I am practicing Vipassana meditation and I want to know is it possible to practice samadhi/anapana and pragya/Vipassana without following Sila.

Is the samadhi nagi or also called Mushin a state were the mind gets blank and you expirience actions while your mind is blank or unconsciousness? From Suzukis book description your mind gets a known from the non-mind what during that time happend.

Practing meditation I would like to know if i have attained jhana samadhi state. For now i have a feelable state of chi flowing throught air and things and and making movements. But there is a downsite that my anja shows mindless impressions and chi aswell. Maybe someone has same expriencenwith that. What is that all about?

Many people claim that the buddhist concept of samadhi is just a rehash of what Patanjali taught in the yoga sutras, by rehashing the teachings within the framework of anatman concept. Is it true? If not , what distinguishes the buddhist samadhi or makes it a higher/better state than the samadhi of the yoga school?

Wikipedia defines [Mahāsamādhi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahasam%C4%81dhi) as follows: > Mahāsamādhi (the great and final samādhi) is the act of consciously > and intentionally leaving one's body. A realized yogi (male) or > yogini (female) who has attained the state of nirvikalpa samādhi, > will, at an appropriate time, consciously exit from their body. [...] This is not the same as the physical death that occurs for an unenlightened person. 1 A non-practitioner of Yoga would call this 'dying at will'. Is there a similar concept in Buddhism?

Reading through Sekida's translation of The Blue Cliff Record I keep coming across mentions of both absolute and positive Samadhi, and I'm interested in hearing some clearer definitions of these two terms. My interpretation of them is that: - when we're in absolute samadhi we recognize the unity of reality but we haven't attained a state of pro-activity yet. Reality seems unchangeable - positive samadhi is when our meditative state becomes intrinsically tied with our everyday behavior, we embody the meditative state in everything we do, and take an active role in the world Does this sound correct?

I have been meditating intensively according to the Advaita tradition where self inquiry is practiced till realizing that I and effort are just feelings and that the watcher of even identity is the true self which isn't a phenomena that manifests. 2 days ago I had what I felt as a near death experience ,or maybe a great death of the ego ,at night I suddenly had an awakening in trance where there was a clear seeing of the "I" that I thought was me,then I woke up with a vibration feeling in my head and after lying on my back I suddenly felt as if a light was going to replace me as the identity of the body and me that I thought was my identity all my life was just an idea that was going to be replaced by that light ,I couldn't accept that happening and chose to stay as myself, and I actually cried cause I felt that I was going to die, not realizing that this "I" was more intimate that expected . Is this a paranormal experience or is it actually how enlightenment should occur ?

This seems to be a very baffling Sutta passage where he describes a seemingly contradictory state where one is in a special Samadhi beyond neither perception nor non perception but is still percipient. What is this Samadhi attainment called? [AN 10.7](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.007.than.html) > Then Ven. Ananda went to Ven. Sariputta and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Sariputta, "Friend Sariputta, could a monk have an attainment of concentration such that he would neither be percipient of earth with regard to earth, nor of water with regard to water, nor of fire... wind... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception... this world... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet he would still be percipient?" "Yes, friend Ananda, he could..." "But how, friend Sariputta, could a monk have an attainment of concentration such he would neither be percipient of earth with regard to earth... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet he would still be percipient?" "Once, friend Ananda, when I was staying right here in Savatthi in the Blind Man's Grove, I reached concentration in such a way that I was neither percipient of earth with regard to earth... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet I was still percipient." "But what, friend Sariputta, were you percipient of at that time?" "'The cessation of becoming — Unbinding — the cessation of becoming — Unbinding': One perception arose in me, friend Ananda, as another perception ceased. Just as in a blazing woodchip fire, one flame arises as another flame ceases, even so, 'The cessation of becoming — Unbinding — the cessation of becoming — Unbinding': One perception arose in me as another one ceased. I was percipient at that time of 'The cessation of becoming — Unbinding.'"

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.

Does any extant tradition claim that the unity of samadhi and prajna^ is actual from the beginning of the bodhisatva path, so that it is available to the neophyte - just with less power of something similar to more advanced bodhisatvas? ^e. g. Chinul: >Samadhi being prajna, it is quiescent and yet always knowing. or Platform Sutra: >To argue whether prajna or samadhi comes first would put one in the same position as those who are under delusion... a lamp and its light. So you can see, they are one, yet - perhaps - not everyone realizes this in their practice? Just asking because I think it may be the meaning of human life etc..

I was wondering if the samadhi of Patanjali Yoga meant the same thing as the samadhi of Buddhism? A Buddhist friend told me that no, and that Buddhism had higher states after the nirvikalpa samadhi of yogis. But at the same time when I read the descriptions of the two they look similar to me and the samadhi of Buddhism is also the last stage of the Noble Eightfold Path.

Been meditating for some years, been doing most anapana & also a bit of Goenka-vipassana. Have had certain experiences, samadhi states and jhana (although I'm still far from being able to stabilize and consistently maintain them). In recent years, certain things transpired in my life such that I began a daily mantra practice. I now practice the mantra but I wonder if theres a point to it if I can already attain to samadhi states via anapana. I've heard conflicting views regarding this; some say that mantra is just a way to concentrate the mind, and once you get samadhi you don't really need the mantra anymore. Others say mantra grant specific worldly benefits which make your practice in this human life more efficient, depending on the root deity/mantra being chanted. **Is there a value to mantra chanting over breath meditation?** If my goal is to go towards liberation (or at least stream entry) as a layperson.

Is trying to find causes of everything not a good practise? Isn't having rational mind a good thing? I know that the Lord Buddha advised us to not to think about beginning of life. Because it make us crazy. There may be some other things like this. I realize that this thinking causes me to loose sati. Why that thing happen? How long does it exists? etc. Most of these thinking causes to stuck at a loop. It feels like it wastes lot of energy for nonsense. But I have fear of stopping this. Do I have to just stop thinking and let it go? Do I have to forget things without knowing causes of it? How do I select what to think and what not to think? How this affects sati? What Lord Buddha said about this? How should I handle this rationality?

In the paper "Multiple Buddhist Modernisms: Jhāna in Convert Theravāda ", Natalie Quli compares what the following teachers have taught about jhana: Ayya Khema, Bhante Henepola Gunaratana, Pa-Auk Sayadaw, Ajahn Brahmavamso, Bhante Vimalaramsi, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Leigh Brasington and Shaila Catherine. There seems to be roughly two camps of teachers. The first that depend on Visuddhimagga, Abhidhamma, commentaries and suttas for the teaching on jhanas. The second depends either primarily or solely on the suttas, and not the other sources. Another way to divide them is those who consider *ekaggatā* or very deep one-pointed concentration important, or those who don't. Questions: 1. What's the actual difference between sutta jhana and visuddhimagga jhana? 2. Is *ekaggatā* or very deep one-pointed concentration required for jhana? 3. Would a jhana attainer be able to use his jhana state to reflect on the four foundations of mindfulness as found in the Satipatthana Sutta? Or is jhana simply used to overcome the five hindrances, which aids the four foundations of mindfulness meditation? The paper discussed Ajahn Brahm's view: > Brahmavaṃso argues for a very deep level of > concentration—*ekaggatā*—that other teachers often criticize. He > states that in jhāna the body disappears, so that one can no > longer see or hear. He also states bluntly that jhāna is > not possible during walking meditation, perhaps a statement made > in reference to Vimalaramsi’s light, sutta-based jhānas, discussed > below. Finally, he argues that “some teachers today present a level > of meditation and call it jhāna when it is clearly less than the > real thing.” Among the sources Brahmavaṃso reveres and cites > throughout his work are the Vinaya, the Visuddhimagga, and even the > jātakas — which are very rarely mentioned by Western Insight Meditation > teachers. The paper discussed Bhante Vimalaramsi's view: > Part of this effort to return to the origin of Buddhism has > led Vimalaramsi to revere the suttas and Vinaya but reject the later > commentaries and the Abhidhamma. He is particularly critical of the > Visuddhimagga. For example, he notes: > > > So you have the Visuddhimagga teaching one kind of > > meditation, that doesn’t lead to nibbāna, and you have the sutta, > > that teaches an-other kind of meditation, and it leads directly to > > nibbāna. And now, because we’re so far away from the time of the > > Buddha, there’s a lot of monks that take the Visuddhimagga as the same > > as the teaching of the Buddha, and then there’s other monks that don’t > > take that as the teaching of the Buddha, they take the suttas as the > > true teaching. > > Though Vimalaramsi initially studied in the vipassanā centers in > Burma, he became convinced that this style of meditation was not > authentic because it was based on commentaries rather than the > suttas. In fact, this sutta-based interpretation of meditation has > led him to teaching what he calls “tranquil-wisdom meditation,” a > joint samatha/vipassanā meditation. He teaches mainly from the > Anapanasati-sutta and the Satipaṭṭhāna-sutta, and maintains that jhāna > should not be considered ecstatic or one-pointed (*ekaggatā*). Rather, > it is a light, relaxed state in which various Buddhist insights > are examined. He maintains that (1) those who follow the > commentaries’ descriptions of jhāna are practicing a non-Buddhist > meditation that does not lead to nirvana and (2) those who > follow the commentaries in practicing a separate vipassanā > practice are mistaken in following a non-canonical authority. The paper discussed Thanissaro Bhikkhu's view: > Thanissaro Bhikkhu teaches jhāna exclusively from the suttas and not > from the commentaries. After noting that the jhānas as taught > in the Visuddhimagga include elements not mentioned in the > suttas, Thanissaro Bhikkhu notes, “Some Theravadins insist that > questioning the commentaries is a sign of disrespect for the > tradition, but it seems to be a sign of greater disrespect for the > Buddha—or the compilers of the Canon—to assume that he or they would > have left out something absolutely essential to the practice.” He > concludes that jhāna in the commentaries is “something quite > different” than jhāna in the canon. > > Unlike others who advocate the “deeper” states described in > the Visuddhimagga, **Thanissaro Bhikkhu argues that extremely deep > states of meditation are “wrong concentration.”** One must be > fully aware of the body; powerful *ekaggatā*, as discussed in the > Visuddhimagga, can lead to one losing a sense of sounds, thoughts, or > perceptions, which is not ideal for insight in his opinion. People who > advocate such deep meditation are, according to Thanissaro Bhikkhu, > blocking out certain areas of awareness and are “psychologically adept > at dissociation and denial.” Leigh Brasington, student of Ayya Khema, described sutta jhana vs. visuddhimagga jhana: > Leigh Brasington is an American student of Ayya Khema who now teaches > regularly on the jhānas across the United States, mainly to students > at Insight Meditation centers. Like his teacher, Brasington suggests > that the jhānas are not difficult to learn or practice. He notes > that “The jhānas as discussed in the suttas are accessible to many > people” but maintains that the jhānas presented in the Visuddhimagga > are actually qualitatively different from those described in the > suttas; he speculates that the Visuddhimagga jhānas were developed > during a later period and are more difficult to achieve. In fact, > **Brasington has suggested that we distinguish between “sutta jhānas” > and “Visuddhimagga jhānas,” which he considers quite different from > one another.** Brasington favors the lighter sutta jhānas. A further comment by the paper's author: > Likewise, Thai-trained Thanissaro Bhikkhu completely rejects the > authority of the commentaries in terms of jhāna practice. Both of > these teachers agree that the jhānas are a light state of meditation > because ekaggatā, deep one-pointedness, is mentioned only in the > commentaries. Thanissaro argues that the deep state of meditation > advocated by some Buddhist teachers is “wrong concentration,” while > **Vimalaramsi suggests that the jhāna practices endorsed by > Visuddhimagga followers is “hypnosis,” not jhāna.**

Is there a comprehensive list of different types of Samadhi (in Pali, Sanskrit, English and/or otherwise) related to Buddhism?

Sometimes, I caught me on talking in mind. Sometimes my tongue moves according to it. Sometimes I talk to myself. This feels very fast and hard to control. There also intuition like thinking. For a example, to move a hand we don't have to say to move. Also I can read a book without moving the tongue. (mind talking) This feels very calm. I like to be in this state. When I want start a work, I need to make my mind silent. What is going on here?

Does speed of body movements affects the mind? Do we have to slow down our actions to have a better sati? It feels it does affects. But are there any sutta about this? How that works?

In daily Life, I always trying to focus on single good thought so no space for bad. When I did something, I tend to analyse it wether it is good or bad. It is deep most of the time because I am trying to follow five precepts. It seems like I am doing nothing wrong. So I trying to understand deeper clingings (klesha) that are not visible to outside. Most of the time, I am stuck in a loop. But, I recently realize that I'm living in a different world. I am far away from the real world. I was trying to improve samadhi but it weaken the sati. Trying to have a single thought feels heavy to mind. Focus on environment feels calm/less heavy/simple. So How am I improve the situation? I think I have some kind of fear of doing something wrong. Focusing on something good prevent coming wrong thoughts to mind. I heard these kind of advices from monks. But this prevent having sati. Should I have a general idea of good/bad deeds and stop trying to have a single thought always so I can be aware about the environment (have sati)? Have a specific time for a day to reflect about deeds did during the day. Are there any sutta which contrast sati and samadhi?

The question is complete, no additional explanation of the question is needed. I just need the suttas. For reference: > “And further, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the > infinitude of consciousness, (perceiving,) ‘There is nothing,’ > Sāriputta entered & remained in the **dimension of nothingness**. > Whatever qualities there are in the dimension of nothingness—the > perception of the dimension of nothingness, singleness of mind, > contact, feeling, perception, intention, consciousness, desire, > decision, persistence, mindfulness, equanimity, & attention—he > ferreted them out one after another. Known to him they arose, known to > him they became established, known to him they subsided. He discerned, > ‘So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. > Having been, they vanish.’ He remained unattracted & unrepelled with > regard to those qualities, independent, detached, released, > dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers. He discerned that > ‘**There is a further escape**,’ and pursuing it, he confirmed that > ‘There is.’ > > “And further, with the complete transcending of the dimension of > nothingness, Sāriputta entered & remained in the **dimension of > neither perception nor non-perception**. He emerged mindfully from > that attainment. On emerging mindfully from that attainment, he > regarded the past qualities that had ceased & changed: ‘So this is how > these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they > vanish.’ He remained unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those > qualities, independent, detached, released, dissociated, with an > awareness rid of barriers. He discerned that ‘**There is a further > escape**,’ and pursuing it, he confirmed that ‘There is.’ > > “And further, with the complete transcending of the dimension of > neither perception nor non-perception, Sāriputta entered & remained in > the **cessation of perception & feeling**. And when he saw with > discernment, his effluents were totally ended. He emerged mindfully > from that attainment. On emerging mindfully from that attainment, he > regarded the past qualities that had ceased & changed: ‘So this is how > these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they > vanish.’ He remained unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those > qualities, independent, detached, released, dissociated, with an > awareness rid of barriers. He discerned that ‘**There is no further > escape**,’ and pursuing it, he confirmed that ‘There isn’t.’ > > > > [https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN111.html] > > > : https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN111.html > “And I have also taught the step-by-step cessation of fabrications. > When one has attained the first jhāna, speech has ceased. When one has > attained the second jhāna, directed thought & evaluation have ceased. > When one has attained the third jhāna, rapture has ceased. When one > has attained the fourth jhāna, in-and-out breathing has ceased. When > one has attained the dimension of the infinitude of space, the > perception of forms has ceased. When one has attained the dimension of > the infinitude of consciousness, the perception of the dimension of > the infinitude of space has ceased. When one has attained the > dimension of nothingness, the perception of the dimension of the > infinitude of consciousness has ceased. When one has attained the > dimension of neither-perception nor non-perception, the perception of > the dimension of nothingness has ceased. When one has attained the > **cessation of perception & feeling**, perception & feeling have ceased. When a monk’s effluents have ended, passion has ceased, aversion has ceased, delusion has ceased. > > [https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN36_11.html] > > > : https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN36_11.html > “And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of stress: the > remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, > release, & **letting go of that very craving.** > > [https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN56_11.html] > Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance > comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of > fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation > of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the > cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. > From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of > contact. From the cessation of contact comes the **cessation of > feeling**. From the cessation of feeling comes the **cessation of > craving**. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of > clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes > the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the > cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging-&-death, > sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the > cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering.” > > [https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN12_15.html] > Then there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of > the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, (perceiving,) ‘There > is nothing,’ enters & remains in the dimension of nothingness. That is > its transcending. But that, too, I tell you, isn’t enough. Abandon it, > I tell you. Transcend it, I tell you. And what is its transcending? > > “Then there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending > of the dimension of nothingness, enters & remains in the **dimension > of neither perception nor non-perception**. That is its transcending. > But that, too, I tell you, isn’t enough. **Abandon it**, I tell you. > Transcend it, I tell you. And what is its transcending? > > “There is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the > **dimension of neither perception nor non-perception**, enters & remains in the **cessation of perception & feeling**. That is its > transcending. > > “Thus, Udāyin, I speak even of the **abandoning** of the dimension of > neither perception nor non-perception. Do you see any fetter, large or > small, of whose abandoning I don’t speak?” > > “No, lord.” > > That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Ven. Udāyin delighted in > the Blessed One’s words. > > [https://www.dharmatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN66.html] > > > : https://www.dharmatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN66.html > Then there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of > the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, (perceiving,) ‘There > is nothing,’ enters & remains in the **dimension of nothingness**. If, > as he remains there, he is beset with attention to perceptions dealing > with the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, **that is an > affliction for him**.… > > “Then there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending > of the dimension of nothingness, enters & remains in the **dimension > of neither perception nor non-perception**. If, as he remains there, > he is beset with attention to perceptions dealing with the dimension > of nothingness, **that is an affliction for him**. Now, the Blessed > One has said that whatever is an affliction is stress. So by this line > of reasoning it may be known how unbinding is pleasant. > > “Then there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending > of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters & > remains in the **cessation of perception & feeling**. And as he sees > (that) with discernment, effluents are completely ended. So by this > line of reasoning it may be known how unbinding is pleasant.” > > [https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN9_34.html] > > > : https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN9_34.html > “Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of > the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is > **feeling**. What one feels, one **perceives** [labels in the mind]. > > [https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN18.html] > > > > > : https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN18.html May all beings be happy and liberated ❤️❤️ Metta 🙏🙏

I am aware of a similar question here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31393/2493 However, I would like a deeper understanding of what precisely is meant by “knowledge and vision” in the heartwood sutta and why is its attainment positioned as it is with respect to the other attainments. I feel that I have a good understanding of the meaning of the attainments which precede, and presumably are prerequisites for “knowledge and vision”. Namely 1: gain, honor and renown 2: moral discipline 3: concentration and for the attainment which follows and presumably depends upon it. Namely 5: perpetual liberation but the attainment of “knowledge and vision” itself is frustratingly fuzzy in my mind. I’d like a better understanding of 1: What precisely is meant by “knowledge and vision” in this context? 2: Why is concentration a prerequisite for “knowledge and vision”? 3: Why is “knowledge and vision” a prerequisite for perpetual liberation? My best guess is that 1: Knowledge and vision” represents a level of development wherein one can get to nibbana when needed, but it does not persist perpetually. 2: Concentration is a prerequisite for “knowledge and vision” because seeing the arrow (hard to see) as it enters the heart requires a concentrated mind. Perhaps this is the vision part? Seeing the arrow as it enters the heart enables us to identify precisely where we became self-absorbed in the narrative and thus where the work of severing attachments must be done. 3: “Knowledge and vision” is a prerequisite for “perpetual liberation” because having knowledge of each individual desired sensory experience which the mind is attached to, is required before the work of severing said attachment can begin. Perhaps this is the knowledge part? When all such attachments are severed and no new ones are added, then sustaining nibbana perpetually becomes possible This is a complete guess on my part. Am I close? I am referring to the translation provided by Bhikkhu Bodhi. https://www.suttareadings.net/audio/index.html