Jhana - suttas vs commentaries

[Seeker of Wisdom]

I've been thinking recently about the differences between jhana as presented in the suttas and as in the commentaries (note I can't be bothered to find all the references, but if you want you can find this stuff easily).

 

For example, the first jhana in the suttas has four factors: applied and sustained attention, rapture and pleasure born of seclusion. Nowhere in the suttas that I'm aware of is the first jhana described as having absolute singleness of mind (ekagatta) - obviously there isn't restlessness, it's way way more focused than anything in regular life, without discursive thought, ideally not hearing external sound, etc... but nor is there that ekagatta yet. There is still subtle intention, pointing attention towards the object.

 

This is supported by the description of the second jhana - stilling of applied and sustained attention -> rapture and pleasure born of composure. If the first jhana already had that composure anyway, this would be a pointless statement. And many laypeople are said to achieve stream-entry and the first jhana, implying that it's still very hard, but achievable without months of retreat doing nothing else.

 

But the Path to Purification says that the first jhana has five factors, one of which is ekagatta. And only one in ten-thousand will achieve it, or something like that. This sounds intimidating! But then, it is said that jhana is actually not necessary - in stark contrast to the suttas, which outright define right concentration as the jhanas, and bang on about jhana weaning the mind from sense craving, supporting wisdom, etc.

 

IMO it makes sense to say that the less intense jhana of the suttas is necessary, while the more intense jhana of the commentaries is still right concentration, but it isn't necessary to go that far. Tbh I'm quite pleased about this because my main source for shamatha practice (Alan Wallace's The Attention Revolution - great book) takes the commentary's route and says you basically need to go into retreat for months or years if you want jhana, and you should be able to focus completely single-pointedly for four hours straight to get the real first jhana! It's still an ideal guide to doing the practice itself, but the idea that I don't actually need to get to SUCH an exacting level for even just stream-entry is a relief.

 

This is what Thanissaro Bhikkhu says in Wings to Awakening pp. 218-9 (here):

The role of jhana as a condition for transcendent discernment is one of the most controversial issues in the Theravada tradition. Three basic positions have been advanced in modern writings. One, following the commentarial tradition, asserts that jhana is not necessary for any of the four levels of Awakening and that there is a class of individualscalled dry insight meditatorswho are discernment released based on a level of concentration lower than that of jhana. A second position, citing a passage in the Canon [AN 3:88; MFU, p. 103] stating that concentration is mastered only on the level of non-returning, holds that jhana is necessary for the attainment of non-returning and Arahantship, but not for the lower levels of Awakening. The third position states that the attainment of at least the first level of jhana is essential for all four levels of Awakening.

 

Evidence from the Canon supports the third position, but not the other two. As §106 points out, the attainment of stream-entry has eight factors, one of which is right concentration, defined as jhana. In fact, according to this particular discourse, jhana is the heart of the streamwinners path. Secondly, there is no passage in the Canon describing the development of transcendent discernment without at least some skill in jhana. The statement that concentration is mastered only on the level of non-returning must be interpreted in the light of the distinction between mastery and attainment. A streamwinner may have attained jhana without mastering it; the discernment developed in the process of gaining full mastery over the practice of jhana will then lead him/her to the level of non-returning. As for the term discernment-released, passage §168 shows that it denotes people who have become Arahants without experiencing the four formless jhanas. It does not indicate a person who has not experienced jhana.

 

Part of the controversy over this question may be explained by the fact that the commentaries define jhana in terms that bear little resemblance to the canonical description. The Path of Purification the cornerstone of the commentarial system takes as its paradigm for meditation practice a method called kasina, in which one stares at an external object until the image of the object is imprinted in ones mind. This image then gives rise to a countersign that is said to indicate the attainment of threshold concentration, a necessary prelude to jhana. The text then tries to fit all other meditation methods into this mold, so that they too give rise to countersigns, but even by its own admission, breath meditation does not fit the mold very well. With the other methods, the stronger ones focus, the more vivid the object and the closer it is to producing a countersign; but with the breath, the stronger ones focus, the more subtle the breath and the harder it is to detect. As a result, the text states that only Buddhas and Buddhas sons find the breath a congenial focal point for attaining jhana.

 

None of these assertions have any support in the Canon. Although a practice called kasina is mentioned tangentially in some of the discourses, the only point where it is described in any detail [MN 121; MFU, pp. 82-85] makes no mention of staring at an object or gaining a countersign. If breath meditation were congenial only to Buddhas and their sons, there seems little reason for the Buddha to have taught it so frequently and to such a wide variety of people. If the arising of a countersign were essential to the attainment of jhana, one would expect it to be included in the steps of breath meditation and in the graphic analogies used to describe jhana, but it isnt. Some Theravadins insist that questioning the commentaries is a sign of disrespect for the tradition, but it seems to be a sign of greater disrespect for the Buddha or the compilers of the Canon to assume that he or they would have left out something absolutely essential to the practice. So it would seem that what jhana means in the commentaries is something quite different from what it means in the Canon. Because of this difference we can say that the commentaries are right in viewing their type of jhana as unnecessary for Awakening, but Awakening cannot occur without the attainment of jhana in the canonical sense.

 

But of course I don't want to be 'dumbing down', so if I'm missing something here, please educate me.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Seeker of Wisdom

[forestofclarity]

Richard Shankman did a study of this some time ago in his Experience of Samadhi. Bhante Gunaratana (Mindfulness in Plain English) said point blank that sutta jhanas and visuddhimagga jhanas are not the same. Bhante Vimalaramsi actually tossed his practice (Mahasi noting) and went back to the suttas to see what they said. His exposition is much different --- unifying concentration as opposed to concentration on a single point.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

...His exposition is much different --- unifying concentration as opposed to concentration on a single point.

That sounds interesting, can you explain further?

 

I would think there has to be focus on one object during any sort of jhana [edit - not to ekagatta levels in the first], but that there is a role before that point for peripheral awareness to monitor and refine the practice.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Seeker of Wisdom

[Simple_Jack]

SOW, you've already summed up the differences in the inclusion of ekaggata. Leigh Brasington has article on this which also briefly mentions "unification of mind" in the first jhana: http://www.leighb.com/jhana_4factors.htm

[Seeker of Wisdom]

^^^ Thanks S_J, I'd remembered seeing some of those articles.

 

In the first place, vitakka and vicara always and only mean "thinking" and "examining" in the suttas - there is no place where they can be interpreted to mean "initial and sustained attention" or any such thing. It is even explicit in the canon that vitakka and vicara refer to thinking in the context of the first jhana - see for example SN 21:1. There "Noble Silence" is defined as the 2nd Jhana because vitakka and vicara are now absent. It is simply not possible to have one-pointedness and thinking at the same time, so experiencing ekaggata in the same jhana as vitakka and vicara makes no sense whatsoever.

Oh, that's a lot simpler. And if there can be thinking and examination in the first jhana (albeit, presumably subtler than normal) that makes it even more approachable!

 

As mentioned above, you just can't have ekaggata and vitakka & vicara happening at the same time.

 

Of course this was a problem for the abhidhammaikas and the commentators. So they redefined vitakka and vicara to mean initial and sustained attention.

Daaaymn.

[forestofclarity]

From Breath of Love by Bhante Vimalaramsi :

 

 

In actual fact, within the texts, meditation, as taught by the Buddha, is never broken into different kinds of meditation. It is never taken to be deep concentration in any of its forms, that is, fixed or absorption concentration (appanā samādhi), access or neighborhood concentration (upacāra samādhi) or moment-to-moment concentration (khanika samādhi), which actually brings tightness to mind and suppresses the hindrances.

The “concentration” meditation is a form of suppression, a kind of cutting off of your experience, which causes a kind of resistance to arise in your mind. As a result, there is a conflict with reality. On the other hand, Tranquil Wisdom Insight Meditation (TWIM), as found within the texts, opens mind and is continually expanding it. It does not ever exclude or resist anything. A “concentrated” mind does not meditate in the “Buddha’s Way”. It doesn’t matter whether you are talking about full or fixed absorption concentration, or access concentration. These still cause the same difficulties in practice.

The important rule of the meditation is, no matter what distracts your mind away from the breath and tranquilizing your mind, you simply open, expand, let it go without thinking about the distraction, relax mind and tightness in the head. As you feel mind open and relax away the tension, you lightly smile, and softly redirect your attention back to the object of meditation, i.e. the breath and relaxing on the in-breath and relaxing on the out-breath.

Next is the Pāli word samatha. The more accurate meanings of samatha are peacefulness, calmness, tranquility, serenity, or stillness, and not as the commonly translated terms of absorption or fixed concentration. Thus, the author prefers to use the word tranquility.

The Pāli word samādhi is equally important as it has many different meanings such as calmness, unified mind, tranquility, peacefulness, stillness, composure of mind, quiet mind, serenity, and one of the lesser meanings, “concentration”. Thus, the true meaning is not merely fixed absorption concentration or access concentration, but calmness or stillness in different degrees. Interestingly, Rhys Davids found through his studies that the word “samādhi” was never used before the time of the Buddha.2

Even though, as a Bodhisatta, he practiced “absorption meditation”, the word samādhi has a different meaning other than concentration. The Buddha “popularized” the word samādhi to express collectedness, calm wisdom, tranquility, openness, awareness, along with developing a mind which has clarity and wisdom in it. Later, the Hindus changed the meaning to “concentration”. Hence, the author will use collectedness, stillness, composure of mind, or unified mind for the meaning here.

If one chooses to use the word “concentration”, they must understand that it means “collectedness of mind”, “composure of mind”, or “a unified mind”. It does not mean absorption, fixed (appanā), or access (upacāra) concentration, or even momentary (khanika) concentration.

This book is written with a deep conviction that serenity and insight were yoked together in the Buddha’s practice. It is committed to the understanding that the systematic cultivation of TWIM brings both serenity of mind and the insights needed to realize the true nature of this psycho/physical (mind/body) process together at the same time!

 

[Mark Foote]

Richard Shankman did a study of this some time ago in his Experience of Samadhi. Bhante Gunaratana (Mindfulness in Plain English) said point blank that sutta jhanas and visuddhimagga jhanas are not the same. Bhante Vimalaramsi actually tossed his practice (Mahasi noting) and went back to the suttas to see what they said. His exposition is much different --- unifying concentration as opposed to concentration on a single point.

 

"...making self-surrender (one's) object of thought, (one) lays hold of concentration, lays hold of one-pointedness of mind."

(SN V 200, Pali Text Society V 176)

 

 

From a section on the power of concentration, among the five powers. This is my experience, one-pointedness of mind, as opposed to concentration on a single point.

 

What's been most helpful to me is to exercise and include the sense of location and balance (in three planes), the sense of kinesthesia or proprioception, and the sense of gravity, along with the six senses that Gautama spoke of, in my self-awareness.

 

The surrender of volition in the experience of the senses is the thing that can't be done, and why Gautama spoke only of making self-surrender the object of thought; nevertheless, when the relinquishment of volition takes place (literally), one-pointedness of mind is present.

 

I don't even trust the statements attributed to Gautama's disciples in the Pali Canon to correctly reflect the teaching of the man himself, not because I'm such an expert, but just because they seem to go beyond what he said and to be of a different flavor- ? And don't even start me on Visuddhimagga.

 

This is the practice Gautama described as his own before enlightenment, and as the Tathagatha's way of life:

 

“Mindful [one] breathes in. Mindful [one] breathes out.

Whether [one] is breathing in a long (breath), breathing out a long (breath), breathing in a short (breath), breathing out a short (breath), one comprehends ‘I am breathing in a long (breath), I am breathing out a long (breath), I am breathing in a short (breath), I am breathing out a short (breath).’

Thus [one] trains [oneself] thinking, ‘I will breathe in experiencing the whole body; I will breathe out experiencing the whole body.

[One] trains [oneself], thinking ‘ I will breathe in tranquillizing the activity of body; I will breathe out tranquillizing the activity of body.’

[One] trains [oneself], thinking: ‘I will breathe in… breathe out experiencing rapture… experiencing joy… experiencing the activity of thought… tranquillising the activity of thought.’

[One] trains [oneself], thinking: ‘I will breathe in… breathe out experiencing thought… rejoicing in thought… concentrating thought… freeing thought.’

[One] trains [oneself], thinking: ‘I will breathe in… breathe out beholding impermanence… beholding detachment… beholding stopping… beholding casting away.”

(MN III 82-83, Pali Text Society vol. III pg 124)

 

This, he said, was a special instance of the setting up of mindfulness of the body, the feelings, the mind, and the state of mind. That hasn't exactly been my practice, for better or for worse, for reasons perhaps outlined by Dogen's teacher Rujing:

 

“Breath enters and reaches the tanden, and yet there is no place from which it comes. Therefore it is neither long nor short. Breath emerges from the tanden, and yet there is nowhere it goes. Therefore it is neither short nor long.”

(Dogen’s “Eihei Koroku”, vol. 5, #390)

Gautama's practice rings true, yet the practice described by both men I believe depends on the induction of trance, on the cessation of the exercise of volition, and cannot be made to happen. Coming to one's senses becomes necessary to the movement of breath at some level of relaxation; that's about all I can say.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Mark Foote

[Seeker of Wisdom]

...The important rule of the meditation is, no matter what distracts your mind away from the breath and tranquilizing your mind, you simply open, expand, let it go without thinking about the distraction, relax mind and tightness in the head. As you feel mind open and relax away the tension, you lightly smile, and softly redirect your attention back to the object of meditation, i.e. the breath and relaxing on the in-breath and relaxing on the out-breath...

Yes, I see where that's coming from. That's pretty much what Alan Wallace says to do. I'll still use the word 'concentration', as practising this does gradually train the mind to be able to concentrate - it's just based on letting distractions go rather than pushing them away, concentration in a mode of serene stillness.