How Early Buddhism differs from Theravada: a checklist by Bhante Sujato

[Pulsar]

asahi wrote

The noble eight fold path would necessary include "right" samadhi but not necessarily would include jhana

That is a pretty powerful statement. Can you support this statement using Buddha's awakening? that Buddha did not require jhana to Awaken? What exactly do you mean when you say

the path does not necessarily include jhana?

Can you be more specific? How is it unnecessary?
How do you understand the word jhana? Sometimes folks toss this word around carelessly.
Did some in the tradition misinterpret what Buddha meant by Jhana, like you do? and hence misinterpret the 8-fold path, since commentaries over time began calling Arupas, "jhana", but Nikaya never does.

• What is the difference between right samadhi and jhana?

Once you explain, I will explain my own understanding of Right samadhi, using a sutta example, a very simple sutta too, without unnecessary elaborations, down to earth. I love it since it is spoken by a bhikkhuni.
In fact to make the matters easier, I will bring in 3 different versions (Sujato, Thanissaro and BB) of the same passage.
This morning I read it, and thought "What a beautiful expression of Samadhi/jhana" Even a child would understand. No Pali or Sanskrit are required for that understanding, neither abhidhamma.
With love

[Pulsar]

mikenz66 wrote

Your demand that everyone should agree with you, and go out and correct everyone who disagrees with you, is completely unrealistic.

Come to think of it, not even Buddha expected everyone to agree with him.
I read this very interesting sutta called Otalayana sutta. Unfortunately it is not found in the Pali, only in Mulasarvastivada Vinaya.
However it is very eye opening as to how some violently disagreed with the Buddha.
Buddha did not care. He was enlightened.
With love

[DiamondNgXZ]

I should add that I spent more than 10 years studying the jhana controversy in great detail before arriving at a conclusion, and ascertaining this controversy is one that does have a bounded range of legitimate interpretations, evaluating every single passage before drawing this conclusion, and I spent more than 4 years interacting with Sujato and trying to draw out his best defense of his jhana interpretation.

It's pretty simple to solve this no? Just show a person who can attain to arahanthood or non-returner or develop the other 5 supernormal knowledges (divine eye, divine ear, mind-reading, recollection of past lives, psychic powers) without deep Jhanas, then the definition of Jhana can become Jhana lite.

[BrokenBones]

I should add that I spent more than 10 years studying the jhana controversy in great detail before arriving at a conclusion, and ascertaining this controversy is one that does have a bounded range of legitimate interpretations, evaluating every single passage before drawing this conclusion, and I spent more than 4 years interacting with Sujato and trying to draw out his best defense of his jhana interpretation.

It's pretty simple to solve this no? Just show a person who can attain to arahanthood or non-returner or develop the other 5 supernormal knowledges (divine eye, divine ear, mind-reading, recollection of past lives, psychic powers) without deep Jhanas, then the definition of Jhana can become Jhana lite.

And vice versa?

A bit puerile.

[Jack19990101]

Ajahn Panna, and his teacher Ajahn Maha Boowa, differentiate Jhana with Samadhi.
Ajahn Panna said -
"
In fact, unlike states of samãdhi that one normally experiences, the jhãnas are
extremely difficult to get into and maintain in any way. Someone
who does not possess the natural ability to attain these states should
not attempt to develop them. If a person possesses an innate ability
to develop these states so well and good. They will come naturally
as a product of ones own development in meditation. But for the
great majority of people the straight forward method of developing
samãdhi gradually for a basis of calm and then using that basis of
calm to develop wisdom is the natural way. For these people to
try to get into Jhãna would be a waste of time.
"
"it is wrong to equate states
of samãdhi that are normally experienced with Jhãna since there is
not necessarily any connection at all."

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=42206&p=665243#p665243

When I read description of Jhana from many dhamma talks, they all sound like Samadhi, not Jhana by sutta.
It could have caused confusion trying to treat samadhi(absorption) as sutta Jhana. Samadhi has less factors than Jhana, and not differentiated into 4 steps. Once one gets into samadhi, it is bodiless, it is bhavanga. But Sutta Jhana is not.

[frank k]

...
It's not as if noone has engaged with your, here or on Sutta Central. You think their interpretations are incorrect, and they think that yours are incorrect. Your demand that everyone should agree with you, and go out and correct everyone who disagrees with you, is completely unrealistic.


Mike

You sound a lot like George Bush or Trump.

Nowhere did I demand "everyone" agree with me. I already corrected you once on that false accusation, asked you to show where I do that, and you reassert that charge again without proof. In fact in this very thread, I cut off conversations with 2 people once I ascertained they had deranged ideas of 'logic'.

If I ever "demanded" anything, is that the Buddhist community as a collective use their common sense, intellect, police their teachers and require accountability, transparency, and ethical translation practices, rather than slavishly believe their charismatic cult leaders.

Yes I've pointed out in great detail the logical fallacies and failings of Sujato's morally reprehensible (because of how he fails to justify his position, not the position itself) interpretation of jhana over the years, but I never "demanded he change his view and agree with me." What I 'demanded', is that he justify his interpretation, such as show how the 20 most important sutta passages on jhana support his position rather than blatantly contradict it.

Civilized society doesn't tolerate fake news, yet Sujato and his fallacious jhana interpretation goes mostly unchallenged, much like how people like Bill Cosby and Catholic priests can ride the wave of popularity coasting on their charisma and likability and get away with crime for decades.

Well done Mike. Thanks to enablers like you, Sujato and Analayo continue to thrive.

[frank k]

Here's an example of 'brain-lite' logic and reasoning.

...
It's pretty simple to solve this no? Just show a person who can attain to arahanthood or non-returner or develop the other 5 supernormal knowledges (divine eye, divine ear, mind-reading, recollection of past lives, psychic powers) without deep Jhanas, then the definition of Jhana can become Jhana lite.

[frank k]

Please look closely into your personal responsibility and role in helping to preserve genuine Dharma for future generations.
If you really don't fully understand the jhana issues, then by all means stay out of it and don't voice your opinions.
But if you fully understand the issues, and you know crime when you see it, you have a duty to inform those who are unable to see it.
Same as you'd report Bill Cosby or criminal religious clergy men and not turn a blind eye and thereby enable them and even incur some culpability as well.

No need to worry about my dukkha in seeing Sujato destroy Buddhist teachings on jhana. I abandon any annoyance with Trump and Sujato instantaneously whenever I want, whenever it arises. Civic responsibility and whistleblowing need not involve anger.

I have no qualms, no hesitation, zero dukkha in pointing out the wrongness of that. (The dukkha comes from overestimating the intelligence, rationality of people's ability to discern right from wrong).

Then please look closely into the dukkha of overestimating the 'intelligence, [and] rationality of people's ability to discern right from wrong'. Free your mind from this suffering Frank, it's a burden. I'm speaking here from personal experience as well.

[DiamondNgXZ]

Here's an example of 'brain-lite' logic and reasoning.

...
It's pretty simple to solve this no? Just show a person who can attain to arahanthood or non-returner or develop the other 5 supernormal knowledges (divine eye, divine ear, mind-reading, recollection of past lives, psychic powers) without deep Jhanas, then the definition of Jhana can become Jhana lite.

Simple doesn't mean it's wrong. It's the scientific way, experiment! It doesn't work the other way around, since if only Jhana lite is needed, there's no issue of going deeper, but if Jhana lite cannot produce results, then it's needed to go deeper.

@BrokenBones vice versa doesn't make sense due to the reasoning above.

[asahi]

asahi wrote

The noble eight fold path would necessary include "right" samadhi but not necessarily would include jhana

That is a pretty powerful statement. Can you support this statement using Buddha's awakening? that Buddha did not require jhana to Awaken? What exactly do you mean when you say

the path does not necessarily include jhana?

Can you be more specific? How is it unnecessary?
How do you understand the word jhana? Sometimes folks toss this word around carelessly.
Did some in the tradition misinterpret what Buddha meant by Jhana, like you do? and hence misinterpret the 8-fold path, since commentaries over time began calling Arupas, "jhana", but Nikaya never does.

• What is the difference between right samadhi and jhana?

Once you explain, I will explain my own understanding of Right samadhi, using a sutta example, a very simple sutta too, without unnecessary elaborations, down to earth. I love it since it is spoken by a bhikkhuni.
In fact to make the matters easier, I will bring in 3 different versions (Sujato, Thanissaro and BB) of the same passage.
This morning I read it, and thought "What a beautiful expression of Samadhi/jhana" Even a child would understand. No Pali or Sanskrit are required for that understanding, neither abhidhamma.
With love

Hi Pulsar ,

Why not you explain in plain to me if there are any differences between jhana and right samadhi ? Do you equate jhana to right samadhi ? Or do you equate jhana to samadhi ? Or all three are the same ?

[waryoffolly]

Please look closely into your personal responsibility and role in helping to preserve genuine Dharma for future generations.
If you really don't fully understand the jhana issues, then by all means stay out of it and don't voice your opinions.
But if you fully understand the issues, and you know crime when you see it, you have a duty to inform those who are unable to see it.
Same as you'd report Bill Cosby or criminal religious clergy men and not turn a blind eye and thereby enable them and even incur some culpability as well.

I don't view others with an opposing view of jhana as criminals. I have faith that their intentions are good as well. My first responsibility is my own practice. Maybe one day when my conceit is weaker and my practice much stronger, I'll consider sharing my own views more widely.

No need to worry about my dukkha in seeing Sujato destroy Buddhist teachings on jhana. I abandon any annoyance with Trump and Sujato instantaneously whenever I want, whenever it arises. Civic responsibility and whistleblowing need not involve anger.

May it be so.

[Pulsar]

asahi wrote

Hi Pulsar ,
Why not you explain in plain to me if there are any differences between jhana and right samadhi ? Do you equate jhana to right samadhi ? Or do you equate jhana to samadhi ? Or all three are the same ?

Dearest asahi you had earlier claimed on the thread that Jhana is not a component of a 8-fold path, which I thought was a pretty serious claim. If you thought so you missed the point of the 8-fold path. I am open for discussion but first I like to know why you said what you said?
Can you support it with a sutta from the Pali canon? What monk X, Y, or Z said does not count, in this case,
because 8-fold path was taught by the Buddha. Monks or abhidhammikas cannot change the 4 Noble Truths at will, that also includes Paticca Samuppada.

Pl. satisfy my curiosity, perhaps there is something in the canon that I missed,
and it is an early sutta, that supports what you said? Or else why would you come to a conclusion
like this

The noble eight fold path would necessary include "right" samadhi but not necessarily would include jhana

I am merely asking you to support what you said, with a sutta.
Regards

[mikenz66]

Well done Mike. Thanks to enablers like you, Sujato and Analayo continue to thrive.

This is truly hilarious.

Clearly, you have strong views on this matter. That doesn't mean that you are necessarily correct, or, if you are, that everyone should be forced to agree with you.


Mike

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

... or, if you are, that everyone should be forced to agree with you.

Where did Frank say otherwise?

Metta,
Paul.

[BrokenBones]

Here's an example of 'brain-lite' logic and reasoning.

...
It's pretty simple to solve this no? Just show a person who can attain to arahanthood or non-returner or develop the other 5 supernormal knowledges (divine eye, divine ear, mind-reading, recollection of past lives, psychic powers) without deep Jhanas, then the definition of Jhana can become Jhana lite.

Simple doesn't mean it's wrong. It's the scientific way, experiment! It doesn't work the other way around, since if only Jhana lite is needed, there's no issue of going deeper, but if Jhana lite cannot produce results, then it's needed to go deeper.

@BrokenBones vice versa doesn't make sense due to the reasoning above.

The issue is deeper. I don't think you understand what the 'deep' jhana entails and how it is not in accordance with the the sutta descriptions. Deeper does not mean better nor does it entail the same approach to 'jhana lite' as you call it.

'Deep jhana' requires a fixation on a single object and losing yourself in it... how does this engender right view?

How does this engender right thought?

How does this engender right Sila?

How does this engender right Effort?

Even mindfulness is off key... it is 'mindfulness' of a meditation object... not Dhamma.

Sutta jhana is engendered by application, contemplation and gathering the mind around the right view, thought, sila and effort... this is your mindfulness.

Given time and dedication... any fool (even I've done it) can fix their mind onto an object and experience altered states.

The Buddha's path is a much more complicated and nuanced affair... read a sutta... any sutta... chances are that it'll have the ingredients for jhana.