SuttaCentral
Indeed. Also anenja, samatha, and a variety of different terms. Sometimes, of course, such fuzziness is unavoidable in translations, but if we can avoid it, we should.
It’s a double negative a-vi-agga, “not-divided-points”, i.e. undistracted, undiffuse, or undivided, i.e. = unified, settled. Vy and by are pretty much interchangeable, so check both spellings. In this case PTS Dict has avyagga (although the sense it gives is not great.)
All of these are obviously closely related to each other. Samādhi is a particularly deep state of samatha and passaddhi. I think the usual translations of “calm” and “tranquillity” will do just fine.
I know you are sincere, Bhante, and I know you are trying your best. I know you have tried these terms out in context and all that, and good on you for being flexible. And as far as I am concerned you are one of the very best. (No, I don’t want to qualify that.) So I don’t really want to be a pain. Yet …
It’s just that “stillness” speaks to me, whereas “convergence” does not. “Stillness” grabs me emotionally: “Yeah, that’s what I want.” “Stillness” goes to the heart, pulling you in with its positive connotations. “Stillness” is what so many people yearn for, especially in our frenzied world. When people read “stillness”, they will know that the Dhamma is for them.
“Convergence” elicits no emotional reaction in me. It leaves me thinking: “How exactly does this relate to the mind?” You know, I just think it’s too intellectual. I doubt it will draw people to the Dhamma; I think it is more likely to make them scratch their heads. Or even more likely: they will just read it without it having much impact at all.
I recognise the need for a balance between the emotional and the intellectual. The text should be precise and have drawing power at the same time. I feel this balance is far better achieved with “stillness”.
Samādhi is such an important concept that it is matters quite a bit to get this as right as possible. Some more feedback from this fabulous Suttacentral crowd – so upright, diverse, and rich in insight – would be great. Please share your views on this, if only by liking your preference.
In my case there are a few interrelated terms. Samadhi is “composure”; I think the sam- & the com- are related, but the term itself is spot-on:
the state or feeling of being calm and in control of oneself.
For sati I use “concentration”, leaving “mindfulness/mindful awareness” for satisampajanna.
It’s a good point. Please continue being painful.
I wonder about the sense of emotional connection, how that plays out. You’re a monk, so you like stillness. But is that true of most people? I don’t know.
And I wonder about the emotional feel of samādhi to ancient Indians. It seems there’s a strong sense of the transcendence of the small, limited life. Leaving aside the technicalities of the atman theory, there must be some powerful connection that resonates in the whole idea. I mean, I can even feel it myself when reading the Upanishads. They have a strange emotional power, even when I disagree with their doctrine. Maybe it’s a past life thing. But I think they speak to some sense of rising above the pettiness and limitations of our everyday concerns, our trivial needs and wants. There’s some sense of the dissolving of boundaries, of the erasing of the lines we draw to separate each other.
If I may add my personal view… A problem I see is that the term ‘samādhi’ is not too revealing in itself either. A native speaker would not have grasped the mystical and salvatory implications just from that word. So the expectation to do it with one English word is probably too high.
I agree with @Brahmali that ‘stillness’ speaks to the heart. But how do we avoid the wide-spread idea (for example in the satsang-scene) that I just have to sit around ‘naturally’ and ‘quietly’ and then ‘truth happens by itself’? And how to avoid the opposite, the fetish of effort and pressure in our western culture? A ‘passive-active’ word like ‘convergence’ makes me at least wonder how it can be achieved.
For me the simile of the bath man was essential “he fills the body up until there is no part left that is not covered by piti-sukha …” Having the same self-deceptive mind as most others I could imagine my mind to be ‘still’ but I couldn’t cheat myself to think that there is no part unpervaded. I realized that the whole mind has to converge, including the periphery, not just the center of the mind where intention and aspiration naturally manifest. Hence my internal reference to a ‘defragmented’ mind.
If ‘stillness’ then I feel it should be somehow qualified in order to avoid misunderstanding - like ‘all-encompassing stillness’ or ‘total stillness’ or ‘supreme stillness’ or ‘unworldly stillness’. ‘Stillation’ would be nice 
To add to the ‘strange emotional power’ that @sujato mentioned in Indian culture regarding samadhi, here some quotes about the ecstatic Ramakrishna
“Thakur [Ramakrishna] is standing motionless, his eyes move not; it is difficult to say whether he is breathing or not. When asked, a bhakta tells him that it is known as samadhi”
“Some days later, Narendra being alone with the Master, Sri Ramakrishna looked at him and went into samadhi. Narendra felt the penetration of a subtle force and lost all outer consciousness”
“All at once he [Ramakrishna] went into samadhi of a rather unusual type. The body became stiff. Sashi burst into tears. But after midnight the Master revived.”
We hardly find such narrations in Buddhism where emotions are usually as subdued as in the suttas. Here’s an exception in Ajahn Mun’s bio
“The external environment faded out of consciousness from the moment his citta first ‘converged’ until he arrived in Chiang Mai… When he opened his eyes to look around …he noticed that the passengers and railway officials around him were staring at him in astonishment.”
i understand why translators want to find a single word to match, but i don’t understand why it’s treated like a sacred law that can’t be broken.
how about “converged-into-samadhi” as the english translation for samadhi? * then all the declensions and conjugations of it could be unambiguously expressed
as you can see i’m a guerrilla. i’m more interested in getting the meaning across clearly, and not concerned about appearances and elegance. bhante sujato is an awesome writer, but 100 years from now it’s going to look like shakespeare and people won’t understand it. if we took the measure of using a compound like “converged-into-samadhi” it could probably survive longer and keep the buddha-sassana going. isn’t that worth the cost of elegance?
on “stillness” as the term for “samadhi”: i agree with some of the other opinions expressed. i have a negative connotation of it as a dry, devoid of wisdom zen exercise to get into a trance. it misses out on the integrative aspect of 7 bojjhanga that tightly binds stillness, mindfulness, sharply discriminating effort and wisdom.
the proposed “stillation” is a very interesting idea. i don’t think that’s a real word, and similar to how “mindfulness” was not a real word, that could be a great marketing branding strategy. because it resembles words we already know, it conveys some meaning, but because it’s slightly different, it separates itself as something unique and worth attaining. i like “stillation” over “stillness” at least.
“composure” is a nice idea, but it has both the potential benefits and problems as “convergence.”
in summary, if it must be one word, i’d go with “samādhi”. if we want to be clear and unambiguous, i like “converge-into-samadhi”.
I wouldn’t like to be in Bh. Sujato’s, or in any pali translator’s shoes for that matter. The demands on accuracy and elegance are legitimate and important. Keep in mind that most buddhist practitioners don’t read the suttas. It doesn’t ‘speak to them’, for most people it’s a boring and repetitive read. If it was for ‘us’ who have at least a beginner’s understanding we wouldn’t need to translate many terms: sankhara, dukkha, jhana, samadhi, khandha, etc. I guess Bh. Sujato would like to keep it accessible to the public and also to sharpen our understanding in the process.
It makes sense to keep a ‘1-word for 1-word’ translation, but I agree that sometimes this rule has to be bent (no idea about this case though). It is regularly done with ‘satipatthana’ for example. Ok, it’s a compound…
before I get crucified for ‘stillation’, it was of course more of a joke (thanks for considering it!), neologisms might be tempting, but don’t really solve the problem.
Eh, translation-dukkha…
In fact there’s no one word to one word rule, and it’s quite common to render a word with a phrase or vice versa. But in the context of a common technical term like samādhi, this does tend to get clumsy.
Having said which, one thing that only becomes really clear when working on translations in many contexts is that words are used in many different parts of speech, which greatly impacts a choice of translation. Samādhi, for example, is commonly used as a verb. That makes it hard to just use “samādhi” in the translation. “Convergence”, for example, is convenient because it can readily be used as both verb and noun.
But then we can nuance it up by using phrases like “comes together in samādhi” or “converges in samādhi” where a verb is required. So all things are possible.
But I agree that in doctrinal passages especially, the number 1 requirement is to make the meaning clear, and questions of tone and style must take second place.
Would it be possible to have separate translations which might individually appeal to both the intellectual mind as well as the emotional? This would allow for variance in translation of difficult words, as well as broaden the appeal of the Dhamma by giving options to the seeker. Just as we are encouraged to study the body of teachings as a whole, rather than focusing on a few, having two intentionally different renderings could give insight and clarity, just as an image viewed from two different angles can tell completely different stories, but when compared can give rise to a clearer picture of the truth? Part of what draws me to this forum is that I get to read many interpretations of so many aspects of the EBTs, (thanks, by the way, to ALL who contribute! ) which helps me to cultivate open mindedness and freedom from adherence to views.
I’m deliberately opening up my translations for just this reason. Anyone who wants to take it and adapt it for some purpose may. But as for me, as a translator I have to make the hard decisions.
I think this is a good point. I have noticed myself how reading different translations of the same word or passage has often broadened my understanding.
But I am not sure if this diversity should be captured in a single translation. I am concerned it might get confusing for a reader if key doctrinal words such as samādhi are not rendered consistently. It is important to be able to make at least basic linkages between the usage of the same word in different contexts. This could get lost if the translation of fundamental ideas is not standardised.
So I would suggest continuing to read different translations and continuing to discuss these things here on Suttacentral and elsewhere. In the end, a single translation can only do so much.