Is jhana a workable construct?

thumbnail
Paul Anthony, modified 10 Years ago at 8/19/13 12:10 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/19/13 12:07 PM

Is jhana a workable construct?

Posts: 71 Join Date: 6/22/10 Recent Posts
HI all,

Something that's been nagging away at me for most of the few years I've been reading DhO stuff and sitting with a Theravadin sangha: Is jhana workable? By workable I basically mean conceptually useful in a pragmatic sense (this being a pragmatic community). Note that I'm not talking here about the reality or importance of jhana, just about pragmatic issues such as accessibility and investigability.

The first thing that comes to mind is public observability. There's a general philosophy of science thing that phenomena should be publicly investigable by any interested party. So there are some well known problems here with disagreements on the exact definition of jhana, and just the uncertainty around the experience. This is evidenced by the continuous flow of DhO discussions on "Is this first jhana", "what about this"? etc, etc. If DhO is any measure, jhana diagnostics don't seem to be evolving in a useful way even after several years of public discussion.

The second thing that concerns me is the issue of jhana-talent. If we use deep hypnotic trance as a rough analogy, well we know based on empirical evidence that only a third of the population can really do it. Propensity can maybe be increased by practice but not by much. If jhana has similar properties then it would be useful to know that but currently we don't. (I'm aware that a lot of practitioners say that there is no relationship at all between jhana and hypnotic trance, but typically they offer no convincing evidence to back this statement up other then their experience, which may be idiosyncratic).

The third thing is the issue of substances as jhana-enhancers. This comes up from time to time on the discussion - people say that they find caffeine helps, or Ritalin or whatever. I've even heard from a Leigh Brasington retreatant that caffeine was essential But there's not much consensus on this issue and it seems to get danced around - do stimulants help or not?

In summary - Daniel's done a lot for jhana-awareness - gratitude and respect! But for me, operationalized definitions of jhana are still lacking: We don't really know how to get it, who can get it, how to really know you've got it, what can help you get it if you're stuck, etc.

Thanks, Paul
M N, modified 10 Years ago at 8/19/13 12:49 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/19/13 12:49 PM

RE: Is jhana a workable construct?

Posts: 210 Join Date: 3/3/12 Recent Posts
Ok, I don't have a lot of experience with them, but I'll try to givesome thoughts regardless.

About the uncertainty "Is this it?", Ican onlyrepeat what Kenneth Folk wrote, wich goes something like that: you meditate, thensomething that looks like first happens; you don't really know if that's it or if it's something else; you keep meditating, and with time these states become more familiar, and then you are able to recognize them easily; in other words, uncertainty in the beginning is a very natural part of the first stages of the process of mastery, don't see any problem there.

About trance: "trance" is a word very ill-defined, andI don't think that studies have been done with people that have a meditative training of any kind, so I wouldn't even bother making the comparison.
The way I think about it, jhanas are very particular ways attention can be tuned, so it really doesn't make sense to say that someone doesn't have the potential to do that.

About substances: I think that what really helps is a good balance between energy and concentration, so, if you really want to go there, I'd say that substances help only if, in any individual case, their action foster that particular balance.

Bye!
thumbnail
Mind over easy, modified 10 Years ago at 8/19/13 1:10 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/19/13 1:10 PM

RE: Is jhana a workable construct?

Posts: 285 Join Date: 4/28/12 Recent Posts
Hi. I'm really interested in jhana too. As a fairly new practitioner in this community who has worked with both vipassana and jhana, I have some thoughts on your post. I'm no jhana master and I don't claim any degree of enlightenment, but I do feel my "toes are wet", so to speak.


The first thing that comes to mind is public observability. There's a general philosophy of science thing that phenomena should be publicly investigable by any interested party. So there are some well known problems here with disagreements on the exact definition of jhana, and just the uncertainty around the experience. This is evidenced by the continuous flow of DhO discussions on "Is this first jhana", "what about this"? etc, etc. If DhO is any measure, jhana diagnostics don't seem to be evolving in a useful way even after several years of public discussion.


I've seen a lot of different definitions of jhana, and I've also had varying experiences with jhana. You have the "strict hard jhana" camp, who will claim that it isn't jhana unless it is so hard that you lose contact with the external world completely, that all agency is gone, and that you basically set yourself up, go down the jhanas as far as they happen naturally, and then naturally come out. Of course, there is some variation even in this camp, but I've heard people who I consider to be in this camp explain things roughly like that. I personally find more reason in the camp that distinguishes between hard and soft jhana, and varying degrees in-between. That has been my experience as well. In sitting meditation, I've hit jhanic states that were fairly "hard", with perception of the body mostly disappearing, thoughts basically disappearing completely, or at least, not being perceivable, and jhanic factors extremely obvious. But I've also experienced going through jhanas (and this is usually the case, as I wouldn't consider myself to be a strong jhana practitioner) where the external world is still perceptible, thoughts are still fairly noticeable, and where jhanic factors are faint. I still consider this to be jhana though. It's like a radio. Hard jhana could be considered to be where you're in a bath, all the lights are off, the atmosphere is silent, and the radio (the jhana) is extremely tuned in and clear, with a high volume. You're clearly listening to the radio. But then there's the case where you're walking the dog, you have a crappy portable radio, there is some fuzz, and you're still experiencing things other than the radio, but you're still clearly hearing the same song, with the same lyrics. I personally think that it's goofy to say that in the first scenario, you're hearing the song, and in the second, you're not. Varying degrees, IMO.

However, as far as pragmatism goes, even if we're still not at 100% consensus on what exactly constitutes jhana, there is definitely value in the jhana diagnostics that are going down here. Consider the first camp as given in the examples above. If you've never heard the radio before, and one camp says that the first scenario (hard jhana) is the only true experience of hearing the song, you might be walking the dog, still perceptive of the outside world, but if the definitions you've heard are so rigid that you don't bother to listen to the song because your focus isn't 100% tuned into the radio in seclusion, you might get frustrated and consider that you'll never hear the song till ideal conditions are met. This was the case with me, as I tried to practice based on more traditional, "hard" jhana definitions. I basically had no success. But after reading Ingram's book and reading around the forum a bit, I almost instantly became able to hit very soft jhanas. Then I got better and the jhanic experiences started getting deeper, and it was clear that they were indeed jhanas. So there is just one testimony of how the discussion and experience-pool here of how jhana can manifest can be of practical benefit.

As far as insight goes, I've usually been inclined to practice a more dry-insight technique (more bare noting), as it doesn't require any state to practice from. But I've also noticed that in times when I do jhana and then switch to doing vipassana, vibrations are much clearer, and equanimity is much higher. The mind is sharper, and nanas are more distinct and noticeable. Rising up through the nanas is easier and each bit seems more distinct.


In summary - Daniel's done a lot for jhana-awareness - gratitude and respect! But for me, operationalized definitions of jhana are still lacking: We don't really know how to get it, who can get it, how to really know you've got it, what can help you get it if you're stuck, etc.


Setting aside the notion of incredible variability from practitioner to practitioner, tradition to tradition, and tradition to tradition, my impression is that a lot of people are able to get jhana much easier after generally getting the sense that it can be done right now, that it doesn't have to be "hard", and having people describe the states in Y2K terms, rather than 2000 B.C. terms.

How to know you've gotten it? In my opinion, if you hit a jhana hard enough, the factors are fairly distinct, such as the bodily bliss, mental joy, diffuse happiness, silent, panoramic awareness, sense of expanding into space... etc... With all the variability, these factors seem to show up in people's descriptions, and I personally see a lot of consensus on this, even through debate about what traditional jhana is. Besides, does it really matter if you know you've gotten it or not? If you could invent your own jhanas, or something like jhanas, or something not like jhanas, investigate it thoroughly and see the 3 characteristics, and gain some sort of insight that benefits you or at least points you to a place of more informed practice/living, who cares what it was? As Daniel says on the front page here, pragmatism means what works is key. If it doesn't work, read more, put it to practice, share experience, talk to others who are working towards the same goal, or have accomplished the goal to whatever extent. I love to have things neatly laid out and well-defined, but at the same time, without actually putting things into practice, who knows whether or not any of these states/stages/definitions/maps/models/testimonies have any credibility or use?

In summary:

The first thing that comes to mind is public observability.

Not really important. The information is there, and there are people here who will be willing to debate and discuss definitions based on intellectual knowledge as well as direct experience, but what you can take away and put into your own practice is all that really matters.


The second thing that concerns me is the issue of jhana-talent.

Just my personal opinion, but I think that basically anyone with patience, a general idea of what they're going for, and belief that it is possible, will be able to develop jhana.

The third thing is the issue of substances as jhana-enhancers.


I've had good luck without any coffee, but I've also had pretty good luck with coffee too. Caffeine can make me alert and interested, which does help. After awhile though, once you get into jhana enough, you should be able to get into jhana just by remembering the states and getting a feel for how concentration expands and how the factors arise (and disappear).

Hopefully this one perspective is somewhat helpful. emoticon
thumbnail
Fitter Stoke, modified 10 Years ago at 8/19/13 1:48 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/19/13 1:48 PM

RE: Is jhana a workable construct?

Posts: 487 Join Date: 1/23/12 Recent Posts
I share some of your concerns. See below.

Paul Anthony:
The first thing that comes to mind is public observability. There's a general philosophy of science thing that phenomena should be publicly investigable by any interested party. So there are some well known problems here with disagreements on the exact definition of jhana, and just the uncertainty around the experience. This is evidenced by the continuous flow of DhO discussions on "Is this first jhana", "what about this"? etc, etc. If DhO is any measure, jhana diagnostics don't seem to be evolving in a useful way even after several years of public discussion.


There is a problem of deciding what counts as jhana and what doesn't, though I don't think the root problem is public observability. There are plenty of purely subjective states we can agree on (like identifying sadness) and plenty of objective things we can't agree on (like whether Voyager 1 left the solar system). I also wouldn't take confusion of forum discussion participants as meaningful. Lots of internet content is silly and confused.

But there is a problem about the meaning of jhana. It's not new. The Abidhamma disagrees with the suttas as to what the factors of first jhana are, and some commentaries disagree with both of those. A lot of people don't even know how many factors are actually listed in the suttas. This is really basic stuff, and you'd imagine there wouldn't be confusion over it, but the confusion is ubiquitous. Little wonder there are as many definitions of "jhana" as there are people practicing it and teaching it.

Perhaps a better question to ask is: Regardless of what it is, what is jhana supposed to be used for? Unfortunately there's massive confusion here, too, with lots of people believing jhana isn't necessary for awakening, only vipassana is. (In fact, neither is necessary. Even in the suttas there are examples of people waking up without any apparent meditation.) There's the view that the pleasure of jhana is a dangerous distraction. There's even a view that any technical approach to meditation - having any kind of standard of what you should be doing - is wrong, and it's best to just "let it be". But there's no support for any of these positions in the suttas, so we can rest assured the Buddha didn't teach them. (That matters insofar as you believe the Buddha has anything to contribute to the question of human happiness.)

So unfortunately there is no answer to this question that is going to satisfy everyone. I can report to you exactly what I've done and what I've experienced and what the results are. And I can point you to people who taught me or who seem to be doing things similar to what I'm doing. If the results look appealing, you can pursue the path. If they don't, you can keep looking. If that seems unsatisfying, it's probably because it is. I wish the situation were different.

The second thing that concerns me is the issue of jhana-talent. If we use deep hypnotic trance as a rough analogy, well we know based on empirical evidence that only a third of the population can really do it. Propensity can maybe be increased by practice but not by much. If jhana has similar properties then it would be useful to know that but currently we don't. (I'm aware that a lot of practitioners say that there is no relationship at all between jhana and hypnotic trance, but typically they offer no convincing evidence to back this statement up other then their experience, which may be idiosyncratic).


Yeah, it's really not the same thing as trance. Trance is more like absorption, and there's no indication that jhana should involve total absorption. Mental faculties tend to shut down in trance so that there's a mere staring. Jhana actually involves several mental faculties going at once. If you try out both states, you can see that.

As for how easy it is for people to get into jhana, I don't know. Almost no one was getting into jhana on the retreat I was just one, but the hands-on instruction was pretty minimal. There really weren't any technical instructions given until the end. If I didn't already have a lot of skill, experience, and book knowledge, I would have been lost, too. I still don't know for certain that I entered into what this teacher would have considered to be jhana, but whatever happened seems to have been very effective, so I'm not nor have I been worried.

It might be better to ask a teacher who seems effective at passing on the information. Perhaps write to Leigh Brasington? I'd be curious to hear what he says.

The third thing is the issue of substances as jhana-enhancers. This comes up from time to time on the discussion - people say that they find caffeine helps, or Ritalin or whatever. I've even heard from a Leigh Brasington retreatant that caffeine was essential But there's not much consensus on this issue and it seems to get danced around - do stimulants help or not?


Wrong question. The better question is: What does it take to get your energy balanced so you can enter jhana? You need to be alert but not restless. You need to be calm but not sleepy. There's enough variability in tolerance to diet and other environmental factors, as well as baseline level of neurosis, that there's no going to be one simple answer that applies to everyone here. Part of the purpose of the vinaya, it seems, was to get everyone to roughly the same level so that meditation would be as easy as possible. This is not realistic on a week-long retreat with householders. There's going to be a lot of variability. So it wouldn't surprise me that, for some people, a cup of coffee around 2pm will do wonders, while for others it will wreck their sleep so much that it's not worth it.

In summary - Daniel's done a lot for jhana-awareness - gratitude and respect! But for me, operationalized definitions of jhana are still lacking: We don't really know how to get it, who can get it, how to really know you've got it, what can help you get it if you're stuck, etc.


I agree with you. I don't think this should stop you from practicing, though. You just need to find a teacher who's going to be clear at the outset about what a jhana is, what counts as being in one, how to get into one, and what the purpose of being in one is. Sometimes this is hard, but it shouldn't be, and in the hardcore community, people are generally more open about this than elsewhere.

Breadcrumb