Is there a relation between micchā samadhi and Jhāna?
Wrong samādhi is the samādhi that emerges from wrong view. So if I believe in a creator God, and practice jhana, afterwards I may believe that I have seen that creator God, or even become them. The samadhi or jhana is genuine, but because it is seen through the lens of wrong view it does not lead to liberation, and hence is not “right”.
As you explained, I agree that this situation does not lead to liberation. However, the question is: can we call it Micchā Samādhi?
As far as I know, we have Āriya Samādhi (Sammā) and Anāriya Samādhi (without Sammā Diṭṭhi). So, if there is something called Micchā Samādhi, what is its context?
Perhaps the characteristics of Micchā Samādhi
I believe there is no real definition of wrong samadhi in the suttas but there are clues such as:
-not patiently endure objects of the 5 sense (AN5.113)
-Wrong samadhi has also not the support of right view etc. like Sujato says.
It is supported by wrong understanding, intentions etc. (DN33§3.1, AN4.205, AN10.103).
-Wrong concentration gives rise to endless unwholesome qualities (AN10.106 AN10.114)
-Wrong concentration has bad results in this life and next (AN10.119)
-Because right concentration is related to unification of mind (MN117§3, SN45.28),
one can also deduce that wrong concentration is like a divided scattered mind, all over the place. Not unified. Fragmentized.
-Because right concentration is that concentration that is connected to the absence of me making, mine making and my self making of what is felt, perceived and known (AN4.196), one can deduce that such results from having wrong concentration as one of the present conditions.
This may give some impression of what wrong concentration is, but, like i said, i have not really seen it defined in the suttas.
I’m actually somewhat convinced that Thomas Aquinas experienced the 1st Jhāna when he had his religious experience. The one that made him see his Summa Theologica as being mere “straw”.
Can you please help me understand the difference (if there is a difference) between samadhi and jhana?
Although not directed at me, I would say samādhi means “collected mind”, whilst the Jhānas are a type of collectedness, with the formless being another type.
Bhante responded similarly in this other thread.
Thanks for your comment and for your grace. That’s my basic understanding as well but I’ve been contemplating this rather closely and deeply for a few months and it seems like a fine line. I am really interested in hearing what any monastics have to say about it.
with metta
Consider that the suttas also say the Buddha is always in samadhi. Here it obviously doesn’t mean the Jhanas or formless. It means collected, serene. Anyway you want someone ordained to answer so I’ll leave it there.
Thank you, I always appreciate what you have to say.
Venerable,
- So the very same principle regarding wrong samādhi that emerges from wrong view can also be applied to ”mere cessation” then?
If I believe in mere cessation, and practice jhana, afterwards I may believe that I have experienced mere cessation, and have reached the goal of the practice.
The samadhi or jhana is genuine (Asaññasattāvāso), but because it is seen through the lens of wrong view it does not lead to liberation, and hence is not “right”.
It only leads to rebirth in Asaññasattāvāso.
Is this called Anāriya Samādhi or Micchā Samādhi?
The other point is that we have something called Lokika Samādhi (mundane), which, as far as I know, is based on Lokika Sammā Diṭṭhi.

Is this called Anāriya Samādhi or Micchā Samādhi?
Unless I’m mistaken, you’re trying to force an equivalency for two terms that don’t appear in the same texts.
Micchāsamādhi appears in the Pali Suttapiṭaka (as a contrast to sammāsamādhi).
Anāriya Samādhi does not. I must assume it appears in a later tradition. This also appears to be the case for lokika in its adjectival form in a compound with samādhi or sammādiṭṭhi:

Lokika Samādhi (mundane), which, as far as I know, is based on Lokika Sammā Diṭṭhi.
Am I missing something?
This thread has already established the relationship between micchāsamādhi and jhāna.

Unless I’m mistaken, you’re trying to force an equivalency for two terms that don’t appear in the same texts.
You are right, the word Anāriya is not used in the Suttapitaka except in some places in the commentary texts. The reason I mentioned it is that I use it as the opposite of the word Āriya, which is heavily used in the Suttapitaka

Am I missing something?
This thread has already established the relationship between micchāsamādhi and jhāna.
Sorry, I still have few doubts though. On the other hand, when clarifying Micchā Samādhi and Jhāna, I couldn’t avoid specifying other types of Samādhi.
To be more specific,
- Samādhi achived via Jhāna but without the right view (Micchā Diṭṭhi) always be Micchā Samādhi?
- Samādhi achived via Jhāna with Lokika Sammā Diṭṭhi, can we call it Micchā Samādhi?
See AN 11.9 for an explanation of what constitutes micchāsamādhi. The term does not appear explicitly, but it’s surely implied. The part about “depending on” specific things in one’s meditation is particularly relevant.

The reason I mentioned it is that I use it as the opposite of the word Āriya, which is heavily used in the Suttapitaka
Well, I’m not sure how the novel construction of a compound word can be compared to another compound word which is not exactly the same. It would be like reading a novel and concluding that, because the novel contains “red” and “bouncing ball” in separate places we can say that the novel talks about a red bouncing ball. When in fact the novel does talk about a bouncing ball and a red bird, a red apple, a red robe, and so on.
I understand that another novel, written later, may talk about a red ball. Perhaps even a red bouncing ball. Maybe it’s the author’s intent to reframe the bouncing ball as a red one – which may not bounce (or it’s unclear). But it’s a new concept – even though we’re still talking about balls.
So, for me, the comparison you’re proposing is not sustainable.

Samādhi achived via Jhāna but without the right view (Micchā Diṭṭhi) always be Micchā Samādhi?
Bhante’s definition seems to say this. Right?

Samādhi achived via Jhāna with Lokika Sammā Diṭṭhi, can we call it Micchā Samādhi?
To me, again we’re asking if a red ball is the same as a bouncing ball. We can’t force this textually.
We’ve established the characteristics of micchāsamādhi in the Pali Suttapiṭaka (as a contrast to sammāsamādhi).
Thank you. As you mentioned, this sutta AN 11.9
defines the difference between Micchā Samādhi and Sammā Samādhi using absorptions, even though the word Samādhi is not explicitly mentioned.

- Samādhi achived via Jhāna with Lokika Sammā Diṭṭhi, can we call it Micchā Samādhi?
MN117 explains N8P with two additional steps - Knowledge and Liberation.
It divides the path into two - Right Path & Wrong Path.
It further divides Right Path into Mundane & Supramundane.
So, Lokika Sammā Samādhi (while not explicitly mentioned in the text) - if we take the sutta’s general approach, would be still right samādhi, based on the precedent set by the text. But not a factor of the path.
But that’s my inference, and Bhante @sujato would have more to say about it.
MN 29 is very relevant:
He is pleased with that attainment of concentration and his intention is fulfilled. On account of it he lauds himself and disparages others thus: ‘I am concentrated, my mind is unified, but these other bhikkhus are unconcentrated, with their minds astray.’ He becomes intoxicated with that attainment of concentration, grows negligent, falls into negligence, and being negligent, he lives in suffering.
Being diligent, he achieves knowledge and vision. He is pleased with that knowledge and vision and his intention is fulfilled. On account of it he lauds himself and disparages others thus: ‘I live knowing and seeing, but these other bhikkhus live unknowing and unseeing.’ He becomes intoxicated with that knowledge and vision, grows negligent, falls into negligence, and being negligent, he lives in suffering.
Also check out MN 30