What Ven. Anālayo gets wrong about samādhi: a review of “A Brief History of Buddhist Absorption”

Thanks.I have seen Sujato explains his choice also in texts. I feel that is integer but i also cannot help to see that choices are also made in the context of how Sujato understands the Dhamma in general.

I think this is normal but i also cannot help to see it is coloured too by that context. I think this is the same with other translators. For me it is sure that being an expert in Pali is one thing and translating sutta’s is a very different discipline. But in general, i feel, it is the task of a translator to translate and not to interpretate and make his/her own understanding of Dhamma leading in translating the sutta’s but that is probably all a slippery slope and not that easy.

2 Likes

I’m not sure I completely agree with this. True, with continuous satipatthana practice, sati will become more developed and refined. But satipatthana sutta is an in-depth guide to the four areas in which sati is to be applied. So the “main purpose” is how to apply sati in order to develop samadhi.

I think this is a highly subjective statement.

I plee… :blush: Jhana an sich cannot lead to the end of suffering or right liberation.

No, mind must be purified totally from all defilements. That is not perse the case for one who can enter jhana at wish. Buddha could enter even the highest jhana’s when he was among his teachers, but was not liberated by that.

Jhana (not all) can be used to apply vipassana and that can purify the mind, but jhana an sich cannot lead to right liberation.

Buddhas was also not freed by jhana but under the Bodhitree he was able to direct his mind in 4th jhana towards knowledge of rebirth etc…and he, as it were, received that knowledge, and was liberated by that knowledge, but one cannot say he was liberated by 4th jhana…NO.

I also think it is good to discuss the following: one must not see 4th jhana perse as some portal to this threefold knowledge. Probably that knowledge is only accessible for a mind in 4th jhana that is yet really advanced, progressed in purification. And Buddha’s lifestory also testifies of this, because even at the time of his visit to his teachers he mastered the highest jhana and was not rightly liberated. Why did he not acces the three kind of knowledge that time? He was certainly able to enter 4 jhana at that time, right? So it is not that 4th jhana always means that one has now opened a portal to true knowledge.

AN4.196 also describes right samadhi. It connects it to truly seeing the khandha’s as ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’

"Just as a warrior is a long-distance shooter, a noble disciple has right immersion. A noble disciple with right immersion truly sees any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’ They truly see any kind of feeling … perception … choices … consciousness at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near, all consciousness—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’

Just as a warrior is a marksman, a noble disciple has right view. A noble disciple with right view truly understands: ‘This is suffering’ … ‘This is the origin of suffering’ … ‘This is the cessation of suffering’ … ‘This is the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering’.

I personally do not think that jhana always implies that one truly sees and understand that all khandha’s are ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’ Do you think so?

Do all people in cultures where they accept there is rebirth, there is father and mother, etc. also understand the four noble truths? Do not think so.
So there is also really right view and there is a different right view.

I also feel it is correct wat the sutta say that right concentration relies on a certain element of happiness in the mind (AN11.3). Because when the mind is not happy it cannot find rest. Like also the body cannot relax when there is no element of joy. This element of happiness is also crucial for right concentration.

But i feel, one cannot say that jhana an sich leads to right liberation. It is never like this.

I do not say one must not practice jhana ofcourse, but liberation always relies on seeing with wisdom and never on some state.

Many people who practise self-knowledge see this very differently. They have experienced a certain state, extraordinairy, and now they think or even feel wise, liberated, guru. But if you study the Buddha’s Path, the Buddha always has this disclaimers…seeing things with wisdom. Experiencing this and that does not means one sees with wisdom.

An example is the teachers of the Buddha. They were able to enter very subtle states of jhana but they did not see this with wisdom because they confused them with home, with liberation, with some end goal of the spiritual Path.

May we all find the peace of heart, Nibbana.

Bhante, any Suttas to support such strange opinion? Certain leper, wasn’t interested generally in spirituality, much less in mental concentration, and yet become sotāpanna, merely listening to the Buddha. And he wasn’t at all exception.

Moreover, since sotāpanna is not free from desire and ill wil, obstacles to jhanas, how jhanas could precede sotapati? In certain cases they could, but not as a rule …

(I am aware that there has been a controversy about whether jhāna is or is not necessary for the attainment of sotāpatti , but, as so often in controversies, the disputants have gone to extremes. Those who assert that jhāna is necessary believe—rightly or wrongly—that their opponents are maintaining that no samādhi at all is necessary. But the fact of the matter is that some samādhi is necessary, but not full jhāna ; and this may or may not, have been developed independently of paññā .)

Nanavira Thera

A. VI,68: ‘“One not delighting in solitude could grasp the sign of the mind (cittassa nimittam )”: such a state is not to be found. “One not grasping the sign of the mind could be fulfilled in right view”: such a state is not to be found. “One not having fulfilled right view could be fulfilled in right concentration”: such a state is not to be found. “One not having fulfilled right concentration could abandon the fetters”: such a state is not to be found. “One not having abandoned the fetters could realize extinction”: such a state is not to be found.’

One not grasping the sign of the mind could be fulfilled in right view": such a state is not to be found.
Suttas say that jhanas are needed for arahathood, as for the sotapati, cittassa nimittam is enough.

With respect and metta

I feel I have made the case well enough in the OP. Still, I’ll add a few more points. First, a sutta reference. AN 10.3:

When there is no right immersion, one who lacks right immersion has destroyed a vital condition for true knowledge and vision.

The general quality of mind that is required for both jhāna and streamentry is freedom from the five hindrances, known as upacāra samādhi in the commentaries. Upacāra samādhi means “threshold samādhi” or “access samādhi”. You are at the access point to jhāna.

What is the natural next step from upacāra samādhi? Well, since meditation is a process of gradual letting go, we should ask what is the next gradual step. The answer must be jhāna rather than streamentry because jhāna requires less letting go. In other words, it’s a natural stepping stone on the path to streamentry.

My argument is not about what is absolutely necessary, but about what is natural. It makes sense to follow the path of least resistance, that is, the natural path.

3 Likes

Nyanavira, for all his rejection of the commentaries, misunderstands this phrase because of reading it through the commentaries. In the suttas, this never has the meaning of a light or other vision seen in meditation, nor does it relate to any particular stage in meditation.

Here, nimitta means “cause”, and to to “learn the sign/cause of the mind” means to understand the process of cause and effect leading the mind to samadhi, a sense made clear in SN 47.8.

Nyanavira, of course, was not disinterested in this, since before he took his own life due to persistent erections, he had not achieved any samadhi, yet he believed that he was a stream enterer. I believe he was mistaken.

5 Likes

This is certainly the course of progress for most practitioners (I won’t claim all practitioners as I cannot completely rule out that some can achieve Ariya status without Appana Samadhi or Jhana. All the teachers I have conversed with stress Appana Samadhi as being a pre-requisite to attainting to Ariya status.)

Having raised the subject of Upacara Samadhi, I would be interested in your understanding of how Upacara Samadhi fits in with the sutta references that you have referred to previously. From a practical point of view, Upacara Samadhi is extremely important, and it seems odd that was left to the commentators to highlight its importance.

Yes, but we all can know that this vital condition cannot be jhana alone. Because Buddha’s teachers and Buddha himself did not arrive at true knowledge and vision while they were able to enter even the most subtle jhana’s. In stead, Buddha’s teachers developed wrong knowledge and wrong vision based upon jhana.

So, this vital condition for true knowledge and vision is not jhana alone. Also, when jhana was common in other sects too before Buddha’s time on Earth, did those people all have the vital condition for true knowledge and vision?

It can be clear from this that one cannot say that people who can even enter the most subtle jhana’s have the vital condition for true knowledge and vision. There is clearly more going on.

Jhana is like cutting of temporary the drifts and passions by using a certain mental force (joined forces of volition and concentration) to enter the calm of jhana. That mental force is only for accessing and not for abiding in it. Jhana is not about developing the heart, and freeing the heart. If one would abide endlessly in jhana, suppose, one will not purify the heart and also not become any wiser nor more loving and compassionate.

I know that the texts describe the Path as …right sati leads to right samadhi lead to right liberation.
But we all know from the Buddha lifestory and from his teachers, that this right samadhi cannot be jhana alone

It think it is the combination of progressed purification which makes the mind very subtle, pliant, easy to apply, penetrating, and jhana. But people who are not really progressed yet in purification they can enter jhana, but they have not yet the quality of heart that makes it really subtle, penetrating, limitless, and see rebirth, kamma, other lifeforms etc.

Jhana alone cannot be a vital condition for true knowledge and vision.

I thought we are discussing wether jhana is needed for sotapati, that nice, Bhante, that you share with us informations about what you believe, and what you don’t believe, but how it is related to mine main objection, that were clearly stated: namely that in Buddha’s time many become stream enterers just by listening to the Buddha, without any practice of mental concentration.

While you haven’t stated it explicitly, if jhanas are needed for sotapati, and stream enterers are not freed from desire and ill will you seem to say: Buddha was mistaken and these things aren’t really obstacles to jhanas.

In Theragāthā, certain monk decided to commit a suicide, since he wasn’t able to freed mind from lust. 25 years as a bhikkhu, and yet … So perhaps not for everyone what is natural for you, is natural for him.
Nevertheless thank you for explanation, I think the best thing we can do, is to stop talking about our - most definitely - different ideas on relationships between jhanas and understanding and just to do some more meditation,:smiling_face:

With respect and metta

The problem with upacārasamādhi is that it is hard to know whether you have reached it. As the mind gets closer to jhāna, the hindrances get progressively more subtle. The mind may be blissful and peaceful, and it may seem as if there are no hindrances, but subtle aspects of restlessness and dullness may still persist. The problem is you can’t see it. Your mind seems more powerfully awake and peaceful than anything you have ever experienced, and yet it is not quite there. And so unless you experience a jhāna, it is virtually impossible to know whether the defilements are completely gone. This is the reason Ajahn Brahm speaks of the post-jhāna upacārasamādhi as the real access stillness. At this point you know the mind is pure.

Yes, we all agree on this. This is why I have said that sammāsamadhi is jhāna plus right view. This is what distinguished the samādhi of the Buddhist path from the pre-Buddhist samādhi.

Yes, you find this in the suttas, but never as the word of the Buddha, with possible exception of the Dhammacakka Sutta. The instances you refer to are narratives, usually just short suttas where the Buddha is not quoted at all. They do not deserve to be taken as doctrinally important statements on how to achieve streamentry. The evidence from doctrinally significant suttas, such as the Upakkilsesa Sutta (MN 128), is that even some of the most gifted meditators, such as Ven. Anuruddha and his friends, struggled with stabilizing their meditation, let alone with becoming streamenterers. We should interpret the short narratives in light of these more significant suttas. For instance, I would suggest the short narratives should be regarded as a summary of a much longer process.

:slightly_smiling_face:

7 Likes

I disagree with this view. Sammāsamadhi is just the four jhānas, according to SN/SA suttas (e.g. SN 45.8). Sammāsamadhi is not ‘right view’.

As Ven. Bramali states, only Jhana or Appana Samadhi associated with Right View is Sammasamadhi. Jhana on its own does not qualify. I think that it is also important to understand that Jhana is not whole story with regard to Sammasamadhi. I think the process of Sammasamadhi as well as the state of Jhana/Appana Samadhi is important to understand. (I draw a distinction between Jhana and Appana Samadhi, hence I refer to both but, for the purposes of this post, I will treat them equally.)

When the mind becomes one-pointed, focused on the meditation subject, it approaches Jhana/Appana Samadhi and it is in Upacara Samadhi. The value of Upacara Samadhi here is that it is the doorway to Jhana/Appana. When Jhana/Appana is acheived, the mind is still, tranquil. This is a state of rest. When the mind has rested, it leaves Jhana/Appana. With the inexperienced practitioner, the mind returns to the world of the six senses. A more experienced practitioner can come out of rest and back into Upacara Samadhi. The difference here is that the mind is fully rested, unlike Upacara on the way into Jhana/Appana. It is in this state, post Jhana/Appana, when insight arises. So, Jhana/Appana is important because it concentrates the minds energy, but post Jhana/Appana Upacara Samadhi, in conjunction with Sati, is where the real action is. This is why I say that it is important to understand that Jhana/Appana as a state is not the whole picture. When we talk about Sammasamadhi, we must consider the whole Jhana/Appana process.

Yes, but what right view? The sutta’s describe different right views, mundane and supra mundane.

It is not that everyone who accepts the list of mundane right views (there is father and mother, there is giving, there is kamma and fruit of kamma etc) has an understanding of anicca, dukkha anatta or of the four noble truths.

So what is this right view that you see as condition for jhana?

In which sutta is described that entering jhana and abiding in jhana is such a complicated process and one is almost ever misled about being in jhana?

2 Likes

Do you believe that a materialist, a christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Jain, A Brahmin, who, according the teachings have no right views, cannot enter and abide in jhana? One must be a Buddhist?

Depends which bar they just walked into.

3 Likes

Good point! Right view does have a number of different degrees, culminating in the right view of the streamenterer. You are right, of course, that the more complete the right view is the less likely you are to misinterpret your experiences, including the jhānas. Yet anyone who has grasped the Buddha’s idea of nonself, even intellectually, will tend to interpret samādhi in the right way. They will then avoid getting stuck.

I would appreciate it if you would read a bit more carefully, if only out of compassion for me. :slightly_smiling_face: This discussion is about upacārasamādhi, not jhāna.

4 Likes

Not sure, Bhante what do you mean, quite a lot people become sotāpanna, just listening the Dhamma, or just during conversation. And why you emphasize the Buddha? Any teaching of ariya which contain doctrine of anatta is sufficient. As I understand sutta, Yamaka started listening to Sariputta as puthujjana at certain stage become sotāpanna, and end up as arahat. This is what Sutta says and why I should not take it as geniue description of what happened?

Or why I should not just accept literally the following story, where bhikkhu has remorse, due to being not able to abandon lust - which clearly indicates that he wasn’t jhanas attainer, and yet:

“I hope then, bhikkhu, that you are not troubled by remorse and regret.”“Indeed, venerable sir, I have quite a lot of remorse and regret.” [47]“I hope, bhikkhu, that you have nothing for which to reproach yourself in regard to virtue.”“I have nothing, venerable sir, for which to reproach myself in regard to virtue.”“Then, bhikkhu, if you have nothing for which to reproach yourself in regard to virtue, why are you troubled by remorse and regret?”

“I understand, venerable sir, that it is not for the sake of purification of virtue that the Dhamma has been taught by the Blessed One.”“If, bhikkhu, you understand that the Dhamma has not been taught by me for the sake of purification of virtue, then for what purpose do you understand the Dhamma to have been taught by me?”“Venerable sir, I understand the Dhamma to have been taught by the Blessed One for the sake of the fading away of lust.”39

“Good, good, bhikkhu! It is good that you understand the Dhamma to have been taught by me for the sake of the fading away of lust. For the Dhamma is taught by me for the sake of the fading away of lust.“What do you think, bhikkhu, is the eye permanent or impermanent?” - “Impermanent, venerable sir.”… “Is the ear … the mind permanent or impermanent?” - “Impermanent, venerable sir.” - “Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?” - “Suffering, venerable sir.” - “Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?” - “No, venerable sir.”“Seeing thus … He understands: ‘… there is no more for this state of being.’”This is what the Blessed One said. Elated, that bhikkhu delighted in the Blessed One’s statement. And while this discourse was being spoken, there arose in that bhikkhu the dust-free, stainless vision of the Dhamma: “Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation.” SN 35: 94

Suttas clearly declare that jhanas are part of gradual training and appear after successful abandoning of five hindrances which is not the case of sotāpanna.

I may not understand situation properly, but as I remember, you insisted that in jhanas sensory experience is absent, so in fact your insistence that one cannot become sotāpanna right now being in jhana and just listening Dhamma, is intellectually consistent, since according to it, in jhana one cannot hear anything.

Unfortunately, while I do not deny your internal consistency, I have considerable doubts about consistency of your ideas with Suttas. But since you know Suttas well, and do not see any inconsistency of your ideas with Suttas, I don’t think we can come here to agreement, apart idea that more meditation will be good for both of us.:smiling_face:

1 Like

What was said was that Jhana/Appana must be accompanied by Right View if it is to be Sammasamadhi. Jhana on its own does not qualify.

This does not mean that non-Buddhists cannot achieve Jhana. It simply means that their attainment is not Sammasamadhi.

Namo Buddhaya!

It is explicit in mn64

And what, Ānanda, is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters? Here, with seclusion from the acquisitions, with the abandoning of unwholesome states, with the complete tranquillization of bodily inertia, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion.

“Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element thus: ‘This is the peaceful, this is the sublime, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbāna.’ If he is steady in that, he attains the destruction of the taints. But if he does not attain the destruction of the taints because of that desire for the Dhamma, that delight in the Dhamma, then with the destruction of the five lower fetters he becomes one due to reappear spontaneously in the Pure Abodes and there attain final Nibbāna without ever returning from that world. This is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters.

“Again, with the stilling of applied and sustained thought, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the second jhāna…Again, with the fading away as well of rapture, a bhikkhu…enters upon and abides in the third jhāna…Again,a with the abandoning of pleasure and pain…a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the fourth jhāna, which has neither-pain-nor-pleasure and purity of mindfulness due to equanimity.

“Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent…as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element…This is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters.

“Again, with the complete surmounting of perceptions of form, with the disappearance of perceptions of sensory impact, with non-attention to perceptions of diversity, aware that ‘space is infinite,’ a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the base of infinite space.

“Whatever exists therein of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent…as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element…This is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters.

“Again, by completely surmounting the base of infinite space, aware that ‘consciousness is infinite,’ a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the base of infinite consciousness.

“Whatever exists therein of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent…as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element…This is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters.

“Again, by completely surmounting the base of infinite consciousness, aware that ‘there is nothing,’ a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the base of nothingness.

“Whatever exists therein of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element thus: ‘This is the peaceful, this is the sublime, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbāna.’ If he is steady in that, he attains the destruction of the taints. But if he does not attain the destruction of the taints because of that desire for the Dhamma, that delight in the Dhamma, then with the destruction of the five lower fetters he becomes one due to reappear spontaneously in the Pure Abodes and there attain final Nibbāna without ever returning from that world. This is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters.”

“Venerable sir, if this is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters, then how is it that some bhikkhus here are said to gain deliverance of mind and some are said to gain deliverance by wisdom?”

“The difference here, Ānanda, is in their faculties, I say.” SuttaCentral

Frankly i am not aware of such a controversy. I am sure there are people who have different opinions but people have different opinions on pretty much everything, eg there really being rebirth, all lack of agreement is a controversy?

There is, as i see it, very little controversy and all the important controverted points have to do with cross referencing commentary. The sutta have but very little controversy, having to do with trifles like defining certain terms & translation of terms like papanca.

In any controversy debate, exclude appeal to commentary as acceptable basis for substantiation, and behold most controversies be dispelled one after one.

As i see it, the only reason we at all entertain the commentaries is because the contemporary traditions are all more or less based on it.

The contemporary sangha, now with the translations being finished & digitalized, will take a while to abandon commentary and the traditionalists will oppose it tooth & nail.

The comy pretty much documents the progressive decline & popularization of bad ideas.

Clearly, the commentaries replaced the study of sutta and traditional methods are modelled after it. When monks having been trained in this tradition, after 20-30 years, having outlasted others, become leaders of their respective traditions, then they are not to keen on reforms and will meet a lot of resistance if they do try to analyze the comy.

1 Like