Are 'Focusing' Meditations Wrong?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
User avatar
Moth
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:22 pm
Contact:

Are 'Focusing' Meditations Wrong?

Post by Moth »

My biased understanding is that achieving non-intellectual, unwavering concentration on a single object is the goal of Samadhi. In other words, ekaggata, or one-pointedness of mind. Coming from the Thai Forest tradition, this is how I have understood and practiced it, sometimes to great benefit, other times to great frustration.

There is, for example, the technique of choosing a point near the nostril tip and keeping the mind on the sensations at this point. I have found, by practicing this, that the mind eventual begins to calm down and become engrossed in this simple, seemingly bland experience. In this calming down, a sense of tranquility arises, the breath begins to become more and more pleasant and shallow, and the thought process seems to still.

I have not had the experience of this leading to any profound wisdom or understanding, just that it seems to temporarily lessen the strength of the defilements. I feel less a pull towards the sensual temptations and entanglements of the world when I practice this often. Additionally, there seems to naturally arise a sort of barrier between experience and the mind, such that experience does not as easily take hold of and overwhelm it.

Now it may be the case that here I am simply modifying my own neurotransmitters by this technique, and as such am essentially tranquilizing myself without the use of psychotropics, in a very conditional and temporary way. I do not see this explanation as contradicting the suttas, as it is often said that samadhi alone is not sufficient for release. My, perhaps misinformed, understanding of the traditional viewpoint is that one tranquilizes the mind to such an extent that it becomes malleable, and then sets about with the practice of insight, which would otherwise be, to an extent, wasted on an unmalleable mind.

However, listening recently to Ven. Nyanamoli of Hillside Hermitage, I am trying to be open-minded in his criticism that this is essentially a wrong understanding of what samadhi is, and that I am merely chasing the sensual pleasure that this technique produces. If you are not familiar with his argument, here is one example of it:



I cannot say I fully understand what he is saying, as I suspect there is a lot of existential / phenomenological context behind the concepts that he is using that I am ignorant to. My best understanding of it is that samadhi and vipassana are two aspects of the same phenomena -- sati, which he defines as recollection. That is, recollection of the proper context of ones experience, which is that it is a dependently arisen phenomena, conditioned by the five aggregates. The "I am" that appears to be perceiving, or even "focusing", is merely the last step in a causal chain of dependency. So in a sense the proper practice is learning how to make this our primary context for experience, rather than the ignorant, inverted self-first context which we are so deeply conditioned in.

So for him, samadhi is the more simple recollection / awareness of various contextual dependencies, i.e the breath, the body, death, etc. On the other hand, vipassana is the more intellection and discursive investigation of these dependencies. Now again, I may be completely misinformed and ignorant in my understanding of what he is saying. I apologize if I've misrepresented his views.

What do you think? Is this what he is saying and do you agree with it? Is there support in the sutta for these ideas?
Last edited by Moth on Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
May you be happy. May you be a peace. May you be free from suffering.
http://www.everythingspirals.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Are 'Focusing' Meditations Wrong?

Post by SDC »

Moth wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 5:08 pm ...
What do you think? Is this what he is saying and do you agree with it? Is there support in the sutta for these ideas?
In the many threads leveled at the approaches of particular teachers, it always comes down to the question of whether or not it is safe to trust what they are saying. Am I going to waste my time with this teacher? Are they going to lead me astray?

I think your approach is very responsible, Moth, because the situation could only be one of two when it comes to deciding whether or not a teacher is worthy of consideration: either you're a sotapanna and have the capability of knowing for a fact whether or not their views are right, or you aren't a sotapanna and aren't sure. Since you've told us you're the latter, there is only one way to find out. Certainly you can, and should, ask whether or not others agree, or whether the suttas back up their interpretations --- Ven. Nanavira, Ajahn N. Nanamoli, Buddhadasa, Nanananda, etc., have all taken a lot of heat on this forum for their views, but it doesn't take anything more than simple intellect to comprehend the fact that their views are not in line with the Theravadin orthodoxy's interpretation of the suttas. That part is easy to prove and is irrelevant when it comes down to actually trying to practice what they are teaching - at some point you simply have to test the waters of your immediate experience to see what happens.

It isn't a secret that I follow Ajahn N. Nyanamoli's work very closely, but I'm long past the days where I'm willing to argue on behalf of it. That is not to say I wouldn't discuss his ideas at all, but I'm just another dude on the internet. What you are personally looking for in this practice is all that matters and the instructions of a particular teacher are either going to inspire you to take them more seriously or not. Trust yourself to make appropriate choices when it comes to who to listen to.

Having said all that, Ven. Thaniyo painstakingly puts together synopses of many of the talks and those can be found on the Hillside Hermitage Podcast page on Telegram. In those you will find many of the suttas referenced in the talks. As time goes on it gets easier to cross-reference what any teacher is saying with the suttas. Just go on to suttacentral's search function and dig until your fingers bleed. :lol:
Inedible
Posts: 953
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2020 12:55 am
Location: Iowa City

Re: Are 'Focusing' Meditations Wrong?

Post by Inedible »

The moment of becoming a Stream Enterer has to be free from the five hindrances. This was often noted as part of a teaching while it was given. Listening to Dhamma is good. And Samadhi is helpful for creating those intervals free from the five hindrances. It just isn't enough by itself. The mind still has to be examining Dhamma. I often find that spending time listening to some good recordings of Dhamma talks feels great. It makes me wish I could feel like that when I sit to try to meditate.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Are 'Focusing' Meditations Wrong?

Post by Sam Vara »

Moth wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 5:08 pm My biased understanding is that achieving non-intellectual, unwavering concentration on a single object is the goal of Samadhi. In other words, ekaggata, or one-pointedness of mind. Coming from the Thai Forest tradition, this is how I have understood and practiced it, sometimes to great benefit, other times to great frustration.
Yes, to some extent your experience is similar to mine, so at least I know where you are coming from.
There is, for example, the technique of choosing a point near the nostril tip and keeping the mind on the sensations at this point. I have found, by practicing this, that the mind eventual begins to calm down and become engrossed in this simple, seemingly bland experience. In this calming down, a sense of tranquility arises, the breath begins to become more and more pleasant and shallow, and the thought process seems to still.
There are still some similarities here, but an important difference. After some years of practising with a similar technique, the process of becoming engrossed can be extremely pleasant. The "seemingly bland" experience turns out, as the mind calms down and the focus becomes more consistent, to be one of enormous happiness. Sometimes, a visual nimitta appears, and the person teaching me is trying to get me to work with this. Because this phase hasn't yet hit a plateau, and still seems to hold the promise of further development, I am motivated to push this still further to see what it holds.
I have not had the experience of this leading to any profound wisdom or understanding, just that it seems to temporarily lessen the strength of the defilements. I feel less a pull towards the sensual temptations and entanglements of the world when I practice this often. Additionally, there seems to naturally arise a sort of barrier between experience and the mind, such that experience does not as easily take hold of and overwhelm it.
Likewise, no wisdom or understanding, but a degree of confidence in my ability to master a process that other people have seemingly mapped out, and to gain some control over my mind. My view is that this may in itself lead to something more readily identified as wisdom.
My, perhaps misinformed, understanding of the traditional viewpoint is that one tranquilizes the mind to such an extent that it becomes malleable, and then sets about with the practice of insight, which would otherwise be, to an extent, wasted on an unmalleable mind.
I've had exactly the same viewpoint spelt out to me, with the analogy changed from malleability to stillness; that one is more easily able to see things as they really are with a mind that does not shake and quiver with defilements. It might be, of course, that this process will lead, as some say, to a dead end. That the mind will simply sink into a tranquil comfortable state, and one will miss out on, or even become unable to muster, the wisdom required to take the next step. But my teacher emphasises that one must get concentration a lot sharper than you think, in order to really work with it. The simile he uses is trying to cut down the tree (attaining wisdom/insight) with a small blunt knife (i.e. concentration). It takes ages, and is painful and frustrating. Better to spend thirty years on forging an axe which is hefty and really sharp, and then spend a relatively short time cutting down the tree.

He asked me whether all those people I know who have spent 30 or 40 years doing "vipassana" meditation are in fact all that impressive. And I have to agree with him that it seems like a poor return on effort. He says that their progress is "OK" because even trying to focus on whatever they have been told to, does in fact build up some degree of concentration, but not anywhere near as well as the one-pointedness you describe.

In this, I stress I am not disparaging any other type of meditation. It is very likely that one's decision is made on the basis of how persuasive someone appears to be; and what other experiences one has had (internal, and of other people's apparent results. I met Goenka once, and was mightily impressed!) And Ven. Nyanamoli does articulate his case very cogently.

My advice is to follow your heart on this one. But is there necessarily any conflict between calming the mind as much as possible, and at other times meditating so as to understand how the experiencing subject is dependent upon the various factors of experience?

Either way, I wish you the best with your meditation and thanks for an interesting topic.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Are 'Focusing' Meditations Wrong?

Post by mikenz66 »

Moth wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 5:08 pm What do you think? Is this what he is saying and do you agree with it? Is there support in the sutta for these ideas?
I have put a little bit of effort into listening to and reflecting on some of Ven N. Nanamoli's talks. Please bear in mind that this post is about general impressions, not a discussion of specifics.

As I said elsewhere (in this thread about "Focusing like an Owl": viewtopic.php?f=13&t=40549), I think that there is certainly sutta support for his approach to practising. What is much less clear is that there is sutta support for negating all other possible approaches. I would also say that (in my rather vague understanding) the aim of what he's advocating is actually not so different from the aim of the approaches of other teachers. In rather general and imprecise terms, what he seems to me to be advocating is what other teachers might refer to as "open awareness" or "choiceless awareness". For many of them, this something one drops into after having calmed and trained the mind. Ven N. Nanamoli seems to take more of a Zen Shikantaza appoach - or perhaps a Nike approach - just do it.

In any case, I don't recall anyone teaching that the point of practice is to get really good at focusing on some particular object. I think that the message is to understand, and become disenchanted with, what is being fabricated.

:heart:
Mike
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22395
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Are 'Focusing' Meditations Wrong?

Post by Ceisiwr »

Moth wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 5:08 pm ...
For stream-entry or once-return it isn't required to have any Jhāna at all. Only access concentration, where the Jhāna factors are weak. For non-return or Arahantship it is necessary. The Jhāna are absorbed states, where there is attention to 1 perception and 1 perception only. "Focusing" isn't wrong. It's an essential part of the path. Keep virtue, maintain mindfulness and clear comprehension, sit down, keep the place where the wind element touches the body in mind and abandon the remaining traces of the hindrances. The mind will become ever still, ever more peaceful and ever more blissful and the sign of samādhi will appear. Then your work truly begins.

One person perceives the wind kasiṇa above, below, across, non-dual, measureless.
Attachments
samadhi.jpg
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22395
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Are 'Focusing' Meditations Wrong?

Post by Ceisiwr »

Moth wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 5:08 pm and that I am merely chasing the sensual pleasure that this technique produces.
The underlying tendency to lust does not underlie the otherworldly rapture and pleasure that comes with absorption (MN 44). If, upon leaving it, and after some insight, you still then crave for more then this is the state of being a non-returner. Not a bad place to be ;)
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sat Jun 19, 2021 2:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22395
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Are 'Focusing' Meditations Wrong?

Post by Ceisiwr »

It is only through experiencing the otherworldly rapture and bliss that comes with absorption, or "focusing meditations", that one can overcome lust for sensual objects which is one of the fetters. Bhante seems confused on this matter.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 3072
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: Are 'Focusing' Meditations Wrong?

Post by Pondera »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 1:59 am
Moth wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 5:08 pm ...
For stream-entry or once-return it isn't required to have any Jhāna at all. Only access concentration, where the Jhāna factors are weak. For non-return or Arahantship it is necessary. The Jhāna are absorbed states, where there is attention to 1 perception and 1 perception only. "Focusing" isn't wrong. It's an essential part of the path. Keep virtue, maintain mindfulness and clear comprehension, sit down, keep the place where the wind element touches the body in mind and abandon the remaining traces of the hindrances. The mind will become ever still, ever more peaceful and ever more blissful and the sign of samādhi will appear. Then your work truly begins.

One person perceives the wind kasiṇa above, below, across, non-dual, measureless.
Oh really? Then the work truly begins?

The Upanisa Sutta says that samadhi is the prerequisite for knowledge and vision of things as they really are.

How do you interpret the role of samadhi born of jhana in establishing said knowledge?

And have you ever accomplished any of those things? Or are you speaking from a theoretical stand point?
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22395
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Are 'Focusing' Meditations Wrong?

Post by Ceisiwr »

Pondera wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 2:21 am
The Upanisa Sutta says that samadhi is the prerequisite for knowledge and vision of things as they really are.
Yes.
How do you interpret the role of samadhi born of jhana in establishing said knowledge?
Absorb > leave > review > insight > wisdom
And have you ever accomplished any of those things? Or are you speaking from a theoretical stand point?
It's not much helpful to discuss such things on the internet. That said, I have had my own experiences and insights. The indescribable experience of the stilled mind, the indescribable tranquility, electrifying rapture and soothing happiness. Lightning in the mind. Flashes of complete illumination. Pure light. The bright mind. I should stress this wasn't Jhāna. It was access. With such insight I know that normal thinking does not occur in Jhāna, since said thinking disturbs this tranquility. That you do not think about the meditation, but that deep meditation in Buddhadhamma only really begins when you let go of and tranquilise all thoughts. That thoughts are not-self. A fabrication. A ripple on the pond. That there can be no insight whilst in Jhāna, that Jhāna-lite isn't the way. This experience completely invigorated my trust in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Noble Sangha and made me absolutely convinced of the truth of what the Blessed One taught and and that the Theras of old should be listened to.
Attachments
lightening.jpg
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Srilankaputra
Posts: 1210
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:56 am
Location: Sri Lanka

Re: Are 'Focusing' Meditations Wrong?

Post by Srilankaputra »

Problems with language.

Let me use 'focus' in a more positive sense.

Focus means having the freedom to engage in the work at hand, explore where it leads.

Focus means collecting the dispersed mental energies in to a powerful force.

Focus means the nature of an undistracted mind.

Wish you all success in all your endeavours. Goodbye!
User avatar
Moth
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Are 'Focusing' Meditations Wrong?

Post by Moth »

I emailed Ven. Nyanamoli to double check if my representation was correct. He replied:

"That's not quite accurate representation, but for someone not familiar with our take on samadhi, it's not too wrong either. You can boil the entire thing down to Sammaditthi sutta where it is said that there is no right samadhi without the right view being developed beforehand. The right view cannot be developed through wrong samadhi practice, but at the same time one cannot know what the right samadhi is without the right view.

There is of course a lot more that can be said about this, which we did in many of our talks on YouTube. So if you are interested in learning more about it go through the talks that are in "Meditation" and "Jhana" playlists."
May you be happy. May you be a peace. May you be free from suffering.
http://www.everythingspirals.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
form
Posts: 3471
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:23 am

Re: Are 'Focusing' Meditations Wrong?

Post by form »

Moth wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 5:46 am I emailed Ven. Nyanamoli to double check if my representation was correct. He replied:

"That's not quite accurate representation, but for someone not familiar with our take on samadhi, it's not too wrong either. You can boil the entire thing down to Sammaditthi sutta where it is said that there is no right samadhi without the right view being developed beforehand. The right view cannot be developed through wrong samadhi practice, but at the same time one cannot know what the right samadhi is without the right view.

There is of course a lot more that can be said about this, which we did in many of our talks on YouTube. So if you are interested in learning more about it go through the talks that are in "Meditation" and "Jhana" playlists."
He gave a good reply. Meditation on object is not wrong. Without right view is when a meditation can go wrong.
User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 3072
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: Are 'Focusing' Meditations Wrong?

Post by Pondera »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 2:34 am
Pondera wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 2:21 am
The Upanisa Sutta says that samadhi is the prerequisite for knowledge and vision of things as they really are.
Yes.
How do you interpret the role of samadhi born of jhana in establishing said knowledge?
Absorb > leave > review > insight > wisdom
You and I both know we’ve argued the “leave > review” point. I disagree. But Bhante Dhammanando does not. Then again the suttas (MN 111 for example) also disagree.
And have you ever accomplished any of those things? Or are you speaking from a theoretical stand point?
It's not much helpful to discuss such things on the internet.
In fact, I find what you say quite poetic and visually stimulating. I have a new appreciation for your practice. I too live in a light. The light of “disenchantment”. A luminous state where the body glows.
That said, I have had my own experiences and insights. The indescribable experience of the stilled mind, the indescribable tranquility, electrifying rapture and soothing happiness. Lightning in the mind. Flashes of complete illumination. Pure light. The bright mind. I should stress this wasn't Jhāna. It was access. With such insight I know that normal thinking does not occur in Jhāna, since said thinking disturbs this tranquility. That you do not think about the meditation, but that deep meditation in Buddhadhamma only really begins when you let go of and tranquilise all thoughts. That thoughts are not-self. A fabrication. A ripple on the pond. That there can be no insight whilst in Jhāna, that Jhāna-lite isn't the way. This experience completely invigorated my trust in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Noble Sangha and made me absolutely convinced of the truth of what the Blessed One taught and and that the Theras of old should be listened to.
There is nothing quite like conviction; like faith in the Buddha; the Dhamma.

I have my own faith and conviction.

However, we diverge. I live at moments where my mind is utterly silent - and yet this is not samadhi for me.

Do you perhaps mean “perturbations in consciousness” when you speak of stirrings of thought?

I suppose Bhante Dhammanando is bound by vinaya not to speak of his experiences. A shame, perhaps 🤔
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
User avatar
Dhamma Chameleon
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:55 am

Re: Are 'Focusing' Meditations Wrong?

Post by Dhamma Chameleon »

mikenz66 wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 10:26 pm
Moth wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 5:08 pm What do you think? Is this what he is saying and do you agree with it? Is there support in the sutta for these ideas?
I have put a little bit of effort into listening to and reflecting on some of Ven N. Nanamoli's talks. Please bear in mind that this post is about general impressions, not a discussion of specifics.

As I said elsewhere (in this thread about "Focusing like an Owl": viewtopic.php?f=13&t=40549), I think that there is certainly sutta support for his approach to practising. What is much less clear is that there is sutta support for negating all other possible approaches. I would also say that (in my rather vague understanding) the aim of what he's advocating is actually not so different from the aim of the approaches of other teachers.
For what it's worth, I agree with this assessment.
Post Reply