are the jhanas taught in zen/chan?

[Frank]

my ch'an teacher knows of them and has given me instruction about them, but probably because i asked about them and he has read most of the sutta pitaka of the pali canon and knows i'm reading it as well. as far as i know it's not standard curriculum at the temple.

what about everyone else?

what about in history?

does zen/chan have it's own unique stages of meditation or do they use the stages laid out by the buddha of the four jhanas and four more formless jhanas?

[Indrajala]

Generally speaking jhanas are considered Hinayana and other "superior" methods are employed.

[Huifeng]

my ch'an teacher knows of them and has given me instruction about them, but probably because i asked about them and he has read most of the sutta pitaka of the pali canon and knows i'm reading it as well. as far as i know it's not standard curriculum at the temple.

what about everyone else?

what about in history?

does zen/chan have it's own unique stages of meditation or do they use the stages laid out by the buddha of the four jhanas and four more formless jhanas?

Traditional chan practice doesn't even know of the existence of the pali canon, so that is kind of irrelevant. Interest in Chan about the Pali texts, or the equivalent Agama texts in Chinese, is a fairly modern thing.

Still, while some argue that Chan doesn't practice in stages, it seems clear in my mind at least, that dhyana is part of it all. After all, the very word "chan-na" (originally pronounced "zjha-na") is the Chinese for "dhyana" (jhana).

Chan as in the chan school is a generic term, and doesn't refer to a specific method itself. Later, by the Tang and Song dynasties, certain methods became popular, such as kanhua chan, etc. Because this was the time when Chan was transmitted to Japan where it became Zen, and from Japan to the west, many think that these particular methods are Chan / Zen itself. That's debatable.

In short, Chan is the mind of the Buddha. However one gets there is secondary, but any method is okay.

~~ Huifeng

[Jikan]

Ven. Huifeng,

On the topic of stages: are the bhumis used much or frequently in contemporary Chinese Buddhism?

[Frank]

Generally speaking jhanas are considered Hinayana and other "superior" methods are employed.

ouch! sore spot? sounds like the jhanas took your lunch money or something.

[Josef]

Generally speaking jhanas are considered Hinayana and other "superior" methods are employed.

ouch! sore spot? sounds like the jhanas took your lunch money or something.

I think the quotes he used indicate that this is not necessarily Husengs personal opinion but resides in the realm of Mahayana polemics.

[pueraeternus]

my ch'an teacher knows of them and has given me instruction about them, but probably because i asked about them and he has read most of the sutta pitaka of the pali canon and knows i'm reading it as well. as far as i know it's not standard curriculum at the temple.

what about everyone else?

what about in history?

does zen/chan have it's own unique stages of meditation or do they use the stages laid out by the buddha of the four jhanas and four more formless jhanas?

Traditional chan practice doesn't even know of the existence of the pali canon, so that is kind of irrelevant. Interest in Chan about the Pali texts, or the equivalent Agama texts in Chinese, is a fairly modern thing.

Still, while some argue that Chan doesn't practice in stages, it seems clear in my mind at least, that dhyana is part of it all. After all, the very word "chan-na" (originally pronounced "zjha-na") is the Chinese for "dhyana" (jhana).

Chan as in the chan school is a generic term, and doesn't refer to a specific method itself. Later, by the Tang and Song dynasties, certain methods became popular, such as kanhua chan, etc. Because this was the time when Chan was transmitted to Japan where it became Zen, and from Japan to the west, many think that these particular methods are Chan / Zen itself. That's debatable.

In short, Chan is the mind of the Buddha. However one gets there is secondary, but any method is okay.

~~ Huifeng

Venerable:

Wouldn't the 五停心 (The Five Methods of Stilling the Mind) be the normative method in Chan to attain the absorptions? Or is this also a rather newish trend?

[Huifeng]

Ven. Huifeng,

On the topic of stages: are the bhumis used much or frequently in contemporary Chinese Buddhism?

Sure. One system or another...

~~ Huifeng

[Huifeng]

Venerable:

Wouldn't the 五停心 (The Five Methods of Stilling the Mind) be the normative method in Chan to attain the absorptions? Or is this also a rather newish trend?

Well, that's a fairly standard system from Tiantai, and a lot of people teach and use it. So, not new at all.
But ... I wouldn't be so sure about "normative", as there are a lot of methods and means.

~~ Huifeng

[pueraeternus]

Venerable:

Wouldn't the 五停心 (The Five Methods of Stilling the Mind) be the normative method in Chan to attain the absorptions? Or is this also a rather newish trend?

Well, that's a fairly standard system from Tiantai, and a lot of people teach and use it. So, not new at all.
But ... I wouldn't be so sure about "normative", as there are a lot of methods and means.

~~ Huifeng

Got it. So would you say that in the main Chan lineages nowadays, 五停心 is more or less standard for absorption practice? If I am not wrong, Ven. Shengyen (in his Hoofprint of the Ox) and Ven. Xingyun (in his Only a Great Rain) teaches it, and the works of a few other Chan masters I have read teaches the 五停心 as well.

[Frank]

my ch'an teacher knows of them and has given me instruction about them, but probably because i asked about them and he has read most of the sutta pitaka of the pali canon and knows i'm reading it as well. as far as i know it's not standard curriculum at the temple.

what about everyone else?

what about in history?

does zen/chan have it's own unique stages of meditation or do they use the stages laid out by the buddha of the four jhanas and four more formless jhanas?

Traditional chan practice doesn't even know of the existence of the pali canon, so that is kind of irrelevant. Interest in Chan about the Pali texts, or the equivalent Agama texts in Chinese, is a fairly modern thing.

Still, while some argue that Chan doesn't practice in stages, it seems clear in my mind at least, that dhyana is part of it all. After all, the very word "chan-na" (originally pronounced "zjha-na") is the Chinese for "dhyana" (jhana).

Chan as in the chan school is a generic term, and doesn't refer to a specific method itself. Later, by the Tang and Song dynasties, certain methods became popular, such as kanhua chan, etc. Because this was the time when Chan was transmitted to Japan where it became Zen, and from Japan to the west, many think that these particular methods are Chan / Zen itself. That's debatable.

In short, Chan is the mind of the Buddha. However one gets there is secondary, but any method is okay.

~~ Huifeng

excellent point:

it went dhyana/jhana (sanskrit/pali) translated into chinese as "ch'an" then japanese as "zen" and so on, so while they may not use the exact same steps and titles for the states, they definitely have the same roots more or less. very frequently when the word "meditation" is used in buddhism it is a translation of the word "dhyana/jhana" used in the agamas/nikayas to talk about mind states.

and i certainly agree whole heartedly that any method that gets one to the mind of the buddha is okay !

[Indrajala]

Generally speaking jhanas are considered Hinayana and other "superior" methods are employed.

ouch! sore spot? sounds like the jhanas took your lunch money or something.

I don't think jhāna/dhyāna is inherently inferior, but the Mahāyāna literature on meditation within the East Asian cultural sphere that I've read, either directly or indirectly related to 'Chan', tends to dismiss or ignore the formal dhyāna stages as found in the Āgamas.

It seems in earlier centuries of Chinese Buddhism (pre-6th century) they played an important role in meditation, or at least it did for many such as Kumārajīva. This is to be expected as much Buddhist practice at the time was based on what had been transmitted in then recent times from Central Asia and India. As time went on indigenous meditation methods developed and Mahāyāna sentiments became all the more stronger, leading to the Āgamas becoming largely irrelevant to most authors and practitioners.

The formal dhyāna stages are found not only in the Pali Nikāya, but also in the Chinese translations of the Āgamas. However, with those scriptures declining in importance, the methods prescribed therein likewise lost their influence. We see yogis like Zhiyi from the Tiantai school formulating new indigenous methods. Later we see Chan masters formulating their own ideas on the subject and this becoming the canon from which Chan and later Zen practitioners modeled their own practice on.

The Dhyānas are associated with Āgamas, and hence would generally be considered a Hīnayāna practice, which as a Mahāyāna practitioner you might feel justified in rejecting. Someone might suggest that the sensory withdrawal that accompanies dhyāna is reflective of dualistic sentiments and that maintaining full awareness of one's sensory apparatus is properly Mahāyāna, seeing no distinction between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. Such a non-duality might be appreciated in "just sitting", where neither appreciation or rejection is to be actively cultivated.

[Indrajala]

I think the quotes he used indicate that this is not necessarily Husengs personal opinion but resides in the realm of Mahayana polemics.

My personal opinion honestly is that dhyāna/jhānas are the key practice of Buddhist meditation. It was the original and foremost practice that the Buddha taught. It is the methodology as prescribed by the Buddha for cultivating both mental stamina and discerning wisdom. It is perfectly compatible with the Mahāyāna.

[Huifeng]

Venerable:

Wouldn't the 五停心 (The Five Methods of Stilling the Mind) be the normative method in Chan to attain the absorptions? Or is this also a rather newish trend?

Well, that's a fairly standard system from Tiantai, and a lot of people teach and use it. So, not new at all.
But ... I wouldn't be so sure about "normative", as there are a lot of methods and means.

~~ Huifeng

Got it. So would you say that in the main Chan lineages nowadays, 五停心 is more or less standard for absorption practice? If I am not wrong, Ven. Shengyen (in his Hoofprint of the Ox) and Ven. Xingyun (in his Only a Great Rain) teaches it, and the works of a few other Chan masters I have read teaches the 五停心 as well.

Yeah, I think that of the modern teachers, a lot of them do teach this.
But I also know teachers who will just say "See your nature", too.
And a lot of kanhua / huatou practice nowadays is also nianfo chan, which is then based on one of the five (albeit often implied that one has already done the necessary preparation).

~~ Huifeng

[Huifeng]

Generally speaking jhanas are considered Hinayana and other "superior" methods are employed.

At the risk of splitting hairs, I'd say that Chan accepted dhyana as part of the Mahayana, but that they Chan school as the supreme vehicle (not just the great vehicle) still had superior methods. So, dhyana wasn't really considered as Hinayana, but it wasn't considered ultimate, either.

But, to just stay in dhyana without proceeding to insight and liberation, now that would just be the teachings of the heterdox paths, and not any form of Buddhism at all. Though, often Hinayana teachings were accused of having a kind of stuck in cessation meditation problem, too. (This view of the Hinayana probably influenced by teachings in some Mahayana sutras and sastras, such as the *Satyasiddhi).

~~ Huifeng

[Frank]

Generally speaking jhanas are considered Hinayana and other "superior" methods are employed.

ouch! sore spot? sounds like the jhanas took your lunch money or something.

I don't think jhāna/dhyāna is inherently inferior, but the Mahāyāna literature on meditation within the East Asian cultural sphere that I've read, either directly or indirectly related to 'Chan', tends to dismiss the formal dhyāna stages as found in the Āgamas.

It seems in earlier centuries of Chinese Buddhism (pre-6th century) they played an important role in meditation, or at least it did for many such as Kumārajīva. This is to be expected as much Buddhist practice at the time was based on what had been transmitted in then recent times from Central Asia and India. As time went on indigenous meditation methods developed and Mahāyāna sentiments became all the more stronger, leading to the Āgamas becoming largely irrelevant to most authors and practitioners.

The formal dhyāna stages are found not only in the Pali Nikāya, but also in the Chinese translations of the Āgamas. However, with those scriptures declining in importance, the methods prescribed therein likewise lost their influence. We see yogis like Zhiyi from the Tiantai school formulating new indigenous methods. Later we see Chan masters formulating their own ideas on the subject and this becoming the canon from which Chan and later Zen practitioners modeled their own practice on.

The Dhyānas are associated with Āgamas, and hence would generally be considered a Hīnayāna practice, which as a Mahāyāna practitioner you might feel justified in rejecting. Someone might suggest that the sensory withdrawal that accompanies dhyāna is reflective of dualistic sentiments and that maintaining full awareness of one's sensory apparatus is properly Mahāyāna, seeing no distinction between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. Such a non-duality might be appreciated in "just sitting", where neither appreciation or rejection is to be actively cultivated.

i can see now that you didn't literally mean your original post from your point of view but were kind of quoting the whole chan thought process from history. i was thrown off by the word "hinayana" which can be seen as offensive as it means "lesser-vehicle" or "deficient-vehicle" and when it said "superior", even in quotes, combined with use of the word "hinayana" it sounded harsh, coming down on theravada (or nikaya/agama buddhism or whatever) like you personally have distaste toward it. clearly i was wrong, so sorry for that, and i understand that that is the case with this post as well, you are just giving unbiased info, so this isn't directly aimed at you or anything, i'm just speaking generally:


i don't reject teachings unless they seem to serve no purpose or seem to be a hindrance or cause dukkha. there are some i choose not to use if they are incompatible with chan since it's what i'm practicing, but i only out right reject ones i find to be just plain problematic. i am versed in both mahayana and theravada scripture. i have read many books on zen/chan, vajrayana, theravada, and a few on pure land. i use teachings from many different schools as they all have great methods. my temple and teacher are of the ch'an tradition, but they use theravada scriptures as well here and there. from what i have learned, there is a fine line between chan meditation and theravada jhana, in both direct experience of each and reading others experiences i find that they share more in common than they have differences. even shikantaza is nearly identical with some interpretations of theravada vipassana training. i'm sure this is hugely and hotly debated so maybe we should pretend i never said that, but i've read instructions for each that are almost identical. heck, i've read instructions on reaching jhana that are nearly identical with zazen instructions! and almost all chan and zen schools use anapanasati which definitely came from the so called "lesser-vehicle", without which there would never have been the "great vehicle" in the first place. seems everyone forgot their roots. there's gold and diamonds to be found in every school, and thorns and mud in each one as well, at least in my humble opinion.

again, none of that is directed at you huseng i'm just sharing my thoughts on the very broad topic of nikaya/agama meditation compared and contrasted with chan/mahayana meditation in general and some of the very closed minded sentiments that have appeared over the years. thankfully much of this is dissolving, at least in the west, i don't really know about developments on this topic elsewhere.

[Indrajala]

Generally speaking jhanas are considered Hinayana and other "superior" methods are employed.

At the risk of splitting hairs, I'd say that Chan accepted dhyana as part of the Mahayana, but that they Chan school as the supreme vehicle (not just the great vehicle) still had superior methods. So, dhyana wasn't really considered as Hinayana, but it wasn't considered ultimate, either.

But, to just stay in dhyana without proceeding to insight and liberation, now that would just be the teachings of the heterdox paths, and not any form of Buddhism at all. Though, often Hinayana teachings were accused of having a kind of stuck in cessation meditation problem, too. (This view of the Hinayana probably influenced by teachings in some Mahayana sutras and sastras, such as the *Satyasiddhi).

~~ Huifeng

There is this quote that seems to reflect the sentiments you're referring to:

《禪關策進》卷1：「智者以慧鍊心。尋究諸垢。猶如鑛鐵。數入百鍊。則成精金。猶如大海。日夜沸動。則成大寶。人亦如是。晝夜役心不止。便獲果證。
　評曰。今人但知息心而入禪那。寧知役心
　而獲果證。」(CBETA, T48, no. 2024, p. 1106, c23-27)


"The wise forge the mind with wisdom. They completely investigate the defilements. It is like iron ore -- going through many refinements and becoming a pure metal. It is like a great sea. Day and night churning and moving and then forming a great gem. People are also like this. Day and night taming the mind without stopping, and then attaining the resulting realization."

"Comment: Nowadays people just know calming the mind and entering dhyāna rather than understanding the taming of the mind and attaining the resulting realization."

However, I don't know if "禪那" here refers to dhyāna as it is found in the Āgamas.

Still, the concern is that one settles into meditative absorption and fails to attain any realization as a result. This was Zhuhong's opinion at least.

That being said, I've never had the sense that Chan or Zen for that matter ever valued formal dhyāna practice. It might have been by the time Chan arose there simply were no teachers teaching it.

[Frank]

Still, the concern is that one settles into meditative absorption and fails to attain any realization as a result. This was Zhuhong's opinion at least.

That being said, I've never had the sense that Chan or Zen for that matter ever valued formal dhyāna practice. It might have been by the time Chan arose there simply were no teachers teaching it.

interestingly, there are a great deal of methods taught in the nikayas/agamas on how to develop insight and realization while practicing the jhanas. i think you are right in that by the time chan arose no one was teaching it. it seems they retro fitted their "new" methods over the old and considered the old inferior, when really they were nearly identical in many ways. the people holding these opinions probably simply were unaware of these teachings.

[Jnana]

My personal opinion honestly is that dhyāna/jhānas are the key practice of Buddhist meditation. It was the original and foremost practice that the Buddha taught. It is the methodology as prescribed by the Buddha for cultivating both mental stamina and discerning wisdom. It is perfectly compatible with the Mahāyāna.

Yes, the canonical descriptions of the four dhyānas are given in the longer Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras. Then by the time we get to the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, distinctions are made between different classes of dhyāna based on insight. According to the Laṅkāvatāra:

1. bālopacārika dhyāna is practiced by śrāvakas & pratyekabuddhas and pertains to realizing the selflessness of persons (pudgalanairātmya);
2. arthapravicaya dhyāna is practiced by bodhisattvas and pertains to both the selflessness of persons and selflessness of phenomena (dharmanairātmya);
3. tathatālambana dhyāna is the result of realizing that the above two types of selflessness are based in imagination and the mind takes suchness as the object-support;
4. tāthāgata dhyāna is the dhyāna of fully awakened buddhas.

And by the time we get to Dōgen Zenji we find him explicitly stating in the revised version of his Fukanzazengi that zazen is not the same as dhyāna: "Zazen is not the practice of dhyāna: it is just the dharma gate of ease and joy."

This sort of statement is also not uncommon in the Indian mahāsiddha literature and the Tibetan texts based on them. All of these traditions have become mindfulness based traditions, and similar sentiments can be found in the modern Theravāda Vipassanā meditation traditions as well (but for somewhat different reasons).

[Astus]

We don't even need to go to Dogen. The very idea of a Chan school is based on direct insight into the nature of mind. The early teachers, those from the East Mountain (Daoxin, Hongren) and what was later called as the Northern School (Shenxiu and heirs) still used some forms of specific meditation techniques, but after Heze Shenhui and the schools of Baotang, Niutou and especially Hongzhou the Chan school was defined as the direct path that does not require gradual stages like in other Mahayana schools.