Re: Samadhi (best English translation?)
Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 2:36 am
Asamādhi? I know this is not helpful! Haha! But it is a valid word found in the Suttas.John1122 wrote:Would there be an opposite to samadhi like distraction or division?
A Buddhist discussion forum on the Dhamma of Theravāda Buddhism
https://www.dhammawheel.com/
Asamādhi? I know this is not helpful! Haha! But it is a valid word found in the Suttas.John1122 wrote:Would there be an opposite to samadhi like distraction or division?
Ease of back-translation shades into an argument to leave this term untranslated altogether...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.
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.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 remember that thread & thought it was a great comment: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.
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.
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: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.
In the Samadhi Sutta it seems to encompass samatha/jhana, vipassana and sati:daverupa wrote: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.Spiny Norman wrote:Has anyone suggested "mental development"? I was thinking of samadhi in terms of the 3-fold path.
Composure still seems to fit the bill, does it not? There are various wholesome ways to bracket the relevant praxis modules.Spiny Norman wrote:In the Samadhi Sutta it seems to encompass samatha/jhana, vipassana and sati:daverupa wrote: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.Spiny Norman wrote:Has anyone suggested "mental development"? I was thinking of samadhi in terms of the 3-fold path.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
I wish I knew what that meant.daverupa wrote:...bracket the relevant praxis modules.
Frame the applicable practices. Group the variables that matter. Compose (!) the mind around the pertinent themes.Spiny Norman wrote:I wish I knew what that meant.daverupa wrote:...bracket the relevant praxis modules.
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 asfrank 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.
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.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.)
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 (http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=5761)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.
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.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.
Kumara wrote: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.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.
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.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?
I realise that 'popular' is not a suitable description here. Let me rephrase:Sylvester wrote:But Bhante, what is the "popular" understanding as such?
I suppose that's true within some circles. I wrongly used "popular" here.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.
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.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.
Great, and I see that this is already well demonstrated by others, like Shankman and Shatz. I'm satisfied with that.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.
Fair enough.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.
Kumara wrote:I realise that 'popular' is not a suitable description here. Let me rephrase:Sylvester wrote:But Bhante, what is the "popular" understanding as such?
Have you had any experience of 'jhana' as it is traditionally understood these days in the orthodox Theravadin world?
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.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.
Let me ask you something: Would it be possible that what you think the suttas say is already influenced by orthodoxy?
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.How did you begin your learning about meditation? By reading the Suttas?