SuttaCentral
Thank you Bhante, that’s an interesting reference. Polak also cites SN 2.7 as an indication:
‘‘Sambādhe vata okāsaṃ,
avindi bhūrimedhaso;
Yo jhānamabujjhi buddho,
paṭilīnanisabho munī’’ti.
The one of broad wisdom has indeed found
The opening in the midst of confinement
The Buddha who discovered jhana
The withdrawn chief bull, the sage
(B. Bodhi)
Now a discussion of bujjhati should be in order but unfortunately my computer is under repair so I won’t be able to offer much help at this time
Good question for early Buddhist studies.
If the 4 jhanas shown in EBTs are not found in other Indian religious traditions, then the 4 jhanas are uniquely discovered or taught by the Buddha.
There’s a lot of dependencies to sort out.
Personally I think jhana was common, it’s just that that people didn’t have right view, so their jhana was mundane and with attachment.
Are there EBT sources for these?
We are talking historic and prehistoric times. Previous Buddhas are highly hypothetical
That’s interesting. Do you have the sutta reference for this? Thank you!
Again all this is highly hypothetical
Sutta such as MN 106 show the jhanas were not the only way to develop the immaterial spheres:
Furthermore, a noble disciple reflects: ‘Sensual pleasures in this life and in lives to come, sensual perceptions in this life and in lives to come, visions in this life and in lives to come, perceptions of visions in this life and in lives to come, and perceptions of the imperturbable; all are perceptions. Where they cease without anything left over, that is peaceful, that is sublime, namely the dimension of nothingness.’ Practicing in this way and meditating on it often their mind becomes confident in this dimension. Being confident, they either attain the dimension of nothingness now, or are freed by wisdom. When their body breaks up, after death, it’s possible that the consciousness headed that way will be reborn in the dimension of nothingness. This is said to be the first way of practice suitable for attaining the dimension of nothingness.
Furthermore, a noble disciple has gone to a wilderness, or to the root of a tree, or to an empty hut, and reflects like this: ‘This is empty of a self or what belongs to a self.’ Practicing in this way and meditating on it often their mind becomes confident in this dimension. Being confident, they either attain the dimension of nothingness now, or are freed by wisdom. When their body breaks up, after death, it’s possible that the consciousness headed that way will be reborn in the dimension of nothingness. This is said to be the second way of practice suitable for attaining the dimension of nothingness.
Furthermore, a noble disciple reflects: ‘I don’t belong to anyone anywhere! And nothing belongs to me anywhere!’ Practicing in this way and meditating on it often their mind becomes confident in this dimension. Being confident, they either attain the dimension of nothingness now, or are freed by wisdom. When their body breaks up, after death, it’s possible that the consciousness headed that way will be reborn in the dimension of nothingness. This is said to be the third way of practice suitable for attaining the dimension of nothingness.
MN 106
Note the last method in MN 106 sounds like the annihilationist view below from SN 22.81:
Still, they have such a view: ‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’ But that annihilationist view is just a conditioned phenomenon. And what’s the source of that conditioned phenomenon? … That’s how you should know and see in order to end the defilements in the present life.
SN 22.81
Therefore, when Gotama mastered the two arupa meditations in MN 26, the jhanas were not necessarily the method used to master these states.
At least for me, the above passage is generally misconstrued. For me, there is nothing about jhana itself that is the path to awakening. In SN 48.9, the Buddha explains the method to develop jhana is to make vossagga (letting go; surrender) the meditation object. In my opinion, what occurred under the rose-apple tree is young Gotama spontaneously entered jhana without any overt volition to do so. In other words, later, as an samana (monk), Gotama realized letting go or non-attachment was the path to awakening. Then Gotama also realised if this letting go or non-attachment results in the pleasure of jhana, this pleasure is OK. But, for me, the jhana itself is not the path to awakening. In other words, this jhana the Buddha discovered was supramundane (lokuttara) because vossagga is the method used to attain it. Therefore, whatever method was used by the two teachers in MN 26 to attain their immaterial meditation, it obviously was not supramundane (lokuttara). This is my hypothesis. 
As for outsiders overcoming the 5 hindrances
Then those bhikkhus went to the park of the wanderers of other sects. They exchanged greetings with those wanderers and, when they had concluded their greetings and cordial talk, sat down to one side. The wanderers then said to them: “Friends, the ascetic Gotama teaches the Dhamma to his disciples thus: ‘Come, bhikkhus, abandon the five hindrances, the corruptions of the mind that weaken wisdom, and develop correctly the seven factors of enlightenment.’ We too teach the Dhamma to our disciples thus: ‘Come, friends, abandon the five hindrances, the corruptions of the mind that weaken wisdom, and develop correctly the seven factors of enlightenment.’ So, friends, what here is the distinction, the disparity, the difference between the ascetic Gotama and us, that is, regarding the one Dhamma teaching and the other, regarding the one manner of instruction and the other?”
The Buddha responds by saying that his 5 hindrances teaching are twofold, internal and external. I take this to mean that the other ascetics only overcome the 5 hindrances externally, i.e. they understand that the lay life is not worth craving/owning hence they’re ascetics and not householders, but they don’t understand that the internal (i.e. mind) is also not worth craving, so they still believe in a self that attains jhanas or that creates intentions.
In general moving into a deeper sublime state like from first jhana to second jhana requires seeing the drawbacks (anicca, dukkha, anatta) of the state before it. The last object to be seen with drawbacks before cessation of perception is “Intention” (cetana). Therefore seeing the drawbacks (i.e. no-self) of intention is overcoming the 5 hindrances internally.
“Poṭṭhapāda, from the time a mendicant here takes responsibility for their own perception, they proceed from one stage to the next, gradually reaching the peak of perception. Standing on the peak of perception they think, ‘Intentionality is bad for me, it’s better to be free of it. For if I were to intend and choose, these perceptions would cease in me, and other coarser perceptions would arise. Why don’t I neither make a choice nor form an intention?’ They neither make a choice nor form an intention. Those perceptions cease in them, and other coarser perceptions don’t arise. They touch cessation. And that, Poṭṭhapāda, is how the gradual cessation of perception is attained with awareness.
That’s interesting, thank you
Yet is that not what that passage clearly means? I don’t see how you can reason out not seeing that passage as linking the path to awakening to the first jhana?
I am not sure that this sutta is to be understood in this way.
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
It defines ‘samādhindriyaṁ’ (the faculty of immersion), which describes a mature state of mastery of samādhi. It’s not necessarily the same as the method for beginners.
Certainly so, doctrinally, but is it what that passage from MN 100 actually says?
This is a bit of a tricky concept, as I remember. The Mahasanghikas, especially their Lokuttaravadin offshoot, were very fond of it, and it has crept into Pali scriptures too.
Interesting question. The passage certainly seems to suggest that Buddha discovered something new in meditation.
Myself, I like SN 41.8 where Citta says to the Jain:
Well sir, whenever I want, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, I enter and remain in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected. And whenever I want, as the placing of the mind and keeping it connected are stilled … I enter and remain in the second absorption. And whenever I want, with the fading away of rapture … I enter and remain in the third absorption. And whenever I want, giving up pleasure and pain … I enter and remain in the fourth absorption.
And so, sir, since I know and see like this, why should I rely on faith in another ascetic or brahmin who claims that there is a state of immersion without placing the mind and keeping it connected; that there is the cessation of placing the mind and keeping it connected?
SN 12.10 seems to indicate that cessation via understanding dependent origination is new.
Cessation, cessation. Such was the vision, knowledge, wisdom, realization, and light that arose in me regarding teachings not learned before from another.
What fascinates me in the passage from MN 100, however, is mention of the cool shade of the rose apple tree almost in the same breath as seclusion from sensual pleasures and unskillful qualities.
Have you read Venerable Anālayo’s paper A Brief History of Buddhist Absorption? The whole paper is worth reading, but the first section is on Pre-Buddhist absorption. He provides evidence that jhāna was known and practiced before the Buddha’s awakening.
BriefHistoryBuddhistAbsorption.pdf (475.0 KB)
That’s faulty reasoning. If Jhana aren’t found in other traditions it doesn’t then follow that they are uniquely discovered or taught by the Buddha.
In DN 1 there are non-Buddhists who practice all 4 Jhanas.
Hi Christopher, thank you, I had not read this particular document before. Unfortunately I don’t find that this article provides such evidence.
I have learned to take Bhante Analayo’s conclusions with a grain of salt, as he sometimes tries to infer much more from the text than what is reasonable, at times using contrived yet very far reaching deductions from tiny passages without properly considering the likelihood of textual corruption over 500 years of oral transmission.
Such evidence as we are talking would be provided by a description of anything resembling the four jhanas in ancient Hindu texts, they are not to be sought in late Buddhist fabrications. What Polak has found is that at best some of the Buddhist vocabulary is used, but reinterpreted to fit long standing Hindu practice and thus not describing the 4 jhanas.
Yes indeed but apparently there are a number of indications that DN 1 should not be taken entirely at face value and is most likely a late fabrication. Polak explains that Buddhist generations following the Buddha’s passing came to consider jhanas as not being purely Buddhist, which would only make sense even if the Buddha did discover jhana:
A couple hundred years down the line the jhanas would have been practiced by other sects for so long that the Buddhists may have thought this had always been the case, even before the Buddha.
Ajahn Brahm seems to refer to SN 48.9 in his book as his primary reference for his jhana method.
Personally, I do not believe there is a different jhana or jhana method for beginners.
Kind regards
It is probably easier to quote the paragraphs you regard as relevant. Thanks
I thoroughly disagree with AB’s conclusions on jhanas (would personally be much closer to Thanissaro’s), so it is then not very surprising
Personally I wouldn’t tell a beginner in Buddhist meditation that their beginner’s practice is to right away:
but your mileage may vary and that’s fine
My first reaction when I read a text that purports to accurately describe a conversation
is to take it with a grain of salt.
More generally, in the Udana the text of the gathas is considered ancient, perhaps some of the most ancient material in the Canon, but the introductory text is often shown to have been reconstructed much later. Now that doesn’t prove anything in particular about Ud 1.10 and this might be an entirely accurate description of what happened 2,500 years ago, and if that is correct, and if furthermore it can be demonstrated that the reason why this ascetic could talk to a deva was that he mastered jhana, then yes there would be a solid argument here. As things stand I would be inclined to think it is a bit too far fetched for me personally to accept this kind of evidence, even if it reinforced conclusions I would have arrived at by other means.
Thank you for this reference! That’s very interesting for this conversation.
The way this episode is worded is not incompatible with the eventuality where those ascetics were in fact copying Buddhism and making it to their liking, then going to see Buddhists and asking them what was the difference between the two systems. I do not see it as evidence that the practice of jhana predated the Buddha’s enlightenment.
As I mentioned in my post, the first section is on Pre-Buddhist absorption. I think every paragraph in that section would be relevant, as that is the topic of the section. I thought it best not to post a long wall of text.
I have asked this very same question before on Dhamma Wheel and the general consensus, both by myself and others, was:
What makes a factor of the noble eightfold path right? It’s right view. That’s why right view is the first factor of the noble eighfold path.
The practice of virtue already existed before the Buddha like for example some ascetics who did not harm anyone or anything… however they did not attain Nibbana because they held wrong view towards the practice of virtue thinking that it alone would purify and save them.
The practice of the 8 Jhanas was already present before the Buddha. Some of the Bodhisatta’s Samana teachers like for example Alara and Uddaka mastered them all the way up to the seventh and eight… however they did not attain Nibbana because they held wrong view towards these attainments thinking these experiences were the ultimate release.
The great discovery of the Buddha was right view, namely the four noble truths.
Through right view, if one practices virtue they will be right action, right livelihood, right speech instead of wrong action, wrong livelihood, wrong speech. If one practices concentration it will be right concentration instead of wrong concentration.
If one practices the noble eightfold path rightly if will lead to right knowledge and right release, namely Nibbana.
I hope this answered your question. I may be biased towards the interpretation of the Orthodox Theravada but that’s the approach I’m most comfortable to answer with.
With Metta
Are the 8 (or 9) jhanas shown in EBTs also found in other Indian religious traditions/texts?
It seems to me the entire structure and content of the jhana system are found in Buddhist texts only.
Hi @SilaSamadhi8, did anyone there provide evidence for this claim? It would seem that it is not very easy to do
See my earlier post:
For more info on this topic you can check out Polak’s Reexamining jhanas but the short answer appears to be ‘no’.
Firstly, Ven. Anālayo’s reliance on the Chinese Agama was not convincing to me. But worse was reliance in MN 79. My personal impression of MN 79 is Sakuludāyī & his disciples (who make a dreadful racket) were not familiar with jhana. I stopped my reading there.