Achieving the ultimate samadhi without jhana.

[Microdose]

I’m not sure samadhi is a concept

People makes concepts to try and describe an experience

I'm referring to the concept "ultimate samadhi", but yes "samadhi" is also a concept that we use to label an experience.

Different teachings may use different words yet samadhi is one but may effect the mind differently, meaning presence or absence of sensory consciousness

In Sanskrit teachings ( which I prefer from the word Hindu, due to it being a wide ranging label, that may not have anything to do with spirituality, or Dhamma/dharma ) there are many layers to samadhi but generally put into two forms , form and formless samadhi

samprajnata , and asamprajnata, first one being an awareness of thoughts and sense perception which is aware but not attached to thoughts and senses activity/stimulation/samprajnata and asamprajnata are which is an absorption without awareness of thoughts and sensory field , also known respectively as savikalpa samadhi and nirvikalpa samadhi



I’m not sure how these would differ experientially from form jhana and formless jhana unless one is using concepts based on externals and language of teachings

Samadhi is samadhi, if you jump in a shower and get wet with your clothes on or off the water is the same, it’s mind and it’s concepts that make differentiation


To the question can one attain full samadhi without jhana and the answer is full samadhi is unconditioned from all mental and physical phenomena , it doesn’t need jhana as it’s never bound and neither comes into or out of being

If your in full samadhi nothing more needs to be done

For me at least and is backed up by the suttas and what Buddha taught is that by insight and reflection and whatever means possible that one should abide and adhere as best as possible to the noble eightfold path

For me at least words are only pointers not to be taken to literally

[pegembara]

...

... Imagine what that might be like when you know, because you've seen to the very depth of all things, that there's nothing there. That which you've taken to be consciousness, that which knows, you find that it's completely empty.

"There's nothing there" sounds very bleak for our deluded minds. Too much desolation for our selves. It's better to say "a thing is not there. That which we've taken to be a thing isn't a thing". This way it doesn't feel so doomed and depressing, I think.

Another way to put it is that it is without solidity/a mirage/a dream/empty.
A finger can feel anything other than "itself".
The eye can see anything including its reflection/image but never itself.
The sun lits up all objects other than itself. In a way, it only knows it "exists" when it lights up objects other than "itself".

In the same that "consciousness" is only apparent when there is sense experience.

"Just as if there were a roofed house or a roofed hall having windows on the north, the south, or the east. When the sun rises, and a ray has entered by way of the window, where does it land?"

"On the western wall, lord."

"And if there is no western wall, where does it land?"

"On the ground, lord."

"And if there is no ground, where does it land?"

"On the water, lord."

"And if there is no water, where does it land?"

"It does not land, lord."

"In the same way, where there is no passion for the nutriment of physical food... contact... intellectual intention... consciousness, where there is no delight, no craving, then consciousness does not land there or grow. Where consciousness does not land or grow, name-&-form does not alight. Where name-&-form does not alight, there is no growth of fabrications. Where there is no growth of fabrications, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you, has no sorrow, affliction, or despair."

— SN 12.64

[Goofaholix]

In Sanskrit teachings ( which I prefer from the word Hindu, due to it being a wide ranging label, that may not have anything to do with spirituality, or Dhamma/dharma ) there are many layers to samadhi but generally put into two forms , form and formless samadhi

I can't comment on Sanskrit teachings but in Buddhism jhana and samadhi go hand in hand and could be considered semi-synonymous, they can be used interchangeably to refer to a quality, an experience, an attainment, or just to meditation practice.

I don't think it makes sense to ask if you can "achieve ultimate samadhi without jhana", samadhi without jhana is probably at best access concentration, it's a bit like asking "can I achieve ultimate exercise without fitness"?

[Microdose]

In Sanskrit teachings ( which I prefer from the word Hindu, due to it being a wide ranging label, that may not have anything to do with spirituality, or Dhamma/dharma ) there are many layers to samadhi but generally put into two forms , form and formless samadhi

I can't comment on Sanskrit teachings but in Buddhism jhana and samadhi go hand in hand and could be considered semi-synonymous, they can be used interchangeably to refer to a quality, an experience, an attainment, or just to meditation practice.

I don't think it makes sense to ask if you can "achieve ultimate samadhi without jhana", samadhi without jhana is probably at best access concentration, it's a bit like asking "can I achieve ultimate exercise without fitness"?

There is only one way to find out