A Place to Discuss Dynamic Jhana vs Static Jhana

"Whenever I noted continuously without break for an hour at a time, my concetration took me places. In my experience.....non-stop noting and awareness of sensatiions got me very very concentrated."

OK, so what you're doing is what Kenneth has described as khanika samadhi. You're noting so fast that concentration develops quickly because there just isn't time for your mind to wander. So you've got a great balance of concentration and insight that is inherent to your practice, without long hours staring at kasinas or candle flames. Hmmm...

In my experience the process of just paying attention was concentration enough, and the sensations and phenomena that I was paying attention to were plenty interesting to hold my attention.

Just sayin' -- while hoping to help demystify this concentration/jhana myth.

Oh, yeah, to jgroove: just go practice! Try this stuff so you're not fretting over theory

Yes! That's the way I see it too. The noting doesn't allow the mind to wonder and if it does it is noted as wandering too so there are no gaps. This seemed to eventually (over 2 years of off and on practice, 1 hours sits at a time) concentrate the mind all the way to up to absorbtion into jhana which I experienced by accident. The non stop noting pushed the mind right up to high equanimity where the mind sort of diffuses adn meditation seems automatic and the noting is not as neccessary. (when I say this I mean it...there are no gaps and if there are, they are noted and included so there really are "no gaps" in the flow of noting)

I did this over two years, getting to high equanimity and seeing everything that supported the experience of "I", like anticipation, space, boredom, investigation, intention etc all the subtler sensations that support the illusion of separate self. The one day, I was in high equanimity and just letting things arise and pass occasionally noting subtler things when I just seemed to get absorbed into a very unique but similar state to equanimity of formations. I was suprised as I had never experienced a state like that. My intuition told me it was 4th jhana as I had read about the jhanas and nanas matching up at certain stages. So I willed the mind down to 3rd, 2nd and 1st jhana to see if there was something below that 4th jhana state and there was....from then on I realized I seemed to have short cut straight up to equanimity through access to the 4th jhana. All this happened 2 days before I got stream entry.
I did practice briefly with kasinas beforehand and I did use a sort of kasina device during that same course to help my concentration but I never looked at it for hours on end. In fact 10 minutes max was all I'd use one for to shift the mind into a higher concentrated state. I think I explained it on the Hardcore Jhana thread.

bit.ly/bgQT0u

"
Oh, yeah, to jgroove: just go practice! Try this stuff so you're not fretting over theory

"

Chris, are you telling me to sit down and shut up?!
Sounds like good advice!

The IMS people tend to want to help people work through their personal hindrances so that they are naturally more open to insight practices, seeing it all as part of the path from the start.

Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses, and even shadow sides. The IMS teachers may find their students in a mode where they're perpetually "getting ready to get ready". In other words, they might always recognize another inner demon to dispel before getting serious about applying the basic insight techniques that lead to actual 'path' attainments.

Daniel may find his students ignoring genuine personal psychological roadblocks to their practice by thinking they just have to muscle through it, noting objects within their experience with reckless abandon while further ignoring or disowning those aspects of themselves which need to be brought into their awareness for further progress to happen. I've read some comments by Daniel at the Dharma Overground in the last year or so that signal a slight change in Daniel's teaching that allows space for gentler approaches at certain points on the path. I commend him for that. Even so, the tone of Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha is heroic, masculine, and speaks negatively of the integration of personal psychology and insight meditation, as he sees the psychological aspect taking precedence over insight in such contexts. It's a valid critique of the shadow sides of the IMS approach, but tends to leave out many of the beneficial aspects, which I feel are numerous.

Sorry if this is a bit off topic.

~Jackson

"I've been thinking of, let's say, the typical or most widely practiced style of vipassana (not fair to single out IMS; I've never been there) as basically being about some kind of open-presence vipassana in which concentration isn't emphasized or particularly cultivated. Daniel's book seemed to be all about developing strong concentration to support insight, and I have taken that to be the crucial difference between the two approaches."

To preface my comment, I've never been to an IMS retreat. Most of my understanding of what goes on at IMS is via Jack Kornfield's books and the various IMS podcasts.

There are quite a few differences between the Daniel Ingram approach and the IMS approach. One of the key differences has little to do with concentration, however, which is that Daniel's approach strongly discourages personal psychological work while on the cushion, and the IMS people seem to integrate the two more freely (these being stark generalizations).

We Westerners have a lot of ego-baggage that many Eastern teachers don't quite understand. It's such a problem at meditation retreats that it really gets in the way of one's ability to stay present and do the practice. Daniel would more or less tell someone to just suck it up and forget about the personal junk while the retreat is going - which may actually help some people quite a bit (it sure helped me early on in my practice!).

(continued below)

"The IMS people tend to want to help people work ... which I feel are numerous.
Sorry if this is a bit off topic.

~Jackson"

Thanks, Jackson. You're pointing to a middle way here that makes a lot of sense.

A key point to Jackson's comment is about *when* in your practice the MCTB vs the IMS approach matters. I think it's best to favor the Ingram/MCTB approach at the beginning of your practice. Learn what an object is, learn how to focus on it, and learn what that object can teach you about what you really are. Forget about psychology and what Daniel Ingram calls your "stuff" until after you get that first part in the bag. Why? Because then you'll know what the difference is.

"
A key point to Jackson's comment is about *when* in your practice the MCTB vs the IMS approach matters. I think it's best to favor the Ingram/MCTB approach at the beginning of your practice. Learn what an object is, learn how to focus on it, and learn what that object can teach you about what you really are. Forget about psychology and what Daniel Ingram calls your "stuff" until after you get that first part in the bag. Why? Because then you'll know what the difference is.

"

Absolutely. This is my preferred approach as well.

I used to hang around with a lot of musicians (being one myself), and the better players I knew used to say things like, "you have to know the rules before you can break them." The same applies to learning meditation basics. Going freestyle from the start doesn't usually work out in the long run (or even the short run). Learning a few scales prior to attempting to improvise makes a world of difference, and the same is true of meditation practice.

"What is your opinion of Tina Rasmussen and Stephen Snyder's book "Practicing the Jhanas"?"-Ipm99a

I'm answering this question in installments. I still haven't read the book, but I listened to Tina and Stephen's Buddhist Geeks interview last night, so I will address what I've learned so far about their teaching.

My reaction to the interview? I was surprised to find that what some of our posters had characterized as "hardcore" jhana was not at all hardcore from my point of view. Tina and Stephen don't mention their criteria for dwelling in jhana in the interview. In other words, I don't know if they recommend spending four hours in one jhana without allowing any thoughts to arise, etc. But all of the aspects of jhana and vipassana that they mentioned are familiar to me in the way that the major and minor scales are familiar to a musician: just basic stuff. Jhana is part of "consensual reality" for those who have trained themselves to see it. That means that any number of people can access any given jhana, recognize it for what it is and describe it in remarkably similar and consistent ways. So, there is nothing new in the interview. They use traditional language, so a certain translation is required to put it into terms that would be familiar to my students. Same with their understanding of "seeing the kalapas at the atomic level of mind" (paraphrased from memory). That is nothing other than the arising and passing away of phenomena (A&P), which is bread and butter around here. And when they talk about seeing that same phenomenon from the points of view of the four elements, I'm guessing they are talking about Insight Knowledges 5-11, dissolution, fear, misery, disgust, desire for deliverance, reobservation, and equanimity.

(cont)

(cont)

What was absent from the interview was mention of the jhanas above the first eight, the 5 suddhavasa jhanas that are only available to anagamis and arahats. Neither did they mention nirodha samapatti, another high level practice. This is consistent with the fact that toward the end of the interview Stephen seemed to be speculating about stream enterers and once-returners (1st and 2nd Paths) rather than speaking from his own experience. All together, what I heard was a traditional exposition of low-intermediate level samatha/vipassana. This is in no way a criticism of Tina and Stephen, who are doing a beautiful job of popularizing this valuable teaching. But there is nothing particularly "hardcore," or high level about what is presented in that particular interview. I hope to read their book soon and find out more about what they are offering.

Kenneth

"My reaction to the interview? I was surprised to find that what some of our posters had characterized as "hardcore" jhana was not at all hardcore from my point of view. Tina and Stephen don't mention their criteria for dwelling in jhana in the interview. In other words, I don't know if they recommend spending four hours in one jhana without allowing any thoughts to arise, etc. "

I guess I am guilty of coining the "hardcore" moniker a couple of weeks back when that interview went up. It took some digging, but here is where they talk about mastering jhanas (from BG transcript):

Tina: Right, so there's five jhana masteries and one of those, especially with the first jhana, is to be in the full absorption for three hours

Stephen: Uninterrupted for three hours.

Tina: Yeah

I have also seen similar statements on their website and other mp3 talks. And they go on about the different kasinas, body parts, and other objects of meditation, all requiring "mastery". Harder than hardcore, to me.

But I totally agree with your analysis, esp. your "cont" post as they seem to be perfecting stages that most here are zooming past (or striving to).

"I guess I am guilty of coining the "hardcore" moniker a couple of weeks back when that interview went up. It took some digging, but here is where they talk about mastering jhanas (from BG transcript):

Tina: Right, so there's five jhana masteries and one of those, especially with the first jhana, is to be in the full absorption for three hours

Stephen: Uninterrupted for three hours.

Tina: Yeah

I have also seen similar statements on their website and other mp3 talks. And they go on about the different kasinas, body parts, and other objects of meditation, all requiring "mastery". Harder than hardcore, to me.

But I totally agree with your analysis, esp. your "cont" post as they seem to be perfecting stages that most here are zooming past (or striving to)."

Thanks for the clarification, Tomo. Very interesting. I know (and teach) four jhana masteries:

1) Adverting
2)Entering
3)Abiding
4)Exiting

I haven't hear about the "dwelling for three hours" component. I'd like to learn the derivation of that parameter. In any case, I consider it to be a red herring: not relevant to enlightenment. If anything, it's an unwelcome distraction. That time is better spent in dynamic jhana; keep moving.

Lately, I've been thinking about the fact that in order for enlightenment to be meaningful, it has to work in heaven and in hell. So there's no particular value in cultivating one over the other. Just objectify and dis-embed from the entire range of experience. Experience continues to arise, but it's just phenomena, rolling on, referring back to no one. Pleasant, unpleasant, neutral: no problem. Delightful!

Kenneth

"I think I did develop a high degree of concentration when I was younger and doing what Kenneth would probably call "fake it 'till you make it" Third-Gear practices, as well as some Trungpa-style shamatha practice with just 10 or 15 percent of the attention on the breath. It was an organic kind of concentration that arose from paying attention for huge spans of time and relaxing a lot, but it was fairly strong concentration nonetheless. It sounds like this was perfectly adequate for vipassana--I just didn't really know what vipassana was and didn't do it.

Anyway, so what's "hardcore" about this type of practice, if it is not focused on hard jhana states, and how does this differ from, say, typical IMS-style practice? Is it just the lack of any concentration practices at all in most mainstream vipassana settings? I aplogize if this is a frustrating level of ignorance.
"

If you really want to know Daniel's specific views, you should probably ask him directly over at his dharmaoverground site. That said, since I happen to be currently re-reading his book, I'll hazard my own current understanding of his view on concentration.

First off, I think Jackson was spot on in saying that the biggest difference between Daniel's approach and some of the rest of Western Buddhism is in emphasizing both concentration and insight over psychology/content/"stuff".

However, one point I wanted to add is that some teachers distinguish a more "vispassana-ish" type of concentration, often referred to as "momentary concentration". See Daniel's description of concentration in his chapter on The Seven Factors. If a given passage in his book doesn't specifically mention working towards solidifying a jhana state, see if that interpretation fits any better. Also, maybe that's more like the type of concentration you experienced when you were younger?

"First off, I think Jackson was spot on in saying that the biggest difference between Daniel's approach and some of the rest of Western Buddhism... the type of concentration you experienced when you were younger?"

Thanks.
I can't help but think that the absence of rapid-fire noting fits in here as well. In other words, there is an approach to momentary concentration in which the practitioner just kind of pays attention to various phenomena as they arise in a relaxed and open way. Kenneth made an interesting point: Just opening to/being with/noticing sensations isn't quite the same thing as disembedding from them. There's something about rapid-fire noting that allows "the mind that knows" to disembed thoroughly from objects ("If I can stand apart from it, it is not I"). Also, the rapidity crowds out the monkey mind--there is literally no time for the mind to wander, thus concentration develops in an hour as Nikolai has described. Kenneth is now recommending that people sit in pairs and note out loud to each other as a kind of feedback loop that would even further reduce the possibility of the monkey mind getting its foot in the door. It occurred to me that if one wanted to be really geeky, one could get an MP3 recorder or somethng and sit with that as a "partner" and note out loud. The mere knowledge of the recorder's presence would probably act as a little spur to make you less likely to space out.

I'm re-reading MCTB as well and will keep an eye out for more specifics on this subject. Anyway, throw in the taboos on talking about states and stages, and I guess some of these distinctions become clearer.

I'm finding this thread extremely topical. I was so struck by Stephen Snyder and Tina Rasmussen - or at least their presentation of shamata practice - that I've been thinking seriously of going to Burma later this year to spend some time with Pa Auk Sayadaw.

Tina and Stephen briefly discuss the choice between an insight practice and a shamata practice and say go with what you're drawn to. I feel greatly drawn to a shamata practice as they frame it. It seems to accord very much with my own process and progress: Purification as the fundamental process; returning to the object all day, throughout the day; working the balance between receptive and active; and how transgression of sila damages the capacity to attend. All of this I can relate to quite straightforwardly in a way I cannot with a noting practice.

And I was struck, too, by the emphasis on metta as crucial to the path. It's hardly ever mentioned around these parts (correct me if I'm wrong), but, for me, metta is also absolutely key as a means of balance and energy.

All that said, from reading this site and Dharma Overground, I'm very aware that jhanas arise with a noting practice and that Stephen and Tina do come across as lower level practioners in some senses. I felt there was something of a void at the end of the Buddhist Geeks interview where they might have been challenged to integrate their own take on matters with the claims of yogis such as Kenneth and Daniel.

My question is how to get the best of both worlds. This has been answered somewhat upthread but I'll pose the question directly again for emphasis. Any suggestions as to how one might adjust the mix of shamata and insight according to need?

I don't believe there's a magic formula, CkD. Maybe you could try several variations and see what works best for you. And yes, that sounds like a cop out but my experience tells me that we're all unique and what suits yogi A will not necessarily suit yogi B, C or D.

I little more about MCTB: please don't for a second think that what you read there will be exactly what you experience. I have these nightmares that consist of thousands of meditators lost in the woods of MCTB, thinking that what Daniel Ingram describes is EXACTLY what they must achieve. Not! It's a great, great book but please treat it like a reasonable facsimile of what things should be like and not the spittin' image.

"
I little more about MCTB: please don't for a second think that what you read there will be exactly what you experience. I have these nightmares that consist of thousands of meditators lost in the woods of MCTB, thinking that what Daniel Ingram describes is EXACTLY what they must achieve. Not! It's a great, great book but please treat it like a reasonable facsimile of what things should be like and not the spittin' image.

"

It's true what Chris says. It is an awesome book, probably one of the best on buddhist practice. But for example, I didn't get the whole idea of formations according to Daniel's descriptions. I ended up getting very frustrated cos I wasn't experiencing what was described in the book.

Ultimately I realized that maybe because of my meditation technique background, I was experiencing things a little differently, or certain things were more dominant than others and not quite matching Daniel's and other's experience. I was not a Mahasi practicioner but a Goenka one, so certain experiences differed...like my experience of formations. Which for me are just sensations on the body I was equanimous with.

Great advice, Chris!

"
I don't believe there's a magic formula, CkD. Maybe you could try several variations and see what works best for you. And yes, that sounds like a cop out but my experience tells me that we're all unique and what suits yogi A will not necessarily suit yogi B, C or D.

"

Yes, exactly. And, so too, your point about MCTB, which is why I was seeking some suggestions on how one might work shamata and vipassana together according to felt need. I think its a topic that's been covered before. Indeed I got some good hints reading this thread the first time. Maybe a second read through will clarify what I might do.

Here's what I did, CkD, back then: a half hour to an hour of vipassana in the morning. Strict investigative vipassana, watching whatever arose, focusing on just that. Then a half hour to an hour of concentration practice in the evening, no vipassana allowed.

Ah good! Any reason why you did the vipassana in the morning and the concentration in the evening? And why did you include the concentration practice at all? Was it because you thought it was a good idea or because you really felt the need for it?

""Tina and Stephen briefly discuss the choice between an insight practice and a shamata practice and say go with what you're drawn to. I feel greatly drawn to a shamata practice as they frame it....emphasis on metta as crucial to the path.""

The term "hardcore" is a pretty loose one. I think it's fair to say that, in these circles, it wouldn't be associated with an approach that devalued samadhi and emphasized, say, working with your stuff and taking it easy. CkD's comment here gets at what is hardcore about Pa Auk Sayadaw's approach--it requires some very serious concentration and commitment and is not part of the mushroom culture. Tina Rasmussen thinks the inability to attain first jhana among some Pa Auk retreatants has had to do in part with their failure to keep their attention precisely at the anapana spot during walking meditation, going to the bathroom, eating meals, etc., during the retreat. You're supposed to keep your attention on this one spot 100 percent of the time, so there is no indulging in "stuff" ever! Kenneth feels that the purification Pa Auk Sayadaw's students point to is a red herring. However, Tina and Steve are emphatic that this purification is an ongoing experiential process they can feel every day, with effects that linger long after a particular retreat. Ken Wilber based all of his work on the premise that "nobody is ever 100 percent wrong." What makes me uncomfortable about Tina's and Steve's approach is that at times they seem to feel they've got the one true way, passed from the Buddha to us through this lone monk who has somehow preserved this lost samatha-based practice tradition. Likewise, I'm not crazy about characterizing Pa Auk Sayadaw and his students as completely off base, or mocking them. The cartoon could be seen as mocking them. Maybe there are benefits to what they're doing that aren't quite graspable conceptually.

CkD, it would be a lie if I told you there was some kind of intelligence behind what I was doing. I was guessing at what would work best, and I settled on that pattern because it was feelin' good. I was hell bent on getting somewhere. Where, I did not know, and the how was an ongoing experiment.

Let's get real for a minute -- MOST practices will work for you. As I said the other day, just sit down and meditate, adjust to your taste as you go, but stick with one general style if you can so you get better at the process. It WILL work for you. All the time you spend thinking about how to do it is in a way time wasted. Sometimes what I see posted here appears to me to be analysis paralysis. Better to be more like the folks in those Nike ads.

EDIT: content and spelling