While I have still maintained my moratorium on writing and talking solo about jhāna and nimitta, from time to time I do speak with others and discuss others’ writings on the topic, as I do here with “The Mystery of the Breath Nimitta: Or, The Case of the Missing Simile — An Essay on Aspects of the Practice of Breath Meditation” by Ajahn Sona. My questions and comments here are cursory, as I’ve only read the Ānāpāna section and some samatha portions of the Visuddhimagga, but not the Vimuttimagga or the Paṭisambhidāmagga—the two texts Ajahn Sona sides with.
I appreciate the Ajahn’s approach, time, and effort in scouring these three seminal texts on meditation for a topic relevant to a practice I’ve been engaging in almost exclusively for the past year or two of my two hour daily formal sitting practice since May 2012. Yet, I have not had much light nor an image-based nimitta arise and remain, which is precisely why my comments should be taken with a grain of salt. Everything ultimately needs to be verified through wise and discerning, clear, direct knowing and seeing for oneself. (I may or may not revisit and revise this post after reading the aforementioned texts and/or having more direct experience in practice.)
The sole intent here is to help clear as many distortions and blockages as possible. However, the danger in doing so is that it could create new ones. The question then arises: why is jhana and (associated) nimitta(s) not more clear and straightforward? If I had to guess, I’d say the stakes are high—and when the stakes are high, it tends to attract high-stakes players.
Like Ajahn Sona and many others, I have often wondered why much of the commentarial material is not mentioned directly in the suttas. Or, in other words, how there can be so many differing understandings and explanations of the suttas in the commentaries, and among teachers and scholars? Again, if I had to respond, I’d note that we don’t even have full English translations of all the commentaries and sub-commentaries, so the conversation is already limited. Then, how accurate are the sutta translations we do have? And how much subtext, context, and subtle nuance are we still missing—nuances that seem to continue to be uncovered by dedicated practitioners and scholars?
Moreover, since the Buddhadhamma is timeless and universally applicable, the more subtle, fragile, exacting, verbose, technical, and intricate the instructions become, the greater the chance of being impacted by the uncertain, unreliable, changeable nature of experiences so in that light, it makes sense why the Buddha expounded the suttas in such a way.
This blog post won’t make much sense without having read Ajahn Sona’s article. With that in mind—and setting aside the minor matter of breath location, which I’ve addressed previously in Initiating Mindfulness to the Fore as the Foremost Meditation Instruction, and return to later in this post—I might be so bold as to summarize Ajahn Sona’s thesis as follows: According to the Visuddhimagga, during ānāpānasati practice (mindfulness of breathing), the images that arise when the mind is sufficiently concentrated, calm, and unified are not meant to be taken literally, but are metaphorical in nature and should be discarded.
However, a key passage from the Visuddhimagga complicates this interpretation:
“The difference between the earlier learning sign and the counterpart sign is this. In the learning sign any fault in the kasina is apparent. But the counterpart sign appears as if breaking out from the learning sign, and a hundred times, a thousand times, more purified, like a looking-glass disk drawn from its case, like a mother-of-pearl dish well washed, like the moon’s disk coming out from behind a cloud, like cranes against a thunder cloud. But it has neither color nor shape; for if it had, it would be cognizable by the eye, gross, susceptible of comprehension and stamped with the three characteristics. But it is not like that. For it is born only of perception in one who has obtained concentration, being a mere mode of appearance. But as soon as it arises the hindrances are quite suppressed, the defilements subside, and the mind becomes concentrated in access concentration.”
— Visuddhimagga Ch. IV, §31
It is a strong claim to assert that these images are purely metaphorical and have been misappropriated from earlier texts, misunderstood as literal objects of concentration. Has this really escaped the notice of advanced yogis, despite their attainments, proficiency, and powers of concentration, until now?
Moreover, in light of the above-quoted passage, I find it hard to understand Ajahn Sona’s interpretation of another Visuddhimagga section, namely Chapter VIII, §216, which he suggests reflects the compilers’ discomfort with “diversity of perception.” Here’s the passage:
“In fact this resembles an occasion when a number of bhikkhus are sitting together reciting a suttanta. When a bhikkhu asks, ‘What does this sutta appear like to you?’ one says, ‘It appears to me like a great mountain torrent,’ another ‘To me it is like a line of forest trees,’ another ‘To me it is like a spreading fruit tree giving cool shade.’ For the one sutta appears to them differently because of the difference in their perception. Similarly this single meditation subject appears differently because of difference in perception. It is born of perception, its source is perception, it is produced by perception. Therefore it should be understood that when it appears differently it is because of difference in perception.”
— Visuddhimagga Ch. VIII, §216
Ajahn Sona also claims the perceptions recommended in the Vimuttimagga and Visuddhimagga for mindfulness of breathing are “diametrically opposed.” He cites the following from the Vimuttimagga:
“To the yogin who attends to the incoming breath with mind that is cleansed of the nine lesser defilements, the image arises with a pleasant feeling similar to that which is produced in the action of spinning cotton or silk cotton. Also, it is likened to the pleasant feeling produced by a breeze. Thus in breathing in and out, air touches the nose or the lip and causes the setting-up of air perception mindfulness. This does not depend on colour or form. This is called the image. If the yogin develops the image and increases it at the nose-tip, between the eyebrows, on the forehead or establishes it in several places, he feels as if his head were filled with air. Through increasing in this way his whole body is charged with bliss. This is called perfection.
And again, there is a yogin: he sees several images from the beginning. He sees various forms such as smoke, mist, dust, sand of gold, or he experiences something similar to the pricking of a needle or to an ant’s bite. If his mind does not become clear regarding these different images, he will be confused. Thus he fulfills overturning and does not gain the perception of respiration. If his mind becomes clear, the yogin does not experience confusion. He attends to respiration and he does not cause the arising of other perceptions. Meditating thus he is able to end confusion and acquire the subtle image. And he attends to respiration with mind that is free. That image is free. Because that image is free, desire arises. Desire being free, that yogin attends respiration with equipoise. Equipoise, desire and joy being free, he attends to respiration, and his mind is not disturbed. If his mind is not disturbed, he will destroy the hindrances, and arouse the meditation (jhāna) factors. Thus this yogin will reach the calm and sublime fourth meditation, jhāna. This is as was fully taught above.”
— Vimuttimagga, Chapter 5: Mindfulness of Breathing, translated by N.R.M. Ehara, Soma Thera, and Kheminda Thera (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1961), pp. 145–147
To me, this doesn’t necessarily conflict with the Visuddhimagga’s progression of parikamma-nimitta (preliminary sign), uggaha-nimitta (acquired sign), and paṭibhāga-nimitta (counterpart sign). Could this simply represent an alternate approach, another angle, and/or variation in description?
When Ajahn Sona writes, “The sentence ‘this does not depend on colour or form’ makes it quite clear that the meditator should not expect the sign of respiration mindfulness as a visual image, since it is not possible to conceive of a visual perception lacking both colour and form. What may be inferred from the sentence is that the sign is a tactile percept,” I would point out that not depending on color or form doesn’t mean that there can’t be color or form.
Reading and reflecting on the essay raised several key questions:
- Why do a relatively small but consistent range of nimitta images arise for many meditators once the breath is sufficiently concentrated on knowing the breath at the Ānāpāna spot?
- Is it wise to write off these types of nimitta images without firsthand investigation — working with such nimitta(s) to see what they are capable of and how this compares to other approaches of meditation which cultivate (deep) samadhi?
- Is a monastic allowed to declare to laypeople that they experience a nimitta (given that proclaiming attainment of jhāna is against the Vinaya)? Can nimitta be shared since it may occur in access concentration rather than absorption? What are the implications of sharing, or not sharing this?
- If light or visual nimittas are required for jhāna, they can’t be dismissed. But if they’re not, then waiting for them might not be the best use of practice time. How does one discern this? Either way this is a monumental thing for concentration and Ānāpānasati practice and begs to question why there is such a lack of consensus
Regarding the question of location and breath contact, Ajahn Sona interprets this line from the Visuddhimagga: “A short-nosed man however, feels it on his upper lip,” as support for his point that “one can only feel the exhalation of warm air out the nostril onto the upper lip.” But is this necessarily so? Might a short-nosed man feel the breath on the upper lip during the in-breath? Or how about feeling sensations there when holding the breath? Must sensations on the upper lip always arise strictly from air movement? Could the Visuddhimagga simply be noting that when such a man does feel the breath, it is localized there, without specifying mechanism?
While this post touches a lot on specific points and details, in the end, this isn’t about nitpicking right vs. wrong—it’s about discovering what is truly helpful in the long run. It would be ideal if there were greater consensus and clear comprehension across the board. But at the very least, we all seem to agree on the jhānic factors and the suppression of the five hindrances.
No matter the degree of details and generalities, it appears the work now is about carefully weeding out distortions and exploring what actually works—and how clear, collected, deep, wide, profound, useful and helpful can it get
Integrating Presence 