PCE's vs Concentration practices vs Jhana , or is it all the same?


Why does everyone still talk about concentration practices, and suppression, who started that misleading nonsense?  Isn't it better to talk about Jhana and letting go?  Letting go is not suppression.  There is no such thing as Buddhist concentration practices, there is jhana.  

No wonder the confusion.  Maybe PCE is just a light Jhana , wouldn't that be a hoot!  But then again, I'm probably wrong....

Cheerios

Psi

RE: PCE's vs Concentration practices vs Jhana , or is it all the same?


Abandonment, 
of everything, 
thinking especially.


I do wish there were a way for beings to trade minds for a day,
so we could know exactly what each of us is trying to describe, 
and we would also probably see that we are pretty much the same on the inside, 
and our experiences probably line up more than we thought, 
we could laugh at it all, 
for a day.

Pce out

Here's some arguments for why it's not. You said:That sounds about right. You access the first jhana by withdrawing from sensuality. "There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities — enters and remains in the first jhana: : rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and evaluation. [link]".

What's sensuality? "When he does not discern, as it actually is present, the origination, the passing away, the allure, the drawbacks, & the escape from sensuality, then — with regard to sensual objects — he is obsessed with sensual passion, sensual delight, sensual attraction, sensual infatuation, sensual thirst, sensual fever, sensual fascination, sensual craving. This is the yoke of sensuality. [link]"

So to get to the first jhana you must withdraw from, among other things, sensual delight, sensual fascination, etc.

While PCEs aren't marked by sensual craving or sensual passion they are very much marked by sensual delight and sensual fascination. More to the point, you get to a PCE by becoming more and more delighted at the senses - this is what sensuousness is. Even more to the point, in a PCE you *are* the senses. The delight is from the senses themselves. Whereas in the first jhana, the delight is "rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal".

Given the above, what's your case for the PCE being just a light jhana?

From this definition, I've never experienced the first jhana.  When I practiced "jhana meditation" as I called it, all my physical senses would become incredibly pleasant, then things would calm down into physical comfort.

I think when buddhists talk about "delight" as a hindrance they are talking about a selective, desirous mindstate which is attached to pleasure and is affected by changing circumstances. I think when actualists talk about "delight" as a form of freedom, they are talking about a non-selective, non-desiring, non-attached sustained appreciation and enjoyment which is not affected by changing circumstances.

similarly there is a difference between buddhist "sensuality" and actualist "sensuousness"

As for PCE being light jhana, i definitely don't think so. It is completely unaffected and totally sensitive.

Are you aware of any other scriptural references to jhana, or is this the only interpretation?

My take is that Jhana's are pleasant as well.  I feel sukha as a great, body felt, total relief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%ABti

• joy/rapture/happiness (pīti)
• happiness/pleasure/bliss (sukha)

...

Psi:
In addition to Claudiu's inquiry, I'd ask you: How exactly did you get to that abandonment? Is that abandonment still made of something? Did you abandon the highway or are you still on it, accelerating but on a new, apparently freer, lane?

Because in PCE, it sounds like anyway, that one is not withdrawn from the senses, and yet is experiencing pleasurable sensuousness without the craving, and one is still able to do their daily activities while in PCE.  So, it's not yet Jhana, but pre-Jhana, just not the pre-Jhana as normally described with all the continuous thinking and stuff as found in the Vissudhimagga, which to me describes more towards Concentration , and not Jhana.

So PCE is not like Concentration, but more like Jhana, but not a fully immersed Jhana, does that sound better?  Hovering in the state just before letting go of the senses, in a way that the senses are pure and just senses in and of themselves, free of Ego obstructions and discriminations.

Psi

 

It's the most common one, as far as I can tell. Maybe it is described in different terms in other places. And there's other translations, of course. Why do you ask? Anything in particular you'd like to point out?

Well I was drawing the distinction of how they are approached. The jhana is approached by withdrawing from sensuality, while the PCE is approached by enjoying sensuousness. As Adam pointed out, sensuality does not equate to exactly sensuousness, but I don't think you can be sensuous if you withdraw from sensuality. I may have to make the case more thoroughly, but if the approach to jhana is incompatible with the approach to the PCE, why would approaching a jhana land you in a PCE as a step before the jhana?

Hi: No, nothing to point out at this point. Is it the only definition you've read? How did you determine it's the most common one?  Do you mean in the pragmatic dharma community, or in the world throughout history, or just that it is the one you've seen the most?

No, there's tons of definitions all over the place. I meant it's the most common one in the suttas. I bring out the suttas specifically because this is a Buddhist site, we need a common point of reference, and people here generally accept that the suttas are accurate at least in certain ways. At least everybody would accept that the Buddha knew what jhanas were. It seems a solid definition that we can use as a common ground.

It also does line up with my experiences - close my eyes, focus on one thing to the exclusion of other things, leads to pleasure in the body, which pleasure eventually fades as the senses and thinking tune out more and more, etc. 

Interesting. Don't Not Tao and C P M's comments above suggest it is not common ground, or am I misreading their comments? Do you think the definition of jhana you posted has been "common ground" for the history of buddhism, or here at dharma overground? In your experience, was the jhana the pleasure or was the jhana when the thinking and senses tuned out? Do you mean you could feel physical sensations less? What happened next in your experience when those things would begin to tune out?

Well, personally, I don't withdraw from anything, that would be Pratyahara practice, (withdrawing from the senses), I wouldn't call this Jhana.  Though , they may be cousins, or maybe I am ignorant, could be.  I'll have to look again at Pratyahara, I had actually forgotten about this, and I think I used to maybe practice this way....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratyahara


My take is that the seculsion of the senses, is that mind isn't "sucked in" and following the senses, at least initially, and that there seems to be a jhanic state possible during everday activities, one in which you are aware of the senses, but not taken over and responding to them like a slave to the senses and simply milling about in life appeasing the glands, or perhaps as an animal on a "sense" leash.  

So, one can have full sense awareness, yet be secluded from the senses. Non-Clinging.

But this starts to get into the delusion that the senses are a self construct, a "me" behind the eyeballs looking out, or a "me" feeling texture with my hands. When actually they are just impersonal organs and nerve endings responding to external and internal stimuli.  Or are they?  At least the hand that I would call mine feels stuff whether I want it to or not, I really have no control over what it feels as it feels, it just does.

Psi

Practice, practice, practice
Yes and No, sometimes I do need to "re-ground", sometimes it just runs on its own, there are still deeply rooted instincts, forgotten memories, things I "want" to do still, etc.  They pop up and surprise sometimes, "like really, there's still stuff in here?"  
Can't make any claims right now, Ask again later, (I feel like an anatta Magic 8-ball)  

Psi

It's true, well at least Not Tao's words suggest that. C P M is not disagreeing with what I said, I never said they weren't pleasant. But if someone's experience doesn't line up with what is written as the authoritative definition of what jhana is, then it's not a jhana, and it would be wise to not call it that.
Hmmm ... ... good question. I'd say the common ground here is MCTB. But the MCTB chapter on first jhana doesn't mention it in these terms. I would argue that the first jhana description in the suttas does apply to what happens if you follow the advice in MCTB, though.
Hmm... I guess they sort of come together. The pleasure was an indicator of getting into the jhana. As it got deeper the pleasure would increase, change in nature, thoughts would dissipate, senses would slowly fade out, etc.
Yeah.
Depends. If I went deeper then I would experience even less. Very deep and I would completely lose sensation of my body, just no body at all anymore. I used to call that "5th jhana" but I'm not sure the term is a good one anymore.

Nice. O.K. The definition of jhana you provided though is not from mctb, it is from the pali suttas if I am not mistaken (which I have been before so correct me if I'm wrong). And you stated it was provided because this site is based on MCTB written by Daniel Ingram. Is MCTB based strictly on the pali suttas? Can you find the noting technique, which is the main practice adovcated in MCTB, in the pali suttas, which is where you took your definition from?If not, then why assert that you included that because of this website? Where does the noting technique come from, and is jhana defined differently in that source?  Would everyone agree that your source is authoritative? How did you figure out that it was such?

One more thing: In your experience with jhanas you have used "etc." twice as a phenomenological indicator. Given that "etc." could mean anything and everything and verbal clarity is important, could you express more what in your experience with jhanas the experience of "etc." was like?

Beoman, you said the pleasure of jhana wasn't sensate, but then you said it was felt in the body.  I guess I'm confused.  Your later descriptions in this thread sound like my experience of jhana.

I wouldn't concentrate very hard, but rather would just let go and a pleasure would be felt physically.  This would peak out and then dissipate into a simple comfortable feeling.  Then my body would expand and inflate until it felt like I was a very large empty space, then the mind would follow and I would feel like my head was a very large empty space.  Then awareness would expand to the point where the space itself became meaningless and sink into a void-like awareness.  Then the awareness would blink on and off.

EDIT: For what it's worth, I don't think the PCE is like jhana. Even in the very high jhanas, there's a feeling of comfort or tranquility - while there is still a body, it's in the heart center - like a feeling of contentment or an appeased feeling. In the PCE, there is no sensation there at all - like trying to discern what emotion my toe is feeling.

EDIT 2: The concentration I was originally referring to when I said the identity could be suppressed through concentration was specifically ignoring all aspects of the identity and feelings and placing all awareness into the "outer world" of the senses. By doing this there would eventually (most of the time after a few hours) be a kind of locking in, and I could let go of effort.

What I'm referring to as the identity, here, is the feeling of being something in particular. You could insult me, tell me about things that would normally make me worried, put me in difficult situations, and I simply would feel nothing about it - everything was just too perfect to be bothered.

The definition of jhana I provided was from the suttas, yes. I think we got a bit mixed up later, though. When you asked whether the definition I provided was common ground, I essentially said well, it's not the suttas that are the common ground, it's MCTB. But then I asserted that the MCTB description of jhana, which is worded differently in MCTB, does line up with the description of jhanas I posted in the suttas.


MCTB is not based strictly on the pali suttas. I cannot find the noting technique in the suttas. I didn't include the pali suttas because of MCTB (see previous answer). The noting technique comes form Burma and as I understand it it was developed in the early 20th century. I'm not sure how the Burmese define jhana but I am almost certain that they use the pali texts as an authoritative source. Not everybody would agree my source is authoritative. MCTB stands for "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha", so I figured a Buddhist canon would be taken as authoritative here; particularly, this place has a very Theravadan bent.

O.K. Thanks. You're giving me a lot to ponder. So, when you said it was "the authoritive definition", this implied that it was "the one" rather than one among many. Those who adhere strictly to the visudimhagga (my spelling is probably off ha) would say jhana has no awareness of body or thought at all, yet the pali canon talks about the body being bathed in pleasure and rapture in jhana, which brings up a couple more questions. Also, if you want to hew closely to mctb, it is the visudimhaga that contains the progress of insight, a major theme of mctb, while the pali suttas do not. Anyways, my questions.  1) Why is the pali canon definition more authoritative, or why is it "the authoritative" text on jhana? 2) Did you experience jhanas as defined in the visudimagha for extended periods of time? If yes, awesome, please tell me more. If not, perhaps you are not a good source to compares PCE's to jhana. Or, perhaps you are a good source to compare to Pali Sutta jhanas, but not Visudimagha jhanas, in which case perhaps a disclosure that you have yet to experience the latter and so are not a good resource for those who might be following that particular path. 3) Even on this site Daniel's description's are different from Ian And's in some ways, so how does one decide which is authoritative?

Since the PCE has awareness of all senses and is primarily defined by a lack of identity and emotions, I think it's very easy to say it's nothing like vissudhimagga jhana, which is completely senseless.

The jhana vs. jhana argument isn't really an argument, though.  Jhana is just a spectrum, so vissudhimagga jhana acknowledges the "lite" jhanas as "access concentration" and just puts the definition of jhana deeper in.  It's like saying it's not real math until you get to trig, and algebra is just "access math," haha.

And furthermore, what I am referring to as a possible Jhana/PCE link is not the access concentration stage descibed in the Vissudhimagga.
But, rather from the First Jhana one has abandoned the five fetters (sensory desire, ill-will, sloth and torpor, restlessness and worry, doubt), and as it seems these factors are also not present in PCE, is that correct?

Also, piti arises, joy and happiness in the first jhana, as it does , in PCE.

So in first jhana we have abandoned ill-will (harmlessness), and have aquired a state of piti/joy/happiness (happy)  

First jhana = happy and harmless, but, more specifically, I am referring to the possiblity of being in this state during daily activities, not just in a seated posture.

Also, this is  combined with Mindfulness and full awareness, (pure consciousness), so having First Jhana coupled with Mindfulness, one should be happy and harmless  (pure conscious experience).  

i.e. Tranquility and Insight perhaps is PCE

Either way, one is happy, harmless, and fully aware...

Psi

(hey , aren't ya glad I left out Right Effort?) (That would be the maintenance of PCE, so one doesn't drop out of it, and can return back quickly if one falters)

Truth disclosure
(This is based on personal assumptions of PCE, Samma Samadhi, Samma Sati, Samma Vayama)

Psi

I realized that. Notice Not Tao that I have never compared them. That is not actually what is of interest to me, but the acquisition of certainty and authority is.

Psi, happy and harmless affect is the closest aproximation of a PCE while still having emotions.  By putting effort towards being happy and harmless, it makes the PCE likely to happen.  The PCE itself doesn't have wonder, joy, rapture, or piti.  It's an affect-less state, meaning the feeling centers are completely absent.  This has never happened in jhana for me.  Equanimity in the fourth jhana, which might seem to be the closest, is a feeling that is neutral, not the absence of feeling.  You might say that equanimity feels proud of itself, or it feels like flow.  Being without affect simply means there is nothing there - the attention faces completely outward.

I have some experience with that "walking around jhana" you're talking about.  The attention is very much focused inward IME.  The mind is very satisfied, and it likes to revel in it's own satisfaction.  This jhana isn't the felicitious feelings that are being refered to in "happy and harmless" - those feelings are happy with the world outside of the emotional center, and they're happy specifically because there is no longer an inward focus.  This is why they lead to the PCE.  The harmless aspect is related to how we will check in with ourselves to see how to feel about social interactions.  By stopping that it also takes the focus off of the emotional center and that's why it leads to the PCE.

If you aren't happy and harmless, the instruction is to figure out why so you can let go of the problem and stop paying attention to yourself.  This is attentiveness - watching the way you feel and trying to see how you tick.  This way you can discover and disable the habits that keep taking you away from here and now.

All of the instructions lead away from that inner world, whereas the instructions for the jhanas seek to enhance and perfect that inner world.

Oh, thought that was what I meant, using the active jhana as a tool , not an end .  Perhaps I have confused PCE with the Pre-PCE state, does that have a name?  That is the better fit to what I am trying to descibe, one stage is practice the next stage is the result of the practice, but I guess it really doesn't matter, my main practice is beyond/before? words, they get in the way, and alot of these discussions  seem to be just Ego bouncing off Ego, (My way, your way, highway, no way) kinda pointless, it has perhaps started to finally wear me down, ready to surrender to reality...

Metta Waves


Psi

P.S. (Only in a tortured society, is friendliness looked upon with suspicion)

I think they call pre-PCE an "excellent experience," haha.

I wasn't trying to grind you down.  I just noticed you've said that a few times, that the PCE is happy and harmless.  TBH, I don't think our practices are all that different, psi. The main problem is that you call what you do Buddhism, and Daniel Ingram calls what he does Buddhism, and the Zen teachers call what they do Buddhism (etc), and it's all just very different. I'd rather use terminology that is clear, especially because Buddhism has so many things that aren't related to this kind of practice - like anatta, non-dualism, emptiness, three characteristics, etc.

Perhaps a spiritual practitioner, among other things, Buddhist?  Yeah  ,Taoist? A little , Neurotheologist? Some ,  Yogi? Ok   Jungian? , Hmmm, kinda , Advaita Vedanta?  Yeah... , Christian?  Just the Ethics  (Jesus, Not the Old Stuff)  ,Theosophist?  Some  ,Science?  Hell yeah  Atheist?  I try not to be, but... ,  Epicurist?  Hmm, a little ,   Mythologist, cool ,  Anthropologist,  me like , Evolutionist, true that , Actualist?  crikey!

What do they all have in common?  The mind....  So, to me it's all the same, just different views of reality, but same reality.

And once the words stop flying, all that crap goes right out the window.

Then, what is there?  Just that instinctive primordial automated response system we have within, and methods to modify that system within our genetic and biological limitations.  But, the good news is that there are methods, and methods that provide change.  But , you know that already.

Psi