Shebop wrote:Hello all,
could you please help me to understand what is exactely meant by micca samadhi. Obviously it is a form of samadhi, so one will experience similar/same states as in sama-samadhi? Is the micca 'just' about one's intention and if - how can an unwholesome intention lead to a samadhi-state?
In my meditation yesterday something interessting happened, namely that an unwholesome wish popped up in my mind after a long period of silence. After thinking that wish, the meditation went much deeper instantly. My ability to hear stopped and after the meditation it took me a while to be able to move my body again. This state was no different from other meditation experiences I had and which were definately sama-samadhi.
The unwholesome wish and the minds response in yesterdays meditation puzzles me.
Does anyone know how the Buddha defines micca-samadhi? Does he give explanations?
Thankful for hints and help - Shebop
Micca-samadhi, or as I like to think of it, dissident focus, can be characterised as dewlling in unskilled mental states without the application of Samma-vyama, upright effort, to overcome them.
Have a look at MN108, where the mind overcome by the hindrences are wrong absorption, jhana, the four Jhanas are the standard definition of Sammasamadhi. and samadhi isn't necesarily only Jhana, Samadhi has many nuanced meanings, depending on the context, The great 40, MN117, shows that the entire path supports Samma-samadhi, the fourth Jhana can attained while walking according to one sutta (there is a thread on this question of walking anf the fourth Jhana, and I think the sutta referenced their is in MN). essentially the great 40 is a teaching upon the development of Samadhi, up until it culminates in the Jhanas, but to say before this there is no focus, samadhi, before Jhana would not take into account what is happening, the samadhi group of the path (effort, mindfulness and concentration) or the gradual path, remember samma means complete, so the parts of the path as defined in the suttas are showing what these folds in there fully developed forms.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill