Talk:Dhyana in Buddhism

Cleanup

This is more than a bit messy. I'm going to come back and clean up the English on this page later. Shinydan (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Preliminary Stage

AFAIK, only theravadins hold the idea that there is a preliminary stage. Who and where is the citation of this "preliminary stage"? Does the phrase "upacara-samādhi" appears anywhere in the Pali Tipitaka? The section of "Preliminary Stage" has exactly cero citations or references--Esteban Barahona (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly standard in Theravada discussion of the jhanas. You can find many citations from the commentaries at this page for example. Mitsube (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It was in the article I've been reading about consciousness mysticism, by fortunate coincidence. Mitsube (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The "indifference to" whatever should be changed simply to "equanimity." Can you explain why you removed "the ability to form wholesome intentions" and changed "mental movement" to what you changed it to? Where are you getting this information? The way it was is more in line with the information I have read about this. Mitsube (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm basing the changes on the understanding of this text and my own experiences with jhāna. Some translations are unclear about what is actually jhāna. What is "mental movement"? That isn't clear at all. Jhāna itself is a process, meaning it happens over time. It can be argued that all jhānas are "mental movement". Better treat it as the opposite of equanimity. I'm starting to learn Sanskrit and Pāli, there's too much bias on translations and some are unclear... specially the "explanations". In second jhāna:

"The ability to form wholesome intentions ceases as well"

are you sure about that? That will mean that practicing jhāna leads to a decreased ability to form wholesome intentions?!

and "access concentration" "appears" on the Pali Tipitaka but is not mentioned by name?! Talk about bias and lack of understanding! Sure, one has to "prepare for jhāna", but that is not a "stage of jhāna"... it's anapanasati (jhānas occur naturally after practicing anapanasati correctly). Sutric reference, in the original language (basically Pali or Sanskrit), then we can search for common translations and eliminate centuries of bias. Everything else is thervadins' (or mahayana's... like devotional Buddhism... lol) imagination of what Buddha Gautama actually taught.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Jhāna itself is a process." It is a state that is entered into through concentration.

"are you sure about that? That will mean that practicing jhāna leads to a decreased ability to form wholesome intentions?!" Yes. The strength of the intention must be made before entry into ekaggata, one-pointedness. While in one-pointed concentration such thought does not occur. See for example Leigh Brasington's site. Also Pa Auk Sayadaw, the world's expert on this, has a massive book online called "Knowing and Seeing" which you can download in pdf form and read. I have read much of this and other articles and books on the subject. For a short intro read Ajahn Brahmavamso's "The Jhanas" which can also be downloaded as a pdf.

Access concentration occurs in the canon. I will put in the full quote in the footnote. Mitsube (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you have the links to those websites? hmmm... reading is important, but meditating even more. Have you entered jhāna?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 05:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, but I am working on it! I've had some intense moments but nothing sustained for long. I guess maybe I've had some "momentary concentration." I did a lot of research on this trying to see if there was something like jhana in Zen. I came to the conclusion that Zen meditation is different. Meditating is definitely more important. I don't know the links. Here is Leigh Brasington's one; [1]. If you want to get into the "controversy" about the jhanas then go to [2]. The long and short of it is that the commentaries got it wrong and jhana is what the Buddha said it was, and it should be cultivated. Mitsube (talk) 06:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, I bookmarked them for later reading. When you talk about "commentaries" are you refering to the Abhidhamma Pitaka or much later commentaries? I've experience with jhānas (up to the 4th, the arupa jhānas get foggy because I've entered or not the first 2 depending on definition and interpretation) and the explanation in this article is unclear. For example: "mental movement" is so vague that it can be interpreted in so many different ways. It is so vague, that it can be argued that it happens much later, in the "emptyness/nothingness" jhāna. Also, this article can grow to Jhāna in Buddhism... or at the very least, have a "criticisms" section.

In each translation of the Pali Tipitaka, the meaning have become less clear. That's why I will go to the source (Pali Tipitaka) and translate diretly to Spanish and English... but that will take some time (and I will have to upload it on a different website, either my own, wikibooks or other... probably also in a book. AFAIK, there's almost cero Spanish translations of the Pali Tipitaka).--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It may be in the Theravada Abhidhamma as well. I'm not sure. This article is fairly faithful to the Theravada discussions of the jhanas. Regarding criticism, I can tell you for certain that you will not be able to find reliably sourced criticisms. Something about the necessity for entering jhana would be something else. Even the "vipassana only" people say you need to have some level of concentration, though not at the jhana level. Regarding your own attainment, have you talked to an accomplished meditation master about it? That is probably a good idea. Mitsube (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

about the Theravadins interpretation of jhana: fair enough, you have read more than I about it. About my own attainments: I'm focusing on learning languages (Sanskrit, Pali and after that Japanese and Chinese) to learn the various definitions of samadhi and jhana in Buddhism. Besides one friend of the same age as mine that also meditates I know no other meditators (with discipline) on "real life". AFAIK, there are exactly 2 sanghas in my country... but Buddhism isn't studied much. How to find an accomplished meditation master? It has being difficult... although it's on my "to do list".--Esteban Barahona (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Name

The name of this article should simply be "jhana." "Jhana" is an exclusively Theravada concept so the "in Theravada" is unnecessary. 67.164.119.159 (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The Chinese version of the Sanskrit "dhyana" occurs in the agamas in just the same places as "jhana" does in the nikayas. So it is not true that it is an exclusively Theravada concept. However if we were to separate the description of the jhanas from the suttas from the part in the Theravada Abhidhamma and commentaries we could do something like that. Mitsube (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree with User 67.164.119.159 . Theraveda doesn't use the Sanskrit term Dhyana. Even if the page Dhyana was completely filled with Mahayana techniques, it is perfectly fine. Theravedans usually know the pali term jhana when looking up meditation. I don't think Mahayana will care if the Jhana page was filled with Theraveda technique, they hardly look up that pali term or use it. But if necessary, might as well change it to Jhana ( Theraveda) , Dhyana ( Mahayana? ). --Simpliciti (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Move

The article discusses the meditative states known as jhanas. So the material in this article should be in an article called "Jhāna." There should however be a wider article called "Theravada Meditation" which discusses all the meditative techniques in Theravada, jhana and otherwise. Any ideas? Mitsube (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you know there is already an article called Jhana (Pali), which is then redirect to Dhyana (Sanskrit)? Jhana in Theravada is an article to specifically discuss the Jhana state as per Theravada Tradition. You should further improve the already existing Jhana/Dhyana article and then create the "Theravada Meditation" and let see how it goes from there. Sawadeekrap (talk) 06:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

merger

Jhāna and Dhyāna should be merged because they apparently mean the same thing(in different languages). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.159.52 (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

While that is true in one sense, in another jhana is a more specific term, I think. Mitsube (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Jhāna and Dhyāna are the same thing, It is a concept shared by many religions "Dhyāna" is the most comnly used with the others, Jhāna is more commonly used in Buddhism. To detail the different traditions in 1 article would take up alot of room, Using Jhāna for Buddhist use, and Dhyāna for the others is a wise move. I believe the Dhyāna article needs alot of work on it, More detail of non-Buddhist use and less on the Buddhist use, that stuff should be brought here to this one. 210.185.16.135 (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the merger should happen at this point. They are the exact same term referring to the same thing. Of course, the merged article has to treat jhana/dhyana in each of the various traditions, but that's no problem.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Nirodha Samapatti

Some scriptures mention Nirodha Samapatti following the 8th jhana as a possible attainment for Anagamis (3rd stage enlightened beings) and Arhats. Any objections against adding it? By the way, this is even mentionend in the Visuddhi Magga XXIII. 193.134.202.252 (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC) e_l_

In Mahayana Buddhism, the sutras may also mention nine stages of samadhi, depending on whether they include this as well. 1-4 are usually termed stages of dhyana, whereas 5-8 are the formless samadhis. This probably reflects the particular classifications used by various Indian Buddhist traditions. Tengu800 (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Other schools

Really, this article needs to be merged with Dhyana, or at least to have a fair balance of Theravada with the other traditions. The way it is now, many articles on Buddhism are linked to this page, but few are linked to the Dhyana page. They only see the Theravada side, along with some sketchy sources that are unfamiliar with the actual understanding of Buddhism in Tibet and the Far East. They make narrow studies and draw broad and nonsensical conclusions. This information does not stand up at all to the basic teachings of the major exponents of Mahayana Buddhism, either past or present. A perusal of books by Chinese Buddhist masters brings up clear descriptions of the states of dhyana and samadhi, and statements that traditions such as Chan employ these. This is basic to Buddhism, and it is only some naive western scholars who have never actually read the Mahayana sutras or studied the traditions themselves, who claim otherwise. I also noticed that some of the sources for the Mahayana section come from Theravada teachers, and Theravadins have seldom, past or present, made any true endeavor to study or understand Mahayana Buddhism. However, there is an exception to this with Walpola Rahula, who found great similarities in doctrine, and concluded that the Yogacara Abhidharmasamuccaya was doctrinally closer to the early texts of the Sutra Pitaka than was the abhidharma of the Theravada school.

In fact, all the major works of abhidharma in the Chinese Buddhist canon delineate the dhyanas and samadhis, including the Yogacara texts, which formed a formal theoretical basis for Zen and Tibetan Buddhism. Examining the works of Xuanzang as well, he was clearly familiar with the four dhyanas as well as the formless samadhis and various other states of meditative concentration. From the biographies of great monks in China as well, they all relate experiences of various states of samadhi, and knowledge of the various stages and realms to which they belong. See for example, the biographies of Hanshan Deqing from the Ming Dynasty, or Hsu Yun from the modern era. Even the silent hermit who lived in a straw hut was able to point out the errors of Hanshan in terms of his stage of samadhi, and broke his usual silence in order to do so. Even a Daoist hermit living in a mountain in Japan was able to quote the agamas about meditation to the Zen master Hakuin. To claim that these schools are all separate and to characterize the traditions of Mahayana Buddhism as ignorant of the basic stages of dhyana and samadhi is totally wrong. Tengu800 (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The consensus is for a merge. Clearly that should happen. I'll try to get to it.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I got all the material in one place at least. I did not make any substantive changes, so it still needs more material on non-Theravada traditions.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, great. Thank you for doing the groundwork on this.