Your attention is basically your root sense. The sense behind your seeing, thinking, hearing, smelling etc.
Your attention is usually all boggled and agitated, so it doesn't see so good.
In samatha you de-agitate your attention. Make it calm. When it's calm you see better. Much better. Stuff that was invisible becomes visible.
Samatha is a refined form of concentration. All of the people here are pretty familiar with concentration and what it's good for. So in samatha you just take it further.
Sounds useful - do you still practice samatha meditation? If not then what made you stop?
I do not practice samatha meditation anymore. I practice a different kind of meditation now.
We basically have 2 kinds of meditation.
1) Concentrate on a thing for a while.
2) Watch sensations come and go while refraining from moving your attention in reaction to what you're watching.
I did the first for a few years. Then I did both for a few years. Now I only do the second.
Both deliver the calm but they do it differently. They also do some other stuff.
The second is trickier than the first.
> Watch sensations come and go while refraining from moving your attention in reaction to what you're watching.
This sounds like standard "mindfulness" meditation, to me.
It is. Samatha is often contrasted with vipassana in the Buddhist traditions. Samatha being calm concentration, vipassana being analytic insight meditation. "Standard mindfulness", i.e. the distillation of Theravada Buddhist insight techniques into the western mainstream, is rooted in vipassana.
However, when you learn vipassana from a religious lineage, the various teachers and monasteries have slightly different techniques and progressions of the practice from what we'd consider "standard mindfulness".
I like to call it "turning into a big fluffy cloud".
Is the second akin to zazen?
Ya.
I can recommend 2 books for those who want to try to learn, but tbh i think a retreat is still required to reach them:
Leigh Brasington reports that people he's spoken to who have studied kundalini yoga say the strong piti of the first jhana is the same as awakening the kundalini, so there's a bit of an "all roads lead to Rome" about these practices, which is encouraging.
Both authors are on dharmaseed. Worth checking them out. They're both great teachers.
Leigh is fantastic, I would also recommend Shaila Catherine's book `The Jhanas: A Practical Guide to Deep Meditative States`
Yes a good book, but I found Ajahn Brahm more accessible on the 'deep' jhana side.
But as Leigh Brasington spends a lot of time discussing, sources and teachers differ in their definitions of the jhanas. IIRC Brasington distinguishes between jhanas as described in the suttas (especially early suttas) and jhanas as described in the later commentaries like the Visuddhimagga, and he also gives a lot of attention to defining/translating the jhana factor terms in a somewhat idiosyncratic way. In this particular context, linking jhanas to specific EEG patterns, I think it's not entirely clear whether following another method would lead you to the same states visited by these Samatha Trust practitioners.
I further think that Brasington and Ajahn Brahm differ meaningfully, in that Ajahn Brahm in his "preliminary" steps actually sets a pretty high bar.
Yeah exactly, Leigh goes for what's been termed jhana-lite while Ajahn Brahm basically says if you don't see a nimita it's not legit. Maybe he's right, maybe he's just keeping it more elitist, or just swayed by the fact he's living a monastic lifestyle unlike Brasington (except on retreat), so accesses deeper states. But Leigh is no slouch and says he's been to all jhanas countless times (but also says he's not awake so...). That's the distinction he makes from those two parts of the canon, and argues that jhana lite is what the Buddha taught.
For me, either of them would be an improvement over my normal waking state, so I'm not too concerned. But yeah, it's good to be aware of both perspectives, that's why i suggested them.
Excellent
There are some great conversations and resources on r/streamentry on Reddit as well
Jhana doesn't require to achieve first stage of stream entry - but it helps build concentration fast so in some Burmese Vipassana tradition, mediators are trained in to achieve just enough samahta and move to Vipassana. Just to the point of strong samadhi and then switch to Vipassana.(Mahasi)
But in a few meditation center, first jhana needed to be attained to switch to Vipassana ( Thel inn guu and Paa Out traditions) . In one rare meditation tradition (Maung Htaung Myay Sinn), all four Rupa Jhana is trained till attained first and paractioners are given exercises and experiment with Jhana (45 days 8 hr a day meditation retreat with 30 days are full on Samahta and Jhana practices, then moves to Vipassana).
Reasons for not going fully into jhana in traditions like mahasi is because Jhana practices have addicting qualities and paractioners will be dwelled unto that. And those with addictive personality would not let go of jhana and won't practice Vipassana.
[deleted]
The author of this study Paul Dennison also wrote a book Jhana Consciousness which discusses both this work as well as giving a more religious background on the jhanas, as well as the Samatha Trust organization that teaches the form of meditation specifically used by the participants in this study.
It's nice that that the url to an article about studying mysticism with science could also be read as "Frontier Sin"
Buddhism is an organized faith that's older than Christianity, so I'd balk at calling it 'mysticism', let alone sin. This comment feels parochial.
It also has an uncomfortable track record at getting to psychological facts before psychology does; probably that head start.
The correct answer is not always the right answer
If you want to meet English-speaking monks who are dedicated to following the monastic rules, consider going to monastery in the Ajahn Chah lineage. There are others that are perfectly good (like Ajahn Brahm), but this lineage is unique in that you can find monasteries in the lineage all over the world. https://forestsangha.org/community/monasteries . This doesn't have much to do with jhanas. Just wanted to say
Try fire Kasina, it is fastest way to achieve jhana with external object. It's brute force way so a bit rough with side effects and have long lasting effects.
When I learned about meditation as a teenager, I gave it a try.
It was nice, a good way to relax.
Then one day I wondered, could I visualize a lit red candle so vividly that my brain responded as if I were actually seeing it? Not in the amorphous form of imagination but as if the nerves in my eyes were transmitting the image of the candle to my brain.
And I found that I could. Its terrifying at first, but you get used to it.
Then I wondered, if I can meditate so hard that if I can make my eyes see something that is not there, can I meditate so hard that I can make my ears hear things that are not there?
And I can.
And it is far more terrifying. Do not recommend.
It's much harder to control.
The last thing you want when you are alone in your room, deep in meditation and your whole body is humming with the fundamental note of the universe trying to summon a phantom orchestra is to hear someone say things.
That will straight up make you think you are crazy.
Just to be clear, I did check, I don't see things or hear things when I am not trying to make myself see or hear them, and otherwise I am sane enough to operate in modern society.
>Then I wondered, if I can meditate so hard that if I can make my eyes see something that is not there
Those are called Nimitta (sign) and if your samadhi is stable enough you can focus on those signs and start manipulating them.
Here is how:
Focus your mind upon it and then try to change color, turn it into nearest color of the sign you are seeing. For example if it is yellow, try to make it paler or whitter, redder, etc.
If it is successful and you can turn to any color as you will, try to make it bigger and bigger, or then make it smaller, and turn into nearest shape.
If it is circle turn it into oval, to square, etc. then zoom it into more and more till it cover whole visual scape.
There you will start experiencing the effects of jhana and otherworldly experience that can only be described by the experiencer.
Yeah that's why firekisina is not recommended by most Buddhist Vipassana meditation paractioners. Without a mentor who understands it nearby it has side effects that can make one go crazy.
Hey I've done some samatha meditation.
In samatha you do a thing with your attention.
Your attention is basically your root sense. The sense behind your seeing, thinking, hearing, smelling etc.
Your attention is usually all boggled and agitated, so it doesn't see so good.
In samatha you de-agitate your attention. Make it calm. When it's calm you see better. Much better. Stuff that was invisible becomes visible.
Samatha is a refined form of concentration. All of the people here are pretty familiar with concentration and what it's good for. So in samatha you just take it further.
Sounds useful - do you still practice samatha meditation? If not then what made you stop?
I do not practice samatha meditation anymore. I practice a different kind of meditation now.
We basically have 2 kinds of meditation.
1) Concentrate on a thing for a while.
2) Watch sensations come and go while refraining from moving your attention in reaction to what you're watching.
I did the first for a few years. Then I did both for a few years. Now I only do the second.
Both deliver the calm but they do it differently. They also do some other stuff.
The second is trickier than the first.
> Watch sensations come and go while refraining from moving your attention in reaction to what you're watching.
This sounds like standard "mindfulness" meditation, to me.
It is. Samatha is often contrasted with vipassana in the Buddhist traditions. Samatha being calm concentration, vipassana being analytic insight meditation. "Standard mindfulness", i.e. the distillation of Theravada Buddhist insight techniques into the western mainstream, is rooted in vipassana.
However, when you learn vipassana from a religious lineage, the various teachers and monasteries have slightly different techniques and progressions of the practice from what we'd consider "standard mindfulness".
I like to call it "turning into a big fluffy cloud".
Is the second akin to zazen?
Ya.
I can recommend 2 books for those who want to try to learn, but tbh i think a retreat is still required to reach them:
1. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Right-Concentration-Practical-Guide...
2. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mindfulness-Bliss-Beyond-Meditators...
Leigh Brasington reports that people he's spoken to who have studied kundalini yoga say the strong piti of the first jhana is the same as awakening the kundalini, so there's a bit of an "all roads lead to Rome" about these practices, which is encouraging.
Both authors are on dharmaseed. Worth checking them out. They're both great teachers.
Leigh is fantastic, I would also recommend Shaila Catherine's book `The Jhanas: A Practical Guide to Deep Meditative States`
Yes a good book, but I found Ajahn Brahm more accessible on the 'deep' jhana side.
But as Leigh Brasington spends a lot of time discussing, sources and teachers differ in their definitions of the jhanas. IIRC Brasington distinguishes between jhanas as described in the suttas (especially early suttas) and jhanas as described in the later commentaries like the Visuddhimagga, and he also gives a lot of attention to defining/translating the jhana factor terms in a somewhat idiosyncratic way. In this particular context, linking jhanas to specific EEG patterns, I think it's not entirely clear whether following another method would lead you to the same states visited by these Samatha Trust practitioners.
I further think that Brasington and Ajahn Brahm differ meaningfully, in that Ajahn Brahm in his "preliminary" steps actually sets a pretty high bar.
Yeah exactly, Leigh goes for what's been termed jhana-lite while Ajahn Brahm basically says if you don't see a nimita it's not legit. Maybe he's right, maybe he's just keeping it more elitist, or just swayed by the fact he's living a monastic lifestyle unlike Brasington (except on retreat), so accesses deeper states. But Leigh is no slouch and says he's been to all jhanas countless times (but also says he's not awake so...). That's the distinction he makes from those two parts of the canon, and argues that jhana lite is what the Buddha taught.
For me, either of them would be an improvement over my normal waking state, so I'm not too concerned. But yeah, it's good to be aware of both perspectives, that's why i suggested them.
Excellent
There are some great conversations and resources on r/streamentry on Reddit as well
Also this is a good video interview about the neuroscience of jhanas: https://www.youtube.com/live/G6UBx95TJbQ?si=32XvUfFwp2lVRYnm
Jhana doesn't require to achieve first stage of stream entry - but it helps build concentration fast so in some Burmese Vipassana tradition, mediators are trained in to achieve just enough samahta and move to Vipassana. Just to the point of strong samadhi and then switch to Vipassana.(Mahasi)
But in a few meditation center, first jhana needed to be attained to switch to Vipassana ( Thel inn guu and Paa Out traditions) . In one rare meditation tradition (Maung Htaung Myay Sinn), all four Rupa Jhana is trained till attained first and paractioners are given exercises and experiment with Jhana (45 days 8 hr a day meditation retreat with 30 days are full on Samahta and Jhana practices, then moves to Vipassana).
Reasons for not going fully into jhana in traditions like mahasi is because Jhana practices have addicting qualities and paractioners will be dwelled unto that. And those with addictive personality would not let go of jhana and won't practice Vipassana.
The author of this study Paul Dennison also wrote a book Jhana Consciousness which discusses both this work as well as giving a more religious background on the jhanas, as well as the Samatha Trust organization that teaches the form of meditation specifically used by the participants in this study.
It's nice that that the url to an article about studying mysticism with science could also be read as "Frontier Sin"
Buddhism is an organized faith that's older than Christianity, so I'd balk at calling it 'mysticism', let alone sin. This comment feels parochial.
It also has an uncomfortable track record at getting to psychological facts before psychology does; probably that head start.
The correct answer is not always the right answer
If you want to meet English-speaking monks who are dedicated to following the monastic rules, consider going to monastery in the Ajahn Chah lineage. There are others that are perfectly good (like Ajahn Brahm), but this lineage is unique in that you can find monasteries in the lineage all over the world. https://forestsangha.org/community/monasteries . This doesn't have much to do with jhanas. Just wanted to say
Try fire Kasina, it is fastest way to achieve jhana with external object. It's brute force way so a bit rough with side effects and have long lasting effects.
https://firekasina.org/
Edit: fixed url
When I learned about meditation as a teenager, I gave it a try.
It was nice, a good way to relax.
Then one day I wondered, could I visualize a lit red candle so vividly that my brain responded as if I were actually seeing it? Not in the amorphous form of imagination but as if the nerves in my eyes were transmitting the image of the candle to my brain.
And I found that I could. Its terrifying at first, but you get used to it.
Then I wondered, if I can meditate so hard that if I can make my eyes see something that is not there, can I meditate so hard that I can make my ears hear things that are not there?
And I can.
And it is far more terrifying. Do not recommend.
It's much harder to control.
The last thing you want when you are alone in your room, deep in meditation and your whole body is humming with the fundamental note of the universe trying to summon a phantom orchestra is to hear someone say things.
That will straight up make you think you are crazy.
Just to be clear, I did check, I don't see things or hear things when I am not trying to make myself see or hear them, and otherwise I am sane enough to operate in modern society.
>Then I wondered, if I can meditate so hard that if I can make my eyes see something that is not there
Those are called Nimitta (sign) and if your samadhi is stable enough you can focus on those signs and start manipulating them. Here is how:
Focus your mind upon it and then try to change color, turn it into nearest color of the sign you are seeing. For example if it is yellow, try to make it paler or whitter, redder, etc.
If it is successful and you can turn to any color as you will, try to make it bigger and bigger, or then make it smaller, and turn into nearest shape.
If it is circle turn it into oval, to square, etc. then zoom it into more and more till it cover whole visual scape.
There you will start experiencing the effects of jhana and otherworldly experience that can only be described by the experiencer.
Yeah that's why firekisina is not recommended by most Buddhist Vipassana meditation paractioners. Without a mentor who understands it nearby it has side effects that can make one go crazy.
https://firekasina.org/
Thanks, fixed.
(2019)
Added above. Thanks!
[flagged]