Chapter 7
What Modern Scholars Say
This chapter is part of Vipassanā in Jhāna: A Personal Narrative and Practical Guide, by Gary Buck.
New readers: Go to Overview | Table of Contents | PDF Download
Navigation: Previous Chapter | Next Chapter | Glossary | References
Chapter 7: What Modern Scholars Say
Reading Time: about 15 mins. 2,900 words.
As should be clear by now, the topic of jhāna is controversial, and it is of obvious interest to scholars as well as practitioners. And just as there is disagreement between the historical meditation teachers reviewed above, there is also disagreement between various scholars who address the topic. However, it is not my intention to review the many complex arguments for and against in this debate. Since I am already convinced that vipassanā can be practiced while in jhāna, my aim here is to review those scholars who provide support for my view.
In my mind, I separate these scholars into two groups: firstly, scholar monks, who are not only scholars, but presumably are also active meditators following the Buddha’s path, and hence I assume their motivation for study is to support their practice; secondly, there are the western scholars, historians, philosophers, linguists and the like, who presumably approach this topic from a purely academic perspective. As a result I will review these two groups separately, starting with scholar monks, followed by the academics.
Ajahn Ṭhānissaro (1949-present)
Ajahn Ṭhānissaro is a well-know monk from the Thai tradition. He has written extensively on Buddhism and Buddhist meditation, and has translated many suttas from the Pāli Canon. His position on the issue of jhāna and vipassanā is very clear. He completely rejects the teachings of Buddhaghosa on Buddhist meditation as found in the Visuddhimagga on the grounds that they do not represent the teachings of the Buddha, as found in the Pāli Canon. He is particularly critical of the distinction that Buddhaghosa makes between samatha and vipassanā.
He notes that the suttas rarely make use of the term vipassanā, in sharp contrast to the frequent use of the term jhāna, and that when the suttas depict the Buddha telling his disciples to go meditate, “they never quote him as saying ‘go do vipassanā,’ but always ‘go do jhāna.’” And in the few instances when they do mention vipassanā, “they almost always pair it with samatha—not as two alternative methods, but as two qualities of mind... that should be developed together.” He quotes (AN 10.71) to illustrate that those who assembled the Pāli discourses believed that “samatha, jhāna and vipassanā were all part of a single path.” (Ṭhānissaro, 1997).
Ajahn Ṭhānissaro teaches that both samatha and vipassanā have to be cultivated in a balanced manner, just as though they were yoked side to side. Ṭhānissaro claims that in AN 4.94, the Buddha explains that “if samatha precedes vipassanā—or vipassanā, samatha—ones practice is in a state of imbalance and needs to be rectified.” He further says,
It is obvious that samatha and vipassanā are not separate paths of practice, but instead are complementary ways of relating to the present moment: samatha provides a sense of ease in the present; vipassanā a clear-eyed view of events as they actually occur, in and of themselves. It is also obvious that the two qualities need to function together in mastering jhāna. (Ṭhānissaro, 1997)
Ṭhānissaro then provides a detailed explanation of how these work together, quoting a variety of suttas from the nikāyas. He concludes by claiming that vipassanā is not actually a meditation technique, but rather is “a quality of mind—the ability to see events clearly in the present moment.”
He thus concludes that modern dry-insight (that is, vipassanā-only) approaches to meditation stem from later developments in the commentarial tradition and are not faithful to the earliest Buddhist teachings, insofar as they downplay the importance of concentration.
In summary, he is saying that jhāna is very important and provides a stable platform for the investigation of bodily sensations, thoughts, and mental states, in order to see impermanence (anicca), unsatisfactoriness (dukkha), and non-self (anattā). He says that when the mind is in jhāna, it can observe subtler aspects of experience that are normally drowned out by distraction or agitation. He describes this as using jhāna like a microscope for vipassanā: the steadiness of the mind allows for more precise insight into the changing nature of phenomena.
Ajahn Sujato (1966—present)
Another scholar from the Thai Forest Tradition who has argued this position very effectively—at least for me—is Ajahn Sujato. In his essay A Swift Pair of Messengers (Ajahn Sujato, 2000), he examines the oldest texts in the Pāli Canon, namely the four nikāyas that form the first four collections of the Sutta Piṭaka: the Dīgha Nikāya, the Majjhima Nikāya, the Saṃyutta Nikāya, and the Aṅguttara Nikāya.
In these early nikāyas, he argues, jhāna and vipassanā are not separate or competing paths, but rather complementary aspects of a single unified meditative path. Furthermore, insight arises once the mind is stable and concentrated in jhāna, rather than arising from bare insight alone. Thus, once concentration is established, the mind becomes unified, settled, and stable, providing the foundation for deeper insight.
He also argues that mindfulness of the breath, or mindfulness of the body, as described in the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta (MN 10), is meant to lead toward sammā samādhi, that is jhānas. “One remains focused on the body, feelings, mind, and mental qualities, and develops concentration, which leads to enlightenment.” Thus, he suggests that even in the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta, which is often regarded as the foundational text for vipassanā practice, the Buddha is instructing practitioners to develop jhāna.
Ajahn Sujato (2000) provides extensive textual evidence to support his view. The following examples illustrate his position; the translations are his own.
From the Dhammapada, the following verse suggests that mindfulness and clear comprehension (sati and sampajañña) are not separate from jhāna, but that jhāna arises naturally from mindful, concentrated practice: “Mindful, clearly comprehending, one dwells happily, ardent, fully aware, and concentrated. Such a one enters the first jhāna” (Dhammapada 372).
In the Cattāri Mahābhāgiyā Sutta (AN 4.41), the Buddha states: “Bhikkhus, one should develop the four jhānas; with these as a basis, discernment (paññā) arises, seeing things as they really are.”
In the Cūḷa-saccaka Sutta (MN 117), the Buddha explains that concentration (samatha) and insight (vipassanā) are paired: “With the mind calmed, purified, and bright, one understands the nature of phenomena, leading to liberation.”
Or, as stated in the Māgandiya Sutta (SN 46.51): “Those who dwell in jhāna, fully concentrated, see the arising and passing away of phenomena.”
Sujato also argues that these passages undermine the modern dry-insight teachings. For example, in the Sammādiṭṭhi Sutta (AN 5.28), it is said: “The practitioner penetrates the nature of form, feeling, mind, and phenomena only when the mind is unified.”
He further suggests that the classical idea of “the gradual training” is based on the principle that each part of the path provides a foundation for the next: first developing sīla, which supports concentration, then developing samādhi (namely jhāna), which in turn provides the foundation for developing paññā (wisdom).
For Ajahn Sujato, jhāna and vipassanā are not separate or competing paths, but rather complementary aspects of a single unified meditative path. They work together; therefore, we need both. He concludes by agreeing with Ajahn Ṭhānissaro (1997) that modern dry-insight approaches to meditation stem from later developments in the commentarial tradition and are not faithful to the earliest Buddhist teachings, insofar as they downplay the importance of concentration.
Bhikkhu Anālayo (1962—present)
Bhikkhu Anālayo is the latest in a long series of western scholarly monks who ordained in Sri Lanka, and wrote extensively on Theravāda Buddhism for western audiences: these include Nyanatiloka Thera, Bhikkhu Ñāṇamoli, Nyanaponika Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi. He has written extensively on the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta and the Ānāpānasati Sutta. His work is very scholarly, and often includes references to the ancient Chinese versions of the early suttas.
Bhikkhu Anālayo claims that it is a mistake to make a sharp distinction between the practice of vipassanā, as dry insight, on the one hand, and the practice of jhāna, as an optional extra, on the other. He insists that this does not accord with the early Buddhist texts. He maintains that we need both, that calm and insight, jhāna and vipassanā, are two complementary aspects of mental development, and that jhāna both arises naturally from insight, and then supports insight rather than distracting from it.
Since a concentrated mind supports the development of insight, and the presence of wisdom in turn facilitates the development of deeper levels of concentration, calm (samatha) and insight (vipassanā) are at their best when developed in skillful cooperation. (Anālayo, 2003).
He maintains that practicing satipaṭṭhāna leads naturally to increased concentration and the reduction of the five hindrances (nīvaraṇa), which are the states that prevent the mind from attaining jhāna. These are: sense desire (kāmacchanda), aversion (vyāpāda), sloth-and-torpor (thīna-middha), restlessness-and-worry (uddhacca-kukkucca) and doubt (vicikiccha). Since removing these hindrances allows jhāna to arise, satipaṭṭhāna leads to jhāna. Thus:
The practice of satipaṭṭhāna does not require, but rather results in, overcoming the hindrances. (Anālayo, 2003)
From a practical perspective, this means that although we start vipassanā before we have attained higher levels of concentration, jhāna, we should use our vipassanā to develop concentration which will eventually lead to jhāna. Thus, vipassanā without jhāna is incomplete, just as jhāna without vipassanā is also incomplete. He asserts that without this strong concentration, liberating insight will not arise.
In Anālayo ((2019) he describes the Ānāpānasati Sutta, which he claims shows how vipassanā and jhāna work together. He maintains that modern meditators often forget that ānāpāna is far more than a concentration excercise: just like satipaṭṭhāna, it is the path to liberation. He claims that the sixteen steps described in the sutta, integrate samatha (jhāna) and insight (vipassanā) into one integrated path that leads to liberation. Thus, based on this sutta, he continues to maintain the ideas he developed studying the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta, namely that jhāna and vipassanā are not mutually exclusive but are complementary aspects of the same path.
He also argues that jhāna in early Buddhism is not defined as a strong state of ultra-absorption, as in the later commentaries, but that jhāna allows mindfulness (sati) to be present, along with awareness of bodily experience. And hence insight can develop within jhāna. Thus ānāpāna, mindfulness of breathing, combines satipaṭṭhāna, vipassanā and jhāna into one unified practice. (Anālayo, 2019).
Modern Lay Scholars
Scholars also have something to say on this topic. Below is a description of the work of a number of writers that I have found helpful.
Wynne (2007) offers an interesting history of meditation at the time of the Buddha, and of how early Buddhist meditation practices emerged from pre-Buddhist Indian contemplative traditions.
He argues that the Buddha did not invent meditation, but rather inherited a range of techniques common in pre-Buddhist ascetic communities—especially breath control, jhānas, and formless absorptions (ārūpas). However, these ascetics used such meditative states to attain union with Brahman, or with a metaphysical Self. The Buddha, according to Wynne, repurposed jhāna as a means to develop insight into impermanence, dukkha, and non-self, thus making jhāna a tool for liberating insight. He created a synthesis of samatha-bhāvanā and vipassanā-bhāvanā, bound together into a single practice. According to Wynne, this was new, and was the Buddha’s own innovation.
Thus, Wynne argues, the Buddha repurposed jhāna. He regarded it as an altered psychological state, particularly suited for understanding the nature of the mind–body combination, rather than as an altered metaphysical state suitable for union with Atman or some other metaphysical entity. In a nutshell, the Buddha combined jhāna with mindfulness, and that combination leads to insight meditation, namely vipassanā.
Polak (2011) suggests that in the Theravāda tradition there are “fundamental discrepancies” between what the Sutta Piṭaka says about meditation and what later commentaries say. He argues that jhāna in the sutta tradition is quite different from the deep absorption samādhi of Indian yogic practices. Furthermore, the way jhāna is described in the later commentarial tradition—such as in the Visuddhimagga, that is, as deep absorption samādhi—is not present in the earliest Buddhist texts.
Further evidence for this, he argues, is that some meditation forms and techniques common in later Theravāda commentaries—such as kasina meditation, nimitta attainment, and certain concentration practices—are not found in the early Buddhist suttas. He maintains that there are not two separate paths, samatha-bhāvanā and vipassanā-bhāvanā, as described by Buddhaghosa, but rather that they are the same path and should take place together. In other words, Polak claims that liberating insight is an intrinsic quality of the state of jhāna, and that vipassanā should be practiced while in jhāna.
In Polak (2016), he explains how he believes this takes place. Jhāna quietens the conscious mind, which becomes still. This then enables other mental faculties to come to the fore: unconscious processes that focus on processing and understanding the nature of sensory input and the mind’s reaction to that input. Hence, we come to understand the nature of mind and matter without the conscious mind—the “monkey mind”—getting in the way. He argues that the optimal state of mind for this wisdom to arise is the fourth jhāna.
Polak (2016) describes early Buddhist jhāna as:
a meditative practice endowed with insight, maintaining the sensitivity of the mind and the senses, and yet at the same time leading to altered states of consciousness free from verbal, discursive thought.
According to Polak, this is what the Buddha intended us to practice. But regrettably, he argues:
although the Buddha is revered as an icon and the founder of Buddhism, his teaching is often overshadowed by later charismatic teachers who did not always teach the same as the Buddha.
So, for example, more credit is often given to writers in the commentarial tradition, such as Buddhaghosa, than to the Buddha himself. This is a good point, and we can still see this same dynamic at work in the modern era, where it is common for vipassanā meditators to seek the advice of their modern teachers—Mahasi Sayadaw, U Ba Khin or Goenkaji, for example—rather than going back to the actual teachings of the Buddha.
Polak also provides extensive textual support for his ideas. He gives an instructive example from the Mahātaṇhāsaṅkhaya Sutta (MN 38), A Discourse on the Ending of Craving. This sutta describes the path in great detail, based on the idea of dependent origination. It explains how vipassanā should be practiced while in the fourth jhāna. After attaining the fourth jhāna, he describes how the senses are operating normally, registering their respective objects, mindfulness of the body is present, and whatever feeling arises the mind remains in a state of equanimity and mindfulness, observing the arising and passing away of mind and matter. Thus:
When meditators abandon the five hindrances, they enter and remain in the first jhāna... second jhāna.. third jhāna... fourth jhāna. When they see a sight with their eyes... a sound with their ears... an odor with their nose... a taste with their tongue... a touch with their body, if it’s pleasant they don’t desire it, and if it’s unpleasant they don’t dislike it. They live with mindfulness of the body established.
When they experience any kind of feeling—pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral—they don’t approve, welcome, or cling to it. As a result, relishing of feelings ceases. When their relishing ceases, grasping ceases. When grasping ceases, continued existence ceases. When continued existence ceases, rebirth ceases. When rebirth ceases, old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress cease. That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases.
This is vipassanā leading to englightenment, through the process of dependent origination. And not just vipassana in general—as are most statements about vipassanā made by the Buddha—but enlightenment through observing vedanā (sensation) after first entering jhānas. This is a specific statement about the practice of vedanānupassanā, the particular technique of vipassanā taught by U Ba Khin. The Buddha is explicitly telling us to practice this while in jhāna.
Another scholar, Keren Arbel (2016), has also addressed the issue of vipassanā practiced while in jhāna. This is a very technical, scholarly work, and evaluating her arguments is well beyond my level of education. However, the very title—stating that jhāna is the “actualization of insight”—directly challenges the commentarial tradition.
She also published an article summarizing her book (Arbel 2014), which is less technical. In it, she claims that the suttas contain many passages “in which the Buddha refers to the four jhānas as intrinsic and essential to the development of liberating wisdom and awakening.”
Like many other scholars and practitioners, she also asserts that the distinction between two types of Buddhist meditation—samatha-bhāvanā, working with jhānas, and vipassanā-bhāvanā, working with mindfulness of mental and physical phenomena—which appears in the commentarial tradition, is not found anywhere in the Sutta Piṭaka.
Arbel also points out the obvious fact that the Eightfold Path includes sammā samādhi (commonly understood as the four jhānas) as one of its factors, as well as sammā sati (satipaṭṭhāna practice, or vipassanā). Surely, she argues, the Buddha intended practitioners to develop jhāna if he included it as part of the path, and surely it must be distinct from sammā sati, which is listed as a separate factor.
She then concludes that “the fourth jhāna … is the optimal experiential event for the utter deconditioning of unwholesome tendencies.” In other words, she is saying that according to the Buddha, working in the fourth jhāna is the optimal way to work toward enlightenment and liberation from suffering.
End of Chapter 7
Next chapter:
Chapter 8: A Summary of All the Experts
Previous chapter:
Chapter 6: What Historical Vipassanā Teachers Say
Table of Contents
Thank you for reading Gary Buck’s Substack. Everything here is free. I do not accept donations. You are free to copy or distribute the content, as long as you give credit, and for noncommercial purposes only.
Public comments are turned off. But feel free to message me privately, in confidence, if you wish. And if you find any typos, or mistakes, kindly let me know.
Feel free to share this post with anyone you think might be interested.
If you Follow me, you will be informed of any new posts. If you Subscribe, you will get a complete list of links, to all content, plus any new posts, sent to your email address.