A good facsimile of liberation
I'm going to stop posting about the jhanas, I promise!
[If you don’t know or care about the jhanas feel free not to read this. -P]
Incidentally, this is why in Buddhist meditation circles there’s often a warning about deep states of absorption. When one is in one, it can be very difficult to develop insight—much more so than when the mind is somewhat less intensely concentrated. The absorption state is such a good facsimile of liberation that it feels like the real gold. So we think: “It’s here, why bother going any further? This is really good.” We get tricked and, as a result, we miss the opportunity to turn away and attend to the deathless. In cosmological terms, the best place for liberation is in the human realm. There’s a good mixture of suffering and bliss, happiness and unhappiness here. If we are off in the deva realms, it’s difficult to become liberated because it’s like being at an ongoing party.
This cosmology is a reflection of our internal world. Thus the brahma realms are the equivalent of formless states of absorption. One of the great meditation masters of Thailand, Venerable Ajahn Tate, was such an adept at concentration that, as soon as he sat down to meditate, he would go straight into aruµpa-jhaµna, formless states of absorption. It took him 12 years after he met his teacher, Venerable Ajahn Mun, to train himself not to do that and to keep his concentration at a level where he could develop insight. In those formless states, it is just so nice. It’s easy to ask: “What’s the point of cultivating wise reflection or investigating the nature of experience? The experience itself is so seamlessly delicious, why bother?” The reason we bother is that those are not dependable states. They are unreliable and they are not ours.
Amaro Bhikku, Small Boat Great Mountain (pg 58-59).
This book, Small Boat Great Mountain,1 is a transcribed series of a reflections on Dzogchen by an English Theravadan monk2 from a retreat he co-led with renowned teacher Tsoknyi Rinpoche. For those that don’t follow Buddhist Twitter, there has been a flare up this week of the jhana wars, this time arguing about the ethics of a company called Jhourney that is trying to secularize the jhanas3. Most of that argument was about the ethics of cultural appropriation, whether the company founders are sufficiently skilled and experienced to be leading retreats, and whether they are prepared to handle adverse side effects that can arise in any intensive practice. These are important questions, but to my mind the most important issue boils down to whether jhanas are a complement or aid in the pursuit of liberation or a substitute (or facsimile). Seeing the way they are being fetishized on Twitter, the breathless coverage in places like Vox is making me increasingly worried it’s a substitute for real insight. I think it’s probably true that people who are going to devote their lives to practice and become teachers are well served to explore more of the phenomenological territory for the benefit of their students. But for them and for ordinary folks like us, I think a better place to start is around practices that aim at awakening instead4. I believe that the effect of such practices on integrating emotions, on your relationships and on your overall well-being is so much more profound and healing. Any state, even (and especially) an exalted one, is still temporary. True liberation is found in freedom from needing our experience to be this way or that.
He was a student of Ajahn Chah, famed teacher of, among others, Jack Kornfield.
For those that don’t know, jhanas are wonderful concentrative meditative states that can be attained via practicing various methods.
Some have argued that jhana practice is complementary to the path, and that they make certain adverse experiences less likely. This is the so-called dry vs. wet insight argument. For Theravadan paths I think that could definitely be true. For Vajrayana I don’t think it is.
I’m sure you know this, but also for what it’s worth, the cultivation shamatha (especially in preparation for vipashyana, shamatha-vipashyana, and beyond) plays a very important role in many Vajrayana lineages, including the absorptions, which helps prepare the practitioners mind for deep insight and awakening. There is a lot of subtlety to the differently styles and framing of shamatha (including jhanas), but I don’t think it serves practitioners well to just say ‘oh well they’re interesting phenomenologically but you should really just go for awakening’, as some Nyingma teachers — like other lineages — have even said that the cultivation of shamatha at least to the first jhana (whatever that is framed as), is functionally necessary
Many paths etc, but this sort of way of talking/comparing doesn’t seem that useful compared the the slightly more meta position of exploring attitudes towards different paths which are good at all stages. Fetishising altered states isn’t good, neither is minimising potential functional benefits of cultivating the skills and capacities of mind which lead to altered states and the way to practice with them skilfully.
Anyway, all interesting food for thought! I should read that book, someone else I respect very much recommended it recently
So, a couple of things. First, yes I agree that Jhourney is questionable. I say questionable, because maybe they are doing something overall good. It is hard for me to make up my mind here. Also, it is likely that what they are teaching is not "actually" jhana, but a less absorbed (and still useful!) state.
But second, what can we learn by looking at the best historical record we have of what the Buddha actually taught? This historical record is the Pali Canon, and specifically the earliest Suttas, the Suttapitaka, or Basket of Discourses. Scholars typically argue as well that this seems to be a pretty faithful record.
We learn that jhanas are absolutely fundamental to liberation, and in fact there is no substitue. Nowhere in the Suttapitaka does the Buddha talk about two different types of meditation, with one being called Vipassana and the other Jhana. Instead, Vipassana and Jhana are yoked together THROUGH right Samadhi which is defined as the Jhanas. (Vipassana is also a relatively infrequent term, but Jhana is incredibly common).
Later meditative traditions arose which break with the Buddha on this one, and that is fine. But a lot of people within these traditions are not really aware of this historical fact.
Incidentally, the formless realms are not actually considered Jhana, despite the misnomer of calling them "formless jhanas." They play a less central role. It is explicitly said in the Suttapitaka that at least fhe first Jhana is necessary for liberation (see https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN9_36.html). So the anecdote you gave about Ajahn Mun is still consistent with Jhana being necessary (but the formless realms aren't).