Why develop single-pointed concentration?

The Watercooler
41

Concentration doesn’t by itself lead to an inability to suffer. Check MN 70, where Gautama lists “seven (types of) persons existing in the world”. In particular, the third person has “apprehended those peaceful Deliverances”, meaning the arupa jhanas, and yet has not completely destroyed the cankers:

And which, monks, is the person who is a mental-realiser? As to this, monks, some person is abiding, having apprehended with the person those peaceful Deliverances which are incorporeal having transcended material shapes; and having seen by means of wisdom some (only) of his cankers are utterly destroyed…. This, monks, is called the person who is a mental-realiser. I, monks, say of this monk that there is something to be done through diligence….

(MN 70 “Kitagirisutta”, tr. PTS 478-480 pp 151-154

In MN 4, Gautama recounts directing his mind in the fourth rupa jhana to “the knowledge and recollection of former habitations”, to “the knowledge of the passing hence and arising of beings”, and to “the knowledge and destruction of the cankers”. The knowledge and destruction of the cankers involved both understanding as it really is the four truths, and understanding as it really is four similar truths about the cankers.

I don’t know of any modern Buddhist teachers who lay claim to “the knowledge and recollection of former habitations”, or to “the knowledge of the passing hence and arising of beings”. Are these knowledges prerequisites to being freed through “intuitive wisdom”, or as mentioned in Satipatthana, “profound knowledge”?

One thing seems clear, the Gautamid did his directing of mind in the fourth rupa jhana, and although Satipatthana (MN 10) mentions concentration only in passing, Maha Satipatthana does include details of both the four truths and the four rupa jhanas (DN 22).

Now to return to “one-pointedness”–there is no “right concentration” without one-pointedness:

And what… is the (noble) right concentration with the causal associations, with the accompaniments? It is right view, right purpose, right speech, right action, right mode of livelihood, right endeavor, right mindfulness. Whatever one-pointedness of mind is accompanied by these seven components, this… is called the (noble) right concentration with the causal associations and the accompaniments.”

(MN III 117 tr. PTS vol III p 114; “noble” substituted for Ariyan; emphasis added)

Many, like Thanissaro Bhikkyu, take “one-pointedness” to mean a singular object of attention:

… Show your lack of contempt for your meditation object by giving it your full attention and mastering concentration… Gather the mind around its one object.

(https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/CrossIndexed/Uncollected/MiscEssays/OnePointed160822.pdf, Thanissaro Bhikkyu; parenthetical added)

In my experience, “one-pointedness” has more to do with the self as a singular entity than with single-minded attention to a meditation object.

A teacher in modern India, Nisargadatta, described the self as “the consciousness in the body”:

You are not your body, but you are the consciousness in the body, because of which you have the awareness of “I am”. It is without words, just pure beingness.

(Gaitonde, Mohan [2017]. Self – Love: The Original Dream [Shri Nisargadatta Maharaj’s Direct Pointers to Reality])

The consciousness associated with “I am” is at one single location at any given moment.

Nisargadatta went on to say:

Meditation means you have to hold consciousness by itself. The consciousness should give attention to itself.

(ibid)

Zen teacher Koan Franz talked about the difference between attention to a meditation object, and attention to consciousness (“the base of consciousness”), as he discussed the meaning of the zazen instruction “place your mind here”:

So (in seated meditation), have your hands… palms up, thumbs touching, and there’s this common instruction: place your mind here. Different people interpret this differently. Some people will say this means to place your attention here, meaning to keep your attention on your hands. It’s a way of turning the lens to where you are in space so that you’re not looking out here and out here and out here. It’s the positive version, perhaps, of ‘navel gazing’.

The other way to understand this is to literally place your mind where your hands are–to relocate mind (let’s not say your mind) to your center of gravity, so that mind is operating from a place other than your brain. Some traditions take this very seriously, this idea of moving your consciousness around the body. I wouldn’t recommend dedicating your life to it, but as an experiment, I recommend trying it, sitting in this posture and trying to feel what it’s like to let your mind, to let the base of your consciousness, move away from your head. One thing you’ll find, or that I have found, at least, is that you can’t will it to happen, because you’re willing it from your head. To the extent that you can do it, it’s an act of letting go–and a fascinating one.

(“No Struggle [Zazen Yojinki, Part 6]”, by Koun Franz, from the “Nyoho Zen” site)

Franz suggested that the base of consciousness can move to a location in the body outside the head, through “an act of letting go”.

Gautama also spoke about letting go, in particular about “making self-surrender the object of thought”:

… making self-surrender the object of thought, (a person) lays hold of concentration, lays hold of one-pointedness.

(SN 48.10, tr. PTS vol. V p 174)

Given a presence of mind that can “hold consciousness by itself”, activity in the body begins to coordinate by virtue of the sense of place associated with consciousness. There can come a moment when activity takes place solely by virtue of the free location of consciousness. Activity solely by virtue of the free location of consciousness is the cessation of volition in activity of the body, in particular the cessation of volition in the activity of inhalation and exhalation, the hallmark of the fourth rupa jhana.

I believe Gautama took it for granted that his audience understood the role of concentration in the mindfulness that he recommended, just as he took it for granted that his audience understood the role of “one-pointedness” in concentration. It’s a mindfulness that was Gautama’s way of living (SN 54.11; tr. PTS vol. V p 289: “the Tathagatha’s way of life”), in particular the mindfulness of in-breathing and out-breathing described at SN 54.1 and again in Anapanasati (MN 118). About that mindfulness, he said:

… if cultivated and made much of, is something peaceful and choice, something perfect in itself, and a pleasant way of living too.

(SN 54.9, tr. PTS SN vol. V p 285)

My understanding is that when suffering exists, the four truths apply. I don’t see that life per se is suffering. Observing detachment from the pleasant, the painful, and the neutral was a part of Gautama’s mindfulness, of his way of living, yet he still recommended his way of living as pleasant.

42

Developing single-pointed concentration is not to observe one point closely, but to loose self-control in order to induce ASC (Altered States of Consciousness).

One of the major characteristics in ASC is enhanced awareness, which is the nature of vipassana, making contemplating the five aggregates possible, just like “watching” a slow-motion film.

43

Why develop single-pointed concentration?

You shouldn’t. You should develop samādhi, which is something entirely different.

Don’t think of the spiritual path as something that you do in order to get what you want. It’s about letting go. Samādhi emerges from letting go.

4 Likes
44

I think we can take the teachers of the Buddha as example to investigate this. They were inclined to see resp. the arupa jhana of nothingness and the mental sphere of neither perception nor non-perception as their self…‘this is my Self’.
So they witnessed this state, abided in it and felt…‘now I have finally arrived at the real me, the true Self’. A meeting with their true-Self. They felt.

It also shows that this awareness that there is an observer, a perceiver does not perse vanish in jhana. Buddhas teachers illustrate that. The vanishing of a personal perspective of a-Me-experiencing-this-and-that, is also not decribed in the suttas when they deal with jhana.

But for someone who has realised the destruction of the taints in this very life, and has no me and mine making at all, such a person can enter and abide in jhana without a sense of me entering and abiding in jhana. There is a sutta who says Sariputta did so.

But this is not some standard formula for jhana. For most people entering and abiding in jhana, there is also still a sense of me abiding in jhana. Even in the highest arupa jhana.

The fact that jhana and arupa jhana is connected with kamma and rebirth, also illustrates that one must not see jhanas as pure undefiled states, based upon dispassionate. No, what is karmically active is never pure, never based upon dispassion, and never free from avijja.

But one cannot say that jhana itself is always defiled ofcourse. This depends on the person. If one has not reached the cessation of the taints in this very life, jhana is still connected to kamma but if one has, then not.

I feel, one must really also understand the difference between all what is still based upon passion but is also still meritorious, AND what is really based upon dispasssion and is pure. The first is called mundane in the suttas and the second supra mundane.

So, there is right view…right samadhi still based upon passion, connected to merit, karmically active, not pure. And there is right view…right samadhi…based upon dispassion, noble, pure, not karmically active (MN117). Reading the suttas one must always try to see and understand what right view—right samadhi is refered to?
The mundane or the supra mundane variant?

The suttas also do not teach that there are is no other right samadhi but jhana. Investigate and you will see for yourself.
Ofcouse the right samadhi of an Enlightened One is not like he/she constant abides in some volitionally produced jhana state. That speaks for itself.

45

I wonder if there’s perhaps a linguistic root cause leading to a possible misunderstanding here. In my mother tongue, there’s a way to describe “I am” or “I perceive” or “I experience” without the addition of an “I” pronoun. A single verb can be used to convey the idea that “there is active perceiving /being happening currently which is being exprienced subjectively”. I would describe deep samadhi by such a concept in its most impersonal significance, meaning that there is experiencing, perceiving and being happening there, but the subjective element has been extinguished to a level in which there’s no perceivable/identifiable subjective personality of an experiencer anymore. This is how I have understood the deep jhanas.

How do you differentiate dispassion and equanimity?

46

That is clear.

Maybe it is just matter of words, indeed. In a normal state we are, as it were, a witness of the presence of greed in the mind, or hate or thoughts. I mean, we are mindful and clearly aware of their presence. For me in jhana this is exaclty the same.

Jhana is like being present in a room in which more and more furniture is removed. The room becomes more and more empty. But one also knows this. There is an awareness of this which is not really different from normal states but jhanas are more subtle, peaceful. But there is still mindfulness and awareness of what is present.

That last is a mentallity. Dispassion i do not see as a mentallity. Jhana are constructed mental states. They are liable to arise and cease. I believe they reveal the depths of the mental conscious base, the mind base. But it remains all very mental. It cannot solve the fundamental hunger in our lives, i feel.

It may be a pleasant abiding here and now, but at the same time it is not really nutricious, like sex. It remains a kind of surrogate happiness. I feel that is true for all that is mental. Only heartfelt things are able to end hunger. Never something mental.

Such as friendship is a much higher form of happiness then jhana, i feel. Because it is heartfelt. It opens the heart and only from that, happiness and the end of hunger is to be expacted. Never from an emptied and calm mind. That is my understanding at least. One keeps feeling poor with jhana. Or one must feed conceit upon jhana and mistaken the growing of conceit with true peace (i believe this happens a lot).

Somehow it is not easy to grasp how this all works. But sometimes you can notice such moments that there is really no hunger at all in the system while you are not in some voltionally produced state. And not because all needs are satisfied but there is just no hunger. Moments of merci and grace. It is like all falls in place.

But i feel one must always avoid to become too mental. One must cultivate the heart not the mind. Even without any active thoughts, any emotion, any tendency, any formation in the mind, it just does not end the hunger.

All that mental stuff is at best a surrogate happiness. This is my world at least.
And that is very abnormal :blush:

47

Within my partial and incomplete understanding of the Dhamma, your approach is partially correct. If we equate your definition of ‘one-pointed concentration’ with ‘samadhi’ (which, once again, is only a distant approximation), you effectively obtain what you mention in your post: great joy and profound peace, but only for as long as the samadhi lasts. This can serve as an incentive to continue on the path, but one should not cling to or become stagnant in these sensations.

Therefore, we return to your question: if samadhi does not eliminate the root of dissatisfaction, what is it for? The quick answer is that it serves to progress later in what is called insight, or Vipassana. Some traditions prescribe first the practice of Samatha (which leads to samadhi) and subsequently the practice of Vipassana (which leads to insight), but then both practices feed back into each other, because to remain in a state of Vipassana, we need a correct practice of Samatha.

If you want to eradicate the root of suffering, it is necessary to practice Vipassana, and for a correct practice of Vipassana, you must have a correct practice of Samatha. It may seem, from this explanation, that they are consecutive steps, but as spiritual practice advances, they are actually stages that appear simultaneously and feed each other.

I hope I have not made any gross errors in this explanation. Metta.

1 Like
48

I think it is best thought of as undivided rather than single-pointed. In MN119, it says your mind settles and unifies. The “pleasures” you are speaking of go away. It is a state of effortless, profound peace and direct experience of not-self. That is why it should be cultivated.

49

Bhante; I very much enjoy concentration for samādhi; concentration comes from letting go, isn’t it? Like a concentrated herbal infusion is rid of impurities and excesses (like asavas).

I find there’s a poetic beauty to concentration / distillation and samādhi. But maybe that’s just me.

50

Cultivating a single-pointed focus allows you to consciously direct your mental and bodily attention onto a single point.

This enables you to have true regulation and control over your sense faculties so that your mind is not pulled away by every passing physical object, by thoughts, and by feelings. The cultivation of concentration is one of the key factors in attaining to freedom.

To sit upright requires concentration (both bodily and mental discipline).
To count at the end of every exhale requires concentration.
To hold the dhamma in mind and reflect upon it often requires concentration.
Every waking instance requires some degree of concentration, the difference is whether or not one brings conscious awareness to this fact, and then works to cultivate such.

The cultivation of concentration ties in with the liberation of ones will. A mind ensnared by the three poisons and five hindrances is in bondage. The one who courses in wisdom, panna, samadhi with insight into the four foundations of mindfulness with every sense gateway guarded is free. Who would reject having control over ones own eyes, nose, mouth, ears, arms, legs, and finally, mind?

51

A Pali sutta, MN 44, defines concentration as cittass’ek’aggatā, which is often translated as “one-pointedness of mind”: cittassa = “of the mind” or “of the heart,” eka = one, agga = point, -tā = -ness. MN 117 defines noble right concentration as any one-pointedness of mind supported by the first seven factors of the noble path, from right view through right mindfulness. MN 43 states further that one-pointedness is a factor of the first jhāna, the beginning level of right concentration.

(https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/CrossIndexed/Uncollected/MiscEssays/OnePointed160822.pdf, Thanissaro Bhikkyu;)

I’ll agree entirely about letting go. Gautama spoke about letting go, in particular about “making self-surrender the object of thought”:

… making self-surrender the object of thought, (a person) lays hold of concentration, lays hold of one-pointedness.

(SN 48.10, tr. PTS vol. V p 174)

And I’m very interested in your translation of SN 48.10:

And what is the faculty of immersion? It’s when a noble disciple, relying on letting go, gains immersion, gains unification of mind. Quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, they enter and remain 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…

I would say the mind is “placed”, not about “placing”, and that one-pointedness can shift and move as though connected but does not cease in the subsequent states. From something I wrote:

The presence of mind can utilize the location of attention to maintain the balance of the body and coordinate activity in the movement of breath, without a particularly conscious effort to do so. There can also come a moment when the movement of breath necessitates the placement of attention at a certain location in the body, or at a series of locations, with the ability to remain awake as the location of attention shifts retained through the exercise of presence.

There’s a culmination in “the cessation of in-breathing and out-breathing”–again, from my own writing:

When activity of the body takes place solely by virtue of the free location of consciousness, habit and volition in the activity of inhalation and exhalation have ceased.

When you say, “cultivate samadhi”–how would you translate “samadhi”, in your use of the word there? As I read Gautama’s path to the destruction of the cankers in MN 4, the cessation of inbreathing and outbreathing was key.

52

(post deleted by author)

1 Like