Among the 37 dharmas conducive to Bodhi, one of the most common formulations is simply that mindfulness leads to samadhi. This can be seen in the Noble Eightfold Path, Seven Factors of Bodhi, and the Five Roots / Five Powers. Rather than focusing primarily on the result that people want to get, why not focus on the cause that leads to that result?
3 Likes
It was interesting to read that also Analayo comes to the conclusion that - to make it short - the suttas don’t contain a good detailed description of samma-samadhi. He proposes that back then the audience knew what was meant and that’s why the suttas are silent about it. I suggest that already at that time the knowledge was lost…
Anyhow, what do we make of this - it’s frustrating, no? The authority of the suttas describes somehow the conditions for samadhi (sila for example, unification of the mind, etc.), but beyond that how do we substitute for the lost knowledge? Back to contemporary teachers?
2 Likes
If the Buddha stated that he realised the way to awakening was via jhāna then that would heavily support the idea that jhāna is required for awakening, thus being Right Samādhi. I believe that narrative has parallels in a number of northern texts, no?
In context with the whole suttas, this is not an discouragement from practising the Jhanas, but it’s discouragement from letting pride arise.
Why is there so heavy aversion to rely on contemporary teachers? I rely on Ajahn Brahm’s teachings. Anyway, one can read EBT and come out with various interpretations as well. I personally see it that Jhanas are clearly samma samadhi. Since many people can read EBT in different ways, it’s safe to rely on people who had done the practise instead of reinventing the whole wheel, seeing that others who had reinvented the wheel placed the centre at a different place, or missing a spoke (of not seeing samma samadhi as Jhanas).
@dayunbao Devadatta is mentioned in all Buddhist schools texts as Buddhist version of Judas Iscariot:
Obviously there are good meditation teachers out there. In Buddhism the general claim of teachers is that their teachings directly derive from a correct interpretation of the suttas (or from their teachers who correctly interpreted the suttas).
But when we go to the source and see that their supposed clear interpretation is in fact very shaky, based on very few suttas (e.g. the handful that defines sammasamadhi as jhanas) or on probably later compilation-suttas (satipatthana), then naturally for a number of follwers their faith in the teacher is reduced.
And in the end it’s not too far off the situation in Hinduism where contemporary gurus all have their own interpretation of what the Bhagavat-Gita says. Or in Advaita where we rely on the very specific interpretation of Shankara of the Upanisads.
It’s more blurry in Hinduism and more reliant on the divine inspiration of the Guru, but it could turn out that maybe also in Buddhism - partly because of lost teachings - spiritual development on the level of sotapatii etc. is not open for everyone to see but limited to a few gifted individuals.
Or, in short: To some practitioners it matters if meditation-related suttas are reliably coming from the oldest layers of suttas, or not.
Speaking from practitioner’s point of view, I think a lot of the outer differences is due to the different ways to present to newcomers. Going deep, the experience seems to be the same.
However, there’s also a possibility of people not going deep due to different views, thus different practise. One might want to investigate the various traditions themselves via retreats. Since there’s no clear way to settle the matter from the suttas alone.
If one base one’s meditation on analysis of oldest suttas, there’s a danger of misanalysis of the age of suttas and misunderstanding the Buddha’s messages. Most meditation tips I had seen and heard and learnt, are not found in the suttas, but are common in many different teachers, regardless of whether they emphasise on Jhanas or not.
1 Like
To reflect on the original meaning of sammā samādhi it can be also helpful to go back to the root meaning of both terms in Pali and Sanskrit and to the way the term samādhi was used in the ancient Pantajali Yogic scriptures.
I don’t know if you meant that, but an etymological look at samadhi won’t tell us how the Buddha conceptualized it. This must remain vague, just as ‘put together’ is.
Besides, Patanjali doesn’t offer a look on the original meaning, being 1. several centuries after the Buddha 2. Yoga itself being influenced by Buddhism.
There are some detailed examinations of the Buddhist inflluence on Patanjali, for example:
Wujastyk - Some Problematic Yoga Sutras and their Buddhist Background (2018)
1 Like
Yes, but still I found reflection on root meanings useful and also on Indian yogic perspective - not to get too attached to any ‘right’ translations, but rather focus on cultivating the whole path and let direct understanding unfold gradually naturally. Like in science, impossible to know the full or correct meaning of phenomena just by comparing texts. 
Hope all EBT followers are well aware of this sutta:
"Mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta — Bhikkhu Sujato
- Long Discourses 22
The Longer Discourse on Mindfulness Meditation"
“And what is right immersion? It’s when a mendicant, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected. As the placing of the mind and keeping it connected are stilled, they enter and remain in the second absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of immersion, with internal clarity and confidence, and unified mind, without placing the mind and keeping it connected. And with the fading away of rapture, they enter and remain in the third absorption, where they meditate with equanimity, mindful and aware, personally experiencing the bliss of which the noble ones declare, ‘Equanimous and mindful, one meditates in bliss.’ Giving up pleasure and pain, and ending former happiness and sadness, they enter and remain in the fourth absorption, without pleasure or pain, with pure equanimity and mindfulness. This is called right immersion.”
Sukhi Hotu!
2 Likes
SA 785 邪正
What is Right Samadhi ?
Right Samadhi has two fold .
The Right Samadhi that is of worldly , ordinary , tainted , attached , resulted in good planes . And Right Samadhi that is noble , exalted , taintless , detached , completely ending suffering and bring suffering
to its end .
何等為正定？正定有二種。有正定，世、俗，有漏、有取，轉向善趣；有正定，是聖、出世間，無漏、不取，正盡苦，轉向苦邊。
Sure, but MN113 does indicate that a person can have all these impressive meditative attainments and still, nonetheless, be prideful and not be at the end of the path, i.e. that jhana does not necessarily imply enlightenment, which was the point you were making earlier I think. On jhana, sure, it seems to me from the suttas that it is an intrinsic and unavoidable part of the path (at least the later stages anyway, though perhaps not stream entry as others have argued).
Ah, thanks. I didn’t know that in addition to being a bad scholar, that guy is an abusive cult leader, too.
IMO, samma samadhi is not about the jhana experience, but about how to direct the unified mind to gain insight into fenomena as it is in order to destroy defilements as a culmination of Buddhist gradual training
4 Likes
What I find the most interesting about the definition in SA 785 is that it makes the more subtle point that unless right samadhi is directed towards realizing the four noble truths, it leads to better rebirth in the heavens instead of liberation. In the context of thinking about dhyana relationship to samadhi, it isn’t mentioned specifically. But neither is any other specific meditation. Samadhi is presented as a general quality of an unconfused, focused mind.
So, from the point of view of the Sarvastivada (at least), right samadhi seems to be a catch-all for any practice that leads to a focused mind that can penetrate the four noble truths.
Admittedly, though, SA 785 reads very much like an abhidharma sutra. We know that later Sarvastivada abhidharma contains an elaborate model of liberation as a sequence of realizations of the four noble truths.
This is a good point. I think the Buddha’s decision to stop practicing the formless samadhis and switch to the dhyanas is in most (if not all) traditions. Still, what I wonder about is that it’s a four abodes of mindfulness that seem to get special treatment as the “one way to liberation” in a number of sutras. Perhaps that’s because it’s the gateway to more advanced meditation? Or was it considered sufficient by itself? I don’t know, just asking questions.
3 Likes
My understanding is that the 4 frames of mindfulness are what aid meditation, resulting in jhāna and being what is contemplated after.
Yes, that’s a common Theravada understanding. These are places we see these divergences between traditions. In Chinese Buddhism, breath meditation and the abodes of mindfulness have been a focus lately because they figure prominently in the Agamas.
How are they viewed in the northern texts?