A Place to Discuss Dynamic Jhana vs Static Jhana

CkD,

I would sometimes do 10 minutes of anapana then straight into vipassna for another 50 minutes. If my mind was all over the place then I would dedicate more time to anapana.

Then when I came across Kenneth's advice on kasinas, I would use a kasina. Stare at it for 10-15 minutes until I felt a shift in the concentration and then straight into vipassana for the rest of the hour sit.

I noticed that when I did hardcore non stop noting at about 10 notes per second, the mind would get so very concentrated. So sometimes I would skip anapana or kasina and go straight to crazy non stop noting where the mind got no chance to wander. I guess it had the same effect as a mantra. But it was practicing vipassana at the same time.

"@Nikolai: 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.
"

I've been meaning to write a page on 'Formations' but haven't gotten around to it yet. I feel that Daniel's insistence that 'Formations' are some special 3D, luminous manifestations that arise in High Equanimity. This is a rather unfortunate misunderstanding, as it confuses the hell out of just about anyone who reads it.

For anyone who doesn't know, 'Formations' - as in "Equanimity concerning Formations" (the 11th ñana) is the Pali word Sankhāras. Sankhāras are simply "compound phenomena" or "conditioned arisings". Basically, they are anything arising within your experience. It also refers to the sankhāra-khandha, which is the faculty of intentional or volitional 'formations' - those things which arise due to prior intention - which is deeply related to the Buddha's teaching on karma (Pali: kamma).

In a nutshell, "Equanimity concerning Formations" means, "Equanimity concerning Conditioned Arisings." You're not grasping them, not pushing them away, not ignoring them. You're fully engaged with reality as it is in each moment, and you're really OK about it.

So I repeat: 'Formations' are not 3D, luminous, objects and awareness trying to sync up with each other. Looking for this stuff will more likely conjure up too much effort and plunge one back into Re-Observation, rather than an ascent to path and fruition.

Thanks for that Jackson... I have gotten to the point of equanimity concerning conditioned arisings but I was always confused by the idea of some 3D 6 sense doors flux trip... Caused some striving, I would love to read a page you write about formations

With Metta

"Thanks for that Jackson... I have gotten to the point of equanimity concerning conditioned arisings but I was always confused by the idea of some 3D 6 sense doors flux trip... Caused some striving, I would love to read a page you write about formations

With Metta "

Thank you, Clayton

Striving is really both counter-productive and counter-intuitive in the 11th ñana. The danger here is zoning out too much and/or solidifying this equanimous stage into fourth samatha jhana.

I find it helpful to keep about 25% of my attention on the rise and fall of my abdomen, keeping loose track of rising and falling, while allowing the majority of experience to simply do what it within the space of awareness. Too much seeking or striving at this point only solidifies the self-sense you're supposed to be allowing to dissolve. At least that's how it is in my experience.

All the best,
Jackson

JG: So you are saying 'know the terrain of the mountain that you're going up and down, but you do not have to be a biologist and classify every single species.'

KF: Yes. That's right. We can see the parallel in biology where if you really want to be good at reptiles and amphibians you had better specialize there. If you want to be really good you had better forget about reptiles and just do amphibians, and you had better get more specialized. You had better look at a particular species of newt and make that your life study so that you really understand that critter.

Well, it is infinite how many creatures there are and what aspect of it you want to study. The question that I would ask the people who are the proponents of what I think of as extreme jhana is, '˜Are you getting the balance right? Are you getting enlightened? Are your students getting enlightened?' If not, maybe it is time to tweak the balance.

Yes, it is interesting and it is very valuable. But what is the priority? If the priority is awakening, then you might have to spend a little less time in each habitat band and get really good at going up and down the mountain.

JG: With an extreme form of jhana mastery, very few students might be able to do it.

KF: You might not live long enough to awaken if you spend so much time at each level and that is a problem because in my priority system, awakening is much more valuable than being able to spend four hours doing anything.

bit.ly/aRcHyv

Kenneth, in terms of my actual experience I see what you are saying "Dynamic Jhana" vs "Static Jhana" but I have a tendency to get a little bit bogged down with terms. Can you please clearify: is what you are describing as "Dynamic Jhana" related to the state usually referred to as "Momentary Concentration"?

This is not a criticism of the teachings, but I am getting a bit concerned by how much Jhanna teachings are fragmenting from the very simple four simles the Buddha used. As far as I can tell all these terms "access concentration" "momentary concentration" "etc etc" are teachings that never appeared in Buddhism until the 5th century commentaries. Now, in our era we have "Soft Jhana" "Hard Jhana" "Dynamic" "Static" "Jhanic Stratas" entering into the mix too... Thankfully Jhana doesn't change with any term that we use to define it or we'd be in real trouble!

"Kenneth, in terms of my actual experience I see what you are saying "Dynamic Jhana" vs "Static Jhana" but I have a tendency to get a little bit bogged down with terms. Can you please clearify: is what you are describing as "Dynamic Jhana" related to the state usually referred to as "Momentary Concentration"?

This is not a criticism of the teachings, but I am getting a bit concerned by how much Jhanna teachings are fragmenting from the very simple four simles the Buddha used. As far as I can tell all these terms "access concentration" "momentary concentration" "etc etc" are teachings that never appeared in Buddhism until the 5th century commentaries. Now, in our era we have "Soft Jhana" "Hard Jhana" "Dynamic" "Static" "Jhanic Stratas" entering into the mix too... Thankfully Jhana doesn't change with any term that we use to define it or we'd be in real trouble! "

Not to speak for Kenneth, but I think this all has to do with how long the practitioner stays absorbed in a particular jhana. Kenneth wants you to be able to dis-embed from all phenomena, whether gross or subtle. His point is that by staying absorbed in a particular jhana for, say, three hours, you're just embedded in it. Dynamic jhana, by contrast, has to do with adverting to, or dis-embedding from, all the jhanas. See the case study for Monica to get an idea of what he's talking about here. So it's the exact same jhanas--no difference there. It's all a matter of duration and what you're trying to accomplish. Kenneth would say dis-embedding from phenomena is the path to enlightenment, not getting fascinated by or absorbed in phenomena, whether gross or subtle. (I think)

"So I repeat: 'Formations' are not 3D, luminous, objects and awareness trying to sync up with each other. Looking for this stuff will more likely conjure up too much effort and plunge one back into Re-Observation, rather than an ascent to path and fruition.

"


In total agreement with you here! Hope to see you start a thread on formations in the near future, because it is surely needed. Thanks Jackson!