Samadhi without sila?
-
Individual
- Posts: 1970
- Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am
Re: Samadhi without sila?
Thank you, Ven. Yuttadhammo.
-
Individual
- Posts: 1970
- Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am
Re: Samadhi without sila?
In conventional terms, "right concentration" means samadhi with sila. People should not say, for instance, that concentrating deeply in order to perform immoral acts is the same thing as Buddhist concentration. Angulimala, before he was an Arahant, was an example of wrong samadhi, directed towards killing people rather than helping others attain liberation.
However, in ultimate terms, this no longer applies to the Buddha or the Arahant, because there is concentration but there is no concentrating person upon which wholesome and unwholesome tendencies can sit. In this sense, the Buddha can concentrate to do whatever he wishes; if his concentration were bound to do this or that, to be directed in this or that way, it would not be called unconditioned, it would not be liberation. Instead it would still simply be conditioned action and conditioned rebirth.
Perhaps then one could make the distinction between conventional samadhi and noble or supreme samadhi. In supreme samadhi, sila is irrelevant because there are no actors and no actions, only bodhi. At the same time, with supreme samadhi there is supreme sila; not "attachment to rites and rituals" (like precepts) but skillful and virtuous actions born of mindfulness, which do not require the unnecessary burden of being consciously named. Supreme sila is not spoken, but when it is performed and observed by others, it is extraordinarily beautiful in its resilience. In supreme sila and supreme samadhi, there is no meaningful distinction between the practices of sila and samadhi. In this supreme way, meditation itself is a skillful action (of sitting down or merely impersonal observation while carrying out daily activity) and skillful acts are carried out because of right concentration (the real meditation is when you are engaged in overcoming hindrances which is all the time, not merely when sitting).
However, in ultimate terms, this no longer applies to the Buddha or the Arahant, because there is concentration but there is no concentrating person upon which wholesome and unwholesome tendencies can sit. In this sense, the Buddha can concentrate to do whatever he wishes; if his concentration were bound to do this or that, to be directed in this or that way, it would not be called unconditioned, it would not be liberation. Instead it would still simply be conditioned action and conditioned rebirth.
Perhaps then one could make the distinction between conventional samadhi and noble or supreme samadhi. In supreme samadhi, sila is irrelevant because there are no actors and no actions, only bodhi. At the same time, with supreme samadhi there is supreme sila; not "attachment to rites and rituals" (like precepts) but skillful and virtuous actions born of mindfulness, which do not require the unnecessary burden of being consciously named. Supreme sila is not spoken, but when it is performed and observed by others, it is extraordinarily beautiful in its resilience. In supreme sila and supreme samadhi, there is no meaningful distinction between the practices of sila and samadhi. In this supreme way, meditation itself is a skillful action (of sitting down or merely impersonal observation while carrying out daily activity) and skillful acts are carried out because of right concentration (the real meditation is when you are engaged in overcoming hindrances which is all the time, not merely when sitting).
-
rowyourboat
- Posts: 1952
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
- Location: London, UK
Re: Samadhi without sila?
Hi Individual
If you want to write your own 'pali' cannon, be my guest. Some of us actually feel that we do not know everything.
Good luck.
Matheesha
If you want to write your own 'pali' cannon, be my guest. Some of us actually feel that we do not know everything.
Good luck.
Matheesha
With Metta
Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha