Using Lite Jhana to enter Deep Jhana?

[BrokenBones]

The Buddha defined Samma Samadhi as the four jhanas... Samma Samadhi is the culmination of the eightfold path... why would I bother piddling around with other concentration practices?

So if you're not in jhāna, there is absolutely no samādhi/concentration?
And when one is not in jhāna, it's wrong concentration, according to you?

You infer too much... 'Hard inferring'?

According to me...

Developing Samma samadhi is part of the eightfold path.

Developing any other type of samadhi is not.

Maybe the Abhidhamma books say different... I'm not interested.

How you approach meditation & the path will dictate the type of samadhi you end up with.

People derive much pleasure from concentration practices... but they're not for me.

[Ceisiwr]

The Buddha defined Samma Samadhi as the four jhanas... Samma Samadhi is the culmination of the eightfold path... why would I bother piddling around with other concentration practices?

So if you're not in jhāna, there is absolutely no samādhi/concentration?
And when one is not in jhāna, it's wrong concentration, according to you?

He seems to define “Right” in Right Concentration as meaning the experience rather than how said experience is seen or used. This would mean the ascetics at the bottom of DN1 had Right Concentration, according to him. If you are in a meditation where there are all the Jhana factors but the senses are temporarily abandoned then it’s wrong concentration, according to him. Doesn’t make sense to me.

[samseva]

So if you're not in jhāna, there is absolutely no samādhi/concentration?
And when one is not in jhāna, it's wrong concentration, according to you?

According to me...

Developing Samma samadhi is part of the eightfold path.

Developing any other type of samadhi is not.

Maybe the Abhidhamma books say different... I'm not interested.

How you approach meditation & the path will dictate the type of samadhi you end up with.

People derive much pleasure from concentration practices... but they're not for me.

Yet again... you completely avoid answering the questions.

[BrokenBones]

So if you're not in jhāna, there is absolutely no samādhi/concentration?
And when one is not in jhāna, it's wrong concentration, according to you?

According to me...

Developing Samma samadhi is part of the eightfold path.

Developing any other type of samadhi is not.

Maybe the Abhidhamma books say different... I'm not interested.

How you approach meditation & the path will dictate the type of samadhi you end up with.

People derive much pleasure from concentration practices... but they're not for me.

Yet again... you completely avoid answering the questions.

No... you just don't understand the answers and it would help if the questions were a little more coherent and didn't put words into my mouth.

You seem to be having a one sided dialogue where you are 'imagining' my thoughts & responses.

[BrokenBones]

The Buddha defined Samma Samadhi as the four jhanas... Samma Samadhi is the culmination of the eightfold path... why would I bother piddling around with other concentration practices?

So if you're not in jhāna, there is absolutely no samādhi/concentration?
And when one is not in jhāna, it's wrong concentration, according to you?

He seems to define “Right” in Right Concentration as meaning the experience rather than how said experience is seen or used. This would mean the ascetics at the bottom of DN1 had Right Concentration, according to him. If you are in a meditation where there are all the Jhana factors but the senses are temporarily abandoned then it’s wrong concentration, according to him. Doesn’t make sense to me.

Of course it doesn't make sense to you... you are tied to a senseless experience of concentration... we really are miles apart.

[Ceisiwr]

So if you're not in jhāna, there is absolutely no samādhi/concentration?
And when one is not in jhāna, it's wrong concentration, according to you?

He seems to define “Right” in Right Concentration as meaning the experience rather than how said experience is seen or used. This would mean the ascetics at the bottom of DN1 had Right Concentration, according to him. If you are in a meditation where there are all the Jhana factors but the senses are temporarily abandoned then it’s wrong concentration, according to him. Doesn’t make sense to me.

Of course it doesn't make sense to you... you are tied to a senseless experience of concentration... we really are miles apart.

It's not senseless. It corresponds to the Rūpa-loka, and so there is a subtle form (rūpa) present.

[samseva]

No... you just don't understand the answers and it would help if the questions were a little more coherent and didn't put words into my mouth.

You seem to be having a one sided dialogue where you are 'imagining' my thoughts & responses.

Here, I'll reformulate the questions that you either completely ingored, or responded with a non-answer:

If someone is not in jhāna, and there are none of the fetters or hindrances present, is this sammā-samādhi?
- Or is it miccha-samādhi?
- Or is it a different type of samādhi than sammā-samādhi?

And, most importantly: Is there samādhi while not in jhāna?

[BrokenBones]

No... you just don't understand the answers and it would help if the questions were a little more coherent and didn't put words into my mouth.

You seem to be having a one sided dialogue where you are 'imagining' my thoughts & responses.

Here, I'll reformulate the questions that you either completely ingored, or responded with a non-answer:

If someone is not in jhāna, and there are none of the fetters or hindrances present, is this sammā-samādhi?
- Or is it miccha-samādhi?
- Or is it a different type of samādhi than sammā-samādhi?

And, most importantly: Is there samādhi while not in jhāna?

i) if the fetters are gone... Arahant. I think you just mean the hindrances in which case you're in jhana or on the cusp.

ii) I think you're probably more informed on this samadhi than myself.

iii) now this is where I lose what you're going on about.

iv) again... why would this interest me?

"And what, monks, is right concentration? (i) There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. (ii) With the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of concentration, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance. (iii) With the fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.' (iv) With the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. This, monks, is called right concentration."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[BrokenBones]

He seems to define “Right” in Right Concentration as meaning the experience rather than how said experience is seen or used. This would mean the ascetics at the bottom of DN1 had Right Concentration, according to him. If you are in a meditation where there are all the Jhana factors but the senses are temporarily abandoned then it’s wrong concentration, according to him. Doesn’t make sense to me.

Of course it doesn't make sense to you... you are tied to a senseless experience of concentration... we really are miles apart.

It's not senseless. It corresponds to the Rūpa-loka, and so there is a subtle form (rūpa) present.

The senses shut down... it's senseless.

[Ceisiwr]

Of course it doesn't make sense to you... you are tied to a senseless experience of concentration... we really are miles apart.

It's not senseless. It corresponds to the Rūpa-loka, and so there is a subtle form (rūpa) present.

The senses shut down... it's senseless.

The are 6 senses in Buddhism, not 5.

[BrokenBones]

It's not senseless. It corresponds to the Rūpa-loka, and so there is a subtle form (rūpa) present.

The senses shut down... it's senseless.

The are 6 senses in Buddhism, not 5.

As always, you confuse abandoning sensual pleasure with abandoning the ability to sense.

[Coëmgenu]

Kettle, pot.

[Ceisiwr]

The senses shut down... it's senseless.

The are 6 senses in Buddhism, not 5.

As always, you confuse abandoning sensual pleasure with abandoning the ability to sense.

Your claim was that the Jhana of Ajahn Brahm etc is without the senses. This isn’t the case, since 1 sense is still active.

[BrokenBones]

The are 6 senses in Buddhism, not 5.

As always, you confuse abandoning sensual pleasure with abandoning the ability to sense.

Your claim was that the Jhana of Ajahn Brahm etc is without the senses. This isn’t the case, since 1 sense is still active.

The one left 'active' according to Ajahn Brahm has no 'will' of its own... not much activity there.

[samseva]

i) if the fetters are gone... Arahant.

I meant fetters/defilements being "unarisen," as in:

When one attends unwisely, unarisen taints arise and arisen taints increase. When one attends wisely, unarisen taints do not arise and arisen taints are abandoned.
—MN 2

I think you just mean the hindrances in which case you're in jhana or on the cusp.

So if someone is walking around, smiling and waving at people, and there are no hindrances present at that moment, that person is, according to you, "on the cusp of jhāna"?

Question:

Is there samādhi while not in jhāna?

iv) again... why would this interest me?

It's a simple question—you can't you answer it? Just say you don't know if you don't know.