SuttaCentral
Every now and then this term is mentioned. I understand it to mean reaching certain levels of wisdom by philosophical contemplation only (as apposed to meditative Samadhi).
I wonder who came up with this idea, what it is founded on and who accepts it today.
Many thanks.
Hi, this term is found in commentarial Pali, like The Path of Purification.
You may find this essay by Ven. Bodhi helpful:
https://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha267.htm
An excerpt:
“ In Theravada Buddhist circles during the past few decades a debate has repeatedly erupted over the question whether or not jhāna is necessary to attain the “paths and fruits,” that is, the four graded stages of enlightenment. The debate has been sparked off by the rise to prominence of the various systems of insight meditation that have become popular both in Asia and the West, especially among lay Buddhists. Those who advocate such systems of meditation contend that the paths and fruits can be attained by developing insight (vipassanā) without a foundation of jhāna. This method is called the vehicle of bare insight (suddha-vipassanā), and those who practise in this mode are known as “dry insighters” (sukkha-vipassaka) because their practice of insight has not been “moistened” by prior attainment of the jhānas. Apparently, this system finds support from the Visuddhimagga and the Pāli Commentaries, though it is not given a very prominent place in the commentarial treatment of the path, which usually follows the canonical model in placing the jhānas before the development of insight.”
From the end:
“ The Commentaries speak even of a sukkhavipassaka arahant, an arahant who has gained the goal entirely through “dry insight,” without any attainment of form-sphere jhāna at all. Although such a type is not explicitly recognized in the Nikāyas, the question may be raised whether the Commentaries, in asserting the possibility of arahantship without attainment of jhāna in the mundane portion of the path, have deviated from the Canon or brought to light a viable possibility implict in the older texts.”
Thank you Stephen, this is very helpful.
Very hard not to praise BB who seems to be a constant source of good answers.
Orthodox theravada accepts dry insight, those who focuses on vipassana and may denigrate jhānas are usually of those camp.
MN64 says need Jhāna to become non-returner. So there are some ways of the orthodox theravada to try to reconcile with this sutta, like Jhāna at the moment of seeing nibbāna. See Bhante @kumara’s Jhāna book for more details.
Those who interpret Jhāna as Jhāna lite, then essentially agrees with dry insight people that deep Jhānas are not needed for enlightenment. The advantage of this compared to orthodox interpretation of deep Jhānas is easier reconciliation with MN64.
Those who interpret Jhānas as deep Jhānas, would then be the highest bar to practise for enlightenment, and totally dismisses dry insight as not possible. One can still use vipassana first then train in Jhānas, or both together, but eventually have to train in the deep Jhānas.
The suttas describe the path of dry insight (“released through discernment”):
it seems these kind of arahants still attain the four form jhanas (or at least they do not say that they do not).
This is misleading. Released by wisdom doesn’t mean no Jhāna.
The new arahants mentioned here do not deny that they have attained any of the four “form” jhānas that make up the definition of right concentration. Instead, they simply deny that they have acquired any psychic powers or that they remain in physical contact with the higher levels of concentration, “the formless states beyond forms.” In this, their definition of “release through discernment” is no different from that given in AN 9:44 (compare this with the definitions for “bodily witness” and “released in both ways” given in AN 9:43 and AN 9:45). Taken in the context of the Buddha’s many other teachings on right concentration (see in particular, AN 9:36), there’s every reason to believe that the new arahants mentioned in this discourse had reached at least the first jhāna before attaining awakening.
Bhante, about accounts like that in Ud 1.10, are those considered vipassana or samadhi at all, or an altogether different path to liberation?
yes, absolutely agree bhante. i believe the form jhanas are necessary for development along the path. i believe that the mistaken notion that one can attain enlightenment without jhana stems from a lack of understanding about what jhana is.
We don’t have access to Bahiya’s whole life history right? He might had gone into Jhāna when he was mistakenly worshipped as an arahant for just living the homeless life.
Still it feels a weird that having had samadhi experience (without liberation, so probably arguably wrong samadhi as well) is a gateway to dry insight later.
I’m pretty sure Sammasamadhi had a more broad understanding (with several other examples of people becoming arahant on just listening to a sermon) than specifically jhānās early on. For example, hearing a sermon and having an “Aha!” moment may well be a transcendent samadhi experience in this sense.
But having had some sort of samadhi experience also fits the first five bhikkhus, so I don’t know.
According to MN64, there is no such thing as dry insight. If you wish to use vipassana, then use that term.
I think it’s just that Jhānas makes the mind ready. When the mind is ready, see the right thing, it clicks. So the Jhānas doesn’t have to be accompanied by right view when it is done, but once right view plus Jhānas is there, sparks can happen.
Not as vipassana, but the “This sermon changed my life” kinda way (didn’t know what to call it).
This makes sense too. Now to think of it, all the said encounters are with various ascetics. I’ll see if there are exceptions.
Philosophy, while still far away from giving certain answers, has made progress since the time of the Buddha and especially in the theory of knowledge can show certain probabilities that are in full accord with the teachings of the Buddha, as per example his teaching in MN63 that it is not probable that anybody is going to reach full metaphysical insight during his lifetime.
So with many areas of his teachings not being entirely speculative anymore, but in line with the best contemporary philosophical and scientific hypotheses, I feel that dry insight may possibly be more likely to happen today …
I think what “dry insight” means is the possibility of liberating insight without a mind that is unified. I don’t know about that.
I believe dry insight is that insight that arises from the maturation of khanika samadhi (e.g. concentration on changing objects.)
Khanika samadhi is what is expressly being developed during Satipatthana practices.
This is an important point. As far as I understand it, the Commentaries and most modern teachers who reference is don’t equate dry insight with no samādhi. On the contrary, the samādhi required appears to be very close to jhāna.
If you’re using the definition of Jhāna as deep Jhāna, and dry insight does produce ariyas, then we should totally give the victory cup of the Jhāna wars to Jhāna lite as it is enough to get liberation.
Hi bhante, I’m not sure what you are asking.
Since we’re discussing a commentarial term, it would be the commentarial version of jhāna. Unfortunately I can’t locate a commentarial discussion of the depth required for dry insight. I thought the Visuddhimagga would discus it, but it does not seem to. 1
If dry insight works, then I would be more convinced of EBT teachers who claim Jhāna is lite jhāna to fit in MN64, than the commentarial notion of Jhāna as deep Jhāna and dry insight is possible.
Doesn’t matter for commentaries how deep is the samādhi for dry insight, just as long as it’s not absorption level, it’s not deep jhāna.
As I said, I am frustrated that I cannot locate any definitive accounts, but if I’m correct in my understanding, the requirement is the level of access concentration, where the hindrances are absent. There is, I think, a huge difference between that level of concentration and stillness and: