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
What an absolutely wonderful and wise comment. Thank you so much.
Yes, totally agree with you on the importance of shamatha overall in the path -- indeed, the Vajryana path I outlined (https://www.paullitvak.com/p/a-vajrayana-path) I talked about concentrative stability as a pre-requisite for direct experience of emptiness. The way I learned it is the way you describe -- getting roughly to "access concentration" (which I think should be sufficient for at least piti / light jhana in my experience) is necessary. Though we also learned to cut through bliss states and not dwell in them -- have you ever encountered the PHAT practice? It's outlined in Lion's Gaze (https://www.amazon.com/Lions-Gaze-Commentary-Khenchen-1998-01-01/dp/B017V8EN74) and involves deliberating breaking concentration when it gets too still as a way of preventing an excess of non-thought / bliss / non-conceptual stillness and as a "brightening of the field". It also enables emptiness practice because easing up to allow some ordinary mental content to occur can serve as fodder to view as empty.
Stepping back though, I guess what I was trying to do was provide a light corrective in what I saw as an excess of focus on altered states. But you're absolutely right that "cultivating the skills which lead to altered states" is essential and that their functional benefits stretch beyond the experiences themselves. The altered skills themselves are just adornments. I also agree with you that taking a middle way approach overall is best. As a meta point any time one takes an extreme view (even as a corrective) there is potential for misunderstanding -- I hope I did not create more confusion in what I wrote. At every stage of the path a different balance is necessary -- more or less focus on concentration, more or less focus on states, more or less focus on striving vs letting go, e.g.. It's so hard to give any general advice because it so much depends on the person and the stage of their practice. All I can do is try to be as clear as I can :)
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).
Hi Joe! Thanks for the comment. I wonder whether Amaro Bhikku would agree regarding the first four jhanas being essential.
I largely agree with your take on the Pali cannon -- as I said in the footnote, I'm willing to concede that they are useful (or even essential!) from a Theravadan perspective. And frankly I'm far from an expert on the suttas. A quick google search shows at least one Bhikku arguing that jhanas are only necessary for arhatship, i.e. later in the path: https://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha267.htm Certainly I would agree broadly some degree of concentrative stability / one-pointedness is likely necessary for any progress on any path.
From the Vajrayana perspective, however, the jhanas are not at all essential. As a formerly somewhat religious Jew, I am very familiar with the scriptural perspective that looks to the oldest texts as the most definitive authority, but I do not subscribe to that perspective. I am ecumenical (you do you!), and believe that there are many valid approaches (84000!). I also am not super interested in achieving some kind of perfect perspective synthesis of different Buddhist philosophies (there are multiple Buddhisms!) and if Theravadans want to decry Vajrayana or Tibetan Buddhism more broadly as "not Buddhism" they are welcome to do so.
What I am interested in is a pragmatic question of what spiritual practices are most helpful to people, and my claim is that Vajrayana from a philosophical and psychological perspective is particularly well suited to helping people resolve some of the current spiritual crises in the West. Part of this rests on the speed of progress possible (hence the title of this substack: In One Lifetime), and part of it rests on my belief that tantric Buddhism is life affirming and non-dissociative, whereas sutric Buddhism seems to believe that the highest goal is cessation (i.e. nothingness / annihilation). That seems fine for a monastic, but less so for householders.
[Hi Joe! Thanks for the comment. I wonder whether Amaro Bhikku would agree regarding the first four jhanas being essential.]
I am familiar with Amaro Bhikkhu, and I am pretty sure that the lineage that Amaro Bhikkhu is in, and he himself, would teach that jhana is essential for liberation. To revisit the anecdote from earlier though, the formless realms, which are the "deepest" concentration, are not considered essential by anyone AFAIK. In other words, you can "do insight" in the four jhanas, but not the formless realms (even though the formless realms can be very useful.).
But I am also familiar with the paper you have linked to. It makes some good points, and there are also some responses to that paper arguing the opposite.
[I largely agree with your take on the Pali cannon -- as I said in the footnote, I'm willing to concede that they are useful (or even essential!) from a Theravadan perspective. And frankly I'm far from an expert on the suttas.]
[From the Vajrayana perspective, however, the jhanas are not at all essential. As a formerly somewhat religious Jew, I am very familiar with the scriptural perspective that looks to the oldest texts as the most definitive authority, but I do not subscribe to that perspective.]
I think this is a fair perspective to have, as long as one is consciously aware of the fact that this is their perspective. I am not going to try to argue the opposite! I do think a lot of people are just misinformed though, which is unfortunate.
[ I also am not super interested in achieving some kind of perfect perspective synthesis of different Buddhist philosophies (there are multiple Buddhisms!)]
Yeah, I don't think such a thing would be possible. I myself am personally most interested in "Early Buddhism" (which again is a little different than Theravada).
[What I am interested in is a pragmatic question of what spiritual practices are most helpful to people, and my claim is that Vajrayana from a philosophical and psychological perspective is particularly well suited to helping people resolve some of the current spiritual crises in the West. Part of this rests on the speed of progress possible (hence the title of this substack: In One Lifetime), and part of it rests on my belief that tantric Buddhism is life affirming and non-dissociative, whereas sutric Buddhism seems to believe that the highest goal is cessation (i.e. nothingness / annihilation). That seems fine for a monastic, but less so for householders.]
Great points on the difference between Theravada and "Early Buddhism" - I've dived into that a little bit. LIke many fundamentalism movements that "rediscover" old texts, it's actually a modernist movement started in the 19th century, right?
I should have been a bit more careful in my language. I'm grateful to you for pointing this out and will try to be a little crisper on that going forward.
I feel a similar scepticism. I remember my first Vipassana retreat where someone came up to me at the end and admitted he'd stuck with conentration meditation the whole 10 days. He looked pretty blissed out, but something felt eerily off about it. I wondered how he'd cope when he didn't have the liberty of being absorbed in the sensations of his own nostrils all the time.
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
Hi Mi'sen --
What an absolutely wonderful and wise comment. Thank you so much.
Yes, totally agree with you on the importance of shamatha overall in the path -- indeed, the Vajryana path I outlined (https://www.paullitvak.com/p/a-vajrayana-path) I talked about concentrative stability as a pre-requisite for direct experience of emptiness. The way I learned it is the way you describe -- getting roughly to "access concentration" (which I think should be sufficient for at least piti / light jhana in my experience) is necessary. Though we also learned to cut through bliss states and not dwell in them -- have you ever encountered the PHAT practice? It's outlined in Lion's Gaze (https://www.amazon.com/Lions-Gaze-Commentary-Khenchen-1998-01-01/dp/B017V8EN74) and involves deliberating breaking concentration when it gets too still as a way of preventing an excess of non-thought / bliss / non-conceptual stillness and as a "brightening of the field". It also enables emptiness practice because easing up to allow some ordinary mental content to occur can serve as fodder to view as empty.
Stepping back though, I guess what I was trying to do was provide a light corrective in what I saw as an excess of focus on altered states. But you're absolutely right that "cultivating the skills which lead to altered states" is essential and that their functional benefits stretch beyond the experiences themselves. The altered skills themselves are just adornments. I also agree with you that taking a middle way approach overall is best. As a meta point any time one takes an extreme view (even as a corrective) there is potential for misunderstanding -- I hope I did not create more confusion in what I wrote. At every stage of the path a different balance is necessary -- more or less focus on concentration, more or less focus on states, more or less focus on striving vs letting go, e.g.. It's so hard to give any general advice because it so much depends on the person and the stage of their practice. All I can do is try to be as clear as I can :)
Paul
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).
Hi Joe! Thanks for the comment. I wonder whether Amaro Bhikku would agree regarding the first four jhanas being essential.
I largely agree with your take on the Pali cannon -- as I said in the footnote, I'm willing to concede that they are useful (or even essential!) from a Theravadan perspective. And frankly I'm far from an expert on the suttas. A quick google search shows at least one Bhikku arguing that jhanas are only necessary for arhatship, i.e. later in the path: https://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha267.htm Certainly I would agree broadly some degree of concentrative stability / one-pointedness is likely necessary for any progress on any path.
From the Vajrayana perspective, however, the jhanas are not at all essential. As a formerly somewhat religious Jew, I am very familiar with the scriptural perspective that looks to the oldest texts as the most definitive authority, but I do not subscribe to that perspective. I am ecumenical (you do you!), and believe that there are many valid approaches (84000!). I also am not super interested in achieving some kind of perfect perspective synthesis of different Buddhist philosophies (there are multiple Buddhisms!) and if Theravadans want to decry Vajrayana or Tibetan Buddhism more broadly as "not Buddhism" they are welcome to do so.
What I am interested in is a pragmatic question of what spiritual practices are most helpful to people, and my claim is that Vajrayana from a philosophical and psychological perspective is particularly well suited to helping people resolve some of the current spiritual crises in the West. Part of this rests on the speed of progress possible (hence the title of this substack: In One Lifetime), and part of it rests on my belief that tantric Buddhism is life affirming and non-dissociative, whereas sutric Buddhism seems to believe that the highest goal is cessation (i.e. nothingness / annihilation). That seems fine for a monastic, but less so for householders.
[Hi Joe! Thanks for the comment. I wonder whether Amaro Bhikku would agree regarding the first four jhanas being essential.]
I am familiar with Amaro Bhikkhu, and I am pretty sure that the lineage that Amaro Bhikkhu is in, and he himself, would teach that jhana is essential for liberation. To revisit the anecdote from earlier though, the formless realms, which are the "deepest" concentration, are not considered essential by anyone AFAIK. In other words, you can "do insight" in the four jhanas, but not the formless realms (even though the formless realms can be very useful.).
But I am also familiar with the paper you have linked to. It makes some good points, and there are also some responses to that paper arguing the opposite.
[I largely agree with your take on the Pali cannon -- as I said in the footnote, I'm willing to concede that they are useful (or even essential!) from a Theravadan perspective. And frankly I'm far from an expert on the suttas.]
Quick note you might be intersted in: Theravada is not quite the same thing as Early Buddhism. Here is a very short book by a scholar monk you might like https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/how-early-buddhism-differs-from-theravada-a-checklist/23019
[From the Vajrayana perspective, however, the jhanas are not at all essential. As a formerly somewhat religious Jew, I am very familiar with the scriptural perspective that looks to the oldest texts as the most definitive authority, but I do not subscribe to that perspective.]
I think this is a fair perspective to have, as long as one is consciously aware of the fact that this is their perspective. I am not going to try to argue the opposite! I do think a lot of people are just misinformed though, which is unfortunate.
[ I also am not super interested in achieving some kind of perfect perspective synthesis of different Buddhist philosophies (there are multiple Buddhisms!)]
Yeah, I don't think such a thing would be possible. I myself am personally most interested in "Early Buddhism" (which again is a little different than Theravada).
[What I am interested in is a pragmatic question of what spiritual practices are most helpful to people, and my claim is that Vajrayana from a philosophical and psychological perspective is particularly well suited to helping people resolve some of the current spiritual crises in the West. Part of this rests on the speed of progress possible (hence the title of this substack: In One Lifetime), and part of it rests on my belief that tantric Buddhism is life affirming and non-dissociative, whereas sutric Buddhism seems to believe that the highest goal is cessation (i.e. nothingness / annihilation). That seems fine for a monastic, but less so for householders.]
Fair points.
Great points on the difference between Theravada and "Early Buddhism" - I've dived into that a little bit. LIke many fundamentalism movements that "rediscover" old texts, it's actually a modernist movement started in the 19th century, right?
I should have been a bit more careful in my language. I'm grateful to you for pointing this out and will try to be a little crisper on that going forward.
Yep, I think you are correct when you say that. And no worries, best of luck on the path!
Small Boat Great Mountain is such a great book!
I feel a similar scepticism. I remember my first Vipassana retreat where someone came up to me at the end and admitted he'd stuck with conentration meditation the whole 10 days. He looked pretty blissed out, but something felt eerily off about it. I wondered how he'd cope when he didn't have the liberty of being absorbed in the sensations of his own nostrils all the time.