What Ven. Anālayo gets wrong about samādhi:
a review of “A Brief History of Buddhist Absorption”
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/what-ven-analayo-gets-wrong-about-samadhi-a-review-of-a-brief-history-of-buddhist-absorption/33175
by Ajahn Brahmali
I was recently handed an article by Ven. Anālayo which suggests that deep samādhi, especially jhāna, may not be as important on the Buddhist path as is sometimes made out.
I found the article weak.
Knowing how influential Ven. Anālayo is in many Buddhist circles, I thought it would be useful to present an alternative point of view.
The following is a critique of the parts of his paper I found the most problematic.
The original paper can be read here
https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/briefhistoryjhana.pdf
In 2019 Ven. Anālayo published a paper called “A Brief History of Buddhist Absorption”.
In it, he attempts a review of the semantic significance of jhāna, which he renders “absorption”,
from pre-Buddhist times until the present day.
He is especially concerned with the depth of meditation that has been ascribed to jhāna, and how this has varied over time.
My concern in the present essay is to evaluate some of Anālayo’s suggestions, especially those that relate to the EBTs.
Ven. Anālayo’s paper is important and interesting.
One of his main focusses is on the relationship between pre-Buddhist and Buddhist samādhi.
He makes a few observations that are important to further this debate.
In particular, he adds nuance to the question of whether jhāna was practiced before the Buddha, and if so, what the implications of this might be.
Towards the end of his paper, he discusses the emergence of the vipassanā movement and how this has affected our contemporary understanding of jhāna.
He shows, I think convincingly, that in some circles jhāna has acquired a new meaning, partly emerging from the idea of vipassanā jhāna, that is shallow compared to how jhāna is described in the EBTs.
My focus here will be on neither of these issues.
Instead, I will consider the arguments Anālayo makes concerning the meaning of sammāsamādhi, “right stillness”, and its significance on the path to awakening.
Ven. Anālayo begins his paper with a rather long section in which he makes the case that jhāna was practiced in India prior to the Buddha’s awakening (pp.571-575).
Although I do not agree with his analysis in all respects,
I accept his overall conclusion on this point.
Next, Anālayo examines the Buddha-to-be’s practice of jhāna, which leads him to awakening.
This section, too, is mostly unproblematic.
“Potential Drawbacks of Absorption”
We then come to the first section where I have major disagreements with Anālayo’s presentation.
This section is called “Potential Drawbacks of Absorption” (p.577).
Ven. Anālayo starts his argument (p.577) on the potential drawbacks of jhāna as follows:
>>At the same time, however, the early discourses also reflect a keen awareness that, in spite of the indubitable benefits that absorption has to offer, there can be potential drawbacks.
“Keen awareness” of “potential drawbacks” is a strong expression.
To back this up, he quotes only a handful of suttas passages.
We will have a look at each one of these in turn.
He starts with AN 4.178 and it’s parallel at SĀ 492.
Here is the relevant passage from the Pali version as translated by Ven. Sujato:
>>Suppose a person were to grab a branch with a glue-smeared hand.
Their hand would stick, hold, and bind to it.
In the same way, take a mendicant who enters and remains in a peaceful release of the heart.
They focus on the cessation of identification, but their mind isn’t secure, confident, settled, and decided about it.
You wouldn’t expect that mendicant to stop identifying.
Anālayo comments as follows:
>>Similar to the hand glued to the branch, a practitioner might end up being glued with attachment to the meditative experience of deeper levels of concentration and as a result lack the inspiration to progress to Nirvana.
One might conclude from this, as Anālayo seems to do, that “concentration”, cetosamādhi, is a problem.
Yet this is not what the sutta suggests.
The problem is the attachment.
The contextual point is that even if you practice deep meditation, there may be some residual holding on.
Without the cetosamādhi, the holding on would be much stronger.
The training in meditation is a gradual process of letting go, culminating in the very simple and unified experiences of the jhānas.
The attachment is much reduced.
Anālayo tries to buttress his argument by referring to MN 29:
>>For this reason, according to another Pāli discourse and its parallel, developing conceit around attainments of deep concentration and losing the inspiration to progress further to the final goal is comparable to mistaking either the bark or else the roots of a tree for its heartwood (MN 29 and EĀ 43.4). The point made with this simile is that, being in need of heartwood for some construction purpose, one will not be able to put to use these other parts of a tree to achieve one’s goal.
Similarly, the glue of attachment and conceit can turn deep concentration experiences into obstacles for progress to liberation.
MN 29 goes through a number of the steps of the path, including the obtaining of possessions and respect, the accomplishment of morality, the achievement of samādhi, and the achievement of knowledge and vision, all of which can give rise to conceit.
Again, this is not specifically about samādhi or jhāna.
In fact, as the sutta progresses, with each deeper quality one is said to come closer to the heartwood.
In other words, samādhi is shown as superior to the preceding qualities as a basis for achieving the end of the path.
The message is not that samādhi is to be avoided, but that one needs to deal with it in a skilful way.
The next sutta Ven. Anālayo brings up is MN 138:
>>Furthermore, they enter and remain in the fourth absorption … Their consciousness follows after that neutral feeling, and is tied, attached, and fettered to gratification in that neutral feeling.
So their mind is said to be stuck internally.
That’s how their consciousness is stuck internally.
Just as in AN 4.178, the problem is the grasping, not the jhāna.
In fact, the parallel sutta at MĀ 164 has an interesting alternative reading, in which the attached mind is said to be “not settle within”, asaṇṭhita.
“Settled within” is a common sutta metaphor for samādhi.
What this suggests, then, is that the attachment becomes an obstacle for samādhi.
If this reading is authentic, it becomes abundantly clear that it is the attachment that is the problem, not the meditative state.
Ven. Anālayo then proceeds to make an argument that is rather extraordinary.
He says the following:
>>According to yet another passage, even a monastic able to attain the fourth absorption has not yet undergone a transformation of the mind sufficiently strong to prevent that on a later occasion sensual lust overwhelms the mind to such a degree as to lead to disrobing.
I am not sure anyone would disagree with this.
Yet it is missing the point.
If you don’t achieve deep samādhi, your chances of being overwhelmed by sensual lust and disrobing are much higher.
Samādhi protects the mind from lust, at least temporarily.
It also gives you an insight into what can be achieved when lust is overcome.
Both of these facts will make you more committed to meditation practice and indeed the monastic life.
Anālayo finishes up by quoting AN 4.123:
>>They enter and remain in the fourth absorption.
They enjoy it and like it and find it satisfying.
If they abide in that, are committed to it, and meditate on it often without losing it, when they die they’re reborn in the company of the gods of abundant fruit.
He then goes on to claim (p.578) that the Buddha censures this:
>>A Pāli discourse and most of its parallels go so far as to place a monastic’s aspiration for a heavenly rebirth on a continuum that includes succumbing to various types of sexual attraction (AN 7.47, or AN 7.50 in the alternative count by Bodhi 2012, and Hahn 1977).
It is clear enough that AN 7.47 refers to the lower heavenly realms, which are sensual, not the non-sensual brahmā realms.
Anālayo should have realised this.
The fourth jhāna is part of the Buddhist path, not part of the problem.
What all the above arguments by Ven. Anālayo have in common is a lack of a broader perspective.
He fails to see the overall dynamics of the path, and thus misinterprets a few relatively marginal teachings.
The reality is that the path of meditation is a path of gradual letting go.
This means you are attaching less and less as you progress.
It is still possible to attach to samādhi experiences, but you are on the path of detachment.
Your job is to let go of the last bits of holding on.
If we follow Anālayo’s suggestion of seeing the potential dangers in samādhi, this would naturally lead to a reduced commitment to practicing it.
You would then be doing the opposite of what you should.
Attachment is an aspect of the unawakened human condition.
It is an unavoidable consequence of the sense of self.
If you do not attach at least somewhat to samādhi, you will attach to something coarser.
The coarser the attachment is, the further you are from awakening.
“Absorption and Right Concentration”
The next section in Ven. Anālayo’s paper is called “Absorption and Right Concentration” (p.578).
Here, too, there is much that I disagree with.
Anālayo starts off by saying that sammāsamādhi is only rarely defined as the four jhānas in the suttas.
He then adds that none of these rare cases have a parallel with the same definition.
This is no doubt true, so far as it goes.
Yet it is also not very useful.
The first problem is that Anālayo does not tell us whether there are other non-parallel suttas outside the Pali where sammāsamādhi is defined as the four jhānas.
It may well be that these definitions do not occur in parallel suttas, yet that the overall tendency is the same.
What I am suggesting is that the four jhānas may well be the majority definition of sammāsamādhi in all early texts, but that these definitions occur in different places.
The second problem is that sammāsamādhi is only rarely defined in the early suttas.
We need a broader perspective to understand what samādhi as a path factor refers to.
A good place to start is with the gradual training, a common exposition of the path that occurs at least 20 times in the suttas, e.g. at MN 27.
This presentation invariably includes the four jhānas.
The exposition is essentially an expansion of the noble eightfold path, with the addition of the insights that arise dependent on it.
The gradual training starts with right view, here expressed as the hearing and acceptance of the Dhamma,
and then goes through all the factors of the noble eightfold path,
with the four jhānas replacing sammāsamādhi.
The result of this practice is the tevijjā, the triple insight that includes full awakening.
Because of how common it is, this exposition is far more important to our understanding of sammāsamādhi than the definitions that occur only rarely.
In fact, the introduction of definitions is necessarily a secondary development.
I would suggest the definitions were not seen as necessary in the earliest period because the nature of sammāsamādhi could so readily be inferred from the incorporation of jhāna in the large number of suttas that describe the training.
Definitions may have been added only at a certain point in history when greater precision was required, perhaps as a result of the division of the Sangha into schools of reciters (bhaṇakas), each of which was responsible for a limited number of Canonical texts.
To give all reciters a complete picture of the Dhamma, Canonical texts may have been duplicated and definitions added.
This would also explain the lack of parallels to the Pali definitions of sammāsamādhi.
The broad reality is that jhāna is found in a large number of contexts in the suttas.
A count of jhāna in the four main Nikāyas gives us about 1,000 instances.
In many of these instances the context makes it clear that the jhānas take the place of sammāsamādhi.
We can deduce from this that this is generally applicable in the suttas, even when the context does not allow us to come to a definite conclusion.
Moreover, the large number of occurrences of jhāna speaks for itself.
It must be a fundamental part of the path.
To focus narrowly on the definition of sammāsamādhi shows as lack of appreciation for this broader context.
Ven. Anālayo then quotes an alternative definition of sammāsamādhi found at MN 117:
>>And what is noble right immersion with its vital conditions and its prerequisites?
They are:
right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, and right mindfulness.
Unification of mind with these seven factors as prerequisites is called noble right immersion with its vital conditions and also with its prerequisites.
But is this really an alternative definition, or it just a different way of presenting the same thing?
We have seen above that the gradual training shows that jhāna, when supported by the other seven factors of the noble eightfold path, leads to awakening.
In addition, we know that jhāna is the preeminent example in the suttas of “unification of mind”, cittassa ekaggatā.
It makes sense, then, to see the definition at MN 117 not as different to the others, but as an alternative expression of the same basic idea.
Anālayo opens the final paragraph of this section in the following manner:
>>On reflection, this is indeed the more meaningful perspective.
What makes concentration “right” must be the input provided by right view and the other path factors, rather than merely the depth of concentration reached.
Yes, sammāsamādhi needs to be supported by right view and the other path factors.
Yet this does not mean that it does not refer to jhāna.
Rather, it means that jhāna itself needs to be supported by these path factors, especially right view.
And as it happens, this is exactly the context for jhāna in a large number of places in the EBTs.
Moreover, the phrase “merely the depth of concentration reached” severely underestimates the importance of meditative depth.
According to the Naḷakapāna sutta (MN 68), it is precisely the jhānic attainments that ensure that the hindrances do not arise again for some time.
Without jhāna, the hindrances are prone to arise at any time.
This proneness for the hindrances to arise tends to materialise in challenging situations, especially when the mind is moving towards deep insight.
Apart from this, jhāna provides the mind with many other qualities that promote the achievement of deep insight.
These include a high degree of letting go with concomitant insights, as well as a powerful and blissful mind that is not easily frightened or perturbed even when the deepest of personal illusions are challenged.
“Absorption and the Qualities Required for Awakening”
Next, we arrive at a section titled “Absorption and the Qualities Required for Awakening” (p.579).
Ven. Anālayo opens this part as follows:
>>That mere absorption attainment was not considered an indispensable requirement for progress on the path to awakening can also be seen in a listing of qualities that are considered pertinent for progress to awakening (bodhipakkhiyā dhamma) … This listing does not mention the four absorptions.
It is true that this listing does not mention jhāna directly, but it does mention samādhi and sammāsamādhi.
In fact, samādhi is one of the most common factors of the 37, altogether occurring eight times.
The only other factors that occur equally often are sati and viriya/padhāna.
What these three factors have in common is that they relate directly to mental development.
So what does samādhi refer to in the context of the 37 bodhipakkhiyā dhammas?
I have already argued that sammāsamādhi refers to the four jhānas.
The faculty of samādhi (samādhindriya) and by implication the power of samādhi (samādhibala) are also defined as the four jhānas (SN 48.10). That the samādhi factor of awakening (samādhisambojjhaṅga) also refers to jhāna can be seen at SN 46.52, where it is defined as samādhi with and without vitakka and vicāra.
Finally, we have the four paths to spiritual power, the iddhipādas.
According to SN 50.11, developing the iddhipādas lead to realising the three higher insights, the tevijjā.
In the gradual training this always happens after the four jhānas.
And so it seems clear enough that the iddhipādas, too, refer to the jhānas.
But the fact is that the above demonstration is not actually required to show that jhāna is the normal meaning of samādhi in the EBTs.
I have already pointed out that jhāna occurs about 1,000 times in the four main Nikāyas.
No other kind of samādhi comes even close to this number of occurrences.
There are a few instances where samādhi cannot refer to jhāna, such as in the case of walking meditation (AN 5.29) or in the Upakkilesa Sutta.
But the prevalence of jhāna means that in all situations where the context does not require otherwise, we should understand samādhi as referring primarily to jhāna.
This means, of course, that jhāna is the meaning of samādhi in the 37 bodhipakkhiyā dhammas.
Since these 37 are said at DN 16 to constitute the teaching of the Buddha, we must again conclude that jhāna is a core aspect of the path to awakening.
Ven. Analayo also mentions an interesting passage at MN 125 which has only three of the four jhānas:
>>The passage in question depicts a progression from an establishment of mindfulness cultivated in the absence of thought directly to the second absorption (MN 125). This could convey the impression that at least the first absorption is implicitly included once the four establishments of mindfulness are mentioned.
Consultation of the Chinese parallel, however, makes it fairly probable that the presentation in this Pāli discourse is the result of an error in textual transmission (Anālayo 2006a). It follows that a reference to the four establishments of mindfulness would also not imply absorption.
Although this passage is interesting, it is not an important issue for our understanding of the relationship between mindfulness and jhāna whether “the first absorption is implicitly included once the four establishments of mindfulness are mentioned”.
The main issue is that mindfulness, in the sense of the four satipaṭthānas, always leads to jhāna.
This is what we find in the noble eightfold path, in the seven factors of awakening, and in the five spiritual faculties, which are some of the most important categories that explain the development of the mind.
It is also what we find in the gradual training, e.g. at MN 27.
This fact, that the purpose of satipaṭṭhāna is jhāna, is one of the most undercommunicated aspects of the Buddhist path.
Still, the passage at MN 125 does suggest that in some circumstances the first jhāna can be regarded as included within satipaṭṭhāna.
Anālayo claims that the parallel in Chinese shows that the “Pāli discourse is a result of an error in textual transmission”, yet this ignores the text-critical principle of lectio difficilior potior, which says that unusual readings are to be preferred over standard passages.
In the present case it is hard to see how the first jhāna could be lost from the list of four, which is standardised throughout the suttas.
It is more likely that the first jhāna has been added to the version preserved in Chinese, whether by accident or by design.
It is, in fact, quite clear from the Satipaṭthāna Sutta (MN 10) that samādhi and jhāna can be regarded as included within satipaṭṭhāna.
Expressions such as nirāmisa sukha, mahaggata citta, anuttara citta, samāhita citta, and vimutta citta all refer to samādhi and jhāna, as does the contemplation of the seven factors of awakening in the last section of that sutta.
And so there is nothing truly anomalous about MN 125. The higher levels of satipaṭṭhāna may indeed include the contemplation of the first jhāna.
I conclude that Anālayo has not provided any convincing evidence to back up his summarising assertion that:
>>In all of these cases, it seems as if, with the passing of time, in some Buddhist traditions an increasing importance had been accorded to absorption attainment as required for progress to awakening.
At this point Ven. Analayo changes focus to consider the emergence of the term vipassanā jhāna and how this has affected our contemporary understanding of jhāna.
Much of what he says here is reasonable, and so I will end my critique at this point.
Why samādhi and jhāna are a crucial part of the path to awakening
Before I conclude this commentary on Anālayo’s paper,
I wish to set out once more why samādhi and jhāna are so indispensable on the path to awakening.
One of the principles encountered throughout the EBTs is that it is samādhi that leads to deep insight, not sati.
This can be seen, for instance, in the sequence sometimes known as dependent liberation (AN 10.1-3) where samādhi (sometimes sammāsamādhi) is said to be the proximate cause for seeing things according to reality (yathābhūtāñāṇadassana).
This is also the message we get from core doctrinal categories such as the noble eightfold path, the seven factors of awakening, the five spiritual faculties, mindfulness of breathing, the gradual training, and much more.
In other words, this principle is deeply embedded in the EBTs.
There is no equivalent connection between sati or satipaṭṭhāna and deep insight.
Arguably this is true even for the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta, the key sutta for those who argue against the necessity of jhāna.
The purpose of satipaṭṭhāna, rather, as I have discussed above, it to achieve samādhi or jhāna.
The reason samādhi is critical for deep insight is that it gives the mind the stability and power to see things that are otherwise impossible to see.
Seeing nonself goes against everything we think we know.
This is one of the reasons even samādhi can sometimes be scary.
It challenges some of our deepest convictions about what we are.
Because deep insight is deeper than samādhi or jhāna, it is even more challenging to achieve.
Only a very powerful and stable mind, such as the imperturbable mind of the fourth jhāna, is able to deal with the full depth of reality.
An important point here is that the natural process of meditation goes from jhāna to deep insight.
Sometimes the question arises whether jhāna is absolutely required for streamentry.
To my mind, this is the wrong question to ask.
We should instead ask what is the natural progression.
A sensible person would follow what is natural, because this is bound to be the path of least resistance.
When it comes to jhāna and streamentry, jhāna is a natural preliminary step.
Streamentry means full insight into the nature of the five aspects of personality, the khandhas.
With jhāna, however, one can still hold on to a slither of the five khandhas.
Because the Buddhist path of the EBTs is a gradual letting go and insight into the five khandhas, it is natural to achieve jhāna before streamentry.
Trying to achieve streamentry before jhāna is like taking a giant leap instead of small steps.
To put it simply, jhāna is easier than streamentry.
The sensible approach is to take all the intermediary steps instead of going straight to the deeper attainments.
The further in time we get from the Buddha, the more difficult it gets to interpret the suttas.
Many of the contemporary discussions stem from the fact that the Dhamma is gradually disappearing.
Yet debate will never provide a final solution to the true interpretation of the suttas.
In fact, debate often makes the matter worse.
The real solution to matters of interpretation is to practice the path and achieve results before it is too late.
I believe we still have the Dhamma of the Buddha.
Now is the time to practice it, before it is lost once and for all.
