When Meditation Debates Go Off the Rails: A Field Study to Meditation Discussion Fallacies

[u/periodicpoint]

Disclaimer: I am not a meditation teacher. I am not enlightened or anything. I am not a Buddhist scholar.

Context: Last week I witnessed an interesting debate about jhana attainment speed that perfectly highlighted several general discussion patterns I've sometimes noticed in our meditation communities that are not only observable with jhanas but with many other topics like stream entry, access concentration, etc. While I generally really enjoy the positive, constructive and helpful discussions, these patterns are not helpful in my opinion.

Intention: I want to help, support and encourage other people on their path, because I myself found my own meditative journey and this sangha so very helpful. My goal with this post is to give some–hopefully helpful–perspectives on some patterns that I personally find unhelpful as well as some and corresponding suggestions on how to identify and improve those discussions patterns.

Let me break these patterns down. :)

The Circular Definition Trap

Here are some common statement (proposition) patterns:

P1: "Real jhanas require months or years of practice."

P2: "You attained it quickly? Then it wasn't real jhana."

P3: "How do we know it wasn't real jhana? Because real jhanas require months or years of practice."

Logic and Illogic

From a formal logic perspective, the problematic definition jhana, that is implicit in those propositions, can be expressed like this:

Problematic definition (implicit) of jahan:

J(x) ≡ C(x) ∧ L(x)

Where predicates (or properties) and variables are:

1. x: = "A variable representing a specific meditation experience being evaluated"
2. J(x) = "x is jhana"
3. C(x) = "x is a meditative state that has the subjectively observable phenomenological characteristics of jhana {piti, sukha, ekaggata, etc.}"
4. L(x) = "x requires long (t amount of time) practice to attain"

This creates several logical problems:

Tautological rejection of counterexamples: If someone claims: ∃x[C(x) ∧ Q(x)] "There exists an experience with jhana characteristics that was quickly attained";

then the definition forces: ∀x[C(x) ∧ Q(x) → ¬J(x)] "Any experience with jhana characteristics that was quickly attained cannot be jhana".

Unfalsifiability: The claim "No one can attain jhana quickly (in t amount of time)" becomes logically necessary rather than empirically testable, because any purported counterexample is excluded by definition.

Conflation of definition with empirical claim: What should be a separate conditional probabilistic empirical claim: P(L|J) ≈ 1, "jhana typically (almost always) requires long (t amount of time) practice"; becomes embedded in the definition itself. (Notice btw how extreme this claim would be and how much overwhelming evidence we would need at least in a Bayesian statistics framework to establish such a belief.)

Improved Approach

A more logical and scientific approach would be:

Improved definition of jhana: J(x) ≡ C(x) "Jhana is defined solely by its phenomenological characteristics"

Separate Empirical Claim: P(L|J) ≈ 1 "Based on observation, jhana typically requires long practice" This separates what jhana IS as state of consciousness from claims about how it's typically attained, making the latter falsifiable through potential counterexamples. This in turn enables us to properly assess and update the probability.

Sound definitions in meditation (and generally) should:

Be phenomenological: They describe the actual experience (presence of rapture, unification of mind, etc.) or phenomenon rather than how it's attained or reached.

There is a a fruitful discussion on concrete step-by-step instructions on how to skillfully reach experience x. All in due time.

Separate definition from frequency claims: "Jhana has characteristics X, Y, Z" is a definition. "Jhana is rare/common" is a separate empirical claim.

Allow for falsifiability: Karl Popper's falsifiability criterion states that scientific claims must be structured so they could potentially be proven false. "No one can attain jhana quickly" is unfalsifiable if every counterexample is rejected by definition.

Use operationalized criteria: Clear, observable indicators that can be reported and potentially verified (e.g., "absence of the five hindrances" rather than "true absorption").

In summary:

This is classic circular reasoning. The conclusion is embedded in the premise, creating an unfalsifiable position where no counterexample can ever be valid because the definition automatically excludes it.

Imagine if we applied this elsewhere:

Claim 1: "Only professional chefs can make delicious food."

Claim 2: "I made a delicious dish."

Claim 3: "Your homemade dish was delicious? Well, you're not a professional chef, so it couldn't have been truly delicious."

Truth and Proposition: Experience vs Language

Meditation discussions often encounter what philosophers call the problem of other minds (and incorrigibility propositions): We can't directly access another's consciousness. When someone reports a meditation experience, they're making what philosophers term an "incorrigible statement" about their subjective experience–a claim that has a special epistemic (and onthological) status.

Meditation discussions often confuse two fundamentally different types of statements with different truth conditions and epistemic status:

Statements about objective reality: "It is snowing" is true if and only if it is actually snowing.

Statements about subjective experience: "I see it snowing" is true if and only if I'm having the relevant perceptual experience.

Consider this exchange:

Child to mother: "I am freezing!"

Mother to child: "No, you are not!"

Notice the absurdity. The child reports a subjective qualia (the feeling of coldness), while the mother incorrectly treats this as an objective temperature claim she can contradict.

The absurdity is obvious because experiential reports have a special epistemic and logic status: They are about internal states to which the experience has privileged access.

Yet some of the comments in some discussions mimic this pattern:

Meditator: "I have experienced the first jhana."

Commentator: "No, you did not."

This pattern is unfortunate because it implies that the other person is wrong about their own experience or is lying, and the commentator is in the position to judge what the other person is experiencing. This is a slippery slope and could lead to gaslighting in the extreme.

The truth, of course, is not relative. There are objective phenomena, and there are facts. And we should pursue them vigorously. We can even make true objective statements about subjective experience.

What is most important, though, is humility with regard to the mind states and experiences of others, since often we do not know our own and that is even despite our privileged. Let alone how to describe these experiences in a clear way. Thinking I would know better what another person is experiencing than that person is just presumptuous.

Appeal to Authority Fallacy

Meditation communities like many other communities often substitute the authority of teachers for personal investigation. While respecting traditional knowledge is valuable, the Buddha himself (according to the scriptures) encouraged direct inquiry. When "Ajahn X says..." or "According to the Visuddhimagga..." becomes the end of discussion rather than the start or part of ongoing investigation, we've fallen into an appeal to authority trap–or worse fall victim to dogma. This is particularly problematic when different authorities contradict each other, or when authorities are cited selectively to support predetermined positions.

The truth of a proposition is independent of the person how is uttering it. A mathematician can utter an untrue sentence like: „There is a biggest prime number.“ and Hitler could state the Pythagorean theorem. The same applies to meditation teachers.

There is of course tremendous benefit to have experts that know the territory and explain and guide others well. However, appealing to these authorities is not an end in itself. These authorities are human beings after all and not all statements they utter are true and not all actions thy do are helpful.

Sources

If I am going to make strong claims like "no one achieves jhana without X hours of practice," I should cite specific sources. Which teacher said this? In what context? What's the evidence?

When someone says "all respected teachers agree with me" but provides no links, quotes, or specific references, it's not only often an erroneous appeal to authority, it’s an empty appeal to authority.

In general I have two options to show that my proposition is true:

1. The truth of my proposition follows analytically from pure logic or math. Example: P1 (fact): All humans are mortal. P2 (fact): Aristotle is human. K: Aristotle is mortal.
2. The likelihood of the truth of my proposition follows from empirical observations (probabilities, evidence).

In either case I should show explicitly what I think makes my claim true–or even better false.

The Eternal Goal-Post Marathon

Another interesting pattern is as follows:

P1: "You experienced jhana? But was it hard jhana?"
P2: "You experienced hard jhana? But was it Ajahn Brahm-level jhana?"
P3: "You experienced that? But could you do it again?"
P4: "You did it again? But can you do it on command?"

These patterns of continually moving requirements ad libitum makes meaningful conversation impossible. There's always another, more authentic, more real, more original or higher standard to invoke.

There is of corse a helpful discussion on higher ideals and mastery. But before I move the goalpost I should check my intentions, timing and context. I should ask myself: "Is this a dialogue about jhana mastery or about the possibility of jhana? Can I really offer a helpful perspective? Do I really want to help?"

Identity-Based Meditation

I've noticed how for many (me included) attainments sometimes become (implicit or silent) badges of identity. The more time and effort invested, the stronger the attachment to the respective definitions, schools, teachers, vies and technique that validate that investment.

This not only invites the sunk cost fallacy but also creates situations where someone saying "I experienced X quickly or easily" feels like an attack on someone else's years of practice. But meditation is supposed to help us let go of identity attachments, not create new ones!

Beyond Friendliness: Actual Helpfulness

What's the purpose of these discussions? If it's to help people develop their practice, telling them their experiences don't count because you have certain own fixed (more often than not) implicit beliefs is counterproductive. Period.

The Buddha taught jhana as a tool for liberation, not as a status symbol. Encouragement and curiosity ("what was that like for you?") serve the dharma better than arbitrary definitional or scholastic gatekeeping.

Discussion Derailment Department

Notice how quickly meditation discussions veer from what was experienced to what labels apply. This shifts the focus from direct experience to abstract terminology debates. Or worse from a positive and constructive dialogue to a toxic and destructive off-topic argument where it is about winning the argument or preserving specific identities.

It's like arguing whether something is truly spicy instead of discussing the actual sensations in your mouth!

More often than not the discussions would benefit if I just make room for more words, so that more of the world fits in our view.

TL;DR

Meditation discussions often derail through logical fallacies (circular reasoning), claiming to know others' experiences better than they do (category error), continually moving the goalposts of what counts as valid experience or valid authorities (cherry picking, ad libitum), confusing map and territory, and turning practice into identity (sunk cost, grudge) or dogma (ignorance in the face of evidence) battles (bad faith).

Better approach: Define states by their phenomenological characteristics, acknowledge the subjective nature of experience, acknowledge the limitations of language and conceptual frameworks, show what exactly you think makes your claim true or even better false (logic or evidence), cite exact sources (links), and focus on helpfulness rather than gatekeeping. The dharma is a raft, not a status symbol.

One possible utopian implementation could look something like this:

Meditator: "I have experienced X."

Commentator: "Fascinating. Thank you for sharing. Are you interested in me giving you any advice?"

Meditator: "Yeah, that would be great!"

Commentator: "In order to help you I am curious regarding your overall practice and the specific phenomenological details of you experiencing X. Could you elaborate on those things?"

…

Commentator: "I do not think you have experienced X, because ABC. I think you rather experienced Y according to Q (experts and sources go here) and because R (evidences, logic, own experience etc. go here). You could try to test my hypothesis by following the following instructions: 1. …, 2. …, 3. …."

…

Metta! :)

Edit: Typos and formatting.

[u/AutoModerator]

Thank you for contributing to the r/streamentry community! Unlike many other subs, we try to aggregate general questions and short practice reports in the weekly Practice Updates, Questions, and General Discussion thread. All community resources, such as articles, videos, and classes go in the weekly Community Resources thread. Both of these threads are pinned to the top of the subreddit.

The special focus of this community is detailed discussion of personal meditation practice. On that basis, please ensure your post complies with the following rules, if necessary by editing in the appropriate information, or else it may be removed by the moderators. Your post might also be blocked by a Reddit setting called "Crowd Control," so if you think it complies with our subreddit rules but it appears to be blocked, please message the mods.

1. All top-line posts must be based on your personal meditation practice.
2. Top-line posts must be written thoughtfully and with appropriate detail, rather than in a quick-fire fashion. Please see this posting guide for ideas on how to do this.
3. Comments must be civil and contribute constructively.
4. Post titles must be flaired. Flairs provide important context for your post.

If your post is removed/locked, please feel free to repost it with the appropriate information, or post it in the weekly Practice Updates, Questions, and General Discussion or Community Resources threads.

Thanks! - The Mod Team

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/impult]

The more complicated you make the problem seem using your own unique terms, the more others have to rely on you and your paradigms/community/institution to solve it.

I'm awful at samatha, never get past piti, but I've had one insight cessation. Insight is an automatic process of the brain. Literally just keep perceiving your perceptions and it'll happen. Overcomplicating the process and presenting maps and definitions and tests is a way that people/institutions gain status through making you reliant on them. I'm doing it right now, even if my competing definition/map happens to be extremely minimal.

"that's not real jhana" etc is a way to trigger your status defence mechanisms to get you playing their game and invested in their ideology. this isn't to say varying degrees and types of jhanas aren't real, just that these are the incentives involved in why there's a fight about their definition at all. do you want to meditate or do you want to achieve a social feat of meditation? nothing inherently wrong with the second, since there's always some primal reason why we meditate, but there's certainly ways to gain status that involve less suffering.

[u/periodicpoint → u/impult]

Absolutely. Keeping it simple and not playing games.

[u/thewesson]

As a mod I'm thinking of squelching this kind of discussion entirely.

There's a reason that front-page posts were supposed to be about your practice.

As the OP points out above, that is the reality-based approach.

We don't really need quibbling about terminology for jhanas, certainly.

[u/EightFP]

Numerous states have been labeled as jhana. It's enough to know that the states are possible. When someone describes a state, if it sounds like something you would like to aim for, follow the instructions (or ask for instructions) without worrying about what it is called. When you attain a state, remember what you did to attain it, and practice so you can do so again. Don't worry about what the state is called. In particular, it's confining to say, "This is first (or second, etc.) jhana and nothing else is." That can cut you off from attaining all the other things that have been called first (or second, etc.) jhana at some later date.

Also, don't worry when other people do make such claims. People who are very sure about things are more likely to share/teach them. That means that we are statistically likely to hear about jhanas from people who believe that their version is the only right version. That kind of clinging is often not helpful to the person doing the clinging, but it's great for the people listening in so much as it lets us hear about someone's experience.

It's possible for one person to practice multiple systems of jhana, just as it is possible for a person to play music in multiple scales. There is no need to debate. Just listening and practicing are enough.

[u/Impulse33]

I'm not sure how to frame it with extremely precise logic as you have, but I'd like to add an emphasis on the goals of jhana. It's not about the attainment, it's about what the journey teaches you and what continued practice helps cultivate. There's the traditional seven factors of awakening, sensitivity and opening to the jhanic factors, the ability hold a wholesome desire without grasping for it, and insights into the aggregates.

As for the jhana factors, I personally find Ajahn Sucitto's ekagatta translation better than the usual "one-pointedness". Paraphrasing, "... The resultant merging of mind and body is experienced as a firmness in awareness, which is hence not penetrated by sense-impressions." This matches pretty well with my experience of the 4th, with stillness and unperturbability being dominant.

At very deep level of absorption in the 4th, there can't really be one-pointedness when you lose the object, aka the breath disappearing. What's left is a unified mind and body that's unshakeable and completely comfortable with what's present in awareness.

Ultimately, what matters is if a person's "jhana" experiences helps a person along the path. If a person is getting 5/100 of jhana and it helps solidify their practice, so be it. If that 5% helps them continue practicing then that continued cushion time will only increase the depth of the jhana. What use is it to shut them down, except some vague idea of righteousness and "correctness", and possibly turning them off the path or from getting help?

[u/periodicpoint → u/Impulse33]

Exactly! That should be in focus all the time: What actually helps and leads to greater happiness and ultimately to liberation? Whatever works, I guess.

Regarding ekaggata: That is my experience as well. I think I it could be two distinct phenomena but I am not sure. In my experience there are to aspects of ekaggata. One aspect concerns attention and another aspect concerns the mind as a whole. I personally would translate this ekaggata with two term:

1. Ekaggata attention: one-elementedness of attention, attention that has only one element as object. That is not necessarily a small, tight, pointed or narrow thing but is about the exclusivity of attention. In my experience you can for example have exclusive attention on the perception of space which is of course the opposite of narrow or tight or pointed.
2. Ekaggata mind: laminarity as opposed to turbulent flow, the quality of mind that is clear, stable, unified, uniform. Here are some visual example how it feels like for me:
   1. https://youtu.be/Jq48Wcw4hzU?si=WSwt3WYBV6Iq1CDp
   2. https://youtu.be/rn9y1CSoFZs?si=lMClNAZTbgJD5BZf
   3. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Le9SqqMguRg

[u/Impulse33 → u/periodicpoint]

I like that, one-elementedness. That doesn't conflict with the formless jhanas like one-pointedness. After all, how can you have "one-pointedness" inside a space of infinite space, consciousness, nothingness, and a space without points nor not-points. Each one does have an extremely dominant nimitta or "one-elementedness".

The laminar flow analogy is great too! I can't remember where I got the visualization from, but a rock near a water cliffside unbuffeted by winds and waves was useful for me. The laminar flow videos is exactly how it feels when it locks in.

[u/Drig-Drishya-Viveka]

This is incredibly useful. I wish people would do this more with the debates that crop up regarding nonduality, etc.

[u/periodicpoint → u/Drig-Drishya-Viveka]

Thank you for your feedback. I really appreciate it. Yeah there are some great inconsistencies that confuse the heck out of people in other domains too. …

[u/Fortinbrah]

Establishing consistent perceptions with regard to the topic being discussed seems to be a key towards constructive discussions of topic where there is a difference of opinion.

Establishing some kind of common ground is usually Constructive in itself because it can identify conflicting prior assumptions.

But without things like that it’s very easy to talk past other people without really having a conversation.

[u/carpebaculum]

Thanks for writing this. I find it odd that people still argue whether a specific experience was jhana or not based on how long the person has been practicing, when the phenomenology has been clearly described (yes even by the "authorities" - I tend to fall back to Gunaratana but there are tons of similar resources). And then there is the discourse of the depth of absorption, sometimes referring to Brasington as the "light" end, perhaps closer to EBT descriptions, and Pa Auk as the "deep" end, or Visuddhimagga standard. But that's another discussion entirely, and typically does not insist on a specific length of time of practice. If I borrow from music practice, some are able to play violin concertos after three years, and some are still at grade 3 after ten years. One simply can't generalise.

[u/AlexCoventry]

4:12 The Lesser Array

“Dwelling on
their own views,
quarreling,
different skilled people say:
‘Whoever knows this, understands Dhamma.
Whoever rejects this, is
imperfect.’
Thus quarreling, they dispute:
‘My opponent’s a fool & unskilled.’
Which of these statements is true
when all of them say they are skilled?”

“If, in not accepting
an opponent’s doctrine,
one’s a fool, a beast of inferior discernment,
then all are fools of inferior discernment—
all of these
who dwell on their views.
But if, in siding with a view,
one’s cleansed,
with discernment made pure,
sensible, skilled,
then none of them
are of inferior discernment,
for all of them
have their own views.

I don’t say, ‘That’s how it is,’
the way fools tell one another.
They each make out their views to be true
and so regard their opponents as fools.”

“What some say is true
—’That’s how it is’—
others say is ‘falsehood, a lie.’
Thus quarreling, they dispute.
Why can’t contemplatives
say one thing & the same?”

“The truth is one,¹
there is no second
about which a person who knows it
would argue with one who knows.
Contemplatives promote
their various own truths,
that’s why they don’t say
one thing & the same.”

“But why do they say
various truths,
those who say they are skilled?
Have they learned many various truths
or do they follow conjecture?”

“Apart from their perception
there are no
many
various
constant truths
in the world.²
Theorizing conjectures
with regard to views,
they speak of a pair: true
& false.
Dependent on what’s seen,
heard,
& sensed,
dependent on habits & practices,
one shows disdain [for others].
Taking a stance on his decisions,
praising himself, he says,
‘My opponent’s a fool & unskilled.’
That by which
he regards his opponents as fools
is that by which
he says he is skilled.
Calling himself skilled,
he despises another
who speaks the same way.

Agreeing on a view gone out of bounds,
drunk with conceit, imagining himself perfect,
he has consecrated, with his own mind,
himself
as well as his view.

If, by an opponent’s word,
one’s inferior,
the opponent’s
of inferior discernment as well.
But if, by one’s own word
one’s an attainer-of-knowledge, enlightened,
no one
among contemplatives
is a fool.

‘Those who approve of a doctrine other than this
are lacking in purity,
imperfect.’
That’s what the many sectarians say,
for they’re smitten with passion
for their own views.
‘Only here is there purity,’
that’s what they say.
‘In no other doctrine
is purity,’ they say.
That’s how the many sectarians
are entrenched,
speaking firmly there
concerning their own path.
Speaking firmly concerning your own path,
what opponent here would you take as a fool?
You’d simply bring strife on yourself
if you said your opponent’s a fool
with an impure doctrine.

Taking a stance on your decisions,
& yourself as your measure,
you dispute further down
into the world.

But a person who’s abandoned
all decisions
creates no strife
in the world.”

vv. 878–894

Notes

1. “The truth is one”: This statement should be kept in mind throughout the following verses, as it forms the background to the discussion of how people who theorize their conjectures speak of the pair, true and false. The Buddha is not denying that there is such a thing as true and false, or that some statements correspond more truly to reality than others. He avoids defending his own teachings in debates, not because there are many different truths, but because—as he says in Sn 4:8, the purpose of debates is not to arrive at truth but to gain praise. In this way, it encourages the debater to get entrenched in his views. All entrenched views, regardless of how true or false their content might be, behave in line with the truth of conditioned phenomena as explained in the preceding sutta. They lead to conceit, conflict, and states of becoming. When they are viewed in this way—as events in a causal chain rather than as true or false depictions of other events (or as events rather than signs)—the tendency to hold to or become entrenched in them is diminished. This allows for a practitioner to hold to the truths of right view for the sake of putting an end to suffering and stress, and then to put aside any attachment to those truths once they have performed their duty. On this point, see MN 22 and AN 10:93, and the essay, “Truths with Consequences.”

2. On the role of perception in leading to conflicting views, see the preceding sutta.

[u/Alan_Archer → u/AlexCoventry]

You are always surgical in your replies. I wish I could be more like you.

[u/AlexCoventry → u/Alan_Archer]

Well, if you learn this lesson from the sutta I quoted, you're already doing better than me. I had to learn this the hard way. :-)

[u/Alan_Archer → u/AlexCoventry]

Is there any other way to learn? HAHAHAHAHAH *crying in the corner*

[u/Ordinary-Lobster-710]

this entire thing is why i don't think it's interesting or fruitful having discussions about one's attainment in the buddhist lay community. the only person i'm interested in discussing progress with would be a monk (for me, preferably in the thai forest tradition). If I could have my pick I would probably do meditation retreats with Ajahn Sona who has been in the robes for decades, who would be more than qualified to hear my experiences and give me feedback on this topic. to either validate me, or to inform me that I'm over estimating my achievement.

generally I think it's possible there are some people who have obtained jhana easily. Ajahn Brahm reports that the first time he meditated as a 20 year old he obtained an extremely blissful state, and that's what motivated him to become a monk. I tend to believe him. I'm extremely skeptical though of many people who tell me they got into a jhana, or some sort of lite jhana. So I think both things are true. I think its totally possible for people with minimum experience to get jhana, but I also think the majority of lay practitioners are over estimating their abilities. people who are getting jhana without much practice, I assume there has to be a lot of past life kamma there that is invisible to us, that has facilitated such a experience.

The bottom lie tho is I think it's a waste of time to be arguing with people about this. find a spiritual adviser you trust and talk to them.

[u/JhannySamadhi → u/Ordinary-Lobster-710]

Do you have a reference for this Ajahn Brahm claim? As far as I’m aware he achieved deep jhana at a jhana retreat and that is what inspired him to be a monk.

[u/Ordinary-Lobster-710 → u/JhannySamadhi]

we could be talking about the same thing. he has hundreds of videos so it would be impossible for me to find it, but he was telling a story about waking up one day with his girlfriend in uni, then going off on a meditation retreat, and having the experience that changed his life (it's the story where he compares the bliss of jhana to sexual relationships and claims there's no comparison)

[u/JhannySamadhi → u/Ordinary-Lobster-710]

Yeah that’s the same one. He was already a well established meditator at that point.

[u/periodicpoint → u/JhannySamadhi]

I am curious about your opinion on the descriptions of the historical Buddha attaining jhana as a child.

As you certainly know, according to Buddhist scriptures, particularly the Maha-Saccaka Sutta (MN 36), the Buddha did experience the first jhana (absorbtion) as a child. The texts describe how young prince Siddhartha spontaneously entered the first jhana while sitting under a rose-apple tree during a plowing festival.

For the sake of argument, taken what is written as fact, wouldn't this at least give us strong evidence that (a) it is possible to enter the jhanas without any knowledge of them and (b) without any long formal training?

[u/JhannySamadhi → u/periodicpoint]

This was micca samadhi. The same type that people get from listening to music and whatnot. There is little detail with this so opinions vary widely. Some believe he was already well trained in meditation, most that it was micca.

[u/periodicpoint → u/JhannySamadhi]

Still for the sake of argument, some questions:

1. Question: Do you take the suttas seriously as a source for practice and wisdom for liberation? If so why do you trust those? Why others? Do you belief that the pali canon is the most authentic transmission of what the historical Buddha really said and meant? If not, why not?

2. Question: What is "micca sammadhi"? Where is it defined? Who is defining it for what purpose? What is the explicit reference or link to the respective source? Does it help to reduce suffering?

3. Question: So, when there is little detail about this, and opinions vary, why is it wise then to rely on this concept? Why would it be better to use this concept rather than the obvious suttas?

4. Question: In the sutta I referenced, there seem to be a clear cut example of the four rupa jhanas that seems to correspond very well with my experience and the experience of others as well as the descriptions instructions of many teachers:

"Then it occurred to me, ‘I recall sitting in the cool shade of a black plum tree while my father the Sakyan was off working. Quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, I entered and remained in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected. […] After eating solid food and gathering my strength, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, I entered and remained in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected. But even such pleasant feeling did not occupy my mind.

As the placing of the mind and keeping it connected were stilled, I entered and remained in the second absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of immersion, with internal clarity and mind at one, without placing the mind and keeping it connected. But even such pleasant feeling did not occupy my mind. And with the fading away of rapture, I entered and remained in the third absorption, where I meditated with equanimity, mindful and aware, personally experiencing the bliss of which the noble ones declare, ‘Equanimous and mindful, one meditates in bliss.’ But even such pleasant feeling did not occupy my mind. With the giving up of pleasure and pain, and the ending of former happiness and sadness, I entered and remained in the fourth absorption, without pleasure or pain, with pure equanimity and mindfulness. But even such pleasant feeling did not occupy my mind." (MN 36)

This also fits very well with other suttas with striking similarity over and over again, like this one:

"Quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, he enters and remains in the first jhana: rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and evaluation. He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. Just as if a skilled bathman …" (DN 2)

1. Question: What are your sources (suttas and texts of teachers)? Why do you rely on them respectively?

I am not a buddhist scholar, so please excuse my ignorance.

[u/JhannySamadhi → u/periodicpoint]

1. I do believe that about the Pali canon, although it alone is subject to wide interpretation. This is why commentaries play such a big role in most Theravada traditions. Fortunately there is strong consensus within the tradition by many generations of practitioners. The issue is when people who are not serious practitioners or scholars start making new interpretations without considering the wider context, it leaves holes in the framework. 

2. Micca samadhi means wrong samadhi, as in not samma (right) samadhi (8th factor of the 8 fold path). It does not lead to awakening but has the absorption quality. The intensity of micca samadhi is also many orders of magnitude less than samma samadhi. Jhana is extremely intense and will rock you. 

3. The suttas only seem to be suggesting the lite methods. Most scholars readily claim that lite jhanas do not exist in the suttas. It’s another issue of interpreting out of context by a non scholar or monk.

4. It’s easy to interpret that any way you want. Access concentration would also fit this description perfectly. I once asked Stephen Snyder, a renown jhana master, what stage of access concentration I was in. I told him it was if I was immersed in starlight radiating bliss, with intense waves of pleasure going through my body, feeling overall like a trillion dollars. He said it was early access concentration, and he was correct. Jhana has a distinct “yank you in by your lapels” feel to it. It’s far beyond feeling good, or even ecstatic. It’s far, far beyond your wildest imagination.

5. My sources are everyone who practices legitimate jhanas. I just watched a video with Stephen Snyder where he said that only a minuscule fraction of people who go to his jhana retreats actually achieve jhana. So even on retreats of week or months, with an elite teacher, it’s very rare. Also, Ajahn Sona talks about this often, including on his Q&A he did today. I believe it’s around the 28 minute point if you want to check it out on YouTube. 

[u/Ordinary-Lobster-710 → u/JhannySamadhi]

that's not the take-away i got from the story. My understanding is he was getting involved with buddhism and buddhist societies but at that point was not an experienced meditator yet. have a good day.

[u/Waste-Ad7683]

Bravo! Can someone please pin this? Thank you for keeping us sane,,, and empathetic!

[u/HakuyutheHermit]

I think the issue is that these things have been well defined for millennia, and only recently has the definition changed to a much lower standard that in no way resembles what has stood the test of time for a very long time. And this only exists on social media. 

The issue of time required for jhana goes back to the very basic fact that samadhi needs to be built steadily over time without breaks to reach that level of concentration. Retreats exist because samadhi “leaks.” These time scales come from direct observation of millions of people over thousands of years. They aren’t arbitrarily defined. So it makes sense that people would be skeptical about claims that are 10x less than what meditation teachers are saying. Trust meditation teachers, not Redditors.

[u/KagakuNinja → u/HakuyutheHermit]

Jhana are not well defined. There are suttas where the Buddha describes jhana. the one I am familiar with uses metaphors like a bath attendant kneeding soap flakes. No one does this in modern times so we need experts to even explain the role of a bath attendant so we can begin to understand the metaphor. Another metaphor metaphor involves cows wandering in pastures.

Then we have the commentaries like the vissudimaga, written down 600+ years after Buddha; at best they represent the teachings of a particular ancient Buddhist community.

All the definitions we have today are simply traditions of specific schools or teachers, based on particular interpretations of ancient writings (all of which were compiled after the death of Buddha, so we have no idea how accurate they really are).

What we need today are new metaphors and methods for teaching which are understandable by modern humans, ideally tied to some experiential evidence of what actually works. The pragmatic dharma community has tried to do this; then the traditionalists jump in and denounce them for "redefining terms" which were never well-defined, or are obscured by mythology and dogma.

[u/periodicpoint → u/KagakuNinja]

Well said!

[u/Fortinbrah → u/periodicpoint]

This user falls prey to the same trap as in your post though; their comment ends in an appeal to authority to a nebulous “pragmatic dharma community” that we are to believe is always at odds (curses!) with “traditionalists”.

Absence of evidence (“we don’t know why meditation standards differ across time, or how exactly they do”) gets conflated with evidence of absence (“there’s good reason to eschew traditional accounts in order to not be deceived by dubious historical commentators”)

I’m skeptical that there really is such a division. Many of the popular pragmatic teachers came from living dharma traditions. The masters of those traditions that taught them would have been well versed on traditional doctrine and the suttas/sutras; (and if you want I can discuss this and give examples)

So it strikes me as strange that people are so open to disagreement here, if we’re blaming traditionalists then I have to think it comes from a perception that they tend to engender through bad argumentation.

But that’s just a fact of life, I don’t think it needs to entail anything with regard to the validity of that topic of discussion.

[u/HakuyutheHermit → u/KagakuNinja]

They have been well defined for a long time. Only recently with Brasington’s reinterpretation has that changed. Ask any Theravada monk or academic and they’ll give you the same definition. This has been a living tradition for over 2000 years, so accepting the interpretation of a person who is not a monk or academic over that makes no sense. Thinking this guy’s self serving interpretation is superior to Sujato, Sona, Brahm, Pa Auk, Mahasi, Sumedho, etc, etc, is hard to wrap my mind around.

[u/periodicpoint → u/HakuyutheHermit]

Oh the irony.

Congratulations for providing such a perfect practical demonstration of the exact fallacies described in the original post!

Circular Definition Trap ✓

• Quote: "The issue of time required for jhana goes back to the very basic fact that samadhi needs to be built steadily over time without breaks to reach that level of concentration."
• Fallacy: Perfectly embodies P1 from the OP: "Real jhanas require months or years of practice." Classic circular reasoning–defining jhana by the time it takes, then rejecting quick attainments because "real jhana takes time."
• Quote: "These time scales come from direct observation of millions of people over thousands of years."
• Fallacy: Conflates definition with empirical claim exactly as described in the OP, making a definition-by-time that renders it unfalsifiable. Also, the supposition here seems to be that the scriptures and transmissions are correct and near perfect in preserving original intended meaning. Which are a few extraordinary assumptions.

Appeal to Authority Fallacy ✓

• Quote: "Trust meditation teachers, not Redditors."
• Fallacy: Textbook example of ending discussion with authority or dogmatic termination rather than evidence or reasoning.
• Quote: "Only recently with Brasington's reinterpretation has that changed […] accepting the interpretation of a person who is not a monk or academic over that makes no sense."
• Fallacy: Gatekeeping who counts as a valid authority based on titles or worse subjective unsubstantiated preference rather than arguments.
• Quote: "Thinking this guy’s self serving interpretation is superior to Sujato, Sona, Brahm, Pa Auk, Mahasi, Sumedho, etc, etc, is hard to wrap my mind around."
• Fallacy: Appeals to multiple authorities without addressing their actual arguments or respective potential evidence nor citing anything explicitly what makes it impossible to asses the relevancy of external contents or making them available to rational evaluation.

Moving Goalposts ✓

• Quote: "These things have been well defined for millennia, and only recently has the definition changed to a much lower standard […]"
• Fallacy: Classic goalpost movement–first jhana must meet ill-defined "millenia-old" standards, not "lower" modern ones.
• Quote: "And this only exists on social media."
• Fallacy: Dismissing counterexamples by relegating them to an "inferior" platform, exactly as described in the OP: P1→P2→P3→P4 progression.

Identity-Based Meditation ✓

• Quote: "[…] a much lower standard that in no way resembles what has stood the test of time for a very long time."
• Fallacy: Emotional defense of traditional definitions, showing attachment to "higher standards" as an identity marker.
• Quote: "[…] is hard to wrap my mind around."
• Fallacy: Emotional resistance to considering alternative views, suggesting identity attachment to traditional interpretations or fixed beliefs.

The real jhana was the fallacies we committed along the way. 😉 Practice well, practice consistently! 🧘‍♂️

[u/Fortinbrah → u/periodicpoint]

This is somewhat an abuse of fallacies;

Establishing level minded meditation is basically a bell curve of time/effort/technique correctness, but I think with directed effort the time required for jhana can generally be thought to be considerable (usually an hour or two of practice a day for weeks/months)

Of course it varies from person to person but I think the average - is what the user is pointing at. It’s not super common for people to get to jhana their first time meditating imo; I think we get an outsized sample from posters on this sub.

With regard to meditation teachers, many of those teachers are people who taught the secular meditation teachers we read from today. A lot of the techniques people use to meditate come from traditional teachers and teachings.

Maybe this user is being too terse to see this but, I think it’s possible to steel man and get a good result.

[u/HakuyutheHermit → u/periodicpoint]

You’re using logic very poorly. You can’t use logic properly until you know the subject you’re applying it to.

[u/periodicpoint → u/HakuyutheHermit]

Logic is actually a formal system that applies regardless of subject matter–that's the whole point of logic and why it's used across domains like mathematics, science, philosophy, and yes, even discussions about meditation. (By the way: the very fact that you are disagreeing is an expression that you (implicitly) agree to some general logical principles like the tertium non datur.)

The original post wasn't claiming expertise in meditation, but rather identifying patterns of reasoning and communication that would be problematic in any field and apply of course to the current domain of mediation and specifically jhana as well. Circular reasoning, logical fallacies, cognitive biases and moving goalposts create unfalsifiable claims and unproductive discourse whether we're discussing jhanas or jellyfish.

It's actually quite revealing that instead of addressing the logical structure of the argument, you've shifted to questioning the critic's subject knowledge–which is, ironically (again), another well-known fallacy: namely an argumentum ad hominem.

Maybe I should add another pattern to the list:

Ad hominem fallacy ✓

• Quote: "You're using logic very poorly. You can't use logic properly until you know the subject you're applying it to".
• Fallacy: This is a classic textbook example ad hominem fallacy because it:
  • Attacks the person's ability to reason ("using logic very poorly") rather than addressing their actual arguments;
  • Dismisses their points based on presumed ignorance of the subject;
  • Shifts focus from the content of the argument to the qualities of the person making it.

Perhaps we could all benefit from approaching these discussions with both logical clarity and deep individual practice–they're complementary, not contradictory. After all, didn't the Buddha himself encourage questioning and investigation rather than acceptance based solely on authority?

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and I want to improve my reasoning and I wish to bring more clarity for me and others. Hence, I'm genuinely curious–what specific logical errors do you see in the original analysis?

[u/periodicpoint → u/HakuyutheHermit]

Case in point.

[u/Skylark7]

Spot on.

I wish more people would call out fallacies on Reddit. We did it a lot back in the Usenet days.

Your first utopian implementation reads like a tracher-student conversation. Is that your intent? I've noticed here that people often try to get by without a teacher. IMO substituting advice from people on Reddit for an in-person teacher is a mistake.