What are your thoughts about this following passage: > “And what is the path that leads to the unconditioned? Immersion with > placing the mind and keeping it connected. Immersion without placing > the mind, but just keeping it connected. Immersion without placing the > mind or keeping it connected. …” -Savitakkasavicārasutta

Is there such a thing ? My guess is things like OCD etc. are extremes of concentration. Yuttadhammo Bhikku, for example, alludes to this excess concentration in some of his videos (I couldn't find specific mentions at the moment, I will cite the next time I find one). What are your insights on what is it? what are the pros/cons of it and what a person afflicted with it must do to overcome it? Thanks

I am asking this because now, after three years of daily samatha, I sit between forty-five minutes to an hour. Should I be sitting longer? I stopped timing myself about two years into practice, and generally speaking I sit until I emerge spontaneously from a state of concentration. Unless I am having a particularly difficult session I am rarely aware of the passage of time anyway, but more often than not I eventually just stop chanting and rest for a while in the stillness, and at that point it's like -- I could just sit there indefinitely. There is no reason to keep sitting, let alone a reason to stop.

In the sutta quoted here the Buddha recommends cultivating in equal measure concentration, equanimity and uplifted energy. As far as I know, in order to develop concentration one focuses the mind on an immobile object like a kasina, and for developing equanimity one observes the rise and fall of the breath. Similarly, what practice can one perform in order to cultivate uplifted energy? Would shraddha (pious faith) and belief in the dhamma qualify? Or does it refer to moment to moment mindfulness? Is there a specific meditation practice recommended? > "A monk intent on heightened mind should attend periodically to three themes: He should attend periodically to the theme of concentration; he should attend periodically to the theme of uplifted energy; he should attend periodically to the theme of equanimity. If the monk intent on heightened mind were to attend solely to the theme of concentration, it is possible that his mind would tend to laziness. If he were to attend solely to the theme of uplifted energy, it is possible that his mind would tend to restlessness. If he were to attend solely to the theme of equanimity, it is possible that his mind would not be rightly concentrated for the ending of the fermentations. But when he attends periodically to the theme of concentration, attends periodically to the theme of uplifted energy, attends periodically to the theme of equanimity, his mind is pliant, malleable, luminous, & not brittle. It is rightly centered for the stopping of the fermentations. SOURCE: [Nimitta Sutta: Themes - AN 3.100 (xi-xv) PTS: A i 255 Thai 3.103](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.100.11-15.than.html)

Some websites show that it is ideal to get 1.5 m distance between the person and the *kasina* object. Is there any science behind the recommendation to get that specific distance?

I plan on calling the Metta forest monastery with this question shortly but have not had the opportunity yet to do so. In “With Each and every breath” and in many of Thanissaro’s guided meditations he talks about playing with the “breath energies” of the body in meditation. While I believe I have on occasion felt these sensations in my hands, I have struggled to feel them elsewhere in the body, particularly their movement from the base of the skull down the spine as he often stresses is the most important place to feel these energies. If anybody as any experience with this particular form of meditation and tips on sensitizing myself to the breath energy of the body I would be keen to hear. Thank you!

In psychology, there is a form of meditation called 'open-monitoring', which involves paying non-judgmental awareness to everything that arises in the present moment. I have heard, and read, that Buddhism typically advises one to have some experience with concentrative meditations before engaging in such open meditations. Is it necessary to have some experienced with focused attention in order to practice more objectless meditations? Is there a big difference between sitting on the cushion doing nothing, and practicing an open type of meditation? How is the concentration required?

In the words of Buddha, the world in which we are living is generated as the following: > From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. > From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. > From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form... And, additionally, the following loop is also expounded: > "From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From > consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form..." The full understanding (awakening) of this knowledge is given through the eight jhanas (particularly the last four Arupa Jhanas;) which relates to what was said precedingly as follows: From the complete transcending of each following states, the bhikku enters & remains in the dimension of: - Infinite space - Infinite consciousness - Nothingness, then at last - Neither-Perception-Nor-Nonperception. My question will be about the last two. What are they exactly, the Sphere of Nothingness and the Sphere of Neither-Perception-Nor-Nonperception? How can they be transcended, and what for?

My field of perception is very wide. It often becomes so wide that it loops back onto itself in some odd kaleidoscopic fashion. This has rendered my previous methods of concentration unhelpful. Previously concentration was very deliberate and contrived and my surroundings would phase off into obscurity in favour of a pin-point focus on my chosen object. It opened up some interesting doors. The application of attention on a particular event such as breathing is very different. It is different because it is inclusive of all other phenomena, like the universe is doing the concentration from which no personal claims can be made. I find this to be a distraction but there is a part of me that wants to embrace this inclusiveness. This leaves me with some dissonance between the previous method - in particular my attachment to the results incurred from that method. Moreover, when I try to apply myself in the previous way, I suffer - I guess I've just answered my own question in some ways. Is this change in concentration to be expected? Can you share any resources from either Theravada, Mahayana or Zen that would help me further my understanding of this matter? Best wishes

Concentration and mindfulness is a rare achievement. People can have wrong views , wrong intentions but it seems they are able to achieve high concentration and mindfulness. My question is : Is it possible to achieve wrong mindfulness and wrong concentration?

I've found this to be an interesting question with highly respected monastics falling on both sides of the answer.

Yes I have meditated and I have searched the Internet this question before landing here, what I describe below is a mixture of what I have read of what one should do during meditation and what actually happens when I actually meditate. Most of the articles I have found say that try to keep focus but here I want to ask is what do I focus upon ? My problems, my desires or just how do we keep focus without a subject to feed upon ? And while meditating I have found my thoughts wander away and keep reminding myself by repeating mentally "no I am meditating, no I am meditating". Is that the right method ? but the biggest question is when we say focus(in any other field apart from meditation) we understand it in general context as to improve our performance or invest ourselves more in that field but what does it mean in meditation, is it repeating a thought continuously in our head or something else ? While some other articles say watch the thoughts as they occur , I mean okay I could watch the thoughts that occur during a meditation session but then doesn't that seem a little contradictory ? You are producing the thoughts and then you are seeing that occur so then actually we could guide our thoughts then, why does it then say stay and observe ? I know above I have asked my questions in a hodgepodge manner so let me sum it up succinctly: - **What are we supposed to think during meditation or we do not need to think at all ?** - **Generally do we set timers for meditation sessions or do we get an intuitive feel that I can't focus or meditate any more for today ?**

I want to use meditation as a way to deeply concentrate, I always feel as if im in my head and it stops me from doing what I want to do and stops me from getting work done. I want to use meditation. I have been doing meditation, and I understand it a bit. But how can I achieve one pointed focus to help me stop being in my head and focus?

I've read about the jhānas which one can experience from concentration (samatha) meditation. I have been practicing some form of mindfulness, breathing meditation, but have not experienced a state of absorption that is characteristic of the jhānas. I know that the jhānas cannot be experienced only by reading about them, however, the insight from my meditation practice alone has not brought me to them. From my perspective as a novice practitioner, it makes sense to look to the Zen (derived from the word dhyāna ) branch of Buddhism for guidance on the subject of meditation : > In the process of deepening meditation, one can roughly identify three > distinct stages: the stage of concentration, the stage of meditation, > and the stage of absorption. > > This dualistic relationship is broken gradually as the practitioner > moves into the stage of meditation. The ego-conscious activity is > gradually lessened, and the barriers it set up for itself will > gradually be removed. When the practitioner enters the stage of > absorption, the dualistic framing of the mind will be removed such > that the mind starts structuring itself non-dualistically. There will > be no separation or distancing between an object of the mind and the > activity of the mind itself. I don't have the budget for every book on Zen Buddhism, but I have read all the Zen books on Kindle Unlimited (the content is mostly history, terminology, and sitting accessories). What books are there that go into depth on Zen/samatha meditation practice?

> "And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to **let go**, attains concentration, attains singleness of mind. > > [Indriya-vibhanga Sutta (SN 48.10)](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn48/sn48.010.than.html) What is exactly meant by letting go & how is this exactly done (in daily life & meditation) ? Why is the breath not the 'object', if it's called Mindfulness of Breathing?

I have a couple of questions regarding the Viewpoints of sexuality in Buddhism for lay people. 1. Why is lust seen as being unskillful? Lay-people are lay-people because they don't want to renounce worldy life; they strive for 'heavenly realms' instead of nibbana. What's unskillful in a natural urge? Non-engagement won't decrease the urge either. 2. In a sutta the Buddha said the consequences of an action are important, and this is the reason why he abandoned thoughts of sensuality, because it harms **others** and **himself**. It obstructs wisdom (this is true because it hinders Nibbana), but why are sensual/sexual thoughts dangerous? If I lust after a woman in a healthy, non pathological way, I see no danger there. As long as I don't sexually harass her? Maybe she has sexual fantasies as well? 3. Samadhi is 'achieved' by the momentarily stilling of the 5 hindrances. Elsewhere it was stated that past sankharas influence present sankharas, and present sankharas in turn condition future sankharas. If past sankharas were 'kama chanda' it is likely that I engage in the present in such a manner. Suppose I do, isn't it possible to cleanse present sankharas during meditation (after some while) in order to concentrate the mind, resulting in seeing things as they are ('vipassana)?

Is it possible that a meditator uses jhana practice and dry insight together? I mean: not combined in the same meditation session, but clearly in separate, distinct meditation sessions. Both meditation practices have their own benefits (and disadvantages), so I wonder if it wouldn't be favorable to use the strengths of both.

Does anyone know if one can fall asleep into a dream while in the process of mindful insight practice and still maintain mindfulness and concentration? This would be different than establishing mindfulness while dreaming.

I'm doubting if I will be able. Not even a single breath my mind stop talking. I start with metta and try to sit for at least half an hour to an hour a day. I don't skip even a single day. It's a huge effort and I am starting to feel disappointed.

Let's say I am meditating for 2-3 hours each day. How long would it take?