Canonical defnition of jhana

The cultivation of calm or tranquility and the development of concentration
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 6:32 am THEN WE AGREE :toast:
no, we do not agree. you said jhana is fabricated (sankharoti) from letting go and i said letting go was merely a condition (paccaya)

:strawman: :jedi:
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 6:33 am
pitithefool wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 6:32 am THEN WE AGREE :toast:
no, we do not agree. you said jhana is fabricated (sankharoti) from letting go and i said letting go was merely a condition (paccaya)

:strawman: :jedi:
Care to tell me what the difference is?
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 6:36 am Care to tell me what the difference is?
the suttas say the 1st jhana is made up of five factors. if letting go was a factor of the 1st jhana then letting go would cease when the 1st jhana ceases. Various suttas say the noble disciple regards the jhana factors as alien, not-self, unsatisfactory, etc, and directs their mind to the Deathless. the Deathless is related to letting go

letting go allows the mind to purify itself and purify/dissolve the stored defilements in the physical body and allows samadhi to generate; which produces the jhana. but the samadhi itself is not the letting go

its like pulling a plug out of a bath of water to allow the water to run out. the pulling the plug is letting go; the whirlpool of water is samadhi; the samadhi & letting go are two different things, even though the letting go/pulling the plug is a condition for the whirlpool of samadhi/jhana
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 6:41 am
pitithefool wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 6:36 am Care to tell me what the difference is?
the suttas say the 1st jhana is made up of five factors. if letting go was a factor of the 1st jhana then letting go would cease when the 1st jhana ceases. Various suttas say the noble disciple regards the jhana factors as alien, not-self, unsatisfactory, etc, and directs their mind to the Deathless. the Deathless is related to letting go
This is not relevant. Letting go is still a willed condition or prerequisite (if you prefer) for entry into jhana. My argument that the jhana has conditions and is thus a sankhara still stands even from this, even though this "letting go" leads to access and absorption is beyond that.

Another way to think about what I originally said is that access concentration is a condition for absorption or letting go is a condition for absorption but that it doesn't constitute it. You see what I'm saying? It's like the conversation we had before where the fabrications that make up MN118 revolve around access concentration, which is a condition for absorption, but that MN118 doesn't describe absorption itself. You could count MN118 as a condition for absorption for one who practices in line with it.

Even beyond that, if we take vitakka vicara and anapana out of the mix, there is still perception and feeling in all jhana and the formless which means they are all fabricated.
Please note: This profile picture is not actually a picture of the user.
BrokenBones
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:20 am

Re: Canonical defnition of jhana

Post by BrokenBones »

pegembara wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 3:24 am Start at 8 mins

Excellent description 👍

*although I don't know what the 'open awareness' practice is, that the venerable is referring to... his description of the four jhanas is spot on.
pegembara
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Canonical defnition of jhana

Post by pegembara »

BrokenBones wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 8:45 am
pegembara wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 3:24 am Start at 8 mins

Excellent description 👍

*although I don't know what the 'open awareness' practice is, that the venerable is referring to... his description of the four jhanas is spot on.
He teaches meditation with eyes open and being aware of all experiences... Free and Easy, Touch and Go. According to him, this is more practicable for daily life instead of having "formal" meditation sessions. He also emphasizes defocused gaze.

A bit like shikantaza zen if you ask me.
This is the Zen practice of shikantaza, or “just sitting.” You sit, cross-legged if you can, and let your mind alone. When you stop thinking, you reach a point of non-thinking. It’s one of the typical paradoxes of Zen that makes your brain try and twist around those words, “not,” “non-” and “thinking” to figure out what they mean.

Unlike other forms of meditation, shikantaza doesn’t involve concentrating on an object, such as your breath or a mantra. It is “objectless meditation,” where you focus on everything you experience – thoughts, sounds, feelings – without attaching to any of them. When you get there, you know what it is.
Or this
"Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.

"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .irel.html
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
BrokenBones
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:20 am

Re: Canonical defnition of jhana

Post by BrokenBones »

pegembara wrote: Sat May 22, 2021 1:43 am

Thanks
User avatar
Tennok
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun May 02, 2021 2:02 am

Re: Canonical defnition of jhana

Post by Tennok »

pitithefool wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 7:13 pm

T
his 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.
Fair enough. I 've tried to avoid bashing A. Lee's lineage, and it seems I failed. Perhaps I wasn't honest enough with myself. It's just my personal experience with this method and some thoughts. It wants you to think while meditating, choose and act. But with the constant body scanning and mindfulness all over the place, that A. Thanissaro advises, how can ekkagata happen? Of course, A. Thanissaro defines ekkagata differently, but I don't agree with him on that. And I trust more in the controlless feel in my meditation, dissolving of papanca and a chain of thoughts, allowing ekkagata, piti and sukha to appear naturally. Bit I still use A. Lee's white light meditation sometimes. It's similiar to some modern, psychological healing techniques.

Of course It doesn't mean, that it won't work for the other people. Just me. With A. Brahm's method, I had more luck. And I've received instructions from one of his disciples during a retreat. It had really helped me, when I was stuck. I guess it's best for any practitioner to realy focus on the the method, that clicks for him. You need to really enjoy your practice, otherwise you won't pracice enough. But then the mind - at least my own silly mind - tries to justify it's own strategies and choices. Couse what if you chose wrongly and now you are just wasting your time? As a finall consequence you can became a crusader, writng hunderets of posts about "jhana lite", or "jhana hard", being hogwash. Or claim that hunderets of meditators failed with some particular method - how can we know about that?

Btw, you've made neat summary of Thanissaro's and Brahm's approaches. It's like the analitic mind vs the synthetic mind. Just one thing, I don't think that the much discussed term vittaka, is a best equivalent for "will". At least not in a meditation context. The will is a much more heavy, fundamental thing, it's the whole drive to become something, to get something. More like a "Bhava" plus "Tanha" perhaps? I don't think that Buddha used any Pali term that could really match Western "will", one to one.

I don't know how much you are familiar with the European philosophical tradition, but the thinker who focused on the issue of will from the Damma inspired perspective, was Schopenhauer. And for him will was more like a fundamental craving, that brings suffery, than vittaka. Which , at least for some, is just a purely technical act of applying attention to the meditation object. It's a different caliber. :smile: Even vittaka translated as "thinking and speech" is different, more like the old Greek Logos, really.
Post Reply