The main issue around which debates have been developing for several decades and the issue that formulated the dual nature of the mind - peace and activity in Buddhist terms, was the question of the contribution of Samadhi/Dhyana and Vipassana to the achievement of the final goal of practice.
Since the very formulation of the question does not imply the possibility of getting out of the circle of unity and opposition of Samadhi and Vipassana, then the commitment to the authentic tradition is emphasized by the radical removal of the contradiction in the denial of the need to develop Samadhi/Dhyana to achieve Nibanna. In this paradigm, Awakening, as such, exists only insofar as it reveals itself to itself. Itâs truth, which consists precisely in the insight of impermanence, therefore immanent to Awakening.
Since this formulation the Buddhist landscape has so changed the architectonics of Buddhist discourse, little attention is paid to the such key concepts as Samadhi or Dhyana. Wikipedia demonstrates the confusion, both Samadhi and Dhyana are translated as concentration or even as trance.
«Sama-samadhi, âright samadhi,â is explicated as dhyana.»
Etymology is, if not an exclusively adequate, then a very useful tool when working with ancient text.
«DhyÄna, Pali Jhana, from Proto-Indo-European root âdheie-, âto see, to lookâ, âto showâ. Developed into Sanskrit root âdhÄ« and n.dhÄ«, which ⊠refers to âimaginative visionâ and associated with goddess Saraswati with powers of knowledge, wisdom and poetic eloquence. This term developed into the variant âdhyÄ, "to contemplate, meditate, think».
As we see from the etymology, the interpretation of Dhyana as absorption and/or trance is unfounded.
The canon also states the opposite.
«45 (1)-53 (9) Floods, Etc. (To be elaborated parallel to 45171-79.)
54 (10)Higher Fetters
These four jhanas are to be developed for direct knowledge of
these five higher fetters, for the full understanding of them, for
their utter destruction, for their abandoning."
So Dhyana means the dynamics of cognition with development, realization and abbandoning of objects of contemplation.
And although we do not see concepts with the eye, thinking does not operate with terms as abstract quantities but finds them in the totality of all acquired associations. Therefore, Buddhists cultivate thinking not in abstract terms, but in existential entities thatâs why examples of real word usage are useful.
«In India, the word âsamadhiâ in common usage refers to a grave or a tombstone. When someone is buried in a place and some kind of monument is set on top of that, that is referred to as a samadhi»
«the root sam (âto bring togetherâ) or sama ( âthe same, equalized, the convergence of two distinct thingsâ) Sanskrit samÄdhi, literally, application, contemplation, from sam together + Ä to, towards + -dhi (akin to dadhÄti he puts, places)»
In The Questions of Milinda, Samadhi is the superlative degree and the limit of joining good states of mind into a single whole.
«Milindaâs Questions
Concentration Question The king asked: âVenerable NÄgasena, what is the distinguishing characteristic of concentration?â âConcentration, your majesty, has being the foremost as a distinguishing characteristic, whatever wholesome mental states there are all these have concentration as the foremost, they lean towards concentration, slope towards concentration, and incline towards concentration.â
In SamÄdhisutta from Aáč
guttara NikÄya 10.6 1. it is stated that in samadhi there is always perception, even when there is no content of perception.â
"Numbered Discourses 10.6
Immersion
Could it be, mendicants, that a mendicant might gain a state of immersion like this? They wouldnât perceive earth in earth, water in water, fire in fire, or air in air. And they wouldnât perceive the dimension of infinite space in the dimension of infinite space, the dimension of infinite consciousness in the dimension of infinite consciousness, the dimension of nothingness in the dimension of nothingness, or the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. They wouldnât perceive this world in this world, or the other world in the other world. And they wouldnât perceive what is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, or explored by the mind. And yet they would still perceive.â
The Buddha said this:
âA mendicant could gain such a state of immersion.â
Because of the characteristics of the Canon, we cannot connect all the terminology by distinctive features and build a coherent system, but this is an obstacle only for those who want to imitate knowledge. For those who check their practice against the Canon, the suttas only give confidence in distinguishing between real and imaginary knowledge.