signless concentration vs emptiness

General discussion of issues related to Theravada Meditation, e.g. meditation postures, developing a regular sitting practice, skillfully relating to difficulties and hindrances, etc.

Re: signless concentration vs emptiness

Postby chandrafabian » Wed Aug 25, 2010 3:05 pm

mikenz66 wrote:Hi ChandraFabian
chandrafabian wrote:I just know nimitta as perception of light in mind. Is feeling that arises is nimitta?

Nimitta is used all over the Suttas, often translated as "sign". The samadhi nimittas ("sign of concentration") are seem to be only mentioned explicitly in teh commentaries. And they don't have to be visual, they can be tactile, etc.
http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Bud ... tm#nimitta
Nimitta: mark, sign; image; target, object; cause, condition. These meanings are used in, and adapted to, many contexts of which only the doctrinal ones are mentioned here.

1. 'Mental reflex-image', obtained in meditation. In full clarity, it will appear in the mind by successful practice of certain concentration-exercises and will then appear as vividly as if seen by the eye. The object perceived at the very beginning of concentration is called the preparatory image parikamma-nimitta The still unsteady and unclear image, which arises when the mind has reached a weak degree of concentration, is called the acquired image uggaha-nimitta An entirely clear and immovable image arising at a higher degree of concentration is the counter-image patibhāga-nimitta As soon as this image arises, the stage of neighbourhood or access concentration upacāra-samādhi is reached. For further details, see: kasina, samādhi.

2. 'Sign of previous kamma' kamma-nimitta and 'sign of the future destiny' gati-nimitta these arise as mental objects of the last kammic consciousness before death maranāsanna-kamma see: kamma, III, 3.

Usages 1 and 2 are commentarial see: App.. In sutta usage, the term occurs, e.g. as:

3. 'Outward appearance': of one who has sense-control it is said that he does not seize upon the general appearance' of an object na nimittaggāhī M. 38, D. 2; expl. Vis I, 54f; see sīla.

4. 'Object': the six objects, i.e. visual, etc. rūpa-nimitta a href=dic2-abbrev.htm#S. S. XXII, 3. Also, when in explanation of animitta-ceto-vimutti signless deliverance of mind see: ceto-vimutti vimokkha it is said, sabba-nimittānam amanasikārā it refers to the 6 sense-objects Com. to M. 43, and has therefore to be rendered;by paying no attention to any object or object-ideas.; - A pleasant or beautiful object subha-nimitta is a condition to the arising of the hindrance of sense-desire; a 'repellent object' patigha-nimitta for the hindrance of ill-will; contemplation on the impurity of an object asubha-nimitta see: asubha is an antidote to sense-desire.

5. In Pts.M. II, in a repetitive series of terms, nimitta appears together with uppādo origin of existence, pavattam continuity of existence, and may then be rendered by 'condition of existence' see: path, 194f..

Mike


Dear Mike, I don't see in that article saying nimitta also including tactile sensations.

Mettacittena,
fabian
chandrafabian
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:26 am

Re: signless concentration vs emptiness

Postby mikenz66 » Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:43 pm

Hi ChandrFabian,
chandrafabian wrote:Dear Mike, I don't see in that article saying nimitta also including tactile sensations.

Do you mean the "meditave sign" nimitta, or the "outward appearance" meaning? I've certainly heard people talk of "tactile nimittas", but I'm not sure if whether or not they are explicitly mentioned in in the commentaries.

Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10667
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: signless concentration vs emptiness

Postby IanAnd » Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:11 am

Do you mean the "meditative sign" nimitta, or the "outward appearance" meaning? I've certainly heard people talk of "tactile nimittas", but I'm not sure if whether or not they are explicitly mentioned in in the commentaries.

I talk about tactile nimittas all the time (in forums like this, that is). A sign is a sign, no matter how it manifests. For meditators, signs can definitely be subjective; that is, whatever works to give the intended signal. You certainly do not need some cranky third party "commentator" to validate that for you. Just pay attention to your experience and recognize whatever comes up and use it to make further progress. Signs serve one purpose: to signal you whether you are doing something right or whether you are doing something wrong. Once you know one way or the other, you can either do more of the something right and continue on, or stop and take corrective action to correct the something wrong. Either way, it's just a sign, nothing more nor nothing less.

:focus: Which is: what is the difference between the signless concentration and perception of emptiness?
"The gift of truth exceeds all other gifts" — Dhammapada, v. 354 Craving XXIV
User avatar
IanAnd
 
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:19 am
Location: the deserts of Arizona

Re: signless concentration vs emptiness

Postby chandrafabian » Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:50 am

mikenz66 wrote:Hi ChandrFabian,
chandrafabian wrote:Dear Mike, I don't see in that article saying nimitta also including tactile sensations.

Do you mean the "meditave sign" nimitta, or the "outward appearance" meaning? I've certainly heard people talk of "tactile nimittas", but I'm not sure if whether or not they are explicitly mentioned in in the commentaries.

Mike


Dear Mikenz,
Yes, I mean sign is mental image (nimitta), there were three kinds of nimitta, Parikamma, Uggaha and Patibhaga nimitta. So signs (nimitta) is related to seeing sensation.

Mettacittena,
fabian
chandrafabian
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:26 am

Previous

Return to Theravada Meditation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests