The Great Jhana Debate

Discussion of Samatha bhavana and Jhana bhavana.

Re: The jhana debate

Postby IanAnd » Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:11 pm

Brizzy wrote:What is one thing that the Buddha continuously asked his followers to practice? - Mindfulness of Body.
Yes. Indeed.

What is the most common reference to meditation the Buddha makes? - Jhana.
Yes, again.

Now without being a genius, wouldn't the jhana taught by the Buddha be the actual means for the the fulfillment of Mindfulness of Body.
Yes, once again.

Why would the Buddha exhort his followers to practice a meditation that cut off the tie between body & mind?
Don't know. Don't think he ever did, either.

Wouldn't he rather teach a means of experiencing a calmed body with a perfectly calm mind?
Now that's pure genius! :smile:

Finally. Someone (besides Geoff) who makes some sense in this thread.

For those who wish to make more sense of this topic see the following: The Path of Concentration & Mindfulness Sneak preview: "Now, when you're with the body as a whole, you're very much in the present moment. You're right there all the time. As the Buddha says, the fourth jhana — in which the body is filled with bright awareness — is the point where mindfulness and equanimity become pure."
"The gift of truth exceeds all other gifts" — Dhammapada, v. 354 Craving XXIV
User avatar
IanAnd
 
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:19 am
Location: the deserts of Arizona

Re: Tha jhana debate

Postby Kenshou » Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:47 pm

It's been in a sorry state of disarray for a couple of years now.... I will try to assemble it to some degree of readability in the next few weeks. I'll PM you when I have something ready.


I think there's more than a few people that would be glad to read it, actually. (no pressure)
Kenshou
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: The jhana debate

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:51 pm

IanAnd wrote: Finally. Someone (besides Geoff) who makes some sense in this thread.

Well, okay, but it still does not answer the question of what is jhana and jhana practice. I see a lot of opinions here. Some of them, on both sides, are well grounded. Over all I see all this hand-wringing and to-do with little to show for it.

Solution? Damdifino. For me the Mahasi Sayadaw/U Pandita tradition actually neatly encompasses both side: the Visuddhimagga type of jhana and the sutta type, which it calls the vipassana jhanas. It is not that people should not argue about this, trying to get a handle on it, but one also needs to be cognizant that one's opinions here are just that - opinions. The cushion is over there.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 20078
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Tha jhana debate

Postby Sylvester » Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:49 am

Dear All

Geoff's essay advances some interesting arguments against the "absorption" model of Jhana.

I would like to offer some thoughts on his main propositions, and hopefully argue that the Visudhimagga and sutta models are very similar, if not identical.

1. What does "vivicceva kàmehi" mean?

Geoff takes the position that the Abhidhamma commentarial tradition interprets this to mean complete cessation of what the Buddha "metaphorically" called the 5 strings of sensuality. In addition, he posits -

"And so it isn’t all forms, etc., that the meditator need to withdraw from (as stated in the jhana formula), the meditator simply needs to withdraw from those which tempt him or her, giving rise to lust, as stated here. As always, this makes perfect sense and is borne out by experience."

His basis for this is the translation of the Niramisa Sutta, SN 36.31 which reads -

"There are these five strings of sensuality (kàmagunà): forms cognizable by the eye that are wished for and desired, agreeable and endearing, associated with sense-desire and tempting to lust. Sounds cognizable by the ear... odors cognizable by the nose... flavors cognizable by the tongue... tangibles cognizable by the body, wished for and desired, agreeable and endearing, associated with sense-desire and tempting to lust." (underlining mine)

The Pali for the eye/form formula reads -

“Cakkhuviññeyyā rūpā iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṃhitā rajanīyā …”

The translation offered by Geoff above for SN 36.31 renders the predicates for rupa to be particular predicates, rather than a universal predicate for all rupa by inserting “that are” into the translation.

Contra the translation offered by Ven Thanissaro for the Nibbedhika Sutta AN 6.63 where the same kamaguna formula is translated with the predicates being universal, rather than particular –

“Forms cognizable via the eye -- agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing…”

The Five Kings Sutta SN 3.12 reads quite clearly that all of forms, sounds, odours, flavours and tactility have these predicates. It clearly suggests that the objective predicates of the 5 external ayatanas hold true, regardless of the observer's subjective response to the phassa with that object. That seems to me to be the crux of the message in AN 6.63's verse -

"The beauties remain as they are in the world, while the wise, in this regard, subdue their desire."

In the CPD entry on "kama", kama in the singular will typically refer to kamacchanda, while kama in the plural always refers to the panca kamaguna. The kamaguna are in turn defined as forms, sounds, odours, flavours and tactility, without any qualifier. "Kamehi" being the plural ablative for kama would mean the kamagunas.

So, a rather more literal translation of the 1st Jhana formula would probably read as -

“Here monks, quite secluded from the kamagunas, secluded from unskillful qualities, a monk enters and abides in the first jhana, which includes vitakka vicara, as well as happiness and pleasure born from seclusion.”

I am interested to see which Commentary actually says what Geoff attributed to it, namely cessation of kamagunas in Jhana. I don't believe that is the Commentarial explanation as to why the Jhanas are bereft of cognition of the kamagunas.

2. That the Commentaries posit the Jhanas to be "contentless trance states ... devoid of all sensory consciousness."

Again, I would like to see this properly attributed to the Commentaries. The absence of kayika vedana does not entail the absence of cetasika vedana.

3. The problem of the Infinite Space formula, and the affliction formula for 1st Jhana.

These are 2 closely allied issues. For the 1st, Geoff posits that the Infinite Space formula -

"Furthermore, there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of perceptions of [physical] form, with the disappearance of perceptions of resistance, and not heeding perceptions of diversity, thinking, 'Infinite space,' enters & remains in the dimension of the infinitude of space. ..." (underlining mine)

must mean that "perceptions of form" continue in the Rupa Jhanas.

Secondly, he posits that the 1st Jhana afflication formula -

"Now there is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. If, as he remains there, he is beset with attention to perceptions dealing with sensuality (kàmasahagatà saññàmanasikàrà), that is an affliction for him."

must be referring only to "attention and perception accompanied by desire", and not the perception of sensory forms.

Taking the 1st point, what does rupasanna (perception of form) in the Infinite Space formula mean? How is “space” defined? If the Dhatuvibhanga Sutta MN 140’s analysis of space is considered, it should be obvious that “space” is simply the absence of rupa. “Infinite space” should be that dhatu where rupa is completely absent.

Is the “sanna” in rupasanna of the Infinite Space formula, “perception” as in the effect of apperception consequent on phassa/contact with rupa, or can it mean something other than that? The PED attests to sanna’s polysemous character and includes “idea” as a meaning of sanna (4th entry). This is perhaps the most congruent reading of “rupasanna” in the context of the attainment of “Infinite Space”. One abandons the “idea” of rupa so totally to arrive at “Infinite Space”.

As for the 2nd point, does kàmasahagatà really mean "accompanied by desire"? Note that Ven Thanissaro elects the more ambiguous "sensuality" to render kama here. The reason being that in such Pali compounds expressed in the singular, they may also be taken to refer to the plural (see Warder p.77). An example of such a compound is "ragasahagata" in the 2nd Noble Truth, where the context reveals "raga" to be kamaraga, ruparaga and aruparaga. In this case, kàmasahagatà can be just as easily interpreted as referring to "accompanied by the kamagunas".

For argument's sake, let's allow kamasahagata to mean only “accompanied by desire”. This then has a rather unusual effect on the sanna/perception that destabilises 1st Jhana. Since 1st Jhana is supposed to be bereft of kamacchanda, the “kamasahagata sanna” flaw cannot mean “perception” as a consequence of contact with kamagunas, but must refer to the memory of kama. In fact, if one looks at the entire chain of flaws that afflict each level of Jhana, it is manasikara to sanna of something from the preceding Jhana which is abandoned in the current Jhana. Suttas like AN 9.34 make it very clear that the sanna that afflicts each Jhana is not apperception consequent on phassa with that "thing perceived", but either ideas or memories of certain states from the previous Jhana lingering.

4. The kaya problem - which "kaya" is suffused with Jhanic bliss?

I think the Commentaries are right to equate this "kaya" with the cetasika kaya for the following reasons -

(i) if the suttas (eg MN 66) are unanimous in describing the pleasure from the kamagunas as low and ignoble, it's quite hard to see why the Buddha would suddenly extol the suffusion of Jhanic bliss to be felt by the material body (presumably as tactile pleasure?)

(ii) more importantly, the Mahavedalla Sutta, MN 43 makes it clear that the range of each of the 5 material indriyas are such that they cannot experience the range of the ayatanas experienced by the other indriyas. The only faculty that can experience all 6 ayatanas is Mind. If this is correct, how will the material body experience the "pleasure that has nothing to do with kamas" (MN 36)? The Buddha was quite clear in the Mahasaccaka Sutta that Jhanic pleasure -

"Tassa mayhaṃ, aggivessana, etadahosi— ‘na kho ahaṃ tassa sukhassa bhāyāmi, yaṃ taṃ sukhaṃ aññatreva kāmehi aññatra akusalehi dhammehī’ti. "

The kama in question is again in the ablative plural, suggesting that kamagunas are out of the Jhana experience. Neither is it possible to argue that perhaps the body does not feel pleasure, but is purely equanimous. Here, the Mahaniddana Sutta DN 15 will permit only one feeling to be experienced at a time. If it's sukha, the dukkha and neutral feelings cannot be present at that time.

Perhaps that's enough for today. I'll try to address the cetana and satipatthana-within-Jhana issues when I return from my retreat.

With metta
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1635
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: The jhana debate

Postby IanAnd » Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:53 am

tiltbillings wrote:
IanAnd wrote: Finally. Someone (besides Geoff) who makes some sense in this thread.

Well, okay, but it still does not answer the question of what is jhana and jhana practice. I see a lot of opinions here. Some of them, on both sides, are well grounded. Over all I see all this hand-wringing and to-do with little to show for it.

Solution? Damdifino. For me the Mahasi Sayadaw/U Pandita tradition actually neatly encompasses both side[s]: the Visuddhimagga type of jhana and the sutta type, which it calls the vipassana jhanas. It is not that people should not argue about this, trying to get a handle on it, but one also needs to be cognizant that one's opinions here are just that - opinions. The cushion is over there.


Now that you bring up Mahasi Sayadaw and U Pandita, Tilt, you encourage me to post a comment I wrote the other day, but decided at the last minute not to post because I thought it might be misunderstood. Now, it seems, at least one person will understand it, and from that perhaps others will, however gradually, come to understand it as well. Below is the comment that almost never made it to publication, slightly revised from its original form.


It is unfortunate that people continue to be confused by different writers on the issue of how deep is deep enough when it comes to absorption and the application of insight contemplation. It is threads like this that can only add to the already prolific confusion being spread on the web. And by this last statement I mean to focus mostly on the confusion among new and inexperienced practitioners who are endeavoring to delineate between what is true and what is being exaggerated in the differing instruction.

If people just understood a few simple concepts about absorption and its application with regard to this issue, it might not become such a hot-button topic in Buddhist forums. Unfortunately, people tend to become attached to certain viewpoints (either based on their perception of their own experience or on which method aligns more closely with their own predispositions and ideas) without stopping to fully examine and understand the basic underlying fundamentals involved. I am speaking here in terms of rather broad generalities with regard to these practices rather than of specifics. There's always room to analyze specific practices later.

Although generally speaking and for clarification, I wholly agree with Thanissaro's interpretation of the discourses when he differentiates between two opposing views of absorption, saying that, on the one hand, some see jhana as being "a very intense trance-like state that requires intense staring and shutting out the rest of the world." And on the other hand that this description "sounds nothing like mindfulness at all. But if you look in the Canon where the Buddha describes jhana, that's not the kind of state he's talking about. To be in jhana is to be absorbed, very pleasurably, in the sense of the whole body altogether. A very broad sense of awareness fills the entire body."

Overall I have been meditating for 30 years, but only in the last ten years have I used Buddhist meditation techniques and instruction in the quest for better self-understanding and hence understanding and integration of the Dhamma taught by Gotama Buddha. So, based on that preface, people can make their own determination as to whether or not there is any merit to my opinions.

By the time I got around to being able to study Buddhism in more depth, I had already been through the ringer with regard to various "spiritual" personalities attempting to "win" my allegiance to their way of viewing things. So, it came as a breath of fresh air to read of a "master" who simply said, "Come and see for yourself what is true about what I teach. You be the judge based upon your direct experience."

What attracted me back to a study of Buddhism some twenty odd years ago was coming across a translated passage from the Kalama Sutta that I had not heretofor ever come across until that moment. I appreciated the straightforward appeal to one's own sensibilities of discernment and to a teaching that was unbiased in its presentation if you but took the time to understand what was being said over and above what other's opinions (interpretations) about this might have been.

What struck me about the link to an introduction on absorption provided by Modus.Ponens were the similarities and not the differences being expressed by the various personages under examination. Are there subtle differences in how one approaches this subject? Undoubtedly, there are. But are these differences enough to waste time arguing about? In some cases, perhaps. But generally speaking, possibly not. Simply do what works for you and let go of all the rest.

Not totally unexpected is the approach of two of the monastic personalities mentioned in the link. Both Pa Auk and Ajahn Brahmavamso are presented as proponents of the so-called "Visuddhimagga Jhana" instruction contingent. It should come as little surprise that a monastic teacher would expect more out of his students than a non-monastic teacher might. This is not to say that all monastic teachers follow the same path with regard to their monastic students. Only that these two in particular present the same teaching methodology to both their monastic students and to their non-monastic students. They expect their students to achieve the highest abilities possible to achieve and will not settle for anything less.

On the other side of the fence are five monastic personalities (Ayya Khema, Ven. Amathagavesi, Bhante Gunaratana, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, and Bhante Vimalaramsi) who teach a variety of possibilities that their students might aspire to achieve and who seem to endeavor to use any progress possible as a stepping stone to higher achievement. It would seem that the main differences here (between these two schools of monastic teachers) would be in the basic approach that they use in teaching students. One is a bit more lenient than the other with regard to basic attainments, while the lesser of the two still expects his students to eventually measure up.

What they all seem to agree on is that absorption can be an invaluable tool to use when one is attempting to discern and realize the Dhamma that Gotama taught. The differences in approach generally speak to differences in the kind of students that each are attempting to work with. Just as the Buddha used differing techniques on his own students depending upon the ability of the student, these teachers have learned to use what works for them and to work with those students who find them more engaging than not.

For instance, a person might attend a Pa Auk or Ajahn Bramavamso retreat and not respond very well to the instruction given there. He might subsequently attend a retreat sponsored by Bhante Gunaratana or Thanissaro Bhikkhu and begin to make palpable progress in his practice. Just as likely an outcome is the opposite of this scenario. Someone who could not make progress with the latter retreatant methodology might make better progress with the former. When push comes to shove, the approach that works for one doesn't always work for all. Each student has individualized needs, and differing approaches can oftentimes handle those needs in a positive manner.

As for the basics themselves, they remain the same: absorption calls for a considerable amount of concentration ability to be able to enter at all. It calls for a unification of the mind on an object or a subject. There can be nothing wrong with utilizing differing methods for achieving that concentration ability. Some people respond more positively to practicing the Brahma Viharas for entering absorption while others are able to achieve absorption using the simplicity of concentration on the breath.

Once the correct level of concentration (samadhi) is achieved, however, there is generally no difference of opinion as to what must come next. The most direct method would be the practice of the instruction given in the Satipatthana Sutta. In modern times, the difference between those teachers who insist on their students achieving a deep absorption as opposed to those who proposed that a lighter absorption is acceptable for insight practice is no better illustrated than in the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition.

Mahasi Sayadaw was keenly aware that his lay students were not always able to attend to their meditation practice with quite the same amount of diligence and determination as his monastic students were, that they were more likely to be distracted by their lay lives and might not always be able to achieve deep levels of absorption. And so he devised a system of training for those students which required an absorption level that was not as deep in its requirements yet was more than adequate for insight work. He wanted to help his lay students make progress from whatever level they were currently at. Any ability at all which allowed the mind to remain concentrated upon a single object or subject for an extended period of time was worth cultivating, in his opinion. And so he was committed to helping his students achieve whatever they could from where they stood.

Having been on both sides of this question myself within my own practice, I can say without any hesitation that deep concentration states help train the mind to more thoroughly remain concentrated (even and especially after meditation practice, which is a valuable consideration when it comes to the pursuit of realization) than do shallower levels of concentration. I am able to maintain mindfulness and concentration for longer and longer periods of time after meditation when I take the time to achieve a deeper absorption, than I am when I only achieve the concentration necessary for the practice of insight, which doesn't need to be that deep. If you can remain concentrated for two to five minutes at a time without break or unnoticed break, that is enough time to be able to avert the mind from samatha to vipassana practice, and to benefit from such a transition.

(Yet, it should be understood that I am not a proponent of those who teach that only during meditation is one able to reach certain realizations about the Dhamma; it is also possible to reach those realizations outside of meditation contemplation. The main ingredient that is important in such endeavors is the ability to remain concentrated on the subject of contemplation long enough for the realizations to arise in the mind. And those realizations can occur either during or outside of strict sessions of meditation — i.e. during moments of non-meditative contemplation.)

So, does my experience mean that I endorse the necessity for deep states of concentration proposed in such works as the Visuddhimagga and so-called "visuddhimagga jhanas"? Or that I endorse the level of jhana described in the suttas and so-called "sutta jhanas"? In one sense, it means neither. From my experience there's a place for both in a person's practice. In other words, this argument, from a certain point of view, could be seen as a red herring, only meant to confuse and, in some cases, to discourage practice. Those who are not able to achieve deep levels of absorption need not be discouraged, for it is still possible to achieve awakening with whatever intensity of samadhi that you have achieved.

What I know for sure is that in whatever way you personally can find to be able to enter into absorption, you should use that method to continue to enter into absorption and to improve your abilities at being able to maneuver in that state. Do I think it is necessary that someone be able to achieve deep levels of concentration in order for them to be able to come to the realizations necessary for achieving awakening? I have already answered that. No. I do not. Awakening can be achieved with only a modicum of concentration ability rightly practiced and rightly focused.

Do I think that deep levels of absorption are important for being able to maintain one's practice in mindfulness and concentration? Yes, they can be. And you might think so too if you had experienced what I (and many others) have experienced who have been able to attain deep levels of quietude and the benefits thereof. Do I think that it is possible to work at attaining awakening first, and then, after having attained it, to turn one's attention toward deepening one's experience of absorption? Yes. I see no reason why not. Though I was essentially able to achieve deep levels of absorption during the time before being able to achieve awakening, the greater part of my awakening was achieved during moments of contemplation outside of formal meditation, meaning outside of having attained intense absorption states. It was only afterward that I was able to more easily take advantage of these deep levels and to more fully develop my ability to maneuver within absorption.

This last sentiment can be seen to speak to those who say that it is possible to practice a "dry" insight method (without absorption) as opposed to a "wet" insight method (with absorption) and still be able to achieve awakening. Overall, I think that those who work at achieving insight accompanied by absorption are more likely to be able to hold onto their achievement throughout their lives than those who achieve it without the assistance of absorption who yet also don't work to improve their concentration practice. Samadhi (absorption) brings so many mental benefits with it as to out weigh any opposing method or tool, which is why the Buddha had so much to say about it in the discourses. Those who practice and achieve mastery over absorption have a much higher probability of achieving awakening than those who are so unfortunate as to not achieve absorption.

To paraphrase a related saying of the Buddha ("But mindfulness, monks, I say is always useful."), deepening one's absorption is always useful. Among other reasons, this is because it helps one to be able to maintain mindfulness (presence of mind, or sati) for longer and longer periods outside of meditation, which is what is needed for the alleviation of dukkha and all that word implies.
"The gift of truth exceeds all other gifts" — Dhammapada, v. 354 Craving XXIV
User avatar
IanAnd
 
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:19 am
Location: the deserts of Arizona

Re: Tha jhana debate

Postby Sylvester » Thu Jun 10, 2010 11:02 am

Hello again. A little postscript on the kamaguna formula, even if I risk sounding obsessive.

“Cakkhuviññeyyā rūpā iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṃhitā rajanīyā …”

ie forms cognisable by the eye - agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing.

Are the predicates that follow "form" adjectives that limit the kamaguna to only forms which are agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing?

Another set of well-known phrases from the First Sermon share the same grammatical construction as the panca kamaguna formula:-

"... kàmasukhallikànuyogo hino gammo pothujjaniko anariyo anatthasamhito" and

"...attakilamathànuyogo dukkho anariyo anatthasaühito".

If the predicates that follow kàmasukhallikànuyogo and attakilamathànuyogo are interpreted as limiting adjectives that restrict the 2 Extremes to only

- Indulgence in Sense Pleasure which is base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and
- Self Affliction which is painful, ignoble, unprofitable,

we would have to re-write the First Sermon to allow for Indulgence in Sense Pleasure which is not base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable. It's clear that this grammatical construction used in the formulae for the kamagunas and the 2 Extremes are not limiting adjectives.

It therefore seems very clear that the Visudhimagga description of Jhanas being bereft of all consciousness of external objects is founded in the suttas' standard formula for 1st Jhana. When that formula declares "vivicceva kàmehi", its plain meaning is "quite secluded from the kamagunas", ie "quite secluded from all sights, sounds, flavours, odours and tactility".
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1635
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Tha jhana debate

Postby Nyana » Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:22 pm

Hi Ian and tilt, it's been a while.

Ian, I agree with your post. There isn't only one correct way. As I said previously, for myself, this discussion is merely about what the discourses have to say. It isn't anything more. IMO it should probably be in the Early Buddhism forum.


Sylvester wrote:The Five Kings Sutta SN 3.12 reads quite clearly that all of forms, sounds, odours, flavours and tactility have these predicates. It clearly suggests that the objective predicates of the 5 external ayatanas hold true, regardless of the observer's subjective response to the phassa with that object.

Hi Sylvester. SN 3.12 highlights what I’ve been saying, i.e. what constitutes a “string of sensuality” for person A, may very well be revolting to person B, and hence, not a “string of sensuality” for them at all. It’s entirely subjective.

Ven. Bodhi’s Translation: “Those same forms [etc.] that are agreeable to one person, great king, are disagreeable to another.”

Mary loves blue cheese. Tom thinks it’s disgusting.


Sylvester wrote:"Kamehi" being the plural ablative for kama would mean the kamagunas.

So, a rather more literal translation of the 1st Jhana formula would probably read as -

“Here monks, quite secluded from the kamagunas, secluded from unskillful qualities, a monk enters and abides in the first jhana, which includes vitakka vicara, as well as happiness and pleasure born from seclusion.”

I never said otherwise. One should certainly be secluded from whatever, for them, is “wished for and desired, agreeable and endearing, associated with sense-desire and tempting to lust.”

The reason for this is so that one doesn’t give rise to apperceptions of kāma in the first jhāna.

Let’s look at the relevant bit from AN 6.63 (A iii 410):

Api ca kho, bhikkhave, nete kāmā, kāmaguṇā nāmete ariyassa vinaye vuccanti –
Saṅkapparāgo purisassa kāmo,
Nete kāmā yāni citrāni loke.

Here:

kāmā ≠ kāmaguṇā
kāma ≠ yāni citrāni loke
kāma = saṅkapparāgo

This is the point of this section of the discourse.


AN 9.31 (A iv 409): Anupubbanirodha Sutta:

Paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ samāpannassa kāmasaññā niruddhā hoti.
For one who has attained the first jhāna, apperceptions of sensuality have ceased.

Sylvester wrote:In the CPD entry on "kama", kama in the singular will typically refer to kamacchanda, while kama in the plural always refers to the panca kamaguna.

AN 6.63: kāmā (plural) ≠ kāmaguṇā

Sylvester wrote:2. That the Commentaries posit the Jhanas to be "contentless trance states ... devoid of all sensory consciousness."

Again, I would like to see this properly attributed to the Commentaries. The absence of kayika vedana does not entail the absence of cetasika vedana.

That phrasing was edited out of the essay long ago.

Sylvester wrote:3. The problem of the Infinite Space formula, and the affliction formula for 1st Jhana.

Is the “sanna” in rupasanna of the Infinite Space formula, “perception” as in the effect of apperception consequent on phassa/contact with rupa, or can it mean something other than that? The PED attests to sanna’s polysemous character and includes “idea” as a meaning of sanna (4th entry). This is perhaps the most congruent reading of “rupasanna” in the context of the attainment of “Infinite Space”. One abandons the “idea” of rupa so totally to arrive at “Infinite Space”.

The sphere of infinite space formula also states “with the disappearance of perceptions of resistance (paṭighasaññāna)....”

DN 15 states:

"If, Ānanda, all those modes, characteristics, signs and exponents, by which the form-group is designated were absent, would there be manifest any resistance-contact (paṭighasamphasso) in the name-group?" "There would not, lord."

The form group is the four great existents and derivatives of them. So the implication is that resistance contact is present in the four jhāna-s.

As I said in a previous post, M i 293 and A iv 426 both explicitly state that it is only when abiding in the fully purified formless attainments that the mind is isolated from the five sense faculties and doesn’t attend to any apperceptions of the five sensory spheres.

Neither of those statements from M i 293 or A iv 426 are of interpretive meaning (neyyattha). They aren't in need of further interpretation. They are of definitive meaning (nītattha). They speak directly in terms of the faculties (indriya-s) and sense spheres (āyatana-s). A iv 426 is very explicit. Venerable Ānanda states that when not experiencing the form, sound, etc., āyatana-s, one can be percipient of one of the three formless perception attainments, or aññāphala samādhi.

If it were the case that one cannot experience any of these āyatana-s while abiding in the four jhāna-s, then this discourse would have included the four jhāna-s along with the three formless perception attainments and aññāphala samādhi.

The same holds true for S v 214 and S v 211 regarding the pleasure and equanimity faculties (sukhindriya & upekkhindriya).

Of course, the abhidhammikas reinterpreted all of this. And if one wants to follow that interpretation, that's fine by me.

Sylvester wrote:4. The kaya problem - which "kaya" is suffused with Jhanic bliss?

I think the Commentaries are right to equate this "kaya" with the cetasika kaya

S v 214 states that the pleasure faculty (sukhindriya) doesn’t cease until the third jhāna, and S v 211 defines the pleasure faculty as pleasure born of body contact. S iv 236 further tells us that nirāmisā pīti and sukha are what is experienced in jhāna – hence the pīti and sukha of jhāna are non-sensual, yet sukha is still born of body contact according to suttantika analysis.

Sylvester wrote:Neither is it possible to argue that perhaps the body does not feel pleasure, but is purely equanimous. Here, the Mahaniddana Sutta DN 15 will permit only one feeling to be experienced at a time. If it's sukha, the dukkha and neutral feelings cannot be present at that time.

Please refer to S v 214 for which feeling faculties cease in which jhāna-s.

Sylvester wrote:1. What does "vivicceva kàmehi" mean?

The Pali for the eye/form formula reads -

“Cakkhuviññeyyā rūpā iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṃhitā rajanīyā …”

The translation offered by Geoff above for SN 36.31 renders the predicates for rupa to be particular predicates, rather than a universal predicate for all rupa by inserting “that are” into the translation.

Contra the translation offered by Ven Thanissaro for the Nibbedhika Sutta AN 6.63 where the same kamaguna formula is translated with the predicates being universal, rather than particular –

“Forms cognizable via the eye -- agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing…”

“Cakkhuviññeyyā rūpā iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṃhitā rajanīyā …”

ie forms cognisable by the eye - agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing.

Are the predicates that follow "form" adjectives that limit the kamaguna to only forms which are agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing?

Do you truly experience all sights, sounds, odors, flavors, and tactile sensations as “agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing”? What about the odor and flavor of uncooked, rotting meat? Or feces? How about the tactile sensations which arise from placing your hand on a red hot electric stove element? Or taking a bath in sulphuric acid? I can say with certainty that I don’t find any of those sense experiences agreeable in any way.

Sylvester wrote:When that formula declares "vivicceva kàmehi", its plain meaning is "quite secluded from all sights, sounds, flavours, odours and tactility".

See above.

[edit: typo]
Last edited by Nyana on Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:37 am, edited 2 times in total.
Nyana
 
Posts: 2227
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Tha jhana debate

Postby Alex123 » Thu Jun 10, 2010 10:18 pm

Brizzy wrote:What is one thing that the Buddha continuously asked his followers to practice? - Mindfulness of Body.
What is the most common reference to meditation the Buddha makes? - Jhana.
Now without being a genius, would'nt the jhana taught by the Buddha be the actual means for the the fulfillment of Mindfulness of Body.
Why would the Buddha exhort his followers to practice a meditation that cut off the tie between body & mind?
Would'nt he rather teach a means of experiencing a calmed body with a perfectly calm mind?

:smile:


Unfortunately as one considers suttas more, it is not such a sure thing.

Buddha has talked about insight practices as much, if not more than about Jhana as the path.

In patisambidamagga there are plenty of references that say that jhana/vipassana happen during transcendental path moment. Thus, the actual jhana that is required *could* happen at the moment of path/fruit. In the suttas we often hear about a person who entered a certain Jhana and then became awakened. Maybe that jhana was the jhana of the path moment and not a preliminary worldly jhana.


Losing awareness of 5-6 senses may have zero effect on underlying tendencies. We all shut off 5 senses, and have no restlessness in deep sleep every night. At that time there is no experience of lust, anger or delusion at that time, simply because there are no objects and no active mind to lust. This has nothing to do with wisdom nor is a result of wisdom. Yet when we awaken from the deep sleep, we aren't Enlightened and unwholesome actions return because they were merely suppressed.

When it comes to access or momentary concentration, same thing. Only the degree of sensory suppression is different. Maybe actually this kind of state is better simply because one is still aware and could gather more wisdom, while no wisdom can be gathered when one can't see,hear, sense, or be aware of anything.
"dust to dust...."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2960
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Tha jhana debate

Postby Kenshou » Thu Jun 10, 2010 11:07 pm

Buddha has talked about insight practices as much, if not more than about Jhana as the path.


But the important thing is that he talks about -both-, often side by side.

Nothing stated in Brizzy's post has any implications which exclude the importance of insight practice, as far as I can see. The discourses are pretty straightforward, I think, in maintaining that jhana neither is the path nor is somehow superior to insight, rather it is simply a tool, a wholesome skill that is useful on the path and conductive to insight. Concentration and insight practices are not mutually exclusive but mutually supportive. People make a dichotomy out of this far too often, IMO.
Kenshou
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: Tha jhana debate

Postby Alex123 » Thu Jun 10, 2010 11:12 pm

Kenshou wrote:
Buddha has talked about insight practices as much, if not more than about Jhana as the path.


But the important thing is that he talks about -both-, often side by side.


These could form a part of what is known as path/fruition moment.

Nothing stated in Brizzy's post has any implications which exclude the importance of insight practice, as far as I can see.


Insight is an attainment. Strictly speaking, one cannot practice "insight". One can learn and study, and as a result of that, one day insight will come.


"Friend, there are two conditions for the arising of right view: the voice of another and appropriate attention. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html




"When the Doctrine & Discipline declared by the Tathagata is being taught, he does not listen well, does not give ear, does not apply his mind to gnosis, grabs hold of what is worthless, rejects what is worthwhile, and is not endowed with the patience to conform with the teaching.

"Endowed with these six qualities, a person is incapable of alighting on the lawfulness, the rightness of skillful mental qualities even when listening to the true Dhamma.

"When the Doctrine & Discipline declared by the Tathagata is being taught, he listens well, gives ear, applies his mind to gnosis, rejects what is worthless, grabs hold of what is worthwhile, and is endowed with the patience to conform with the teaching.

"Endowed with these six qualities, a person is capable of alighting on the lawfulness, the rightness of skillful mental qualities even while listening to the true Dhamma."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html


No mention of concentration (especially of the don't see, don't hear) for stream-entry.
"dust to dust...."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2960
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Tha jhana debate

Postby Kenshou » Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:35 am

These could form a part of what is known as path/fruition moment.

I think the magga/phala citta(s) notion is a bit forced, but I don't see the value of swerving into that topic right now, so I'm gonna let that one be.

Insight is an attainment. Strictly speaking, one cannot practice "insight". One can learn and study, and as a result of that, one day insight will come.

Though I agree with that, I think terms like "insight practice" are thrown around commonly enough that you ought to know what I'm talking about. (or at least I thought so, in hindsight that comment sounded snarkier than I wanted it to be, sorry)

No mention of concentration (especially of the don't see, don't hear) for stream-entry.

I intentionally tried to make sure that I was not implying that insight is impossible without concentration, only that it is supportive of it. If that was not clear, allow me to make it clear now. (I don't buy the "don't see, don't hear etc. definition anyway)
Kenshou
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: Tha jhana debate

Postby Alex123 » Fri Jun 11, 2010 1:21 am

Kenshou wrote:
These could form a part of what is known as path/fruition moment.

I think the magga/phala citta(s) notion is a bit forced, but I don't see the value of swerving into that topic right now, so I'm gonna let that one be.


It is implied in the suttas, especially those where a person went from good worldling to an Arahant in a split second, or few minutes (ala Bahiya). In that case the 4 path and fruits happened very rapidly.

In Ptsm this is explicitly said. All 37 factors of awakening happen during the path/fruit moment. They aren't practiced, they are a result.

1) Association with people of integrity is a factor for stream-entry.
2) Listening to the true Dhamma is a factor for stream-entry.
3) Appropriate attention is a factor for stream-entry.
4) Practice in accordance with the Dhamma is a factor for stream-entry.
— SN 55.5


In some other places it is said to lead all the way to Arhatship. Notice how instructions seem progressive, where one factor is the cause for the next.


Appropriate attention as a quality of a monk in training: nothing else does so much for attaining the superlative goal. A monk, striving appropriately, attains the ending of stress.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... #fnt-016.3
"dust to dust...."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2960
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Tha jhana debate

Postby Kenshou » Fri Jun 11, 2010 5:51 am

The underlying issue is that I take a somewhat different and more inclusive stance on what exactly constitutes magga and phala. I do not believe that the Abhidhammic analysis is entirely without value or truth but I think that it can be a little pedantic and rigid, good food for thought but not necessarily a reliable guide to this messy reality of ours.
Kenshou
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: Tha jhana debate

Postby Nyana » Fri Jun 11, 2010 7:23 am

Sylvester wrote:“Cakkhuviññeyyā rūpā iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṃhitā rajanīyā …”

ie forms cognisable by the eye - agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing.

Are the predicates that follow "form" adjectives that limit the kamaguna to only forms which are agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing?

Indeed they are. I forgot to mention the following from SN 47.6 (S v 146), which differentiates between the kāmaguṇa-s and the four satipaṭṭhāna-s. It's worth remembering in this regard that the contemplation of the body satipaṭṭhāna includes objects of contemplation such as mindfulness of breathing, the foul parts of the body, and the stages of corpse decomposition. Clearly the body, the tactile sensations associated with the breath, the 32 parts of the body, and the stages of corpse decomposition are not considered to be "strings of sensuality." SN 47.6 (S v 146):

"[Y]ou should not wander into what is not your proper range and is the territory of others. In one who wanders into what is not his proper range and is the territory of others, Mara gains an opening, Mara gains a foothold. And what, for a monk, is not his proper range and is the territory of others? The five strands of sensuality. Which five? Forms cognizable by the eye — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. Sounds cognizable by the ear... Aromas cognizable by the nose... Flavors cognizable by the tongue... Tactile sensations cognizable by the body — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. These, for a monk, are not his proper range and are the territory of others.

"Wander, monks, in what is your proper range, your own ancestral territory. In one who wanders in what is his proper range, his own ancestral territory, Mara gains no opening, Mara gains no foothold. And what, for a monk, is his proper range, his own ancestral territory? The four frames of reference. Which four? There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves... mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. This, for a monk, is his proper range, his own ancestral territory."
Nyana
 
Posts: 2227
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Tha jhana debate

Postby Alex123 » Sat Jun 12, 2010 2:54 am

Kenshou wrote:The underlying issue is that I take a somewhat different and more inclusive stance on what exactly constitutes magga and phala. I do not believe that the Abhidhammic analysis is entirely without value or truth but I think that it can be a little pedantic and rigid, good food for thought but not necessarily a reliable guide to this messy reality of ours.


Awakening (magga/phala) being a moment containing all 37 factors of awakening is found in Sutta-Pitaka, Patisambhidamagga



TREATISE XXIII — ON CONVERGENCE
No. At the moment of the supramundane path: there is convergence of seeing, which is right view; there is convergence of directing-onto, which
is right thought; there is convergence of embracing, which is right speaking; there is convergence of originating, which is right acting; there is convergence
of cleansing, which is right living; there is convergence of exertion, which is right effort; there is convergence of establishing (founding), which is right mindfulness; there is convergence of non-distraction, which is right concentration. There is convergence of establishing (founding),
which is the mindfulness enlightenment factor; ... [and so on with the rest of the seven enlightenment factors] ... there is convergence of reflexion,
which is the equanimity enlightenment factor. There is convergence of unshakability by non-faith, which is the faith power: ... [and
so on with the rest of the ñve powers] ... there is convergence of unshakability by ignorance, which is the understanding power. There is
convergence of resolution, which is the faith faculty;... [and so on with the rest of the five faculties] ... there is convergence of seeing, which is
the understanding faculty. There is convergence of the faculties in the sense of dominance; there is convergence of the powers in the sense of
unshakability; there is convergence of the enlightenment factors in the sense of outlet; there is convergence of the path in the sense of cause;
there is convergence of the foundations of mindfulness in the sense of establishment (foundation); there is convergence of the right endeavours
in the sense of endeavouring; there is convergence of the bases for success in the sense of succeeding; there is convergence of the actualities in the
sense of suchness (reality). There is convergence of serenity in the sense of non-distraction; there is convergence of insight in the sense of contemplation;
there is convergence of serenity and insight in the sense of single function (taste); there is convergence of coupling in the sense of nonexcess.
Purification of virtue in the sense of restraint is convergence; purification of cognizance in the sense of non-distraction is convergence;
purification of view in the sense of seeing is convergence; liberation in the sense of freedom is convergence; recognition in the sense of penetration
is convergence; deliverance in the sense of giving up is convergence; knowledge of exhaustion in the sense of cutting off is convergence. In the sense
of root foundation, zeal is convergence; in the sense of origination, attention is convergence; in the sense of combining, contact is convergence; in
the sense of being foremost, [217] concentration is convergence; in the sense of dominance, mindfulness is convergence; in the sense of being the
highest of all, understanding is convergence; in the sense of core, deliverance is convergence; in the sense of end, nibbana which merges in the
deathless is convergence.


Repeat the same for stream-entry path and till arhatship fruition.

Also the faculties are being developed at the moment of 4 paths and fruits.
TREATISE IV. — ON FACULTIES
At the moment of the stream-entry path the five faculties are being developed; at the moment of the fruition of stream-entry the five faculties
have been developed, quite developed, and also tranquillized, quite tranquillized.
[same for other 3 maggaphalas]

The five faculties are supramundane, not to mention Noble Eight Fold Path. Noble (Aryan) means that worldlings cannot practice it as they are worldlings and not noble ones.
[ TREATISE XVIII. - ON THE SUPRAMUNDANE ]
1. What ideas are supramundane?
The four Foundations of Mindfulness, the four Right Endeavours, the four Bases for Success (Roads to Power), the five Faculties, the five Powers, the seven Enlightenment factors, the Eightfold Path; then the four Noble Paths, the four Fruits of Asceticism, and Nibbana.


They are supramundane, they cannot be practiced by ordinary worldling.
"dust to dust...."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2960
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Tha jhana debate

Postby Brizzy » Sat Jun 12, 2010 11:03 am

As regards the body being "felt" in jhana.................

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn48/sn48.038.than.html

SN48.040 Then goes on to explain that the pleasure faculty (BODILY pleasure) ceases in the third jhana. There still remains bodily feelings of equanimity.

Sorry I could not find an online version of the sutta, if anybody knows of one that would be cool. The sutta is immensely straightforward and leaves no doubt about the body within jhana.

:smile:
Brizzy
 

Re: The jhana debate

Postby Freawaru » Sun Jun 20, 2010 9:53 am

Hi Geoff and IanAnd,

IanAnd wrote:
Brizzy wrote:What is one thing that the Buddha continuously asked his followers to practice? - Mindfulness of Body.
Yes. Indeed.


According to the Kayanupassana http://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/T ... assana.htm one can
know the biological insides of our physical body - hairs of the head, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone-marrow, kidney, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, ... Speaking from a point of experience do you experience direct knowledge of these aspects of the physical body during jhana? Do you experience them as pleasant, the pleasant feeling of jhana in the nails and kidney and liver? Because I don't. In what I would call jhana I experience pleasant feeling permeating my body, yes, but no liver and pleura and lungs, just an experience of form permeated by pleasant feeling. There are the elements, yes, but no biological aspects. I have experienced the awareness of the biological body now and then but via a different route than the elements - they seem to me to be on another level of observation.

So from my point of experience I would say that kayanupassana is different from jhana. The body experienced during jhana is either the one made of the elements or the mind-made one or the formless one, but never the biological one. This rather agrees with the yoga system and the Tibetan system - in both the body made of the elements (the gross body) is not the biological body - of course this is Theravada and it might be different here but I would like some proove to accept that.

So: are you really sure you are aware of the biological body during jhana: hairs of the head, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone-marrow, kidney, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, ...? Can you control the biological body during jhana as one can control the elements - change blood pressure, heart beat, body temperature, guide a poison through the intestine without it being assimilated ... ?

And are there suttic references that identify without doubt the elemental body of the first jhanas with the biological body in contrast to the yogic and Tibetan systems that don't ?
Freawaru
 
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:26 pm

Re: Tha jhana debate

Postby Freawaru » Sun Jun 20, 2010 10:41 am

Hi Geoff,

Ñāṇa wrote:
Freawaru wrote:Do you know the Pali terms used in the Potthapada sutta for "the gross acquisition of a self", "the mind-made acquisition of a self", and "formless acquisition of a self"?

They are oḷāriko attapaṭilābho, manomayo attapaṭilābho, arūpo attapaṭilābho.

Freawaru wrote:Also, what is the Pali term translated as "perception" here (cause this translation translates the very same term as "consciousness"?) http://www.leighb.com/dn9.htm (my Pali is lousy, you know)

It is saññā.


Thank you very much for the translations :smile:
Freawaru
 
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:26 pm

Re: Tha jhana debate

Postby Sekha » Sun Jun 20, 2010 11:18 am

just to make it a little bit more salty:
from http://www.leighb.com/jhana_4factors.htm "Five Factors for the First Jhana - NOT!":
There is a wide spread misunderstanding that the first jhana has 5 factors. But this is not what is described in the suttas and is certainly not what the Buddha taught and practiced. The first jhana has 4 factors (Yes! Four - look it up, see it in Pali):
vitakka - thinking
vicara - more thinking, examining
piti - rapture, glee, zest
sukha - happiness
In the vast majority of cases - over 100 suttas, the first jhana is described as having only the 4 factors listed above.

Actually, I found an occurence where Sariputta on being asked what is 1st jhana gives the usual formula with 4 factors, and in the immediate next question about how many factors there are in 1st jhana he states 5 and adds cittekaggata...

what to think about this?

From MN 43 in Pali:
‘‘Katamaṃ panāvuso, paṭhamaṃ jhāna’’nti?

‘‘Idhāvuso, bhikkhu vivicceva kāmehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakkaṃ savicāraṃ vivekajaṃ pītisukhaṃ paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharati – idaṃ vuccati, āvuso, paṭhamaṃ jhāna’’nti.

‘‘Paṭhamaṃ panāvuso, jhānaṃ katiaṅgika’’nti?

‘‘Paṭhamaṃ kho, āvuso, jhānaṃ pañcaṅgikaṃ. Idhāvuso, paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ samāpannassa bhikkhuno vitakko ca vattati, vicāro ca pīti ca sukhañca cittekaggatā ca. Paṭhamaṃ kho, āvuso, jhānaṃ evaṃ pañcaṅgika’’nti.


English translation by B Bodhi:
“Friend, what is the first jhana?”
“Here, friend, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the first jhana, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion. This is called the first jhana.”
19. “Friend, how many factors does the first jhana have?”
“Friend, the first jhana has five factors. Here, when a bhikkhu has entered upon the first jhana, there occur applied thought, sustained thought, rapture, pleasure, and unification of mind. That is how the first jhana has five factors.”
Where knowledge ends, religion begins. - B. Disraeli

http://www.buddha-vacana.org

As a sweet-smelling and beautiful lotus flower may grow upon a heap of rubbish thrown on the highway, so also, out of the rubbish heap of beings may appear a disciple of the Buddha, who with his wisdom, shines resplendent in wisdom. -/ Dhp 58-59
User avatar
Sekha
 
Posts: 752
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:32 am
Location: French Guiana

Re: Tha jhana debate

Postby oceanmen » Sun Jun 20, 2010 12:09 pm

Do I think that deep levels of absorption are important for being able to maintain one's practice in mindfulness and concentration? Yes, they can be. And you might think so too if you had experienced what I (and many others) have experienced who have been able to attain deep levels of quietude and the benefits thereof. Do I think that it is possible to work at attaining awakening first, and then, after having attained it, to turn one's attention toward deepening one's experience of absorption? Yes. I see no reason why not. Though I was essentially able to achieve deep levels of absorption during the time before being able to achieve awakening, the greater part of my awakening was achieved during moments of contemplation outside of formal meditation, meaning outside of having attained intense absorption states. It was only afterward that I was able to more easily take advantage of these deep levels and to more fully develop my ability to maneuver within absorption.

This last sentiment can be seen to speak to those who say that it is possible to practice a "dry" insight method (without absorption) as opposed to a "wet" insight method (with absorption) and still be able to achieve awakening. Overall, I think that those who work at achieving insight accompanied by absorption are more likely to be able to hold onto their achievement throughout their lives than those who achieve it without the assistance of absorption who yet also don't work to improve their concentration practice. Samadhi (absorption) brings so many mental benefits with it as to out weigh any opposing method or tool, which is why the Buddha had so much to say about it in the discourses. Those who practice and achieve mastery over absorption have a much higher probability of achieving awakening than those who are so unfortunate as to not achieve absorption.


i have a question:
similar to yourself I was essentially able to achieve deep levels of absorption during the time before being able to achieve awakening yet it did not help me at all to reach awakening because i did not understand the dhamma well and i though this is it, i m enlightened! when in fact it was an ego trap, or in other words, i did not make good benefit of it the first couple of years till i had my first vipassana retreat and understood later (through deeper study) that insight is to understand imperminance, dissatisfaction and non self and to work on the 8 fold path in every moment o our lifes

now comes the question: the last few 2-3 years as my understanding of dhamma is deepening i get the deep level of absorbtion either at the beginning without insight yet, or in the middle of the session when i come to a certain realization/awakening of any unskillful action, word, intention that i did during that day/ week/ month/ year, almost like a form of detecting the unskilful behavior and seeing the foolishness of it, and the wisedom of putting an effort to end it

so is it possible that the deep levels of absorbtion come each time we reach a nw insight/awareness? or is it just my imagination?

ps: i m not good with terminology, my understanding of deep absorbtion, is a sensation of light headedness and almost as if the body is gone from down and going up accompanied with a feeling of bliss, and as if there is no gravity, there are some other things but i dont know how to describe....


feedback appreciated!!
User avatar
oceanmen
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:45 am

PreviousNext

Return to Samatha Meditation and Jhana

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests