What are the actual differences between "Hard" and "Soft" jhanas?

[pitithefool]

The state Ven. D is describing below, what he calls 'the post jhana state' is actually the imperturbable state of fourth jhana that can realize the 6 higher knowledges.
One does not have to be in that imperturbable version of 4th jhana to realize nirvana.
For example, 3rd jhana explicitly embeds 'sati and sampajano' within 3rd jhana, that is one does that activity WHILE in 3rd jhana (AN 4.41).
MN 111 builds on that shows vipassana is done from within all 7 perception samadhi attainments.

The 'classical' Theravada texts Ven. D. are referring to are late Theravada texts that contradict the earlier EBT suttas and the teachings of the Elders, and the earliest teachings of the Buddha. I'll take 'early and authentic' over 'classical' with 'semantic shift and intolerable contradictions', thank you.

In my mind imperturbability means that you have gone beyond pleasure and pain and disctraction is not really possible. It's sort of the state of mind in which it is most wieldy and malleable and it can be directed at whatever one wants.

In your mind, is the "hard jhana" method a valid way of achieving such a state? It seems to me that both ways of thinking about practice may lead to similar results. I favor Thanissaro's instructions here in regard to how Sati sampajano is integral to jhana but I don't necessarily believe that jhana described in commentaries is without sati sampajano either.

[Dhammanando]

I'm in full support of the other two points on your comment here but I think the main point I'm trying to call attention to is this one here.

Is jhana necessarily without sensory input,

If jhāna is being used in the narrow sense of the rūpajjhānas and the arūpasamāpattis (rather than in the broader sense where it's more or less synonymous with bhāvanā), and if "sensory input" is being used to denote the objects of the five sensory consciousnesses, then yes, any jhāna is by definition devoid of sensory input.

and what does it mean to be without sensory input?

It means is that since consciousness is singly occurring, there cannot simultaneously arise a five-sense-door consciousness and a jhānic consciousness. And so while in jhāna there cannot be any cognizing of visible forms, sound, odours, tastes or tactile objects.

I just can't help but get the feeling that the spirit of meditating blocking out the senses is on-point, but having a debate about it or saying "sensory input doesn't occur at all" sort of misses the point.

The point, as I see it, is that this teaching serves as a valuable diagnostic tool for distinguishing authentic jhānic cittas from certain kinds of sense-sphere cittas that readily lend themselves to being mistaken for jhāna cittas. In particular:

• Greed-rooted cittas, whose accompanying pīti and sukha are of uncommonly great strength.

• Great wholesome cittas dissociated from knowledge, whose accompanying pīti and sukha are of uncommonly great strength.

[pitithefool]

I'm in full support of the other two points on your comment here but I think the main point I'm trying to call attention to is this one here.

Is jhana necessarily without sensory input,

If jhāna is being used in the narrow sense of the rūpajjhānas and the arūpasamāpattis (rather than in the broader sense where it's more or less synonymous with bhāvanā), and if "sensory input" is being used to denote the objects of the five sensory consciousnesses, then yes, any jhāna is by definition devoid of sensory input.

and what does it mean to be without sensory input?

It means is that since consciousness is singly occurring, there cannot simultaneously arise a five-sense-door consciousness and a jhānic consciousness. And so while in jhāna there cannot be any cognizing of visible forms, sound, odours, tastes or tactile objects.

I just can't help but get the feeling that the spirit of meditating blocking out the senses is on-point, but having a debate about it or saying "sensory input doesn't occur at all" sort of misses the point.

The point, as I see it, is that this teaching serves as a valuable diagnostic tool for distinguishing authentic jhānic cittas from certain kinds of sense-sphere cittas that readily lend themselves to being mistaken for jhāna cittas. In particular:

• Greed-rooted cittas, whose accompanying pīti and sukha are of uncommonly great strength.

• Great wholesome cittas dissociated from knowledge, whose accompanying pīti and sukha are of uncommonly great strength.

Correct, contact at the five sense bases does not a jhana make.

What I'm trying to say is that on a physiological level, the brain is still receiving input and making decisions about what to do with the sensory information without conscious input and thus contact is not made when such things happen.

The other point I'm trying to make is that these unconscious processes are synonymous with what we would call vipassana in the context of jhana.

Let me know what you think!

[Ceisiwr]

Ok one thing at a time.

Kama = Sensuality, the word sensuality in english is a near perfect fit
Kamaguna = the five strings of sensuality, which are the endearing forms of the 5 senses

They are not the same thing, as evidenced by AN 6.63

"There are these five strings of sensuality [kamaguna]. Which five? Forms cognizable via the eye — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing; sounds cognizable via the ear... aromas cognizable via the nose... flavors cognizable via the tongue... tactile sensations cognizable via the body — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. But these are not sensuality [kama]. They are called strings of sensuality in the discipline of the noble ones[kamaguna].


The passion for his resolves is a man's sensuality,
not the beautiful sensual pleasures
found in the world.
The passion for his resolves is a man's sensuality.

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

Please see here: viewtopic.php?f=29&t=39705&p=614198#p614198

[Pondera]

The purpose of samadhi isn’t to lose all sense of body and mind in an object of meditation.

Nobody claims that this is the purpose of jhāna-samādhi. What is claimed in the classical Theravada is that:

1. This is what authentic jhāna is like. (Though "losing all sense of mind" would need changing to "establishing an intensively focussed and non-ratiocinative state of mind).

2. The state of mind that supervenes upon emergence from it (i.e., what the Suttas describe as "concentrated, pure and bright, unblemished, free from defects, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability") is the optimal one for insight development.

3. The purpose of jhāna is to arrive at the post-jhānic state described above and while in it develop insight by attention to the features of the now-vanished jhāna factors.

“Post jhanic state”? Never heard of such a thing. Is this claim indicated in the Tripitaka? Or is it a commenterial premise?

[BrokenBones]

'Post Jhanic state'... is that when you wake up?

[mikenz66]

3. The purpose of jhāna is to arrive at the post-jhānic state described above and while in it develop insight by attention to the features of the now-vanished jhāna factors.

“Post jhanic state”? Never heard of such a thing. Is this claim indicated in the Tripitaka? Or is it a commenterial premise?

Here are some common examples:

When my mind had immersed in samādhi like this—purified, bright, flawless, rid of corruptions, pliable, workable, steady, and imperturbable—I extended it toward knowledge of the ending of defilements. ...
https://suttacentral.net/mn36/en/sujato

“When his concentrated mind is thus purified, bright, unblemished, rid of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs it to knowledge of the destruction of the taints. He understands as it actually is: ‘This is suffering’;…‘This is the origin of suffering’;…‘This is the cessation of suffering’;…‘This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering’;…‘These are the taints’;…‘This is the origin of the taints’;…‘This is the cessation of the taints’;…‘This is the way leading to the cessation of the taints.’
https://suttacentral.net/mn27/en/bodhi

Of course, this turns on the question of whether the insight being described occurs post-jhana, or during jhana. Someone who holds the view that the insight occurs during jhana would, of course, not have any need for the concept of a “post jhanic state”.


Mike

[BrokenBones]

Hi Mike

Neither 'examples' you give imply a post jhanic state. If anything, quite the reverse. Firstly they make no mention of leaving that state and secondly they say that the meditator 'uses' that state. It states "'when' his mind..." not 'after'.

[mikenz66]

Hi Mike

Neither 'examples' you give imply a post jhanic state. If anything, quite the reverse. Firstly they make no mention of leaving that state and secondly they say that the meditator 'uses' that state. It states "'when' his mind..." not 'after'.

Sure, as I said, this is the heart of the disagreement, and it depends on whether the Pali is or is not implying contemporaneousness (in those suttas or in MN111) as I mentioned in this post: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=39616&p=613739#p613739
I don't have anywhere near the skill in Pali necessary to adjudicate the matter, I'm simply pointing out the two possibilities.


Mike

[confusedlayman]

'Post Jhanic state'... is that when you wake up?

Post jhanic access concentration

[Ratnakar]

The more I read about this and practice, the less I am convinced that the differences between hard and soft jhanas are real.

What then are the differences, and can they be reconciled?

Question is vague. How do you understand 'hard' and 'soft'? What definition and reference are you going by?

One other polite reminder, I've seen people using the term 'jhana-lite'.
It's not a good idea, the same way 'hinayana' (inferior vehicle), are terms actually slandering the Buddha and the Buddhist teachers who are elder than Visuddhimagga composers.
article on why it's not advisable to refer to 'jhana lite': https://lucid24.org/tped/j/jhana-lite/index.html

Well, to answer your question, the archetypal "jhana lite" teacher would be Leigh Brasington, though I might also lump Thanissaro Bhikkhu (hopefully not too controversially) into that group as well.

What term would you prefer, other than jhana lite? EBT jhana, sutta jhana? I'm a little weary of sutta jhana because there are VSM style practicioners who say that "hard jhana" is sutta jhana.

You should call that ebt jhana since vism guys don't even touch patisambhidamagga let alone suttas

Since patisambhidamagga and sutta is very different from vism let's call it ebt jhana ,ebt for all, ebt for everyone

[frank k]

Vsm redefinition of jhana (VRJ) claim that their redefintion is the same as what the sutta says is totally without basis. They substantiate their claim (sutta compliance) by redefining body as 'body of only mental factors', vitakka/thinking as 'not thinking', etc. The redefinitions are so absurdly preposterous you can't take their claim seriously. VRJ is a redefinition and a completely different samadhi system than EBT jhana.

If you want to find their commonality, probably you could say the access concentration to each of the 4 VRJ's would more closely correspond. But the strict definition of VRJ, you're in a frozen stupor where you can't do any vipassana, it feels timeless, you have predetermined time with a frozen snapshot of a visual kasina berfore emerging from that stupor. Read MN 111, AN 9.36, etc. The sutta jhanas don't look anything like that. There is no 'access concentration' upacara samadhi in the EBT. That's an LBT invention.

The more I read about this and practice, the less I am convinced that the differences between hard and soft jhanas are real.

What then are the differences, and can they be reconciled?

Question is vague. How do you understand 'hard' and 'soft'? What definition and reference are you going by?

One other polite reminder, I've seen people using the term 'jhana-lite'.
It's not a good idea, the same way 'hinayana' (inferior vehicle), are terms actually slandering the Buddha and the Buddhist teachers who are elder than Visuddhimagga composers.
article on why it's not advisable to refer to 'jhana lite': https://lucid24.org/tped/j/jhana-lite/index.html

Well, to answer your question, the archetypal "jhana lite" teacher would be Leigh Brasington, though I might also lump Thanissaro Bhikkhu (hopefully not too controversially) into that group as well.

What term would you prefer, other than jhana lite? EBT jhana, sutta jhana? I'm a little weary of sutta jhana because there are VSM style practicioners who say that "hard jhana" is sutta jhana.

[Dhammanando]

Let me know what you think!

I'm afraid I find your post unintelligible.

Your observation about contact at the five sense doors not making a jhāna doesn't seem a propos of anything that I (or anyone else) has said. In the debate about the nature of jhāna neither side claims that such contact makes a jhāna. Rather, the disagreement is about whether such contact is compatible with jhāna - whether it can occur simultaneously with jhāna. "No," say the classical Theravādins. "Yes," say some (though not all) of the protestant Buddhist revisionists.

[pitithefool]

Please read the last thing I just posted in this thread

viewtopic.php?p=614460#p614460

[pitithefool]

Let me know what you think!

I'm afraid I find your post unintelligible.

Your observation about contact at the five sense doors not making a jhāna doesn't seem a propos of anything that I (or anyone else) has said. In the debate about the nature of jhāna neither side claims that such contact makes a jhāna. Rather, the disagreement is about whether such contact is compatible with jhāna - whether it can occur simultaneously with jhāna. "No," say the classical Theravādins. "Yes," say some (though not all) of the protestant Buddhist revisionists.

That's ok, I'm actually recanting that statement but what I meant by "contact does not a jhana make" is a non-standard word order rearrangment to the phrase "contact at the five senses means you are not in jhana".

Is English your first language?