In a number of the books I'm reading on Buddhism, and in a number of talks I've heard on the subject, I repeatedly encounter the idea that the Buddha "saw the Dhamma" or that he "witnessed Dhamma" or the like. Other times, I've heard/read that the Buddha "saw" beings dying and taking rebirth, or that he "saw" the reality of anicca, dukkha, anatta, and the Four Noble Truths, etc. I'm having difficulty understanding what this all means. Is this metaphorical sight? Is it literal sight, in the sense of a vision or dream? In terms of our own meditation practices, when we are told that we should "see" certain things, e.g. seeing a nimitta, should we expect something similar? Metaphorical "sight"? Literal sight? Something else entirely? Thanks!

During my sit today I remembered that on my last retreat two weeks ago I kept seeing this wooden box. It was like I was breathing into it. I wasnt sure at the time what it was. I asked the teacher but they didn't mention anything about nimitta but I just realised during my sit today that this was probably what it was.

How does the Nimitta occur? I mean does it come **all of a sudden (like torch turned on)** as a shining bright white light or does it come as light gradually increasing brightness of varied colors? I am able to see a faint glimmer of blue circular object but not getting anywhere with it. The brightness and color remains constant for few minutes and it vanishes afterwards. Is it Nimitta? What should I do to brighten it

In the book Mindfulness in Plain English , Chapter 5: The Practice , by Ven. Bhante Gunaratana, he says the following: > As you keep your mind focused on the rims of your nostrils, you > will be able to notice the sign of the development of meditation. You > will feel the pleasant sensation of a sign. Different meditators > experience this differently. It will be like a star, or a round gem, > or a round pearl, or a cotton seed, or a peg made of heartwood, or a > long string, or a wreath of flowers, or a puff of smoke, or a cobweb, > or a film of cloud, or a lotus flower, or the disc of the moon, or the > disc of the sun. Can someone please explain what is meant by this. I’ve been meditating for years and I’ve never experienced such things. Any idea why not? How important is it?

Stabilizing the counterpart sign (nimitta) isn't easy. Is there a 'technique' that leads to stabilize it? I.c. is there a 'technique' to develop/cultivate intensively the absorption factors (jhanangas)? With 'stabilizing' I mean: making the nimitta sharp, focused, completely free from tension (of the panca nivarana), so that absorption (1st jhana) can be attained.

I read the following on the internet: > In MN 44, the four remembrance-establishings (are) > undistractable-lucidity-themes. > > Any topic for satipatthana "mindfulness", can be a topic for samādhi > nimitta, or a subject for jhāna meditation to investigate with > dhamma-vicaya, vitakka and vicāra, upekkha, sati and sampajāno in the > higher jhānas. The nimitta of samādhi can be visual, or conceptual, > and both, just as it can be in guarding the sense doors. > In AN 4.14, samādhi nimitta suggested one develops are the corpse in > various stages. > > Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu uppannaṃ bhaddakaṃ samādhinimittaṃ > anurakkhati aṭṭhikasaññaṃ puḷavakasaññaṃ vinīlakasaññaṃ > vicchiddakasaññaṃ uddhumātakasaññaṃ. It’s when a monk preserves a > meditation subject that’s a fine basis of undistractible-lucidity: the > perception of a skeleton, a worm-infested corpse, a livid corpse, a > split open corpse, or a bloated corpse. Does the term 'samādhi nimitta' in MN 44 above really mean '*undistractable-lucidity-themes*'? If so, why is 'samādhi nimitta' translated as '*basis of undistractible-lucidity*' in AN 4.14 above?

Questions: 1. What is "feature of beauty" in MN 5? 2. Why does the type of person mentioned ("the person who doesn’t have a blemish but does not understand it"), focus on it? 3. And why does that cause them to become infected by lust? 4. Does beauty here refer to physical beauty or something else? 5. Is this *subhanimitta* the same as the *nimitta* for entering jhana? > Take the case of the person who doesn’t have a blemish but does not > understand it. You can expect that they will focus on the feature of > beauty, and because of that, lust will infect their mind. And they > will die with greed, hate, and delusion, blemished, with a corrupted > mind. > MN 5 With footnote from Ven. Sujato: > “Feature of beauty” is *subhanimitta*. In early Pali, *nimitta* is used > for a feature or quality of the mind that, when focused on, promotes > the growth of similar or related qualities. Thus focusing on beauty > fosters the desire for that beauty.

I have started facing a weird problem which I wouldn't earlier. While meditating during daytime, I sometimes doubt whether I am actually experiencing *nimitta* or my *vittaka* has waned and, instead of making way for *ekaggata*, my closed eyes are in fact picking up ambient light. This inevitably keeps me from attaining stable *anapana-nimitta* in that session and the progression plateaus, irrespective of how effortless maintaining concentration has become. That leads to restlessness and I either don't feel like keeping my *aditthana*, or if I can nullify that I emerge from the session somewhat disappointed that I didn't utilize the session well. I'd like to clarify that I not seeking any *jhanic* factor or for *anapana-nimitta* to emerge, and I can attain *anapana-nimitta* and subsequently absorption for desired time period before progressing to the higher *jhanas* during night-time because I know I can't be confounded by ambient light... So, other than only sitting at nighttime, which isn't really a solution, what do I do? Any pointers?

In the state known as neither perception nor non-perception, it seems impossible to cognize the relative particulates that allow it to occur as an event, but one can emerge mindfully from its attainment, as is stated in the Anupada Sutta. Hence, there is a beginning and an end to the event. In this way, I can only define it by what is absent rather than what is present - similar to exiting a noisy nightclub and resting in the dead of the night, then entering the nightclub again, taking with me only the memory of the still night. > Sariputta entered & remained in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. He emerged mindfully from that attainment. > >Anupada Sutta This leaves a trace-memory of the event that can be recalled, but even that itself is tenuous for two reasons, 1) by its very definition (neither perception nor non-perception) - from beginning to end - its particulates are so subtle, so indistinct that one can not confidently declare "I am emerged in neither perception nor non-percpetion". 2. The recall itself poses some accuracy issues, that since it is now in the memory, it is open to all sorts of interpretations including how I have chosen to define it here. In the instance of neither perception nor non-perception, it seems the ability to *discern* and *cognize* are nimittas that are absent. Please correct me? Is it sufficient for the mind to have experienced the presence of neither perception nor non-perception or must it be investigated further?

I learned many meaning of vitaka.. Like initial thought, or thought seed or directing mind toward object.. Whereas vicara is continuity of thinking about that object. Similarly nimitta is arising of some mental sign/clue etc. Like I remember today's event, or I heard something etc. There is sanna also in conjunction with nimitta... I want to know whether vitaka and nimitta same or different? If different I want to know practical understanding of the difference between them ?

Please provide references from the Pali suttas on nimitta. Are they mentioned in the context of jhana? In the article below, it is mentioned that nimitta is found in the Anapanasati Sutta , but I couldn't find it. Is it there? In the article "Stepping Towards Enlightenment ", Ajahn Brahm wrote about nimitta: > THE NINTH STEP OF the *Anapanasati Sutta* describes a very important > creature that comes to visit the still, silent mind—a *nimitta*. Pali > for “sign,” a *nimitta* is a reflection of the mind. This step is called > *citta-patisamvedi*, “experiencing the mind,” and is achieved when one > lets go of the body, thought, and the five senses (including awareness > of the breath) so completely that only a beautiful mental sign, a > *nimitta*, remains. This pure mental object is a real object in the > landscape of the mind, and when it appears for the first time it is > extremely strange. For most meditators this mental joy, is perceived > as a beautiful light. But it is not a light. The eyes are closed, and > the sight consciousness has long been turned off. Other meditators > choose to describe this first appearance of mind in terms of a > physical sensation such as intense tranquility or ecstasy. It is > perceived as a light or a feeling because this imperfect description > is the best that perception can offer.

I heard that "grasping a sign" is considered a bad thing in Buddhism. Why is that so and what does that refer to? We know that "attachment to views" is a bad thing too. Are these related? (signs and views)? Does Buddhism say anything about broad generalizations vs. careful analysis? Is this topic connected with signs and views, too? Does all of the above tie to suffering somehow?

I'm having trouble truly understanding nimattas. I use visualization for my jhana mediation. It's what focus my mind best and allowed me to almost enter jhana. But if i do visualize, will the nimatta still appear? How would i recognise it? And once it appear do i move off my object to it? Also i read this passage explaining what a nimtta means in the modern day. I wish to know does this do a great job explaining it. > Now certainly it is true that if you become VERY concentrated you might see an image that looks like "a star or a cluster of gems" or "chariot wheel or the moon's disk," etc. And it is also true that you can with sufficient concentration absorb into that experience so deeply that you no longer hear sounds, or are aware of your body, or are even aware of the passage of time. This is not what is described in the suttas; however, this is indeed what the later commentaries mean when they use the word "nimitta."

Once I reach a nimitta during jhana meditation, do I then move focus to it or keep in the object? Do I ignore the nimitta, or is it one of those things that is very hard to ignore?

From my understanding, The nimitta are signs you should be looking for during your jhana meditation. Like once your focusing on your visual object you will notice a white light. Thats a sign your entering acess concentration. Or you may notice your breathing becoming very faint. Thats another sign. Is this correct? Is there certain signs i should look for during my jhana meditation?

As a beginner, I practice two forms of meditation: one focusing on the breath (typically with eyes closed), and one focusing on a colored disc (kasina), obviously with eyes open (unless cultivating the after-image). All descriptions I have seen for the former describe the arising of the counterpart sign when the eyes are closed. However, from what I have read on kasina meditation , the counterpart sign seems to arise with the eyes open. I have not experienced either of these myself (and in fact, this link dismisses its importance altogether), so I would like to ask: is it possible for nimitta to form iin either case?