1
The Fourfold JhÄna Model
Buddhist or not?
Prior to his awakening, the unawakened Bodhisatta was an ascetic wanderer (samaį¹a).1 He was one among others in ancient India who decided to leave home for homelessness in search of liberation (mokį¹£a) from dukkha (duįø„kha) and the round of saį¹sÄra. These ascetic wanderers were part of a spiritual milieu that we now define as the āforest traditionsā: spiritual seekers who left society for the life of mendicants, formulating various metaphysical theories and practicing different types of ascetic and contemplative practices.2 The spiritual journey of the young Siddhattha Gotama within this setting appears in various places in the PÄli NikÄyas. According to these texts, he had practiced diverse practices with other samaį¹as and under recognized teachers of his time.3 However, after his awakening, the āawakened oneā (Buddha), formulated a unique path (Dhamma) denouncing various theories,4 perceptions and practices prevalent among other samaį¹as5 and brÄhmaį¹as. 6 The language of the Buddhaās teaching as presented in the NikÄyas was not foreign to his spiritual companions as evidenced by his use of known terms and accepted theoretical framework. However, by virtue of its conceptual content and practical instructions, in many cases innovative, it did herald a different approach to the spiritual quest.
This setting, in which the Buddhaās teaching was formulated and taught, has prompted scholars to try and determine what elements derive from innovations in the Buddhaās teaching and what elements were borrowed from non-Buddhist traditions.7 The interpretation of various concepts and practices in the PÄli NikÄyas was often influenced by these preconceptions about what is āreallyā Buddhist and what is not. This was done especially with reference to Buddhist meditation theory. In particular, the existence of two ostensible types of meditation, namely, samatha (i.e., the jhÄnas, the arÅ«pa samÄpattis and saƱƱÄvedayitanirodha) and vipassanÄ (the practice of satipaį¹į¹hÄna) evoked an apparent difficulty in their interpretation in the Buddhist path of awakening. As a result, in the TheravÄda commentarial tradition,8 in the study of early Buddhism,9 and in modern TheravÄda meditational circles, the supposition that the jhÄnas are a borrowed element from Indian contemplative traditions,10 while vipassanÄ is the only unique liberating technique which is distinctively Buddhist, became a predominant view. In other words, the jhÄnas were perceived as attainments which do not lead to liberation, on the assumption that they are not part of the unique teaching of the Buddha.11
Writing on the subject of the jhÄnas, Walpola RÄhula gives a clear presentation of modern TheravÄda perception on this issue: ā[A]ll these mystic states, according to the Buddha have nothing to do with Reality, Truth, Nirvana.ā RÄhula further proclaimed that samatha meditation existed before the Buddha, and that it should not be considered as a practice leading to liberation.12 Robert Gimello, for example, has also stated in his article āMysticism and Meditationā that āit is especially to be emphasized that samÄdhi and its associated experiences are not themselves revelatory of the truth of things, nor are they sufficient unto liberation from sufferingā.13 As Sarbacker has correctly pointed out in his book SamÄdhi: The Numinous and the Cessative in Indo-Tibetan Yoga, vipassanÄ and samatha have been a subject of considerable controversy in Buddhist studies, āwhere there has been difficulty understanding why such an important part of Buddhist meditation theory (samatha) has become not only a marginal practice but one that might even receive ridicule by some practitionersā.14
This issue has been approached in various ways by different scholars. Paul Griffiths, for example, presented a theory that attempts to resolve the difficulty, in his view, of integrating vipassanÄ and samatha meditation. Griffiths claimed that samatha meditation has a different aim from that of vipassanÄ meditation.15 According to Griffiths, the attempt to reconcile the two methods of meditation and to integrate them into a single process of liberation is particularly difficult.16 La ValleĆ© Poussin has maintained that trance (dhyÄna) in Brahmanism āis the necessary path to the merging of the individual self into the universal selfā,17 and that āBuddhist trances were practiced by non-Buddhists, and scholars agree that Buddhists did actually borrow from the common store of mystical devisesā.18 La ValleĆ© Poussin does distinguish between trance that does not have the right aim and trance that does, and he reminds that āÅÄkyamuni obtained āenlightenmentā by the practice of tranceā.19 However, La ValleĆ© Poussin also states that ātrance, like asceticism, is not an essential part of the Pathā.20
In his book Tranquillity & Insight: An Introduction to the Oldest Form of Buddhist Meditation, Amadeo SolĆ©-Leris presents a common view in modern TheravÄda regarding the role of samatha meditation in the Buddhist path. He states that tranquillity meditation
[I]s not essentially different from the techniques used in other meditative traditionsā¦ These were the techniques (except, of course, for the attainment of cessation) to which Gotama the prince turned after abandoning his royal home. He tried them out and found them incapable of producing the definitive enlightenment he soughtā¦ This is why he left the two Yoga teachers with whom he had been practising and struck out on his own. The result of his endeavours was vipassanÄ, insight meditation, which, as I said before is distinctively Buddhist Meditation.21
The preceding references are only a few examples of the view concerning the secondary and superfluous role of the jhÄnas in the path of liberation. I will not pursue this here since the interpretation of how the jhÄnas can be seen as an integral and intrinsic part of the Buddhist path to awakening will be addressed in subsequent chapters. Rather, I attempt to rethink the premise that the jhÄnas are a borrowed element from non-Buddhist sources. This will be done by searching for the origin of the fourfold jhÄna model in early non-Buddhist texts (i.e., the model of four successive states that are referred to in the PÄli NikÄyas as the first, second, third and fourth jhÄnas).22 I will first show that the jhÄnas ā as a distinct model of four successive states ā cannot be found in any known early non-Buddhist texts. Second, I will trace references of the term jhÄna/dhyÄna in earlier non-Buddhist sources and examine their meaning and use. Third, I will argue that even though the term dhyÄna appears in early Jain texts, it alludes to a different attainment when compared to depictions of the jhÄnas in the PÄli NikÄyas. Finally, I will discuss the occurrences of the term jhÄna in the PÄli NikÄyas in contexts of which non-Buddhist practices are described. This will illustrate that the fourfold jhÄna model is never associated in the NikÄyas with non-Buddhist practices as opposed to many other practices and attainments.
I Searching for the origin of the jhÄnas
It is evident that the search for āoriginā faces serious difficulties. First, we do not have evidence from all the relevant sources from which the Buddha might have borrowed his āspiritual techniquesā. It is reasonable to assume that early Indian contemplative settings were richer and more varied than textual evidence reveals. It is certain that some early Indian oral meditation traditions were lost in the course of time. However, this should not detract from exploring this issue, using the sources available, both within and without the Buddhist tradition. There are quite a few textual sources that record rich contemplative environments. Though not without limitations, I believe this endeavour is important and significant given that it refers to a central and recurrent element in early Buddhist awakening vision. This element has evoked much debate. Moreover, in many ways, it has determined the way TheravÄda Buddhists perceived the practice and goal of the spiritual path.
A second obstacle in the search for the origin of the jhÄnas is the existence of non-Buddhist texts that depict similar states, or better put, describe what looks similar; such examples are found in Jaina materials, the Yoga SÅ«tra of PataƱjali and some later Upaniį¹£ads (e.g., MaitrÄ« Upaniį¹£ad). This poses the question of who borrowed from whom. It is almost certain that bilateral influence was at play in the early Indian contemplative scene. While the exact mode this reciprocal influence operated remains speculative, I hope to show that it is reasonable to argue that the fourfold jhÄna model was originally Buddhist, despite the fact that the term itself was borrowed from earlier traditions. In other words, I wish to make clear that the theory which considers the fourfold jhÄna model to be an adopted element from non-Buddhist ...