A few comments on jhanas by ven. Dhammavuddho

[Tad]

I wanted to share a few comments on jhanas by ven. Dhammavuddho. What is your opinion of his comments?

"The only type of meditation praised by the Buddha is the four jhanas, which is synonymous with perfection of satipatthana.

1st Jhana - unskillful thoughts/intentions cease. Skillful thoughts that remain can be such as “I must remember what steps I took to attain this.”

2nd Jhana or higher – thoughts cease totally.

Nirvana – total cessation of consciousness.  Jhanas are like steps toward total cessation of consciousness.

Nowadays, some monastics say that jhanas are not necessary for liberation. Some also claim there is no mindfulness while in jhana, and that jhanas are external sect meditation, not the Buddha’s. The Buddha warned that irreverence/disrespect for concentration is one of five factors leading to the decline of the True Dhamma (SN 16.13)"

[Jhanananda]

I wanted to share a few comments on jhanas by ven. Dhammavuddho. What is your opinion of his comments?

"The only type of meditation praised by the Buddha is the four jhanas, which is synonymous with perfection of satipatthana.

1st Jhana - unskillful thoughts/intentions cease. Skillful thoughts that remain can be such as “I must remember what steps I took to attain this.”

2nd Jhana or higher – thoughts cease totally.

Nirvana – total cessation of consciousness.  Jhanas are like steps toward total cessation of consciousness.

Nowadays, some monastics say that jhanas are not necessary for liberation. Some also claim there is no mindfulness while in jhana, and that jhanas are external sect meditation, not the Buddha’s. The Buddha warned that irreverence/disrespect for concentration is one of five factors leading to the decline of the True Dhamma (SN 16.13)"

I just have some linguistic issues, and subtle neuances with the above quote. 

1) Jhana is an experience that happens when one learns to meditate skillfully, and is not a style of meditation. However, I will agree that Siddhartha Gautama is quoted throughout the Pali Canon as defining the 8th fold of the Noble Eightfold Path in terms of jhana, and he thus recommended its attainment. Therefore we can conclude anyone who states jhana is optional or wrong is preaching a less than 8 fold path therefore whatever they are teaching it is definitely not Buddhism.
2) The first jhana is defined in the suttas as the arising of piti and sukha which are generally translated in ecstatic terms such as "bliss, joy, ecstasy," while vitaka and vicara are present, which is commonly translated as thoughts in general not good or bad thoughts.
3) The second jhana is defined throughout the suttas in terms of vitaka and vicara not being present, so I interpret this as the stilling of the mind.
4) Dhammavuddho defines Nirvana as total cessation of consciousness. This makes no sense it would mean whenever we are unconscious we are in Nirvana.  If this were true then we should give up meditation and buy a hammer and whack ourselves over the head every time we come to.
5) He then uses the term 'concentration.' We should be aware here that it is common practice in Buddhism to translate the Sanskrit term 'samadhi' as 'concentration.' Doing so demonstrates the lack of understanding that jhana and samadhi are experiences and suggests they are instead cognitive mental exercises of focusing our attention upon something, which means they have confused the practice of meditation with the experience that arises from the skillful practice of meditation.

So, part of understanding jhana is understanding that mainstream Buddhism does not understand what jhana and samadhi are.  If this is the case then mainstream Buddhism is preaching less than an 8 fold path.

[Tad]

Thank you for response. A few additional questions:

1) Would it be correct to define jhana as the blissful state that is experienced when thinking ceases?

2) When a person is in jhana, is that person closer to nirvana?

3) Regarding definition of nirvana, a hammer would not help because consciousness would continue just like it continues following death of the body of non arahant. There is a story of a monk who was meditating in a forest. He reached nirvana. His body became like a stone. Heart stopped, breathing stopped. It lasted for 7 days. But during the time his body was found by locals who assumed he the monk was dead. They put a some wood on top of the body and set it on fire according to the local tradition. A few days later the same monk showed up in the village begging for food. From your experience, is this story believable?

BTW, thanks for taking time to respond. I am reading stuff on forums and your website. But it will take a while to catch up on everything.

[Jhanananda]

Thank you for response. A few additional questions:

Sure

1) Would it be correct to define jhana as the blissful state that is experienced when thinking ceases?

That definition seems to broad to me, because it could be misinterpreted for someone who loses mindfulness.  One of the most important things to get about sama-samadhi, jhana, ayatana, is these are (right) altered states of consciousness which are the product of correct (right) meditation practice (sama-sati)

2) When a person is in jhana, is that person closer to nirvana?

I would say that is reasonable after all some of the suttas that define both samadi and liberation start with a list of the states of samadhi, then go right into the levels of liberation, so we can infer correct altered states of consciousness (sama-samadhi) leads to liberation.

3) Regarding definition of nirvana, a hammer would not help because consciousness would continue just like it continues following death of the body of non arahant.

I disagree, because most people are not self-aware (conscious) in their sleep state, therefore why would we assume they are self-aware after death?

There is a story of a monk who was meditating in a forest. He reached nirvana. His body became like a stone. Heart stopped, breathing stopped. It lasted for 7 days. But during the time his body was found by locals who assumed he the monk was dead. They put a some wood on top of the body and set it on fire according to the local tradition. A few days later the same monk showed up in the village begging for food. From your experience, is this story believable?

I don't buy this story for a number of reasons:
1) In my experience the samadhi state comes to an end at some point.  In my case the longest sustained samadhis were about 3 hours. The metabolic processes of the body require maintenance so people are going to come out of their samadhi much sooner.
2) This story also fits into the two places at once (bilocation) experience which could be too easily explained by 2 people looking a lot a like seen in two locations at the same time by different groups of people.
3) Every religion has its miracle stories.  If a story has a fantastic quality to it I tend to ignore it.

BTW, thanks for taking time to respond. I am reading stuff on forums and your website. But it will take a while to catch up on everything.

Good to know you are reading the content, but do keep your critical thinking skills intact.  Work on putting it altogether. All religions have their miracle stories and their apocrypha. So follow the common thread of cogency.