Transferred to fourth vipassana jhana yesterday so I had a crack at attaining path today. 8th jhana was very clear, like I was seeing my whole body as sensation in the third person behind me. However for the first time, it is like a dragon is guarding the treasure! Soon after getting to 8th, it was a war of attrition to see who would crack first. I was blasting jhana and the enemy was tightening my chest more and more and more. I alternated stances, width of focus, mind content but it just continued for what I felt to be a very very long time.
I had to retreat but that demonic dragon's days are numbered!

Is there a question in this post or are you just letting off 'steam'? Here are my questions: Apart from "I was seeing my whole body as sensation in the third person behind me", how else would you describe what you are calling 'the 8th jhana', phenomenologically? Could you elaborate on what you mean by 'go and crack a path in the 8th' and why it was a 'boss battle'? These poetic descriptions are confusing. Did your chest tighten during this occurrence? When you say you 'alternated stances, width of focus and mind content', was this all going on as what you are calling '8th jhana' was being given shape? Or was that pre?

How do you transition from 7th to what you are calling 8th jhana? I would simply recognise the 7th jhana's object of consciousness (i.e. a mental overlay of nothingness), and hold said object of consciousness with the knowledge it was fabricated (although quite peaceful), and from this viewpoint hold said object of nothingness dispassionately till it dropped of its own accord to reveal whatever was next. It seems odd to be trying so hard to get to 8th and 'crack a path' there (the impression your post gives). Perhaps doing something more simple will help, like hanging out there with the very same dispassion mentioned informing how the 8th jhana of neither perception nor non-perception's object of consciousness (the very hard to describe neither perception nor non perception part) is held. When it drops, perhaps a path moment is on the agenda. if it drops and reveals beyond neither perception nor non perception, and if its 'all the lights out', pay attention to what reforms and in what order on the other side of 'all the lights out'. If what occurs post neither perception nor non perception is a kind of 'themelessness', like the mind is objectless, but still conscious, be attentive to whether that 'objectlessness' is still an object of consciousness still (sublte as, maybe overlooked). Inform it via dispassion for it as the previous objects of conciousness. When it drops, pay attention to what is left. Maybe then you will 'crack a path'


Nick

Thanks, I'll use that advice.

None of that sounded all that 8th jhana or Equanimity-esque.

Tone-wise it sounds more like Re-Observation, no?

Phenomenologically the descriptions are light, so not a lot to go on, but I would expected something like:

"I found myself in this open, clear, easy space, like things were all connected, all easy, and it was a nice break from what came before, then I sat on the cushion and felt things opening, then dropping away, like everything was not really there, and the mind settled into that, and then things went into this black hole that was not even nothing there, like even the perception of nothing was at once turned so far from itself as not to notice itself while also turned so far in that it couldn't notice itself, or not really even that, and then the mind came out, and it felt relieved and clear, and then it began to incline to everything very naturally, like it would just lose itself in reality and vanish..."

Rather than that, there is this dramatic, hero-esque thing, which sounds below that, before that, what might come in earlier stages, so it sounds to my ear, and not based on a lot of data, but just putting that out there to see what you thought of it.

Really appreciate the replies, thank you. I may be better off in my practice not thinking about nanas or different jhanas so I'll try that.

Joshua,

Baron of the french empire. . .?

What's that all about? Some sort of parody of the ego? A playful dalliance?

Well, be that as it may. . .


This is an example of a "silly post" that I mentioned on one of my other replies. The kind I usually don't respond to. Primarily because its premise verges on the ridiculous.

In actuality, it seems to be evidence of someone "practicing" without the assistance of a qualified mentor or instructor, who has only the slightest idea about what he is doing, and who is having a problem with an accurate discernment of phenomena. Such a person needs to go back to square one and focus on discernment of a long breath as opposed to a short breath. When one is then able to clearly discern that, then perhaps they are ready to move on to discern other, more complicated states of consciousness.

I'd have to agree with the comments provided by Nikolai and Daniel, as difficult as it may have been for them to spend their time writing them.



People who seem to be too preoccupied with "reaching path" (whatever that is) don't seem serious enough to actually focus on accomplishing what the practice of the Dhamma itself aims to help one with: namely, the alleviation of greed (unconscious passion), hatred (or aversion), and delusion (personal ignorance).

Don't put the cart before the horse. There's a reason it's called a "gradual teaching" or a "gradual path." Spend some time, as Nikolai suggests, contemplating where you are. Spend some time identifying the five aggregates within your ability to discern them from your direct experience of them. Spent some time contemplating dependent co-arising and what that means in terms of your direct experience. This all takes TIME! It is a gradual path. See?

If this comment feels like a smack in the face, well, then it ought to. It was meant to STOP you from continuing down the pathway that you have misguidedly chosen to walk. It was meant to be a SHOCK!

It was meant to say: "Wake up and pay attention! For once in your miserable life."

Is this one of those 'being hit by a zen teacher unexpectedly might make you enlightened' things? Or have you just had a bad day? Did I say something to upset you?

From FAQ page
"What is inappropriate?

Seeking attention in a personal manner, speculating about half-understood concepts, guessing instead of finding out, and being dogmatic and closed-minded. Though uncommon, the moderators of the Dharma Overground will warn folks who aren't following the basic guidelines of this site to cease and desist. If there are repeated behaviors which undermine the health of the community you will be asked to leave. Though again this isn't common, we've found it necessary from time-to-time to ask someone to leave, in order to preserve a safe and rationally-grounded space for discussion."

Here is what you have been doing in my opinion.
1. Seeking attention in a personal manner - You have been engaging in TROLL like behavior
2. Speculating about half-understood concepts- You are giving advice to members about speculated truths and less than half understood concepts.
3. Guessing instead of finding out - you are making up nonsensical stuff and posting it as real.
4. Being dogmatic and closed-minded - You are not dogmatic (congratulations) but you are not heeding the advice of senior members.

I can not think of any better way of making senior members of this site wish to stop posting and distance themselves than what your doing right now. This greatly saddens me.

He doesn't sound upset or like he's having a bad day. He seems to be expressing in unvarnished terms what competent practitioners think when they read posts like this.

Both Nikolai and Daniel pointed out the lack of straightforward, descriptive language in your post. What they didn't mention, but which Ian is getting at, is that if the description of your practice is at this level, then your practice itself is probably at a low level, too. The reason for this is really straightforward: the practice itself is all about paying close attention to things. If your description is staying at this kind of general level, chances are very high that your practice itself isn't getting down to the microscopic level it should be at. In light of that, yeah, your post is obnoxious, as well as the self-assured tone in some of your other replies, though I'd stop short of calling you a troll.

So Ian is basically right. You need to go back to basics, and you need to do so with the intent to master them. Your goal should be extremely strong, rock-solid, competent grasp of insight instructions. If your ass feels burned by his remarks, channel it into mastery. Find a teacher or mentor. Then come back - maybe in a month or two - and tell us what you found.

So I'm a devil for writing a muddled post in the aftermath of a weird experience? I've been called miserable, misguided and been insulted pettily (the title is inherited from my forefather). Now the hive is going to cut off my head?...

Just because I don't describe in purely sensate terms it means my meditation is of a low level? What about every enlightened master who wasn't a buddhist or yogi? Saint John of the Cross would be attacked in the same way, he certainly uses poetic language.

Joshua, nobody wants to cut off your head. And I wouldn't call you a troll. But you do seem misguided, and I'm not seeing any evidence here of competent practice. Certainly, your use of terms of wrong - but you see that - and read in the context of your other self-assured replies to people, the post comes across as a bit arrogant and pretentious. And yeah, the handle doesn't help. :-)

So, you can use this as an opportunity to get indignant, which won't help anyone, least of all you. Or, you can abstract away from the tone of Ian's reply to you and use the riches within to lay down a much stronger foundation.

Perhaps Ian is a dick, but he is a wise phallus. :-) I would put his reply - which really is generous - to good use.

Joshua, you've got to learn to take the good with the bad. And get your head our of your arse! (Nevermind the comment about the handle; I was just attempting to find out what had changed.)

Your reply to me displayed the thoughts and feelings of someone who found offense when faced with the truth and the facts about himself. Nevermind that it was disrespectful; it showed a depth of immaturity, in addition to displaying a lack of any real self-examination or self-honesty.

You couldn't have done a better job of outing yourself if you tried. Now everyone here KNOWS who you are. If you tried to get away with that kind of behavior in an actual retreat setting (nevermind a monastic setting), you wouldn't even last one day! You'd be gone before the sun went down, son. And that's no lie.

If you want help from this forum with your practice, and you're unwilling to take an honest look into your own "soul" (psyche) and own up to what is actually there, then you will find this a most unpleasant place to be. You would be better served moving on to some other Buddhist forum where they put up with the bullshit of pretentious anonymous posters who enjoy boosting their egos among others who also enjoy doing the same.

You should have more respect for the experienced members who come here (four of whom have spent time responding to your pointless post; myself excluded) to selflessly assist others who are less experienced. Their time is valuable. And now, you've just proven, for everyone to see, that you don't value their time or their advice. So. . . how far do you think that's going to get you around here. (It's a rhetorical question. No need to reply.)

I strongly suggest that you heed Fitter's advice and: ". . . go back to basics, . . . with the intent to master them. [And keep your ego OUT of your practice!] Your goal should be [an] extremely strong, rock-solid, competent grasp of insight instructions.

"If you feel burned by [Ian's] remarks, channel it into mastery. Find a teacher or mentor. Then come back - maybe in a month or two - and tell us what you found."

You have no need to worry, I won't be responding to any more of your posts. At least not until I've seen a change in attitude and the maturity to go with it.


I couldn't have expressed this better.