Imprecise interpretations of jhanas: which method to apply?

[nirodh27]

Hi DeadBuddha,

I personally know the pain on not having a clear way to practice in mind, it is part of the hindrace of doubt.

For example, some say that vitakka and vicārā mean "applied attention" and "sustained attention", respectively, when in truth it seems that vitakka and vicara mean, respectively, simply, "knowingly willed and time-limited verbal discursive thought". and "automatic verbal discursive thought having continuity over time". This interpretation seems proven in SN 21.1, where the Noble Silence allows entry into the second jhana.

There are more than many hints to that, but the best place to see how to enter and develop jhanas are the agama suttas MA101 and MA102 (that have more details and better ordering than the counterparts MN19 and MN20) in which you have the practice spelled out from the Buddha himself. And that is more of a practice and it is linked to comprehension and uses the strategy of taking something and reflect on it in dhammic terms (Vitakka&vicara) as a tool to strenghten/interiorize the renunciation to the point that you enter first jhana and then you can abandon thought altogether in second jhana. But don't look at second jhana, aim at the first where the first big revolution lies!

Then there are people who have a correct understanding of vitakka and vicārā. Leigh Brasington is one of them. However, Leigh Brasington himself admitted that the jhanas he teaches are less intense than the Buddha's jhanas (he showed great and useful honesty - credit to him). So there is surely something imprecise somewhere in his interpretation of jhanas.

But afaik teaches something like "Light Jhanas" that are very far from what you find in MA101/MA102 and, in general, the suttas. See for example Brasington:

If the breath gets very, very subtle, instead of taking a deep breath, shift your attention away from the breath to a pleasant sensation. This is key. You notice the breath until you arrive at and sustain access concentration, then you let go of the breath and shift your attention to a pleasant sensation, preferably a physical one. There is not much point in trying to notice the breath that has gotten extremely subtle or has disappeared completely—there’s nothing left to notice.

The first question that may arise when I say, “Shift your attention to a pleasant sensation” may be “What pleasant sensation?” Well, it turns out that when you get to access concentration, the odds are quite strong that, someplace in your physical being, there will be a pleasant sensation. Look at most any statue of the Buddha—he has a faint smile on his face. That is not just for artistic purposes; it is there for teaching purposes. Smile when you meditate, because once you reach access concentration, you only have to shift your attention one inch to find a pleasant sensation.

You ask:

But both of these methods have difficulties: that of Pa Auk leads to a first jhana without verbal discursive thoughts (whereas according to the sutta there are verbal discursive thoughts in the first jhana), and that of Leigh Brasington leads to less intense jhanas than those of the Buddha. Is there a middle way between the two? Can you detail its steps?

Take a look at MA102 and try that method too, it will open up a new way of practice with verbal thinking in first jhana so to develop renunciation in wisdom there. You will also understand that a lot of work and reflection is needed to get there. If you look at MA102 you cannot possibly imagine to link the word "light" to the word "jhana" since it is a change of perspective, an u-turn, a revolution that takes your world and put it upside-down. If you feel that it is too hard to guide yourself though the suttas, stick to the tradition seems the better option, but please never forget to develop wisdom and that the Buddha actually got full enlightenment reflection on the allure, the drawback and the escape so why we should not?

With Metta (and sorry If I will probably not have the time to respond further)

[DeadBuddha]

Thank you very much for these inspiring explanations.

[frank k]

Detailed sutta based approach glossing all the terms in standard formula, links to sutta to justify those glosses.
https://lucid24.org/tped/g/goldcraft/index.html#4.3

Most of the answers you get from the Vism. or Ajahn Brahm camp,
how much can you trust people who redefine very basic word definitions in the dictionary?
Is it really likely the Buddha would redefine:
1. vitakka (thinking) = NOT thinking
2. kāya (physical body) = NOT the physical body, a mind only body/collection of mental factors
3. vedana (primarily physical sensations with 3 tones) = NOT physical sensations, only mental sensations
4. rūpa (material form made of 4 elements) = NOT material form, just the mental impression from the visual image of material form.
5. physical breath = NOT physical breath

When you start redefining basic terms in that way, you could make any collection of text mean any arbitary thing you want.
Vism., Ajahn Brahm, and Sujato could make a recipe for baking chocolate cake into instructions for how to enter their "jhāna" of disembodied frozen stupor.

Hello,

I feel that many interpretations of jhanas are imprecise.

For example, some say that vitakka and vicārā mean "applied attention" and "sustained attention", respectively, when in truth it seems that vitakka and vicara mean, respectively, simply, "knowingly willed and time-limited verbal discursive thought". and "automatic verbal discursive thought having continuity over time". This interpretation seems proven in SN 21.1, where the Noble Silence allows entry into the second jhana. This is the true interpretation.
This is important because "true interpretation" means that in the first jhana we still have verbal discursive thoughts. Now, often, those who support the “imprecise interpretation” think that during the first jhana, there is no longer any verbal discursive thought. In general, these people teach much more difficult jhanas to live. Among these people are Pa Auk Sayadaw, and Stephen Snyder (and possibly also Henepola Gunaratana, who in any case believes in the first interpretation of vitakka and vicārā - as applied/sustained attentions)

Then there are people who have a correct understanding of vitakka and vicārā. Leigh Brasington is one of them. However, Leigh Brasington himself admitted that the jhanas he teaches are less intense than the Buddha's jhanas (he showed great and useful honesty - credit to him). So there is surely something imprecise somewhere in his interpretation of jhanas.

So I ask you: what should be practiced? Personally, I practice the Pa Auk method, but also the Leigh Brasington method depending on the session. These two methods are excellent for progressing, and I am sure that by practicing them one manages, in one way or another, to live the jhanas.
But both of these methods have difficulties: that of Pa Auk leads to a first jhana without verbal discursive thoughts (whereas according to the sutta there are verbal discursive thoughts in the first jhana), and that of Leigh Brasington leads to less intense jhanas than those of the Buddha. Is there a middle way between the two? Can you detail its steps?

Thanks in advance.

May all beings be freed from the infernal cycle of suffering.

[auto]

Most of the answers you get from the Vism. or Ajahn Brahm camp,
how much can you trust people who redefine very basic word definitions in the dictionary?
Is it really likely the Buddha would redefine:
1. vitakka (thinking) = NOT thinking

from Abhidhammattha - Sangaha of Anuruddhācariya pdf p47 (by Narada Thera)

The five factors, vitakka, vicāra, pīti, sukha, ekaggatā collectively found in the appanā
consciousness, constitute what is technically known as Jhāna.

see the term 'technical'. And from pali can know it is directed towards arammanam

38. Vitakka - is derived from "vi" + √ "takk" to think. Generally the term is used in the sense of
thinking or reflection. Here it is used in a technical sense. It is that which directs the concomitant
states towards the object. (ārammanam vitakketi sampayuttadhamme abhiniropeti' ti vitakko).
Just as a king's favourite would conduct a villager to the palace, even so vitakka directs the mind
towards the object.

arammana in sutta,

“Mendicants, what you intend or plan, and what you have underlying tendencies for become a support for the continuation of consciousness.
“Yañca, bhikkhave, ceteti yañca pakappeti yañca anuseti ārammaṇametaṁ hoti viññāṇassa ṭhitiyā.
When this support exists, consciousness becomes established.
Ārammaṇe sati patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa hoti.

Ceteti does mean 'to think'. It is directed towards something. Here whether the thinking you are doing is in accord to the correct vitakka meaning is that it should become the support for the continuation of consciousness.

The vitakka of the Path-consciousness
directs the mental states towards Nibbāna and destroys micchā (wrong or evil) vitakka such as
thoughts of sense-desire (kāma), thoughts of hatred (vyāpāda), and thoughts of cruelty (vihimsā).

For example, sensual thoughts, what support consciousness, are miccha. Thus the sensual thoughts shouldn't be used as the support for the continuation of consciousness.
That said i can see how i can accept both definitions, if i know the reason or mechanics behind one or the other choice.

[auto]

Detailed sutta based approach glossing all the terms in standard formula, links to sutta to justify those glosses.
https://lucid24.org/tped/g/goldcraft/index.html#4.3

Most of the answers you get from the Vism. or Ajahn Brahm camp,
how much can you trust people who redefine very basic word definitions in the dictionary?

On vitakka,

9. Vitakka -
Vi + √ takk, to think.
It is difficult to suggest a suitable rendering for this Pāli term which assumes different meanings
in the Suttas and Abhidhamma.

In the Sutta Pitaka it has been employed in the sense of notions, ideas, thoughts, reasoning etc. In
the Abhidhamma it is used in a specific technical sense.

The problem is not the different definitions, it is your attitude or how you learn things. I guess you can't held different options without them being in conflict.
Even if you say correct thing, you do it in a way it is not possible to agree with bc of your attitude, and on top of it you think you are so cool that you don't even discuss things.

[DeadBuddha]

Detailed sutta based approach glossing all the terms in standard formula, links to sutta to justify those glosses.
https://lucid24.org/tped/g/goldcraft/index.html#4.3

Most of the answers you get from the Vism. or Ajahn Brahm camp,
how much can you trust people who redefine very basic word definitions in the dictionary?
Is it really likely the Buddha would redefine:
1. vitakka (thinking) = NOT thinking
2. kāya (physical body) = NOT the physical body, a mind only body/collection of mental factors
3. vedana (primarily physical sensations with 3 tones) = NOT physical sensations, only mental sensations
4. rūpa (material form made of 4 elements) = NOT material form, just the mental impression from the visual image of material form.
5. physical breath = NOT physical breath

When you start redefining basic terms in that way, you could make any collection of text mean any arbitary thing you want.
Vism., Ajahn Brahm, and Sujato could make a recipe for baking chocolate cake into instructions for how to enter their "jhāna" of disembodied frozen stupor.

Hello,

I feel that many interpretations of jhanas are imprecise.

For example, some say that vitakka and vicārā mean "applied attention" and "sustained attention", respectively, when in truth it seems that vitakka and vicara mean, respectively, simply, "knowingly willed and time-limited verbal discursive thought". and "automatic verbal discursive thought having continuity over time". This interpretation seems proven in SN 21.1, where the Noble Silence allows entry into the second jhana. This is the true interpretation.
This is important because "true interpretation" means that in the first jhana we still have verbal discursive thoughts. Now, often, those who support the “imprecise interpretation” think that during the first jhana, there is no longer any verbal discursive thought. In general, these people teach much more difficult jhanas to live. Among these people are Pa Auk Sayadaw, and Stephen Snyder (and possibly also Henepola Gunaratana, who in any case believes in the first interpretation of vitakka and vicārā - as applied/sustained attentions)

Then there are people who have a correct understanding of vitakka and vicārā. Leigh Brasington is one of them. However, Leigh Brasington himself admitted that the jhanas he teaches are less intense than the Buddha's jhanas (he showed great and useful honesty - credit to him). So there is surely something imprecise somewhere in his interpretation of jhanas.

So I ask you: what should be practiced? Personally, I practice the Pa Auk method, but also the Leigh Brasington method depending on the session. These two methods are excellent for progressing, and I am sure that by practicing them one manages, in one way or another, to live the jhanas.
But both of these methods have difficulties: that of Pa Auk leads to a first jhana without verbal discursive thoughts (whereas according to the sutta there are verbal discursive thoughts in the first jhana), and that of Leigh Brasington leads to less intense jhanas than those of the Buddha. Is there a middle way between the two? Can you detail its steps?

Thanks in advance.

May all beings be freed from the infernal cycle of suffering.

Thank you very much.

I haven't checked the definitions for all the terms you mention, but I had checked the definitions for vitakka and vicārā, and it's true that I really feel like there's been a big redefinition of those words. On that I agree with you.

However, can you point me to where the suttas specify that we should pay attention to the physical breath? I don't know if they really say that it should be "physical".

Thanks in advance.

[frank k]

Same book I linked earlier, but chapter 16:
https://lucid24.org/tped/g/goldcraft/index.html#16
look at 16.3 and 16.4 especially

...
I haven't checked the definitions for all the terms you mention, but I had checked the definitions for vitakka and vicārā, and it's true that I really feel like there's been a big redefinition of those words. On that I agree with you.

However, can you point me to where the suttas specify that we should pay attention to the physical breath? I don't know if they really say that it should be "physical".

Thanks in advance.

Also see the studies here comparing commentaries from various sources:
https://lucid24.org/sted/16aps/index.html

Pretty much just Vism. and Ajahn Brahm are the only ones that reimagine breath meditation into a practice that involves doesn't use the breath (they relegate the breath into a preliminary object before the "real meditation" begins).
Then why did the buddha call it "breath meditation" if it was just a warm up?
Amazing how gullible most people are.

[frank k]

...

You're on my blocked list becuase you're a stubborn blind faith follower unable to see that 2 + 2 equals 4 despite patient and repeated explanations.
According to Vism. and Abhidhamma in "special situations" 2 + 2 = 5000.

You can't even quote canonical Abhidhamma to support your wrong views on vitakka and jhāna because it supports a common sense vitakka = thinking.
Talking to you is like talking to Christian fundamentalists who know the relevant parts of their Bible less well than their opponents yet keep quoting the bible as if it supports their erroneous views.

MN 111 shows that cetana (volition) is active through all 4 jhānas and first 3 perception attainments.
You can't have volition be active and vitakka redefined to block volition and verbal thought.

[DeadBuddha]

...

You're on my blocked list becuase you're a stubborn blind faith follower unable to see that 2 + 2 equals 4 despite patient and repeated explanations.
According to Vism. and Abhidhamma in "special situations" 2 + 2 = 5000.

You can't even quote canonical Abhidhamma to support your wrong views on vitakka and jhāna because it supports a common sense vitakka = thinking.
Talking to you is like talking to Christian fundamentalists who know the relevant parts of their Bible less well than their opponents yet keep quoting the bible as if it supports their erroneous views.

MN 111 shows that cetana (volition) is active through all 4 jhānas and first 3 perception attainments.
You can't have volition be active and vitakka redefined to block volition and verbal thought.

Thank you for your answer.

For Pa Auk, our everyday breathing is composed of two things: conceptual breathing and non-conceptual breathing. The non-conceptual breath is the breath that seems the most obvious to us: it is the breath that we feel as a breath that rubs on the skin, that slides on the skin, that we feel as moving (that is to say that we feel it going up and down on the skin), and that is composed of many small subtle particles. This is the non-conceptual breathing. Now, the conceptual breath is the breath which is not the non-conceptual breath (the conceptual breath is not a moving breath rubbing against the skin). The conceptual breath is this: it is a still breath, which does not move (we do not feel it going up and down, but we feel it still), and it is a breath that we feel as "solid", "unified", that is to say that we do not feel it as being composed of many small particles, but we feel it as being a homogeneous block.

And for Pa Auk, to increase our concentration, we have to concentrate on the conceptual breath. Why? Because the conceptual breath is very stable, immobile, solid: it is not something unstable that changes all the time. This stability makes it easier to concentrate on it than to concentrate on the non-conceptual breath.

[auto]

...

You're on my blocked list becuase you're a stubborn blind faith follower unable to see that 2 + 2 equals 4 despite patient and repeated explanations.
According to Vism. and Abhidhamma in "special situations" 2 + 2 = 5000.

You can't even quote canonical Abhidhamma to support your wrong views on vitakka and jhāna because it supports a common sense vitakka = thinking.
Talking to you is like talking to Christian fundamentalists who know the relevant parts of their Bible less well than their opponents yet keep quoting the bible as if it supports their erroneous views.

MN 111 shows that cetana (volition) is active through all 4 jhānas and first 3 perception attainments.
You can't have volition be active and vitakka redefined to block volition and verbal thought.

If you know about developing mind across different traditions then you should know they all mention about the regular thinking mind objects(thinking) is not going to cut the transgression nor develop the mind.(this point alone is too obvious to ignore)

mn111 says it is vipassana and perhaps is about noble 8fold path in which case the vipassana is practiced together with the samatha hence why jhan is also mentioned.

True, i can't buy your reasoning because you don't consider certain teaching elements. In my opinion you are being fundamentalist who has hard time listening. Also the terms frozen stupor and perhaps some others i can't name at the moment are gotten from a single A4 format Brahm essay.
And thanks for mention mn111 i forgot what was the number of that sutta.

also i don't see where it is said cetana doesn't occur in jhana. So far i have read cetana accumulates kamma in case of normal consciousness. Doesn't say it is absent in supra mundane, just says cetana there doesn't constitute kamma. 100 percent it is on you Frankk to read up and provide better reason.

[Jack19990101]

Re -
"mn111 says it is vipassana and perhaps is about noble 8fold path in which case the vipassana is practiced together with the samatha hence why jhan is also mentioned."

MN 111 is an elaboration on how to practice 4th foundation of Satipatthana.
I have no clear idea what vipassana exact donates, but from Sati practice point,
The formula is Sati leads to Jhana. Example, beside MN 111, also includes Anapanasati.

[auto]

Re -
"mn111 says it is vipassana and perhaps is about noble 8fold path in which case the vipassana is practiced together with the samatha hence why jhan is also mentioned."

MN 111 is an elaboration on how to practice 4th foundation of Satipatthana.
I have no clear idea what vipassana exact donates, but from Sati practice point,
The formula is Sati leads to Jhana. Example, beside MN 111, also includes Anapanasati.

The very least its not the standard jhana there(word difference, to name one dif..). I mean one must be carful about drawing conclusions about standard-description-jhana from mn111. Or who want to do that need write a reason why these jhanas are talking about same type of jhana.

[BrokenBones]

...

...
If you know about developing mind across different traditions then you should know they all mention about the regular thinking mind objects(thinking) is not going to cut the transgression nor develop the mind.(this point alone is too obvious to ignore)

....

But it's not regular thinking is it?

It's Dhammic thinking as in Right Thought... this misunderstanding of the use of vitakka vicara is enough to lead someone down the wrong path.

People seem unwilling to use a human beings most important attribute... a thinking mind... thoughts are gradually diminished and abandoned, but one has to achieve second jhana before that comes in to play.

[frank k]

...
Thank you for your answer.

For Pa Auk, our everyday breathing is composed of two things: conceptual breathing and non-conceptual breathing. The non-conceptual breath is the breath that seems the most obvious to us: it is the breath that we feel as a breath that rubs on the skin, that slides on the skin, that we feel as moving (that is to say that we feel it going up and down on the skin), and that is composed of many small subtle particles. This is the non-conceptual breathing. Now, the conceptual breath is the breath which is not the non-conceptual breath (the conceptual breath is not a moving breath rubbing against the skin). The conceptual breath is this: it is a still breath, which does not move (we do not feel it going up and down, but we feel it still), and it is a breath that we feel as "solid", "unified", that is to say that we do not feel it as being composed of many small particles, but we feel it as being a homogeneous block.

And for Pa Auk, to increase our concentration, we have to concentrate on the conceptual breath. Why? Because the conceptual breath is very stable, immobile, solid: it is not something unstable that changes all the time. This stability makes it easier to concentrate on it than to concentrate on the non-conceptual breath.

How long have you practiced in the pa auk system?
I've probably done it longer than you (10 years), and I've seen all kinds of serious problems in hundreds, if not over a thousand dedicated practitioners.
You could stare at a picture of a kasina and it's even more stable than the breath. So why bother with the breath?

Maybe you need a sense of community, there's all sorts of reason people choose a religion or lineage,
but you are sadly mistaken if you believe Vism. or Pa Auk represents a legitimate interpretation of the Buddha's original teachings.
It's worth giving the Buddha's teachings a fair shot first and establish a baseline for comparison.

[DeadBuddha]

...
Thank you for your answer.

For Pa Auk, our everyday breathing is composed of two things: conceptual breathing and non-conceptual breathing. The non-conceptual breath is the breath that seems the most obvious to us: it is the breath that we feel as a breath that rubs on the skin, that slides on the skin, that we feel as moving (that is to say that we feel it going up and down on the skin), and that is composed of many small subtle particles. This is the non-conceptual breathing. Now, the conceptual breath is the breath which is not the non-conceptual breath (the conceptual breath is not a moving breath rubbing against the skin). The conceptual breath is this: it is a still breath, which does not move (we do not feel it going up and down, but we feel it still), and it is a breath that we feel as "solid", "unified", that is to say that we do not feel it as being composed of many small particles, but we feel it as being a homogeneous block.

And for Pa Auk, to increase our concentration, we have to concentrate on the conceptual breath. Why? Because the conceptual breath is very stable, immobile, solid: it is not something unstable that changes all the time. This stability makes it easier to concentrate on it than to concentrate on the non-conceptual breath.

How long have you practiced in the pa auk system?
I've probably done it longer than you (10 years), and I've seen all kinds of serious problems in hundreds, if not over a thousand dedicated practitioners.
You could stare at a picture of a kasina and it's even more stable than the breath. So why bother with the breath?

Maybe you need a sense of community, there's all sorts of reason people choose a religion or lineage,
but you are sadly mistaken if you believe Vism. or Pa Auk represents a legitimate interpretation of the Buddha's original teachings.
It's worth giving the Buddha's teachings a fair shot first and establish a baseline for comparison.

Yes, I am a very beginner. I have only been practicing Pa Auk for 2 or 3 months.

Frankly, I don't know if it really works, but I'm trying anyway. I also need to try Leigh's method more.

I had heard people say that Pa Auk is wrong and has been leading people astray for years. I'm not sure what to make of that.
What problems do you notice in practitioners please?