It was interesting to read that also Analayo comes to the conclusion that - to make it short - the suttas don’t contain a good detailed description of samma-samadhi. He proposes that back then the audience knew what was meant and that’s why the suttas are silent about it. I suggest that already at that time the knowledge was lost…
Anyhow, what do we make of this - it’s frustrating, no? The authority of the suttas describes somehow the conditions for samadhi (sila for example, unification of the mind, etc.), but beyond that how do we substitute for the lost knowledge? Back to contemporary teachers?
If the Buddha stated that he realised the way to awakening was via jhāna then that would heavily support the idea that jhāna is required for awakening, thus being Right Samādhi. I believe that narrative has parallels in a number of northern texts, no?
Why is there so heavy aversion to rely on contemporary teachers? I rely on Ajahn Brahm’s teachings. Anyway, one can read EBT and come out with various interpretations as well. I personally see it that Jhanas are clearly samma samadhi. Since many people can read EBT in different ways, it’s safe to rely on people who had done the practise instead of reinventing the whole wheel, seeing that others who had reinvented the wheel placed the centre at a different place, or missing a spoke (of not seeing samma samadhi as Jhanas).
Obviously there are good meditation teachers out there. In Buddhism the general claim of teachers is that their teachings directly derive from a correct interpretation of the suttas (or from their teachers who correctly interpreted the suttas).
But when we go to the source and see that their supposed clear interpretation is in fact very shaky, based on very few suttas (e.g. the handful that defines sammasamadhi as jhanas) or on probably later compilation-suttas (satipatthana), then naturally for a number of follwers their faith in the teacher is reduced.
And in the end it’s not too far off the situation in Hinduism where contemporary gurus all have their own interpretation of what the Bhagavat-Gita says. Or in Advaita where we rely on the very specific interpretation of Shankara of the Upanisads.
It’s more blurry in Hinduism and more reliant on the divine inspiration of the Guru, but it could turn out that maybe also in Buddhism - partly because of lost teachings - spiritual development on the level of sotapatii etc. is not open for everyone to see but limited to a few gifted individuals.
Or, in short: To some practitioners it matters if meditation-related suttas are reliably coming from the oldest layers of suttas, or not.
Speaking from practitioner’s point of view, I think a lot of the outer differences is due to the different ways to present to newcomers. Going deep, the experience seems to be the same.
However, there’s also a possibility of people not going deep due to different views, thus different practise. One might want to investigate the various traditions themselves via retreats. Since there’s no clear way to settle the matter from the suttas alone.
If one base one’s meditation on analysis of oldest suttas, there’s a danger of misanalysis of the age of suttas and misunderstanding the Buddha’s messages. Most meditation tips I had seen and heard and learnt, are not found in the suttas, but are common in many different teachers, regardless of whether they emphasise on Jhanas or not.
To reflect on the original meaning of sammā samādhi it can be also helpful to go back to the root meaning of both terms in Pali and Sanskrit and to the way the term samādhi was used in the ancient Pantajali Yogic scriptures.
I don’t know if you meant that, but an etymological look at samadhi won’t tell us how the Buddha conceptualized it. This must remain vague, just as ‘put together’ is.
Besides, Patanjali doesn’t offer a look on the original meaning, being 1. several centuries after the Buddha 2. Yoga itself being influenced by Buddhism.
Yes, but still I found reflection on root meanings useful and also on Indian yogic perspective - not to get too attached to any ‘right’ translations, but rather focus on cultivating the whole path and let direct understanding unfold gradually naturally. Like in science, impossible to know the full or correct meaning of phenomena just by comparing texts.
Hope all EBT followers are well aware of this sutta:
"Mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta — Bhikkhu Sujato
Long Discourses 22
The Longer Discourse on Mindfulness Meditation"
“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 confidence, and unified mind, 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.”
What is Right Samadhi ?
Right Samadhi has two fold .
The Right Samadhi that is of worldly , ordinary , tainted , attached , resulted in good planes . And Right Samadhi that is noble , exalted , taintless , detached , completely ending suffering and bring suffering
to its end .
Sure, but MN113 does indicate that a person can have all these impressive meditative attainments and still, nonetheless, be prideful and not be at the end of the path, i.e. that jhana does not necessarily imply enlightenment, which was the point you were making earlier I think. On jhana, sure, it seems to me from the suttas that it is an intrinsic and unavoidable part of the path (at least the later stages anyway, though perhaps not stream entry as others have argued).
IMO, samma samadhi is not about the jhana experience, but about how to direct the unified mind to gain insight into fenomena as it is in order to destroy defilements as a culmination of Buddhist gradual training
What I find the most interesting about the definition in SA 785 is that it makes the more subtle point that unless right samadhi is directed towards realizing the four noble truths, it leads to better rebirth in the heavens instead of liberation. In the context of thinking about dhyana relationship to samadhi, it isn’t mentioned specifically. But neither is any other specific meditation. Samadhi is presented as a general quality of an unconfused, focused mind.
So, from the point of view of the Sarvastivada (at least), right samadhi seems to be a catch-all for any practice that leads to a focused mind that can penetrate the four noble truths.
Admittedly, though, SA 785 reads very much like an abhidharma sutra. We know that later Sarvastivada abhidharma contains an elaborate model of liberation as a sequence of realizations of the four noble truths.
This is a good point. I think the Buddha’s decision to stop practicing the formless samadhis and switch to the dhyanas is in most (if not all) traditions. Still, what I wonder about is that it’s a four abodes of mindfulness that seem to get special treatment as the “one way to liberation” in a number of sutras. Perhaps that’s because it’s the gateway to more advanced meditation? Or was it considered sufficient by itself? I don’t know, just asking questions.
Yes, that’s a common Theravada understanding. These are places we see these divergences between traditions. In Chinese Buddhism, breath meditation and the abodes of mindfulness have been a focus lately because they figure prominently in the Agamas.
Yes, the preceding steps are necessary. But the anti-jhāna people tend to ignore the fact that it’s a sequential path, all 7 previous steps specifically leading to jhāna, which is the whole point of the preceding steps in the system.
And the argument that the preceding steps are also necessary, in no was takes away from the argument. Of course I don’t think that’s what you were doing, but, many people do argue like that. But it’s like determining the point of making a meal. Organising a bowl to put the food in, is a preliminary step in serving the food. And if someone said that serving the food is the point, or that eating the food is the point (analogous to the final step - where bodily utilisation of the nutrients represents the 2 fruits of the path), then one cannot counter that view by saying ‘the bowl is also important’. Or, ‘the food is not right if not served in a bowl’.
Saying the food is the point, is not to say that one should not put it in a bowl! Just so, no jhāna advocate (whom I have ever met anyway) is saying not to serve the food in a bowl! It’s just that so many people nowadays (and in a growing trend over the last 2 millennia) are claiming that the bowl is the point, and that you should reject or fear the food!
Also worth remembering that if we follow this analogy further, we can say the Buddha as a kid, ate food without any plate at all. With zero training in Buddhist ethics, or mindfulness, he spontaneously entered the 1st jhāna. So we must also be careful in how rigid we think of the prerequisites. The Noble Eightfold path is just teaching material - a useful way someone devised of making a jhāna training scheme. So it’s a very useful guide for anyone wanting to train in this practice the BUddha discovered, and spent his whole career training people in.
Why should one of them be wrong? The Buddha is recorded as saying things like… wherever the Noble Eightfold Path is found, … arahants are found… or something like that, right? I forget exactly.
But my first thought is actually less focused on that kind of ‘PR’ text (advertising), and more practical. It’s one thing to merely attain all 4 jhānas - it’s another thing to continuously train in them so that realisation becomes established. That repetition is essential.
Here’s just one example of the typical contextualisation of jhāna in the suttas, from AN5.166`:
A senior mendicant with these five qualities is dear and beloved to their spiritual companions, respected and admired.
Imehi kho, upavāṇa, pañcahi dhammehi samannāgato thero bhikkhu sabrahmacārīnaṁ piyo ca hoti manāpo ca garu ca bhāvanīyo ca.
If these five qualities are not found in a senior mendicant, why would their spiritual companions honor, respect, revere, or venerate them? Because of their broken teeth, gray hair, and wrinkled skin?
Ime ce, upavāṇa, pañca dhammā therassa bhikkhuno na saṁvijjeyyuṁ, taṁ sabrahmacārī na sakkareyyuṁ na garuṁ kareyyuṁ na māneyyuṁ na pūjeyyuṁ khaṇḍiccena pāliccena valittacatāya.
But since these five qualities are found in a senior mendicant, their spiritual companions honor, respect, revere, or venerate them.”
Yasmā ca kho, upavāṇa, ime pañca dhammā therassa bhikkhuno saṁvijjanti, tasmā taṁ sabrahmacārī sakkaronti garuṁ karonti mānenti pūjentī”ti.
He said this in confirming that the question he had put to Upavāṇa had been answered correctly. Here’s what Upavāṇa had replied - I include the Buddha’s question:
The Buddha:
“Upavāṇa, how many qualities should a senior mendicant have to be dear and beloved to their spiritual companions, respected and admired?”
“Katihi nu kho, upavāṇa, dhammehi samannāgato thero bhikkhu sabrahmacārīnaṁ piyo ca hoti manāpo ca garu ca bhāvanīyo cā”ti?
Upavāṇa:
“Sir, a senior mendicant with five qualities is dear and beloved to their spiritual companions, respected and admired.
“Pañcahi, bhante, dhammehi samannāgato thero bhikkhu sabrahmacārīnaṁ piyo ca hoti manāpo ca garu ca bhāvanīyo ca.
What five?
Katamehi pañcahi?
It’s when a mendicant is ethical, restrained in the code of conduct, with good behavior and supporters. Seeing danger in the slightest fault, they keep the rules they’ve undertaken.
Idha, bhante, thero bhikkhu sīlavā hoti …pe… samādāya sikkhati sikkhāpadesu;
They’re very learned, remembering and keeping what they’ve learned. These teachings are good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end, meaningful and well-phrased, describing a spiritual practice that’s totally full and pure. They are very learned in such teachings, remembering them, reciting them, mentally scrutinizing them, and comprehending them theoretically.
bahussuto hoti …pe… diṭṭhiyā suppaṭividdhā;
They’re a good speaker, with a polished, clear, and articulate voice that expresses the meaning.
kalyāṇavāco hoti kalyāṇavākkaraṇo poriyā vācāya samannāgato vissaṭṭhāya anelagalāya atthassa viññāpaniyā; Variant: anelagalāya → anelagaḷāya (sya-all, km)
They get the four absorptions—blissful meditations in the present life that belong to the higher mind—when they want, without trouble or difficulty.
catunnaṁ jhānānaṁ ābhicetasikānaṁ diṭṭhadhammasukhavihārānaṁ nikāmalābhī hoti akicchalābhī akasiralābhī;
They realize the undefiled freedom of heart and freedom by wisdom in this very life. And they live having realized it with their own insight due to the ending of defilements.
āsavānaṁ khayā …pe… sacchikatvā upasampajja viharati.
A senior mendicant with these five qualities is dear and beloved to their spiritual companions, respected and admired.”
Imehi kho, bhante, pañcahi dhammehi samannāgato thero bhikkhu sabrahmacārīnaṁ piyo ca hoti manāpo ca garu ca bhāvanīyo cā”ti.
I think I prefer Bodhi’s translation ‘He gains at will, without trouble or difficulty, the four jhānas…’ in terms of keeping jhāna untranslated, and using the verb gains instead of gets. But anyway, the pint here as is totally standard, is that mastering jhāna is seen as fundamentally important, and is ranked directly preceding wisdom, which is the fruit. This is totally standard in the Buddha’s teaching. Wisdom is consistently seen as deriving from jhāna as the preceding step. And sati only even gets a mention in some of those schemes, along with various other details of the prerequisites. Here a monk’s value is actually judged by:
their morality,
their grasp of the teaching material, which in that context of course revolved largely around memorisation, it being an oral culture,
effectiveness as a communicator (essential for serving the community as a dhamma teacher)
their actual mastery of practice, which is summarised simply as jhāna - this highlights the position it was given back then. Beyond the fundamentals of ethical behaviour and doctrine (covered above), the practice path was entirely focused on jhāna!
their attainment of the fruit of practice - wisdom.
Here’s another typical example of how much the Buddha was defined as a jhāna guy, and how jhāna is directly paired with wisdom. It’s the gods’ view of the Buddha, from AN 9.42:
‘The opening amid confinement
‘Sambādhe gataṁ okāsaṁ,
was discovered by the Buddha of vast intelligence, Avidvā bhūrimedhaso;
who woke up to absorption [jhāna],
Yo jhānamabujjhi buddho,
the sage, the solitary bull.’
Paṭilīnanisabho munī’ti.
Maybe that’s similar to asking if food ingredients can by themselves automatically lead to a meal? Or, perhaps whether food by itself leads to your body gaining nutrients? The answer of which would respectively be - no, you need to do work with the ingredients to make them into a meal. And no, you need to eat the food in order to gain the nutrients.
How this applies to your question is that you present this idea of “4th jhana automatically (without any further intention, insight, wisdon)”. Since wisdom arises due to samatha, why would you want to make a hypothetical situation where insight/wisdom does not lead on from jhāna?
I think much confusion has arisen from the modern Theravada movement and their idea of discrete ‘vipassana practice’ and as if vipassana can only arise through doing their new practices. I do not see that view in the EBTs. Not least because their practices (aside maybe from anapanasati (sorry too lazy for diacritics just now) do not exist in the suttas. Though they do have some basis in satipatthana, the 7th step of the path (one step further away from wisdom than jhāna!).
I personally recommend using the term ‘jhāna’ when referring to the EBT concept. This can help differentiate the concept from the later Mahayana concept/s of dhyāna. I know that we may have some EBTs in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, but nevertheless, I suggest that this is a very useful practice, since usually when one finds the word ‘dhyāna’ being used, it is in reference to Mahayana concept/s, which differs from the EBT concept.
According the to doctrine of the EBTs, the 4 jhāna are essential for becoming an arahant. This view permeates the EBTs.
I’m basing that both on the Pāli and Chinese. I have not done any systematic analysis contrasting āgama from āgama on that, so can’t give much input regarding differentiating them - I think most of my āgama jhāna study may come from MĀ but surely some from others.
I can also say that I have never seen any argument based on EBTs that can refute the position. However if you think that one of the āgamas gives a consistent doctrine of jhāna being unnecessary, I welcome you to provide your data!
Jhāna is a subcategory of the category ‘samādhi’. The title of the step is concise and descriptive. If you want to know what that step actually is, beyond its title, you have to study the definition, as with any of the other steps. And the definition naturally contains other words. I think there is nothing unusual in that.
The way you have quoted this makes it seem that this part I have highlighted is specifically referring to sammā samādhi. So allow me to quote the context:
And how does a mendicant with good friends develop and cultivate the noble eightfold path?
Kathañca, bhikkhave, bhikkhu kalyāṇamitto ariyaṁ aṭṭhaṅgikaṁ maggaṁ bhāveti, ariyaṁ aṭṭhaṅgikaṁ maggaṁ bahulīkaroti?
It’s when a mendicant develops right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion, which rely on seclusion, fading away, and cessation, and ripen as letting go.
Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu sammādiṭṭhiṁ bhāveti vivekanissitaṁ virāganissitaṁ nirodhanissitaṁ vossaggapariṇāmiṁ …pe… sammāsamādhiṁ bhāveti vivekanissitaṁ virāganissitaṁ nirodhanissitaṁ vossaggapariṇāmiṁ.
What makes you think that the highlighted part is not in fact referring to the entire section I have italicised? Do you have any linguistic reason for assuming that instead, this actually represents one single step of the 8, being elaborated on? That seems the much less likely interpretation in my opinion but if you have some reasoning based on the Pāli, please explain. Also note that Sujato seems to agree with my interpretation. Otherwise he would have to have written ‘which relies on’, singular not plural. Admittedly, some punctuation could have made this clearer.
And if you’d like something from SN, bear in mind that the Noble Eightfold Path is only one of many teaching schemes for presenting the path. So here’s an extract on the five faculties from SN 48.10:
“Mendicants, there are these five faculties.
“Pañcimāni, bhikkhave, indriyāni.
What five?
Katamāni pañca?
The faculties of faith, energy, mindfulness, immersion [samādhi], and wisdom.
Saddhindriyaṁ …pe… paññindriyaṁ.
As with the 8fold path, it’s progressive, mindfulness precedes samādhi, and samādhi is the last practice step, with wisdom being the fruit at end of the list (which the 8fold path therefore does not cover).
And how does this sutta define the faculty of samādhi? Precisely as the 4 jhānas:
And what is the faculty of immersion?
Katamañca, bhikkhave, samādhindriyaṁ?
It’s when a noble disciple, relying on letting go, gains immersion, gains unification of mind.
Idha, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako vossaggārammaṇaṁ karitvā labhati samādhiṁ, labhati cittassa ekaggataṁ.
Quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, they enter and remain in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion [… and so on]
Hopefully my example above will challenge your assumption. I don’t have time to provide more unfortunately, but I hope you can see this as an example of how we maybe should not search too narrowly. We have more ways of understanding the fundamental position of jhāna than merely 8fold path definitions. Jhāna doctrine saturates the canon. And the various different schemes that present the path, the 8fold path being just one of those many schemes.
I will clarify in case this is in reference to what I have written - when I say ‘enlightenment’, I refer to becoming an arahant. I think this is the most standard usage (along with becoming a Buddha of course, though there is no difference between those two in the EBTs). I was not referring to the lower 3 stages of awakening. And I agree, you can attain stream entry without jhāna. But that’s a different topic.
I have personally encountered strong anti-jhāna views from monks in the UK from the Thai Forest Tradition. I find this quite ironic since I have also read jhāna teachings from Ajahn Chah given to advanced retreatants. However, I think most Westerners would miss that, because of the careful language Chah used. And from reading what he was saying, I felt it highly likely that he was doing that because he was conscious of and caution of the anti-jhāna position common in modern Theravada culture. So he was basically teaching it but avoiding ‘trigger words’ while doing so! And, perhaps he talked differently or was simply silent about it, to more common students…?
I think most long term meditators fail to attain them because they’re not even trying to attain them. Or because they’re actively avoiding them, as so very many people are told to do. I think what has happened is that many many teachers think they are bad, but dare not say so, since the Buddha taught them. So instead of saying they’re bad, they say something like;
Yes they are good but very dangerous, you can get addicted and go wrong, we will therefore do something else.
And to help their narrative they sometimes even repeat total fiction such as:
They are non-Buddhist practices and the Buddha rejected them
So, just be aware. Fiction abounds!
Does your teacher practice jhāna?
And, yes since meditation practice is mental rather than physical, misunderstandings can occur and things can be mistaken. One of the strangest groups I’ve encountered is that of Thanissaro - his followers seem to have a strong blind faith attitude to his teachings, and he seems to have a really rather strange view of jhāna, that seems at odds with the EBTs. But I think it’s to be expected that people have different ideas about it, and may differ in interpretation of exactly what states qualify as jhāna or not. It’s a rare practice. But I suppose whatever states one is really attaining, so long as concentration is improving, and wisdom is resulting, it should be good! And… if you cannot rest your mind on a physical object such as your breath, uninterruptedly for say half an hour without any though and only one pointed clarity on the object, then there’s along way to go before even needing to worry about precisely which state qualifies as X jhāna. Though of course, having a good practice and a good teacher will be pretty much essential for coming to any of this swiftly.
I agree with basically everything you said above this. But I thought just for balance, I would remind you that the Buddha continued to practice jhāna his entire career after enlightenment, and was famous for doing so. It was even the last thing he did before dying. I say this to balance the anti-jhāna propaganda that constantly paints jhāna as dangerous and addictive.
