Julie V:
Ian And:
As far as examples go, I just watched whatever arose (went on) and made note of my perception of it. For example, I would notice when the mind reached an equanimous state with regard to phenomena and realize to myself, "Wow, this really works. The mind can become equanimous toward phenomena." I wouldn't necessarily verbalize this in the mind, just recognize that that was what was happening in that moment.
When you said, "I just watched whatever arose (went on) and made note of my perception of it",
you mean that you look into the experience that happens in the background while in jhanas, such as the body sensation, kundalini events, background thoughts, and etc, or any of the 4 foundations of mindfulness. Is this correct?
Yes, that's pretty much what I meant. You watch whatever arises in the mind and KNOW it for what it IS. Simply and directly. Without any pre-conceived ideas about what it
is getting in the way. Look at each event straightforwardly. (One type of pre-conceived idea might be "kundalini events." Just observe whatever happens without trying to define it using some mysterious description you've read or heard about. Describe whatever the event that occurs
is to yourself straightforwardly, using simple terms that describe the occurrence exactly as it occurred. For example: "I felt my back get warm, and then it cooled down." Or: "There was a rush up my spine, which soon enough disappeared." Don't label it, in other words, like: "Oh, that was a kundalini event.")
Julie V:
Ian And:
You are best advised to enter the fourth jhana as it is the most profoundly quiet, peaceful, unperturbed, and clear, and work on whatever insight object you have in mind to explore from there. It is the clarity of view (or insight) that you are after here. If you contemplate long enough on an insight object, it will sooner or later yield up its golden realization, and you will see it with absolute clarity (just as it is, without any biases or prejudices).
Is 4th jhana best here, because it's quiet, but you still have a sense of the body, as opposed to the formless jhanas? Also, do you advise to first rise up to the highest jhanas I can attain before slowly coming back down to 4th to do vipassana?
Yes, to your first question.
As far as the second question goes, it is not necessary to do mental gymnastics while in jhana meditation. I know that people get real excited when they are first learning about these absorption states, and they want to experience what they read about in the discourses and personal essays by experienced meditators. But
dhyana (jhana) is, in reality, only a deep concentration state and nothing more.
The Sanskrit word
dhyana contains the root
dhi, which means to "reflect, conceive and ponder over." In light of the context in which Gotama was likely speaking when he talked of
dhyana, that context having to do primarily with the dispelling of ignorance, it is highly probable that this meaning of the word and the intent in which it was used took a great deal of its gravity from this connotation or interpretation. In other words, when he used the word jhana in the discourses, his intent was to communicate the degree of concentrated awareness necessary (the "reflective, pondering over" aspect of the mind) in order to dispel ignorance and thus foster mental awakening and recognition of "things as they are."
However, if it helps you to feel more proficient in being able to "rise up to the highest jhanas can attain before slowly coming back down to 4th to do vipassana" then do as you see fit. It won't hurt. And you may learn something about your ability to pass through these states and be able to recognize them more clearly.
Julie V:
I think one reason I ask this question about investigation in jhana is because the other day while in access concentration, my mind was perfectly unperturbed. However, the mood I observed in the mind was plain dullness (I was going through one of the dark night stage then). Now when I rose up to 1st jhana, there was, by definition, an obvious contentment in the mind. When I directed the mind to move back to access, the dullness arose again. I guess in jhanas, I would not necessarily be able to perceive the mood as I would in access, and thus this might be some distortions in mood/ emotions I perceived. What I understand from your post is that these moods might not be the most important insight objects to care about, but rather the nana we are going through and the sensations that make up that particular nana. Does this sound about right?
Did you notice what you said here? You said that in first jhana you recognized the mind as being in a "contented" mood. Then, as you backed down to what you perceived to be "access concentration," you perceived that "the dullness arose." You perceived (and described) both states pretty accurately, I would say. Why would you think that "I would not necessarily be able to perceive the mood as I would in access"? Did you think the contentment you perceived in jhana was a distortion? I think not. It was as real as the "dullness" that arose as you backed off. Give yourself more credit for the observations you are making.
Being able to
clearly perceive these phenomena
is what highly developed concentration states (like jhana type absorption) are all about. This is what they are used for. As mundane as that may at first sound or appear. As your practice becomes more mature, you will better appreciate the simplicity and ordinariness of what you are experiencing as it will be providing you with an unbiased and straightforward reading of the present reality (hopefully, of "things as they actually are," which is
anicca, dukkha, and
anatta.) If you are "seeing things as they are" then your emotions are not being unnecessarily moved (hence, equanimity of formations) by a distorted view of reality.
I'd say that being able to recognize "these moods... insight objects" is pretty important, because it gives you instant feedback about the state of the mind in that moment. How they relate to the insight knowledges (
nanas) is part of the realization process itself. You recognized them, and therefore they are your "knowledges." Being able to recognize them
at all is the first necessary step toward attaining that insight knowledge. Fully
realizing the truth of this is the next step. So, no, I don't agree with your interpretation/impression of what I wrote. I think they are
very important. Can you see that?