Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

What's the difference between Samadhi and Jhana? How are they relate to one another?

Please See:

The Jhanas in Theravada Buddhist Meditation by Henepola Gunaratana

Scroll down to the Jhana and Samadhi heading.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org:80/lib/a ... html#ch1.3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

thanks bodom

Wind wrote:What's the difference between Samadhi and Jhana? How are they relate to one another?

the topic of jhana upsets more people

jcsuperstar wrote:

Wind wrote:What's the difference between Samadhi and Jhana? How are they relate to one another?

the topic of jhana upsets more people

That seems to be true, but it seems to be the jhana-wallahs that get upset with the vipassana-wallahs and those who hold to the commentarial take in Thewravada.

You guys are funny.

tiltbillings wrote:

jcsuperstar wrote:

Wind wrote:What's the difference between Samadhi and Jhana? How are they relate to one another?

the topic of jhana upsets more people

That seems to be true, but it seems to be the jhana-wallahs that get upset with the vipassana-wallahs and those who hold to the commentarial take in Thewravada.

If a person says 'I practice vipassana' there's a whole room full of knodding heads. But if someone says 'I would like to develop jhana' there are immediate calls to the near impossibility of the task and comments about how those claiming jhanic experience are likely to be mistaken. Perhaps those of us interested in jhana as a real practice and not abstract pie in the sky theoretical knowledge feel compelled to take a hard stance on the issue.

Just my take.

see i never see this attack on jhana that people complain about, i hear a lot about people saying they're attacked, but never see , hear these attacks. jhana is awesome, i say go for it.

I wouldn't touch this thread with a ten yojana long pole, har.

jcsuperstar wrote:see i never see this attack on jhana that people complain about, i hear a lot about people saying they're attacked, but never see , hear these attacks. jhana is awesome, i say go for it.

I don't think I've seen an attack on 'jhana', but plenty of negativity in respect to the claimants of such. Unless they've been experienced in on retreat, of course, in which case its seen as a mark up for that particular tradition.

Since people tend to doubt those who says they achieve jhana, do people doubt those who says they achieve Samadhi? I would like to know if anyone here achieve Samadhi? If so, can you describe what's it like?

Wind wrote:I would like to know if anyone here achieve Samadhi?

Never achieved it here where i am, but some descriptions come to mind: "Still, running water" is a fave.

Another that sticks with me - the mind before samadhi is like an upside down bowl - thoughts are like marbles that drop down - hit the bowl - and go richocheting off into the distance with consciousness following after to observe the thought.

Call it losing your marbles.

At some point - the mind - the bowl - flips over - when the marble drops - without any effort, the thought settles right down to the center of the bowl - which just happens to have an indent to hold the marble. Your consciousness stays still yet knows the whole of the thought without having to chase after it - the law of anicca takes over and "dismisses" the thought leaving the indent ready to receive the next marble when it drops.

Me, i've just lost all my marbles...


Metta

Anicca wrote:

Wind wrote:I would like to know if anyone here achieve Samadhi? If so, can you describe what's it like?

Another that sticks with me - the mind before samadhi is like an upside down bowl - thoughts are like marbles that drop down - hit the bowl - and go richocheting off into the distance with consciousness following after to observe the thought.

Call it losing your marbles.

At some point - the mind - the bowl - flips over - when the marble drops - without any effort, the thought settles right down to the center of the bowl - which just happens to have an indent to hold the marble. Your consciousness stays still yet knows the whole of the thought without having to chase after it - the law of anicca takes over and "dismisses" the thought leaving the indent ready to receive the next marble when it drops.

Anicca's description described it pretty well.

Samadhi has traditionally been translated as "concentration." Jhana has traditionally been translated as "absorption." So, the question remains: What is the difference between concentration and absorption? Basically, very little, except when these terms are being used to describe Buddhist meditation.

For the mind to become absorbed in an object or subject, it first must become concentrated. This is called samadhi. Once the mind is concentrated, there are eight (or nine) levels of absorption (jhana) described as the four material jhanas and the four (sometimes five) immaterial jhanas. The term jhana here is being used to describe a level of absorption / concentration.

Some meditation teachers teach a method of recognizing the first stages of absorption by being able to recognize what they term "neighborhood concentration" or upacara samadhi. This upacara samadhi is not quite yet full absorption, but is call "neighborhood concentration" because it is viewed as being just on the cusp of full absorption or the first level of jhana. I'm not going to describe the four main (material) levels of jhana (you can find that by doing a search on the word "jhana" using the forum search engine to search for threads and posts from the past). But these are the basic nuances involved when using these two pali terms.

samadhi is quality of the mind which is be developed gradually, progressively. (like hight of a building in meters)
jhana is a state of mind/being that arises as a result of development of samadhi (3rd floor, 4rth floor)

thanks Anicca for your excellent description of Samadhi. I still wonder how many here has personally achieve it. If there are many here who can achieve Samadhi then I would know it's quite attainable unlike jhana where it's seem like an improbable task.