Why not do anapanasati and thereby do both? Samatha and vipassana complement each other in the pursuit of samadhi.DorjePhurba wrote:Could anyone offer any advice because I'm not sure how to make a good decision here?
Metta,
Retro.
Why not do anapanasati and thereby do both? Samatha and vipassana complement each other in the pursuit of samadhi.DorjePhurba wrote:Could anyone offer any advice because I'm not sure how to make a good decision here?
Exactly. Not only did my Theravada teachers hold that view, but so did Trungpa Rinpoche.retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Chris,
Why not do anapanasati and thereby do both? Samatha and vipassana complement each other in the pursuit of samadhi.DorjePhurba wrote:Could anyone offer any advice because I'm not sure how to make a good decision here?
Metta,
Retro.
What do you mean by samadhi?retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Chris,
Why not do anapanasati and thereby do both? Samatha and vipassana complement each other in the pursuit of samadhi.DorjePhurba wrote:Could anyone offer any advice because I'm not sure how to make a good decision here?
Metta,
Retro
As per this...tiltbillings wrote:What do you mean by samadhi?
In other words:retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
As per this...tiltbillings wrote:What do you mean by samadhi?
AN 4.41: Samadhi Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Metta,
Retro.
Or what is called in the Mahasi Sayadaw/U Pandita tradition vipassana jhanas.Kenshou wrote:But the suttic/earlier jhana most likely is not a state of complete absorption, completely secluded from the senses and thrown into a trance. It's a practical method of calming and sharpening the mind in order to utilize it for the gaining of insight, as well as helping to wean the mind off of sensual pleasures and help dull the emotional aspect of dukkha, and with this calm clear mind, work on the wisdom that will get rid of the root causes of dukkha as well, which can be done while in the jhana (Look at the Anupada Sutta for an example of Sariputta doing just that). In other words, samatha and vipassana can be practiced in tandem, no need for the split.
In theory, yes, and I'm not trying to be confusing or contradictory. I'm just going through a period right now where I'm noticing that antidotes/techniques etc. seem to be of secondary importance to the time spent meditating and ones actions (sila) outside of meditation. Granted, I'm not a great example of either lately.DorjePhurba wrote:
Meindzai, I would say that what medotation style you choose carries quite a bit of importance because it really determines which way your practice will go. If you are trying to attain jhana, then you need to keep your mind focused on an object and to be mindful of any hindrances. Should any arise, then the meditator applys the antidotes to get rid of them.
Depends upon what you mean by jhana. As this thread, itself shows, there is a wide variety of opinions as to what jhana means and as to how it used, as this link http://www.leighb.com/jhanantp.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; shows. The question becomes whose model of the jhanas do you follow? If you question the Visuddhimagga, then you probably would not want to follow those who use that model.DorjePhurba wrote: I think the main thing that has confused me is the tradition of the Vissudimagga. I just don't see that as something that conforms with the suttas.
I have heard that from a number of people, including really old, traditionally educated Thai monks. Is it from the Visuddhimagga? Don't know, but don't think so. Interestingly it was a direct student and approved teacher of Mahasi Sayadaw that taught me jhana, and he stated that jhana meditation was not lost;' rather, the level of concentration necessary for insight does not require the full one-pointedness of concentration that increasingly blocks out thoughts and bodily sensations. Certainly that kind of practice is possible and can be useful.It seems that is the main reason why people do not practice jhana more. People are told its basically out of reach for them, which seems to be untrue.
I believe the idea of vipassana jhanas comes from Ven U Pandita, Mahasi Saydaw’s direct successor. Take a look at chapters 26 and 27 in this book by Ven U Pandita: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/path-free.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;I'm curious though as to whether the vipassana jhanas could he considered the same as the suttic jhanas. Could anyone provide any insight? (no pun intended)
In the vipassana practice of the Mahasi Sayadaw traditions, one needs not “focus on the three marks of existence in each thought”; rather, one simply watches the rise and fall of whatever comes into awareness. As U Pandita shows in his book, this can develop a considerable level of concentration, but it is one that allows the nature of experience to be seen without the application conceptual structures.If one were doing Vipassana alone, then a person might focus on the three marks of existence in each thought thay arises rather than focus on one thought. Both have their usefulness, but I think lead to different places.
Thank you, he said blushing.jcsuperstar wrote:tilt, i always value your contributions, your erudition never ceases to amaze me.