Hello

[Pondera]

Hi. I'm a 29 year old guy with not much to say. But I decided to register with this forum because I have an interest in meditation; one which probably diverges from the mainstream.

I'm fully aware of my "Chakras" and have a daily routine whereby I consciously empty them, according to how and when it's most appropriate to do so. My affiliation with Buddhism is as old as 13 years, I guess.

For a while, I've been having some philosophical moments of pure disdain towards the way this world operates, and these problems I have towards "what appear" to be the collective values of the world, i.e. over consumption, an intolerance for anything requiring effort, automobiles, etc...; these conflicts have brought me a few times very close to abandoning all that I've accomplished in terms of comfortable living for the life of a recluse. Happily, I learned to give into "the world" (as I have perceived it for so long), recognizing that it was in fact my own self which was in conflict with society and not "the world" which was in conflict with me, as I supposed. So, I have learned to discontinue all resistance towards the world, agreeing -finally, that I can live in it while maintaining my own sense of inner joy. But, as I personally have a distinct insight into how that joy comes about, I find my self alone in the world with this knowledge.

I also have not found "agreement" anywhere across the vast pages of the internet whereby an answer of "yes, this is also how I obtain happiness" could be wrought. So, I am here to pose a few questions about Buddhism as, I suppose, I have interpreted it -for my self; so as to possibly find a vindication for my approach to spirituality in the similar experiences of others.

I may have also, subconsciously, joined this forum to redefine jhana in my own terms, as I have come to experience what I think jhana is; to such a degree that my inner states are in line with the brief mentioning of sentences describing these states; so much to say that, whereas a great deal of speculation can arise with the description of the jhanas for someone who has not stumbled upon the "workings" of the jhanas -a person who is one with jhana understands them in simplistic terms, realizing why certain "things" are admitted to the lower cases and not the higher ones -and most importantly why that happens to be the case; as opposed to the speculative reasoning of "how" that might be the case. Suffice to say I consider jhana simple, and the brief utterances of it simple as well.

This disturbs me in a way because I have found even the highest of respected Buddhist practitioners to be overly wordy with their provisions for jhana. And as I don't consider my self to be especially better, but rather a plume of addicted slime in comparison to the holiness possessed by some of these men and women, I remain the owner a knowledge base which accounts for every detail expressed in the brief sentences regarding jhana. Thus, I can only assume that these people who are well respected for their merits have mistakenly described the jhanas or I my self have simply come to know a method of living which coincidentally imparts greater meaning to the short and "open to question" mentioning(s) of jhana in Buddhist scriptures.

But I would rather discuss this on my own terms rather than impose what I think is a correct understanding of the jhanas on another person, where I believe the truth has always been to keep these things as a matter of privacy inside the circle of unfortunate beings who have "run the gambit", so to speak, only to learn higher truths as a reward for their sufferings.

One question I have is about the "escape". There are many references in Buddhist texts that imply an "end" to how far one person can go in escaping. For instance, one will often read, referring to jhana, that - "on the plane of such and such I saw that this was not the final escape and that a further escape could be reached"...until finally we read that "...upon entering this state I saw that this was the final release and that no further escape was to be found. The holy life had been lived, the burden set down..." and so on and so forth.

The confusion I have with this kind of reference is about the solution Buddhism offers. It seems to imply that even in an end to suffering there is a remnant of one's being. These references imply that even if one was to recognize an end to perception and feeling, "thinking", "awareness", and so forth still continue -thus implicating that indeed there is only freedom from suffering in the wisdom of Buddhism and not, as some would prefer instead, freedom from "being". To state the obvious; questions over "being" and "not-being" were recognized by the Buddha as obstacles towards freedom from suffering. Hence, I wonder if the complete "unbinding" of the self only culminates in a state of pure being, and not instead, as I would like, an utter disengagement from all forms of awareness. Having already come to my own conclusions it would be haughty to even go any further in this vain, albeit far from the truth to say that I am an expert on anything.

Empathy, Sympathy, Compassion, and Equanimity are my mainstays, though -for me, these things are nothing more than feelings that come about in a person who knows where to activate them (...chakras; that is what I mean).

Apart from worrying over the situations of others, my understanding of empathy, and so on, extends as far as it appears as an emotion inside me -not pertaining by necessity in any form or way whatsoever on the relevance of there being a person in need. For if equanimity is the highest vihara of the four viharas, then what qualities apart from ourselves are we really justified in ascribing by expecting a relation to another? Only empathy, sympathy, and compassion imply, linguistically, that the subject of another being is a requisite cause for the existence of these viharas; and yet my disagreement with that notion only serves to implicate my twisted knot of self interest.

Apart from that, these viharas only serve as examples towards a closer rendering of jhana. I hope that I have not offended the feelings of those who practice vippasanna, but in my understanding of the chakras, a "deeper" understanding of the four "emotional" qualities mentioned above extends further into the immaterial states with identical features of initiation (where to locate their source), understanding (how to consciously activate each source), and functionality (how to skillfully bring their prana into reality). For how does a person wishing to enter "The State of Naught" come into this state by simply repeating "there is nothing, there is nothing, there is nothing," over and over again? A better way to enter the state of "Naught" would be to recognize that "Nothingness" is the human capacity to experience "a lack of something"; though further extended and satiated throughout one's entire being. And all of this is possible, as I understand it, only in regards to where it is exactly this capacity exits in the mind. And without a doubt the capacity exists somewhere in the brain. Repealing all mysticism from "The State of Naught", "Nothingness" in and of itself remains what one might expect it to be, a sublime, supra-mundane peaceful abiding of absence, while residing ultimately within one's being, in a region of the brain no closer to sleeping than consciousness itself -to be quite honest.

For a 29 year old man, on the brink of reaching 30, my claim of having little to say has misguided and more than likely appropriated more time than was deserved of a simple introduction. For that I apologize. In any case, I would like to give my regards to all persons here and express once again my hopes of learning perhaps more than I have already assumed.

Thanks,

Pondera

[Ben]

Greetings pondera and welcome to Dhamma Wheel.

The great danger of reinterpreting jhanas in your own terms is that it is very possible that you instead reinterpret jhana to fit your own experiences. And I must add its a very common occurance. I think it very worthwhile for every practitioner to investigate their own assumptions about their experiences and where they think they are at on the path. I also think it important to review your own methodology and experiences against the writings of well respected scholars and teachers which should indicate whether your experience matches that reported through the tradition and if not, investigate whether there is a methodological inconsistency with your own approach. Laser-like analytical and objective introspection is, I believe, critical for real progress despite the discomfort that may arise from challenging your beliefs about attainment.

All the best and I hope you find Dhamma Wheel a positive influence on your practice.
kind regards

Ben

[Nicro]

I agree that you can't just re-work the Jhanas into what you think they are. You may have experienced something but it doesn't mean it is a Jhana, and apparently it only inflated the sense of self. And why the talk of chakras and prana and all that? None of that is related to Jhana or Buddhism. That is all Hindu ideas.

[Pondera]

Greetings pondera and welcome to Dhamma Wheel.

The great danger of reinterpreting jhanas in your own terms is that it is very possible that you instead reinterpret jhana to fit your own experiences. And I must add its a very common occurance. I think it very worthwhile for every practitioner to investigate their own assumptions about their experiences and where they think they are at on the path. I also think it important to review your own methodology and experiences against the writings of well respected scholars and teachers which should indicate whether your experience matches that reported through the tradition and if not, investigate whether there is a methodological inconsistency with your own approach. Laser-like analytical and objective introspection is, I believe, critical for real progress despite the discomfort that may arise from challenging your beliefs about attainment.

All the best and I hope you find Dhamma Wheel a positive influence on your practice.
kind regards

Ben

Greetings pondera and welcome to Dhamma Wheel.

The great danger of reinterpreting jhanas in your own terms is that it is very possible that you instead reinterpret jhana to fit your own experiences. And I must add its a very common occurance. I think it very worthwhile for every practitioner to investigate their own assumptions about their experiences and where they think they are at on the path. I also think it important to review your own methodology and experiences against the writings of well respected scholars and teachers which should indicate whether your experience matches that reported through the tradition and if not, investigate whether there is a methodological inconsistency with your own approach. Laser-like analytical and objective introspection is, I believe, critical for real progress despite the discomfort that may arise from challenging your beliefs about attainment.

All the best and I hope you find Dhamma Wheel a positive influence on your practice.
kind regards

Ben

In terms of modern day scholars the commentaries on jhana seem to explain the first four jhanas, at least, as a gradual tendency towards higher and higher progressive states of calmness. However this contradicts all possibility of distinction within the experience of the first four jhanas, and that might not appear to be misleading in so much as one might expect the attainment and experience of the first four jhanas to become more and more peaceful, if one is satisfied to accept the nature of the first four jhanas in this way. For example, a person might explain that the attainment of the second jhana occurs after much calming wherein that quality of rapture of bliss has found itself removed from the quality of discursive thought, which we accept as a natural and defining element of the first jhana. And so each of the first four jhanas are thought of in this way as merely stages in one's approach towards total equanimity, peace of mind, and lack of bodily feeling. All of this implies a continuity to the first four jhanas where in fact one should assume distinctions rather than pure connections.

As one comes across the immaterial jhanas one is presented with certain immaterial qualities that are apparently quite different from each other. Space is quite distinct from Consciousness, as Consciousness is quite distinct from Nothingness and so forth. The point being that when one accepts the distinction of the first four jhanas with the idea that one jhana merely becomes more tranquil than the previous one, a person shuts themselves away from the apparent differences that are obvious with the elemental nature of all jhanic states, and this can be recognized especially within the description of the immaterial states. However as the material states are hard to interpret people are quite drawn into the assumption that the one state naturally leads to the next, when in fact the fading away of the previous state is merely an indication of its impermanence and the entering into the subsequent state is merely and indication of ones will and resolve.

Hence one absolves oneself of the problem of understanding why, or if, the four bodily jhanas are as distinct in their own nature as are the different immaterial jhanas, when one accepts the idea of continuity where, in fact, no continuity apart from personal will power connects any of the jhanic absorptions (with the exception that they are in fact related to each other elementally; though become fully known sequentially in all their distinctiveness). And one is quite happy to accept that the first four jhanas are mere progressions of peacefulness because each is termed "jhana" and speculation exists over how they pertain to each other owing to what little is actually said about the material jhanas in the suttas.

Space is obviously different than Consciousness for good reasons. And yet the bodily jhanas are not appreciated for their own respective distinctions as one simply assumes them to all be approximately the same, with the exception that thought seems to fade as one reaches the second state, and joy and fear seem to fade as one reaches the third state, and then finally all is calm and well when one has surmounted all pleasurable and painful feelings all together in the fourth state.

This take on jhana fails to account for each states peculiar nature. For example, following the idea that the stages of jhana are more or less progressive, all possibility of attributing distinction to the jhanas is negated and fails to enter into discussion. And when you consider that there is no attributable reason to accept that one naturally enters into a feeling of pure consciousness -as if it were something other than a transition from pure space, then you must account for how these states arise. And once you are forced to account for how the state arises you must give up on believing that with time these states can be brought into being; when in reality the attainment of these states relies only on knowledge.

If you accept that the states of jhana are all distinct on a very elemental level then you come to realize that the progression from one jhanic state into another occurs only when the previous one has faded, and the next one on the list is initiated. Rather than waiting for something to happen, a person with the knowledge of how to bring these states about simply does what he must. And that is, in an of itself, the understanding of mastery of jhana. If one accounts for the distinctions of the jhanas, one at least accepts that the initiation and attainment of each jhana has its own peculiarities and, as opposed to being a progressive waiting game, the practice of entering jhana becomes a matter of understanding what one is on an elemental level. On an elemental level we are, materially speaking, composed of nerves, blood, muscle and bone, as well as immaterially -in that we have a sense of space, and being, as well as absence, and time.

Thus an approach which is at least consistent with the obvious distinctions found in the higher jhanas is an approach which accepts the nature of the lower jhanas to be distinct in their own ways as well, contrary to what might appear in the texts as a gradual awakening.

-Pondera

[Pondera]

I agree that you can't just re-work the Jhanas into what you think they are. You may have experienced something but it doesn't mean it is a Jhana, and apparently it only inflated the sense of self. And why the talk of chakras and prana and all that? None of that is related to Jhana or Buddhism. That is all Hindu ideas.

Without Hindu ideas there would not have been a Buddha or a Buddhism. I accept that you can't just re-work the jhanas into what you think they are, -unless everything you think they are adheres to everything that is attributed to them. I would agree that on some level my experience with chakras, and how I believe they pertain to the initiation of jhana, did result in a desperate attempt to grasp at a sense of self. For instance I thought for a time that if I happened to initiate the region for the release of certain jhanas I might be somehow truer to my self, having really become who I am. And, in fact, I believe that I do in fact regain the sense of personality that exists inside of me when I initiate certain features of my self pertaining only to the material jhanas, for inside the vault of immaterial jhanas there's no indication of a self to be found in expanding space, or unilateral consciousness, or the feeling of lack. But, as you might already know, the self that we cling to is the same across all beings. So, having wrestled with what personal advantage I might have had to gain from being a chakra user, I finally admitted that there was no way to ever be exactly who it is I am when I am say more empathetic, compassionate, gumptious, or what have you. Jhana Yoga was originally Hindu. So the word Jhana is originally Hindu and stems very much from Yoga Practice which is also very much a part of prana and chakras. What bearing that has on Buddhism is, from all of the years I spent reading up on it, a form of cultural architecture adopted by the Buddha in his personal quest for a more direct answer to spirituality; incidentally diverging from the practices of Hindus as well as possibly a risky effacement towards the worship of God; though Mono-Theism wasn't much of a Hindu thing at the time, but possibly should have been. I don't know. I wouldn't want to find out the hard way though.

-Pondera

[altar]

However as the material states are hard to interpret people are quite drawn into the assumption that the one state naturally leads to the next, when in fact the fading away of the previous state is merely an indication of its impermanence and the entering into the subsequent state is merely and indication of ones will and resolve.

This is interesting. But I don't disbelieve the ordinary view that one leads to the next (especially if pursued). There is the analogy of one who, when their meditation is going well, loosens reigns as it were, and lets the horse keep going. And the buddha's saying that from time to time one gives attention to three things: concentration, resolve, and equanimity. However my own proficiency is lacking.

Welcome
Also, I like the word sympathy for mudita, even empathy, but metta I would put as kindness or love.

[Pondera]

However as the material states are hard to interpret people are quite drawn into the assumption that the one state naturally leads to the next, when in fact the fading away of the previous state is merely an indication of its impermanence and the entering into the subsequent state is merely and indication of ones will and resolve.

This is interesting. But I don't disbelieve the ordinary view that one leads to the next (especially if pursued). There is the analogy of one who, when their meditation is going well, loosens reigns as it were, and lets the horse keep going. And the buddha's saying that from time to time one gives attention to three things: concentration, resolve, and equanimity. However my own proficiency is lacking.

Welcome
Also, I like the word sympathy for mudita, even empathy, but metta I would put as kindness or love.

Thank you for the welcome.

There's certainly truth to the approach that persuades one along the ladder in a very transitional manner. I am fondly recalling a passage from Buddhaghosa's Path of Purity which, at one time, was very dear to me and for some reason -I believe granted me the faith, at least, to ascertain certain truths. If only I could remember it by heart. It would go something along the lines of:

Restraint is for the purpose of non-remorse; non-remorse is for the purpose of gladdening; gladdening is for the purpose of ... (here's where my memory fails me)...joy...(I think). Joy is for the purpose of bliss;...for the purpose of dispassion; dispassion is for the purpose of vision and knowledge of the truth...

I should actually find the passage. Here it is;

'Discipline is for the purpose of 'restraint, restraint is for the purpose of non-remorse, non- 'remorse is for the purpose of gladdening, gladdening is for 'the purpose of happiness, happiness is for the purpose of 'tranquillity, tranquillity is for the purpose of bliss, bliss is 'for the purpose of concentration, concentration is for the 'purpose of correct knowledge and vision, correct knowledge 'and vision is for the purpose of dispassion, dispassion is for 'the purpose of fading away [of greed], fading away is for the 'purpose of deliverance, deliverance is for the purpose of 'knowledge and vision of deliverance, knowledge and vision 'of deliverance is for the purpose of complete extinction '[of craving etc.] through not clinging. Talk has that purpose, 'counsel has that purpose, support has that purpose, giving 'ear has that purpose, that is to say, the liberation of the 'mind through not clinging.'

I should correct my self, thereby admitting to the importance of transitions in meditation. Resolve, Concentration, and Equanimity certainly qualify as the foundations for insight, and as the passage above shows, obviously, a discussion about enlightenment doesn't mean a whole lot outside the world of discipline and restraint. I believe discipline at the least requires a descent amount of faith; without faith the object of discipline seems unimportant -when even a state of non-remorse is more preferable to a life of greed (which, as we see, only happens to fade away much farther on down the chain).

I just wanted to mention a minor detail.

For reasons beyond me, the translation most often found in at least some of the older texts for "mudita" is "sympathetic-joy" which implies to me a sort of happiness for others or towards others; whereas sympathy on its own is to me a lot like compassion in a sense, acting more as a supporting role that one takes for another who he or she cares about. But no matter.

I agree that empathy probably comes from a most-certainly different part of the heart than metta, or love/kindness as you put it. I once knew a person who was a really true friend. He always meant well and drove me nearly insane, but showed such interest towards me that even when he was "this close" to putting me in a frantic, yet darkly enticing, state of mania, he was still a very true friend. Metta can often come off as an impurity, despite the fact that most of us expect strict purity from a thing like caring devotion and the solid compassion. Often cheering someone up can feel the best even when the essence of that metta has a dark spice to it. There's a dark shadow to be found in love that somehow comforts one the most when it literally has you hanging by a thread (mentally).

It might just be me, but I recall the 1990's had a almost tangible feeling of something dark in the air. I was 13 years old when Nirvana hit the scene big. I recall the feeling in my town was like the whole community had gone off and shot up on heroin. If Kurt Cobain was the headstone of that feeling which characterized the early nineties, it's good to remember that even where that darkness of love became too intense at times, it was still after all a feeling of goodness.

Some of nicest people spread this intoxication and also happen to be, as the medical profession calls them, "manic-depressive". But it's best not to get into that. Maybe later. "We'll have time for that; later."

-Pondera