The Buddha Never Taught Concentration?

BrPromise · February 16, 2026, 9:38pm

Hi all,

Kindly looking forward to your feedback on this piece.

TLDR: the Buddha never taught concentration, defined as

the placing of attention on single object to exclusion of others (definition of '“concentration” in English dictionaries)
the bringing back of attention to this object when one gets “distracted” (how most Buddhist teachers teach today)

Instead, when we look at the Buddha’s meditation instructions — satipaṭṭhāna, jhāna, brahmavihāra, vipassanā, etc. — we see an open, pleasant, easeful, and equanimous form of awareness. I therefore suggest it is best to translate “samādhi” as "open awareness” or, alternatively, “composure”, “even-mindedness”, “equanimity”.

The Buddha Never Taught Concentration

I know this sounds crazy but it’s true.

By Promise — Feb 02, 2026 Originally published on Mental Health Revolution

Hi friend,

“Concentration”, “concentration” — Buddhist teachers keep talking about “concentration”.

“To attain liberation […] one must perfect […] self-discipline, meditative concentration, and the wisdom of emptiness.” — The Dalai Lama [^1]

“It is concentration which can help one obtain the great awakening.” — Thích Nhất Hạnh ^2

“In attending to the breath with onepointed concentration, everything else falls away — including thoughts, feelings, the outside world.” ― Jon Kabat-Zinn [^3]

“Without the steadiness of concentration, it is easy to get caught up in […] feelings, perceptions, and thoughts […].” — Joseph Goldstein [^4]

The word “concentration” has become so ubiquitous in Western Buddhism that few people dare to question it.

Yet I believe that by the end of this article you will be convinced that the Buddha never taught concentration.

The English word “concentration”

First let us learn how “concentration” is defined:

Exclusive attention to one object — Dictionary.com

The state of being concentrated; especially: direction of attention to a single object — Merriam-Webster

The ability to think carefully about something you are doing and nothing else — Cambridge Dictionary

The ability to direct all your effort and attention on one thing, without thinking of other things — Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries

A concentration exercise asks us to

focus our attention on one object to the exclusion of the others, and
bring our attention back to this object whenever we get distracted.

But the Buddha never taught any of these things.

Instead, he taught open awareness.

Please see for yourself.

How The Buddha Taught Meditation

1. Focus or open awareness?

Satipaṭṭhāna

Here are the Buddha’s instructions for awareness:

One keeps observing one’s body as it is…. one’s feelings as they are… one’s mind as it is… the healing truth as it is — alert, awake, aware, having let go of all desire and aversion. [^5]

“Having let go of all desire and aversion” — does this sound like concentration or like open awareness?

Jhāna / ānāpānasati

Jhāna is the technique the Buddha taught the most, and it starts like this:

Defused from desires, defused from unbeneficial qualities, one enters and dwells in the first meditation, […] filled with the pleasure and ease of defusion. [^6]

“Defused from desire” — does this sound like concentration or like open awareness? [^7]

Sometimes the Buddha also followed these instructions with whole body awareness:

One permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills their body with the pleasure and ease born of defusion. There is no part of their entire body unpervaded by the pleasure and ease of defusion. [^8]

Which is also the third step of ānāpānasati [^9]:

“I shall breathe in experiencing my whole body. […] I shall breathe out experiencing my whole body.” [^10]

“Experiencing one’s whole body” — does this sound like concentration or like open awareness?

Arūpa samāpatti

The immaterial “attainments” are meditations the Buddha learned from other teachers and taught after his awakening:

Having completely transcended material perceptions, with the fading away of resistance, not engaging with the variety of perceptions, knowing “space is infinite”, one enters and remains in the realm of infinite space. [^11]

“Infinite space” — does this sound like concentration or like open awareness?

Brahmavihāra

Here is the first part of the Buddha’s instructions for his meditations on love:

One pervades the first direction with a mind imbued with friendliness. Likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth. So above, below, and all around — everywhere, thoroughly — one pervades the entire world with a mind imbued with friendliness, vast, expansive, limitless, free from hostility, free from ill-will. [^12]

A mind that is “vast, expansive, and limitless” — does this sound like concentration or like open awareness?

Vipassanā

The Buddha described the realizations that lead to full liberation in many different words, but the same themes always come up: realizing that everything is inconstant, unreliable, and uncontrollable, and letting go of all attachment [^13].

You should see the body… feelings… interpretations… intentions… states of consciousness […] as they are — not yours, not you, uncontrollable. [^14]

Seeing the nature of all components of human existence — does this sound like concentration or like open awareness?

The body is inconstant… feelings are inconstant… interpretations are inconstant… intentions are inconstant… consciousness is inconstant… let go of attachment for them. [^15]

Letting go of attachment for all components of human existence — does this sound like concentration or like open awareness?

See that all sense organs are inconstant [^16], unreliable [^17], uncontrollable [^18]. See that all sense objects are inconstant [^19], unreliable [^20], uncontrollable [^21].

Seeing the true nature of the six sense spheres (i.e., according to the Buddha, everything) — does this sound like concentration or like open awareness?

Let go of [attachment to] the eyes, sights, and vision… the ears, sounds, and hearing… the nose, smells, and smell… the tongue, tastes, and taste… the body, tangibles, and touch… the mind, thoughts, and cognition. Let go of the painful, pleasant, and neutral feelings that manifest dependent on vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, and cognition. [^22]

“Let go of the six sense spheres and the feelings they produce” — does this sound like concentration or like open awareness?

And the list goes on…

The following instructions appear less often in the suttas but they shine further light on the type of meditation the Buddha taught.

Seeing forms with the eyes… hearing sounds with the ears… smelling odors with the nose… tasting flavors with the tongue… touching objects with the body… thinking thoughts with the mind… one does not get caught up in their characteristics or details. [^23]

“Not caught up in characteristics or details” — does this sound like concentration or like open awareness?

With an open, boundless mind, one cultivates a radiant mind. [^24]

“An open and boundless mind” — does this sound like concentration or like open awareness?

When people asked the Buddha, “Can you briefly describe how someone attains liberation?” He replied,

It’s when one hears that “Nothing is worth holding onto”. After hearing that nothing is worth holding onto, they become aware of everything. […] They don’t grasp at anything in the world. Not grasping, they’re not anxious. Not anxious, they become liberated. [^25]

“Aware of everything” — does this sound like concentration or like open awareness?

Meditate like space. For when you meditate like space, pleasant and unpleasant contacts will not obsess your mind. Just as space is not established anywhere, in the same way, meditate like space. ^26

“Meditate like space” — does this sound like concentration or like open awareness?

The aim

The Buddha used the following words to describe the goal of his meditation system:

“Unbinding” ^27
“Disentanglement” ^28
“Non-attachment” ^29
“Letting go” ^30
“Release” [^31]
“Liberation” [^32]
“A limitless mind” ^33
“Consciousness that is without features, infinite, radiant everywhere” [^34]

Do these words sound like the fruit of concentration or the fruit of open awareness?

2. An object to come back to? Really?

The second hallmark of a concentration exercise, if you remember, is the bringing back of our attention to our chosen object when we get “distracted”.

This is how most teachers teach today:

“Re-setting: immediately recognising distraction and returning to the object.” — The Dalai Lama [^35]

“Whenever we are carried away by our thinking, […] we can return to our breathing.” — Thích Nhất Hạnh ^36

“By repeatedly bringing your attention back to the breath each time it wanders off, concentration builds.” — Jon Kabat-Zinn [^37]

“When you catch your mind wandering, gently bring your attention back to the breath.” — Jack Kornfield [^38]

The Buddha taught meditation for forty-four years and his teachings were recorded in over eight thousands suttas.

Had he taught concentration, we’d expect to find this basic “bring attention back” instruction in at least a few dozen suttas.

But we don’t.

Actually, we can’t find these instructions even once. [^39]

Because the Buddha never taught concentration.

“Samādhi” — the translation mistake that confused millions

The Pāli word that scholars came to translate as “concentration” is “samādhi”.

It comes from

sam- (together) + ā- (towards) + √dhā (to place)

So scholars thought it would make sense to translate “samādhi” as “concentration”, from Latin

com- (together) + centrum (center)

But there are three problems with this translation:

1. There is no sense of “center” in “samādhi”

The root √dhā means “to place, put, establish” — not “to center”.

Hearing the word “samādhi”, a Pāli speaker would not hear any sense of centering his or her attention.

2. The prefix “sam-” conveys not only togetherness but also evenness

The prefix “sam-” is directly related to “sama” meaning “even, balanced, equal, flat” [^40] [^41].

To students of the Buddha, the word “samādhi” would have evoked a mind that is unified, even, and flat.

3. We shouldn’t translate words based on their etymology alone — context is more important, and context does not support this translation.

Etymology alone never defined words [^42].

When the Buddha used the word “samādhi”, he wasn’t referring to a “concentrated” mind, but a mind that is

“aware of everything” [^43],
“free from all desire and aversion” [^44],
“open” ^45,
“boundless” ^46,
“infinite” ^47,
“vast” ^48,
“expansive” ^49,
“limitless” ^50,
“not caught up in any characteristic or detail” [^51], and
“not grasping at anything” ^52.

Samādhi — better translations

If we can’t translate “samādhi” as “concentration”, how should we translate it?

Here are my top 3:

Open Awareness

“Open awareness” is my favorite.

It accurately describes the “open” ^53, “vast” ^54 “awareness of everything” [^55] that the Buddha taught.

It easily invokes the sense of pleasure ^56, ease ^57, and equanimity ^58 that the Buddha associated with “samādhi”.

And it is free from any sense of coldness that the words “composure”, “equanimity”, and “even-mindedness” bring up in many English speakers.

Composure

Composure is a good second.

Interestingly, it also works great etymologically since it comes from the Latin “com-” “together” + “ponere” “to place” — just like “samādhi” comes from “sam-” “together” + “dhā” “to place”.

Equanimity / Even-mindedness

I put these two words in a tie for third, since they both correctly point to what the Buddha taught, although not as effectively as “open awareness” and “composure”.

	Concentration	Open Awareness
Instructions	· Focus on one object to the exclusion of the others	· Open your awareness to everything
	· Bring your attention back to it when you get distracted	· Let go of all preferences
Experience	· Contraction	· Spaciousness
	· Effort	· Ease

Conclusion

The Buddha never taught concentration.

He only taught open awareness.

The more we open our awareness, the more we enjoy fulfillment, freedom, and flow.

Footnotes

[^1]: The Path to Enlightenment

[^3]: Wherever You Go, There You Are: Mindfulness Meditation in Everyday Life. I know that Jon Kabat-Zinn doesn’t identify as a Buddhist but his work is based on Buddhism and he is one of the leading voices in the mindfulness and meditation world.

[^4]: Mindfulness: A Practical Guide to Awakening

[^5]: Bhikkhu kāye kāyānupassī viharati ātāpī sampajāno satimā, vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṁ; vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati …pe… citte cittānupassī viharati …pe… dhammesu dhammānupassī viharati ātāpī sampajāno satimā, vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṁ.

[^6]: Vivicceva kāmehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi … vivekajaṁ pītisukhaṁ paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ upasampajja viharati.

[^7]: This is something you can observe for yourself, but according to neuroscience, less desire = more open awareness: “Low motivationally intense affects broaden cognitive scope whereas high motivationally intense affects narrow cognitive scope.” See The Influence of Affective States Varying in Motivational Intensity on Cognitive Scope.

[^8]: So imameva kāyaṁ vivekajena pītisukhena abhisandeti parisandeti paripūreti parippharati nāssa kiñci sabbāvato kāyassa vivekajena pītisukhena apphuṭaṁ hoti.

[^9]: According to my research the first twelve steps of ānāpānasati are a description of the four jhanas. The strongest argument for this is the absence of jhāna mention in the introduction of MN118.

[^10]: Sabbakāyapaṭisaṁvedī passasissāmī"ti sikkhati.

[^11]: Sabbaso rūpasaññānaṁ samatikkamā paṭighasaññānaṁ atthaṅgamā nānattasaññānaṁ amanasikārā ananto ākāsoti ākāsānañcāyatanaṁ upasampajja viharati.

[^12]: So mettāsahagatena cetasā ekaṁ disaṁ pharitvā viharati. Tathā dutiyaṁ. Tathā tatiyaṁ. Tathā catutthaṁ. Iti uddhamadho tiriyaṁ sabbadhi sabbattatāya sabbāvantaṁ lokaṁ mettāsahagatena cetasā vipulena mahaggatena appamāṇena averena abyāpajjena pharitvā viharati.

[^13]: I.e. one’s compulsive attempts to keep, change, or predict. See my interactive translation of the four noble truths.

[^14]: … sabbaṁ viññāṇaṁ: 'netaṁ mama nesohamasmi na meso attā’ti evametaṁ yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṁ. And: viññāṇaṁ anattā.

[^15]: Rūpaṁ kho, bhikkhu, aniccaṁ; tatra te chando pahātabbo. Vedanā aniccā … saññā … saṅkhārā … viññāṇaṁ aniccaṁ; tatra kho te chando pahātabbo.

[^16]: Eg. SN35.1

[^17]: Eg. SN35.2

[^18]: Eg. SN35.3

[^19]: Eg. SN35.4

[^20]: Eg. SN35.5

[^21]: Eg. SN35.6

[^22]: Cakkhuṁ, bhikkhave, pahātabbaṁ, rūpā pahātabbā, cakkhuviññāṇaṁ pahātabbaṁ, cakkhusamphasso pahātabbo, yampidaṁ cakkhusamphassapaccayā uppajjati vedayitaṁ sukhaṁ vā dukkhaṁ vā adukkhamasukhaṁ vā tampi pahātabbaṁ …pe… mano pahātabbo, dhammā pahātabbā, manoviññāṇaṁ pahātabbaṁ, manosamphasso pahātabbo, yampidaṁ manosamphassapaccayā uppajjati vedayitaṁ sukhaṁ vā dukkhaṁ vā adukkhamasukhaṁ vā tampi pahātabbaṁ.

[^23]: Na nimittaggāhī hoti nānubyañjanaggāhī

[^24]: Iti vivaṭena cetasā apariyonaddhena sappabhāsaṁ cittaṁ bhāveti

[^25]: Bhikkhuno sutaṁ hoti: "sabbe dhammā nālaṁ abhinivesāyā"ti. … So sabbaṁ dhammaṁ abhijānāti. … viharanto na kiñci loke upādiyati. Anupādiyaṁ na paritassati, aparitassaṁ paccattaññeva parinibbāyati.

[^31]: Mokkha, vimokkha

[^32]: Mutti, vimutti

[^34]: Viññāṇaṁ anidassanaṁ anantaṁ sabbato pabhaṁ

[^35]: The Buddhism of Tibet

[^37]: Full Catastrophe Living

[^38]: Official website

[^39]: Since old beliefs die hard, a few months ago I made this open offer: 100€ to the first person who can find a single quote from any of the 8,110 suttas which describes a practitioner: 1) focusing their attention on an object, 2) getting distracted, and 3) bringing their attention back to the object. My offer is still open. Good luck.

[^40]: Which, fun fact, gave birth to the English word “same”.

[^41]: Some suggest “samādhi” comes from “sama” “even” + “dhi” “mind”. Although this folk etymology captures the even-mindedness that “samādhi” points to, apparently the word formation doesn’t work this way because combining sama + dhi would produce a short “a” and not a long “ā”.

[^42]: The mistaken belief that etymology is more important than use to understand the meaning of a word is called an etymological fallacy. If etymology defined words: when we’d hear someone play out of tune we’d describe it as “absurd” — from Latin “absurdus” “out of tune”; when we’d find someone ignorant we’d say they’re “nice” — from Latin “nescius” “ignorant”; and when we’d see a little witness in court we’d call them a “testicle” — from Latin “testiculus” “little witness”. But nobody does, because etymology doesn’t define words — only use does.

[^43]: Sabbaṁ dhammaṁ abhijānāti

[^44]: Vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṁ

[^51]: Na nimittaggāhī hoti nānubyañjanaggāhī

[^55]: Sabbaṁ dhammaṁ abhijānāti

knigarian · February 17, 2026, 1:12am

Could you inform us how many hours per day, merely 10, or 18 do you practice this kind of samadhi and how many years of such systematic practice brought you to the idea that samadhi isn’t concentration.

Because, to be honest talking about samadhi and writing about it, is quite different than being able to meditate at least 10 hours a day, systemically, day by day and not forcing himself, just enjoying pleasure.

Also such Suttas as below, doesn’t fit in your description relaxed, open awareness:

“Bhikkhus, suppose that on hearing, ‘The most beautiful girl of the land! The most beautiful girl of the land!’ a great crowd of people would assemble. Now that most beautiful girl of the land would dance exquisitely and sing exquisitely. On hearing, ‘The most beautiful girl of the land is dancing! The most beautiful girl of the land is singing!’ an even larger crowd of people would assemble.172 Then a man would come along, wishing to live, not wishing to die, wishing for happiness, averse to suffering. Someone would say to him: ‘Good man, you must carry around this bowl of oil filled to the brim between the crowd and the most beautiful girl of the land. A man with a drawn sword will be following right behind you, and wherever you spill even a little of it, right there he will fell your head.’
“What do you think, bhikkhus, would that man stop attending to that bowl of oil and out of negligence turn his attention outwards?”
“No, venerable sir.”
“I have made up this simile, bhikkhus, in order to convey a meaning. This here is the meaning: ‘The bowl of oil filled to the brim’: this is a designation for mindfulness directed to the body. Therefore, bhikkhus, you should train yourselves thus: ‘We will develop and cultivate mindfulness directed to the body, make it our vehicle, make it our basis, stabilize it, exercise ourselves in it, and fully perfect it.’ Thus, bhikkhus, should you train yourselves.”

SN 47 : 20

The point is, whatever is perceived by senses blocks higher understanding of the nature of the mind (citta). And in order to totally withdrawn mind from sensory experience, it has to be unified and concentrated on certain definitive object, even if this object is in fact animitta.

Meister Eckhart on unification of the mind:

But the soul is scattered abroad among her powers and dissipated in the action of each: the power of sight in the eye, the power of hearing in the ear, the power of tasting in the tongue - thus her ability to work inwardly is enfeebled, for a scattered power is imperfect. So, for her inward work to be effective, she must call in all her powers and gather them together from the diversity of things to a single inward activity. St. Augustine says the soul is rather where she loves than where she gives life to the body. For example, there was once a pagan master4 who was devoted to an art, that of mathematics, to which he had devoted all his powers. He was sitting by the embers, making calculations and practicing this art, when a man came along who drew a sword and, not knowing that it was the master, said, ‘Quick, tell me your name or I’ll kill you!’ The master was too absorbed to see or hear the foe or to catch what he said: he was unable to utter a word, even to say, ‘My name is so-and-so.’ And so the enemy, having cried out several times and got no answer, cut off his head.

And this was to acquire a mere natural science. How much more then should we withdraw from all things in order to concentrate all our powers on perceiving and knowing the one infinite, uncreated, eternal truth! To this end, then, assemble all your powers, all your senses, your entire mind and memory; direct them into the ground where your treasure lies buried.

Now, I prefer discussion on doctrine, if the practice described by you helped you to see things as they are, that’s great. But I don’t think such radical statement: “samadhi is not concentration” is true.

You must see that mind free from thoughts is pleasent, and than further developed such peace. And so the most popular metod to free mind from thoughts is observing the breath. How to name such observations is less important, mind is quiet, free from thoughts and uninterested in sensory experience, that’s it.

benedicere · February 17, 2026, 1:13am

Then, when I practice ānāpānasati, if distracting thoughts arise, does that mean I should remain lost in irrelevant thinking for an entire hour? Because there is no passage in the scriptures that says, “Drive away the thoughts.”

How should this kind of meditation be practiced?

dhammasaari · February 17, 2026, 1:24am

Hello Brother Promise - Thank you for sharing this essay. I am afraid I disagree with both the approach and the content of this article. There are simply just too many places of disagreement that I don’t think I can personally, offer a meaningful response to the entire essay in the scope of this comment section.

I can say that wonderful work has been done with the Suttas by several well intentioned authors (Bhikkhu Bodhi, Bhikkhu Sujato, etc..) that does clarify what it means to actually practice Samadhi. I recommend to you - “A swift pair of messengers” by Bhikkhu Sujato which provided me with much needed clarification on key doctrinal points regarding Samadhi and Concentration, Satipatthana and Vipassana. (If you haven’t read it already)

I had a look at your substack and your story. It occurs to me you possess good intentions and a sincere wish to help others - a wish to share meditations that benefitted you and helped you overcome enormous personal troubles. I applaud this good intent.

But to claim that the Buddha never taught concentration is a tall claim. Especially since it goes against the “accepted” readings of the suttas amongst scholars and monks alike - the degree of evidence you must produce to convince us of your claim is very high. But it seems to me in your article this isn’t the case.

Arguments such as these don’t cut it. Why does “having let go of all desire and aversion” sound like open awareness rather than concentration? One can easily argue that “keeping everything that arises without letting go of anything” is a better form of open awareness.

Also, when it is remarked here “Having let go of desire and aversion” - this isn’t just a pithy saying. This is a reference to Samadhi. Please do take the time to read the book I recommended earlier.

I applaud the goodness of your intention. But it would be ideal to reflect on its skillfulness. I would say there is much room for improvement here. So before you can claim, especially against the consensus, that the Buddha said so and so, or never said so and so - you would have to do a survey of the literature on this topic and address their claims directly. Not just provide your own translations of some words and use arguments to the tone of “Come on now, this is obviously just open awareness”.

AnilMenon · February 17, 2026, 2:14am

Bhikku Bodhi consistently defines “samadhi” as “concentration”. He also refers to it as a “gathering”, “focusing” and “bringing together”. As he explains, the Buddhist usage, which is instrumental, differs from the yogic/Hindu one, where it references an end goal.

”Awareness” is a different cognitive category, as is “attention”. I don’t think identifying “samadhi” as “open awareness” is particularly illuminating. That’s because we’re still working out what these two words–attention and awareness– mean. Christopher Mole’s book Attention is Cognitive Unison: An Essay in Philosophical Psychology is a very readable presentation of the many subtleties that surround this concept. Mole’s book is thoroughly Eurocentric, which is unfortunate, but parallels how most Buddhist texts tend to ignore developments in “western” psychology and philosophy.

Dheerayupa · February 17, 2026, 5:16am

I think I’ve heard somewhere that Bhikkhu Bodhi later disagreed with the translation (samadhi = concentration), but because this translation has been widely used and known for so many years (decades), he just let it be. (I could be wrong, confusing this word with another.)

I think for those who are not translators, it is better for our own practice to understand certain Pali words correctly and clearly without spending big efforts to find an English equivalent (which may not exist at all) and then use those Pali words instead of English. There are many words in English that are borrowed from other languages and cultures because an equivalent can never do justice to those words.

For those who know the Thai language, the words ‘Khun’ and ‘Kreng Jai’ would be good examples. Many westerners who understand Thai culture well just use those words to convey their messages.

Adutiya · February 18, 2026, 2:10pm

SN47.20 is a simile about mindfulness directed to the body. The discussion here is on samadhi and Isn’t there a difference between mindfulness and samahdi, particularly as a path factor? Such is the case in MN27 where cultivation of right mindfulness leads to samadhi.

[quote="knigarian, post:3, topic:42576”]
But I don’t think such radical statement: “samadhi is not concentration” is true.
[/quote]

Perhaps it’s a radical statement to some, but Ajahn Sujato, Ajahn Brahmali and Ajahn Brahm all regularly teach that concentration is a bad translation of samadhi.

agilgur5 · February 18, 2026, 3:35pm

Some of Bhante Sujato’s translations have “place the mind”. For example, SN41.6:2.4
Another is “immersion”, as in AN6.70

Ajahn Brahm, for example in The Word of the Buddha, translates it as “stillness”.

Other common translations I’ve seen include “one-pointedness” and “centeredness”

This too; I’ve read that this is based on the root words in Pali

cdpatton · February 18, 2026, 5:35pm

The “one-pointedness” description of samadhi does occur in Agama sutras, but I generally agree that concentration isn’t a great translation. I don’t think there is a great translation. For myself, I don’t understand concentration as being a matter of strain, though. In my ordinary experience, it means having one’s awareness on something and not other things, such that a person can be oblivious to what is happened around them. Which is how samadhi is sometimes depicted in sutras like the Parinirvana Sutra and elsewhere.

What I would like, as a translator, is a good English noun for being settled as in muddy water becoming clear when the mud settles to the bottom. “Settlement” technically could mean that, but usually it refers to a place where people live.

Dogen · February 18, 2026, 5:40pm

I understand that for some, it might have this image pop in their mind when they hear concentration:

And that’s a peculiarity of English, that the word can be used both in an action and a state sense.

But, in chemistry, concentration is literally just something being rid of impurities. It’s the end-state: “Rose oil concentration” is just Rose Oil rid of impurities (a state, not an action).

I think that’s an apt description for what is sometimes referred to as “Stillness”, or “Immersion”, in the sense of being rid of impurities.

But there’s a few places in the canon where Samadhi viz “Fixing the mind on a single thing” is supported as well:

MN 121 where mind is progressively directed towards emptiness is one of the cleanest examples.
Sn 43.4 talks about “Emptiness immersion; signless immersion; undirected immersion” These things are not well explained in the Nikayas all too much, but commentaries explain that they’re the valence of samadhi when Anatta / Anicca / Dukkha is taken as the object of meditation.

We do have plenty, though.

Mn20 has pretty colorful remarks about how to navigate attention forcefully to reach samadhi:

“Suppose that mendicant is focusing on stopping the formation of thoughts, but bad, unskillful thoughts connected with desire, hate, and delusion keep coming up. With teeth clenched and tongue pressed against the roof of the mouth, they should squeeze, squash, and crush mind with mind. As they do so, those bad thoughts are given up and come to an end. Their mind becomes stilled internally; it settles, unifies, and becomes immersed in samādhi.”

This to me, is an example of the merger of two images I’ve posted - concentration as a verb and noun both. To me, it’s a sutta that defeats the “You can’t force your way to samādhi” arguments.

Moggallanavagga (SN40) is all about Moggallana slipping during concentration, and Buddha urging him to set his mind to subtler concentrations:

And so … I was entering and remaining in the first absorption. While I was in that meditation, perception and focus accompanied by sensual pleasures beset me.

Then the Buddha came up to me with his psychic power and said, ‘Moggallāna, Moggallāna! Don’t neglect the first absorption, brahmin! Settle your mind in the first absorption; unify your mind and immerse it in the first absorption.’ Sn40.1

As we can see, Moggallana was in samadhi, but his mind was drifting to sensual pleasures, and Buddha urges him to turn his mind to samadhi.

And finally, for example, for breath meditation, I’m not sure how you’re supposed to follow along the steps if your mind wanders off away from breath.

If you’re not aware of your breathing during breath meditation (or in other words, concentrating on the breath), are you supposed to… not direct your attention back to breath?

As for the OP in general, again, suttas have so many (aforementioned and otherwise) “set your attention to X” examples that it’s really weird to list them all, most of them being Bhaveti (Developping Fire Kasina, for example) or Sati (Buddha recollection, for example).

Thag 10.4 has a very interesting bit: The Teacher, out of sympathy gave me a foot-wiping cloth, saying: “Focus your awareness exclusively on this clean cloth.”

Probably the earliest instances of neurodivergent ascetics in recorded history.

benedicere · February 19, 2026, 1:52pm

While meditating diligent, keen, and resolute, I perceived light and vision of forms. But before long my light and vision of forms vanished. It occurred to me: ‘What’s the cause, what’s the reason why my light and vision of forms vanish?’ It occurred to me: ‘Loss of focus arose in me, and because of that my immersion fell away. The mind drifts from the meditation. At this subtle level, the mind may not be wandering or lost, but merely focusing imprecisely. When immersion falls away, the light and vision of forms vanish. I’ll make sure that neither doubt nor loss of focus will arise in me again.’ MN128

I think such claims arise because they try to fit everything into the framework of Vipassana. However, there are meditation practices that cannot be properly understood unless they are distinguished as concentration meditation.

Pj_Harivarmanian · February 19, 2026, 5:52pm

I was just thinking:
it would be brilliant to have a list from Buddha instructions in that format.
And I suspect a certain someone—who happens to share a name with a Japanese Buddhist philosopher—might be just the person for the job…

@Dogen

Respectfully, of course.

Dogen · February 19, 2026, 6:43pm

Well, the Visuddhimagga standard (which, all of these can be found un the Suttas proper, as most would find the items familiar) is these 40 bhaveti / sati topics, which are the precursor to samādhi:

The Forty Standard Topics

Earth device
Water device
Fire device
Air or wind device
Blue device
Yellow device
Red device
White device
Space device
Consciousness device
A corpse that is bloated
A corpse that is livid (has patchy discoloration)
A corpse that is festering (trickling with pus in broken places)
A corpse that is cut up
A corpse that is gnawed
A corpse that is scattered
A corpse that is hacked and scattered
A corpse that is bleeding
A corpse that is worm-infested
A corpse that is a skeleton
Contemplation of the Buddha
Contemplation of the Dhamma
Contemplation of the Sangha
Contemplation of Virtue
Contemplation of Charity
Contemplation of the Devas
Mindfulness of Death
Mindfulness of the Physical Body
Mindfulness of Breathing
Contemplation of Calmness
Loving-kindness
Compassion
Sympathy
Equanimity
Sphere of Infinity of Space
Sphere of Infinite Consciousness
Sphere of No-thingness
Sphere of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception
Contemplation of the loathsomeness of food
Analysis of the four physical elements

knigarian · February 19, 2026, 7:39pm

As a path of factor, usually right samadhi is defined as the four jhanas. But for example in M 117 right samadhi is defined as

Unification of mind equipped with these seven factors.

The emphasis is put on unification of the mind. And I don’t think you can argue that Sutta in question is not about unification of the mind,

Also please check MN 125 where the four foundations of mindfulness in certain way are equivalent of the first jhana, or at least there’s immediate transformation from mindfulness to the second jhana:

‘Come, bhikkhu, abide contemplating the body as a body, but do not think thoughts of sensual desire.

Emphasis is put on absence of thoughts, it is defined as mindfulness but surely samadhi is there also.

On the first place words have no any inborn meaning apart that user attribute to them. I don’t argue that concentration is the best rendering of samadhi, as far as some subtle grammar points are discussed. And since I don’t know what rendering mentioned Venerables propose for samadhi, I don’t know whether I would describe their rendering as radical.

I had in mind precisely description of what samadhi is, as proposed by the author of the topic. If Ajahn Sujato, Ajahn Brahmali and Ajahn Brahm agree with it, than what I said definitely would apply to their ideas.

But since as far as I know Ajhan Brahm describes right samadhi as totally free from sensory experience, whatever his rendering of samadhi is, surely it must put emphasis on unification of the mind and not what the author of the topic proposes.

There are plenty of wholesome things that one can gain from such practice, but surely ceasing to see and hear is not one of them.

With metta

chrisN8FP · February 22, 2026, 3:09am

When I read the suttas, I do not see “focus all your attention on the breath” or the nostrils or whatever. If I stretch my interpretation of “mindfulness” then I could maybe interpret a few lines in the anapanasati sutta as coming close to “focus your attention on the breath”.

But even then, ok that’s a few lines in a few suttas out of thousands, why wouldn’t the Buddha be repeating this seriously important breath meditation teaching all the time?

I do see the Buddha teaching people to keep the precepts and to do the gradual training and endeavour to use yoniso manasikara in almost every sutta.

I have absorbed some of the teachings from Hillside Hermitage, that basically say this same thing, that the Buddha didn’t teach concentration or breath meditation. And it’s all very compelling and somewhat convincing, and there are many sutta references that they provide.

But then another Buddhist monastic teacher says “yeah but consider this sutta reference..” that says the opposite thing. And I’m pretty seriously lost and confused and quite disheartened. How is Buddhism this much of a mess. Sorry but this is my honest interpretation.

Maybe it’s not possible, maybe Buddhism is like Christianity with texts vague enough to allow opposite opinions and interpretations. But it is my wish that instead of writing books and essays and posts on forums in isolation, the monastics with opposing teachings could get together in some way and figure it out, instead of leaving lay practitioners to try to figure it out.

Dogen · February 22, 2026, 7:41am

I don’t know about"all the time", but there are about 17 suttas that teach Breath Meditation.

Right, again - I don’t know how somebody is supposed to be aware of their breath without paying attention to it, or if they’re distracted by something else.

Because people are a mess, and Buddhism is for messy people to improve themselves. If we were perfect beings, we wouldn’t need Buddhism to begin with, would we?

You realise, even in the suttas, while Buddha was alive, there was still confusion and debates among the Sangha. Why do you expect things to be better 2500 years later, when Buddha only foresaw the 500-1000 years of Dharma living on at best?

Buddha also says not to depend on teachers or scriptures. If you only rely on a group of authoritative monks getting together for a consensus on what to follow, I fear you might be delaying your progress, perhaps indefinitely.

At some point, we’re all responsible for our own salvation. We can’t wait around for "authorities " to give us a Buddha-Sangha seal of approval forever. So,

One truly is the protector of oneself; who else could the protector be? With oneself fully controlled, one gains a mastery that is hard to gain.

By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depended on oneself; no one can purify another.

benedicere · February 22, 2026, 10:21am

The Sutta were not created for people thousands of years later to study on their own. The problem with EBT is that it assumes this is possible. Of course, there are also parts of traditional Theravāda that seem to diverge from the Sutta. In the end, it seems there is no perfect answer.

thomaslaw · February 22, 2026, 10:40am

The Buddha taught both concentration and awareness according to SN 47.2 = SA 622, and SN 54.1 = SA 803.

Cf. also: Who is the best teacher on Samatha and Vipassana meditation? - Q & A - Discuss & Discover

knigarian · February 22, 2026, 11:39am

They, for some unknown to me reason, have a predilection for Nanavira Thera who sees no problem with rendering of samadhi as concentration, but in quite traditional way assumes that “breath meditation” should be done for the purpose of cutting thoughts:

That it is a function of the practice of samādhi to reduce discursive thinking: mindfulness of breathing is particularly recommended—ānāpānasati bhāvetabbā vitakk’upacchedāya (‘Mindfulness of breathing should be developed for the cutting-off of thoughts’) (Udāna iv,1 <Ud.37>). (The fact that almost nothing is said in these Notes about samādhi is due simply to their exclusive concern with right and wrong ditthi, and is absolutely not to be taken as implying that the task of developing samādhi can be dispensed with.)

One can argue that in certain way they remind faithful to Nanavira, since to teach at the same time importance of celibacy, and promote idea that you can stay all the night with girls, nevertheless be next morning classified as celibate who reached sotapatti as celibate, definitely requires reduction of discursive thinking, but …

Just try to think for yourself, perhaps you will discover that some things can be understood by thinking about them, and some aspects of Dhamma are best understood when mind is free from thoughts.

Adutiya · February 22, 2026, 6:59pm

I think the goal of Buddhist meditation is to cut through the chatter of the body and the conditioned mental formations and settle the mind down enough to see what is going on in the mind in order to purify the mind enough to see the Dhamma.

The forum has had discussions about parimukha and, after ruminating and digesting all of that through the lens of the Dhamma as a whole, my personal understanding is that the “attention” is on the present, not the nostrils. If one is meditating in seclusion, at the root of a tree or an empty hut, one gets into a stable posture and attends to what is happening in the present. If the body is already understood to be course, it’s easily left behind and the awareness is aware of what is the most prominent thing in the present, the breath.

After the body is left behind, the mental formations that pull the attention away from the present are obvious and are to be left behind so that awareness of the present with the breath can open up and there will be much greater stillness and ease without the body and mental defilement’s turbidity.

Continuing in the anapanasatii meditation, if one can’t be in the present with the breath, one won’t be able to be in the present with still and vast awareness and allow what happens to happen.

Just my thoughts, I might be wrong!!