Samadhi (best English translation?)

Explore the ancient language of the Tipitaka and Theravāda commentaries

Moderator: Mahavihara moderator

Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Postby Kumara » Tue Jun 04, 2013 2:36 am

John1122 wrote:Would there be an opposite to samadhi like distraction or division?

Asamādhi? I know this is not helpful! Haha! But it is a valid word found in the Suttas.
User avatar
Kumara
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:14 am

Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Postby frank k » Thu Jun 06, 2013 12:17 pm

So what are the top choices of best translation of Samādhi? What about ekaggata?
"Concentration" has the advantage of being commonly understood, that is a Buddhist seeing the word concentration usually associates it as being translated from samaadhi.

I don't like how Thanissaro Bhikkhu sometimes uses different english words to translate the same pali word. for example, in step 11 of anapanasati he translates samādham cittam as "steadying the mind" , which made me think the pali text was using a different word than samaadhi. This is not to say he's right or wrong in doing that, I understand the problem of the being consistent with pali/english translation is you can miss subtle nuances in meaning.

What are the best candidates for ekaggata? i know the reasons people don't like one-pointed. In another thread Ven. Kumara was saying "one-placed" would be a better literal translation than one-pointed.
What about "one-focused" or "single-focused"? Less literal but clear in meaning, and still relatively easy to make connection with pali ekaggata.

What pali word is "unification of mind" associated with? I thought it was with samādhi but I thought I saw somewhere someone using that phrase for ekaggata.
http://www.audtip.org Audio Sutta Recordings
frank k
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:55 pm

Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Postby daverupa » Thu Jun 06, 2013 1:28 pm

frank k wrote:So what are the top choices of best translation of Samādhi?...
"Concentration" has the advantage of being commonly understood, that is a Buddhist seeing the word concentration usually associates it as being translated from samaadhi.


Ease of back-translation shades into an argument to leave this term untranslated altogether...

I don't like how Thanissaro Bhikkhu sometimes uses different english words to translate the same pali word. for example, in step 11 of anapanasati he translates samādham cittam as "steadying the mind" , which made me think the pali text was using a different word than samaadhi. This is not to say he's right or wrong in doing that, I understand the problem of the being consistent with pali/english translation is you can miss subtle nuances in meaning.


So, this is where an ideal English term would cover the denotation as well as the various contextual connotations of a Pali term. Ideal fits are simply impossible, however, so various terms are sometimes chosen in order to capture these extended realms of meaning. I, however, would also prefer consistency over "ease of reading" choices, and to this end still prefer 'composure' for samadhi. In the example you give, the phrase would be 'composing the mind', which I think is quite serviceable.

What are the best candidates for ekaggata? i know the reasons people don't like one-pointed. In another thread Ven. Kumara was saying "one-placed" would be a better literal translation than one-pointed.


I remember that thread & thought it was a great comment:

Kumara wrote:To make it really short, here's the conclusion of my research into this: The agga in ekaggatā is probably a contracted form of agāra, which can be most generally translated as "place". Thus, ekaggaṁ is one-placed (rather than one-pointed), as in not "all over the place", not scattered, but gathered, collected, composed. In idiomatic English, it's still.
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 3723
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Postby Kumara » Fri Jun 07, 2013 7:02 am

frank k wrote:I don't like how Thanissaro Bhikkhu sometimes uses different english words to translate the same pali word. for example, in step 11 of anapanasati he translates samādham cittam as "steadying the mind" , which made me think the pali text was using a different word than samaadhi. This is not to say he's right or wrong in doing that, I understand the problem of the being consistent with pali/english translation is you can miss subtle nuances in meaning.

I can fully appreciate what you mean. To add to that, he translates samādhijaṁ as "born of composure', which is the only variant among others by him that agrees with my conclusion, which is as follow:

samādhi (noun): (lit. ‘place-together’-ness) composure, collectedness
samāhita (participle of samādahati): composed, collected
samādhiyati (passive form of samādahati): be composed, be collected
samādahati: compose, collect
sammā·samādhi: proper composure, proper collectedness

Satisfies the principle of consistency, huh? :-)

Just in case some wonder what's "samādhaṁ". It's a contracted form of samādahanta (composing); just as jānaṁ is the same as jānanta (knowing).
User avatar
Kumara
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:14 am

Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Postby Spiny Norman » Fri Jun 07, 2013 8:20 am

daverupa wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:Has anyone suggested "mental development"? I was thinking of samadhi in terms of the 3-fold path.


I think I'd still go for "composure", so in the case of the tripartite Path division this would mean composing the mind around the themes of integrative (samma-) effort, mindfulness, and jhana.


In the Samadhi Sutta it seems to encompass samatha/jhana, vipassana and sati:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 1767
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am

Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Postby daverupa » Fri Jun 07, 2013 11:52 am

Spiny Norman wrote:
daverupa wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:Has anyone suggested "mental development"? I was thinking of samadhi in terms of the 3-fold path.


I think I'd still go for "composure", so in the case of the tripartite Path division this would mean composing the mind around the themes of integrative (samma-) effort, mindfulness, and jhana.


In the Samadhi Sutta it seems to encompass samatha/jhana, vipassana and sati:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html


Composure still seems to fit the bill, does it not? There are various wholesome ways to bracket the relevant praxis modules.
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 3723
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Postby Spiny Norman » Fri Jun 07, 2013 1:23 pm

daverupa wrote:...bracket the relevant praxis modules.


I wish I knew what that meant. ;)
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 1767
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am

Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Postby daverupa » Fri Jun 07, 2013 1:42 pm

Spiny Norman wrote:
daverupa wrote:...bracket the relevant praxis modules.


I wish I knew what that meant. ;)


Frame the applicable practices. Group the variables that matter. Compose (!) the mind around the pertinent themes.
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 3723
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Postby Kumara » Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:21 am

frank k wrote:"Concentration" has the advantage of being commonly understood, that is a Buddhist seeing the word concentration usually associates it as being translated from samaadhi.

The word is fine, if understood correctly. There are many meanings for the English word concentration. How do you understand it in terms of meditation? Since meditation is mental work, an English user in meeting this translation is most likely to associate it with its meanings that are related to the mind, such as
1. act or power of focusing one’s attention or mental ability (Concise Oxford Dictionary (Ninth Edition), Oxford University Press 1995)
2. act or process of concentrating, especially the fixing of close, undivided attention (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2007, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009.)
3. a process in which you put a lot of attention, energy etc into a particular activity (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, Pearson Education Limited 2003)
4. great and constant diligence and attention (WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University)
5. (synonyms) absorption, engrossment, immersion (Ibid.)

Based on my observation, most Buddhist meditators I know do something that basically follows the first and second definition, hoping to achieve a state that generally agrees with the synonyms listed at number 5. They may do what the third and fourth definitions say too at a greater intensity, especially when they are eager to get to number 5. Such an understanding doesn't agree with the literal meaning of samadhi as shown in an earlier post.
frank k wrote:What about "one-focused" or "single-focused"? Less literal but clear in meaning, and still relatively easy to make connection with pali ekaggata.

That's true if we are interpreting these words according to the Visuddhimagga variety of jhana, but they don't fit well into the jhana of the Suttas. You may refer to the matter at Jhāna According to the Pāḷi Nikāyas (viewtopic.php?f=43&t=5761)

The Chinese translation for samādhi, 定, can mean many things: calm, stable, fixed, settled, definite. (Vicon Chinese(S)-English Dictionary) However, when we have it in the context of 心, which is citta in Pāli, the meaning is decisively limited to ‘calm, stable, settled”. In no way does 定 mean concentration.

frank k wrote:What pali word is "unification of mind" associated with? I thought it was with samādhi but I thought I saw somewhere someone using that phrase for ekaggata.

I think you meant "cittassa ekaggata". You're probably referring to MLDB. In CDB, Ven Bodhi "reverted" to one-pointedness for ekaggata though, and used unification for ekodibhāva. It seems obvious to me that he still held the Visuddhimagga idea of jhāna.
User avatar
Kumara
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:14 am

Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Postby Sylvester » Thu Jun 13, 2013 1:58 am

Kumara wrote:
frank k wrote:What pali word is "unification of mind" associated with? I thought it was with samādhi but I thought I saw somewhere someone using that phrase for ekaggata.

I think you meant "cittassa ekaggata". You're probably referring to MLDB. In CDB, Ven Bodhi "reverted" to one-pointedness for ekaggata though, and used unification for ekodibhāva. It seems obvious to me that he still held the Visuddhimagga idea of jhāna.



I'm curious, Bhante. Doesn't DN 9's listing of how perceptions cease and others arise through training suggest singularity of perception in the jhānas? Certainly, I would not dispute your lexical analysis about cittassa ekaggatā as being a reference to composure or stillness. But is the Vsm conception of the jhānas as being absorbed bereft of sutta antecedents? It goes back to your earlier post that this quality is one of "unified knowing: to be aware of all sense bases at the same time" - viewtopic.php?f=23&t=10150&start=60#p232339

I'm sure you're aware of the compound in DN 9 - kāmasaññā. This is said to cease in first jhāna. What does it mean?

Some have argued that it means sensual perception, meaning that kāma functions adjectivally in the singular (ie with sensual desire). This interpretation entails the compound being interpreted as a kammadhāraya, which is problematic. The rule for kammadhāraya compounds is that if the compound is parsed, kāma must be in the singular to agree with saññā; we know that saññā is in the singular, owing to the singular verb nirujjhati. That does not tally with the first jhāna formula that uses the plural kāmā.

That leaves only the genitive tappurisa. Tappurisas being what they are allow the first member to be parsed into the plural, since only stem forms are used for the first member of tappurisas. This gives "perception of kāmā", agreeing nicely with the standard seclusion formula.

I'm not sure if the Vsm interpretation is as off the mark as it's commonly believed.
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1434
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Postby Kumara » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:21 am

Sylvester wrote:I'm curious, Bhante. Doesn't DN 9's listing of how perceptions cease and others arise through training suggest singularity of perception in the jhānas?

Have you had any experience of 'jhana' as it is popularly understood these days in the Theravadin world? I have to ask this because without it we'd be just going endlessly around theories.

Anyway, have a look at this: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=14321&p=248011#p248011
User avatar
Kumara
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:14 am

Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Postby Sylvester » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:35 am

But Bhante, what is the "popular" understanding as such? You'll forgive me if I express uncertainty, given the proliferation of the anti-absorption models online. Certainly, the "traditional" model holds its own within certain monastic environments, but I get the impression that the more popular model is for jhāna where there is :

- 5 sense awareness;
- thinking and rumination.

This does not even begin to factor in opinion from scholarly quarters (eg Wynne) that the absorption model found in the suttas is an artifact of contamination intruding into the Buddha's earliest teachings. I would exclude this model from the "popular" equation, since this line argues that the absorption suttas have suffered doctrinal contamination, which I think the "popular" school would find too radical an idea.

Pls excuse my reticence on my experiences. I simply prefer to restrict the discussion to what the discourses say. I don't think it's as hopeless as simply going around theories, since we are actually scrutinising each theory against the Gold Standard, ie the suttas.

I would just mention that I'm not a big fan of the Vsm model, but if I were to make a principled disagreement with the Vsm model, I do not brush it off simply by saying, "Oh that comes from the Vsm". I reject something only if I can demonstrate a clear inconsistency between an exegetical proposition with (i) a sutta proposition, or (ii) a reasonable inference from a sutta proposition.

All I would volunteer is that, having experienced the states described by the "popular" model, I have rejected them as being inconsistent with what I think the suttas say. The said emphasis is a recognition that I am not the last word on how suttas should be read and interpreted, but I would expect a great deal of linguistic rigour to be exerted with the texts. As a matter of principle, I do not allow the primary material to be lensed through later material, which is why you'll be hard-pressed to find me resorting to the Vsm.
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1434
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Postby Kumara » Fri Jun 14, 2013 4:28 am

Sylvester wrote:But Bhante, what is the "popular" understanding as such?

I realise that 'popular' is not a suitable description here. Let me rephrase:
Have you had any experience of 'jhana' as it is traditionally understood these days in the orthodox Theravadin world?
Sylvester wrote: You'll forgive me if I express uncertainty, given the proliferation of the anti-absorption models online. Certainly, the "traditional" model holds its own within certain monastic environments, but I get the impression that the more popular model is for jhāna where there is :

- 5 sense awareness;
- thinking and rumination.

I suppose that's true within some circles. I wrongly used "popular" here.

I'd like to add that, in case some misunderstand, vitakka and vicara in the first jhana need to be understood as not in the manner that is part of the 5 hindrances. See Bhikkhunivasako/Bhikkhunupassaya Sutta (SN 47.10). Ajahn Chah was also quite clear about this.

Sylvester wrote:Pls excuse my reticence on my experiences. I simply prefer to restrict the discussion to what the discourses say. I don't think it's as hopeless as simply going around theories, since we are actually scrutinising each theory against the Gold Standard, ie the suttas.

For the purpose of theoretical debate, yes, its reasonable to take the Suttas as the "Gold Standard". Nonetheless, I think we need to also recognise its limitation. The collection is a record that came about through centuries of transmission, translation, AND editing, etc. Some of what we find therein is no longer well understood. Without comparing the suttas with actual practice, it's quite meaningless. At least so I think.

For me, the "Gold Standard" is not the Suttas. It's not even mere personal experience, which is also subject to interpretations. The "Gold Standard" for me is the spiritual growth of the individual.

If I know someone whose behavior is lacking in lobha, dosa, and moha, who is at ease with whatever happens internally and externally, I'd be pretty impressed. I'd listen to what his teachings, try it for myself and find spiritual growth--that for me is not just the "Gold Standard", it's the gold. If I can compare what I hear and experience with the Suttas (bearing in mind the meaning, rather than mere words), and find that they agree, then it's all the better (and perhaps even exciting). But it's not essential.

Sylvester wrote:I would just mention that I'm not a big fan of the Vsm model, but if I were to make a principled disagreement with the Vsm model, I do not brush it off simply by saying, "Oh that comes from the Vsm". I reject something only if I can demonstrate a clear inconsistency between an exegetical proposition with (i) a sutta proposition, or (ii) a reasonable inference from a sutta proposition.

Great, and I see that this is already well demonstrated by others, like Shankman and Shatz. I'm satisfied with that.

Sylvester wrote:All I would volunteer is that, having experienced the states described by the "popular" model, I have rejected them as being inconsistent with what I think the suttas say. The said emphasis is a recognition that I am not the last word on how suttas should be read and interpreted, but I would expect a great deal of linguistic rigour to be exerted with the texts. As a matter of principle, I do not allow the primary material to be lensed through later material, which is why you'll be hard-pressed to find me resorting to the Vsm.

Fair enough.

Let me ask you something: Would it be possible that what you think the suttas say is already influenced by orthodoxy? How did you begin your learning about meditation? By reading the Suttas?

I happen to know a few people who firmly believe some ideas that are in full agreement with the commentaries, but not with the suttas. Yet they regard themselves as following only the Nikayas. I also happen to know someone who started to learn Buddhism completely with the Suttas--in Pali. It's amazing to see how sharp his mind is in detecting nuances of later influences.
User avatar
Kumara
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:14 am

Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Postby Sylvester » Fri Jun 14, 2013 6:13 am

That's for your reply, Bhante.

Kumara wrote:
Sylvester wrote:But Bhante, what is the "popular" understanding as such?

I realise that 'popular' is not a suitable description here. Let me rephrase:
Have you had any experience of 'jhana' as it is traditionally understood these days in the orthodox Theravadin world?



I'll still pass on this.


I'd like to add that, in case some misunderstand, vitakka and vicara in the first jhana need to be understood as not in the manner that is part of the 5 hindrances. See Bhikkhunivasako/Bhikkhunupassaya Sutta (SN 47.10). Ajahn Chah was also quite clear about this.


I suppose we may find some common ground in that sutta, but my principal point of reference would be MN 19 and MN 78, ie the vacīsaṅkhāra in the jhānas is sammāsaṅkappa.


Let me ask you something: Would it be possible that what you think the suttas say is already influenced by orthodoxy?


It's hard to deny the possibility, given the many scholarly opinions and findings about intrusions from sectarian affiliations showing up clearly in each collection. It's a given.

How did you begin your learning about meditation? By reading the Suttas?


I started with Zen meditation, before migrating to the "Theravada". Read the exegetical material first, and then found ATI and bought into the translations there. Have lately been re-reading the suttas in the Pali.
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1434
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Postby frank k » Fri Jun 14, 2013 3:36 pm

dear Ven. Kumara and Sylvester,

I have no idea what "popular' and "orthodox theravada" means. I do know what is meant by "sutta jhana" and "vism. jhana", but I wonder how much miscommunication happens on the jhana debates because it's not always clear what people are referring to. Another example, Thanissaro translates jhana as absorption, but so does Anaalayo and others but they have very different view of jhana. Also many people don't fall into the neat categories of "sutta jhana" or "vism. jhana". Some believe both are valid models, some have a hybrid model.

This must be why so many of us are interested in finding better translations for some of the key words associated with samaadhi. At this point I think that's not going to happen, probably the clearest way is to use pali terms and english in parenthesis or in footnotes.
http://www.audtip.org Audio Sutta Recordings
frank k
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:55 pm

Jhana -- Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Postby Kumara » Sat Jun 15, 2013 3:29 am

frank k wrote:I wonder how much miscommunication happens on the jhana debates because it's not always clear what people are referring to.

How much? I think a lot. Without clarifying what each person mean by jhana, people may think that they agree when they don't, or think that they don't agree when they actually do!

Another example, Thanissaro translates jhana as absorption, but so does Anaalayo and others but they have very different view of jhana. Also many people don't fall into the neat categories of "sutta jhana" or "vism. jhana". Some believe both are valid models, some have a hybrid model.

Exactly. Currently, I've come to see 2 forms of Vism jhana, and 2 forms of Sutta jhana. I've already pointed Ajahn Thate's view on 2 forms of Vism jhana (though he just calls it 'jhana').

As for the Sutta jhana, there is the directed (which applies only for 1st jhana), and the undirected. I rather not go further on this here though, as I foresee having to explain more than I'm willing to here. It's already confusing enough for most people. I'm not even sure if it's a good idea to add this point to my book.

Anyway, if you're interested in the various kinds on jhana, you'd probably be interested in this: Interpretations of the Jhanas http://www.leighb.com/jhanantp.htm

Also of interest is this: http://bhikkhucintita.wordpress.com/201 ... riants-18/ by Bhikkhu Cintita Dinsmore. If you've gotten much commentarial ideas and terminology in your head, you may find reading this meaningful. Otherwise, you'd probably find it confusing.
Last edited by Kumara on Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Kumara
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:14 am

Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Postby Sylvester » Sat Jun 15, 2013 5:57 am

frank k wrote:dear Ven. Kumara and Sylvester,

I have no idea what "popular' and "orthodox theravada" means. I do know what is meant by "sutta jhana" and "vism. jhana", but I wonder how much miscommunication happens on the jhana debates because it's not always clear what people are referring to. Another example, Thanissaro translates jhana as absorption, but so does Anaalayo and others but they have very different view of jhana. Also many people don't fall into the neat categories of "sutta jhana" or "vism. jhana". Some believe both are valid models, some have a hybrid model.

This must be why so many of us are interested in finding better translations for some of the key words associated with samaadhi. At this point I think that's not going to happen, probably the clearest way is to use pali terms and english in parenthesis or in footnotes.



Hi frank.

I hope this does not come off sounding supercilious, but my personal view on the "sutta jhana" v "vsm jhana" dichotomy is that it is nothing more than a pop sound-bite. Which is why I feel that a study of vocabulary alone will not yield much, unless done in conjunction with a more rigorous grammatical and contextual analysis.

Context is all important, given the high degree of polysemy in Pali. Just look at the endless debates revolving around sememes such saññā, sati, kāya, vitakka etc etc. I wish Pali grammar and syntax did not need to be an important consideration, but given just how much misunderstanding is foisted on English translations, it becomes imperative to question interpretations that ignore the underlying Pali grammar. If you've followed the debates, you'd probably be familiar with the interpretations that rely on the proximity of the vipassanā verbs to the verbs associated with jhāna, all on the misguided basis that they are both in the present tense. On top of that silliness, you actually have to take pains to question if the standard viharati verb in the jhāna formulae has any meaningful relation to the vipassanā verbs, given that it functions as an auxillary to the attainment verb. I'm also sure you've seen the claim made about psychic powers being exercised in jhāna on the basis of the DN 2 pericope, but how many realise that the grammatical construction of that formula simply does not allow it? Do people actually notice that the "mind [thus] concentrated" ("samāhite citte" as a locative absolute formed out of a past participle) stands in a disjunct temporal relation to the exercise of the psychic powers?

Do you think dictionary entries or new glossaries will solve these types of confusion? As it is, some of the current dictionaries are not even critical enough to stratify vocabulary to usage according to the different layers of the Canon.

There's also the issue of internal consistency, but since that measures exegetical propositions against indubitable doctrinal statements, it can only be meaningfully performed if the baseline doctrinal statements themselves acquire an indubitable meaning based in part on the earlier 2 methods.

Brasington and Shankman have both done a great service in the comparative essays. While there's much to be lauded, I still see gaps in their work. There just isn't enough use of critical tools in their translation of the primary materials, IMHO. Granted, a "linguistic-textual-doctrinal" (per Bucknell) approach will not really be useful reading for the non-scholar. Yet, that tool exists. Should it be kept in the drawer, in deference to the appeal to experience?
Last edited by Sylvester on Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1434
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Jhana -- Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Postby Sylvester » Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:26 am

Kumara wrote:[As for the Sutta jhana, there is the directed (which applies only for 1st jhana), and the undirected. I rather not go further on this here though, as I foresee having to explain more than I'm willing to here. It's already confusing enough for most people. I'm not even sure if it's a good idea to add this point to my book.




Dear Bhante

It would be nice if you discussed this. If it's of less appeal to the Paliphiles here, you could always open a new thread. The interpretation of SN 47.10 is an important issue, since your belief that it applies to the 1st jhana might run counter to DN 9 (and its Chinese parallel DA 28) and AN 3.101.
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1434
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Postby frank k » Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:17 pm

Hi Sylvester, "sutta jhana" and "vism. jhana" at least is clear on the point that with "vism.", one uses visual light nimitta to enter into a jhana, and that one has to emerge before one is able to think and do vipassana, something which you won't find in the suttas. Also how vitakka and vicara are defined in vism. is clearly different than the sutta passages that explicitly state the vitakka and vicara being nekkhamma, abyapada, avihimsa (or their opposites) when talking about the presence and absence of vitakka and vicara for the first and second jhanas.

I agree that making better dictionary definitions for key pali terms alone is not going to solve communications problems, but surely there's something we can do as a community to facilitate better understanding of what these terms mean when talking about different interpretations of jhana.
http://www.audtip.org Audio Sutta Recordings
frank k
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:55 pm

Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)

Postby mikenz66 » Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:45 pm

Hi Frank,
frank k wrote:Hi Sylvester, "sutta jhana" and "vism. jhana" at least is clear on the point that with "vism.", one uses visual light nimitta to enter into a jhana, ...

I'm not sure it's so straightforward. What about Ajahn Brahm, who definitely sees himself as a "sutta follower", but also teaches the light nimitta?
And signs of concentration are certainly in the suttas: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=15578
frank k wrote:... and that one has to emerge before one is able to think and do vipassana, something which you won't find in the suttas.

I'm no expert, but I understand that the interpretation of the temporal relationship of some statements in the suttas is not trivial.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 9632
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

PreviousNext

Return to Pali

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests