Does perception of form and flesh completely disappear in this state ? What’s it like ? Do all notions of solidity, temperature, physical constraints etc. vanish ? Dhyanic absorptions based on arupa-concepts were mentioned by the Buddha as one form of escape from materiality.
This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: “There are these three properties for escape. Which three? This is the escape from sensuality: renunciation. This is the escape from form: formlessness. And as for whatever has come into being, is fabricated & dependently co-arisen, the escape from that is cessation. These are the three properties for escape.”
Yes, I think nibbana is possible only if one faces the future with just a begging bowl and stands unperturbed, knowing that there are no attachments or dependencies left to protect or defend.
In a sensual realm (kamma loka) the mind is distracted going to all 6 sense doors. In the form jhana it is mainly mental but with intention awareness can be directed to the body and the breath as well. So I used the breath to continue to focus. However in a well purified 4th jhana there is no breath, and beyond that is like stepping off a cliff (if the cliff was ‘material’) and hanging in ‘mid-air’ looking at the skies with meditation objects like emptiness, endless space etc.
Yes, as these are features of for (Rupa).
Temporary- like jumping up. The following is true escape- like inside a black hole!
I’ve had the experience of everything suddenly opening out, like coming out of a long tunnel into bright sunlight. That was meditating with eyes open, a method I originally picked up in Tibetan Buddhism.
What were you meditating on and how does it progress before it ‘suddenly opens out’. What happenes afterwards? Were the eyes open right throughout? Or did you close them.
“Don’t even wish to be rid of thoughts. Then the mind will return to its natural state. No discriminating between good and bad, hot and cold, fast and slow. No me and no you, no self at all—just what there is.” - Ajahn Chah
It does not matter that we have different views on these matters. What does matter is I have juxtaposed your views in contrast with the teachings of Ajahn Brahm and now, Ajahn Chah. I have asked you direct questions about these discrepancies which you declined to answer.
Your are ‘resorting to authority’ but then so am I by quoting the EBTs. I’m not sure why these renowned Bhikkhus made such statements- you can ask Brahmavanso - but he’s difficult to reach directly. I noticed it is part of the forest tradition so it maybe tradition maintaining. Other traditions don’t do this.
The EBTs discuss not-self under the five aggregates or as right or wrong view - ie this is all wisdom teachings or vipassana and the right view that’s required for it. As noted by @Gabrielanatta and jhana rarely come together in suttas. The quote is fine but deals with right view and samadhi. It’s two practices. They are named as such.
I am not asking Ajahn Brahm why he has given teachings - cited above on a number of occasions - that are clearly different from many of the things you have said in this thread. You have repeatedly avoided direct answers to the questions I have asked about this. Ajahn Brahm is not a participant in this conversation. Why, do I need to ask him why what he has taught is not commensurate with what you have said? You have been asked why what you have said differs from what he has taught.
It was the conventional self as in setting up an experiment. I could just as easily have programmed a computer to “let go” at a random time.
I was actually focusing on the dropping of the marble through the tube. The dropping happens without volition. The phase change happens without volition–the marble is outside the tube, then in the tube, then outside the tube. This is how I understand that jhana phase changes can happen with or without initial volition.
When I was deep in anger, I was punched in the stomach and awoke in bliss. There was no volition on my part. In fact, with that phase change, the “I” disappeared. The phase change happened without volition. Yet today, when I go meditate, there is volition to start meditating. Then meditation happens on its own.
Don’t assume that is so: Brahmins thought the same experience was Atma and Niganta Nātaputta saw it as enlightenment. These unsaid assumptions can exist in these experiences and they are avijja. It does need preparing.
If the books bring in something new what is the recourse.
The whole point of ‘the book’ is so that someone these days doesn’t have to reinvent the path from scratch. It’s in the domain of a sammasambuddha.
That seems to make sense to me - for what it’s worth. It seems to reflect what I have heard in the teachings. There is another thread where there are questions raised about cause and effect. There is some reflection on David Hume’s philosophy. Oddly enough, it’s Ajahn Sujato who questions the notion of cause and effect. I will try to locate it and provide a link. At least, I may be able to find the title of the discussion.
Please be aware that this is a place for sharing views and friendly discussion. It is not about wining arguments or convincing others that one is correct. Clear concise presentation of information and views is great, and letting all participants make up their own minds.
Please remember to keep it impersonal. A great opportunity to put the Dhamma into practice.
The attribution of ‘I’ am making this choice and, ‘I’ am making that choice, ‘I’ am doing this and, ‘I’ am doing that, ‘I’ am entering this state and, ‘I’ am emerging from that state etc. is an explanation that arises after the fact.
This would include, ‘I’ am choosing to sit down to meditate, ‘I’ am getting up to ‘do’ something else. Our ‘beliefs’ about choices - which must be implicated in intention - has been drawn into question through scientific research. The sense of a self - as the doer - is an afterthought.
Bare awareness is choiceless awareness, there is no discrete ‘I-making’ (ahamkara), no self-grasping.
J. Krishnamurti posed these two questions: is there a thinker of thoughts or, is the thinker a product of thought?? The ‘doer’ vanishes, the centre does not hold - there is no central locus of experience.
This is the attribution of a cause: this is said to be the cause of doing something? There might be something more going on here than meets the eye?
Then, there is the attribution of an effect: ‘I’ am meditating, ‘I’ am directing ‘my’ attention to the breath, ‘I’ am returning ‘my’ attention to the breath etc. - it ain’t necessarily so?
It may ‘appear’ like this, in the ‘thinking process’ (cognition). The thinking process produces this explanation. It is a ‘product’ of thought?
Ajahn Brahm has clearly stated that the sense of a ‘doer’ is absent in Jhana. There is no sense of a ‘doer’ who is directing the attention in Jhana. If there is the sense of a doer directing things, attaining jhanas with form or without form - this is not jhana.
There may be trans-like states that are mistaken for Jhanas?
This confusion about jhana appears to be commonplace among many so-called jhana-teachers and their students.
Jhana - like everything else - is not-self. There is nobody going nowhere, there is nobody entering and emerging from anything at all. This is just a manner of speaking. It’s based on an erroneous conception - cognition - thought process.
We are routinely bewitched by language. Witgenstein said, this is the source of all the confusion in philosophy. He said, the true purpose of philosophy is like releasing a fly that is trapped in a bottle*. He believed that most philosophers throughout history had failed miserably - the fly remains trapped.
After consideration, I’m closing this thread permanently as it had begun going in circles, indicating it had run its course. Thank you to all who participated.
