How Deep Is Jhana?

There may be nothing quite so controversial in Buddhism as jhana. Dedicated scholars, monastics, and practitioners disagree on many of its fundamentals. What exactly is it? How important is it? And how do we practice it? These are only a few questions that are liable to stir up a hornet’s nest of disagreement. And yet perhaps the most contentious question surrounding the meditative quality regards the effort needed to attain it: How deep does jhana need to be? 

Jhana (Pali; Skt.: dhyana) is a practice of meditation described in the early Buddhist texts, practiced nowadays mainly in the Theravada. The word stems from the root jhā-/dhyā-, which means “to think” or “to meditate.” In the early texts, however, the word often takes on a technical meaning, in which there are four jhanas, traditionally understood to constitute the heart of right concentration, the eighth and final factor of the eightfold path. They produce states of “temporary liberation” since the mind is temporarily free of its unskillful underlying tendencies, such as desire and ill will. As states of liberation, even temporary ones, that stand at the end of the eightfold path, jhana is a big deal in early Buddhist practice.

Jhana is also said to be difficult to attain. But just how difficult? The 5th-century Buddhist scholar Buddhaghosa claims in his compendious Visuddhimagga that only one in a million people can achieve these states. This may seem discouraging. However, recent (apparent) successes in jhana by meditators, along with familiarity with early suttas, have led some to distinguish between “Visuddhimagga-style jhana” and “sutta-style jhana.” This distinction was made famous by lay jhana teacher Leigh Brasington. However, it may stem from comments made by Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu in papers such as his 2014 “Silence Isn’t Mandatory,” where he distinguishes between the approach he saw in the early suttas and that found in Buddhaghosa’s Visuddhimagga.

The point of the distinction is that in the early practice, jhana was understood to be lighter and easier to attain than in later centuries. As the sangha grew and matured and practice became more professionalized, attainments were scrutinized and their achievement made more rigorous. By the time of Buddhaghosa, we end up with the claim that only one in a million could achieve jhana.

It’s controversy all the way down: Bhikkhu Sujato recently posted on his SuttaCentral internet forum that he finds the distinction between Visuddhimagga-style and sutta-style jhanas “baseless and useless” and “best ignored entirely” since, in his estimation, virtually nobody teaches true Visuddhimagga-style jhanas. Sujato argues for a deeper style of jhana practice, which might otherwise be understood to fit into the Visuddhimagga-style category.

So what exactly is the distinction between sutta-style and Visuddhimagga-style jhanas, and what might this mean for practitioners?

A few suttas imply that jhana states are relatively light. We can begin with the Buddha-to-be’s early experience with the first jhana, which occurred when he sat under a tree as a child. The sutta presents us with only a vignette but does not suggest the state was particularly onerous. As the Buddha expounds in the Maha-Saccaka Sutta: “I recall once when my father the Sakyan was working, and I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, then—quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful mental qualities—I entered and remained in the first jhana: rapture and pleasure born from seclusion, accompanied by directed thought and evaluation. Could that be the path to Awakening?”

Later, in the Venagapura Sutta, the Buddha discusses the practice of sleeping in luxurious beds. While the Buddha advised his monastics to avoid such extravagances, the “luxurious beds” he recommends are only metaphors for the four jhanas, which he discusses entering into in sequence. He continues, “When I am in such a state, if I walk back and forth, on that occasion, my walking back and forth is celestial.” In a footnote to the passage, translator Bhikkhu Bodhi notes, “This seems to imply that walking can occur even when the mind is in jhana. This, however, is contradicted by the dominant understanding that jhana is a state of uninterrupted absorption in an object, in which case intentional movements like walking would not be possible.” 

Similarly, in the Anupada Sutta, the Buddha discusses the insight method of Sāriputta, his disciple who was most excellent in wisdom. The Buddha mentions how Sāriputta distinguished his experiences “one by one … as they arose, as they remained, and as they went away.” The presentation in the sutta strongly suggests that these perceptual experiences arose while Sāriputta was in each jhanic state, implying that complex mental operations of recognizing and analyzing can happen within jhana. If so, jhana must be a relatively light state of absorption, consistent with thinking, analyzing, and perhaps even walking.

However, the Anupada Sutta is problematic. It does not exist in other linguistic recensions, implying it may have been a later interpolation into the canon, perhaps made to shore up ideas in the developing Abhidhamma. Further, as Bhikkhu Anālayo notes when discussing the sutta, the states the Buddha says that Sāriputta observed arising and disappearing are inherent to the jhanic states mentioned therein, which can feel a bit counterintuitive when speaking of total absorption: “To cultivate such awareness of these mental qualities arising and disappearing while being in an absorption is impossible, because the very presence of these qualities is required for there to be an absorption in the first place and for it to continue being a state of absorption.” 

The contrary position is that jhana is a deep state of meditative absorption, often understood as “Visuddhimagga-style” jhana. The suttas provide examples of such deep states of absorption that people cannot see or hear. For instance, in the Yasoja Sutta, the Buddha remains seated “in imperturbable meditation” throughout the night, not responding to his attendant Ananda’s entreaties. Similarly, in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, the Buddha discusses how his teacher Āḷāra Kalama and he were able to remain in deep absorption, unable to notice loud sounds around them. Kalama didn’t notice five hundred carts passing, and the Buddha didn’t notice a thunderstorm raging around him, even though a lightning bolt killed two farmers and four oxen.

One concern is that these examples may not discuss jhana but rather “formless attainments,” deeper states of absorptive meditation, which are not jhana. Āḷāra Kālāma, in particular, taught the Buddha-to-be one of these attainments, the “base of nothingness,” so it would make some sense that he might have been in such a state when the carts passed him.

Mental operations may be a thorn yet faintly present in higher jhanas.

Another sutta says sound is a thorn to the first jhana, and certain mental operations (known in Pali as vitakka and vicara) are thorns to higher jhanas. The claim by those who believe jhana is deep, then, is that these mental operations would be necessary for the apparent mental analyses that Sāriputta seems to have done and to be able to walk carefully back and forth. They must, therefore, be abandoned at the very least by the second jhana; hence, claims of light jhana in which such things occur are not credible.

As Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu notes, however, something can be a thorn and still be present. That same sutta also maintains, “Lingering in the neighborhood of females is a thorn to celibacy.” This does not mean that celibacy is impossible in such a situation, only that it becomes more difficult. It may then be that sound is a thorn, and yet “silence isn’t mandatory” in Ṭhānissaro’s words. Similarly, mental operations may be a thorn yet faintly present in higher jhanas.

While the Buddha-to-be seems not to have had much difficulty achieving the first jhana as a boy, the Upakkilesa Sutta describes an older Buddha-to-be as having to persevere tirelessly to overcome various challenges in attaining jhanic states. Several of these difficulties required him to remain in meditation “for a whole night, a whole day, even a whole night and day,” suggesting that rigorous practice was necessary even for Gotama to attain such states as a young adult.

However, the Upakkilesa Sutta is odd in various respects. It discusses a distinct set of hindrances, not the five standardly mentioned, and lists five jhanas rather than four. The latter distinction is more in line with the description of jhana found in the Abhidhamma, which again may suggest that the sutta is a relatively late addition to the canon, even though it exists in other recensions.

Another point Bhikkhu Brahmali makes in a thread on SuttaCentral about maintaining jhana while walking is worth making. He points to the Mahasunnata Sutta, in which the Buddha discusses a practice that begins with jhana and deepens into a meditation on emptiness and the imperturbable. The sutta describes how “while a monastic is practicing such a meditation, if their mind inclines to walking (sitting/lying down/talking/thinking),” they do so appropriately.

It should be apparent even to those who accept a light jhana that talking is impossible while in jhana. Brahmali suggests we take such claims with a grain of salt. In his estimation, claims of walking, talking, and so on “while practicing” are meant in the broader sense of “while one is making a general effort toward jhana,” not literally when one is in the absorptive state itself.

OK, so with the lay of the land surveyed, what should we make of this thicket of views? Adherents to both types of jhana practice claim personal experience is on their side. As Leigh Brasington puts it: “… most teachers of jhana tend to regard all jhana methods with concentration levels weaker than their own as ‘not authentic, not real jhanas,’ and they tend to regard all methods with concentration levels stronger than their own as ‘indulging, not useful.’ ”

Not only do we experience states differently but we also use different methods to evaluate what really counts in our experiences.

Teachers of lighter jhana argue that deeper jhana is possible but unnecessary and not original. Teachers of deeper jhana argue that lighter jhana isn’t true jhana, and, therefore, isn’t original or genuinely transformative.

Meditative experience varies between practitioners and even within the same practitioner over time, which should give pause. Not only do we experience states differently but we also use different methods to evaluate what really counts in our experiences. The early texts discuss jhana extensively, but as we’ve seen, dedicated monastics, scholars, and practitioners disagree on many essential points of what really counts in that discussion. 

A range of at least “jhana-like” states arise in meditation, from light to deep. By all accounts, even the lighter versions tend to require dedication to extended meditation practice. However, which of these states count cannot be answered simply by introspection, and sutta study is far from determinative. Therefore, these “jhana wars” aren’t likely to end soon.

In any event, jhana is not the true aim of practice. Yet we can use these disagreements as tools for insight into our experience, perception, and construction of views and opinions on all things, even the most intimate to the mind.

♦

This piece was adapted from a video which originally appeared on the Doug’s Dharma YouTube page, under the title “How Deep Should Buddhist Meditation Get? The Question of Jhana”.