Ajahn Chah's Warning to the Meditator

[Kumara]

I also came across this Q&A, which is in the final section of an Ajahn Chah compilation called "Bodhinyana":

Q: Is it necessary to be able to enter absorption in our practice?

A: No, absorption is not necessary. You must establish a modicum of tranquillity and one-pointedness of mind. Then you use this to examine yourself. Nothing special is needed. If absorption comes in your practice, this is OK too. Just don’t hold on to it. Some people get hung up with absorption. It can be great fun to play with. You must know proper limits. If you are wise, then you will know the uses and limitations of absorption, just as you know the limitations of children versus grown men.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai ... nyana.html

Yes, that's another interesting one. So, does that mean that Aj Chah says jhana is not necessary?

[Mkoll]

so that man is born with 5 feet tall with wisdom in plant !

I'm sorry, but this sentence makes no sense. Can you explain what you mean?


Mike

I thought it was funny like the author did but for a different reason: because it made no sense to me either.

No offense atipattoh. I'm fairly sure English is not your first language and you write it a darn slight better than I could write another language.

[Spiny Norman]

I also came across this Q&A, which is in the final section of an Ajahn Chah compilation called "Bodhinyana":

Q: Is it necessary to be able to enter absorption in our practice?

A: No, absorption is not necessary. You must establish a modicum of tranquillity and one-pointedness of mind. Then you use this to examine yourself. Nothing special is needed. If absorption comes in your practice, this is OK too. Just don’t hold on to it. Some people get hung up with absorption. It can be great fun to play with. You must know proper limits. If you are wise, then you will know the uses and limitations of absorption, just as you know the limitations of children versus grown men.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai ... nyana.html

Yes, that's another interesting one. So, does that mean that Aj Chah says jhana is not necessary?

Yes, that what it looks like to me, and looking at the last phrase in the quote he doesn't seem to have a very high opinion of jhana ( "children versus grown men" ).

So there doesn't seem to be a consensus on the necessity of jhana.

[Spiny Norman]

I think there are people who see jhana as unnecessary.

True. And some of these people are highly respectable and respected meditation masters. Question is this: What do they mean by "jhana"?

I assume they are referring to sutta jhana, and if so it seems to be a rejection of the classical definition of samma-samadhi.

[Kumara]

I think there are people who see jhana as unnecessary.

True. And some of these people are highly respectable and respected meditation masters. Question is this: What do they mean by "jhana"?

I assume they are referring to sutta jhana, and if so it seems to be a rejection of the classical definition of samma-samadhi.

Would that make sense? Consider that in the suttas jhanas are part of the Noble Eightfold Path, the way of practice leading to the cessation of dukkha (dukkha·nirodha·gāminī paṭipadā). If what you say is true, wouldn't then these masters be talking adhamma?

[Spiny Norman]

I assume they are referring to sutta jhana, and if so it seems to be a rejection of the classical definition of samma-samadhi.

Would that make sense? Consider that in the suttas jhanas are part of the Noble Eightfold Path, the way of practice leading to the cessation of dukkha (dukkha·nirodha·gāminī paṭipadā). If what you say is true, wouldn't then these masters be talking adhamma?

I can only go on what I read about what various teachers have said. What interpretation would you put on the Q&A I mentioned earlier?

Q: Is it necessary to be able to enter absorption in our practice?
A: No, absorption is not necessary. You must establish a modicum of tranquillity and one-pointedness of mind. Then you use this to examine yourself. Nothing special is needed. If absorption comes in your practice, this is OK too. Just don’t hold on to it. Some people get hung up with absorption. It can be great fun to play with. You must know proper limits. If you are wise, then you will know the uses and limitations of absorption, just as you know the limitations of children versus grown men.

As I may have mentioned before, I did pick up quite a lot of ambivalence towards jhana while I was involved with the Thai Forest tradition in the UK.

[daverupa]

I wonder what 'absorption' is a term for. It seems quite broad, and given how many ways people are given to attempt mental development, it's very possible that all sorts of off-target efforts come to be called by neutral terms, e.g. bhavana, samadhi, absorption, concentration, meditation, and so on ad infinitum.

Like to request potential posters to actually answer the question, preferably with personal experience.

So, absorption is either a sort of "hyperfocus", which seems off-target to me, or a sort of "flow state". This latter, if in accord with jhana descriptors & aligned with satipatthana as the flow-activity, is itself sammasamadhi.

But a hyperfocus on the breath or on a feeling or anything at all, while it might also warrant the term 'absorptive', would assuredly not be sammasamadhi.

[Spiny Norman]

I wonder what 'absorption' is a term for.

We can't know for sure, but in the Q&A above Ajahn Chah said: "You must establish a modicum of tranquillity and one-pointedness of mind". That does seem fairly clear. Modicum meaning small amount.

[Mkoll]

It seems quite broad, and given how many ways people are given to attempt mental development, it's very possible that all sorts of off-target efforts come to be called by neutral terms, e.g. bhavana, samadhi, absorption, concentration, meditation, and so on ad infinitum.

That's along the lines of what I'm thinking.

[Kumara]

Well, as I said a while ago on this thread, the talk would have been in either Thai or the Isaan Lao-based dialect. It may well be that the interpreter overinterpreted the statements by putting in the parenthetical (jhāna) into that particular sentence.

That's possible.

Anyway, I found out that it's from a talk given in the late 70s, when Pali words are not well known in the English world. So, it seems more probable that AC did use "jhana" and the translator put that in parenthesis after translating it to "absorption samādhi".

Anyway, we shouldn't expect AC to be consistent with his use of words. I notice that spiritual teachers are more interested in getting their message across to the intended audience than being consistent.

[Kumara]

I also came across this Q&A, which is in the final section of an Ajahn Chah compilation called "Bodhinyana":

Q: Is it necessary to be able to enter absorption in our practice?

A: No, absorption is not necessary. You must establish a modicum of tranquillity and one-pointedness of mind. Then you use this to examine yourself. Nothing special is needed. If absorption comes in your practice, this is OK too. Just don’t hold on to it. Some people get hung up with absorption. It can be great fun to play with. You must know proper limits. If you are wise, then you will know the uses and limitations of absorption, just as you know the limitations of children versus grown men.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai ... nyana.html

Yes, that's another interesting one. So, does that mean that Aj Chah says jhana is not necessary?

Yes, that what it looks like to me, and looking at the last phrase in the quote he doesn't seem to have a very high opinion of jhana ( "children versus grown men" ).

I think that's not in reference to jhana (whatever that means), but people who "get hung up with absorption" versus those who "know the uses and limitations of absorption".

[Kumara]

What interpretation would you put on the Q&A I mentioned earlier?

Q: Is it necessary to be able to enter absorption in our practice?
A: No, absorption is not necessary. You must establish a modicum of tranquillity and one-pointedness of mind. Then you use this to examine yourself. Nothing special is needed. If absorption comes in your practice, this is OK too. Just don’t hold on to it. Some people get hung up with absorption. It can be great fun to play with. You must know proper limits. If you are wise, then you will know the uses and limitations of absorption, just as you know the limitations of children versus grown men.

As I may have mentioned before, I did pick up quite a lot of ambivalence towards jhana while I was involved with the Thai Forest tradition in the UK.

In some communities, the word "jhana" has become almost taboo. And I think the whole issue is merely due to a traditional misunderstanding.

About the quoted Q&A, I think "absorption" here refers to the traditional term "appana-samadhi", which is orthodox Theravadin "jhana".

[Spiny Norman]

Anyway, we shouldn't expect AC to be consistent with his use of words.

Though on this issue the Ajahn does appear to have been consistent, at least from the 2 quotes we've considered so far.

[Kumara]

So there doesn't seem to be a consensus on the necessity of jhana.

In the first place, there's no consensus on what "jhana" means. And I think here lies the root of the entire debate and confusion.

I highly recommend reading the section on "Concentration & Discernment" (in Wings of Awakening) by Ajahn Thanissaro: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ml#part3-f
The relevant bit is just 5 paragraphs starting from the 2nd which begins “The role of jhāna…”. It skilfully summarizes the jhāna controversy in the Theravada tradition.

[Kumara]

Anyway, we shouldn't expect AC to be consistent with his use of words.

Though on this issue the Ajahn does appear to have been consistent, at least from the 2 quotes we've considered so far.

Indeed. I was referring to the larger collection of his teachings.