Hi Apeiron
It would seem your question is from the standard traditional/commentarial explanation of the path, basically how the commentator Bh. Buddhaghosa explains it, who lived about 1000 years after the Buddha, but it is (partly) based on texts ascribed to Sāriputta and Dhammadinna, but I think they were added later.
That explanation seems to say even the 4 jhaana are deep meditative experiences and are (partly?) needed before the development of Insight. So, you see the problem, this makes liberation very hard to obtain, or out of reach of more/many people.
I don’t accept Buddhaghosa’s explanation, which is dogmatically accepted/blindly believed in many Theravada circles. Other traditions follow their own commentators, such as Shantideva.
I believe the Buddha is the ultimate teacher and he does not need the help of commentators to explain/interpret his teaching, but rather we have to interpret it ourselves following the advice of the Buddha on how to study his teaching. find our own salvation (I have tried to collect that advice here: (PDF) The Method of Studying Buddha-Dhamma | Joe Smith - Academia.edu and would appreciate people tell me if they know of other advice I have missed.) We do need translators, of course, but it can be hard to avoid interpreting.
In another post/thread, I have spoken about my understanding of jhana, but I cannot find it at the moment. So my summary is:
-the Buddha spoke so little of sati, but so much and so clearly of jhāna
-the last words of the Buddha addressed ‘mindfulness’ or ‘heedfulness’, which I think is so very important, but the word ‘sati’ was not used, rather ‘appamāda’. We find a definition of ‘sati’ as ‘recalling things said and done long ago’ i.e. memory. This speaks to me of semantic change in the meaning of ‘sati’ and this clear simple definition, is what I believe is the original one and the way the Buddha used the term. We find uses of sati with different meanings in the EBTs, which to me, are examples of the semantic change in the meaning of ‘sati’ over time.
-he said after testing the two extremes, that he remembered a jhāna experience (with happiness) as a boy, that was not connected with the five sense-pleasures and realised ‘that was the middle way (that avoided the two extremes)’, not just the last step of the eightfold path.
So, I had to look at the explanation of the four jhāna, called ‘rūpa-jhāna’ by Buddhaghosa, but not the Buddha, because Buddhaghosa called the formless attainments ‘arūpa-jhāna’ and all jhāna seem to be deep states for Buddhaghosa.
So for me, ‘jhāna’ means, what Buddhaghosa calls and many Buddhist, who follow him, call ‘rūpa-jhāna’. From reading the suttas, even the jhāna explanation itself, they (the 4) are experienced in everyday living (viharati) and are not deep states of meditation. It is only the formless attainments that are deep states of meditation, outside of everyday life, because everyday life requires dealing with form.
From a very close look at the jhāna explanation itself, there are 11-13 factors, not Bh. Sariputta’s and Buddhaghosa’s 5 and it is only the second jhāna that is said to have ‘samādhi’. I do not accept the teaching that the (4) jhāna are the definition of Right Concentration, but I accept the simpler and I believe the original definition of: any concentration with the previous path factors is Right Concentration: SuttaCentral. (You can see my study of samādhi and jhāna here: (PDF) Concentration - Jhāna, Samādhi From Comparative Studies of Pali Texts | Joe Smith - Academia.edu)
Comparing the 11-13 factors with other presentations of the path, shows to me that ‘jhāna is the Middle Way’ just as the Buddha said. You can see my comparative chart here, where I call jhāna ‘awareness’: (PDF) 20091228 Whoever sees Dependent Arising, sees Dhamma - Comparative Chart 2 | Joe Smith - Academia.edu.
I would say:
- ethics/morality is necessary for concentration
- concentration is necessary for insight and enlightenment, but using the simpler definition, not the deep concentration generally thought of
- awareness/mindfulness (or heedfulness) is a core aspect of the Buddha’s teaching and it is not ‘sati’, but rather ‘jhāna’, but that would mean the texts have undergone much more editing by commoners (non-noble ones) than we might like to believe/accept, but certainly with good intentions
- awareness is a much broader practice than concentration and is a support for it
Wow, that was long.
I hope it helps.
best wishes