Talk:Dhyana in Buddhism/Archive 1

Cleanup
This is more than a bit messy. I'm going to come back and clean up the English on this page later. Shinydan (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Preliminary Stage
AFAIK, only theravadins hold the idea that there is a preliminary stage. Who and where is the citation of this "preliminary stage"? Does the phrase "upacara-samādhi" appears anywhere in the Pali Tipitaka? The section of "Preliminary Stage" has exactly cero citations or references--Esteban Barahona (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's certainly standard in Theravada discussion of the jhanas. You can find many citations from the commentaries at this page for example. Mitsube (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It was in the article I've been reading about consciousness mysticism, by fortunate coincidence. Mitsube (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The "indifference to" whatever should be changed simply to "equanimity." Can you explain why you removed "the ability to form wholesome intentions" and changed "mental movement" to what you changed it to? Where are you getting this information? The way it was is more in line with the information I have read about this. Mitsube (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm basing the changes on the understanding of this text and my own experiences with jhāna. Some translations are unclear about what is actually jhāna. What is "mental movement"? That isn't clear at all. Jhāna itself is a process, meaning it happens over time. It can be argued that all jhānas are "mental movement". Better treat it as the opposite of equanimity. I'm starting to learn Sanskrit and Pāli, there's too much bias on translations and some are unclear... specially the "explanations". In second jhāna:

"The ability to form wholesome intentions ceases as well"
 * are you sure about that? That will mean that practicing jhāna leads to a decreased ability to form wholesome intentions?!
 * and "access concentration" "appears" on the Pali Tipitaka but is not mentioned by name?! Talk about bias and lack of understanding! Sure, one has to "prepare for jhāna", but that is not a "stage of jhāna"... it's anapanasati (jhānas occur naturally after practicing anapanasati correctly). Sutric reference, in the original language (basically Pali or Sanskrit), then we can search for common translations and eliminate centuries of bias. Everything else is thervadins' (or mahayana's... like devotional Buddhism... lol) imagination of what Buddha Gautama actually taught.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Jhāna itself is a process." It is a state that is entered into through concentration.
 * "are you sure about that? That will mean that practicing jhāna leads to a decreased ability to form wholesome intentions?!" Yes. The strength of the intention must be made before entry into ekaggata, one-pointedness. While in one-pointed concentration such thought does not occur. See for example Leigh Brasington's site. Also Pa Auk Sayadaw, the world's expert on this, has a massive book online called "Knowing and Seeing" which you can download in pdf form and read. I have read much of this and other articles and books on the subject. For a short intro read Ajahn Brahmavamso's "The Jhanas" which can also be downloaded as a pdf.
 * Access concentration occurs in the canon. I will put in the full quote in the footnote. Mitsube (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Do you have the links to those websites? hmmm... reading is important, but meditating even more. Have you entered jhāna?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 05:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, but I am working on it! I've had some intense moments but nothing sustained for long. I guess maybe I've had some "momentary concentration." I did a lot of research on this trying to see if there was something like jhana in Zen. I came to the conclusion that Zen meditation is different. Meditating is definitely more important. I don't know the links. Here is Leigh Brasington's one; . If you want to get into the "controversy" about the jhanas then go to . The long and short of it is that the commentaries got it wrong and jhana is what the Buddha said it was, and it should be cultivated. Mitsube (talk) 06:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the links, I bookmarked them for later reading. When you talk about "commentaries" are you refering to the Abhidhamma Pitaka or much later commentaries? I've experience with jhānas (up to the 4th, the arupa jhānas get foggy because I've entered or not the first 2 depending on definition and interpretation) and the explanation in this article is unclear. For example: "mental movement" is so vague that it can be interpreted in so many different ways. It is so vague, that it can be argued that it happens much later, in the "emptyness/nothingness" jhāna. Also, this article can grow to Jhāna in Buddhism... or at the very least, have a "criticisms" section.


 * In each translation of the Pali Tipitaka, the meaning have become less clear. That's why I will go to the source (Pali Tipitaka) and translate diretly to Spanish and English... but that will take some time (and I will have to upload it on a different website, either my own, wikibooks or other... probably also in a book. AFAIK, there's almost cero Spanish translations of the Pali Tipitaka).--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It may be in the Theravada Abhidhamma as well. I'm not sure. This article is fairly faithful to the Theravada discussions of the jhanas. Regarding criticism, I can tell you for certain that you will not be able to find reliably sourced criticisms. Something about the necessity for entering jhana would be something else. Even the "vipassana only" people say you need to have some level of concentration, though not at the jhana level. Regarding your own attainment, have you talked to an accomplished meditation master about it? That is probably a good idea. Mitsube (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * about the Theravadins interpretation of jhana: fair enough, you have read more than I about it. About my own attainments: I'm focusing on learning languages (Sanskrit, Pali and after that Japanese and Chinese) to learn the various definitions of samadhi and jhana in Buddhism. Besides one friend of the same age as mine that also meditates I know no other meditators (with discipline) on "real life". AFAIK, there are exactly 2 sanghas in my country... but Buddhism isn't studied much. How to find an accomplished meditation master? It has being difficult... although it's on my "to do list".--Esteban Barahona (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Move
The article discusses the meditative states known as jhanas. So the material in this article should be in an article called "Jhāna." There should however be a wider article called "Theravada Meditation" which discusses all the meditative techniques in Theravada, jhana and otherwise. Any ideas? Mitsube (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you know there is already an article called Jhana (Pali), which is then redirect to Dhyana (Sanskrit)? Jhana in Theravada is an article to specifically discuss the Jhana state as per Theravada Tradition. You should further improve the already existing Jhana/Dhyana article and then create the "Theravada Meditation" and let see how it goes from there. Sawadeekrap (talk) 06:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Nirodha Samapatti
Some scriptures mention Nirodha Samapatti following the 8th jhana as a possible attainment for Anagamis (3rd stage enlightened beings) and Arhats. Any objections against adding it? By the way, this is even mentionend in the Visuddhi Magga XXIII. 193.134.202.252 (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC) e_l_


 * In Mahayana Buddhism, the sutras may also mention nine stages of samadhi, depending on whether they include this as well. 1-4 are usually termed stages of dhyana, whereas 5-8 are the formless samadhis. This probably reflects the particular classifications used by various Indian Buddhist traditions. Tengu800 (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Name
The name of this article should simply be "jhana." "Jhana" is an exclusively Theravada concept so the "in Theravada" is unnecessary. 67.164.119.159 (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Chinese version of the Sanskrit "dhyana" occurs in the agamas in just the same places as "jhana" does in the nikayas. So it is not true that it is an exclusively Theravada concept. However if we were to separate the description of the jhanas from the suttas from the part in the Theravada Abhidhamma and commentaries we could do something like that. Mitsube (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree with User 67.164.119.159. Theraveda doesn't use the Sanskrit term Dhyana. Even if the page Dhyana was completely filled with Mahayana techniques, it is perfectly fine. Theravedans usually know the pali term jhana when looking up meditation. I don't think Mahayana will care if the Jhana page was filled with Theraveda technique, they hardly look up that pali term or use it. But if necessary, might as well change it to Jhana ( Theraveda), Dhyana ( Mahayana? ). --Simpliciti (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The article needs further refinement. But the point that Mitsube is making is that it makes no sense to have two articles because it is two variations of the same word which mean the same thing. You are correct that dhyāna is a Sanskrit word and jhāna is the Pali variant, but it is the same word. And it is not as simple a matter as saying there are two approaches, Theravada and Mahayana, and the two variants line up neatly with the two approaches. The understanding of dhyāna/jhāna that is found in earlier Buddhism is common to all Buddhism. All of the śrāvaka schools have teachings on dhyāna that more or less match those found in the Theravada system, and many of the śrāvaka schools were Sanskritic, ie they used Sanskrit as their canonical language, so they used the variant dhyāna rather than jhāna. All of Tibetan Buddhism inherited these teachings through the works of Vasubhandu and they very much still study them. It makes no sense to have a duplicate article for dhyāna that is 75% the same material as the article under jhāna. It will take a little bit more refinement to keep everything clear, but it makes sense to consolidate the material in one place with appropriate sections.Sylvain1972 (talk) 03:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there really aren't any significant differences between the conception of the stages of dhyana between the major traditions. In Chinese Buddhism as well, works like the Abhidharmakosa by Vasubandhu are used for reference, along with others from the Sarvastivadins and Yogacarins, and these help to form a basic theoretical foundation for Buddhism.

Merger proposal
Really, this article needs to be merged with Dhyana, or at least to have a fair balance of Theravada with the other traditions. The way it is now, many articles on Buddhism are linked to this page, but few are linked to the Dhyana page. They only see the Theravada side, along with some sketchy sources that are unfamiliar with the actual understanding of Buddhism in Tibet and the Far East. They make narrow studies and draw broad and nonsensical conclusions. This information does not stand up at all to the basic teachings of the major exponents of Mahayana Buddhism, either past or present. A perusal of books by Chinese Buddhist masters brings up clear descriptions of the states of dhyana and samadhi, and statements that traditions such as Chan employ these. This is basic to Buddhism, and it is only some naive western scholars who have never actually read the Mahayana sutras or studied the traditions themselves, who claim otherwise. I also noticed that some of the sources for the Mahayana section come from Theravada teachers, and Theravadins have seldom, past or present, made any true endeavor to study or understand Mahayana Buddhism. However, there is an exception to this with Walpola Rahula, who found great similarities in doctrine, and concluded that the Yogacara Abhidharmasamuccaya was doctrinally closer to the early texts of the Sutra Pitaka than was the abhidharma of the Theravada school.

In fact, all the major works of abhidharma in the Chinese Buddhist canon delineate the dhyanas and samadhis, including the Yogacara texts, which formed a formal theoretical basis for Zen and Tibetan Buddhism. Examining the works of Xuanzang as well, he was clearly familiar with the four dhyanas as well as the formless samadhis and various other states of meditative concentration. From the biographies of great monks in China as well, they all relate experiences of various states of samadhi, and knowledge of the various stages and realms to which they belong. See for example, the biographies of Hanshan Deqing from the Ming Dynasty, or Hsu Yun from the modern era. Even the silent hermit who lived in a straw hut was able to point out the errors of Hanshan in terms of his stage of samadhi, and broke his usual silence in order to do so. Even a Daoist hermit living in a mountain in Japan was able to quote the agamas about meditation to the Zen master Hakuin. To claim that these schools are all separate and to characterize the traditions of Mahayana Buddhism as ignorant of the basic stages of dhyana and samadhi is totally wrong. Tengu800 (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The consensus is for a merge. Clearly that should happen. I'll try to get to it.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I got all the material in one place at least. I did not make any substantive changes, so it still needs more material on non-Theravada traditions.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, great. Thank you for doing the groundwork on this. Revision as of 03:05, 30 October 2010 Tengu800

Dhyana in the Mahayana schools
Well, you may have original research contradicting the reliable source regarding Chinese Buddhists specifically, but regarding Zen and Tibetan Buddhism the statements are definitely true. And the statements from Master Hua do not coincide with the descriptions of the jhanas in the agamas, and come across as more mythological in nature than as the reporting of actual attainments of modern Chinese masters. I do know of such people but there don't seem to be systematic teaching of samadhi in Chinese Buddhism either and that is the point. Mitsube (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your assessment of the phenomena as mythological is just your point of view, and it has no bearing whatsoever on the Chinese Buddhist tradition. Physical indicators such as the matter of the breath and pulse coming to a rest, are widely known to Chinese meditators. It is also held that great meditators can go into samadhi for not only hours, but weeks, months, or even years. Some of these views are also held in modern India among those who practice some forms of yoga. Your personal dismissal of these beliefs or anecdotes is your own business, and I have never presented them as anything other than tradition on this page. Nan Huaijin also lists the various phenomena for the four dhyana, but explains them in a slightly different manner with a bit less detail. He does note that when the heart comes to a rest, it is not exactly in a state of complete stillness, but actually has a slight pulsation every one or two hours. There are many other physical factors as well that are discussed, as well as the stages leading up to samadhi. You can research them yourself if you are actually interested. As for methods to systematically enter samadhi, there are many methods taught in sutras and tantras. There is no single systematic method in Chinese Buddhism, because Chinese Buddhism itself consists of many traditions, paths of practice, teaching methods, and meditation practices. Instead, it is commonly stated that there are 84,000 Dharma gates, and innumerable methods for entering samadhi. The Shurangama Sutra alone teaches more than 25 methods for entering samadhi, and I have heard that Theravada Buddhism also includes dozens as well. Tengu800 (talk) 03:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Tengu800, it would be good if you could clarify why you tagged the section. I'm not clear on what you find objectionable.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The most distinctive feature of modern Ch'an and Zen meditative techniques is the emphatic rejection of the meditative absorption states of early Buddhism, in favor of total mindfulness of one's surroundings. -- To begin with, speaking of "modern Chan" or "modern Zen" is silly since practices in China and Japan basically follow tradition. But in any case, their "emphatic rejection" of states of dhyana is contradicted by some of the most influential exponents of Chan in modern times, such as Sheng Yen, Hsuan Hua, and Nan Huaijin, who all state quite clearly in their publications and lectures that Chan includes cultivating the various levels of dhyana. Furthermore, the idea that the "Chan method" is "total mindfulness of one's surroundings" is not any classical instruction for Chan, and appears nonsensical at the outset, being based on a duality of one's self and surroundings.
 * Hui Neng says in his Platform Sutra: "To concentrate the mind and to contemplate it until it is still is a disease and not Zen." He goes on to say that the meditator who enters a state in which thoughts are suppressed must allow them to arise naturally once again. -- This is original research, and making judgments of doctrine on the statements of ancient Chan masters leads to absurdity unless it is done by a qualified exponent from the tradition. This should not be done on Wikipedia, in some naive attempt to contrast Chan with "pure" early Buddhism.
 * This is not original research--it is a statement that accurately reflects the information in the secondary source it cites, a secondary source which is a reliable source - a highly credentialed academic in a survey published by a university.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Early Chinese Buddhism did recognize the importance of shamatha. According to scholar Alan Wallace, "modern Zen does not teach methods specifically designed to develop attentional balance in a sustained, rigorous way, distinct from its other practices." -- This is flatly contradicted by the many methods taught in Chan, including the well-known gong'an (koan) method, which is based entirely on focusing the mind. This is not to mention methods from the Shurangama Sutra, which are practiced in the Chan school, especially Avalokitesvara's method of contemplating sound. This is all not even mentioning methods utilizing mantras and visualizations, which are common to all forms of Buddhism in the Sinosphere.
 * The best thing in this case is to simply add something like "Wallace's assertion is contradicted by (such and such a reliable source), with a citation.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Tibetan Buddhism also lacks emphasis on achieving levels of concentration higher than access concentration. -- This is not upheld by Tibetan Buddhists themselves at all, and there are thousands of methods of meditation for developing samadhi in Tibetan Buddhism. To say that an entire tradition of Buddhism lacks methods for developing samadhi or deep concentration is ridiculous and essentially impossible to prove.
 * According to Alan Wallace, one possible explanation for this situation is that virtually all Tibetan Buddhist meditators seek to become enlightened through the use of tantric practices. These require the presence of sense desire and passion in one's consciousness, but jhāna effectively inhibits these phenomena. -- First, tantra does not essentially involve sexual cultivation methods at all. Tantra essentially does not involve these things, and they were introduced at a later time. The original tantric Buddhism in India did not include any sexual cultivation. However, even the real sexual cultivation methods are undertaken in order to transform sexual energy and transform desires so as to be rid of them. They are never meant to be a method to follow one's own desires. To portray these practices as lusty and perverted methods contradicts the basic Tibetan understanding of such practices. In the past, monks were not allowed to engage in such practices unless they were advanced in meditation and already had great self-discipline. If people actually read the records of cultivators in Tibet, they would realize that these methods were meant to take advantage of certain moments to realize emptiness and transform the body quickly. They were merely means to an end, and sexual practices were actually never the norm amongst monks or laity. In fact, the most common methods in Tibetan Buddhism are mantra and visualization methods which are often associated with dhyana and samadhi, and the development of siddhis. People who don't actually take the time to understand the principles of other methods of meditation, and simply play the role of academics blindly throwing around terms, are not qualified to make such judgments. Meditation is a matter of tradition essentially, and unlike cultural or historical factors in Buddhism, it cannot be analyzed reliably in any way by scholars. Therefore, reliable information about meditation in Buddhist traditions is essentially found in the writings of members of those traditions, especially the monastics and recognized meditation masters.
 * Wallace does not talk about "sexual cultivation," he talks about "sense desire and passion." They are not the same thing. No one is portraying these as "lusty and perverted." Wallace is a longtime Vajrayana practitioner himself, as I myself happen to be. It is a plain fact that the kind of absorption states associated with the form and formless dhyanas are explicitly not emphasised in the Tibetan tradition. This goes back at least to Kamalasila.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The use of these quotes as well to discredit other traditions in favor of a supposed "pure" early Buddhism is also very clear from the overall theme, which is the polemical view that other traditions lack any knowledge or methods pertaining to the dhyanas of "pure", "early" Buddhism, which is then implicitly associated with the Theravada school. This bigoted attitude of elitism is very common in Wikipedia Buddhism articles now, in which people ill-informed about other traditions will edit Mahayana content in order to make it appear ridiculous and to discredit it. They will then post a snippet from a naive author who is unfamiliar with other traditions, and then certain users will blindly defend these erroneous statements that are flatly rejected by the major teachers from the actual traditions. Tengu800 (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is some of that, yes, but not as much as there used to be, as everyone gets more knowledgeable and sophisticated. I don't see any effort to make Mahayana/Vajrayana look bad in this article, and I say that as a Mahayana/Vajrayana practitioner myself. Mahayana at least from the period of middle Indian Buddhism onwards makes an effort to cultivate a different sense of samadhi which does not emphasize the form & formless dhyanas, although they certainly continued to have knowledge of them. It is just a different approach, no one is saying it is better or worse.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Tengu seems to think so! And he is the person who removed all sorts of information about the formation of Mahayana from the Mahayana article, which was too bad. Some editors seem to remove all content which presents Mahayana Buddhism in a historical-critical way, which is actually what scholarship is about. If that content says "Mahayana came later" or "Mahayana is different from early Buddhism" then some editors have overt emotional reactions to this. Mitsube (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There are some good points, Sylvain1972. In addition, there was some material that I now see is included in one of the citations, that I assumed was part of a separate point. As for Vajrayana, for now I will let you and others deal with that matter unless I come across more information. However, for the article to simply dismiss it as not really involving the dhyanas, and then leave it at that does not quite do justice to an entire branch of Buddhism which is really quite big these days. For example, if someone asked a lama if Tibetan Buddhist meditation involves the dhyanas, would he actually say no? If not, then what would he say? Even if we accept the notion that the dhyanas are totally ignored by modern Tibetan Buddhism, it would be good to give an explanation of exactly what is viewed as the replacement for them, or why they are ignored. As I understand it, Yogacara theory has always provided a theoretical backbone for matters of abhidharma in Tibetan Buddhism, and Yogacara texts such as the Yogacarabhumi Sastra definitely include the dhyanas.


 * Mitsube, if you were paying attention to the changes that were made to the Mahayana article, you would realize that the information was largely kept in abbreviated form, along with the references. For example, the old theory that Mahayana started with stupa veneration or was a lay movement akin to the Protestant Reformation is not held by any major scholars these days. However, these historical views were still kept in summary. The additions I made also present important recent material from Mahayana scholars such as Paul Williams and Jan Nattier, who are exactly the sort of people whose views are good to include on pages like that.


 * By the way, Mitsube, if you want to say "Mahayana is different from early Buddhism", then exactly what is "Mahayana" and what is "early Buddhism"? Many Indian nikayas included practitioners of all three vehicles, and it is now becoming apparent that a number of them also kept collections of the Mahayana sutras. According to A.K. Warder, Mahayana sutras definitely first came from the Mahasamghika schools, and it is well known that Mahasamghikas held that arhats were fallible, and emphasized buddhahood and bodhisattvas instead. Tengu800 (talk) 02:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on this discussion I was curious enough about the Wallace book that I bought it. It's very interesting. Wallace was a monk, has been a practitioner for 40 years, and has done two six-month retreats and one year-long retreat just devoted to shamatha. Based on the book and my own previous reading an experience, I think if you asked a lama Tibetan Buddhist meditation involved "dhyana" (in the sense of a more general term for meditation he would say of course, but he would probably concede that it doesn't really involve the form & formless dhyanas in contemporary practice.


 * Wallace actually does ask a number of people, including the Dalai Lama - he writes: "During numerous conversations with seasoned recluses and with His Holiness the Dalai Lama, I have tried to discover whether this statement holds true nowadays. The consensus is that the actual achievement of shamatha today among Tibetan Buddhist contemplatives, both in Tibet and living in exile, is not unknown, but it is exceptionally rare." By "achievement of shamatha" he means access concentration, so if that is "exceptionally rare" then practicing the dhyanas would naturally be even more so. He writes "Given the widespread consensus concerning the vital role of shamatha in Buddhist contemplative practice, one might expect that it would be widely practiced and that many people would accomplish it. Oddly enough, there has long been a strong tendency among Tibetan Buddhist contemplatives to marginalize shamatha in favor of more advanced practices." So what I think it boils down to is that for Tibetans vajrayana practices are believed to be possible with less stability than even access concentration, and that is what people generally do.


 * I don't know as much about East Asian Buddhism, but it seems to me that what DT Suzuki writes is not that unusual - "the idea of dhyana as explained in the Lankavatara sutra, however, is different from what we generally know in Hinayana literature pg 94.". Or look at this, from Master Sheng-yen - where he says that "Mahayana samadhi" is different than "Hinayana samadhi." Or see this - where it talks about Chan masters asserting "the various Hīnayāna dhyānas and the various samādhi gates are not the tenets of the school of the Patriarchal Master [Bodhi]dharma." It's pretty clear that for many Chan practitioners the early sense of dhyana is not looked favorably upon.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It sounds as though Wallace is using a particular definition of samatha that is not quite equivalent to what is typically used in the Mahayana sutras and in the Tiantai school, from what I have seen. Tiantai and the Mahayana sutras always see samatha and vipasyana not as meditation methods in themselves, but as principles of meditation. Essentially, samatha as the principle of cutting off false thought, and vipasyana as the principle of knowing and awareness. The Samdhinirmocana Sutra, Maitreya Bodhisattva asks the Buddha a series of questions about meditation for Mahayana bodhisattvas. The Buddha describes samatha alone as having no image reflected in the mind -- the lack of any reflection on mental phenomena, while vipasyana is taken to be pure reflection on mental phenomena. These are rough definitions, but they should suffice for our purposes. Essentially, the two are taken to be principles of practice.


 * Sheng Yen is saying that Mahayana Buddhism also contains other samadhis, including supramundane samadhis, and these are what are referred to as samadhis specific to Mahayana. According to him, the Hinayana samadhis are the mundane samadhis, which are not really specific to any Buddhist school or even to Buddhism in general. To get into the matter of samadhi in Mahayana is a bit involved; however, it may be easier to think of the subject as represented on a two-dimensional graph, with samadhi on one axis, and prajna on another.


 * The remark about Hinayana samadhi and dhyana not being essential to the Chan school is correct in the absolute sense. Chan always focuses on the absolute, highest truth, and buddhahood rather than stages of bodhisattva development (similar to Dzogchen). This is just how Prajnaparamita is viewed as the central paramita of the six paramitas, while the others are skillful means. Prajnaparamita will develop all the others, but the gradual attainment of the others may act as skillful means. In the Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita Sutra's chapter on dhyana-paramita, for example, it says that bodhisattvas should develop the eight dhyanas, but not dwell in them and take them up as a resting place, and should instead continue to seek enlightenment with Prajnaparamita. The remark about Hinayana samadhis is the same principle -- to keep people from seeking truth in samatha or dwelling in the various states of dhyana. In this sense, the they really are not the main matter of the Chan school, but they serve as skillful means, and have always been present. Tengu800 (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wallace is following the system of Kamalashila, which is one of the normative systems in Tibetan Buddhism, in which the word "shamatha" is not used to mean all calm abiding but refers specifically to the attainment of what in the Theravada system is called "access concentration"--basically, just one step shy of the first rupa-dhyana.


 * In any case, I think the important thing is for the article to note that some Chinese traditions 1) dhyana is defined differently (but is considered important) and 2) the older system of attainment of four rupa-dhyanas and four arupa-dhyanas is not emphasized.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Alternative Page Organization
Here is another way of organizing the page that may be easier for newcomers to the Jhanas to understand as well as being fair to all schools: General Description of Jhanas including their purpose Jhana in the Theravadan Tradition In the Pali Cannon In the Abhidhamma In the Vishuddhimagga

Jhana in the Mahayana Schools Experts in Mahayana go at it.

Controversies How Deep Getting Lost in the Jhanas etc.

Technical discussion: Here we can go into great detail about the various factors, access concentration, etc. after the basic concept and use of the Jhanas as been explained earlier.Lownslowav8r (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments on the section: The Rupa Jhanas
The first Jhana: I haven't had a great deal of time to dig through the various schools and their different factors, but the description, starting with "directed thought" I found misleading. My experience is that rapture is the predominate experience of this Jhana. So much so that I find the rapture painful. The other factors are very much secondary. Note the primacy of "rapture and pleasure" in Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translation of the Anupada Sutta (reference #11). the Buddha states: "There was the case where Sariputta — quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities — entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation." Lownslowav8r (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

General Comments
Hello, I'm new to editing Wikipedia so I hope that I am doing this is the standard and respectful manner. Unfortunately, even as a jhana practitioner with practical experience in the rupa and arupa jhanas, I found this article very confusing. Perhaps because (it seems) this page is the result a tug a war between practitioners from the different branches of Buddhism. To address the concerns expressed in the first paragraph of the "Other schools" section, (and I'm speaking as a practitioner from the Theravada tradition), yes, I personally don't know as much as I would like about the Mahayana tradition. But this is not a matter of hostility toward the Mahayana tradition but the result of trying to find at least two hours a day to meditate plus work a full-time job. This leaves me with only a sliver of time to study the texts and I have chosen to make it a priority to study the Pali Cannon. I'm sure this concentration on their particular tradition is probably true of most practitioners in all schools and is very understandable. So, this is one case where ignorance is lot more likely to be the culprit rather than hostility.

Another overall issue is that there are many different definitions of jhana. Not just between schools, but within the same school. For example, i.n my readings I have found significant differences between the Suttas, the Abhidhamma, and the Visuddhimagga about the definition of a jhana (what factors) and the intensity of the absorption required for the state to be recognized as jhana. And all these differences are within the Theravada school! Lownslowav8r (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of the points. I am not sure how much of the page actually reflects "Mahayana", but I think it is essentially the Mahayana section itself. Along with that, Mahayana also accepts the traditional rupa and arupa dhyanas. But I think the vast majority of the page reflects Theravadin understandings of the dhyanas.


 * With that in mind, I have noticed that there are significant differences between understandings of the dhyanas between different Theravada traditions. For example, in the scientific research cited on this page, a monk from Sri Lanka was supposedly going through the 8 dhyanas while moving a computer mouse and clicking to indicate the intensity/depth of the state. However, in the Thai Forest tradition, even the first dhyana is deep &mdash; deep enough that the person wouldn't be clicking mouse buttons anymore or be engaged in ordinary discursive thought. The traditions in Mahayana Buddhism about the depth of the dhyanas are in complete agreement with the interpretation of the Thai Forest tradition. Yet, the other view is common in Theravada Buddhism, and I really don't understand what the reason for that is. Tengu800 (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Base Language
Part of my confusion with the page is the switching back and forth between the different languages. One section had the title of "Dhyana in the early sutras", the next is "Stages of jhana". Someone not familiar with both terms will be confused.

Might I suggest that the base language of this article be Pali because this is the base language of Buddhism. As stated below, we should use the term Jhana as the base term. Lownslowav8r (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * wrt Pāḷi as "the base language of Buddhism" why is this article placing Pāḷi-Dhamma subordinate to much later Sanskrit Dhyāna? The very title of the article should be "Jhāna in Buddhism", with dhyāna referenced in a section of its own, or "Jhāna & Dhyāna in Early Buddhism" as these derive from essentially the same supports in the Nikāyas and Āgamas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.141.54 (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the language should be standardized, but your arguments in favor of Pali over Sanskrit are not valid. Pali is not the "base language of Buddhism." Pali is a literary refinement of an early prakrit which came to serve as the canonical language of just one of the many early Buddhist sects, whereas Sanskrit was used by others who were just as early as the Theravada, notably the Sarvastivada sect. Still other early schools used Gandhari or other prakrits. Sanskrit was also the language of the many schools of Mahayana Buddhist thought, out of which the dharma was translated for much of the non-Indic world. Standard practice in Buddhist Studies is to take Sanskrit as the baseline language and use Pali terms only when referring to specifically Theravada phenomenon.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Article's perspective from inside "Buddhism" or from a neutral "outside" perspective about a buddhist concept?
Reading this interesting Wikipedia article (15.Nov.2011), I get the impression that it is written from a perspective inside buddhism:

1.Under historical development it is written: "But in the Brahmanical texts cited by Wynne assumed their final form long after the Buddha’s lifetime and all scholars agree that the Mokshadharma postdates him." That is correct. What is not mentioned is: all buddhist scriptures were written long after Buddha's lifetime, too. The historically earliest date of written buddhist literature is 1st century B.C, most of the "oldest" literature (as part of the Pāli Canon) is considerably younger. The impression, that buddhist texts are life recordings of the historical Buddha's talks may be a buddhist tradition, but is not correct from an outside perspective. All Indian schools have an oral history and their literature was written down later. In this case Mokshadharma and the oldest buddhist literature were written down around the same time. (Check please Wikipedia's articles to "Buddhism" and "Pāli Canon" and "Mahabharata" and compare the dates.)

2. "A closer look at the early suttas show some reasons why the Four Jhanas discussed by the Buddha was not practiced by people before the Buddha’s Enlightenment ." "For example, in the Nigantha Nataputta sutta of the Citta Samyutta # 41, the Nigantha Nataputta, the Jain leader, does not even believe that it is possible [54], much less practice it, or attained it. Bhikkhu Brahmali pointed out that in the suttas the Nigantha Nataputta is portrayed as never having heard of samadhi without vitakka-vicara. That is, he doesn’t seem to know anything about the Four jhana, let alone the immaterial attainments. As the leader of one of the largest religious sects of the time one would have expected him to know a lot about meditation, even if only second hand:"

In the 36th sutta of the Majjhimanikāya Buddha is depicted as teaching a Nigantha (Jain)and learning from two teachers the techniques and having reached the states they thought of as the highest. They acknowledged him as having reached their attainment. One quote: "Then it occurred to me: This teaching does not lead to giving up, detachment, cessation, appeasement, knowledge enlightenment and extinction. It leads up to the sphere of nothingness only. Not satisfied I turned away from it."

Conclusion: To my humble view it seems his teachers taught jhana and reached high formless states. But Buddha is described as going beyond these states and of going beyond their teaching. Does this contradict the first qoute ("not practiced")? Also:different suttas may describe the situation differently.

Nārada, Mahā Thera (1973) [1964]: The Buddha and His Teachings. Second revised and enlarged ed., Colombo: He describes Buddha's teachers as having reached the 3rd and 4th Arupa Jhāna. Above quotes imply that no one in the whole of India before Buddha practised this kind of meditation. This seems to me a courageous claim. Neither did Buddha talk to everybody nor may people have told him everything.

3.The buddhist literature and their oral tradition as most expressions of similar movements emphasizes the superiority of their own teacher and the inferiority of other groups. This is quite okay within a group. Reading texts from different schools (Jain, brahmanical literature etc.) one sees that they all claim special insight, knowledge and superiority. While describing the buddhist perspectives on the jhanas is valuable, I suggest to take a scholarly neutral point of view and discern between the buddhists' descrition of events and Wikipedia's viewpoint. (English is not my mothertongue but I hope I can convey my point. I was not consistent with the diacritical signs, sorry.) Keep up the good work! 84.57.8.71 (talk) 09:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Thomas

Those are interesting points! I just want to add a brief comment about the remark in the introductory paragraph that "There has been little scientific study of the states so far." It seems worth mentioning the book Zen and the Brain, which is quite a thick tome. I don't have my copy to hand, but it may or may not talk about the specific "states", but it certainly goes in depth about Zen/Ch'an from a science point of view. Arided (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Tables
There is two times the same table (Jhāna-related factors) inside the article. I think one should be removed. If one views the page on the web browser it does not matter so much because both tables are collapsed. But if one prints the article then both tables are printed fully and consume quite a portion of space. --Vilietha (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Merger
Shoudn't Dhyāna in Buddhism and Samadhi (Buddhism) be merged? They are about the same topic, but under different names. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Dhyana and mindfulness
I changed the mention of mindfulness in the lead, but after some Googling I'm not so sure anymore. As I understand it, dhyana is concentration, and mindfulness is the opposite, namely full awareness. But mindfulness is also being mentioned as a factor of dhyana. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In traditional Buddhism, in order for concentration to be effective, then one must be aware. If someone is not aware, then how could they be concentrating? Without awareness, someone's mind would be either scattered in confusion, or muddled as in sleep. Actually, mindfulness, samadhi, and dhyana, are all closely related. The type of awareness being advocated is not self-awareness with discursive thought and reflection. This awareness conforms with the classical methods of meditation, focusing on an object of meditation, or meditation without an object. For this subject, I highly recommend the works of Zhiyi (see: http://www.kalavinka.org), who explains these principles quite well. Tengu800 23:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding. After some reflection, the confusion seems to be in the relatedness of mindfulness to Vipassanā and Satipatthana, and the use of mindfulness as a method in the west. In this sense, mindfulness refers to being mindfull of everything that's going on. Which is the opposite of concentration. But there is also a problem with the description of the jhanas in the article. For each jhana it gives a list of qualities - without mentioning "he ferreted them out one after another. Known to him they arose, known to him they remained, known to him they subsided. He discerned, 'So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.' He remained unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those qualities, independent, detached, released, dissociated". That's quite a difference! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This is concentration, but it is not concentration with an object of support. For example, in the passage cited, he would have become deluded or distracted had he not been in samadhi the whole time. Concentration in Buddhism does not only refer to contrived concentration on some fixed object of meditation. For example, the formless samadhis have no fixed object of concentration, yet they are among the highest levels of concentration. Tengu800 01:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Neither perception nor non-perception
The second sutra-quote given with the dimension of perception nor non-perception was misquoted: ""The dimension of neither perception nor non-perception is the supreme sustenance. There is the case where a monk, having practiced...obtains equanimity. He does not relish that equanimity, does not welcome it, does not remain fastened to it. As he does not relish that equanimity, does not welcome it, does not remain fastened to it, his consciousness is not dependent on it, is not sustained by it (does not cling to it). Without clinging/sustenance, Ananda, a monk is totally unbound.""

The full quote is: "[The Blessed One] "There is the case, Ananda, where a monk, having practiced in this way — (thinking) 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me. What is, what has come to be, that I abandon' — obtains equanimity. He relishes that equanimity, welcomes it, remains fastened to it. As he relishes that equanimity, welcomes it, remains fastened to it, his consciousness is dependent on it, is sustained by it (clings to it). With clinging/sustenance, Ananda, a monk is not totally unbound." [Ananda] "Being sustained, where is that monk sustained?" [The Blessed One] "The dimension of neither perception nor non-perception." [Ananda] "Then, indeed, being sustained, he is sustained by the supreme sustenance." [The Blessed One] "Being sustained, Ananda, he is sustained by the supreme sustenance; for this — the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception — is the supreme sustenance. There is [however] the case where a monk, having practiced in this way — 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me. What is, what has come to be, that I abandon' — obtains equanimity. He does not relish that equanimity, does not welcome it, does not remain fastened to it. As he does not relish that equanimity, does not welcome it, does not remain fastened to it, his consciousness is not dependent on it, is not sustained by it (does not cling to it). Without clinging/sustenance, Ananda, a monk is totally unbound.""

That's quite a different meaning. I first gave the full quote, but shortened it; it's too long. WP:QUOTEFARM Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Scientific studies
I propose to remove the "Scientific studies" section because it appears very weak, referenced with one primary source and a (reliable?) external link. A similar section might be re-introduced with sufficient sourcing. JimRenge (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Woods (1914)
User:Wujastyk, could you help us here diff? Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   10:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've searched through the text, but couldn't find it. Im'afraid that the reference is incorrect...  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   11:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have marked the sentence with a "not in source" template, also in, where the same sentence is in use. I will wait some days, and remove the text if it can not be verified. JimRenge (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Patanjali
I understand the addition of "some contend that" to the sentence "the Eight limbs of the Yoga Sutra was only developed after the Buddha"; yet, as far as I can see, it's not just "some". The addition of "some contend that" suggests that it is 'just a point of view, among others'. Yet, according to James Haughton Woods, even
 * "Vyasa's Yogabhashya, the commentary to the Yogasutras, and Vacaspati Misra's subcommentary state directly that the samadhi techniques are directly borrowed from the Buddhists' Jhana, with the addition of the mystical and divine interpretations of mental absorption. (source: "

I've also corrected the dating, from 200 BCE to ca. 400 CE... But I've also copied this line from Yoga Sutras of Patanjali: "However, it is also to be noted that the Yoga Sutra, especially the fourth segment of Kaivalya Pada, contains several polemical verses critical of Buddhism, particularly the Vijñānavāda school of Vasubandhu. (source: An outline of the religious literature of India, By John Nicol Farquhar p.132)." After all, Patanjali was not a Buddhist. What may be more relevant than the question Buddhist/"Hinduist", is how the variousn traditions influenced each other, and what they shared in common. See Samuel, Geoffrey (2010), ''The Origins of Yoga and Tantra. Indic Religions to the Thirteenth Century'', Cambridge University Press, for a fascinating overview of the development of these traditions. Samuel argues that there was a mutual influence, even to the extent that some of the same texts, teachings and teachers were "incorporated" in various traditions, Jain, Buddhist and Upanishadic! I hope I don't upset you too much with this additional information; I understand that there are sensitivities surrounding these topics. Please contact me if you would to discuss this further. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: see Wynne, Alexander (2007), The Origin of Buddhist Meditation, Routledge, for possible Brahmanical infuences on Buddhist meditation! See also Pre-sectarian Buddhism. The topic, and the mutual influences, may be more complicated than we will ever be able to retrace. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

No sensitivities here. I think I learn way more through these talk pages than I do from the articles. You're doing a stellar job as always.Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That's a very nice reply!  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Section issue
The recently deleted material is overly complicated religious cruft. The page is practically incoherent to nonspecialists as it is. We should work to make the page understandable to the average reader, not wade neck-deep in theory/praxis issues. Ogress smash! 02:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Second that. --AmritasyaPutra T 17:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Dhyāna in Buddhism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110719232925/http://www.himalayaninstitute.org/Yogaplus/Article.aspx?id=934 to http://www.himalayaninstitute.org/Yogaplus/Article.aspx?id=934

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

merger
Jhāna and Dhyāna should be merged because they apparently mean the same thing(in different languages). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.159.52 (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * While that is true in one sense, in another jhana is a more specific term, I think. Mitsube (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Jhāna and Dhyāna are the same thing, It is a concept shared by many religions "Dhyāna" is the most comnly used with the others, Jhāna is more commonly used in Buddhism. To detail the different traditions in 1 article would take up alot of room, Using Jhāna for Buddhist use, and Dhyāna for the others is a wise move. I believe the Dhyāna article needs alot of work on it, More detail of non-Buddhist use and less on the Buddhist use, that stuff should be brought here to this one. 210.185.16.135 (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the merger should happen at this point. They are the exact same term referring to the same thing. Of course, the merged article has to treat jhana/dhyana in each of the various traditions, but that's no problem.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well stated Sylvain1972. I would like to add also that Dhyana, being an integral aspect of the yogic process should not be divided into two sections either, hinduism and buddhism. Maybe a subcategory that mentions buddhism and whatever variants that may apply. This is because the process known as dhyana had been expounded upon and experienced long before the birth of Buddha. The term comes straight out of the yoga tradition itself. The fact that Buddha himself was both a yogi and also what is now known as hindu should be noted and heavily pondered over. There should be no ambiguity here regarding the subject matter of dhyana. Aghoradas (talk) 08:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dhyāna in Buddhism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719232925/http://www.himalayaninstitute.org/Yogaplus/Article.aspx?id=934 to http://www.himalayaninstitute.org/Yogaplus/Article.aspx?id=934

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Reorganisation
Why this reorganisation? It makes the article less clear. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   13:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Is this article clear to you? It's very unclear to me:


 * The article frequently trails off into unnecessary details that don't actually explain what the jhanas are, and this discussion is speculative and factually dubious at times.
 * The section organization and Table of Contents is a mess.
 * There's an entire section dedicated to a very non-notable scholar that doesn't belong on this page.
 * Some sections redundantly state the same information more than once.


 * This is a high-importance article and most readers should be able to understand it. Maybe a peer review from outside the wikiproject would be helpful?


 * Furthershore 17:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Dumping the first section into another section won't help to "improve" clarity, if there is a problem with that. Without specifications, your comments above are not informative: "unnecessary details," "mess," "very non-notable scholar that doesn't belong on this page," "redundantly." Anyway, I've moved the Jhana-section upwards, like you did. I hope this helps.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The Origins section is perhaps the one with the most issues, and moving it down is generally a good temporary fix when consensus isn't reached about what to do with content. It's still there so people who want to read it can, but it's out of the way of the more important and better written sections.


 * Let's just ignore everything else for a second and attempt to find some common ground of what constitutes clear writing, because it doesn't sound like we're on the same page and we're seeing very different things when we look at this article. Here is an excerpt from the current revision of the page which I have marked up for discussion:




 * The section heading is “Jhana itself is liberating”. The first sentence of the paragraph below the section heading (sentence 1) mentions neither jhana nor liberation. Sentence 2 gets us closer by including the word “jhana”, but it is unrelated to sentence 1 — the second sentence is about “core practices of early Buddhism” and sentence 1 is about “cognitive activity”. Sentences 3 and 4 are related to each other, but not to sentence 1 or 2. Sentence 5 is unrelated to every previous sentence in the paragraph.


 * None of these sentences help us to arrive at a conclusion that “Jhana itself is liberating”, or even explains what it means. Does jhana lead to liberation? is jhana the same thing as liberation? Is the article saying that “Jhana itself is liberating”, or is it asking the question “is jhana liberating”?


 * Let's do another one:




 * “1” is good, but you lost me with “1.5”. What is “the meditative state”? What is “the practice of mindfulness” in the context of this article? Is it the practices of the 21st century mindfulness movement? If it's the latter, why is it being anachronistically connected to the jhana practices of early Buddhism?


 * “2” and “3” are not connected to Wynne's ideas, but are being used in this article to support Wynne's thesis?. Why do we need Frauwallner to tell us that craving results “simply from contact”? This is wrong, for one — craving results from contact and ignorance. This is how an arahants mind can come into contact with the world and not cling to the aggregates.


 * Not only is this wrong, this also not what Frauwallner was suggesting. For the record, what Frauwallner was suggesting is wrong too: Frauwallner was saying that the Buddha, after becoming awakened, first thought that craving results from contact, and then the Buddha changed his mind to include ignorance after somehow learning more about Buddhism post-awakening. Anyways, sentences “2” and “3” still don't really support sentences “1” and “4”.


 * I can't do this exercise for every paragraph in the article, but hopefully this is enough to describe what I mean about the article as a whole. Either way, all of this comparative discussion about samadhi and buddhist meditation should not be in this jhana article. I see this in other Buddhism articles as well: people are so focused on comparative studies that they forget to explain to people what the topic of the article is.
 * Furthershore 07:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * "Jhana itself is liberating": you seem to ignore the information in the previous subsections - "The Buddhist tradition has incorporated [...] disputes over sudden versus gradual enlightenment" & "Schmithausen notes [...] Majjhima Nikaya 36. The subsection you criticise further explains these points.
 * "Dhyana and insight": I don't see why "this comparative discussion" should not be in the article; it's precisely those comparative studies which give a broader context and explanation, and which Wikipedia aims to present. See also WP:RNPOV.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   09:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok. You seem very passionate about keeping this article the way that it is, so we'll go with that. I think someone should at least go in and remove the section headings for all of the one paragraph sections though. If it's just one paragraph, it doesn't need a section heading — just write a well-written topic sentence that explains what the paragraph is about. Having 44 sections in the TOC is a bit excessive for an article with 30k of readable prose. Furthershore 17:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Good point there. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   18:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dhyāna in Buddhism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110102152640/http://www.dharmaweb.org/index.php/Travelogue_to_the_four_jhanas_by_Ajahn_Brahmavamso to http://www.dharmaweb.org/index.php/Travelogue_to_the_four_jhanas_by_Ajahn_Brahmavamso

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dhyāna in Buddhism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101231214356/http://jhanasadvice.com/index.html to http://www.jhanasadvice.com/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)