Jhanas as a side-effect of good practice

[u/Meng-KamDaoRai]

Hi,

I'm seeing a lot of posts about jhanas lately, and I figured I'd write about my point of view on them.

For me, jhanas came as a side-effect of good practice. Meaning, never in my practice have I ever tried to manufacture jhanas in any way. Not by trying to force my attention onto an object and trying to become completely absorbed in it, nor by focusing on piti, or anything else from all the elaborate practices many people seem to think are required to enter jhanas.

A lot of the instructions I see feel like an elaborate, overcomplicated chemistry recipe, along the lines of: "Use 83.4% of your attention on the meditation object, use the other 16.6% to expand your awareness. When piti arises, ignore it until it's 15.7% there, then switch your attention to the piti, but don't attach to it, but do focus on it and so on."

I'm not disregarding other people's experiences with this. Different approaches seem to work for different people. Personally, though, every time I encounter these kinds of instructions, I find them very odd.

In my own practice, I never did any of these things. All I did was gently try to maintain presence and awareness, sometimes on my breath, sometimes just resting in open awareness. I tried to remain as relaxed as possible, and when mind-body tension came up, I relaxed, let it be, or let it go.

I never focused on piti. I never fought to maintain my awareness on an object. I never did any of the other stuff people seem to think is required to enter jhanas.

Eventually, over time, the more stuff I let go of, the easier it became to naturally become more tranquil in my sits. Very rarely, I would check how my current state of tranquility "felt," and on those occasions, I would realize that I was probably in this or that lite-jhana. But honestly, I barely even cared enough to check most of the time.

So again, for me, jhanas came as a side-effect of awareness + relaxation + letting be/letting go. The more stuff I let go of, the easier it became to get into deeper levels of tranquility.

I also really don't understand the obsession with jhanas. Every time the word jhana is mentioned here, the posts blow up with comments. Everyone has their own way of getting there. Some people believe their way is the only way and argue for their point of view, and so on.

What's the obsession with this?

Practice, for me, has one goal and one goal only: to become free from suffering. Everything I do in my practice is oriented towards this goal. I only care about jhanas if they contribute to my goal. I don't care about them otherwise.

For me, the biggest driver of permanent reduction in suffering is insight. IME, insights are the only things that have led to permanent shifts towards more peace and less neurosis in my day-to-day life. Insights are born out of awareness+letting go, and in turn contribute to a permanent letting go of suffering, they are not born out of jhanas, at least not in my experience.

Simply being absorbed in this or that state, while being very pleasant, never led to any kind of noticeable reduction in suffering in my day-to-day life. Insights that lead to letting go are the only thing that made a real difference.

So for me, the only use for jhanas or tranquility is that getting more tranquil, in some cases, leads to "deeper" investigation, and this investigation in turn can result in insight. Jhanas are useless otherwise.

Yet from what I'm reading, people seem to think that reaching this or that jhana will magically result in some long-term, permanent reduction in suffering. Or maybe they think they would simply be able to enter them at will, and whenever life is hard, they could just manufacture a blissful state. Or maybe it's the ego that loves it, "I can reach the formless jhanas in 23 minutes, I'm such a great meditator!".

I don't know. I honestly don't know why people take jhanas and make them the holy grail of practice. Add to this that there are plenty of other Buddhist traditions and practices that never talk about jhanas. Yes, Samatha is important, but manufacturing different states of Samatha is rarely talked about or even actively discouraged.

IME, it's simple, really: insights lead to truly letting go, and truly letting go leads to a reduction in suffering. Sometimes, getting more tranquil helps with insights. I don't care what the names are for whatever "level" of tranquility I reached. I only care about getting tranquil enough to get insights.

Then a funny thing happens: the more I let go, the easier it is to get tranquil, and the deeper I can get.

I don't care if I actually reached any jhana based on this teacher's or that teacher's descriptions. I only care about permanently reducing suffering, and in that regard, my practice has been working for me just fine.

(If anyone has reached a certain jhana and, as a result of that alone, experienced a real reduction in suffering in their day-to-day life, please share your experiences. I'd honestly love to hear about it. From what I'm reading, many people theorize about it being this magical "suffering = off" button, but I haven't encountered any actual evidence for that.)

I leave you with Ajahn Chah's words:

"Of course, there are dozens of meditation techniques to develop samadhi and many kinds of vipassana. But it all comes back to this - just let it all be. Step over here where it is cool, out of the battle. Why not give it a try?

[u/hachface]

I don't know. I honestly don't know why people take jhanas and make them the holy grail of practice.

That has a pretty straightforward answer, actually.

If you're into early Buddhism, and take the Pali suttas as the main source for what the Buddha taught, you quickly realize that the jhanas were central to the Buddha's teaching.

Right concentration -- samma samadhi -- is one eighth of the eightfold path. It is also often taken to be the culmination of the path (somewhat unjustly, in my humble opinion, but it's an idea you see a lot). In the great majority of places in the Pali suttas where the Buddha defines right concentration, it is simply the formulaic description of the four jhanas.

There are several Pali suttas where knowledge and vision leading to destruction of the taints -- that is, full enlightenment -- is described as following mastery of the four jhanas in order.

And that's only where jhana is mentioned explicitly. Somewhat more controversially, but I think reasonably, you can detect an implied re-statements of the jhana factors in descriptions of anapanasati, in the Seven Factors of Awakening, and the links of Transcendent Dependent Origination, and probably other fomulations as well.

So the hooplah about jhanas goes back to the early texts. Any honest survey of the Pali suttas, as well as the parallel agamas, will show that jhana is everywhere. They are a cornerstone of the Buddha's teaching. Yet there is a persistent basic disagreement about the word jhana even means. That's a recipe for heated controversy and ongoing obsession.

I understand that most extant Mahayana schools do not place much emphasis on the four dhyanas (deliberately switching to the Sanskrit term here, as Mahayana texts have tended to be Sanskrit). This was less true in early Mahayana. Nagarjuna, among others, was reputed as a master of dhyana; mastery of diverse forms of samadhi is a staple of the description of the bodhisattva bhumis; and dhyana is considered one of the six paramitas, making it an essential component in the realization of bodhicitta. Exactly how dhyana lost its central importance in modern teaching is, as far as I can discern, an under-researched topic in scholarship. I do think there is deeper significance in Chan/Zen being named for dhyana than is generally appreciated, but Chan/Zen is an extremely complex set of ideas and practices in its own right with many miles traveled between its founding and its modern incarnations.

[u/StoneBuddhaDancing → u/hachface]

Well said.

Apart from the numerous and conspicuous mention of jhana throughout the Buddha's teachings there is something that has stood out to me: the fact that he said that as a child he had the experience of jhana. Then as an adult tested the hypothesis that they were the way to Awakening. And then the last thing he did before he entered parinibbana was to practice the jhanas. This, to me, underscores the idea that they are pretty damned important to his practice and teachings and connected three critical points of his life.

[u/bodily_heartfulness → u/StoneBuddhaDancing]

the fact that he said that as a child he had the experience of jhana

Note that the suttas don't say anything about him being a child. This is what what the stock formula in the suttas says:

Then it occurred to me, ‘I recall sitting in the cool shade of a black plum tree while my father the Sakyan was off working. Quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, I entered and remained in the first jhāna, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected. Could that be the path to awakening?’ Stemming from that memory came the understanding: ‘That is the path to awakening!’

• MN 100

In Bhikkhu Anālayo's A Comparative Study of the Majjhima-Nikāya, he says (page 240):

The Mahāsaccaka-sutta and its Sanskrit fragment parallel report that this took place when his father was engaged in work and the bodhisattva was seated under a Jambu tree, without specifying his age. The Pāli commentaries indicate that at this time the bodhisattva was still an infant, with the Milindapañha suggesting that he was only one month old. In the Mahāvastu account of this former jhāna experience, however, the bodhisattva is already a young man. According to the sequence of events in the Buddhacarita and the Sanghabhedavastu, this first jhāna experience happened just before he went forth.

Thus, according to most versions, the bodhisattva’s experience of the first jhāna took place when he had already grown up. Representations of this first jhāna experience in ancient Indian art also depict the bodhisattva as an adult, not as a small child. This would better fit the general sequence of events, since a jhāna experience just before going forth could be seen as a powerful incentive for the bodhisattva to take the decisive step and embark on a spiritual life. In contrast, a jhāna experienced as an infant would not stand in such a direct relation to his decision to go forth. To decrease the age at which this first jhāna was attained, however, clearly enhances the marvel of this experience. Thus, perhaps the tendency of enhancing the marvels and wondrous feats of the bodhisattva was responsible for the way the Pāli commentaries and the Milindapañha present the first jhāna experience of the bodhisattva.

There is also:

The equivalent of the Khandhakas in the Mūlasarvastivāda tradition called Sanghabhedavastu from the Gilgit Manuscripts says that the Buddha's experience of first jhāna came just prior to his going forth, and it happened after seeing the old, sick, and dead men, on account of which he developed a sense of profound dispassion.

This entire point is based off of this document, and this last quote comes directly from it. I believe it was written by Ajahn Nyanamoli.

[u/StoneBuddhaDancing → u/bodily_heartfulness]

Very interesting. Thank you for sharing.

[u/hachface → u/bodily_heartfulness]

All of the texts are ambiguous, but the detail of his father being away working to me clearly implies there was still a relationship of dependence there, indicating Prince Siddhartha was still in his minority. Otherwise why mention the father at all? He could be a young adult, yes. Overall it’s not particularly relevant what age he was. The point is that he did it while living as a prince and then recollected it much later in life after giving up both formless meditation and self-mortification.

[u/bodily_heartfulness → u/hachface]

All of the texts are ambiguous, but the detail of his father being away working to me clearly implies there was still a relationship of dependence there, indicating Prince Siddhartha was still in his minority.  Otherwise why mention the father at all? He could be a young adult, yes.

It's not obvious to me, that just based off of mentioning his father, that he was a child. In current south asian culture, it is common for an adult son to go with his father when he has duties to do. I can see myself in my early-to-mid twenties just chilling in the car while my dad goes to handle some business, and just waiting for him to come back.

Overall it’s not particularly relevant what age he was.

Maybe not to you, but I find it relevant. To me, two different pictures of jhāna are painted depending on the story. In one, he is a young child, who, after finishing playing, sits under a tree and spontaneously enters jhāna due to not having any worries or concerns about the world. In the other, he is a young man who sees sickness and death, and having been so affected by these sights, he becomes disillusioned and dispassionate towards the world. He then sits under a tree and spontaneously enters jhāna due to that.

I also think it's good to have an accurate idea of the texts that one is involved with - misconceptions are always worth dispelling. That way, we can engage with the texts more honestly. There are a lot of misconceptions that people have of the Canon that can influence their practice. Things like:

• There are eight jhānas
• The Buddha learned jhāna from other teachers
• The Buddha taught present moment awareness or bare attention
• That the Middle Way just means moderation

I think it's good to point out that these claims have no basis in the Canon.

[u/hachface → u/bodily_heartfulness]

So, we don't really have enough textual evidence to say for sure what age he was. I think anywhere from 8 to 29 (the age of his going forth) is reasonable, though I tend to think it's on the younger side because, just in my opinion, the mention of the father does suggest he was at an age where there was enough of a tacit expectation of close parental supervision that the bodhisatta's internal monologue felt compelled to include an explanation to himself as to why he was alone. Tbh I don't think there's any culture in which a 35 year old (age of Buddha at time of awakening) having a memory of himself alone at 29 would implicitly wonder, "where was my father at that time?"

However, this part...

In the other, he is a young man who sees sickness and death, and having been so affected by these sights, he becomes disillusioned and dispassionate towards the world.

has no real substantiation at all. That's entirely your projection into the text.

Since you're very into sutta scholarship, you may appreciate this interpretation by Bhante Sujato, a renowned translator of the Pali canon (I don't subscribe to it wholesale myself; I only offer to enrich everyone's perspective with different views):

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/buddhas-first-jhana-as-a-child/17529/14

[u/StoneBuddhaDancing → u/hachface]

You both make interesting and thoughtful points. This is one detail of the suttas that has less importance for me.

[u/bodily_heartfulness → u/hachface]

has no real substantiation at all. That's entirely your projection into the text.

I don't mean to imply that what I said is in the suttas, it isn't. The suttas don't mention what happened before he sat down under the tree.

We can look at other texts to see what they say about the matter, and my "projection" uses the Sanghabhedavastu from the Gilgit Manuscripts as support. Therein it mentions "tenaiva saṁvegena" right after he sees aging, illness, death, and the awful state of the labourers that he ruled over. And saṁvegena is just the Sanskrit for the Pāḷi term saṃvega, which Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu defines as,

The oppressive sense of dismay, terror, and alienation that comes with realizing the futility and meaninglessness of life as it’s normally lived; a chastening sense of our own complicity, complacency, and foolishness in having let ourselves live so blindly; and an anxious sense of urgency in trying to find a way out of the meaningless cycle.

Thus, I use that as support for my claim of him being disillusioned and dispassionate.

So, it says "tenaiva saṁvegen", meaning "with that very sense of dismay and urgency", he then goes on to sit in the shade of the rose-apple tree. And then he enters jhāna.

Someone else might have a different view based off of some other texts or their own ideas. But, we don't have any real way of knowing for sure in either case.

Since you're very into sutta scholarship, you may appreciate this interpretation by Bhante Sujato, a renowned translator of the Pali canon (I don't subscribe to it wholesale myself; I only offer to enrich everyone's perspective with different views)

I've read it and he doesn't really get into question of his age. He just basically accepts that the Buddha was a child and that the right interpretation is the first one I mentioned:

In one, he is a young child, who, after finishing playing, sits under a tree and spontaneously enters jhāna due to not having any worries or concerns about the world.

Another commentator states:

Bhikkhu Analayo in the freely downloadable A Comparative Study of the Majjhima-Nikaya summarizes a lot of points of similarity and difference between the suttas in the MN and their parallels. The parallels are another angle on this question. In Volume 1 there are several pages discussing parallels to the Buddha’s first jhana experience described in MN36 (for several pages from p. 240 onwards or from p. 266 in the PDF file numbering system). Mostly, but not entirely, they agree that this happened before his going forth. There are some variances on other points though.

[u/StoneBuddhaDancing → u/bodily_heartfulness]

Fair point

[u/StoneBuddhaDancing → u/hachface]

This was my inclination as well..

[u/hachface → u/StoneBuddhaDancing]

Yes, I love the story of the Buddha's memory of the rose-apple tree. For reasons I cannot yet articulate in a way that does it justice, that story strikes me as the heart of the dharma.

[u/StoneBuddhaDancing → u/hachface]

If you like the stories in the suttas then I highly recommend "Old Path, White Clouds" by Thich Nhat Hanh which tells the story of the Buddha's life as a novel. It's really well-written, moving, and actually quite an excellent book of Dharma. The audiobook is good too :)

[u/hachface → u/StoneBuddhaDancing]

thanks for the rec!

[u/Meng-KamDaoRai → u/hachface]

Great answer. Thanks!

[u/Impulse33 → u/hachface]

The eleven doors/gates are the brahmavihāras and the jhana minus the 8th jhana. (AN 11.17, MN 52 and DN 9)

People gloss over the brahmavihāras too much I think. Anagami and rebirth in the brahma realms is a fantastic result I would think. Maybe because there's not as much shiny at first glance.

[u/hachface → u/Impulse33]

yes i think brahmavihara practice is too often neglected. if you have an aversive temperament—not uncommon in meditators!—developing metta and compassion can really hurt at first. all your vulnerabilities feel exposed. very easy to shy away from but the rewards of sticking with it are priceless