I’m fairly sure they’re not on the path of practice, and that he makes that clear, no? And so far as I remember, that is also clear in the sutta being referenced.
Ha ha very funny because the Buddha’s middle way is in fact jhāna
If you are not immersed, you are not in jhāna, and so cannot know jhāna.
If you do not enjoy jhāna, you are not in jhāna.
This is important. However, I do think it’s crucial to understand why this is so frequently heard. Why for example do people not feel the same compulsion to constantly warn against the dangers of mindfulness whenever satipatthāna is discussed? Or the ‘vipassana’ methods (which are basically satipatthāna practice)?
If we keep up this habit of always warning when talking about jhāna, which is so different to how we talk about the other teachings, then we may simply be perpetuating the anti-jhāna propaganda. Just because we have found a bit of their propaganda that has some logic to it, it does not mean that we need to perpetuate it. Do you see what I mean?
So, is there a danger in training in jhāna? Yes, just as their is with training in sati, or in sutta study, or in basically any Buddhist practice! So, let’s not single out jhāna. Otherwise it would be a bit like listing all the bad things any Jews have ever done whenever encountering a Jew. That would be rather inappropriate!
I can’t speak to the monks in the UK, but I never encountered anti-jhanaism in the forest monasteries in Thailand that I visited. I’ve heard the warning about getting pulled off track by blissful states in meditation (every Buddhist tradition I’ve encountered has this), but was never told to not strive for jhana. If you went to any of the monks I personally knew in Thailand, including my teacher, and told them you were aiming for jhana, I’m sure they would be supportive. However, like I said, my teacher kept running into people who would undervalue whatever amount of samadhi they had attained, become discouraged, and potentially stop practicing because they hadn’t hit a jhana yet.
Whilst the TFT at Amaravati do de-emphasise jhāna when I was staying there they were more than happy to answer my questions about them, in terms of practice.
I am happy that you have agreed with most of what I have said. I think the whole argument depends on whether Samadhi and jhāna are two separate things. I think they are used in the discourses with the same meaning. Except that, instead of saying 1st Samadhi, it is called 1st jhāna. Please correct me if I am wrong.
But, the problem arises when we try to associate psychic powers such as the ability to see past lives etc., with Samadhi or jhāna. I do not think that psychic powers are an automatic development of Samadhi or jhāna. In fact, they are totally unnecessary and the Buddha never encouraged them. Take the case of Susima (SN 12.70) for example.
In fact, the Buddha did not encourage undue attachment to Samadhi or jhāna even because, for the Buddha they were all formations saṅkhāra. Take for example MN.52 wherein the Buddha says that even this first absorption is produced by formations and intentions “idampikho paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ abhisaṅkhataṃ abhisañcetayitaṃ.”
So my conclusion is that the eighth factor of the noble path as culmination of the overall path is simply a gradual or four step stilling of all formations saṅkhāra which the Arahant lives by. This is what the Buddha too did until his last moment as you have correctly stated.
With Metta
Did you ask them about jhāna? I find that is the easiest way to start getting to know their view. Just to give another example, almost no Westerners seem to know that Tibetan Buddhism rejects jhāna practice. But this coincided with them never asking about it. Though in this case it also involves linguistic confusions and knowing how to ask questions to Tibetans on that topic in a way that they will actually know what you’re talking about! (བསམ་གཏན་བཞི་)
Well, that’s good! Though on the other hand, were you ever guided in jhāna meditation? If not, it might be that they have abandoned the practice. Though like I said, it seems Ajahn Chah was practicing jhāna! But just chose to not teach it overtly (or at least not often/openly?), perhaps due to the social pressures.
Yeah, sure, so perhaps some teachers only mention it to advanced students, like Chah seemed to be doing. Though I think there is something important here. And this relates to aim vs aimless.
Take thoughtlessness for example. You can aim to stop thoughts in meditation. And for some people, the best way to stop thoughts, involves not trying to stop thoughts. But what do we mean by ‘not trying’? What we do not mean, is, sit by the TV with a beer. We actually mean, try! Sit in meditation for an extended period many times a day for weeks or months! But, while you are actually sitting, use special means to deeply relax but maintain clarity. And, relinquishing any gross effort can be a vital part of that. So from that perspective, you are ‘not trying’. Though in fact, from the wider perspective of you doing this repeated daily activity day after day, you are actually trying!
Then I have a metaphor for you. I teach music. A student may have good potential, but be a beginner. I will not continually tell them ‘You must be like a qualified master player!’ No, instead I will encourage them at their level, guiding them step by step. But if that is really their aim, I will acknowledge that, and help them attain it.
That aim is hard to achieve, just like jhāna. But that doesn’t mean we need to deny it or hide it. We simply need to not be neurotic about it, or be inappropriately impatient at attaining it. So this is not only for jhāna. It’s for any art really!
But things turn bad when you have a music teacher who is not a master player, doesn’t know any master players, and their students think that becoming a master player is only a thing from old texts or some incredibly rare beings, so then they give up even having any such aim, and become satisfied to all only ever learn to a very preliminary stage, at which their arms are moving in a way that resembles musicians, but there is only noise coming out, not music. I think much of Buddhism today gives us that situation.
Awesome! No wonder he’s not anti-jhāna then! It’s too easy to be anti jhāna for people who have never practiced jhāna.
Was the teacher answering you, a jhāna practitioner?
Samatha, samādhi, and jhāna, are all related words and in some usages equivelent, but they are not synonyms. And I think this is common in Pāli, so nothing unusual in this. The 4 jhāna fall under the umbrella of samādhi, and samatha.
In Mahāyāna they made many many different ‘samādhis’. With many glorious names. Maybe that influence is behind the wish to think of a ‘1st samādhi’ etc.?
If we think in English for a moment, and consider ‘samādhi’ as ‘concentration’, we can say we want to improve concentration, so we do jhāna. We can easily think in terms of these two categories, no problem, even though one is a subset of the other.
Why is that a problem?
Why do you not think they develop from concentration practice? Is this based on empirical data you have collected? If not, then… on what? And… I tend to disagree, based both on the texts and on my life experience. I do not expect my experience to help my argument when dealing with others, but, it seems to me from minds observed, that powers that can be viewed as ‘magical’ tend to often have a direct correlation with concentration training.
Are you so sure he never encouraged them? He did in fact praise students with psychic powers, and they do also give people more capability to help others. And, the Buddha frequently used his own, such as reading minds for example. I think views against them increased, probably with the same dominance of scholarly hierarchy over practitioners, as time went on.
But anyway… to follow your argument, you seem to be saying that “the problem” was the psychic powers and that they are not necessary. I do not see how this is a problem at all. There’s a bi-product, which is not necessary. And also potentially very helpful for compassionate action. Where is the problem?
The Buddha did not encourage undue attachment to eating rice. Should we employ great efforts in continually warning people against eating rice, on that basis?
I’ve never been to any of the Western branch monasteries in that tradition. So I’ve never had the chance to ask, but while in Thailand I met Western monks from those branch monasteries. None of them were anti-jhana.
I don’t think they see jhana as something you practice. It’s the result of profound sati and samadhi coming together. So you “practice” jhana by practicing anapanasati, and when you take it far enough you enter a jhana.
Some of those masters won’t bother discussing it if they think you aren’t anywhere near attaining one. They feel you should be focusing on the practice you need to do right now. They sometimes respond like this to other questions, too. It happened to me before.
One monk asked Tan Ajahn Piak about jhanas, and he said something like, “Why don’t you ask one of these old women from the village who come to the bi-weekly all night sessions? The meditate all night. Their meditation seems to be quite good!”
Yeah, that makes sense. I guess in that case it largely depends on the way a specific teacher guides a specific student. And so that may be perfect and potentially can lead swiftly to jhāna. I guess what also comes to mind, is that aide from the way they are communicating… the actual intention they are holding in mind. For example, there are some teachers who explicitly teach jhāna, and the teaching is focused around that. And sometimes having a specific intention to do something, and teaching tailored specifically for that, can really help make it happen. in the case of any art, in general! Including jhāna. But yes if a teacher held that intention and guided a student with that intention, then it’s possible to do that without even making that verbally explicit to the student with words such as ‘jhāna’.
On the other hand, if a teacher doesn’t talk about jhāna, we must be careful (in general cases, not yours) to not assume they are practicing, teaching, or intending, jhāna. (I have encountered Tibetan Buddhists for example who make that unfounded assumption).
I’m wondering if that was because their meditation was better than the student’s but that none of them had attained jhāna, or, perhaps the women were actually well accomplished in jhāna! I think in general it’s easier for women to attain jhāna.
[quote=“Nimal, post:67, topic:19709”]
Probably, they develop from Samadhi but the point is that they are totally unnecessary. [/quote]
Why is that “the point”? I don’t see how this is connected to the topic really. What is ‘pointfull’ about this point?
No, sorry I would have to trawl from them and don’t have time but you’re welcome to! You may also remember that we only know the Buddha was doing jhāna as he was dying, because of his famously psychic meditation master student… I forget, was it Anuruddha perhaps?
Yes indeed I cannot see a point to your point. Perhaps you can elucidate?
They answered some of my questions and then directed me to some material that they thought would be helpful. I got the impression they didn’t practice the jhānā, but they did not discourage me from doing so. Far from it.
Here’s a sutta I just happened upon, very relevant to this discussion. DN 18:
Seven Prerequisites of Immersion
Sattasamādhiparikkhāra
“What do the good gods of the Thirty-Three think about how much the Buddha has clearly described the seven prerequisites of immersion for the development and fulfillment of right immersion?
“Taṁ kiṁ maññanti, bhonto devā tāvatiṁsā, yāva supaññattā cime tena bhagavatā jānatā passatā arahatā sammāsambuddhena satta samādhiparikkhārā sammāsamādhissa paribhāvanāya sammāsamādhissa pāripūriyā.
What seven?
Katame satta? Right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, and right mindfulness.
Sammādiṭṭhi sammāsaṅkappo sammāvācā sammākammanto sammāājīvo sammāvāyāmo sammāsati.
Unification of mind with these seven factors as prerequisites is called noble right immersion ‘with its vital conditions’ and ‘with its prerequisites’.
Yā kho, bho, imehi sattahaṅgehi cittassa ekaggatā parikkhatā, ayaṁ vuccati, bho, ariyo sammāsamādhi saupaniso itipi saparikkhāro itipi.
Right view gives rise to right thought. Right thought gives rise to right speech. Right speech gives rise to right action. Right action gives rise to right livelihood. Right livelihood gives rise to right effort. Right effort gives rise to right mindfulness. Right mindfulness gives rise to right immersion. Right immersion gives rise to right knowledge. Right knowledge gives rise to right freedom.
Sammādiṭṭhissa, bho, sammāsaṅkappo pahoti, sammāsaṅkappassa sammāvācā pahoti, sammāvācassa sammākammanto pahoti. Sammākammantassa sammāājīvo pahoti, sammāājīvassa sammāvāyāmo pahoti, sammāvāyāmassa sammāsati pahoti, sammāsatissa sammāsamādhi pahoti, sammāsamādhissa sammāñāṇaṁ pahoti, sammāñāṇassa sammāvimutti pahoti.
Exactly. The Noble Path to Nibbana has eight steps, including Samma Samadhi. Upto the fifth step one has to fulfill the restraint of mind, speech, and physical actions. Then at the sixth step, by reflecting he will start the mindfulness. At the seventh stage, he develops Satipatthanas which leads to Samma Samadhi, the Jhanas, to attain/experience liberation.
Academic arguments will never take anybody to the position of understanding the Truth, The Dhamma.
There is a beautiful sutta named Venagapura Sutta. Reference: AN, tikanipāta, dutiyapaṇṇāsakaṃ, mahāvaggo, venāgapurasuttaṃ
This would be a false association. Dhyana is simply a Sanskrit equivalent of the Pali word. In point of fact, EBTs existed in multiple vernacular languages, Pali being only one of them. The only reason I use “dhyana” in my translations of Chinese EBTs is because it’s unclear what the original language was. So, it’s rather difficult to actually know exactly how the Indic words were pronounced. Sanskrit is just a convenient stand in, and it’s better for Northern texts because they typically follow Sanskrit readings rather than Pali readings when the two diverge.
Sorry I didn’t get back to this earlier. Generally speaking, dhyāna is handled in a similar way as it is in Pali. However, samadhi seems more meaningful in the Agamas; it’s much less common for it to simply refer to the four dhyānas. Rather, I’ve seen passages that basically say dhyāna is a way to achieve samadhi. These debates are usually driven by Pali readings alone, which is a little unfortunate. It’s really Theravadins having arguments over the Theravada canon more than it is an general investigation of EBT sources. Of course, not having good translations of the Agamas doesn’t help the situation.
When we look at, for example, what causes liberation in Sarvâstivāda sources, it’s pretty clear that they considered the four noble truths to be what leads to liberation, not samādhi itself. Samādhi is a necessary means, but the realization of the four noble truths what causes liberation.
This sounds very interesting; can you expand on this a little more with some examples?
Yes, sadly. But, at the same time, there’s still so much more out there even beyond just the Pāli and the Āgamas as well–besides what’s been lost. Ugh! We are so impoverished.
I don’t know much, but Bhikkhu Bodhi’s article on the Susima Sutta parallels hints a bit at this. (I just finished reading it for school.) Examples?
The example of the four noble truths playing a more explicit role that stands out for me is SA 785, which I mentioned earlier in the thread. That sutra connects the four noble truths as the topic of reflection in all eight steps of the path when one is on the supermundane path to liberation. It’s closest parallel that I know of is MN 117, but that Pali equivalent doesn’t define right samādhi.
In terms of samādhi, it is equated with the four dhyānas in sutras like MA 189 ( which also parallels MN 117) and SA 715 ( = SN 46.2 & 51 which don’t mention jhāna). In both SA 784 and 785, which define the eightfold path, it’s described as a focused, undistracted, concentrated state of mind without mention of dhyāna.
Basically, I’m not really pro or anti-dhyāna. It’s clearly an important method of meditation in EBTs. I do feel like maybe it became more central later in Buddhist history, but it’s just the impression I get from examples like SA 784-785. Maybe some schools of early Buddhism emphasized it more than others.
I do wonder about the relationship of the dhyānas with miraculous powers and rebirth in Brahma heavens as something that created ambivalence for Buddhists. There are texts that make a big deal out of miraculous powers and texts that downplay them to the point of renouncing the whole subject. There was also the issue of two kinds of arhats that probably was the result of that. So, I suppose these arguments have been happening for a long time.
The idea that the history of Buddhism should be split between “early” Theravada and “late” Mahayana is outdated, inaccurate, and potentially harmful. Indian Buddhism had many groups and developments in its long history. Those groups and traditions gradually coalesced around Sanskrit.
Having agamas and other EBT materials in a form familiar to Northern Buddhist traditions also creates a powerful case that while these texts had very different lineages and histories, they ultimately do agree on many things. Forcing texts and terminology to conform to Southern forms and expectations, on the other hand, weakens the position of the EBT’s along with the case for their overall relevance.
I couldn’t place it in memory when I replied earlier, but here’s one example of a passage that refers to samādhi being the result of practicing dhyāna (actually, all eight samādhis if we call the four dhyānas varieties of samādhi): MA 176 Practicing Dhyāna (link is in Chinese, it hasn’t been translated yet).
It doesn’t have a Pali parallel, but it’s notable because it takes the practice of the four dhyānas and four formless samādhis as it’s main subject, which is something that’s hard to find in Agamas and Nikāyas. It doesn’t tell us that much; essentially, it says that there’s a interruption when moving from one dhyāna or samādhi to the next, and a practitioner can become confused about how to proceed. They can think they have the right way to enter the next state but do it wrong, or they can actually have the right way to progress but think they are doing it wrong. In both cases, they “lose their samādhi,” whether it’s a dhyāna or a formless samādhi that’s being practiced.
A sutta that comes to mind is AN 9.35 where like an incompetent cow an unskillful bhikkhu tries to move on prematurely to the next jhana and is then stuck…
This is called a mendicant who has slipped and fallen from both sides.
The sutta is unique, and so is this description “slipped and fallen from both sides” (bhikkhu ubhato bhaṭṭho ubhato parihīno).
I’m wondering if that was because their meditation was better than the student’s but that none of them had attained jhāna, or, perhaps the women were actually well accomplished in jhāna! I think in general it’s easier for women to attain jhāna.