Skip to content
buddhavacana

Did the Buddha teach meditation?

· 34 min read

It seems to be a common misconception that the Buddha explicitly taught meditation as a central practice. As per the summary page on this website TL;DR - What the Buddha Taught, the Buddha advocated the cessation of suffering through an eight step approach using an experiential learning cycle based on observation and reflective adjustments to one’s behaviour, actions and speech. This is an active and conscious cycle, not based on absorptions or meditation. There is not a single word for “meditation” in the early discourses, or indeed in the entire Vinaya (apart from an indirect reference to jhāna).

More specifically, the Buddha’s path to the cessation of suffering is through the cessation of non-optimal “mental constructions.” Meditation involves the generation of mental constructions, therefore cannot lead to eradication of suffering. Furthermore meditation is impermanent and therefore cannot lead to a permanent cessation of suffering even if it alleviates suffering temporarily. No matter how advanced you are as a meditation practitioner you cannot maintain a meditative state indefinitely.

Modern interpretations and reinventions

Section titled “Modern interpretations and reinventions”

How did this misconception arise? It likely stems from the fact that many later Buddhist traditions, particularly those influenced by Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna schools, have placed a strong emphasis on meditation practices. These traditions developed various forms of meditation techniques, such as mindfulness (vipassana) and concentration (samatha), which became integral to their spiritual practices.

In the Theravāda tradition, meditation practices may have been introduced later as well, with the Abhidhamma and commentarial literature elaborating on meditative techniques (which seems like they are derived from Hindu meditative practices). However, as many observers noted, the practice of meditation died out in many Theravāda countries until its revival in the 19th and 20th centuries.

As Charles Allen (2002) noted in The Search For The Buddha:

Dharmapala must also be credited with the revival of the practice of meditation, widely seen today as an integral element of Buddhism. Traditionally confined to monks, passed down from master to pupil by personal and private initiation, the practice had died out entirely in Ceylon, Burma and Siam. In a Sinhalese monastery in 1890 Dharmapala discovered a treatise which he studied carefully before passing it on to Thomas Rhys Davids, who translated it for the Pali Text Society under the title The Manual of a Mystic. From this time onwards meditation was no longer the exclusive preserve of initiates, but became available to lay followers through public instruction.

Over time, these practices were systematised and popularised, leading to the widespread association of Buddhism with meditation. Additionally, Western interpretations of Buddhism have often highlighted meditation as a key component, further reinforcing this perception. As Lance Cousins (1996) noted in The Origins of Insight Meditation:

It is easy to get the impression from reading the literature that the principal form of meditation current today in Theravāda Buddhism is a particular type of insight meditation (vipassanā) - one which is keenly recommended by adherents. Meditation practice of this kind has in relatively recent years spread from Burma to other Southern Buddhist countries and even outside the traditional environment of this form of Buddhism. Today centres and teachers for the practice of insight meditation are to be found in England, Germany, India, U.S.A., and many other countries. Almost all of these derive ultimately from Burma, although they are not all of the same branch of Burmese meditation. This method is advocated with great, if not excessive, enthusiasm …

Lance also points out that this practice originated from later sources:

I find the principal origin of this type of material in a later canonical work, the Patisambhidā-magga and seek to situate its historical context in the period of the formation of the Vibhajjavādin and Sarvāstivādin schools

Modern schools of meditation practice are largely Theravādin influenced and based on various practices from different countries:

  • Burmese insight meditation, based on Mahasi Sayadaw and U Nārada traditions, or derived from Buddhaghosa’s Visuddhimagga. Lance notes “…there is a great deal of concentration-orientated meditation …” that “… seems to be associated either with esotericism of some kind or with the development of psychic powers and is often especially linked to developing mental contact with some kind of non-human being.”

  • Sri Lankan meditation practices, which as Lance notes “… seem to be partly individual creations from the literature and partly something transmitted through the network of individual connections within the Buddhist sangha”. He added “It is often claimed that meditation among lay people in Ceylon is a relatively new phenomenon of the post-war period. Certainly a middle class movement, attending meditation centres catering for the laity is indeed a recent development. Relatively few village people seem to take up meditation before they reach a more advanced age.”

  • Thai Forest Tradition meditation, based on the teachings of Ajahn Chah and others. Lance notes:

    It often involves the attempt to develop some degree of samādhi but does bring in some insight at an early stage. It can also be characterized by its use of meditation on the thirty-two parts of the body and by use of the mantra Buddho together with mindfulness of breathing. This tradition is both conservative and reformist but not usually modernist or ultimatist. It can be contrasted with the highly modernist approach of the followers of Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu with their distinct tendency towards ultimatism. A more traditionalist approach is that of Wat Paknam involving concentration on various centres in the body, particularly one just above the navel, and the mantra sammā araham. An offshoot of this is the Dhammakāya movement with the same kind of meditation practice, but with a strongly modernizing tendency.

Elsewhere in South East Asia, François Bizot has described many kinds of esoteric practices.1

But what is meditation?

Section titled “But what is meditation?”

Lance describes:

In general English usage of the word ‘meditation’ seems to refer to methods or techniques of repetitive exercise for developing some kind of mental state or understanding. This is very far from covering the full range of meaning of Buddhist bhāvanā. Indeed this term refers very precisely to the bringing into being of the bodhipakkhiyadhammas in general or the eightfold path in particular. In other words, such monastic activities as studying or teaching the dhamma as well as chanting suttas or repetition of gāthā may equally be forms of bhāvanā. This is certainly the position of the atṭhakathā and was probably that of traditional Theravāda Buddhism. Many samatha meditators today would still have some such understanding. In this view of the matter, bhāvanā is very widely practised indeed, both by virtually all monks and by most of the more committed laity.

It is important to stress again that bhāvanā is not discussed in the early discourses or in the Vinaya.

As Rupert Gethin (1994) points out in Bhavaṅga and Rebirth According to the Abhidhamma, the term bhavaṅga was introduced in the Theravāda Abhidhamma as a passive, resultant mode of consciousness (citta) that functions as the mind’s resting state between active thought processes and during deep, dreamless sleep, rather than being a form of unconsciousness or a mental blank. It is possible that bhāvanā was introduced as a counterpart to bhavaṅga, representing the active cultivation or development of mental states, particularly in the context of meditative practices aimed at achieving higher states of consciousness and ultimately liberation. However, this is not explicitly stated in the early texts.

Is jhāna a form of meditation?

Section titled “Is jhāna a form of meditation?”

Some scholars, such as Johannes Bronkhorst and Tilman Vetter, have advocated jhāna stages as the original core of Buddhist meditative practice (Bronkhorst, 1986; Vetter, 1988).

Specifically, Bronkhorst argues in The Two Traditions of Meditation in Ancient India that ancient India contained two distinct traditions of meditation. The first, which he terms the “main stream” and identifies in Jaina and early Hindu scriptures, sought liberation from [S]karman by stopping all activity through practices like extreme asceticism, motionlessness, and breath-holding, with liberation typically occurring at death. The second tradition, supposedly original to the Buddha, was a new method centred on the Four [S]Dhyānā — a series of pleasant, mindful states leading to liberation within one’s lifetime. Bronkhorst’s central thesis is that the Buddhist canon is not homogenous and shows significant influence from the main stream, which he identifies by locating contradictions where practices rejected in some Buddhist texts are accepted in others. He posits that these accepted instances are later, non-authentic borrowings, citing the “Formless States” (such as the Stage of Nothingness), the gradual shift towards viewing liberation as a post-mortem event, and the emphasis on an explicit “liberating insight” as key examples of main stream ideas that were absorbed into the Buddhist tradition over time.

According to K. R. Norman (1991) in Theravāda Buddhism and Brahmanical Hinduism, jhāna is derived from Sanskrit dhyāna which, according to the Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary, means:

meditation , thought , reflection , (esp.) profound and abstract religious meditation

But did the Buddha really mean meditation when he referred to jhāna? We do know that the Buddha adopted many Brahmanical terms and concepts, but often redefined them in his own teachings. My suggestion is that the Buddha redefined jhāna not as a “meditation”, “state”, or “condition”, but rather a mental posture, or disposition, consistent with his emphasis on active engagement in the path to cessation of suffering. In this sense, jhāna could be understood as a way of being mentally calm, present and attentive, rather than a meditative absorption.

Let’s examine 9M/4.6 Mahāsaccakasutta, where the Buddha renounced and practised advanced “formless meditative absorptions” from two renowned teachers, Āḷāra Kālāma and Uddaka Rāmaputta, but found them unsatisfactory as a path to liberation, despite him successfully achieving these states.

1238. “Why should it not be, Aggivessana? Here, Aggivessana, before my sambodhi (full awakening), while still a Bodhisatta, not fully awakened, this thought occurred to me:

‘Household life is confining, a dusty path. Going forth is the open air. It is not easy for one living in a house to lead the brahmacariya (optimal life) that is utterly perfect, utterly pure, like a polished shell. What if I, having shaved off my hair and beard, and having put on saffron robes, were to go forth from the home life into homelessness?’

So, Aggivessana, at a later time, while I was still young, with jet-black hair, endowed with the prime of youth, in the first stage of life — though my unwilling mother and father wept with tear-filled faces — having shaved off my hair and beard, and having put on saffron robes, I went forth from the home life into homelessness. Having thus gone forth, seeking what is wholesome, searching for the unsurpassed state of supreme peace, I approached where Āḷāra Kālāma was. Having approached, I said this to Āḷāra Kālāma:

‘I wish, Āvuso Kālāma, to lead the optimal life in this Dhamma and Discipline.’

When this was said, Aggivessana, Āḷāra Kālāma said this to me:

‘May the venerable one stay; such is this Dhamma that a wise person, in no long time, having realised his own teacher’s doctrine for himself through abhiññā (experiential understanding), may enter and dwell in it.’

Āḷāra Kālāma taught the Buddha the practice of the ākiñcaññāyatanaṁ (the “Base of Nothingness”), one of the formless meditative absorptions. After mastering this practice, the Buddha found it unsatisfactory as a path to liberation. He then went to Uddaka son of Rāma to learn the practice of the nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ (the “Base of Neither Apperception nor Non-Apperception”). Again, after mastering this practice, the Buddha found it unsatisfactory as a path to liberation.

Alexander Wynne (2007) argues in The Origin Of Buddhist Meditation that the narration of the Buddha being taught by Āḷāra Kālāma and Uddaka Rāmaputta is historically authentic and that they taught meditation techniques. If so, then the Buddha’s rejection of their teachings suggests that he was seeking a different approach.

The Buddha then wandered around Magadha, and eventually arrived at the town of Senā in Uruvelā and decided to settle down at a delightful park in a charming grove, with a clear-flowing river and a nearby village. Here he practised jhāna by holding his breath:

1248. Then, Aggivessana, this thought occurred to me:

‘What if I were to practise just the breathless jhāna (mental disposition)?’

So, Aggivessana, I stopped the in-breaths and out-breaths through my mouth and nose. When the in-breaths and out-breaths through my mouth and nose were stopped, there was a loud sound of winds coming out of my ear-holes. Just as there is a loud sound when a smith’s bellows are blown; exactly so, Aggivessana, when the in-breaths and out-breaths through my mouth and nose were stopped, there was a loud sound of winds coming out of my ear-holes. My determination was applied and active, my awareness was present and unmuddled, but my body was agitated and not tranquil because I was overpowered by the pain of striving. Even such painful feeling that arose in me, Aggivessana, did not invade my mind and remain.

So it is clear that the Buddha practised jhāna through breath control, which is a common technique in many meditative traditions, but ultimately was not successful. He then tried fasting, but was also unsuccessful.

Finally, he had an epiphany. He realised that he had in fact experienced jhāna before as a youth while watching his father work, without any formal practice or techniques. This led him to understand that jhāna is not about specific practices or techniques, but rather a natural state of mind that can be accessed through everyday activities and experiences.

1256. Then, Aggivessana, this thought occurred to me:

‘Whatever wanderers or brahmins in the past experienced painful, sharp, harsh, bitter feelings due to exertion, this is the utmost, there is nothing beyond this. Whatever wanderers or brahmins in the future will experience painful, sharp, harsh, bitter feelings due to exertion, this is the utmost, there is nothing beyond this. Whatever wanderers or brahmins at present experience painful, sharp, harsh, bitter feelings due to exertion, this is the utmost, there is nothing beyond this. Yet by this bitter, difficult austerity, I have not attained any superhuman state, any distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the liberated. Could there indeed be another path to awakening?’

Then, Aggivessana, this thought occurred to me:

‘I recall that when my father the Sakyan was working, while I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, secluding myself from sensual pleasures, detaching from unwholesome characteristics, I entered and remained in the first mental disposition, accompanied by reflection and consideration, secluded from defilements, with felicity and satisfaction. Could this indeed be the path to awakening?’

Then, Aggivessana, there was in me the consciousness following that memory:

‘This indeed is the path to awakening.’

Then, Aggivessana, this thought occurred to me:

‘Why indeed am I afraid of that pleasure, for it is pleasure apart from sensual pleasures, apart from unwholesome characteristics?’

Then, Aggivessana, this thought occurred to me:

‘I am indeed not afraid of that pleasure, for it is pleasure apart from sensual pleasures, apart from unwholesome characteristics.’

Accompanying this epiphany is a subtle redefinition of jhāna. Instead of being a state achieved through formal practice and techniques, it is now presented as a natural state of mind that can be accessed through everyday activities and experiences. The Buddha also realises that the true path to awakening lies not in meditative practices and extreme asceticism, but in finding joy and pleasure in wholesome non-sensual mental dispositions.

Meditation was reintroduced into Buddhism

Section titled “Meditation was reintroduced into Buddhism”

Despite this very clear account of the Buddha’s own experiences, it seems the concept “meditation” was reintroduced into Buddhism, and some of the practices that the Buddha found unsuccessful were re-adopted.

Johannes Bronkhorst (1998) in Self and meditation in Indian Buddhism noted:

However, many contemporaries of the Buddha did not agree with the idea of psychological transformation as precondition for liberation, as we have seen. Nor did some of his early followers. They were tempted by that other understanding of the doctrine of karma in which karma is activity, and liberation from its effects takes place as a result of inaction. Practices relating to that other understanding of the doctrine of karma were therefore introduced into Buddhism, and among these there are meditational practices of a different kind.

Let us first consider some physical practices. Non-Buddhist ascetics cultivated total control of the senses, so much so that their functioning could be completely suppressed. No such suppression was advocated by the Buddha, and indeed, at least one Buddhist Sūtra (the Indriyabhāvanā Sutta of the Pāli canon and its parallel in Chinese translation) ridicules the kind of so-called ‘cultivation of the senses’ which leads to their non-functioning; the Buddha is here reported to say that if this is cultivation of the senses, the blind and deaf would be cultivators of the senses. And yet, in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, in its various recensions, where a discussion with someone called Putkasa (in Sanskrit) or Pukkusa (in Pāli) is recorded, the Buddha is presented as boasting that once, in a violent thunderstorm when lightning killed two farmers and four oxen nearby him, he did not notice it. We must assume that this apocryphal story reflects the admiration that, in spite of the Buddha, certain Buddhists felt for these kinds of abilities.

Clearer, and even more surprising, is the fact that sometimes the Buddha himself is credited with practices which we can recognise as being typical of early Jainism, and which certain Buddhist text indeed ascribe to Jainas and criticise as such. For example, a Sūtra of the Majjhima Nikāya (the Cūladukkhakkhandha Sutta) and its parallels in Chinese translation describe and criticise the Jainas as practising ‘annihilation of former actions by asceticism’ and ‘non-performing of new actions’. This is an accurate description of the practices of the Jainas. But several other Sūtras of the Buddhist canon put almost the same words in the mouth of the Buddha, who here approves of these practices. We conclude from this contradiction that non-Buddhist practices - this time it clearly concerns Jaina practices - had come to be accepted by at least some Buddhists, and ascribed to the Buddha himself.

Thus, despite the Buddha’s rejection, the practice of the ākiñcaññāyatanaṁ (the “Base of Nothingness”) and the practice of the nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ (the “Base of Neither Apperception nor Non-Apperception”) were reintroduced into Buddhism as part of the four “formless jhānas”. Bronkhorst noted:

The Stage of Infinity of Space (ākāśānantyāyatana / ākāsānañcāyatana), the Stage of Infinity of Perception (vijñānānantyāyatana / viññānañcāyatana), the Stage of Nothingness (ākiñcanyāyatana / ākiñcaññāyatana) and the Stage of Neither Ideation nor Non-Ideation (naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana / nevasaññānāsaññāyatana) often occur together in the Buddhist Sūtras, also in other contexts. They are known by the name ārūpya “Formless States”. Independent evidence, from early Abhidharma this time, confirms that neither these Formless States nor the Cessation of Ideations and Feelings (saṃ-jñāvedayitanirodha / saññāvedayitanirodha) were part of the Buddha’s original teaching. And yet they came to be looked upon as central to Buddhist meditation.

Even more surprisingly, the Buddha’s rejection of suppression of bodily action and of the senses as a means to awakening was also overturned. Bronkhorst wrote:

The Vitakkasanthāna Sutta of the Majjhima Nikāya and its parallels in Chinese translation recommend the practising monk to ‘restrain his thought with his mind, to coerce and torment it’. Exactly the same words are used elsewhere in the Pāli canon (in the Mahāsaccaka Sutta, Bodhirājakumāra Sutta and Saṅgārava Sutta) in order to describe the futile attempts of the Buddha before his enlightenment to reach liberation after the manner of the Jainas. The passage from the third Bhāvanākrama just cited states, similarly, that “nothing is to be thought on” (na kiṃcic cintayitavyam). Other indications show that suppression of mental activity, though rejected by the Buddha, came to characterise much that became known as Buddhist meditation.

References

Section titled “References”
Allen, C. (2002). The Search for the Buddha: The Men Who Discovered India’s Lost Religion. Carroll & Graf.
Bronkhorst, J. (1986). The Two Traditions of Meditation in Ancient India. Franz Steiner.
Bronkhorst, J. (1998). Self and Meditation in Indian Buddhism. International Conference on Korean Sŏn Buddhism, Kobulch’ongnim Paekyang-Sa Buddhist Monastery, 19–22 August 1998, 141–159.
Cousins, L. S. (1996). The Origins of Insight Meditation. In T. Skorupski (Ed.), The Buddhist Forum, Volume IV: Seminar Papers 1994–1996 (pp. 35–58).
Gethin, R. (1994). Bhavaṅga and Rebirth According to the Abhidhamma. In T. Skorupski & U. Pagel (Eds.), The Buddhist Forum, Volume III: 1991–1993 (pp. 11–35).
Norman, K. R. (1991). Theravāda Buddhism and Brahmanical Hinduism: Brahmanical Terms in a Buddhist Guise. In T. Skorupski (Ed.), The Buddhist Forum, Volume II: Seminar Papers 1988–1990 (pp. 193–200).
Vetter, T. (1988). The Ideas and Meditative Practices of Early Buddhism. Brill.
Wynne, A. (2007). The Origin of Buddhist Meditation. Routledge.

Footnotes

Section titled “Footnotes”

  1. According to Lance: F. Bizot, Le Figuier à Cinq Branches, Recherche sur le bouddhisme khmer, Paris, 1976; F. Bizot, “La Grotte de la Naissance. Recherches sur le bouddhisme khmer, II,” BEFEO, LXVII, 1980, 221273; F. Bizot, Le Don de Soi-même, Recherches sur le bouddhisme khmer III, Paris, 1981; F. Bizot, “Notes sur les yantra bouddhiques d’Indochine,” in Tantric and Taoist Studies in honour of R.A. Stein, ed., M. Strickmann, Vol. I, 155-191, Brussels, 1981; F. Bizot, Les traditions de la pabbajjā en Asie du Sud-Est, Recherches sur le bouddhisme khmer, IV, Göttingen, 1988; F. Bizot, Rämaker, L’Amour symbolique de Rām et Setā, Recherches sur le bouddhisme Khmer, V, Paris, 1989; F. Bizot, “La consécration des statues et le culte des morts,” in Recherches nouvelles sur le Cambodge, ed., F Bizot, Paris, 1994, 101-39; F. Bizot, Le bouddhisme des Thaïs, Bangkok, 1993; F. Bizot and O. von Hinüber, La guirlande de Joyaux, Paris, 1994 and see also: O. de Bernon and F. Bizot, Le Rämaker du vieux Chak, Paris, 1995; Catherine Becchetti, Le mystère dans les lettres, Bangkok, 1991; C. Becchetti, “Une ancienne tradition de manuscrits au Cambodge,” in Recherches nouvelles sur le Cambodge, ed., F Bizot, Paris, 1994, 47-62. ↩

Backlinks