nirvana through jhana?

[Mkoll]

On the second thought, may be I am doing vipassana without "sitting for" it.

Perhaps if you've truly taken the Buddha's teachings to heart and practice them well, this may be the case.

[daverupa]

since samatha and vipassana are paired qualities

I don’t think this is necessarily true.... Buddha’s meditation teachers were developing samatha to a high degree and so are Christian, Hindu etc. yogis all over. But their samatha is not paired with vipassana... Their samadhi is purely samatha samadhi.

This seems to be your objection: that since samatha can occur outside the Dhamma, it must not be paired with vipassana which is only found in the Dhamma.

You also seem to think that these are two sorts of meditation methods.

But (1) they are not paired qualities in that way, and (2) they are not methods.

1. It is not as though they were each one side of a piece of paper, such that having one was having both. It isn't the case either that one causes the other. So, there is no "bidirectional causation" but neither is there "unidirectional causation" among them, either. The fact is, they both do complementary things, and therefore count as a swift pair of messengers, a skillful pair of companions who each have a share of the load to haul.

To extend the messenger analogy: there are a pair of messengers so that, when remembering and delivering the oral message, they can act as a check on each others' accuracy. In this way, they are a supporting pair.

2. As you can see, both samatha & vipassana are qualities to assess in one's own case, not meditation methods. So there's no "samatha-samadhi" but there can be an emphasis on samatha to the exclusion of vipassana, the obverse case, both together, or a case with neither - miccha-samadhi.

Again: no such thing as e.g. "vipassana-samadhi". There's sammasamadhi, which develops both over time, or miccha-samadhi, which does not. You can even notice above, at AN 10.54, that sometimes a disciple will develop samatha first, and vipassana later. So we can't even say that developing samatha first is off-target, unless we also say that vipassana first is off-target to the same degree.

---

And, for what it's worth, there's no wet vs. dry approach specified in the Suttas, just the gradual training. The ending of the asavas depends on jhana.

[atipattoh]

I think that's one way of looking at the 4 tetrads of anapanasati. I find the description "pure samatha meditator" a little puzzling, since samatha and vipassana are paired qualities, not methods.

Hi Norman, Goodday!
Due to many are parallel practitioners, to show differences, I added the word pure. In actual fact, there is no pure samatha meditator, there exist only samatha meditator.

Meditators of great parami attain Jhanas in couple of weeks and proceed on to vipassana, if a few weeks is considered as short period, then yes I would say that it is parallel. The time frame of what is considered parallel is subjective.

Instead of saying they share pair quality, I would prefer to say that samatha and vipassana ‘works’ in pair; former support the later, vice versa; and may continue for many lifetimes.

[tsurezuregusa]

Hi daverupa,

not sure I understand everything you wrote.

To extend the messenger analogy: there are a pair of messengers so that, when remembering and delivering the oral message, they can act as a check on each others' accuracy. In this way, they are a supporting pair.

I personally agree with the analogy of the pair of messengers.

But interestingly, in the Sarvastivada tradition there is no pair. There is only one messenger and it is vipassana. So samatha is missing. If you couple this with the Susima Sutra in the Sarvastivada tradition one can arrive at the conclusion that vipassana is doing just fine by itself.

So there's no "samatha-samadhi" but there can be an emphasis on samatha to the exclusion of vipassana

I don't see the difference. Looks like a play of words to me. Why wouldn't you call a concentrated state of mind with the exclusion of vipassana "samatha-samadhi"?

Kind regards,
Florian

[daverupa]

Looks like a play of words to me. Why wouldn't you call a concentrated state of mind with the exclusion of vipassana "samatha-samadhi"?

Because I'm not sure what you mean by "concentrated state of mind", samatha-vipassana are not necessarily qualities of jhana, the terms simply start to become confused and obtuse, etc.

[Spiny Norman]

Hi,

since samatha and vipassana are paired qualities

I don’t think this is necessarily true. To my understanding there is no bidirectional causation between samatha and vipassana.

By this I mean: if there is vipassana there is samatha. But this does not work the other direction. When there is samatha there is not necessarily vipassana.

I think it's a partly a question of how we're using terminology, but practically speaking I find that greater stillness ( samatha ) inevitably involves greater clarity ( vipassana ).

[tsurezuregusa]

Hello,

I think it's a partly a question of how we're using terminology

this is true.

but practically speaking I find that greater stillness ( samatha ) inevitably involves greater clarity ( vipassana ).

For me very simplified, vipassana is seeing the 3 characteristics in the 5 aggregates. And I cannot see how increasing samatha while focusing on a mental image in the Kasina meditation is able to develop that. Both Analayo and Gunaratana argue that samadhi, which is very closely linked to samatha, as concentration is exclusive in focusing on one object. While sati, as a supporting factor of samadhi and being itself supported by it, has a broader focus which Analayo calls "to be aware of variety". And only this awareness of variety let's one see the continuous arising and passing away of the aggregrates. Therefore in the sutta on the development (bhavana) of concentration (samadhi) the Buddha says:

And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents? There is the case where a monk remains focused on arising & falling away with reference to the five clinging-aggregates. (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html)

Analyo continues to point out that deep concentration is an impediment to the awaress of variety - the 5 aggregates and their characteristics. Satipatthana is more a process meditation rather than an object meditation like Kasina etc.

Kind regards,
Florian

[martinfrank]

Can someone clarify this?

(2) "And what is the development of concentration that... leads to the attainment of knowledge & vision? There is the case where a monk attends to the perception of light and is resolved on the perception of daytime [at any hour of the day]. Day [for him] is the same as night, night is the same as day. By means of an awareness open & unhampered, he develops a brightened mind. This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the attainment of knowledge & vision.
==========
What does it mean to say "Night is the same as day"?
Can he sees in dark?

Empty black space full of light.

[Spiny Norman]

While sati, as a supporting factor of samadhi and being itself supported by it, has a broader focus which Analayo calls "to be aware of variety". And only this awareness of variety let's one see the continuous arising and passing away of the aggregrates.

I broadly agree, and it's clear from the suttas that sati and samadhi are mutually supporting and that both need to be developed as path factors. I think the 4 tetrads of anapanasati are a good example of a "joined-up" approach.

Similarly both vipassana and samatha need to be developed: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html.

[daverupa]

But interestingly, in the Sarvastivada...

On that note, I do not find support for the claim. Both scholastic traditions contain both as pairs, with shifting emphases, and I already mentioned a Sutta where differing emphases are discussed, so we can see emerging scholastic preference alongside earlier, more prevalent discussion of their paired supporting nature.