Nimitta - a source collection

very nice! I wish all the entries in the Pali dictionary looked like that, instead of having to decipher roman numerals from funky outmoded sutta referencing methods.

1 Like

Translations of PED period miss the psychological intricacies, so I would recommend instead Margaret Cone’s dictionary, which is much better in this regard.

nimitta, m.n. [cf S., BHS nimitta], a sign, a mark; what one notes or marks;

  1. (i) a sign or mark by which something or someone is recognized or identified or known or defined; a distinguishing mark or appearance; a perceived (enduring) attribute, predicate (especially that of permanence); an attribution;

(ii) the organ of generation (of either sex), the pudenda;

  1. an object or appearance or happening which is significant, which expresses more than itself;

(i) a sign, a significant appearance; an omen, a portent;

(ii) an indication, a hint;

  1. (i) what one notes or marks; an object of thought or meditation or concentration; an image;

(ii) an internal appearance or total awareness; a mental impression (appearing as an early stage of jhāna, a sign of progress);

  1. a ground, a cause, a reason;

nimittaṃ gaṇhāti,

  1. marks, apprehends the characteristic features; apprehends an object or appearance (as distinguished in various ways); distinguishes, identifies an object or appearance;
  1. apprehends, responds emotionally to, an object or appearance; grasps, occupies oneself with, external features or characteristics;
  1. (+ loc.) marks, marks inwardly; takes as a sign; concentrates exclusively on, is completely taken up by; apprehends only;

Nimitta” indeed means “sign” in some contexts, but unfortunately, “sign” translation was used as a catch-all word for all the contexts where meaning wasn’t quite clear. It’s not to be taken too seriously. As Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote,

The word nimitta is difficult to render in a way that fits all the major contexts where it occurs. I returned to “sign” only after several experiments with alternatives - “aspect”, “feature,” and “appearance” - proved unsatisfactory.

The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya - Google Books

2 Likes

Hi Gabriel

What do you make of this enigmatic reference in SN 41.7 -

Yāvatā kho, bhante, animittā cetovimuttiyo, akuppā tāsaṃ cetovimutti aggamakkhāyati.

Ta da! You have the plural “signless liberations of mind”. It does make me wonder if the definite article “the” has been properly furnished to translate animittā cetovimutti (even if this is in the nominative of designation).

There is something in SN 40.9 which might explain what this/these signless concentration(s) are, based on the intrusion of qualities I take to be opposite to the animitta. Apparently, when Ven Moggallana was cultivating the signless concentration(s) of mind, he experienced a disturbance -

Tassa mayhaṃ, āvuso, iminā vihārena viharato nimittānusāri viññāṇaṃ hoti.

Whilst I dwelt therein, my consciousness followed along with signs.

Take a look at MN 138, where this phrase XYZnimittānusāri viññāṇaṃ hoti also occurs. Leaving aside the fact that MN 138 appears to have suffered a erroneous negation compared to the Chinese parallel (it says “stuck internally” where the Chinese has “internally not settled”), all of the concrete manifestations of the 6 types of “following of signs” that are given pertain to the jhanas, eg following the rapture and pleasure born of seclusion.

Perhaps we can go back to SN 41.7 to ask if this “following of signs” is tied to lust being a maker of signs etc -

Rāgo kho, bhante, nimittakaraṇo, doso nimittakaraṇo, moho nimittakaraṇo.

Perhaps it is not so much the nimitta/signs that are absent per se, but the nimitta/triggers that are absent. This might necessitate a broader reading of the animitta attainment(s).

1 Like

It gets intricate, and I don’t see a good solution in sight…
SN 41.7 treats all of those liberations as a plural, so we have

  • “measureless liberations” (metta, mudita etc. are indeed plural)
  • “liberations of mind by nothingness” (commentary speaks of nine, but I see only one, because the others are apparently the 4+4 paths and fruits)
  • signless liberations (without specifications?)

I can’t make too much of it, because 1.I still wouldn’t know what the plural here would signify, and 2.wouldn’t vimutti need to be in the plural too in order to be a proper plural of the whole term?

MN 138 is somehow all over the place with its categories of being distracted, stuck, agitated. But yes, it mentions jhanas as well.

SN 40.9 is similar to AN 6.13, yet there the anonymous bhikkhu got rebuked for misrepresenting the Buddha regarding the animitta state…

So if I understand you correctly you are investigating if part of the EBT treats jhanas 2-4 as animitta samadhi? If that proves to be true (I still assume a prove would only be subtle) it would mean that either 1.animitta samadhi was a very general term for meditative attainments, or 2.that it was conceptualized in quite different ways. Because an interpretation of animitta samadhi as jhana 2-4 would contradict MN 121, MN 122, MN 44 and SN 41.6, and especially AN 6.60 and AN 7.56 - don’t you think?

2 Likes

Hi Gabriel.

Indeed, it’s messy! We probably need to try to make sense of the 3 terms used in the texts to describe the animittas, ie animitta samādhi, animitta cetosamādhi and animitta cetovimutti. I would suggest that some slippage has already occured, eg the Buddha’s use of the animitta cetosamādhi to transcend his aches, when it appears that He was actually using the animitta cetovimutti (I’m thinking of the AN 6.13 presentation).

As if the Pali versions are not bad enough, the Chinese texts are just as garbled. Eg, where SN 41.7 has the animittā cetovimutti, its parallel SA 567 has 無相心三昧 (animitta cetosamādhi). In fact, I cannot seem to find animittā cetovimutti in Chinese (無相心解脫) save for one listing on SC as T12, which contains the AN 6.13 passages on the different types of cetovimutti. Thankfully, no “無想心解脫” :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:, except for that unfortunate typo in MA 211 with its 無想定 (non-percipient attainment) where MN 43 has animittā cetovimutti.

Although Prof Harvey does make quite a comprehensive coverage of the Pali material, perhaps it is time for someone to dip into the Chinese sources to get a more complete picture.

Perhaps to address some of your points -

I think we can explain this away quite easily, by noting that AN 6.13 deals with the attainments that have -

been developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken as an awareness-release

In this case, the monk was probably confusing his baby-steps in developing the attainment with the fully-perfected attainment.

If I am correct in identifying the intersection between SN 22.80 and MN 78, then at least one of the animitta appellations should cover all 4 jhanas. On top of that, SA 559 appears to be the parallel to the 2nd narrative in AN 9.37. The former uses 無相心三昧 (animitta cetosamādhi) to refer to the attainment that leads to awakening, while the Pali has the na sasaṅ­khā­ra­nig­gay­ha­vārita­gata samādhi fulfilling that function. I’ve written elsewhere that the latter is a reference to jhana.

I think the problem posed by MN 44/SN 41.6 is also easy to explain away. This will not be the only occasion where the suttas employ the same denotation to refer to 2 completely different sets of phenomena. Eg the three formations of MN 44/SN 41.4 versus the three formations of Dependant Origination.

The rest - definitely problematic. Unless, we investigate all of the occurrences of the 3 animitta appellations carefully and come to a reasoned classification for which phrase describes what, and the possibility that slippages between the terms have occurred. The few examples above already show that the different recitation traditions have mixed up the cetovimutti with the cetosamādhi. Obviously more work needs to be done, but that’s beyond my meagre capabilities.

1 Like

I am sympathetic to the idea, simply because we have different genealogies of practitioners in the suttas and thus doctrinal inconsistencies would be no surprise. Yet again, if the agamas don’t provide a lot of new material I would find it difficult to develop a whole EBT perspective out of it…

But just assuming… wouldn’t animitta be difficult to reconcile with the savitakka of jhana#1?
Or, if it would still cover jhana#1 it would mean that the “a-” in a-nimitta would not refer to all nimittas but to very specific ones. e.g. in the meaning of “a-kāmehi a-akusalehi-dhammehi”, i.e. as a synonym for vivicca in the jhana formula?

1 Like

I find your 2nd option very attractive.

1 Like

How do those 2 sets differ in meaning? In SN 12.2 (SN 12 is devoted to 12ps dependent origination), it defines sankhara as 3 fold

:diamonds: “katame ca, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā?
"And-what, monks, (are) fabrications?
tayo-me, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā —
(there are) three-of-these, **********, fabrications:
kāya-saṅkhāro,
bodily-fabrications,
vacī-saṅkhāro,
verbal-fabrications,
citta-saṅkhāro.
mental-fabrications,
ime vuccanti, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā.
This (is) called, *********, fabrications.

and MN 44 explains what those 3 sankharas are in more detail. I had assumed both suttas are talking about the same exact 3 sankharas in name and meaning. Could you refer me to where it’s defined differently?

MN 44 pali
:diamonds: 463. “kati panāyye, saṅkhārā”ti?

:diamonds: “tayome, āvuso visākha, saṅkhārā — kāyasaṅkhāro, vacīsaṅkhāro, cittasaṅkhāro”ti.

:diamonds: “katamo panāyye, kāyasaṅkhāro, katamo vacīsaṅkhāro, katamo cittasaṅkhāro”ti?

:diamonds: “assāsapassāsā kho, āvuso visākha, kāyasaṅkhāro, vitakkavicārā vacīsaṅkhāro, saññā ca vedanā ca cittasaṅkhāro”ti.

:diamonds: “kasmā panāyye, assāsapassāsā kāyasaṅkhāro, kasmā vitakkavicārā vacīsaṅkhāro, kasmā saññā ca vedanā ca cittasaṅkhāro”ti?

I wonder what you guys think of this passage. Although the word “a-nimitta” isn’t used, “bahiddhā ca sabba-nimittesu” used in this context, the next line of text linked to ceto vimuttim and pañña vimuttim, also seems very similar in meaning to the common definition of “a-manasi-karai sabba nimitta” for animitta.

Perhaps Animitta should fork from the Nimitta subject, since Animitta on its own can be quite a handful.

AN 3.32 seems to link arahant attainment with a-nimitta

(B.Bodhi trans.)
“siyā nu kho, bhante, bhikkhuno
“Bhante, could a bhikkhu
tathā-rūpo samādhi-paṭilābho
obtain such a state of concentration that
(1) yathā imasmiñca sa-viññāṇake kāye ahaṅ-kāra-mamaṅ-kāra-mān-ānusayā nāssu,
(1) he would have no I-making, mine-making, and underlying tendency to conceit in regard to this conscious body;

”external all-signs” seems to mean a-nimitta

(2) bahiddhā ca sabba-nimittesu ahaṅ-kāra-mamaṅ-kāra-mān-ānusayā nāssu;
(2) he would have no I-making, mine-making, and underlying tendency to conceit in regard to all external objects; and
(3) yañca cetovimuttiṃ paññāvimuttiṃ upasampajja viharato
(3) he would enter and dwell in that liberation of mind, liberation by wisdom,
ahaṅ-kāra-mamaṅ-kāra-mān-ānusayā na honti
through which there is no more I-making, mine-making, and underlying tendency to conceit
tañca cetovimuttiṃ paññāvimuttiṃ upasampajja vihareyyā”ti?
for one who enters and dwells in it?”366

The Buddha answers “yes” with the famous instruction for Nirvana

“idhānanda, bhikkhuno evaṃ hoti — ‘etaṃ santaṃ etaṃ paṇītaṃ yadidaṃ sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭinissaggo taṇhākkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānan’ti.
This is peaceful, sublime .... Nirvana.

Hi Frank. This issue has been canvassed many times here but I’m afraid I don’t have those threads handy. The standard view is that the DO formations refer to volitional formations while the MN 44 bucket refers to formed formations.

1 Like

I’d appreciate if anyone could suggest sutta references or links to forum threads that provide sutta references to explain the difference. Both SN 12.2 and MN 44 use the same 3 terms quoted below, so I’d like to see the sutta passages where it’s using these 3 terms differently with “formed” and “volition” semantic distinctions.

Try this - Sankhārā in the context of dependent origination and five aggregates

2 Likes

See: https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5909

3 Likes

This is a cool thread. Thanks!

It seems to me samadhinimitta does not mean ‘sign/object of samadhi’, but ‘cause of samadhi’ (or ‘basis’, ‘trigger’, etc. I think ‘basis’ works best overall, so I’ll use that just to illustrate my thoughts.)

The idea ‘object of samadhi’ seems to largely come from the understanding of samadhi as ‘concentration’, but I don’t agree with that. If you see it as ‘unification’, ‘going to one’ of the mind, then an object of samadhi makes way less sense. The point of samadhi to me is that the duality between object and observer disappears.

The meaning of ‘object’ for nimitta is a bit farfetched already, I think. And as an object of samadhi even more. I don’t think the suttas ever talk about putting samadhi on something. I mean, do they ever tell us to put samadhi on the breath or on the idea of impermanence or something? Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think so. The only possible exception I know is this samadhinimitta. That alone makes me doubt it means ‘object’.

I’ve looked at all the occurrences of samadhinimitta I think you’ve mentioned:

  • MN44 has cattāro satipaṭṭhānā samādhinimittā, where it certainly means ‘basis for samadhi’, since the sutta says development of satipaṭṭhāna leads to samadhi.

You agree on this, but other occurrences of samādhinimitta you’ve put under “result”. I think most if not all can be read as ‘cause/basis’ too, although some with a bit less certainty than others:

  • In AN5.26 the samadhinimitta occurs way before the samadhi itself in the practice of the monk, so it can not be an object of samadhi. It seems this sutta is saying, if you can’t get inspiration by any of the mentioned ways, then take another basis for samadhi to get inspiration to then get into samadhi.

  • AN3.102: “Bhikkhus, when a bhikkhu is devoted to the higher mind (this means jhanas, so again there’s no samadhi yet), from time to time he should give attention to three bases. …a basis for samadhi … a basis for exertion … a basis for equanimity. If a bhikkhu devoted to the higher mind attends exclusively to a basis for samadhi, it is possible that his mind will veer toward laziness. …” If you’re lazy there won’t be samadhi, so no ‘sign’ or ‘object’ of it either. But you can attend to a cause / basis, like letting go.

  • AN4.14: “What is the effort of preservation? Here, a monk keeps firmly in his mind a favourable basis for concentration which has arisen, such as [a perception of] a skeleton…” Right effort comes before samadhi too. And if one’s perception is that of a skeleton and such, then one seems to still be developing samadhi by abandoning sensual desire. Plus an object of meditation wouldn’t be the perception of a skeleton, but just the skeleton itself. (Walsh probably omitted ‘perception’ in DN for this very reason.)

  • AN3.19: “A bhikkhu diligently applies himself to a basis for samadhi in the morning, in the middle of the day, and in the evening. Possessing these three factors, a bhikkhu is capable of achieving a wholesome state.” It seems more likely that this occurs before attaining samadhi than after. The arising and increasing of wholesome states is commonly a part of right effort as well. It’s not clear what the wholesome state is, it could well be a jhana, or a something that is beneficial for them. (PS. you’ve got this one under ‘subhanimitta’)

  • AN6.28: “having established mindfulness before him, the basis for samadhi that he attended to during the day is still present to him”. This sutta doesn’t support my idea per se, but I don’t think it goes against it either.

  • This sutta also has Yaṃ nimittaṃ āgamma yaṃ nimittaṃ manasikaroto anantarā āsavānaṃ khayo hoti, taṃ nimittaṃ na jānāti na passati, which I think you may have missed. Here ‘cause/basis’ could also work very well, as a cause for ending the asavas.

However, I struggle a bit with MN36:

  • tasmiṃyeva purimasmiṃ samādhinimitte ajjhattameva cittaṃ saṇṭhapemi sannisādemi ekodiṃ karomi samādahāmi, yena sudaṃ niccakappaṃ viharāmī.: “I steady my mind internally, quieten it, bring it to singleness, and concentrate it on that same samādhi nimitta as before, in which I constantly abide.”

In this translation it seems as if only the verb samādahāmi applies to samādhinimitte, but saṇṭhapemi sannisādemi ekodiṃ karomi also do. This is one reason for me to doubt ‘on the object of samadhi’ for samādhinimitte. It’s also interesting that here again samadhinimitta occurs in the context of going into samadhi, not in the context of already being in samadhi. This also suggests ‘cause’ to me. It also seems more reasonable the Buddha abides in a cause/basis for samadhi constantly (ie. having no hindrances), instead of constantly “in the same object”. (yena here used in the sense of “where” supposedly)

Grammatical it is a bit hard to make sense of, though, since samādhinimitte is locative (“on/in/at/regarding the samādhinimitta”), not instrumental or ablative which imply cause. But in English we’d say “on that foundation/basis”, which sort of means “with that cause”, so maybe that’s what’s is happening here.

Or could this be an instance of what Wijesekara says in Syntax of the Cases?

The various nuances expressed by the loc. in Pāli just as in Skr., bring it into contact not only with the dat. but even with other cases, especially the inst. Kaccāyana lays down (312) that the loc. is used sometimes in the sense of the inst., the vutti illustrating it with such examples as ‘pattesu piṇḍāya caranti’ and ‘pathesu gacchanti’. There are a good many instances of the loc. concurring with an inst. of means in general, including such divisions of it as that of instrument, cause and even of agency.

Seems a bit farfetched, but considering all the other occurrences make more sense to me using ‘cause/basis for samadhi’ …

Any thoughts?

3 Likes

I’m glad you’re interested in these nuances!

Re. AN.103: here I put nimitta into the ‘results’ category because of the sutta context. When it says “If a bhikkhu devoted to the higher mind attends exclusively to the mark of concentration, it is possible that his mind will veer toward laziness.” Why would I become lazy if I looked at a basis for samadhi? To me it makes more sense if here the samadhi is on some level already established, and I’d get less motivated to go further.

In general I don’t understand the word “base” well and think it should be replaced by something more concrete. So I’d rather take ‘cause’ if you mean that.

What I mean with result is “something that shows me that a certain level of samadhi has been developed”, which is different than the samadhi itself. Samadhi is not only the fully developed 4th jhana. I think anything from 2nd jhana up we can call with good backup as proper samadhi. So when we practice there are already signs along the way that we practice correctly and that it’s going in the right direction, i.e. a deepening of the already emerging samadhi.

So it might be a matter of taste I guess to see the nimitta at this stage as a sign of an already partly emerged samadhi, or as the cause for a deepening of the samadhi. I have my reasons to prefer the first, but beyond the quotes cannot back it up further.

Hi Gabriel,

Thanks for the reply on AN3.102.

As far as I’m aware samadhi is occasionally used to describe a state before the jhanas, but that is quite rare. Usually I think it is safe to assume that samadhi equals at least the first jhana, as that is samma samadhi. When you have samma samadhi then there are no hindrances, so also no laziness. But if you are still practicing to attain samadhi (i.e. you are working on a cause or basis for samadhi) then there may still be laziness/drowsiness )

But that is not too much of importance here, because this sutta seems to not really apply to one single meditation session, but more the general attitude one has towards meditation (too slack or too tense). If you see samadhi as the calm aspect of the mind, then you can see how a meditator who only sticks to this may forget to arouse energy and thus become lazy.

But I also must admit just this single instance can not really prove things one way or the other. That’s why I’ve looked at all of them. Since they can all be interpreted as “cause for samadhi”, and some don’t make sense as “object of samadhi” (which on top of that is not very literal afaik) this makes me assume “cause for samadhi” is better for samadhinimmitta. It’s just a quick thing I realized while reading your collection, though. I haven’t really thought it through much.

2 Likes

Here the sutta puts it straight - ‘nimitta’ (representation) in the context of samadhi is not a physical object (e.g. skeleton), but a recognition, perception (saññā) of it. For example, one can capture the representation (nimitta) of the skeleton, and then continue to practice without a physical object.

For translators unfamiliar with samadhi traditions this can be hard to understand, but this distinction between object-support (ārammaṇa, ālambana) of samadhi and physical object per se is essential for all Indian contemplative traditions.

MN 28: And his mind, having made an element its objective support (dhātārammaṇameva), enters into [that new objective support] and acquires confidence, steadiness, and resolution.

2 Likes

Except that sañña is not really used as an object in any other sutta, as far as I know. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

In other suttas one is told to develop the perception of asubha to remove lust, not take perception of asubha as ones object… So that applies here too. The perception of the skeleton (asubha) leads to the removal of lust. As so nimitta is not the object of samadhi, but the cause of it.

That’s how I see it anyway. I think it makes more sense.

Wth kindness,
Sunyo

2 Likes

The Western notion of “object” may lead here to confusion, since it often denotes “something material that may be perceived by the senses”.

Nimitta - as in case of asubha-saññā, - is indeed not taken as ones object, it is attended to:

Ko panāvuso hetu ko paccayo. Yena anuppanno vā rāgo uppajjati, uppanno vā rāgo bhiyyobhāvāya vepullāya saṃvattatī’ti? Subhanimittantissa vacanīyaṃ.
_ _
Tassa subhanimittaṃ ayoniso manasikaroto anuppanno ceva rāgo uppajjati. Uppanno ca rāgo bhiyyobhāvāya vepullāya saṃvattati. Ayaṃ kho āvuso hetu, ayaṃ paccayo, yena anuppanno vā rāgo uppajjati, uppanno vā rāgo bhiyyobhāvāya vepullāya saṃvattatī’ti.

"[Then if they ask,] ‘But what, friends, is the reason, what the cause, why unarisen passion arises, or arisen passion tends to growth & abundance?’ ‘The theme of the attractive,’ it should be said. ‘For one who attends inappropriately to the theme of the attractive, unarisen passion arises and arisen passion tends to growth & abundance…’

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.068.than.html

As ancient Greeks noted as well, it is attention to inner representations of something as attractive, which brings about passion. For example, one sees a woman and pays attention to inner representations of her form as beautiful.

In contrast, representations that are suitable for samādhi, color perception in such a way that unskilful behaviour lessens. For example, representation of skeleton colors perception of all human bodies so that they are seen mostly as skeletons, - thus preventing lust.

Hence switching the direction of attention from one kind of nimitta’s to another, or from one kind of saññā to another, is a key instrument:

(1) Tasmātiha tvaṃ moggallāna yathā saññino te viharato taṃ middhaṃ okkamati, taṃ saññaṃ mā manasākāsi. taṃ saññaṃ mā bahulamakāsi. Ṭhānaṃ kho panetaṃ moggallāna vijjati yaṃ te evaṃ viharato taṃ middhaṃ pahīyetha.

"Well then, Moggallana, whatever perception you have in mind when drowsiness descends on you, don’t attend to that perception, don’t pursue it. It’s possible that by doing this you will shake off your drowsiness.

Capala (Pacala) Sutta: Nodding

In samādhi, nimitta is attended to:

Evameva kho bhikkhave adhicittamanuyuttena bhikkhunā tīṇi nimittāni kālena kālaṃ manasikātabbāni: kālena kālaṃ samādhinimittaṃ manasikātabbaṃ. Kālena kālaṃ paggahanimittaṃ manasikātabbaṃ. Kālena kālaṃ upekkhānimittaṃ manasikātabbaṃ.

"In the same way, a monk intent on heightened mind should attend periodically to three themes: he should attend periodically to the theme of concentration; he should attend periodically to the theme of uplifted energy; he should attend periodically to the theme of equanimity.

Nimitta Sutta: Themes

1 Like

Yes, correct. The ‘object of meditation’ could be even an emotion, loving-kindness for example. When an impermanent (physical) object like the breath is perceived, it’s impermanence is noted via the mental identification or labelling-sanna (as sanna is part of the ‘Buddhist’ apparatus of perception). AN10.60 Girimananda sutta AN7.46 Sanna sutta shows a plethora of such meditations.

With metta

1 Like