Imprecise interpretations of jhanas: which method to apply?

[DeadBuddha]

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.

[Microdose]

What is wrong with following natural breath patterns and calming mind and generating right energy and trust in that

[DeadBuddha]

Thanks. Maybe that's correct. But do you think that leads to the Buddha's jhanas?

[BrokenBones]

I think that some people have a faulty view on the effort involved in vitakka & vicara.

As an example...

"And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued with renunciation arose in me. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with renunciation has arisen in me; and that leads neither to my own affliction, nor to the affliction of others, nor to the affliction of both. It fosters discernment, promotes lack of vexation, & leads to Unbinding."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

This wholesome thinking arises quite naturally once the effort has been undertaken to abandon the unwholesome.


As for hard/soft/lite/sutta, I think Leigh's technique falls down a bit because he goes too far in focussing on the body... it's a natural reaction to the hard jhana concentration mental only school.

It really needs a balance... the mind is foremost (even that pesky thinking) but the body needs to get in on the act and shouldn't be ignored.

[DeadBuddha]

Thank you very much, that's interesting. Please do you know a balanced method?

[BrokenBones]

Thank you very much, that's interesting. Please do you know a balanced method?

The sutta I quoted is the business.

[Ceisiwr]

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.

V&V mean something like initial thought and contemplating, the “wandering about” the initial thought. When vitakka is on its own it just means “thought” for example there are suttas where sense-desire itself is a “thought”. In the Jhanas it’s not verbal chatter. I don’t think SN 21.1 proves that V&V is mental mumblings.

[Scabrella]

automatic verbal discursive thought having continuity over time

This does not sound very profound.

[DeadBuddha]

Thank you very much, that's interesting. Please do you know a balanced method?

The sutta I quoted is the business.

Thank you so much. However, it seems to me that the sutta "lacks" precision about the method to follow during intense meditation (should I focus on the breath? on the body? on the mental formations? etc.)

[DeadBuddha]

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.

V&V mean something like initial thought and contemplating, the “wandering about” the initial thought. When vitakka is on its own it just means “thought” for example there are suttas where sense-desire itself is a “thought”. In the Jhanas it’s not verbal chatter. I don’t think SN 21.1 proves that V&V is mental mumblings.

Thanks. However, it seems to me that a discursive verbal thought could quite, in the texts, be linked or even confused with sensual desire.

[confusedlayman]

vitakka and vicarra is mind voice

[Ceisiwr]

vitakka and vicarra is mind voice

I wouldn’t say so. I think it’s a shame people are missing out on the blissful stillness of having a non-chattering mind.

[BrokenBones]

Thank you very much, that's interesting. Please do you know a balanced method?

The sutta I quoted is the business.

Thank you so much. However, it seems to me that the sutta "lacks" precision about the method to follow during intense meditation (should I focus on the breath? on the body? on the mental formations? etc.)

It's precision par excellence...

Be aware of unwholesome thoughts... investigate the drawbacks of such thoughts until these thoughts leave you alone because of being seen with wisdom. This investigation is the catalyst for everything else that follows and should be undertaken with effort & energy and not be skipped over. The unwholesome thoughts one turns your mind to are preferably the ones that have plagued your day or are the ones that incessantly arise.

A natural result of 'purifying' the mind will allow wholesome thoughts to arise (we can always give them a bit of a nudge).

As the wholesome thoughts arise with little or no effort then samadhi descends... the thoughts get fewer until they're mere wisps and then subside altogether.

Don't 'focus' on the body or breath... such things will make their presence known from time to time but they don't require any special attention (a few breaths can always be called into play as a relaxation). The 'focus' if you want to call it that is on the mind states that are at play... hopefully as vitakka vicara do their bit those states would be piti & sukha and you're also aware of the body and how piti & sukha effect it.

The samadhi produced has Right View as a basis.

Knowing the unwholesome as unwholesome and the wholesome as wholesome is Right View.

Focusing on the tip of your nose will merely produce samadhi with a nose as basis.

[DeadBuddha]

Thank you very much, it is very interesting.

It's true that as I read mostly authors like Pa Auk, Gunaratana, Snyder, or Brasington, I tend to think that samadhi is more easily obtained through breathing. For example, Pannananda (= monk in the lineage of Pa Auk) considers the conceptual breath to be the best object because it is a particularly stable object, unlike the other objects (thoughts, sensations, elements) which are unstable and therefore unsuitable for samadhi. According to this idea, it is easier to reach samadhi using conceptual breathing, rather than using the knowledge of deep truths about the nature of phenomena.

[Ceisiwr]

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.

V&V mean something like initial thought and contemplating, the “wandering about” the initial thought. When vitakka is on its own it just means “thought” for example there are suttas where sense-desire itself is a “thought”. In the Jhanas it’s not verbal chatter. I don’t think SN 21.1 proves that V&V is mental mumblings.

Thanks. However, it seems to me that a discursive verbal thought could quite, in the texts, be linked or even confused with sensual desire.

The suttas I have in mind have kamavitakko which reads as “sensual desire thought”, as in the sensual desire is the thought itself rather than verbal thinking.