What is animitta samadhi?

Discussion
1

Is the signless immersion animitta samadhi the same as upasamasati? (Aka “this is peaceful, this is sublime, the stilling of all activities…”) Is it a nibanna meditation? Is it not making an object of anything thus not grasping to any “signs and features” aka nimitta?

This is a long standing dhamma question of mine just wondering if anyone has suttas that might give light to this.

With metta

Edit: also interested if commentaries or traditions give reference and explanation to the early texts… e.g is it mentioned in pali commentarial tradition or in Mahayana, is it the Mu koan? Is it like silent illumination or shikentaza?

Edit2: is it first made reference of in the suttas or is there precedents also elsewhere? e.g. the upanishads - maybe the “neti neti” move?

5 Likes
2

From MN 43 we have a basic informations about animitta samadhi:

“Friend, how many conditions are there for the attainment of the signless deliverance of mind?”“Friend, there are two conditions for the attainment of the signless deliverance of mind: non-attention to all signs and attention to the signless element. These are the two conditions for the attainment of the signless deliverance of mind.”

“Friend, how many conditions are there for the persistence of the signless deliverance of mind?”“Friend, there are three conditions for the persistence of the signless deliverance of mind: non-attention to all signs, attention to the signless element, and the prior determination [of its duration]. These are the three conditions for the persistence of the signless deliverance of mind.”

“Friend, how many conditions are there for emergence from the signless deliverance of mind?”“Friend, there are two conditions for emergence from the signless deliverance of mind: attention to all signs and non-attention to the signless element. These are the two conditions for emergence from the signless deliverance of mind.”

Later we are informed that unshakeable deliverance of mind is an ideal deliverance most certainly synonymous with nibbana since it has qualities of immeasurable deliverance of mind, the deliverance of mind through nothingness, the deliverance of mind through voidness, and the signless deliverance of mind. None of these separately stands for nibbana. The deliverance of mind through voidness is not synonymous with entering upon and abiding in pure, supreme, unsurpassed voidness, from description provided in the Sutta we can be certain only that it may lead to abandoning of attavada; conceit “I am” isnt mention in it.

In MN 121 animitta samadhi is mentioned instead of perception and feeling, after all the eight attainments but it cannot be synonymous with it since in AN VI :60 Ven Citta Hatthisāriputta is reported to have access to animitta samadhi, nevertheless later disrobed due to sensual desire, thing which is impossible for one who at least one time attained cessation of perception and feeling.

In sutta AN VII 56 which mentions regular types of sekha, ‘one with a residue remaining’: body witness, one attained to view … (5) one liberated by faith … (6) a Dhamma follower, Lord Buddha to that list given by the brahmā Tissa makes addition: “But, Moggallāna, didn’t the brahmā Tissa teach you about the seventh person, the one who dwells in the markless?”

As I see it the cessation of perception and feeling is synonymous the state of arahat after the death of the body, that is to say asankhata dhatu. Animitta samadhi as mentioned cannot stand as synonymous with the cessation of perception and feeling, but it is also is based on direct knowledge of let’s say something which is changelles or deathless element if you wish, but rather of lower quality, since it is for sure accessible by a lower ariyas who aren’t free from sensual desire. In fact ven Ananda proposes it to the Venerable Vaṅgīsa as a one of methods in his struggle against lust “Develop meditation on the signless, and discard the tendency to conceit. … SN VIII 4 But we know from Ven Citta Hatthisāriputta story that it doesn’t guarantee that later mind again cannot be overcome by lust.

While sekkha isn’t arahat, he understands arahat’s as well puthujjana’s experience while puthujjana understands neither. But arahat is synonymous with the knowledge:

“He understands thus: ‘Whatever disturbances there might be dependent on the taint of sensual desire, those are not present here; whatever disturbances there might be dependent on the taint of being, those are not present here; whatever disturbances there might be dependent on the taint of ignorance, those are not present here. There is present only this amount of disturbance, namely, that connected with the six bases that are dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’ He understands: ‘This field of perception is void of the taint of sensual desire; this field of perception is void of the taint of being; this field of perception is void of the taint of ignorance. There is present only this non-voidness, namely, that connected with the six bases that are dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’ Thus he regards it as void of what is not there, but as to what remains there he understands that which is present thus: ‘This is present.’ Thus, Ānanda, this is his genuine, undistorted, pure descent into voidness, supreme and unsurpassed. MN 121

So as I see it right view gives sekha access to changelles, deathles element and provides possibility to direct attention to it, and this is precisely what animitta samadhi is. In other words, unlike jhanas, it isn’t accessible to puthujjana, I also doubt whether puthujjana is able to suspend thinking outside second and higher jhanas for a longer period of time (signlessness excludes active thinking and imagining).

4 Likes
3

There is a gloss in the Sariputra Abhidharma of the Dharmaguptakas that defines signless samadhi as a samadhi that “takes the noble nirvana as its object” because, unlike conditioned things, nirvana has no signs of arising, remaining, and ceasing, etc. (T1548.28.633b4).

There’s also a gloss in the Pancavimsati Prajnaparamita Sutra that defines the signless samadhi as “collecting the mind by pacifying and separated from conditioned things” (T223.8.394c28). Kumarajiva’s commentary explains: “It lacks the signs of anything, so it doesn’t perceive or cling to anything.” He then illustrates this with a verse:

“When language has stopped,
And mental activity has ceased,
It lacks any arising or ceasing,
Like the sign of nirvana.”

(T1509.25.96c10)

So, yes, there’s evidence that the signless samadhi was considered to be an experience of nirvana.

4 Likes
4

In Theravada it’s how nibbana is cognised, by way of one of its aspects (the others being Desireless and Emptiness). In short it’s entered via way of impermanence. The basic idea is that one becomes aware of the ever changing flux of experience at such a rate that eventually all signs are let go of, and nibbana is seen. It’s discussed in the commentaries and the Visuddhimagga.

5

The same in Theravada. The difference between Sarvastivada and Theravada is that in the former the Signless is entered through contemplating dukkha whilst in Theravada it’s through impermanence. I think the Theravadin exegesis makes more sense here.

6

There is one problem however. In the suttas it’s said someone can fall away from the Signless samadhi and the hindrances return. It’s also said in MN 121 that the Signless samadhi is conditioned. I think though this might be explained in the commentaries of the meditation being impermanent but nibbana is not, which is being cognised. Still, the first example remains a problem for this exegesis unless we accept people can see nibbana and still fall away.

1 Like
7

It may not have been a universal belief that it was tantamount to achieving nirvana, and I have to wonder if it wasn’t a later invention, given how popular the three samadhis were in Mahayana writings vs. the four dhyanas, which are nearly absent in that genre.

1 Like
8

Isn’t this just the fourth jhana? The cessation of language and mental activity sounds a lot like the cessation of vitakka and vicara. Perhaps, this is why right samadhi, the end of the path, are the four jhanas.

1 Like
9

Not a problem if we take this as a Stream Enterer, right? Obviously doubt won’t be coming back, but the other hindrances might.

1 Like
10

Notes to AN3.183 (translate by Bhikkhu Bodhi)

Note: 617 Suññato samādhi, animitto samādhi, appaṇihito samādhi. Mp says only that “insight is explained by means of them (tīhipi samādhīhi vipasssanā va kathitā).” The three are mentioned as a set at DN III 219,21–22, again without explanation, but Sv III 1003–4 comments: “The explanation is threefold, by way of arrival (āgamanato), by way of quality (saguṇato), and by way of object (ārammaṇato). (1) By way of arrival, (i) one bhikkhu interprets in terms of non-self, sees in terms of non-self, and reaches the path by [contemplation of] non-self; for him, insight is called ‘emptiness.’ Why? Because of the absence of the defilements responsible for [the idea of] self or non-emptiness. The concentration of the path (maggasamādhi), being reached by insight, is called emptiness; and the concentration of the fruit (phalasamādhi), being reached by the path, is also called emptiness. (ii) Another interprets in terms of impermanence, sees in terms of impermanence, and reaches the path by [contemplation of] impermanence; for him, insight is called ‘markless.’ Why? Because of the absence of the defilements responsible for marks. The concentration of the path, being reached by insight, is called markless; and the concentration of the fruit, being reached by this path, is also called markless. (iii) Another interprets in terms of suffering, sees in terms of suffering, and reaches the path by [contemplation of] suffering; for him, insight is called ‘wishless.’ Why? Because of the absence of the defilements responsible for wishes. The concentration of the path, being reached by insight, is called wishless; and the concentration of the fruit, being reached by this path, is also called wishless. (2) By way of quality: The concentration of the path is empty because it is empty of lust, etc.; it is markless, because the marks of lust, etc., are absent; and it is wishless because wishes caused by lust, etc., are absent. (3) By way of object: Nibbāna is emptiness because it is empty of lust, etc.; it is markless and wishless, because it is without the marks of lust, etc., and without wishes caused by lust, etc.” Vism 657,13–259,10, Ppn 21.66–73, discusses the three “gateways to liberation” (vimuttimukha) under the same three names.

1 Like
11

Not in the models that place jhana before the formless samadhis. One has to pass through the formless realm to get to cessation. It’s a little strange, but it might be why vitakka and vicara were the words chosen for jhana rather than sanna. Vitakka-vicara is thinking about or perceiving the physical world of the desire realm, which jhana leaves behind. The happiness of jhana was said to be the happiness of the form realm gods, not of nirvana itself.

1 Like
12

As to “animittāya cetovimuttiyā samāpattiyā” of MN43, just some personal thoughts. I think that Arahants who have removed all perversions of awareness and in possession of(so to speak) extremely powerful Sati and so forth, are even normally keenly aware of palokita nature of sankhata dhammas like bombs going off and mostly incline towards taking shelter, resting there mind on the asankhata , animitta (and yes, can also be called nibbana in a certain sense of that word). Unless moved by compassion, some bodily need etc to do something else.

As far as I know animitta samadhi and animitta cetovimutti are two different meanings in the commentaries.

1 Like
13

Ceto-vimutti, ceto-samadhi, and samadhi are the same meaning; see p. 52 in Choong Mun-keat’s The Notion of Emptiness in Early Buddhism:

Pages 51-2 from Notion of Emptiness in Early Buddhism @Choong Mun-keat.pdf (482.5 KB)

14

Notes by Bhikkhu Bodhi (MN43)
449 MA: The “signless deliverance of mind” (animittā cetovimutti) is the attainment of fruition; the “signs” are objects such as forms, etc.; the “signless element” is Nibbāna, in which all signs of conditioned things are absent.
MA here refers to commentary

animitta samadhi - only attained after one has achieved animitta cetovimutti because the object of animitta samadhi is Nibbana. Nibbana is only possible when there is attainment of enlightenment.

15

Namo Buddhaya!

Animitta samadhi is a designation for samadhi which removes defilement, a seeing with wisdom based on the cessation principle.

"He is absorbed dependent neither on earth, liquid, fire, wind, the sphere of the infinitude of space, the sphere of the infinitude of consciousness, the sphere of nothingness, the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception, this world, the next world, nor on whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, or pondered by the intellect — and yet he is absorbed. And to this excellent thoroughbred of a man, absorbed in this way, the gods, together with Indra, the Brahmas, & Pajapati, pay homage even from afar:

‘Homage to you, O thoroughbred man.
Homage to you, O superlative man —
you of whom we don’t know even what it is
dependent on which
you’re absorbed.’" Sandha Sutta: To Sandha

There are, monks, three unskilled ways of thought: thoughts of lust, thoughts of ill-will, thoughts of hurting. And these three unskilled states disappear utterly in him whose heart is well established in the four foundations of mindfulness, or who practices concentration on the signless. Pi.n.dolya.m Sutta: Going Begging

If one develops satipatthana one will eventually incline the mind to the Deathless, cessation, and this samadhi is apprehended as a signless, undirected & emptiness. Having attained this seeing with wisdom, some or all of the taints are destroyed by it.

There is no other path to removal of fetters.

16

Sorry to digress, there are other path to enlightenment. Sattipatthana is one path. The MN suttas shows can gradual training that needs to enlightenment and they are MN27, MN39, MN51, MN53, MN69 etc

Or can read from DN2 to DN13 which have a lot of similarities with gradual training.

17

Namo Buddhaya!

It’s an interesting topic but i don’t know if there is now any other way for me to either disprove or prove it either way. I’ll think about it.

The presuppositions

  • seeing with wisdom removes taints
  • removal of fetters is a removal of taints
  • signless concentration removes greed, anger & delusion
  • satipatthana removes greed, anger & delusion

The propositions here are such

  • Seeing with wisdom is not always associated with and can be divorced from signless concentrations. Such that one can have one without the other.

  • Seeing with wisdom is not always associated with and can be divorced from the attainment of cessation of perception & feeling. Such that one can have one without the other.

  • Removal of greed, anger, delusion by means of satipatthana can be divorced from the attainment of signless concentration

  • Removal of greed, anger, delusion by means of satipatthana can be divorced from the attainment of cessation of perception & feeling.

18

There are many relevant texts but one stands out as explicitly refuting some propositions

“There is a path, Ānanda, a way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters; that anyone, without relying on that path, on that way, shall know or see or abandon the five lower fetters—this is not possible.

So we have to presuppose that there is only one development and it’s culmination is the seeing with wisdom.

“And what, Ānanda, is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters?

Here note a meditative attainment and a turning away from feeling & perception after 1st jhana to cessation

Here, with seclusion from the acquisitions, with the abandoning of unwholesome states, with the complete tranquillization of bodily inertia, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion.

“Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element thus: ‘This is the peaceful, this is the sublime, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbāna.’ If he is steady in that, he attains the destruction of the taints. But if he does not attain the destruction of the taints because of that desire for the Dhamma, that delight in the Dhamma, then with the destruction of the five lower fetters he becomes one due to reappear spontaneously in the Pure Abodes and there attain final Nibbāna without ever returning from that world. This is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters.

Therefore it’s rather explicit that one’s mind must turn away from form, feeling & perception, and towards cessation for there to be a removal of fetters

Therefore to propose

  • Seeing with wisdom is not always associated with and can be divorced from the attainment of cessation of perception & feeling. Such that one can have one without the other.
  • Removal of greed, anger, delusion by means of satipatthana can be divorced from the attainment of cessation of perception & feeling.

Becomes problematic and requires a certain interpretation which needs substation.

In particular one proposes that ‘turning the mind to cessation’ therein means that one thinks & comes to agreement that it is good & preferable. This then needs substantion because one unsubatantiated interpretation can’t substantiate another.

Also one has to maintain that there is only one kind of turning away towards cessation. That whatever is described as removal by developing satipatthana & whatever is described as removal by signless samadhi is also described as ‘a turning towards cessation’ because all are a renoval and there is only one way to remove.

The way i interpreted it maintains coherency with all these nuances. It is the same immediacy of removal being talked about in all there circumstance for there is only one way to remove.

19

The suttas treat these as two different things

20

Namo Buddhaya!

As far as i know they are “treated differently” one can say in this example

these three unskilled states disappear utterly in him whose heart is well established in the four foundations of mindfulness, or who practices concentration on the signless.

Also one can say they are “treated differently” in that the satipatthana sutta doesn’t make an explicit reference to include nor has any apparent overlap with texts explaining concentration on the signless; and no text explaining the concentration on the signless has any explicit reference or overlap with satipatthana sutta.

Also in general one would say that there is no apparent connection to satipatthana in this excerpt

“When a monk has emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling, three contacts make contact: contact with emptiness, contact with the signless, & contact with the undirected.”

I am not aware of any other grounds for such statement. Do you have more examples in mind?