Where in the EBT is sammā samādhi defined as 4 jhānas?

[Gabriel]

yes, but this is about the definition of samma-samadhi. Samadhi alone appears of course in many more contexts.

[Mat]

@SarathW1

I thought Samadhi is more than four Jhana’s.

Samadhi includes effort and mindfulness as well.

The three elements of viriya, sati and samadhi is the higher training in unification of mind (adhicitta sikkha).

with metta

[SarathW1]

Could you elaborate this?

[Mat]

@SarathW1

Could you elaborate this?

Sila, samadhi, and panna are the thrishiksha (in sanskrit, and borrowed sinhalese). I can only find you MN44, but there are suttas mentioning this. They are called adhisila, adhicitta and adhipanna too.

with metta

[suaimhneas]

Though not quite sammā samādhi, the faculty of samādhi is described in SN48.8 with the phrase:

And where, bhikkhus, is the faculty of concentration to be seen? The faculty of concentration is to be seen here in the four jhanas.

Kattha ca, bhikkhave, samādhindriyaṃ daṭṭhabbaṃ? Catūsu jhānesu—ettha samādhindriyaṃ daṭṭhabbaṃ.

so again indicative of a connection with the jhanas.

Language, though, is often imprecise. Some level of jhana, accompanied by the seven other eightfold path factors (as in SN45.28 though samādhi, not jhana, is mentioned there) is surely sammā samādhi, but perhaps sammā samādhi is broader than that? Maybe all of the above is sufficient but not necessary?

Jhana may not actually be required for stream-entry (though my reading would be that some level of jhana would be present afterwards). Perhaps sammā samādhi is broad enough to encompass a non-jhanic samādhi (though with all other path factors present in sufficient strength) that may suffice for one to become a sotāpanna? There’s samādhi (though maybe not at least initially with jhana) and it’s wholesome enough (deserving the label sammā) for one to make the breakthrough?

[SarathW1]

Smadhi sutta vs Jhana Sutta:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.041.than.html

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.123.than.html

What is the difference between jhāna and samādhi?

That’s a common idea: "Monks, these four types of individuals are to be found existing in the world. Which four? . "There is the case of the individual who has attained internal tranquillity of awareness (Samatha), but not insight into phenomena through heightened discernment (Vipassana). Then there is the case of the individual who has attained insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, but not internal tranquillity of awareness. Then there is the case of the individual who has…

[frankk]

SN 48.8, 9, 10, 11 are all worthy a careful examination.
That there are so many slightly different definitions of samma samadhi and samadhi indriya, I think it very likely the buddha never made an “official” definition. I think SN 48.10 offers the most concise yet comprehensive definition for what I consider to be samma samadhi. It covers the “what”, “why”, “how”.

1. why : samadhi aimed at vossaga “release” (nirvana)
2. what: samadhi = ekagga citta
3. how: 4 jhanas are how to develop samadhi to be highly quality and sharp enough to penetrate #1 (pierce into nirvana).

AN 5.28 is slightly different in that it’s “noble right samadhi with 5 factors”, and in a way, that 5th factor being shown how the 4j are used to understand all dhatu, and attain the 6ab (#6 is destruction of asavas), is a long winded confirmation of the concise 48.10 definition.

Below I show relevant passage from SN 48.9.
SN 48.10 is the same as 48.9, with 4 jhanas formula added.

Passsages suggesting sammā samādhi = citta ekagga

.	.

AN 4.29 samma samadhi not explicitly defined, but see verse

♦ “sammā-samādhi, bhikkhave, dhammapadaṃ	(4) Righteous-undistractable-lucidity is a Dhamma footstep,
aggaññaṃ rattaññaṃ	primal, of long standing,
vaṃsaññaṃ porāṇaṃ	traditional, ancient,
asaṃkiṇṇaṃ asaṃkiṇṇapubbaṃ,	un-mixed and never before mixed [with impurities],
na saṃkīyati na saṃkīyissati,	which are not being mixed and will not be mixed,
appaṭikuṭṭhaṃ samaṇehi brāhmaṇehi viññūhi.	which are not repudiated by wise ascetics and brahmins.
…	…

(verse)

♦ “an-abhijjhālu vihareyya,	free-(from)-longing (one) should-dwell,
A-byāpannena cetasā.	no-ill-will (in) mind.
♦ sato ekagga-cittassa,	mindful, singular-mind,
ajjhattaṃ su-samāhito”ti.	internally, thoroughly,-undistractably-lucid [samādhi].

SN 48.9 samādhi-indriya definition is ekagga citta directed towards nirvana

♦ “katamañ-ca, bhikkhave, samādh-indriyaṃ?	"{And}-what, monks, (is) concentration-faculty?
idha, bhikkhave, ariya-sāvako	Here, monks, (a) disciple-of-the-noble-ones,
vossagg-ārammaṇaṃ karitvā	{having made} release-(as the)-object
labhati samādhiṃ,	(he) obtains concentration,
labhati cittassa ekaggataṃ —	(he) obtains {singleness of} mind -
idaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, samādh-indriyaṃ.	this (is) called, *********, concentration-faculty.

SN 48 is indriya samyutta

SN 48.8 Daṭṭhabba: to-be-seen: faith faculty is to be seen here in the four factors of stream-entry. energy faculty is to be seen here in the four right strivings (4pd). mindfulness faculty to be seen in 4sp. concentration faculty to be seen in 4j (jhānas). discernment faculty to be seen in 4NT (noble truths).

SN 48.9 Vibhaṅga 1 [Indriyavibhaṅga 1]: Analysis 1: STED 5ind (faculties), of STED 37b

SN 48.10 Vibhaṅga 2 [Indriyavibhaṅga 2]: same as 48.9, with corresponding factors from 8aam added to 5ind. faith:same, viriya+samma vayamo (4pd), sati + samma sati, samadhi + samma samadhi 4j, panna + slightly different worded version of samma ditthi

SN 48.11 Paṭilābha: slightly different definitions of 5ind than SN 48.9 and SN 48.10

[suaimhneas]

Thanks, interesting. I do rather like that sutta set. SN48.8 to 48.10 work very nicely as concise summaries of the entire path in its indriya form, and SN48 in general gives a slightly different angle on samadhi from the faculty perspective. Samadhi does crop up in other components of the 37 “wings to awakening”. However, IIRC there’s nothing anything near a definition in SN 36 (dealing with the seven enlightenment factors) and SN 50 (the five powers samyutta) is essentially just a mirror of SN48 (so nothing new there either). We’re probably getting about as close as we’re ever going to get to definitions in SN in those three suttas.

[frankk]

AN 4.123 makes a strong case that 4j on it’s own (without the rest of the 8aam) is not really samma samadhi.

In other words, you need the samadhi-indriya definition from 48.10 to really be a complete definition for samma samadhi.

The samma samadhi definition from SN 45.8 (that it’s 4j only) would mean the non-buddhist from AN 4.123 doing 4j is doing samma samadhi, which he is not

[frankk]

@suaimhneas

SN 36 (dealing with the seven enlightenment factors)

SN 46 is the 7sb (sambojjhanga) samyutta, not SN 36.
SN 46.2 and SN 46.3 actually give some very important information about the 4j + samadhi, but is not a “definition” of samma samadhi.

However:
7sb links: AN 10.3, 11.3, AN 8.81 , AN 7.65, AN 6.50
especially AN 10.3, AN 11.3, uses what I call 7sb+ formula, just a slightly modified sequence of 7sb, and in those suttas, what would occupy the samadhi-sambojjhanga slot is occupied in 7sb+ with “right concentration”.

[suaimhneas]

Cool, thanks. I find section names rather than numbers much easier to remember. I actually looked up the numbers for those samyuttas before I wrote my post, and then promptly got one of them wrong by the time I had finished writing it!

Those AN references look nice. I’ll check them out.

[SarathW1]

@frankk

you need the samadhi-indriya definition from 48.10 to really be a complete definition for samma samadhi.

What is Samadhi-indriya?

[samseva]

When the Buddha discusses samādhi in relation to what should be developed (and he does so a significant number of times), he surely isn’t talking about miccha-samādhi or just the neutral function of samādhi.

You can’t come to conclusions by glossing over all the passages talking about samādhi (simply because sammā isn’t placed before it).

@samseva

In many Suttas, concentration (samādhi) is discussed, which then continues with the stock passage of the jhānas, however, there is no mention of ‘right’ (sammā)—being implied due to not having to differentiate between sammā and micchā, or the Eightfold Path not being the topic. If you were to calculate the number of times that jhāna is mentioned when samādhi is talked about, compared to when sāmadhi is mentioned, but another explanation of it is given, this would give you a better picture.

[Gabriel]

What if the 8fold path was not as defined as we got used to believe?
Meaning, there is not the one authoritative definition of what samma-ditthi is, but all the different views that the Buddha spoke highly of would mean ‘samma-ditthi’ in a non-dogmatic way.

See again for example how MN 9 is a Sariputta-sutta. So maybe the Buddha was kind of a bouquet of flowers, while people would go to Sariputta for an analytical exposition and definitions?

That would mean that if the context would tell us that it’s a ‘good’ samadhi it would fall into the vague samma-samadhi category without anyone really telling us that it is defined that way. And the same with the other path factors as well…

[Sujith]

@Gabriel

See again for example how MN 9 is a Sariputta-sutta. So maybe the Buddha was kind of a bouquet of flowers, while people would go to Sariputta for an analytical exposition and definitions?

Is there any other place where ignorance has ‘taints’ as a definitive cause ? The explanation in MN 9 is somewhat circular.

With the arising of the taints there is the arising of ignorance.
…
With the arising of ignorance there is the arising of the taints. With the cessation of ignorance there is the cessation of the taints.

[Gabriel]

I thought about how the translation of ‘samma’ as right or correct automatically makes us go “I want to be correct - what’s the definition” while if we understand ‘samma’ as ‘wholesome’ we would in our mind not automatically go for a matrix-map.

another possible indication in that direction:
old meanings for samma are ‘togther’, while miccha meant ‘separate’ - not only ‘right’ and ‘wrong’

[Gabriel]

@Sujith

Is there any other place where ignorance has ‘taints’ as a definitive cause ?

At least the formula “Āsavasamudayā avijjāsamudayo” appears only here in MN 9

[frankk]

@SarathW1

What is Samadhi-indriya?

see the quoted passage for SN 48.9 in msg. 12

[frankk]

@samseva

You can’t come to conclusions by glossing over all the passages talking about samādhi (simply because sammā isn’t placed before it).

that goes both ways. and that’s why there’s a discussion and uncertainty. the context sometimes is clearly referring to samadhi and 4 jhanas that culminates in nirvana, without “samma” being explicitly mentioned, but in many passages 4j is not enough to lead to nirvana.

@Gabriel

What if the 8fold path was not as defined as we got used to believe?

Meaning, there is not the one authoritative definition of what samma-ditthi is, but all the different views that the Buddha spoke highly of would mean ‘samma-ditthi’ in a non-dogmatic way.

that’s exactly what I believe now. That SN 45.8, where 8aam for 8 “right” factors are defined, titled “vibhanga sutta” (disecting, explaining), and pretty much all suttas with that title (there are many) are early abhidhamma, meaning not composed by the Buddha, but his disciples who were trying to be helpful and give concise definitions, collate, synthesize smaller pieces of the dhamma into coherent larger pieces.

Just to be clear, Early strata EBT abhidhamma, which does not contradict EBT, IMO is very valuable and a good thing. Later abhidhamma, especially Vism., the parts that contradict EBT, I consider to be dark abhidhamma, a pernicious doctrine that should be segregated and quarantined like the dangerous entity that it is.

What would be even better, is if bright abhidhamma (the early strata EBT abhidhamma which doesn’t contradict EBT in any way) was clearly identified as a work not originally composed by the Buddha, so unintentional errors or misunderstandings like we’re having about samma samadhi could be easy to trace and understand.

In my vision of a reformed theravada, bright abhidhamma (which consists of the EBT sutta portion) would still be considered canonical, and labeled as “not authored by the Buddha”, and segregated into the ‘bright abhidhamma’ pitaka. Dark abhidhamma, the current abhidhamma pitaka in Theravada, would lose canonical status and banished to the basement of the library with restricted access, no access for most people. I’m sure this will never happen, but I can dream.

[Mat]

@Sujith

Is there any other place where ignorance has ‘taints’ as a definitive cause ? The explanation in MN 9 is somewhat circular.

How about AN10.61

With metta