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

General discussion of issues related to Theravada Meditation, e.g. meditation postures, developing a regular sitting practice, skillfully relating to difficulties and hindrances, etc.
User avatar
pitithefool
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2021 5:39 am

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

Post by pitithefool »

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?
Please note: This profile picture is not actually a picture of the user.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

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

Post by Ceisiwr »

pitithefool wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 6:18 pm 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?
My reply will sound rather biting, but it isn't mean to be. Jhāna-lite is non-absorbed, and so rather weak and wobbly. Actual jhāna is an absorbed form of meditation where one is totally engrossed in an image in a non-dual state.
What then are the differences, and can they be reconciled?
They can't be. One other comment. The Jhāna-lite argument also has wider implications. It asks us to believe that monks and nuns, even non-Buddhist ascetics, could achieve a level of meditation that the Buddha could not. This flies in the face of the Buddha being a master of the mind.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
pitithefool
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2021 5:39 am

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

Post by pitithefool »

Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 6:37 pm
My reply will sound rather biting, but it isn't mean to be. Jhāna-lite is non-absorbed, and so rather weak and wobbly. Actual jhāna is an absorbed form of meditation where one is totally engrossed in an image in a non-dual state.
What then are the differences, and can they be reconciled?
They can't be. One other comment. The Jhāna-lite argument also has wider implications. It asks us to believe that monks and nuns, even non-Buddhist ascetics, could achieve a level of meditation that the Buddha could not. This flies in the face of the Buddha being a master of the mind.
I don't think the first jhana is non-dual. The second jhana, yes, but not the first.

Also, I don't really think the lite jhana argument implies that monks and nuns could surpass the Buddha. Rather, the standards got so high as to not be attainable by a normal person. By the VSM's own reckoning, only one in 100,000,000 people could practice to that level.

Also, again the abhidhamma and vsm seem to portray jhana as binary, as in "you're either in it or your out of it", which doesn't tally well with the sutta's more continuum-like portrayal. Again I think this only really applies to the first jhana here but what of the second as well? If we attain the second jhana and are assailed by perception and attention related to vitakka-vicara, the suttas seem to paint the picture that we aren't popping into the first then back into the second, rather that we are in the second as it is being refined. Again though, how does this make any real practical difference?

Saying you're popping in and out is no difference in practice than saying you are staying in one while it's being refined. The distinction is non-semantic and only conceptual at best, pedantic as it stands now.
Please note: This profile picture is not actually a picture of the user.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

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

Post by Ceisiwr »

pitithefool wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 6:51 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 6:37 pm
My reply will sound rather biting, but it isn't mean to be. Jhāna-lite is non-absorbed, and so rather weak and wobbly. Actual jhāna is an absorbed form of meditation where one is totally engrossed in an image in a non-dual state.
What then are the differences, and can they be reconciled?
They can't be. One other comment. The Jhāna-lite argument also has wider implications. It asks us to believe that monks and nuns, even non-Buddhist ascetics, could achieve a level of meditation that the Buddha could not. This flies in the face of the Buddha being a master of the mind.
I don't think the first jhana is non-dual. The second jhana, yes, but not the first.
The standard pericope for entering the 1st jhāna is:

Idha, brāhmaṇā, bhikkhu vivicceva kāmehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakkaṁ savicāraṁ vivekajaṁ pītisukhaṁ paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ upasampajja viharati.

The Vibhaṅga defines "kāmehi" as being "sensual pleasures". In the suttas, we see that the plural of kāma means the 5 senses, rather than meaning a plethora of sensual pleasure:
Greedy intention is a person’s sensual pleasure (kāmo).
Saṅkapparāgo purisassa kāmo,

Not the kāmā (pl) which are pretty in the world.
Nete kāmā yāni citrāni loke;

A person's kāma (sg) is lustful intention.
Saṅkapparāgo purisassa kāmo,

The world’s pretty things stay just as they are,
Tiṭṭhanti citrāni tatheva loke;

but a wise one removes desire for them.
Athettha dhīrā vinayanti chandanti.
https://suttacentral.net/sn1.34/en/sujato

This is repeated elsewhere in the suttas, which is why in the CPD entry we find:
kāma, m. [ts., cf. BHSD, SWTF, Encyclop. of Buddhism VI, 1 1996 s.v.; Hôb. s.v. ai], 1. (mostly in sg.) wish, desire, pleasure; 2. (in pl.) the objects of sensual pleasure viz. rūpa, sadda, gandha, rasa, phoṭṭhabba,
https://cpd.uni-koeln.de/search?article_id=26454

So, if we read the standard pericope according to the suttas instead of the definition found in the Vibhaṅga we get:

Idha, brāhmaṇā, bhikkhu vivicceva kāmehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakkaṁ savicāraṁ vivekajaṁ pītisukhaṁ paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ upasampajja viharati.
Take a mendicant who, quite secluded from sensual objects, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected.


Instead of the Abhidhamma based pericope of "secluded from sensuality" we get the pericope based on the suttas of "secluded from sensual objects". This is why sound is a thorn, and why saññāmanasikārā is a problem. If the 5 senses are shut down then what is left is the image (rūpa) which one is heavily concentrating on. In other words, absorbed into in a non-dual state:

"One person perceives the fire kasiṇa above, below, across, non-dual and measureless."

:anjali:
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Tue Mar 30, 2021 7:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

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

Post by Ceisiwr »

pitithefool wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 6:51 pm Also, I don't really think the lite jhana argument implies that monks and nuns could surpass the Buddha. Rather, the standards got so high as to not be attainable by a normal person. By the VSM's own reckoning, only one in 100,000,000 people could practice to that level.
There are monks alive today who blatantly believe they have achieved an absorbed state. Assuming they aren't lying, this would mean they have achieved something greater than what the Buddha was capable of himself. Even in the various forms of Hinduism there are claims of absorption. I imagine not all of them are lying. Once again, this would mean they have a greater command of the mind than the Buddha did.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Tue Mar 30, 2021 7:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
pitithefool
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2021 5:39 am

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

Post by pitithefool »

Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 7:08 pm
Instead of the Abhidhamma based pericope of "secluded from sensuality" we get the pericope based on the suttas of "secluded from sensual objects". This is why sound is a thorn, and why saññāmanasikārā is a problem. If the 5 senses are shut down then what is left is the image (rūpa) which one is heavily concentrating one. In other words, absorbed into in a non-dual state:

"One person perceives the fire kasiṇa above, below, across, non-dual and measureless."

:anjali:
I don't disagree with this at all. HOWEVER (lol) We still have kamehi and akusalehi dhammehi, of which kama raga is definitely a part.

I'm starting to regret calling myself a proponent of "soft jhana" but I still cannot say I'm in the "hard jhana" camp either. My views on jhana itself have not changed but both "camps" here seem to have some pretty major shortcomings.
Please note: This profile picture is not actually a picture of the user.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

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

Post by Ceisiwr »

pitithefool wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 7:21 pm I don't disagree with this at all. HOWEVER (lol) We still have kamehi and akusalehi dhammehi, of which kama raga is definitely a part.

I'm starting to regret calling myself a proponent of "soft jhana" but I still cannot say I'm in the "hard jhana" camp either.
Kāmehi and kāmā are the same thing. One is ablative or instrumental, depending on the context (Kāmehi) whilst the other is nominative (kāmā). Both, however, are plural of kāma and so both have the same meaning. Sense objects.
My views on jhana itself have not changed but both "camps" here seem to have some pretty major shortcomings.
The "hard" jhāna is the more consistent one, and it is how the vast majority of Buddhists have understood it. What issues are you still seeing with it?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
pitithefool
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2021 5:39 am

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

Post by pitithefool »

Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 7:28 pm
The "hard" jhāna is the more consistent one, and it is how the vast majority of Buddhists have understood it. What issues are you still seeing with it?
The main issues I have with it are these:

1. The binary "in or out" definition seems patently at odds with the suttas.
2. The distinction of "access concentration" is also at odds with the suttas.
3. The VSM's reckoning of anapanasati is at odds with the suttas (though not the reckoning of kasina).
4. It holds such a high standard that even skilled meditators are likely to not reach it.
5. It relies too much on commentarial and abhidhamma work than it does with suttas.
6. It's very discouraging and sets up unrealistic expectations when learning how to meditate.
7. Proponents of hard jhana tend to be unduely critical towards proponents of soft jhana, even though soft jhana is not necessarily wrong samadhi.

There are others and to be honest I could create a pro-con list of both sides.

I have to say, my own conception and understanding of jhana seems to not be at odds with the suttas and seems to be quite compatible practicality-wise with those who are proponents of hard jhana and soft jhana.
Please note: This profile picture is not actually a picture of the user.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

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

Post by Ceisiwr »

pitithefool wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 7:41 pm
1. The binary "in or out" definition seems patently at odds with the suttas.
On what basis? Are you saying there is some pre-state? Sounds like... access concentration ;)
2. The distinction of "access concentration" is also at odds with the suttas.
It's not found in the suttas, no, but completely abolish access concentration and my argument still stands.
3. The VSM's reckoning of anapanasati is at odds with the suttas (though not the reckoning of kasina).
The Vism. could be wrong about ānāpānasati and my argument still stands.
4. It holds such a high standard that even skilled meditators are likely to not reach it.
Yes, it takes a lot of effort and dedication and is a skill that most will not obtain. Still, that has no bearing on if it is or isn't an absorbed state. We can't say it is not an absorbed state because we find it hard.
5. It relies too much on commentarial and abhidhamma work than it does with suttas.
I've just shown you how jhāna as absorbtion is very much a sutta position. I've also shown how jhāna-lite proponents, paradoxically, rely on the Abhidhamma. Likely they have never bothered to even read what they think they are disagreeing with.
6. It's very discouraging and sets up unrealistic expectations when learning how to meditate.
It can be seen that way (I do not) but this has no bearing on if it is an absorbed state or not. It is a long and difficult path to nibbāna, but that shouldn't put us off.
7. Proponents of hard jhana tend to be unduely critical towards proponents of soft jhana, even though soft jhana is not necessarily wrong samadhi.
Personally I don't think the meditation is completely useless. It cultivates good qualities and is good practice, it's just not jhāna. More is to be done. Try to see it as a challenge worth accepting and have some fun with it. Even before jhāna you can achieve some really sublime states. As for being unduly critical, for me I merely respond to the criticism directed at absorbed jhāna. In my experience it is the jhāna-lite folk who are the most vocal. Have you met Frankk here? Completely obsessed.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

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

Post by DooDoot »

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

1. Hard jhanas are real & were taught by the Buddha

2. Soft jhanas are a mannati and papanca of the spiritual narcissists (spiritual materialists) who believe "I" or "the self" attains jhana from some trivial breath & mental manipulations that produce some trivial feelings of pleasure born of deluded thought created over-excitement of "I am"
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
confusedlayman
Posts: 6231
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:16 am
Location: Human Realm (as of now)

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

Post by confusedlayman »

Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 7:14 pm
pitithefool wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 6:51 pm Also, I don't really think the lite jhana argument implies that monks and nuns could surpass the Buddha. Rather, the standards got so high as to not be attainable by a normal person. By the VSM's own reckoning, only one in 100,000,000 people could practice to that level.
There are monks alive today who blatantly believe they have achieved an absorbed state. Assuming they aren't lying, this would mean they have achieved something greater than what the Buddha was capable of himself. Even in the various forms of Hinduism there are claims of absorption. I imagine not all of them are lying. Once again, this would mean they have a greater command of the mind than the Buddha did.
I consider buddhaghosa as arhant and I believe in that statistics..
I may be slow learner but im at least learning...
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

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

Post by DooDoot »

confusedlayman wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:09 pm I consider buddhaghosa as arhant
i don't
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
pitithefool
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2021 5:39 am

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

Post by pitithefool »

Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:25 pm
On what basis? Are you saying there is some pre-state? Sounds like... access concentration ;)
No, I'm saying that the first jhana as the suttas tell it, encompasses acccess and absorption as commentaries hold it.
It's not found in the suttas, no, but completely abolish access concentration and my argument still stands.
Your argument rests on two things:

1. That kama means "the 5 senses"

2. That the five senses are completely closed out in the first jhana.

I disagree with both of these, and the rest of your comment I'm replying to are based on these two premises, which I'm specifically calling into question here.
I'm not saying that access concentration doesn't exist, rather that drawing the conceptual boundaries in the ways that the commentaries do is at odds, i.e. opposed to, what the sutta pitaka says about the matter.

Ball is in your court, please provide textual evidence that kama means the 5 senses bases only and not something like "dwelling in and deriving one's pleasure from the senses".
Please note: This profile picture is not actually a picture of the user.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

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

Post by Ceisiwr »

pitithefool wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:39 pm
Your argument rests on two things:

1. That kama means "the 5 senses"

2. That the five senses are completely closed out in the first jhana.

I disagree with both of these, and the rest of your comment I'm replying to are based on these two premises, which I'm specifically calling into question here.
I'm not saying that access concentration doesn't exist, rather that drawing the conceptual boundaries in the ways that the commentaries do is at odds, i.e. opposed to, what the sutta pitaka says about the matter.

Ball is in your court, please provide textual evidence that kama means the 5 senses bases only and not something like "dwelling in and deriving one's pleasure from the senses".
It’s a lot more than those 2 points. Regarding access, as I said you could abolish it completely and my argument remains the same. It would have no impact upon my premises. In relation to kama I am more than happy to reply further tomorrow (it’s late here). In the mean time, please put forward why you think your Abhidhamma definition of Kama is correct?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

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

Post by DooDoot »

Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 7:08 pm In the suttas, we see that the plural of kāma means the 5 senses, rather than meaning a plethora of sensual pleasure:
Please show. Thanks
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 7:08 pm what is left is the image (rūpa)
Sounds wrong. Rūpa appears to refer to the source of the pleasant feelings rather than to a mental image. It appears the Brahmavamso Sect is wrong here.
Last edited by DooDoot on Wed Mar 31, 2021 1:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Post Reply