[GoodLover]

I found this in the EIC Site.
The section I'm referring to is #13. (Sleeping consciously)
Enjoy.
http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/pers ... rience.htm

[Aizutox]

Wow, I wish I could do that.

[Elitiachirl]

Wow, those are some very interesting descriptions.

His claims to enlightenment seem pretty dubious though. "Sotapanna", usually trans. "Stream enterer" is the term for someone who's "entered the stream" of enlightenment. It's the first of 4 stages, the 4th being arhat-ship, total enlightenment. The idea is that the "stream" leads to the "sea" of nirvana, just like all rivers lead to the ocean (an indian motif). [I sometimes wonder if "entered Flow" doesn't get at the real sense - in the way I've heard RB use the term. where does that come from actually?] So, you can see, it's a very serious word, and while it may sometimes get attributed to others, I've NEVER seen it used as a personal title. For one thing, it's breaking a precept for a monk to make any claim to enlightenment or supernatural powers - even if it's true - to non-monks. So if he were a monk, technically, as far as I know he'd be disrobed for making the claim.

There are two methods of Buddhist meditation, which can be used together or separately. One is known as Tranquility, the other is Insight. Tranquility involves pure concentration techniques to concentrate the mind, make it extremely powerful, and ultimately expand consciousness to the point where it encompasses the whole universe (whatever that means). Insight means seeing through things - ie down to their vibrations, and using this penetrative vision to dissolve all the mental defilements, thoughts, sense of "I", and ultimately the mind itself - which constitutes Nirvana. Ie, Tranquility gets you to consciousness as big as the universe, Insight gets you to liberation - beyond the universe. Usually the quickest way to progress is said to be to use both of these - first concentrating the mind with the Jhanas, then switching to Insight to use the super-concentrated mind to burn away your stock of karma, which liberates you.

Tranquility and the Jhanas (sanskrit "dhyana") are not even originally Buddhist though. Even in the Buddhist version, Buddha learned all 8 jhanas from other meditation teachers and then abandoned them as not leading to complete liberation. Only 6 years later he found the right way and got enlightened.

That's not to say buddhists don't advocate practicing jhanas - they do - but they very clearly say jhana alone can't lead to liberation.

And he seems to be talking about jhana alone.

If anyone's interested, the 8 jhanas are:

1) "mental joy and bodily bliss born of separation" (from mental defilements - craving aversion etc), accompanied by applied thought and sustained thought and with one-pointed concentration;

2) "mental joy and bodily bliss born of absorption" (samadhi), without applied and sustained thought (ie the object disappears), with one-pointedness concentration;

3) "the equanimous and aware dweller in bliss", with only bodily bliss and one-pointed concentration;

4) "total purification of awareness by equanimity", with only one-pointed concentration and the total cessation of bodily and mental pleasure and pain.

These 4 are know as the Form-sphere jhanas and amount to a sequential refinement of the experience of bliss.

The higher 4 are called the Formless-sphere jhanas and are a progressive expanding of consciousness:

5) the sphere of infinite space
6) the sphere of infinite consciousness
7) the sphere of nothingness (shunyata)
8 ) the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception - where the "object" is the mind perceiving nothingness, so that it can't be said to either perceive of not perceive.

These 8 attainments are believed to arise in this sequence just by progressive concentration - ie keep your awareness on the breath without a single intervening thought and you will get there!

Now, if you look at Mr. Jhanananda's description of his meditation, it corresponds at most to the 2nd jhana - joy and bliss. A fantastic attainment, but not necessarily (or likely) implying nirvana.

But anyway what he says shows how central a role bliss actually plays in Buddhist meditation. This deserves acknowledgement.

And the really interesting parts are the things that are tangential to his actual meditation, aren't they?

But come on, "I used to not talk about these things because I thought they were no different from what any meditator experiences when they sleep"?!

[rNr5Di3S]

PS -

obviously, practicing RB's NEW and practicing Insight (Vipassana) are very much related, IMO.

[Bletlemof]

While I have not read the source, I wanted to comment on "entering the flow" and "entering the stream".

In my school of meditation there is a concept of "Mindstream". The Mindstream is underlying our individual consciousness and connecting it "back" to Universal Consciousness, containing all our experiences, and can be entered. When the Mindstream is entered, everything that is encountered is dissolved as long as you stay in the Mindstream.

On the Water Tradition Yahoo! group Ken linked this phenomenon to what Adyashanti calls "True Meditation", when awareness turns unto itself, no other focus present. He says it is one and the same - awareness meditating on itself is entering the mindstream. You could also call it "Deep Meditation", as within this experience there is no meditator and no self - there is only meditation.

Is this what is meant here?

Oliver

[Tusanoc]

Thank you Sean for this insightful reply. I'm starting to enjoy your posts more and more and plan to reread all of them again.

[Msrwbdas]

Thanks CF We just went through a meditation text in my seminar, so I've got it all at my fingertips.

The bliss thing was really news to me, and is usually de-emphasized when translating the jhana descriptions. But that really does seem to be what they're all about.

Korpo, re "mindstream", I'm not sure. What you're saying sounds something like the pali "bhavanga", the "substratum of being" but that's a sort of personal unconscious, not universal. So, it's hard to say. If you're calling nirvana universal consciousness, then it might work, but I'd think that'd be a misnomer.

I know at times my insight and concentration have been best, the whole mind seemed to become something like a swift flowing stream, from head to toe, with my awareness fixed at one point, observing the flow. I thought this might shed light on the "watching the river" metaphor, and maybe have something to do with the term "sotapanna". Honestly, I don't know though. Just speculation.

But RB's use of the term "Flow", as if with a capital "F" really caught my attention. I forget the exact context, unfortunately. It was in one of the radio interviews.

[Byxtysaaqwuz]

Korpo, re "mindstream", I'm not sure. What you're saying sounds something like the pali "bhavanga", the "substratum of being" but that's a sort of personal unconscious, not universal. So, it's hard to say. If you're calling nirvana universal consciousness, then it might work, but I'd think that'd be a misnomer.

Hmmm, no.

Universal Consciousness just is. The Mindstream is a connection to it - a deeper layer of being, underlying the "personal consciousness", but connecting back to - at its source - everything.

Nirvana equivalent would be the "Great Stillness" - all involuntary or habitual mechanisms have ceased. A great stillness prevails, and a continuous connection is present to Universal Consciousness. No more resistance - the whole energy of the being is flowing freely. The energies of the physical, etheric, emotional, mental, psychic and karmic influences are no longer blocked and the ego has dissolved into that there is only spontaneous expression in the present moment.

Oliver

[kennyguitar]

"I" know this comment is pointless in the scheme of things, but I still dare to ask: why, after so many lucid recollections of past lives, of constant lucidity in sleep & awake states, does this amazing being still inhabit a vehicle? Is it by choice/accident/indifference?

Although I realize that I'm speaking from my small, ego-bound perspective, I find the thought arising: what is the value/purpose of anything, including meditation & enlightenment, if one is still caught up in this body-mind complex, on this planet? Is it that it really doesn't matter, because in the ultimate sense one is free? Is there no residual desire left in this monk at all; not even for formlessness? He has lived through many enlightenments, it seems - was there no finale?

This "thing-that-says-I" is so far from that state that I deeply long NOT to have form after "death", & not to incarnate again. . . . . . while at the exact same time, some part of me knows that in the end it's all the same. . . ! Words fail, so do gestures. .. .

[xanaxonlinexanax]

Where does he claim that he is enlightened? From what I read only all his other lifetimes point to this and enlightenment in it.

Can you quote me something?

If enlightenment is the culmination of many lifetimes and experiences, in whatever sense, his description makes sense.

This human shell with all its characteristics is not better or worse. It is. If you cannot find enlightenment in this middleground, where else? The ability to feel pain and boredom can in the end help as much as spiritual inspiration and wonders.

Oliver

[soajerwaradaY]

Can you quote me something?

No, I see you're right (again!) It was my assumption after reading very fast (am at work & check the forum in between, while printing stuff, usually = bad habit) let me think about all this for a while before coming back with comments. . . . .I've often wondered this point so I suppose it got pulled in by my own unconscious assumption. (edit for sp error)

[tilmprarnerit]

Hey, no sweat. You actually made me read the article, which was a good thing, very interesting.

Oliver

[giftbestcom]

This is funny. This thread has been on my mind for a long time. What's so funny about it that I originally read the article and the responses to it without exploring the site associated with it. Funny in the sense that all it took to get more information was to click on the monk's name to be transferred to a site with a bio and everything.

I always respected seankerr's writing, very wise and insightful, but it's also interesting to look at the bio of the writer. The author of that article was self-ordained, meaning he was never member of an established Buddhist order:

PLEASE NOTE: Jhanananda (Jeffrey S. Brooks) is not affiliated with any lineage, teaching, method, tradition, religion or ideology other than his own; he is not part of any movement or organization other than his own, nor has he been sent out by anyone to teach. Jhanananda is an independent contemplative mystic, writer, teacher, speaker, artist and poet who has no spiritual affiliation of any kind other than with his own organization, the Great Western Vehicle. He has no guru, nor is he endorsed by one. He is not anyone’s disciple, devotee, representative or student. In this sense one of the original comments was that the author could be disrobed for his writings in any Buddhist tradition, but it seems that this Western Buddhist individual has a different perspective on things:

He has, however, been ostracized from the lay and monastic Buddhist community because he speaks openly about his personal experiences with meditative absorption (jhana/kundalini). The orthodox monastic community believes this is a serious violation of the monastic code (Vinaya). Jhanananda believes it is all too easy for a mediocre monk, nun, priest, minister or lay meditation teacher to hide behind these monastic rules that came centuries after the Buddha had left this Earth, and seem to have been instituted only to favor the mediocre non-contemplative community (sangha). You may or may not like this style, but this puts this rather unique source into a context, for better or worse, can't say. I take it with a grain of salt for the sheer sound of it. For anyone who wants to read into it, here's a link:

http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/jhanananda.html

Not endorsed as I know nothing about it, but for some reason I dug this up. *shrugs*

[DadaSeeva]

Seems like that author was a tad too much into himself, but some good stuff there, things neglected by "mainstream Buddhism." Some of his criticisms seem valid, others seem also to reflect a bit badly on himself. A mixed batch, I guess.

If you can take away anything from that is that Buddhism is in itself a belief system with a lot of the usual problems, something I might have needed to hear right now. It can be very helpful, yes, but not all is gold, probably due to 2,500 years of human beings doing what human beings do, not necessarily with ill intent.

[Vikonbarius]

Thanks for this, Korpo - will read & digest it over the next few days. . !

[reervieltnope]

I might revisit it, too, sono.

[lLianneForbess]

I just wish s.o. would teach the site owner how to create a readable format, it hurts my eyes.

[WordofViagra]

Read enough unformatted posts and you become tolerant of it.

[plogypeskelry]

I've also found that the site has a forum. Unlike the main site, which shows some neglect since quite some years, this forum seems to be active recently, and that Jhanananda/Jeff Brooks is interacting quite frequently there with others.

I think I'll participate there for a while to check it out.