Canonical defnition of jhana

The cultivation of calm or tranquility and the development of concentration
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Canonical defnition of jhana

Post by Ceisiwr »

Srilankaputra wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 12:36 am Just some thoughts (as I understand)

Regarding the 'vitakka' factor in the first absorption. Does it mean 'thought', as its normally used in the English language?

I tend to think of it this way. Its the same force, same capability that directs one's awareness on some stream of thought(usually unrestrained like a water hose). But becomes utilised in a much more focused manner, with the support of the other factors.
No. As MN 78 shows vitakka-vicara in terms of Jhana are intentions. The Jhanas are states of stillness of the mind. Discursive thoughts are like waves disturbing the stillness. There are no thoughts in Jhana. They would fall under the hindrance of restlessness, and possibly doubt. There is no “you” either in Jhana. Nibbana is the complete stillness 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.”
Srilankaputra
Posts: 1210
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:56 am
Location: Sri Lanka

Re: Canonical defnition of jhana

Post by Srilankaputra »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 6:58 am
Srilankaputra wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 12:36 am Just some thoughts (as I understand)

Regarding the 'vitakka' factor in the first absorption. Does it mean 'thought', as its normally used in the English language?

I tend to think of it this way. Its the same force, same capability that directs one's awareness on some stream of thought(usually unrestrained like a water hose). But becomes utilised in a much more focused manner, with the support of the other factors.
No. As MN 78 shows vitakka-vicara in terms of Jhana are intentions. The Jhanas are states of stillness of the mind. Discursive thoughts are like waves disturbing the stillness. There are no thoughts in Jhana. They would fall under the hindrance of restlessness, and possibly doubt. There is no “you” either in Jhana. Nibbana is the complete stillness of the mind.
I think you misunderstood the comment. I was talking about the dhammata that makes thinking possible, not that there is 'thought' in the first absorption.

If what is normally called thought is like a unrestrained water hose. Vitakka is like the pressure of water.

Wish you all success in all your endeavours. Goodbye!
User avatar
Tennok
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun May 02, 2021 2:02 am

Re: Canonical defnition of jhana

Post by Tennok »

Even for Ajahn Brahm, whose biggest thing is "let go, don't fabricate", that statement is a fabrication as is the act of letting go. That's why I like Thanissaro's acknowledgments that those acts of letting go, relaxing, "allowing" and not trying to interfere are actually what's fabricating the experience. It's the act of letting go that allows fabrications to fall away, and, like ir or not, letting go is a fabrication, and a willed act. AT's just saying "be aware of the subtle fabrications".
[/quote]


What you wrote is true - in a way. Perhaps they speak about the same thing, ultimately. That would be nice, becaouse those two are my favorite teachers :toast: .

Yet at the practical level, on the cushin, it feels so different, when you try to "direct" your meditation, adjust the breath etc, sculpturing your experience, or of you just accept stuff manifesting and let it drop, eventually.

I think it all boils to what we think "the will " means. Is giving up your will - tainted by craving and old karma - always an act of will? Or is it a natural consequence of various conditions, a realization?

You believe, just like A. Thanissaro, that every choice & fabrication in the meditation is an act of will. Thanissaro also thinks that our ability to choose is crucial for following the Noble Path. Interestingly, A. Brahm doesn't believe in the big "free will" thingy, too. In his system it's more about our karma manifesting. I know I'm hopelessly drifiting away from main topic, sorry, but this free will paradox is like a devil in a box.

And one more notion - even if samadhi is fabricated, it transcends all categories, language and concepts. Like in the old neoplatonic nad christian mystycism, where the God was described only by lack of any quailities and definitions. It's a first taste of unfabricated Nibbana.
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Canonical defnition of jhana

Post by DooDoot »

pitithefool wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 9:18 pm Even for Ajahn Brahm, whose biggest thing is "let go, don't fabricate", that statement is a fabrication as is the act of letting go. That's why I like Thanissaro's acknowledgments that those acts of letting go, relaxing, "allowing" and not trying to interfere are actually what's fabricating the experience. It's the act of letting go that allows fabrications to fall away, and, like ir or not, letting go is a fabrication, and a willed act. AT's just saying "be aware of the subtle fabrications".
The above via intellectualism has dismissed or otherwise belittled the essential thus blocked the Path. Particularly the last sentence is a total nonsense; saying at act of will is required to "be aware". Only a fool would belittle the conditioned elements among the unconditioned element below:
Whatever states there are, whether conditioned or unconditioned, of these detachment (dispassion; viraga) is reckoned foremost, that is, the subduing of vanity, the elimination of thirst, the removal of reliance, the termination of the round, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation, Nibbāna. Those who have faith in the Dhamma of detachment (dispassion) have faith in the foremost, and for those with faith in the foremost the result will be foremost.

https://suttacentral.net/iti90/en/ireland
:alien:
pitithefool wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 9:18 pm I like Thanissaro's acknowledgments that those acts of letting go, relaxing, "allowing" and not trying to interfere are actually what's fabricating the experience
But they are not "fabricating" the experience. The use of the term "fabricating" ("sankharoti") above is wrong. For example, the fact I may suspend thinking about something in order to listen to you say something does not fabricate the act of listening. The listening is caused by the ear meeting the sound and ear consciousness arising. The listening is not caused or fabricated by my keeping silence. Characteristically, such as his bizarre translation of Dhp 1, Thanissaro appears engaged in his typical solipsism. I have censured you previously on your gibberish use of the english "fabricating". Letting go is merely a "condition" ("paccaya") for the manifestation of jhana. "Letting go" does not "fabricate" the jhana. The jhana is fabricated from the five jhana factors. For example, a person with some type of physical wind impairment via injury or disease may be able to let go but not attain jhana due to physical reasons. This shows letting go does not fabricate the jhana.
Tennok wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 2:32 am What you wrote is true - in a way. Perhaps they speak about the same thing, ultimately. That would be nice, becaouse those two are my favorite teachers
The essence of what was posted is not true. The poster emphasized "being" ("bhava") or "be"; which is not letting go but merely the self unable to dissolve.
Tennok wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 2:32 amYet at the practical level, on the cushin, it feels so different...
Indeed. What the PitiFool said is unrelated to jhana on the cushin but mere uttering bizzaro Thanizzaroisms. :smile:
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
Tennok
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun May 02, 2021 2:02 am

Re: Canonical defnition of jhana

Post by Tennok »

I have censured you previously on your gibberish use of the english "fabricating". Letting go is merely a "condition" ("paccaya") for the manifestation of jhana. "Letting go" does not "fabricate" the jhana. The jhana is fabricated from the five jhana factors. For example, a person with some type of physical wind impairment via injury or disease may be able to let go but not attain jhana due to physical reasons. This shows letting go does not fabricate the jhana.
That's interesting thought. Thanks. So factors will not appear and jhana will not happen if mind is just freed from hindrances by a deep vosagga. Not if one can't do proper psychical "yoga" and create piti and other factors by breathing properly? That's what you meant by "wind impariment"?

Reminds me of Nanavira, who probably had great discernment and vosagga, but becouse of his ilness could not progress with jhana and did what he did. But what about someone, who reaches 5 factors by other contemplations, like qualities of the Buddha, or repulsivness of the body?

And even if the verb "fabricated" should be better replaced by "conditioned" , the word "fabrication" - Sankhara - is stil fine here. Everything except of Nibbna is Sankhara, so perhaps Thanissaro and Pitithefool are not really wrong in this.

I agree that Ven. Thanissaro seems to be more of a philosopher and thinker, than "practical" meditation master. I respect his courage to dig and think about Damma, instead of just quoting the suttas, like some other scholars. But he comes from the Ajahn Lee line of teaching, which is very particular. I've tried to meditate that way for two years, but it never really worked for me. Too much thinking, adding, imagining and creating was involved. Too much fabricating. :smile: Perhaps that's what happens when you believe that vitaka means "thinking". :smile:

Still, Thanissaro's book "Buddhist Romanticism" about the wrong ideas of the Western Damma, caused by the blind following of various "progressive" thinkers, such as Jung, Maslow or Huxley, and relativism in general, is great and helpfull. I highly recommend it.
User avatar
pitithefool
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2021 5:39 am

Re: Canonical defnition of jhana

Post by pitithefool »

DooDoot wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 6:50 am
I get what you're saying.

However, you seem to be trying to say that jhana is unfabricated, which simply isn't true.

I must also clarify, by fabrications, I do not mean fabricated as in willed and grabbed at, but rather fabricated in the sense of having conditions.

In the first jhana, speech and sensuality have ceased, but the in-and out breaths, perception and feeling have not ceased, therefore fabrication is still occurring.

Sanna, vedana, and anapana are both conditioners and conditioned. If sanna and vedana are fabricators/fabricated and are present in all four jhanas, then jhana is fabricated, not to speak of the formless.

Up until the attainment of cessation, sankhara are still present (perception and feeling) and as long as there are sankhara, there is consciousness, nama-rupa, salayatana, etc. The only thing that is unfabricated is nibbana.

These feelings, perceptions, vitakka-vicara and in-and-out breaths are the conditions for the mind settling and staying in one place. Intentions of renunciation, intentions of letting go, perceptions of stillness, perceptions of in-and-out breathing, feelings of rapture, feelings of pleasure, these all condition the mind to let go and settle in one place. Whether or not you want to view any of those as willed or unwilled may be a pragmatic matter of the effect it has on how one practices, but the truth of the matter is those are not only fabricated, but they are also the preliminary conditions for absorption.

The idea is not to sit down and say "I'm going to fabricate this, fabricate that, will this and will that". The idea is to let go of the "doer." Letting go of that doer is paradoxically an act of the doer but it also kills the doer by its own actions, just like a banana tree kills itself in order to bear its fruit.
Last edited by pitithefool on Thu May 20, 2021 7:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Please note: This profile picture is not actually a picture of the user.
User avatar
pitithefool
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2021 5:39 am

Re: Canonical defnition of jhana

Post by pitithefool »

Tennok wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 2:32 am What you wrote is true - in a way. Perhaps they speak about the same thing, ultimately. That would be nice, becaouse those two are my favorite teachers :toast: .
It depends on which points you carry away from each respective teacher. In my view, A Brahm's teaching goes straight for the throat. His teaching is quick, effective, to the point and invariably points strait towards the deathless, perhaps at the expense of liturgical accuracy. It's like a wrecking ball.

A Thanissaro's approach is more like a scalpel or a set of surgeon's tools. It's methodical, meticulous and precise, though at the expense of being easily misunderstood and perhaps easy to grasp wrongly.
Yet at the practical level, on the cushin, it feels so different, when you try to "direct" your meditation, adjust the breath etc, sculpturing your experience, or of you just accept stuff manifesting and let it drop, eventually.
It does, and this speaks to the variety of ways both in which people teach and in how students understand the teaching. Reading a book by a teacher is like looking at a photograph of them. Going on a retreat with them is like watching a movie. You won't ever get a fully complete view of a given teacher's methods no matter how long you study them, so it's important to search out teachers that speak to you and that "click". We can sing praises about Ajahn Brahm, Sujato, Khema, Thanissaro etc, all day but that does not mean their teaching will be a good fit. What counts is pragmatic. If what they said has a positive effect on our practice, then we'd do good to investigate it further. At later point, another teacher's teaching may resonate with us or may give us insight into practice that we couldn't have had otherwise.
I think it all boils to what we think "the will " means. Is giving up your will - tainted by craving and old karma - always an act of will? Or is it a natural consequence of various conditions, a realization?
Fabrication is not the same thing as the will. Willed actions would be better classified as "vitakka-vicara" in this discussion. Whether or not it's "willed", perceptions, feelings and and in-and-out breathing are still sankhara. They are conditioned and they condition.

[/quote]
You believe, just like A. Thanissaro, that every choice & fabrication in the meditation is an act of will. Thanissaro also thinks that our ability to choose is crucial for following the Noble Path. Interestingly, A. Brahm doesn't believe in the big "free will" thingy, too. In his system it's more about our karma manifesting. I know I'm hopelessly drifiting away from main topic, sorry, but this free will paradox is like a devil in a box.

Almost, sankhara are willed only when they are willed. This is a pretty subtle point and one big reason why I'm a fan of Thanissaro. Perceptions and feelings are conditioned by contact, which is conditioned by slayatana, nama-rupa, consciousness, and guess what... other perceptions and feelings, along with the in and out breath, and vitakka-vicara. Look right there, vitakka-vicara and anapana condition feeling and perception. That's what Thaan Geoff is pointing at. Any time we meditate, (even if we don't realize it a la A Brahm's instructions) we're inserting certain fabrications into the DO chain at the level of sankhara so as to get the mind to settle down. By thinking to "let go", that conditions perception and feeling. By allowing the breath the refresh and nourish us, we're also conditioning perception and feeling. Eventually those intentions can be let go of entirely and you don't need to "inteend" anything. However, it must still be noted that even though this is the door to the deathless, that perception and feeling are still there, though be they still and extremely refined, all the up to the highest formless attainments. Sankhara, the conditioners are still there. DO is still there. If it wasn't the Buddha would have been attained enlightenment with Kalama's and Ramaputta instruction. It's because he was able to break through to anatta and attain cessation that a true unfabricated dimension could be realized. Everything else, is fabricated. It's a sankhara. Even if you have glasses that allow you to see nibbana, they are not themselves nibbana.
Please note: This profile picture is not actually a picture of the user.
User avatar
pitithefool
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2021 5:39 am

Re: Canonical defnition of jhana

Post by pitithefool »

Tennok wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 5:57 am I agree that Ven. Thanissaro seems to be more of a philosopher and thinker, than "practical" meditation master. I respect his courage to dig and think about Damma, instead of just quoting the suttas, like some other scholars. But he comes from the Ajahn Lee line of teaching, which is very particular. I've tried to meditate that way for two years, but it never really worked for me. Too much thinking, adding, imagining and creating was involved. Too much fabricating. :smile: Perhaps that's what happens when you believe that vitaka means "thinking". :smile:

Still, Thanissaro's book "Buddhist Romanticism" about the wrong ideas of the Western Damma, caused by the blind following of various "progressive" thinkers, such as Jung, Maslow or Huxley, and relativism in general, is great and helpfull. I highly recommend it.
This is going to come off a little harsh, and this isn't directed solely at you, but if you've tried meditating in a certain way and don't find success, it does not mean that that the teacher and their teachings are wrong and that people that have success in that way are also wrong. This attitude seems to be a common disease on this website.
Please note: This profile picture is not actually a picture of the user.
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Canonical defnition of jhana

Post by DooDoot »

pitithefool wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 6:31 pm I get what you're saying.
:thinking:
pitithefool wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 6:31 pmHowever, you seem to be trying to say that jhana is unfabricated
:thinking:
pitithefool wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 6:31 pmI must also clarify
appears not possible
pitithefool wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 6:31 pm, by fabrications, I do not mean fabricated as in willed and grabbed at, but rather fabricated in the sense of having conditions.
i already explained this distinction and your misuse of words in your mimicking of Thanizzaro
pitithefool wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 6:31 pmIn the first jhana, speech and sensuality have ceased, but the in-and out breaths, perception and feeling have not ceased, therefore fabrication is still occurring.
in-and out breaths are not perceptible in 1st jhana. u have been advised, repeatedly, the 1st jhana appears not experienced by u
pitithefool wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 7:13 pm This is going to come off a little harsh
harsh or embarrassing? :shrug: :thinking: :roll:
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
pegembara
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Canonical defnition of jhana

Post by pegembara »

Start at 8 mins

And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
User avatar
pitithefool
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2021 5:39 am

Re: Canonical defnition of jhana

Post by pitithefool »

DooDoot wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2483 7:16 pm in-and out breaths are not perceptible in 1st jhana. u have been advised, repeatedly, the 1st jhana appears not experienced by u.
So what? Are you going to refute the Buddha himself by saying that the in and out breaths cease in the first jhana, when the Buddha clearly stated that they cease in the fourth?

:redherring:
DD, I am not asserting that the in and out breathing is perceptible in the first, and even if I was, that doesn't take away from the fact that feeling and perception occur in all four jhana and that makes them fabricated.

My original assertion that the jhanas are fabricated, anicca, dukkha and anatta, still stands, and I invite you to provide evidence to the contrary. And please do us all a favor and be more cordial in how you choose to speak to others.
Last edited by pitithefool on Fri May 21, 2021 6:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Please note: This profile picture is not actually a picture of the user.
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Canonical defnition of jhana

Post by DooDoot »

pitithefool wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 6:23 am So what? Are you going to refute the Buddha himself by saying that the in and out breaths cease in the first jhana, when the Buddha clearly stated that they cease in the fourth?
I never said in and out breaths cease in the first jhana. I said they are not perceptible in the 1st jhana.
pitithefool wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 6:23 am that doesn't take away from the fact that feeling and perception occur in all four jhana and that makes them fabricated.
I never denied the above and in fact i said the above. You originally said jhana is fabricated from letting go (which i disagreed with) and i said jhana is fabricated from the five jhana factors (which include feeling).
Last edited by DooDoot on Fri May 21, 2021 6:30 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
User avatar
pitithefool
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2021 5:39 am

Re: Canonical defnition of jhana

Post by pitithefool »

DooDoot wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 6:25 am
pitithefool wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 6:23 am So what? Are you going to refute the Buddha himself by saying that the in and out breaths cease in the first jhana, when the Buddha clearly stated that they cease in the fourth?
I never said in and out breaths cease in the first jhana. I said they are not perceptible in the 1st jhana.
DD I am not asserting that they are perceptible in first.

Where you think there is conflict, there is none! Rather, you choose to see what you want to and proceed to engage in slandering me and speaking harshly as if you enjoy it!
Please note: This profile picture is not actually a picture of the user.
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Canonical defnition of jhana

Post by DooDoot »

pitithefool wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 6:30 am Rather, you choose to see what you want to and proceed to engage in slandering me
The exchange demonstrates it is the PitiFool doing the slandering.

I never said in and out breaths cease in the first jhana. I said they are not perceptible in the 1st jhana.

I never denied the above and in fact i said the above. You originally said jhana is fabricated from letting go (which i disagreed with) and i said jhana is fabricated from the five jhana factors (which include feeling).
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: Canonical defnition of jhana

Post by pitithefool »

DooDoot wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 6:25 am
pitithefool wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 6:23 am So what? Are you going to refute the Buddha himself by saying that the in and out breaths cease in the first jhana, when the Buddha clearly stated that they cease in the fourth?
I never said in and out breaths cease in the first jhana. I said they are not perceptible in the 1st jhana.
pitithefool wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 6:23 am that doesn't take away from the fact that feeling and perception occur in all four jhana and that makes them fabricated.
I never denied the above and in fact i said the above. You originally said jhana is fabricated from letting go (which i disagreed with) and i said jhana is fabricated from the five jhana factors (which include feeling).

THEN WE AGREE :toast:
Please note: This profile picture is not actually a picture of the user.
Post Reply