ABSTRACT
In earlier chapters I mentioned the prevalent view of the jhānas as not liberative or distinctively Buddhist. This view is based on the premise that the jhānas are a borrowed element from Indian contemplative traditions, a meditative technique ( samatha-bhāvanā ) that yields various mystical experiences and spiritual powers, but which is not conducive (or necessary) to liberation. A common supposition, shared by Theravāda thinkers and most Buddhologists, is that the jhānas are diametrically opposed to the practice of vipassanā ( vipassanā-bhāvanā ). This supposition considers vipassanā as the only Buddhist innovation and therefore the only practice that brings about the attainment of awakening. Stuart Sarbacker defi nes this division in his book Samādhi: The Numinous and the Cessative in Indo-Tibetan Yoga :
In samatha one is approximating the qualities of a divinity, the very basis of the idea of the numinous. In theory, through meditative powers, the yogin ascends the very divine hierarchy, gaining along the way numerous experiences and ultimately a range of powers of perception and action . . . In vipaśyanā, we have the understanding or wisdom . . . yielding the cessation of suffering and the state of nirvāṇa in all its ineffability. 3
This idea is rooted in classical Buddhist phenomenology of meditation. However, an in-depth analysis of the jhānas in the Pāli Nikāyas shows there is a solid basis for arguing that the jhānas are essential for attaining liberation in the Nikāyas’ theory of spiritual cultivation. The fourfold jhāna model cannot be found in any early non-Buddhist texts. 4 A phenomenological analysis of the fourfold jhāna model demonstrates that it embodies a distinct Buddhist view of mental cultiva-
deeper and experience is perceived more and more clearly until an awakened awareness is anticipated by an unawakened practitioner.
