Oh, dear. From my perspective this is a very flawed article. Ven. Analayo has replied to some of the points made by Rod Bucknell (The First Absorption (Dhyāna) in Early Indian Buddhism – A Study of Source Material from the Madhyama-āgama), but unfortunately his article is not freely available. Here is a brief summary of some of the problems with the article.
-
This is one of the best examples I have seen of reading one’s meditation experiences back into the suttas, that is, interpreting the suttas based on one’s own experiences. Ideally it should be the other way around: one should interpret one’s meditation experiences based on a careful reading of the suttas. In practice I think both approaches will have to work together, but in this case Bucknell has been far too one-sided.
-
He makes a number of unsubstantiated claims, such as claiming that certain suttas are late, for instance in footnote 48. It is just too convenient to dismiss the suttas that contradict your thesis in this way, without providing any evidence for their lateness. Moreover, he does not mention a number of other suttas that contradict his ideas.
-
The suttas contain an abundance of evidence that Bucknell has failed to consider. The matters discussed by Bucknell are subtle, and they require a very careful reading of the evidence before one can draw clear conclusions. Here are a few examples: (1) The evidence from the suttas that the first jhāna is ekaggatā (one-pointed) is actually quite strong; (2) kāma in the formula for the first jhāna quite likely refers to the five senses and not desire; (3) point 2 is reinforced by a sutta (AN 10.72) that says hearing has to disappear before one can enter first jhāna; (4) kāyena, as used in the third jhāna, does not mean “with the body”, but “directly”/“personally” (see Bucknell’s note 34); (5) the overcoming of perceptions of form mentioned in the first immaterial attainment does not relate to the five senses but to the echo of these senses as experienced by the mind; (6) the division of jhāna into five stages is sufficiently attested in the suttas; (7) the sutta formula for the second jhāna makes it clear that vitakka-vicāra ceases completely in that state; that vitakka-vicāra in the first jhāna should therefore refer to a very refined aspect of thought - a mere movement of the mind - seems quite natural.
This is just a summary. All of the above can be substantiate from the suttas, but for the moment I will leave at that.