Can you develop Samadhi (concentration) and Pañña (wisdom) exclusively from one another (according to the suttas)? I am under the impression that a meditator cannot develop one without developing the other.

Because panna (wisdom) is the understanding of anicca, dukkha and anatta, it leads to the cessation of ignorance, greed and aversion and therefore to Nirvana. Now Nirvana or the state of being enlightened is permanent, so panna must be too, mustn't it? The cessation of ignorance alone is not enough, because it could rise again, couldn't it? I mean it already happened one time... So to hinder ignorance from rising again, panna must be permanent. This is how I always understood it. I always thought of it as an aspect of Nirvana, and therefore not a part of the impermanent (?) skandhas. Now I read a text which says that panna is a sankhara. Aren't sankharas as the 4th skandha impermanent and cease to exist when entering Paranirvana? So what is panna? Thank you.

Right view is the first step in noble eight-fold path as mentioned in many answers here . 1. Right view 2. Right resolve 3. Right speech 4. Right action 5. Right livelihood 6. Right effort 7. Right mindfulness 8. Right concentration Noble eight-fold path is three-folded as moral virtue (sīla), concentration (samādhi), and wisdom (paññā). It's mentioned in many suttas that these three are sequential. But when considering this three-fold categorization, right view comes at the end. 1. Moral virtue (sīla) 3. Right speech 4. Right action 5. Right livelihood 2. Concentration (samādhi) 6. Right effort 7. Right mindfulness 8. Right concentration 3. Wisdom (paññā) 1. Right view 2. Right resolve For more information: Noble Eightfold Path My questions are: 1. Which is the correct sequence out of the above two? 2. Which sequence to follow?

What is the Pali/Sanskrit term(s) for 'intelligence'? Is there another word(s) in Pali/Sanskrit for 'wisdom'? I hear 'intellect', 'intelligence' and 'wisdom' used interchangeably, is this correct? What is the relationship between intelligence and wisdom in Buddhism? Are they really the same thing or can they be the same thing or what? :)

Quoted below is an article posted on BuddhaNet Magazine relating Krishnamurti's philosophy with Buddhism. The writer relates Krishnamurti's view that there is "no "path", no procedures, no organization, and no rules" with Buddhism referring to The Sutra of the Heart. The writer claimed that this Sutra teaches that "There is ... no path, no wisdom, no attainment..." I haven't read this Sutra, but I have a hard time following anything which states that there is no "Wisdom"! If what the person says is true then it's wisdom and if false then there is wisdom! Learning from other schools of thought, the critical response for anyone who says " listen to me there is no wisdom" is that what he/she says is meaningless because it fit perfectly with the liar paradox. At the end of the article, the writer quoting to a Buddist teacher said that the Buddha "compromised" himself by teaching on the two different levels... and that Krishnamurti's view is identical with the higher level of teaching. >.... > To Krishnamurti there is no "path", no procedures, no organization, and no rules that should be laid down by men for other men to follow > on the road to enlightenment. As part of the path, Buddhists must > observe a very typical, man-made, structure which begins at the top > with The Three Precious Ones: the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha. > Each of these pillars has subsets of rules associated with it: The > Five Skandhas, The Eight Siddhis, etc. Some would have us believe that > learning all these articles of faith are necessary for enlightenment. > > Much Buddhist literature suggests that in following Buddhism there is > a great object that one must attain and that one progresses towards > this goal as one takes each step along the path. To Krishnamurti > setting a psychological goal and working for progress in any direction > will only lead to more confusion and suffering. Any attempts at > psychological self-betterment will amount to no more than just one > more futile duplication of many similar past efforts, all of which had > previously failed. > > The typical pattern of human behavior that we always seem to fall > into, perhaps by virtue of conditioning, is the "work for a reward" > stereotype. One finds a religion and sees something desirable in it > which becomes an object of attainment. The next step is to devise a > plan to acquire the object, and finally, with great deliberation we > set about to carry out that plan with hard, unrelenting work. > > Krishnamurti tells us that the "work for a reward" operandi has been > tried countless times by homo sapiens, but it has never led us to > anything new or different in the area of spiritual enlightenment. What > do we make of all this? Buddhist leaders round the world tell us that > there are Buddhist goals and a path of hard work and attainment for > reaching these goals. > > Here again Krishnamurti seems to be more in agreement with the very > core of Buddhist teachings than the Buddhists themselves. The Sutra of > the Heart of Transcendent Knowledge sounds more like Krishnamurti than > does many of the Buddhist teachers: "There is ... no path, **no wisdom**, > no attainment, and no nonattainment ..." Here Krishnamurti is telling > us to live up to the precepts of this great Buddhist Sutra. He is not > telling us to follow a path, but to under stand that there is no path. > He tells this just as bluntly and simply as the Sutra does. There is > no apparent sympathy or embellishments for the benefit of those who > either fail to understand or for those who have beliefs in goals to > which they must continue to cling. http://www.buddhanet.net/khrisna.htm

The Buddha put high emphasize on Anicca and thus it shouldn't be dismissed. Now my question: When should one remind oneself of the transience of all phenomena? I doubt in every occassion. If I for example walk or do my daily chores, according to the Buddha I apply Sati on the sense that I remember to not to forget walking. So this then is a rather concentration excercise without pañña (wisdom), right?

Can we gain wisdom(**panna or prajna**) with only one pointed concentration on a concept? I've heard it said that it takes mindfulness on "what actually is" instead of a concept that doesn't exist. Samatha, at least temporarily, lessons the defilements so why wouldn't concentration meditation be able to show one panna? Can one gain panna without seeing the three characteristics? Can one see the three characteristics with Samatha by itself? Can we reach Nirvana with just Samatha?