Jhana and Nana

Hello, I"ve just been reading Jhana and Nana. In the essay, 'penetrating the object' is different to 'concentration.' Could someone explain to me the difference between the two?
Ta

Hi Cartago,

I would say that to penetrate an object is to really see what it is composed of. For example, if you had a cramp in your leg while doing vipassana, you might take the cramp as an object and notice exactly what the cramp is doing. At first you might see the cramping as one, solid sensation - but as you continue to examine it, you realize that it is truly not "solid", but rather it is a series of many small physical sensations that arise in different locations in your leg, one-by-one and pass away instantly. You may also note that whenever one of these physical sensations passes away, it is immediately followed by a mental impression or memory of it, which also fades away. So what you initially saw as a "solid" object, when penetrated by your observation is shown to be a conglomeration of many physical and mental sensations that are manifesting and disappearing constantly.

Concentration is concerned with keeping the mind focused and stable on an object without analyzing it or trying to break it down further - for example, when concentrating on the breath one simply watches the breath going in and coming out, noticing the sensations it makes at the tip of the nose, or the rising and falling of the abdomen as one breathes. There is no effort to break it down further into its components.

Very much to the point here:

"So concentration is the whole game for an intermediate or advanced meditator. For those of a poetic or mystical bent, it could even be a disappointment to learn that we are dealing with such a mechanistic process. Nevertheless, such is the situation as I see it. In any case, the subjective experience is far from dry, and there is no need to abandon the infinitely mysterious non-dual practice while developing the jhanas."

Kenneth Folk wrote that. I find it to be the most important thing I've read for some time because it both explains things very clearly and gives me clear instruction. Had I not known this I would be wasting my time in vispassana, which would be the wrong thing for me to do. I should be concentrating my ass off. The lack of this kind of simple, direct and very pertinent explanation and instruction is why western dharma gets so messed up and why practitioners get confused and thus get nowhere.

And yes, the process is mechanistic but that gives me great confidence in it, and in the instructions that recognize that fact.

"

Kenneth Folk wrote that. I find it to be the most important thing I've read for some time because it both explains things very clearly and gives me clear instruction. Had I not known this I would be wasting my time in vispassana, which would be the wrong thing for me to do. I should be concentrating my ass off. "

Hey Chris,

One point I think we should consider here is that I don't think Kenneth is saying "don't do Vipassana." Vipassana by itself will lead to concentration states, and I have some speculate that it trains a different form of attention - the ability to shift focus very rapidly from one phenomenon to the next, and also the ability to make very detailed observation of a large spectrum of experiential events. Vipassana generates insight by this power of observation - you observe any phenomenon long enough - an ant pile, the stock market, you name it, you will have an insight.

I've been thinking about enlightenment quite a bit, and putting aside the physio-energetic and mental strata model, and looking at it from a purely cognitive point of view, there seems to be 2 elements: 1. Access to concentration states, especially during everyday activities. 2. Both deep insight, and the ability to generate insight into the nature of experience itself. Number 2 involves some learning, both involve a skill set.

In Yoga there is a particular practice called Samyama in which both of these are combined (arguably both elements are always there in some proportion). Combined simultaneous practice of Dhāraṇā (concentration, intent), Dhyāna (contemplation) & Samādhi (unity). The first two lead to the third, and all are maintained - this is the traditional training to develop the siddhis, incidentally. I think it's this kind of combined attention that really bolsters progress. One has to not only be able to access each strata of mind, but to fully integrate them.

Yes, you're right, David. It's not "don't do vipassana" as much as it is "vipassana will just happen so practice concentration" after a certain point, that being the Arising & Passing Away (A&P). It's more about concentration practices will be more effective. But I urge folks to read the whole document by Kenneth to get the full story.

Thank you all for your interesting comments. In the same line, I would add also that in the Nikaya Suttas, there is no clear distinction between a samatha or vipassana practice. The idea of a separate vipassana practice distinct from a samatha path came from later commentaries like the Vishuddhimagga.

If we take the Mahasatipatthana, the Satipatthana and the Anapanasati suttas, we can see that there was no clear demarcation between samatha and vipassana. The Anapanasati Sutta is a good example of early Buddhist practice: mindfulness of breathing is used to calm the body (kaya), the feelings or sensations (vedana) as well as the mind (citta) eventually leading one through the four Jhanas. Technically also, there were only four Jhanas in early Buddhism. Formless samadhis where not called Jhanas (but spheres of '¦), while vipassana jhanas are late additions. Then following the last tetrad of the sutta one is to use the 4th Jhanas as a springboard to investigate the dharmas to gain insight into the three characteristics of existence, namely anicca, dukkha and anatta.

This is not to say that we should discard the Vishuddhimagga and that the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition is not orthodox, but that mindfulness, concentration, jhanas and insights are intimately connected. As an example, I think that in the above mentioned suttas, the Buddha gave examples of a process that combines these methods. As an example, one can be first mindful of body sensations, then concentrates on a smaller sensation or specific area of one's body, then through applied and sustained concentration start feeling the jhana factors, condense them through concentration on piti and sukkha, investigate the jhana to break it into pieces and eventually rise from the first to the fourth, get back to the observation of subtle sensations of the breath with increased concentration to get insight (vipassana) or knowledge (nana, jnana, prajna, gnosis) into the three characteristics, etc'¦

Pragmatism above all! Remember, the objective with regard to samatha/vipassana is to help people make progress, not to count the angels on the head of a pin. I conceive of 1st Gear progress as movement upward through a series of strata of mind for two reasons:

1) That's how it feels.
2) People make progress when armed with this concept.

With that in mind, from an experiential point of view, let's just acknowledge that there is a clear difference between the vipassana technique and the samatha technique. They lead to different experiences and so can be distinguished in actual practice. These two basic factors of concentration and investigation have to be in balance in order for yogis to make progress. It's my observation that thousands of post A&P "chronic achiever" yogis are stuck precisely because they have poorly developed concentration skills. They have been told to "investigate," but do not have sufficient concentration to access deeper strata of mind. This bobbing around in the shallows can go on forever. You can investigate the froth on the surface of the sea for eons without finding the treasures that lie in the depths. Go deep, my fellow dharma divers, go deep! Every highly attained yogi I know (using the developmental model) is a jhana master in his or her own right. This holds true even for Zen practitioners who were never explicitly taught jhana. They are accessing the deepest layers of mind whether they have the terminology for it or not.

Kenneth

Smile.

"Pragmatism above all! Remember, the objective with regard to samatha/vipassana is to help people make progress, not to count the angels on the head of a pin. . . . Every highly attained yogi I know (using the developmental model) is a jhana master in his or her own right. This holds true even for Zen practitioners who were never explicitly taught jhana. They are accessing the deepest layers of mind whether they have the terminology for it or not.
"

Hi Kenneth,
Yes, even in Zen the jhanas are encountered by anyone who has made real progress.

The sad part about Zen (at least in America) is that too few Zen teachers acknowledge this and explain the jhanas to their students as something valuable rather than dismissing them as "makyo" to be shunned.

Maybe this comes from a misinterpretation of the Heart Sutra's statement that "there is nothing to be attained." Many Zen practitioners believe that this means the jhanas are worthless -- or worse -- because they are an attainment. But so is any useful skill. Being able to relax into a blissful state easily and quickly is not something to be lightly dismissed as "useless"!

The only danger here, as I see it, occurs when someone strives to dwell in "hard" jhanic bliss states and neglects the real work of seeing the Path to its completion in Bodhi. Getting attached to formlessness can become an impediment when there is work to be done (chopping that wood and carrying that water).

Regards,
Gozen

"The only danger here, as I see it, occurs when someone strives to dwell in "hard" jhanic bliss states and neglects the real work of seeing the Path to its completion in Bodhi."-Gozen

Hi Gozen,

I just wrote to a friend about this very topic:

"Think of a thermometer. I want you to concentrate in such a way that the mercury keeps rising, reaches a peak, then gradually descends in reverse order. We could call that vertical jhana. You will go into many strata of mind during the course of a sitting, always with the idea of finally traversing the entire range of temperatures.

"I don't recommend what might be called horizontal jhana, which is fixation upon one particular temperature. You could, for example, become the worlds greatest expert on "70 degrees," but if you don't explore the full range of temps, you don't make progress. This sounds more complicated than it is, because even if you try as hard as you can to stay in, for example, the 1st jhana, you will find that the mind naturally wants to float up into the 2nd, etc. Once you have come to the summit of your arc, i.e., whichever stratum of mind is the cutting edge of your practice, the mind naturally wants to descend the arc. All you have to do to facilitate this is to watch what happens without manipulating. The short answer is that I don't believe you can concentrate hard enough to get stuck in one jhana. Try it and let me know what happens. If you do get stuck in one particular experience for more than a few minutes, I'll give you a specific remedy. Meanwhile, concentrate as deeply as you can without manipulating your experience and see what turns up."

This instruction is for a post A&P yogi who has already become adept at penetrating the object. I would not give this instruction to a beginner. For beginners, the emphasis must be on investigation.

Kenneth

Thank you Kenneth, I am still laughting about your humorous expression "count the angels on the head of a pin". What I meant is that your model about the stratas of mind is not only practical, but also rooted in ancient Buddhism and that samatha and vipassana have always been used in balance.

Gozen, you are right, at least about Japanese Soto Zen. My Rinzai friends tell me however that their main focus is often on samadhi first, and that without samadhi one doesn't get the momentum required to experience genuine kensho. By samadhi they mean a highly focused state of intense concentration. They however tend to avoid spending to much time in solid blissful states for the reasons mentioned in the above post.

As I was experiementing with Sheng-yen description of Hongzhi's "Silent Illumination" practice (the ancestor of Dogen's shikantaza) I could clearly see a gradual unfolding of the stratas of mind rising up through the jhanic arc. I would never have been able to experience that in such a smooth way without Kenneth's precious help and advice.

My conclusion is that Kenneth's model is not only faithful to the earliest Pali sources, but is also experienced in every genuine Buddhist tradition including Zen.

Kind regards,

Alex

Hi Gozan,

I have not personally run into any one who has dismissed jhanas as makyo as such, though admittingly some have come very close.. Rather, the emphasis in Zen practice,especially so in hua-tou practice, is not to stop short of an opeing/kensho/seeing the nature and get caught so to speak by blissful states. Clearly, the blissful states are a sign of a stable and concentrated mind. As such, the student I think should be encouraged because of reaching a concentrated stable mind, but to stick with the Zen method, emphasizing not to stop short in enjoying the bliss. Particularly though in hua-tou practice, this can become a diversion away from generating doubt, the basis of this type of practice. I personally did get caught once in an extremely blissful state that I did not want to leave even though I was told to go back to the hua-tou. It was so incredibly blissful I just would not leave it. t took some days for the blissful state to "break" on its own, when I realized fully why not to stay in the blissful state in the context of hua-tou practice.

Thank you all for an interesting thread,

Stuart

"As an example, one can be first mindful of body sensations, then concentrates..." Alex

Really appreciated this description, it is a very useful hint on how to practice.
A question: is it necessary to develop a "rock solid" jhana quality to attain first path this way?

Umberto

Hi Umbero,

As far as I know, rock solid jhanas are never required and Nikaya Suttas don't even seem to mention rock solid states in relation with the first jhanas. One the contrary, the idea is to flow through the jhanic arc as described by Kenneth who, amongst other topics, is the real jhana and nana expert.

Best regards,

Alex

Yes. I seem to have obtained first path and never experienced anything like a rock solid jhana until afterward. Well afterward.

While we're talking about jhanas and Zen, I may as well mention this. James Austin, MD, Ph.D., long time Zen practitioner and professor emeritus of Neurology at the University of Colorado at Denver, in his encyclopedic "Zen and the Brain" hypothesizes that Zazen, with it's unique practice of meditating with eyes half open (along with practices such as walking meditation) more effectively integrates the meditative state into everyday awareness. He thought Zazen was more effective for that reason.

From a neuropsych point of view, I can't see how that wouldn't be true. Shinzen Young believes that part of the effect of concentrative practices is to raise the entire baseline of concentrative ability for every activity - and that, in fact, the actual experience of enlightenment seems to support that idea.

I have mused about the idea of training people in the jhanas in the traditional manner, and then scaffolding - then have them obtain the jhanas (or even the 20 strata of mind up and down) in Zazen posture, with eyes half closed, then once they were able to do that, have them do it standing, then in walking meditation, finally with simple activities...

This would theoretically help with the integration of concentration states with everyday reality. I suppose this could be done with a view to having a balance between concentration and observation as well...
Thoughts anyone?

Funny you mention Austin. I'm reading his latest book now called "Selfless Insight: Zen and the Meditative Transformations of Consciousness." I like what the guy has to say, though it can be tedious reading.

"I have mused about the idea of training people in the jhanas in the traditional manner, and then scaffolding - then have them obtain the jhanas (or even the 20 strata of mind up and down) in Zazen posture, with eyes half closed, then once they were able to do that, have them do it standing, then in walking meditation, finally with simple activities...

"This would theoretically help with the integration of concentration states with everyday reality. I suppose this could be done with a view to having a balance between concentration and observation as well..."-Haquan

Yes, David, this is excellent. Dipa Ma taught Bill H. to get his "hit" of cessation every day while on retreat, and then extend that to daily life so that he would not have to rely on retreats for his "hit." I ran with that idea in my own practice by gradually training until I could get cessation while standing in line at the grocery store, then further extended the scaffolding concept by training myself to recognize the jhanic arc while doing walking meditation and then during informal walks in the park. This idea of first accessing new territory while sitting in intensive practice, then gradually extending it to daily life situations is powerful. It takes mysticism out of the realm of robed ascetics living in caves and brings it back into the marketplace where it belongs.

Daniel Ingram explores the sub-jhana concept in this article:

www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/dharm...411_title=Sub-jhanas

The fractal model covers also the nana territory (sub-nanas).

I found it fascinating (and useful to explain the chaos in my own experience ) but I have some problem to integrate it with the 20-strata-of-mind model, which I imagine as discrete/different qualities of mind, not admitting a recursive definition.

At a grosser level, could the jhanic arc reveal itself in this fractal mode?

Finally, there is also a do-your-own-jhana approach, the compound jhana (which reminds me the ability to call up any jhana or nana, but here you could also aggregate them):

www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/dharm...le=Compound%20jhanas

Maybe here the receding horizon model applies...

You may not want my opinion but I'll give it anyway: forget about complicated models (fractals, quantum, periodic tables, whatever) if you're not at least third path.

Just practice!

I've learned this the hard way, and while the models are intellectually stimulating, fun to think about and all that, they are also probably going to serve to confuse you, even though you think you can separate the intellectual side of you from the practice side of you.

Just my opinion and YMMV, of course.

Both the sub-jhana and compound jhana concept make sense experientially to me - though I'm not entirely sure what the application is. I can speak less to the idea of sub-nanas or compound nanas.

From the point of view of wanting to simply "get enlightened" I agree with Chris, better to spend more time sitting than thinking about models. On the other hand, the biggest concern most people have post-enlightenment, is helping others to have the same realization. A lot of times I think, "What if Siddhartha Gotama had been born in this day and age instead of when he was, and all the spiritual traditions were exactly the way they are now? (meaning of course, that Buddhism the way we know it know was still intact). How would he approach things?" I imagine, perhaps flattering myself a bit, that he would approach things rather the way I do - a bit like a scientist. That is, in fact, what he did, in his day and age. So he would learn the techniques, and follow the instructions - but then he would apply radical critiques (rather the way scientists do with their paradigms), and simply experiment, drawing his own independent conclusions.

In this way, there is no doubt in my mind that he would advance both our concept of soteriology, but also our technical methods. Because what we really need right now, is not only to get enlightened ourselves, but also to get as many others enlightened as possible - survival of the human race and all that.

Given that our methods and theoretical orientation will influence our rational conceptions of what has happened to us (which is really beyond rational conceptualization) - to me it makes sense to employ this critical methodology and attitude from the get go. The boon is that one develops a deeper understanding of the process of enlightenment that one may share with others. The risk is that it delays things for us, or we risk not getting it (in this lifetime).

""Given that our methods and theoretical orientation will influence our rational conceptions of what has happened to us (which is really beyond rational conceptualization) - to me it makes sense to employ this critical methodology and attitude from the get go. The boon is that one develops a deeper understanding of the process of enlightenment that one may share with others. The risk is that it delays things for us, or we risk not getting it (in this lifetime).""

I agree with what Haquan said, that we would do well to use a culturally-appropriate, scientific-critical approach to the matter of sharing techniques and instructions for Awakening.

Kenneth's approach is very pragmatic and plain-spoken, which makes it easy to understand and apply. He is appropriately critical of the sort of obfuscation and attachment to foreign terminology that impresses many scholars but depresses people who simply want to get Enlightened! And while Kenneth's approach may implicitly critique the old-style approaches we've all practiced or at least read about, he does not tarry with arguments against the old ways -- he simply delivers a new way. Never complain, only explain.

James Austin is a neuroscientist who takes a scientific approach at the level of his training and specialist's knowledge, which is far beyond what we non-scientists can do. This is all to the good for the larger effort to bring Western civilization on-board with the Enlightenment project (which is sort of a marriage between the Western rationalist Enlightenment which began in the 18th century and the Eastern mystical Enlightenment which began in pre-history but was codified by the Buddha). However, when I read or listen to Austin, I quickly get lost in his "brain-speak." He may know the parietal lobe and the limbic system like I know the back of my hand, but I have a terrible time trying to visualize and comprehend the brain regions and their functions!

I got your point, Chris, and it sounds right to me, too.
The practice and talking about the practice are not the same thing.
In the end, only the practice counts. And your real-time report from the first path is more useful than a lot of models out there...
I really started with the practice, but maps and models improved my meditation.
So I stay in tune with models. In this case, the two models came from Daniel (and his book really boosted my practice) and Kenneth (his writings gave me even deeper understandings).
I think I've both a very pragmatic approach and a scientific curiosity to the whole thing, so I'm interested also to James Austin and his brain MAPS...
Maybe it is useful to keep separate the down-to-earth practice questions from the more speculative side. Even if, as Haquas said, technical methods, theoretical orientation and rational conceptions are interrelated.
Umberto

"... when I read or listen to Austin, I quickly get lost in his "brain-speak." He may know the parietal lobe and the limbic system like I know the back of my hand, but I have a terrible time trying to visualize and comprehend the brain regions and their functions!"

Well, yes.

Gozen, your comment makes me realize I just told someone here not to pay much attention to complicated models and in almost the same virtual breath admitted that I'm reading James Austin' latest book. I'm obviously not taking my own advice, am I?

Sheesh.

Hi Umberto,

Thanks for posting the link to Daniel's "Compound Jhana" article:

www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/dharm...le=Compound%20jhanas

I think it's a totally cool idea. But then again, I'm biased. The concept of "natural and compound jhana" is one that I came up with about three weeks ago and told Daniel about in a telephone conversation. (I just emailed him, asking him to add a citation to his essay.)

Daniel was really excited about the idea and urged me to write about it and post it right away, before I forgot about it. I did write a paragraph that night, but haven't fleshed it out yet:

Building Blocks and Scripts: Natural and Compound Jhana

The mind has an invariable structure. The mind is infinitely scriptable. Which is true? Both are true. The mind is composed of a series of strata that can be seen to arise in an invariable sequence, like a rainbow. But the strata, which can be thought of as building blocks, can be mixed and matched in any combination to form a kind of jhana soup. When the jhanas are allowed to arise in order, without any effort on the part of the meditator but to observe, they can be thought of as 'natural jhana.' When various building blocks are arranged according to a recipe to deliberately conjure up an experience, the result could be called 'compound jhana.' -Kenneth Folk, September 13, 2009

edited for clarity