duration of jhana

The cultivation of calm or tranquility and the development of concentration
shoenhad
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2021 10:16 am

Re: duration of jhana

Post by shoenhad »

Pondera wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2011 1:25 am
daverupa wrote:I think you're over-analyzing the bath-ball simile. The Buddha seems always to have carefully explicated extended metaphor when it was intended, and here this did not happen, so doing it yourself is a misstep, imo of course. Also,

"So obviously I am referring to functions of the body in a way that befits the theory of chakras, without any need to actually bring this controversial topic into discussion."

This is trying to have your cake and eat it, too. Furthermore, none of it differentiates a 2.5-hour window as against, say, 1.5 or 3; your sole support is to say "The reason is that the body is divided between various 'functions' throughout the day," but this is simply another claim, not evidence per se.

I do not see that your claim has been supported.
Please, show me a less analytical explication of the bath-ball simile. Yes, here it was not explicated, though I think it's fair to say that these metaphors are far from "extended". The "Bait" sutta (MN-25) used extended metaphor, with an explication. But these are simply short metaphors meant to indicate simple concepts. Also, since they are what very little one has concerning the nature of the material jhanas they hold gems of knowledge that only become unhidden with a proper interpretation.

With my description of what, I personally believe, is the natural rhythm and cycle of the body I am just having my cake. I did not try to eat it. Had I tried to eat it, I might have gone into depths about this or that chakra, but I left it to the reader to decide about the role of hormones, endocrine glands and human organs in what is, I assume, just an ordinary day out of a person's life.

You're mistaken in asserting that anything other than a 2.5 hour time frame would allow the body to function as it does. And of course you do not have to agree with me that a person's day starts with an unconscious focus on the lower region of the body, towards a progressively higher climb upwards (though it seemingly appears to be this way if you consider how the body operates)

A 1.5 hour time frame admits that should I start to feel hungry around 10:00, and accordingly feel the need to fall asleep by around 6:00, which doesn't coincide with what, on average, people feel. People, on average, feel the need to eat at around 12:00 or slightly earlier, and have a tendency to turn in at around ten and no later than 11:30 -unless they feel like having a really tired day the next morning. In just the same way a 3 hour time frame would suggest that when I wake up at 6, I would want to eat around 3:00 p.m. -which I can grant you is at least believable, but if I had not eaten anything prior to this meal and this was the way my body was naturally accustomed to eating, I would be extremely hungry come three o-clock. Furthermore if my body operated within the confines of an ascending order (and no one's saying it really does; except, perhaps, for me) - on a 3 hour time frame I would decidedly want to fall asleep at midnight, which would of course make it very hard for me to return to my schedule of waking up at 6 again, not to mention make it through the day until 3 when I decidedly have the urge to eat.

So, I'll admit that people with various occupations sleep and eat, urinate, digest and expel their waste at different times. So too do they metabolize their foods according to all those other various no-need to mention, too bio-chemical for me, reasons. But on average, IF the body does indeed operate according to such a schedule of urinating, having a poop, eating a meal, digesting a meal, extending the nutrition through the blood stream, modifying the rate of metabolism at the thyroid gland, assuming homeostasis with the putiritary, and then falling a sleep, 2.5 hours simply accounts for all of these things on an ascending scale at a constant velocity -for each of the seven chakra centres (now, I have my cake and I'm eating it too).

I still can't understand BTW, how that expression works, for indeed once I have my cake I usually tend to eat it as well. I don't do anything other than eat it. I would assume that most people also enjoy eating their cake once they have appropriated it from wherever it is that it was, perhaps, cooked or baked, or otherwise constructed in some various fashion.

Anyhow, your conflict with my story doesn't seem to be about the 2.5 hours. It seems to be about the assertion that 2.5 hours is all one has to work a jhana. That is the case because, according to me, I assert that within the higher functions of the body, certain "substances" are responsible for the actualization of each jhana -which is the simple solution to what the bath soap could possibly be in the simile.)

The only convincing evidence for that assertion would be experiential-personal. Since I have that experience, my liberties are free to squander such knowledge as I must feel the need to do so from time to time. BUT. If you are sincerely interested in proving me wrong, you could go so far as to admit the possibility of the existence of such substances by learning how to release them. And if you find that you are unable to release them, then we'll have another debate. However if you are simply putting a burden of proof upon me, there is nothing I can do; apart from a request for a better interpretation of the simile.

Cheers,

-Pondera
Hi Pondera!

I know it is an old post and perhaps you changed your view but reading your post I am rather curious why you have/had such conviction in this admittedly rather quirky view when there appears to be much evidence on the contrary and little to no evidence in favor of it let alone the seemingly tenuous connections made between all the different claims. I am curious who or what your source(s) is besides yourself seeing that a lot of these would be verifiable claims. Thank you!

First off coming from a stem field myself I would really appreciate a name or reference regarding the 2,5 hour claim in relation to bodily function. From a spiritual perspective it seems, as others have pointed out, there to be no support within buddhist circles anywhere. Seeing that you connect it to the chakras and ‘substances’ could you link me to people or articles within yoga/hinduism that share your view regarding specific interval cycles vis-a-vis bodily function/maintenance and their relation to jhana?

Personally I would be curious as to why specifically the opportunity for jhana ‘passes by’ after the 2,5 hour window as it relates to concentration more generally. Why does it not include any other form of concentration like dry-insight? At the end of the day the only meditation you can do is concentration, you cannot ‘do insight’. Yes there can be somewhat of an emphasis on 1 over the other creating divisions such as samatha and vipassana or various jhanas and what have you but ultimately it is still the act of concentration. I am assuming you are not claiming that meditation is of no use anymore after a couple of hours correct? Why would 'other' concentration not obey to the same imposed time constraints? How is it uniquely differentiated?

Perhaps most obviously is how would you square your thesis with all the practitioners that have gotten into jhana after a period of 2,5 hours of meditation? Lastly how would one even go about demarcating the 2.5 hour time period? Is it a particular time of day or is the intention to 'do jhana' the only relevant factor that initiates the clock? What about after? Is there some sort of refractory period or simply an instant 'reset' where one tries again?

I am really not trying to attack you btw! I would simply like to hear if someone besides yourself can echo this view or at least elements of it. Again thank you!
User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 3060
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: duration of jhana

Post by Pondera »

shoenhad wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 10:41 pm
Pondera wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2011 1:25 am
daverupa wrote:I think you're over-analyzing the bath-ball simile. The Buddha seems always to have carefully explicated extended metaphor when it was intended, and here this did not happen, so doing it yourself is a misstep, imo of course. Also,

"So obviously I am referring to functions of the body in a way that befits the theory of chakras, without any need to actually bring this controversial topic into discussion."

This is trying to have your cake and eat it, too. Furthermore, none of it differentiates a 2.5-hour window as against, say, 1.5 or 3; your sole support is to say "The reason is that the body is divided between various 'functions' throughout the day," but this is simply another claim, not evidence per se.

I do not see that your claim has been supported.
Please, show me a less analytical explication of the bath-ball simile. Yes, here it was not explicated, though I think it's fair to say that these metaphors are far from "extended". The "Bait" sutta (MN-25) used extended metaphor, with an explication. But these are simply short metaphors meant to indicate simple concepts. Also, since they are what very little one has concerning the nature of the material jhanas they hold gems of knowledge that only become unhidden with a proper interpretation.

With my description of what, I personally believe, is the natural rhythm and cycle of the body I am just having my cake. I did not try to eat it. Had I tried to eat it, I might have gone into depths about this or that chakra, but I left it to the reader to decide about the role of hormones, endocrine glands and human organs in what is, I assume, just an ordinary day out of a person's life.

You're mistaken in asserting that anything other than a 2.5 hour time frame would allow the body to function as it does. And of course you do not have to agree with me that a person's day starts with an unconscious focus on the lower region of the body, towards a progressively higher climb upwards (though it seemingly appears to be this way if you consider how the body operates)

A 1.5 hour time frame admits that should I start to feel hungry around 10:00, and accordingly feel the need to fall asleep by around 6:00, which doesn't coincide with what, on average, people feel. People, on average, feel the need to eat at around 12:00 or slightly earlier, and have a tendency to turn in at around ten and no later than 11:30 -unless they feel like having a really tired day the next morning. In just the same way a 3 hour time frame would suggest that when I wake up at 6, I would want to eat around 3:00 p.m. -which I can grant you is at least believable, but if I had not eaten anything prior to this meal and this was the way my body was naturally accustomed to eating, I would be extremely hungry come three o-clock. Furthermore if my body operated within the confines of an ascending order (and no one's saying it really does; except, perhaps, for me) - on a 3 hour time frame I would decidedly want to fall asleep at midnight, which would of course make it very hard for me to return to my schedule of waking up at 6 again, not to mention make it through the day until 3 when I decidedly have the urge to eat.

So, I'll admit that people with various occupations sleep and eat, urinate, digest and expel their waste at different times. So too do they metabolize their foods according to all those other various no-need to mention, too bio-chemical for me, reasons. But on average, IF the body does indeed operate according to such a schedule of urinating, having a poop, eating a meal, digesting a meal, extending the nutrition through the blood stream, modifying the rate of metabolism at the thyroid gland, assuming homeostasis with the putiritary, and then falling a sleep, 2.5 hours simply accounts for all of these things on an ascending scale at a constant velocity -for each of the seven chakra centres (now, I have my cake and I'm eating it too).

I still can't understand BTW, how that expression works, for indeed once I have my cake I usually tend to eat it as well. I don't do anything other than eat it. I would assume that most people also enjoy eating their cake once they have appropriated it from wherever it is that it was, perhaps, cooked or baked, or otherwise constructed in some various fashion.

Anyhow, your conflict with my story doesn't seem to be about the 2.5 hours. It seems to be about the assertion that 2.5 hours is all one has to work a jhana. That is the case because, according to me, I assert that within the higher functions of the body, certain "substances" are responsible for the actualization of each jhana -which is the simple solution to what the bath soap could possibly be in the simile.)

The only convincing evidence for that assertion would be experiential-personal. Since I have that experience, my liberties are free to squander such knowledge as I must feel the need to do so from time to time. BUT. If you are sincerely interested in proving me wrong, you could go so far as to admit the possibility of the existence of such substances by learning how to release them. And if you find that you are unable to release them, then we'll have another debate. However if you are simply putting a burden of proof upon me, there is nothing I can do; apart from a request for a better interpretation of the simile.

Cheers,

-Pondera
Hi Pondera!

I know it is an old post and perhaps you changed your view but reading your post I am rather curious why you have/had such conviction in this admittedly rather quirky view when there appears to be much evidence on the contrary and little to no evidence in favor of it let alone the seemingly tenuous connections made between all the different claims. I am curious who or what your source(s) is besides yourself seeing that a lot of these would be verifiable claims. Thank you!

First off coming from a stem field myself I would really appreciate a name or reference regarding the 2,5 hour claim in relation to bodily function. From a spiritual perspective it seems, as others have pointed out, there to be no support within buddhist circles anywhere. Seeing that you connect it to the chakras and ‘substances’ could you link me to people or articles within yoga/hinduism that share your view regarding specific interval cycles vis-a-vis bodily function/maintenance and their relation to jhana?

Personally I would be curious as to why specifically the opportunity for jhana ‘passes by’ after the 2,5 hour window as it relates to concentration more generally. Why does it not include any other form of concentration like dry-insight? At the end of the day the only meditation you can do is concentration, you cannot ‘do insight’. Yes there can be somewhat of an emphasis on 1 over the other creating divisions such as samatha and vipassana or various jhanas and what have you but ultimately it is still the act of concentration. I am assuming you are not claiming that meditation is of no use anymore after a couple of hours correct? Why would 'other' concentration not obey to the same imposed time constraints? How is it uniquely differentiated?

Perhaps most obviously is how would you square your thesis with all the practitioners that have gotten into jhana after a period of 2,5 hours of meditation? Lastly how would one even go about demarcating the 2.5 hour time period? Is it a particular time of day or is the intention to 'do jhana' the only relevant factor that initiates the clock? What about after? Is there some sort of refractory period or simply an instant 'reset' where one tries again?

I am really not trying to attack you btw! I would simply like to hear if someone besides yourself can echo this view or at least elements of it. Again thank you!
Quite honestly, I don’t know what sort of drugs I was on when I wrote that.

My views have changed.

The chakras are, for me, a meeting point for mental tension and bodily tension.

The more I meditate in this context, the more I find my self relaxing the mind in order to relax the body in order to relax the chakra in order to tranquilize the mind in order to achieve sukha in order to establish samadhi and per MN 111 - I am not a believer in the commentary notion that one must exit samadhi in order to do vippasanna. Not do I subscribe to modern interpretations from the usual suspects.

Samadhi exists for the purpose of doing insight.

As for substances being released by the chakras. Just do some searching on “chakras and endocrine glands”. There is for example reason to believe that activating one’s throat chakra may be a viable way to release thyroid hormone - and so forth from testosterone, to any of the other hormones that are released, for example, by the pancreas, the pituitary gland, the adrenal glands, etcetera.

Does that help? Any other questions? What is a “stem field” btw?
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 3060
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: duration of jhana

Post by Pondera »

Oh wow!!! 2011!!!

Yes. I am a very different person with very different views. Luckily most of my current views can be seen in suttas like the Upanissa Sutta for example (transcendental dependent origination).
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
Post Reply