Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Samadhi is not concentration?
hermitwin
Veteran
Samadhi is stillness?
Do you agree?
Do you agree?
0
Comments
There are teachers/monks that translate samma samadhi as "right stillness"
Generally these teachers/monks also define nibbana incorrectly
These teachers/monks have defiled experience or insight
In fact, their minds are generally deficient in insight (vipassana)
These teachers/monks are generally drunken teachers of jhana
Samadhi can be reached through letting the mind be so it can be still. In that sense we can describe samadhi as stillness. We can also describe samadhi as concentration because the mind also becomes collected and centered in samadhi. But sometimes when we hear the word concentration, we think that we have to act or do something to make the mind concentrate. The word stillness indicates that we simply let the mind be so it can settle into stillness , which leads to samadhi. Maybe that is why certain teachers prefer to describe samadhi as stillness. Neither one is wrong really. Both concentration and stillness describe a certain aspect of samadhi. I would keep both descriptions.
With metta,
What right concentration is, is discussed often. Some say it is jhanas other say it is not. The truth is probably in the middle. Everybody is conditioned in a different way. Just aim high and try to go for the jhanas, you'll know if you need them if you experience them.
So it's all the same thing. Just keep meditating.
and most common english word used for Samadhi.
However, since concentration implies something that
you can achieve through force & determination,
it is suggested that some other word may be
more suitable.
To achieve samadhi, you need to let go and accept the
moment as it is.
The word 'stillness' looks like a good candidate.
Pl let me know if you know the word for samadhi
in other languages. thanks.
[ Samma Samadhi ]
it seems we are brainwashed by Ajahn Brahm and intent on spreading his idiosyncratic opinions
:eek2: :om:
its purpose is to facilitate "seeing", like a shooter concentrates on their target
stillness & stability do not express the "magnified seeing" role of samadhi
Aside from being still, one-pointedness is also an important aspect of samadhi. It's difficult to find one word that covers both of these aspects. Perhaps keep the term " concentration" due to a lack of a better word, but also bear in mind the " stillness" or letting be aspect that is conducive to entering that state.
With metta,
Too many of Ajahn Brahm's followers are merely propagating his teachings.
Many things Ajahn Brahm states do not match the Pali theory.
However, most of what Ajahn Brahm states about meditation, despite being academically inaccurate, is 100% intended to being conducive to entering that state.
To me, Ajahn Brahm's book: Mindfulness Bliss & Beyond is a most excellent introduction to samadhi practise.
Kind regards
With metta,
if so are there any scripture backing this up? is it even worth cultivating samadhi to all aspects of our lives. or is this a hinderance?
thoughts please? thanks
The meditative state can assert itself in post-meditation. I don't have any dharma references however. The texts I refer to are from my lineage, Kagyu (Tibetan), particularly Mahamudra by Dakpo Tashi Namgyal (http://www.amazon.com/Mahamudra-Moonlight-Quintessence-Mind-Meditation/dp/0861712994). I can't find the reference at this point in time, if anyone is interested I'll have a look and post later. This was written in the 1500's so if you're after early Dharma writings you'll need to look elsewhere.
Having said that, I would be surprised if serious meditators were not experiencing some meditative states in post meditation periods. However, there is still a clear difference between meditative states and insight though, the former is easier to obtain. The goal of meditation is not states or experiences but what insight you can derive from them.
I agree completely that if anyone gets attached to the experience of mediation then, at least from a Buddhist POV, they're missing the point completely. In the Kagyu tradition it is explicitly stated that one should be detached from the meditative experiences and treat them as neither good nor bad and not to use them as a gauge of process. In that direction lies the path to conceit, and, if you believe in rebirth, merely a higher birth. The only gauge of progress is whether the meditator has insight into their own reality.
The Kagyu also say that the nature of the mind is like space, one interpretation of this is considering space to be the space of renunciation and detachment.
the buddha taught right concentration is relinquishment (vossaggā) as its sole object
so naturally, one can "do without doing" with the Buddha's right concentration
egoless doing
whilst i read this book years ago, i sense you many enjoy reading this book called No Religion:
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_No_Religion.htm
regards
curious i am!
The text in your link is truncated for some reason, this one is complete:
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books2/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_No_Religion.htm
Thanks for the link. Its good stuff.