Jnanas: States and/or Stages?

Based on what I picked up on KFDh, Folk seems to interpret jnanas as states rather than stages. This is counter to what I was originally taught. Specifically, Motoyama's interpretation of jnanas is that they are stages of development. His model for the first four stages (i.e. the world of form) is as follows:

First stage: gross-thinking subtle-thinking joy happiness
Second stage: 0 0 joy happiness
Third stage: 0 0 0 happiness
Fourth stage: 0 0 0 0

Here, "gross-thinking" refers to wandering thoughts that arise out of the shallow layer of the unconscious. These thoughts usually apply to recent memories, concerns, interests, etc. "Subtle-thinking" refers to memory-images that arise out of deeper layers of the unconscious and that are more temporally distant, such as childhood memories. "Joy" refers to an intense blissful state whereas "happiness" refers to a comfortable, serene state. The "0" indicates a "non-occurence". So, if a practitioner reflects
that s/he no longer experiences gross-thinking or subtle-thinking, then
s/he has moved from stage 1 to stage 2. S/he then remains in that stage until the non-occurrence of joy, at which time s/he would have progressed to stage 3. And so on.

Motoyama also gives some interesting explication on the world of no-form, although it's much more subtle and detailed than his description of the world of form. That's one reason why I am not going to attempt it now.

I wonder if anyone here has any thoughts on this.

Jake2

you aren't confusing it with jhana are you? the kfd folks often practice a kind of trance state exercise called jhanas.

Oops!! I meant "jhana." Sorry I am not used to these spellings!

And this makes the question moot, right?

I
don't know if this is what you're looking for, Jake2, but I'll offer it...



Kenneth’s
past use of the terms jhana and ñana are mostly consonant with the view of the
Theravada tradition as practiced in Burma; this is especially so for the
teachings of Mahasi Sayawdaw and U Pandita, which are strongly based on
Buddhaghosa’s seminal text, the Visuddhimagga.



In
this framework, jhanas are considered states because they are not sufficient
for realizing awakening. They are a tool for training the mind for the kind of
sustained, calm, and vivid attention which proves useful (some would say,
necessary) for turning the mind toward the kind of investigation leading to
insight and release. This is inferred from teachings in the Pali canon where
the Buddha or one of his skilled disciples says that accessing and dwelling in
jhana may lead to a pleasant rebirth one of the many planes of existence, but
that alone isn’t a guarantee that one will be released from samsaric existence.
Jhana is achieved through the practice of tranquility meditation (Pali:
samatha, Skt: shamatha).



So,
the Visuddhimagga goes on to describe another set of experiences of
consciousness that arise when investigating experience through clear seeing
meditation (Pali: vipassana, Skt: vipashyna). Because these experiences arise
in sequence, and lead to the fruition of one of four levels of awakening, those
practicing in this tradition often refer to them as stages. The term used in
the Visuddhimagga is ñana, which means knowledge. It’s not regular knowledge,
but special experiential knowledge. A decent parallel term would be gnosis. (As
an aside, one with gnosis cannot be agnostic, because they can no longer claim
to “not know.”)



What
Motoyama seems to be describing are the stages of shamatha meditation leading
to the cultivation of states of jhana. In fact, some people don’t really even
consider a state to be jhana until they’ve reached the fourth one; a bit
extreme, if you ask me. So, sometimes talk of stages with regard to tranquility
meditation is appropriate. However, it can be difficult, and somewhat
irritating, to figure out just what everyone means by these terms, and whether
or not they match up with one another.

@Jackson and Chris: Thanks for the background. I am unfamiliar with Burmese-style Theravadan Buddhism, so this was helpful. After reading Folk's description, I have difficulty aligning Motoyama's and Folk's maps. This is because it seems that to attain the Four Paths you have to cycle through the 16 nanas/jhanas four times. This is not the case in Motoyama's model: it's a one-time deal. This raises questions for me: Once an individual has attained Fourth Path, what types of experiences does s/he have? Is there a sense that there is no longer a body and does a person no longer harbor karma? Have all chakras have become awakened? Have different siddhis emerged? These are experiences that would confirm passage from the world of form to the world of no-form in Motoyama's model and someone attaining Fourth Path should have had these experiences, at least according to Motoyama. However, this is only if the level of attainment at Fourth Path is the same as the level of attainment in the final stage (stage 10) of Motoyama's map. Moreover, Motoyama does not explicitly advocate vipassana practice and this could influence the development of his map and for Folk vice versa.

How does one reconcile these ideas if one is not a part of an eastern tradition and doesn't believe in or perhaps even know about things like karma, chakras or the world of no-form? People in other traditions also awaken. So it seems a bit difficult to say that awakening must include specific experiences that are based on cultural beliefs, rather than describing the changes experientially?

I'm just going to put in a vote here to ban the use of the word attainment. I know it's a common term in some traditions, but it just seems so backward. Attaining implies some kind of certification after completing a course and getting a good grade. Awakening seems to me much more about dropping away, revealing, recognition, opening, and so forth, not about earning or gaining something. Perhaps I'm being stuffy?

I can take it to another thread... or ya'll can ignore me.

What I tend to be intrigued by though, are the questions behind the questions. This question seems to imply "I have a belief system and tradition I am following. I want to be sure that what I have been told awakening is, is the same as what people in other traditions thing, otherwise maybe I'm wasting my time."

Well, and to some extent every moment spent reading a book about the theory of practice could be spent practicing. Not that it's utterly irrelevant, but it can be its own waste of time, too.

That's absolutely true. They are a great encouragement at times, when it seems like otherwise the whole process is awfully mysterious and undefined.

After almost two years of meditating while being obsessed with the vipassna/Mahasi/Folk/Ingram maps, at one point I just sort of let it go.

I was always so impressed by other yogis who seemed to pick right up on the whole thing and could talk about where they were on those maps wiith precision. They knew what vipassana jhana they had acheived and they could sit down, close their eyes, meditate and then recount just what place on the maps they went through with each sit -- start at four (the A and P), move up to equanimity, etc. etc. they really seemed to know. And they moved along with great speed: First path, second path, thrid, fourth and beyond.

For me it never worked that way. I think I remember getting "mind and body" years ago. Maybe, I'm not really sure. And I have a vague sense of equanimity off the cushion and on, but again, I'm not really sure. And, I think that maybe I understand that moment when momentum and continuity of awareness are just right and there is amoment of sort of fullness followed by release. And, I'm semi sure that the right kind of awareness can bring a person to the point where they understand the three characteristics in a way that makes them somehow different from then on. but, again, I'm pretty skeptical.

Pracitioners from all over the yoga/dharma/awakening/non dual, etc world say all kinds of things that sometimes just seem so out there and impossible to verify. And, unless I really get something and discover that it is really true for me -- I'm going to remain skeptical. That seems like a reasonable attitude to me.

What really confuses me about "attainment" is this -- who or what is attaining anything? Does that question make sense?

My experiment right now is to work on getting a feel for approaching each moment as brand new as possible while dropping all concepts and conclusions as soon as they appear. For right now at least that feels very right and very simple.

t

Oh another point I wanted to make.

I imagine that if I'd taken the leap and really gotten serious about working intennsively with a teacher who had some kind of map belief then maybe I would have gotten more adept with maps and stages and stuff. Maybe. I think that is how a lot of the people I described above seemed to get so good at mapping. However, I think if your teacher/spiriutal authrority is telling you about a map, then as I think Chris already point out -- one is more likely to see themselves as soemhow ON the map somewhere.

And, most importantly, it became prettty obvious that I just wasn't going to be able to fit into some kind of formal student-teacher relationship and I'm beginnng to think I may never be able buy into any existing dogmatic/conceptual framework either. So maps and attainments don't have a lot of appeal any longer.

but, the whole thing is still fascinating and I certainly understand why it all appeals to so many

I find that what you practice and what you expect as a result has a pretty big effect on that you get as a result of the practice(s) you adopt.

-cmarti

@cmarti: Do you have personal experience in this regard? I'd be very interested to hear.

@ona: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to come across as culturally monolithic. I guess I feel that these experiences transcend eastern religions and are universal. So even if one doesn't know about karma, s/he will bump up against it if s/he practices. The same with chakras and the formless realms. There may be elements that are culturally specific, but I feel the overall trajectory is similar across cultures. Could be very wrong, which is why I am interested in what Chris has to say in response to the question above.

No need to apologize. I do think the overall trajectory seems to be somewhat consistent across cultures, but not so specifically that certain culturally-specific "goalposts" are going to apply. For example, karma just isn't a factor for a Sufi, any more than an intimate relationship with God or Jesus is a factor for a Buddhist.

I think you can more successfully compare experiences if you avoid concepts and focus on experiences. Most people have patterns of fear and ecstasy during their journey. Most have specific moments, perhaps every few months or years, where they feel like a ton of stuff drops away and they are connected to everything. Most people's final realization seems to happen when they are doing something banal, like washing clothes or sitting on a plane. There is a sense after awakening that you just were blindly floundering around not even noticing the Truth that was there the whole time.

That sort of thing.

There is a site called batgap.org that has dozens of interviews with awakened people talking about their practices and so on. You might find it interesting.

@ona: I tend to lean towards the idea of an inclusive spirituality that includes the concepts from various religions that seem to hold water in experience. Motoyama wrote a book proposing this as well called Religion and Humanity for a Global Society. For me, I feel as though there is good evidence that karma and reincarnation are working principles. I reference the work of Motoyama,Ian Stevenson, Robert Monroe, and Michael Newton. I don't know so much about a God. Motoyama believes in a Creator God that is Absolutely Nothing as its basis (Thus, tying together theistic religions and Buddhism.). This is to explain creation itself. I haven't come to my own conclusion yet though.