by Keren Arbel
The preceding references are only a few examples of the view concerning the secondary and superfluous role of the jhānas in the path of liberation. I will not pursue this here since the interpretation of how the jhānas can be seen as an integral and intrinsic part of the Buddhist path to awakening will be addressed in subsequent chapters. Rather, I attempt to rethink the premise that the jhānas are a borrowed element from non-Buddhist sources. This will be done by searching for the origin of the fourfold jhāna model in early non-Buddhist texts (i.e., the model of four successive states that are referred to in the Pāli Nikāyas as the first, second, third and fourth jhānas).22 I will first show that the jhānas – as a distinct model of four successive states – cannot be found in any known early non-Buddhist texts. Second, I will trace references of the term jhāna/dhyāna in earlier non-Buddhist sources and examine their meaning and use. Third, I will argue that even though the term dhyāna appears in early Jain texts, it alludes to a different attainment when compared to depictions of the jhānas in the Pāli Nikāyas. Finally, I will discuss the occurrences of the term jhāna in the Pāli Nikāyas in contexts of which non-Buddhist practices are described. This will illustrate that the fourfold jhāna model is never associated in the Nikāyas with non-Buddhist practices as opposed to many other practices and attainments.
I Searching for the origin of the jhānas
It is evident that the search for ‘origin’ faces serious difficulties. First, we do not have evidence from all the relevant sources from which the Buddha might have borrowed his ‘spiritual techniques’. It is reasonable to assume that early Indian contemplative settings were richer and more varied than textual evidence reveals. It is certain that some early Indian oral meditation traditions were lost in the course of time. However, this should not detract from exploring this issue, using the sources available, both within and without the Buddhist tradition. There are quite a few textual sources that record rich contemplative environments. Though not without limitations, I believe this endeavour is important and significant given that it refers to a central and recurrent element in early Buddhist awakening vision. This element has evoked much debate. Moreover, in many ways, it has determined the way Theravāda Buddhists perceived the practice and goal of the spiritual path.
A second obstacle in the search for the origin of the jhānas is the existence of non-Buddhist texts that depict similar states, or better put, describe what looks similar; such examples are found in Jaina materials, the Yoga Sūtra of Patañjali and some later Upaniṣads (e.g., Maitrī Upaniṣad). This poses the question of who borrowed from whom. It is almost certain that bilateral influence was at play in the early Indian contemplative scene. While the exact mode this reciprocal influence operated remains speculative, I hope to show that it is reasonable to argue that the fourfold jhāna model was originally Buddhist, despite the fact that the term itself was borrowed from earlier traditions. In other words, I wish to make clear that the theory which considers the fourfold jhāna model to be an adopted element from non-Buddhist traditions cannot be based on firm ground. This chapter will therefore complement the research of Tilmann Vetter,23 Johannes Bronkhorst,24 and Alexander Wynne,25 by taking into account additional historical considerations and by offering some new reflections on the way the term dhyāna/jhāna was used in early Indian contemplative texts. My main aim is to elicit, develop, and analyze issues that were only pointed out briefly or have never been discussed before. In this manner, I hope to establish the hypothesis that the fourfold jhāna model was originally conceived by the Buddha (or the early compliers of the Pāli Nikāyas); hence, it should be understood as an intrinsic and indispensable element in the Buddhist path to liberation.
As previously mentioned, some early non-Buddhist texts contain instances of the term dhyāna/jhāṇa in their meditation systems. However, these non-Buddhist texts cannot be dated before the beginning of the Christian era.26 Although the dating of the Pāli Nikāyas is a moot issue, it is reasonable to date the four primary Nikāyas before the origination of the various early Buddhist schools. Locating the teaching presented in the four primary Nikāyas before the third century BCE (and possibly from the Buddha’s own time), makes these texts a very early record of an elaborate and structured meditational system. From the available early Indian texts, it is quite clear that Buddhism was the first recorded spiritual tradition in ancient India that presented a systematic meditational structure; a methodical exposition of the spiritual path and the liberation process. While it is possible to posit that lost pre-Buddhist oral meditation traditions had an influence on the Buddha and his early community, from the available source materials, it is only possible to detect specific influences. That is, there are ideas and practices that appear in the Nikāyas that quite obviously originated from non-Buddhist traditions. Some of these practices are associated with the teachings of specific teachers, probably historical figures,27 and some seem to have been prevalent in the general asceticcontemplative traditions. These practices are usually denounced by the awakened Gotama as unbeneficial to the spiritual quest (although not without exceptions)28 or as practices that are not necessary for liberation.29 Since the Buddha was part of a spiritual environment, there are central theoretical and practical elements in the Pāli Nikāyas that are embedded in earlier non-Buddhist sources (such as the notion of karma, brahmacariya and mokṣa). Although these ideas are not uniquely Buddhist, many of them were developed, revised and adjusted by the Buddha. Furthermore, terms and contemplative elements that appear in the Vedas and early Upaniṣads in a vague and rudimentary manner became fully developed, explicated and modified in the Pāli Nikāyas to fit the Buddhist conceptual framework and spiritual scheme.30
The question with which we must start our search for the source of the fourfold jhāna model concerns methodology. What will be the appropriate method for determining if the jhānas were a Buddhist novelty or a borrowed element from a ‘common store of mystical devises’?31
A heuristic method that can be employed in exploring this problematic issue is source criticism, a method developed in Biblical Studies. Source criticism presupposes that a literary work carries the imprint of the historical environment from which it has originated, and that the interpretation of a text is best served by situating it within its historical context. The main aim of this historical approach in Biblical Studies is to detect and study sources that are not mentioned directly in the Bible (and in our case, in the Pāli Nikāyas). Source criticism assumes that the authors of a certain text might have incorporated, written and interpreted traditional materials, such as stories that were already in circulation within their communities.32 In Buddhist Studies, this approach became dominant, even though it is not formulated and theorized as explicitly as in Biblical Studies.
The study of the Pāli Nikāyas, which can be considered part of the earliest Buddhist strata, presupposes that these texts carry imprints and influences of earlier sources of the Indian subcontinent which were circulating in the area the Buddha supposedly lived and taught. It is quite obvious from the vocabulary of the Nikāyas that the Buddha or the compilers of these texts used known words and concepts drawn from previous and contemporary spiritual traditions in texts transmitted in vernacular languages and Sanskrit. Yet, it is also clear that there are pivotal terms that do not occur in texts preceding the Nikāyas (e.g., nirvana/nibbāna).33 When we do find central Buddhist terms in earlier non-Buddhist sources, there are (1) some that have the same meaning and pre-eminence (e.g., terms derived from vi+muc/vimutti; manas/mano; sukha); (2) some that have a different meaning but still a central role (e.g., Dhamma/Dharma); and (3) some that have a different meaning, while at the same time, occur rarely in earlier sources. The latter option coincides with the position of the term jhāna/dhyāna in earlier non-Buddhist sources.34
Thus, an exploration for sources that might have been possible ancestors of the fourfold jhānas model should start with textual materials that can be dated before the third century BCE at the late
st. Although, as pointed out earlier, we do not have access to all possible influences on early Buddhism, we do have three valuable textual sources: the Vedas, the older Upaniṣads and references to practices exercised by other samaṇas and brāhmaṇas that are recorded in the Nikāyas themselves.35 While this type of analysis is not without limitations, it has an evident heuristic value.
In his study of practices in early Indian contemplative texts, Edward Crangle has used contextual analysis for exploring important terms belonging to Indian contemplative practices.36 He chooses three terms that are the most common: upāsanā, dhyāna and yoga and their derivatives. He had two aims: first, to evaluate if there is a foundation for meditative practices in pre-Buddhist Upaniṣads, ‘which may have made their way into the Pāli suttas’, and second, to evaluate the possibility ‘of cross-fertilization of ideas and practices from early Buddhism and other heterodox systems to the post-Buddhist Upaniṣads’.37
A number of his observations are particularly pertinent for our purposes. He maintains that in the Ṛg Veda, only the muni-sūkta reflects the same type of practices as later contemplative traditions, such as those in the Upaniṣads and Buddhism. He observes that ‘their designation as munayo (connoting ecstatic and ascetic practices) implies contemplation rather than worship of gods as their main absorption’. He further remarks that the ‘naked munis’ (vātarasana) might be a description of early yogis that influenced Vedic ritual.38 Furthermore, he suggests that yogic disciplines were practiced initially as a separate method from those documented in the Vedic hymns,39 and that this hymn seems to be the work of an outsider.40 Werner has also distinguished between Vedic hymns that represent conceptual thinking and hymns that are like the Keśin hymn, which was probably written by an observer of the yogic practice of the muni ‘who was not quite congenial to them’.41
Whatever the source of these hymns is, the Ṛg Veda generally speaking, presents only rudiments of contemplative practices. Neither the Ṛg Veda nor the later Vedas give any indication of the doctrine of karma/kamma or offer praxis for liberation from the cycle of death and rebirth42 – the epitome of the various contemplativeascetic traditions in early India. Thus, themes that became the focal point of yogic praxis and world view cannot be found in early Vedic texts.
In light of this, Crangle’s suggestion that the themes connected to yoga practices might have non-Vedic origin and must be found beyond the Vedic/Aryan context,43 might stand as a hypothesis.44 However, even if non-Vedic oral traditions are the origin of various yogic ideas and practices, we have no available sources for predicating such a hypothesis or determining what these practices were.45 Fortunately, we do have a few relevant sources that record non-Buddhist contemplative practices, such as the early Upaniṣads. Earlier texts such as the Āraṇyakas and Brāhmaṇas represent only an initial understanding of the efficacy of mind and contemplation, by associating the performance of the mental sacrifice with the external rite.46 Only in the Upaniṣads can we find the idea that meditation can replace the external sacrifice by way of visualization and, thereby, become a form of worship/meditation (upāsanā).47 Thus, the search for meditation techniques and contemplative instructions, with specific references to the term dhyāna/jhāna, starts with the early Upaniṣads.
At this point, a few words concerning the chronology of the Upaniṣads are in order. The principle Upaniṣads were divided by Arthur Macdonell into four classes on the basis of internal evidence.48 For the purpose of this study, the first two classes are important: the oldest group, which contains the Bṛhadāranyaka, Chāndogya, Taittirīya, Aitareya, Kausītaki (around eighth century BCE) and the Kena, which forms a transition to a decidedly later class; and the second group, which contains the Katha, Iśa, Śvetāsvatara, Mundaka and Mahānārāyana Upaniṣads (composed around fourth century BCE).49
In his survey for the term dhyāna in the Upaniṣads, Edward Crangle has observed that terms stemming from the root dhyai50 (e.g., dhyāna/jhāna) occur only twenty-six times in total in the oldest Upaniṣads.51 On the other hand, terms derived from upa + ās (e.g., upāsanā) occur 188 times in total. Crangle’s study has showed that terms derived from upa + ās represent pivotal contemplative practices in the oldest Upaniṣads, while dhyāna played a minor role. Since dhyāna occurs rarely in the older Upaniṣads, it is difficult to ascertain its meaning; therefore, it was translated in various ways, such as ‘contemplation’,52 ‘thought’53 and ‘meditation’.54 This problem arises from the fact that the term dhyāna is not explicated in the older Upaniṣads in terms of its meaning or use. In Chānd VII.6.1–2, for example, dhyāna is one of a series of mental faculties and external objects55 that should be meditated upon (upāste) as Brahman. In this context, it is not clear what dhyāna actually means, but it is obvious that it is an object of meditation among other objects. In Kauṣ III.2–4, 6 and Bṛh IV.3.7,56 dhyāna seems to mean simply ‘a thought’ or ‘to think’ (dhyāyatīva).
Upāsanā, on the contrary, occurs many times. It is beyond the scope of this study to discuss this term extensively; however, a very brief summery is in order. Upāsanā literally means the ‘act of sitting or being near an object at hand’ and is also associated with adoration and worship. It is translated as both ‘worship’ and ‘meditation’.57 Crangle has observed that ‘the objects of upāsanā are mainly verbal symbols and abstract ideas’,58 for example, the worship/meditation on one’s self (ātman).59 He asserts that
[T]erms formed from ‘upa + ās’ indicate that upāsanā is, on the whole, a contemplative process wherein the object of worship is an object of concentration… various tangible objects, in addition to abstract images located internally, are the focus of constant meditation as the means to realize Brahman. 60
Crangle further maintains that ‘inclusion of specific yoga techniques into the overall process of upāsanā is not obvious or recognized’.61 Interestingly, Bhikkhu Sujato has pointed out the similarity between upāsanā – the most important term for contemplative practice in pre-Buddhist texts – and the term upaṭṭhāna from the Pāli and concluded that
[T]he major contemplative practice of the pre-Buddhist period is upāsanā, and this practice finds its closest Buddhist connection, surprisingly enough, not with jhāna or samādhi but with satipaṭṭhāna. 62
Two additional contemplative terms/methods apart from upāsanā are prominent in the older Upaniṣads as means for realizing Brahman – the goal of the Upaniṣadic sage. The first does not occur in the Nikāyas at all while the other functions only in an ordinary sense. The former is the uttering of the syllable Aum (and udgītha),63 and the latter is the term prāṇa, the ‘vital breath’ (which is also recurrent in the saṃhitās).64 Aum appears in the older Upaniṣads many times and is often associated with the derivative of the root upa+ās (e.g., Chānd I.1.7–8; Chānd I.4.1). Aum is identified with Brahman (Tait I.8.1; Bṛh V.1.1) and understood as omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient: ‘as such, Aum is the bringer of immortality and the fulfiller of desires’65 (Chānd I.1.6–8; I.4.4–5). The uttering of this verbal symbol was considered to have great power in the Upaniṣads since ‘this syllable is, verily, the everlasting spirit. This syllable, indeed, is the highest end; knowing this very syllable, whatever anyone desires will, indeed, be his’ (Kaṭha I.2.16).
Prāṇa is also a recurrent theme in the early Upaniṣads, and it is also coupled many times with the root upa+ās (e.g., Kauṣ III.2). Indra explains: ‘I am prāṇa, meditate on me (upāsva) as prajñātma, as immortality… for indeed with prāṇa one obtains immortality in this world.’66 Another verse states that with prāṇa one obtains immortality in this world, or leaves this body, goes to where the devas are, and becomes immortal there (Kauṣ II.14).
Given the preceding studies and references, it seems that contemplative practices mentioned in the Upaniṣads centre mainly on the term upāsanā, the uttering of a sacred syllable and the concentration on the ātman or the ‘vital breath’ (prāṇa) as immortal objects. Interestingly, th
e notion that specific sounds have the power to transform the reciter, thus helping him to achieve immortality and transcendence, was not used or taught by the Buddha. On the contrary, such a practice was criticized by the Buddha, especially when used for worldly gain.67 Yet, what about the role of prāṇa/pāṇa in the early Buddhist practice: is it different from the way it is conceptualized in Vedic texts?
Prāṇa had a ritual role in the recitation of mantras in Vedic texts, a role that involved breath control and rhythmic breathing.68 This type of utilizing the breath is opposite to the way the Buddha instructs his disciple. In the Nikāyas, one has to first observe the breath, without manipulating or controlling it, and then use it for tranquilizing the breath itself and the body.69 As for the notion of the ‘vital breath’ – as a superior object of meditation70 – there is only an apparent resemblance with the Nikāyas’ teachings. A small survey of the use of the Pāli term pāṇa (Skt prāṇa) in the Nikāyas shows that it usually refers to a ‘living being’ or ‘life’ in general. The term for ‘breath’ as an object of meditation is ānāpāna, ‘inhaled and exhaled breath’, and not pāṇa. This may have been because the Buddha wanted to avoid an association that the term pāṇa had with ātman, or it could have been because ānāpāna designates a process rather than a ‘thing’.
In the ‘sutta on the mindfulness with breathing’ (Anāpānasati Sutta), the use of the breath as an object of observation might be compared to the treatment of the ‘vital breath’ in the Upaniṣads. In the Nikāyas, the ‘in-and-out breath’ is an object that helps the meditator to cultivate and develop the seven factors of awakening (bojjhaṅga); when these factors are fully developed, they lead to liberation. While the in-and-out breath is a useful object of meditation, it is not only a preliminary object according to this sutta; rather, in-and-out breath mainly serves as an aid to actually observing the four satipaṭṭhānas71 and impermanence. In other words, after an initial observation of the in-and-out breath, it is substituted by more subtle objects; that is, first by the three satipaṭṭhānas (vedanā, citta and dhamma) and finally by the bojjhaṅgas, as part of the observation of dhammas.
