity. See, for example Awareness Itself by Ajahn Fuang:
“Adjust the breath until it’s perfectly even. If you see a white light, bring it into the body and let it explode out to every pore. The mind will be still; the body weightless. You’ll feel white and bright all over, and your heart will be at ease.”
-
(2c) AN 4.41 implies that there are at least four different types of immersion/concentration/Samadhi. I think the most straightforward reading of this sutta is that all the four different types of concentration are still jhāna, but slightly different flavors of jhānaand different uses. The third development, for example, occur after one has already mastered the first development of using jhana for a pleasant abiding. Once one has mastered this, they can “lift-out” just a tiny bit, not too much to destroy the jhāna, to analyze the jhāna itself. (As Ajahn Geoff describes it). The second development looks like it describes using visual nimittas to develop the divine eye and some of the other psychic powers. Meditation on “light” also gets described elsewhere in the canon as being useful for getting rid of drowsiness.
-
(2d) Okay then, so what is the “identical jhāna”? One of the hypotheses I have considered is that it is one of the eight liberations. I think a better hypothesis is that it is the “imperturbable concentration”. The imperturable concentration has been interpreted by the commentary as referring to the fourth jhāna or the formless states for a few reasons:
-
(2d.i)The phrase in AN 4.198 and elsewhere, “When their mind has become immersed in samādhi like this—purified, bright, flawless, rid of corruptions, pliable, workable, steady, and imperturbable”
-
(2d.ii) MN 66, “Take a mendicant who, giving up pleasure and pain, enters and remains in the fourth absorption. This belongs to the imperturbable.” (Edit: on rereading of this sutta I think it implies my theory below is less plausible)
-
(2d.iii) MN 106 is relevant as well, though it doesn’t describe what the imperturable means.
-
(2d. cont) None of these strike me as conclusive though. MN 66 says the fourth jhāna “belongs to” the imperturbable, potentially suggesting a broader class. (See point 3 below)
-
(2e) I believe there is a sutta where the Buddha enters the “imperturbable concentration” and jhāna were always imperturable like this though, then there would have been no reason to be confused. I could be wrong about this one though.
-
(2f) If you haven’t read it, Thanissaro gives a long argument at https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/CrossIndexed/Uncollected/MiscEssays/SilenceIsn’tMandatory.pdf . Thanissaro, in his usual style, makes in my opinion a very detailed and compelling case (though I understand he rubs some people the wrong way). Analayo takes up the issue in https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/ebms.pdf on page 137 and concludes that sound cannot be heard in jhāna; however, he claims that it is true in a narrower technical sense “by definition,” and on closer inspection Thanissaro and Analayo are in a lot of agreement. I think Analayo is probably correct here, but the general picture that emerges gives a broad viewpoint about jhāna. I also get the impression that Analayo thinks that jhāna is not always phenomenologically the same, but I have not read most of that link, and so I could be incorrect.
- Here is a fun little graphic which maybe makes my viewpoint easier to understand:
Or, instead of saying “noises can potentially be heard,” according to Analayo, the better way to put it would be that the less concentration there is the less stable the attainment, and so one might might briefly pop out of and then back into jhāna.
