Mike, Joe and Bill,
In the literature on Zen, is the necessity of 'samadhi' ever emphasized by Zen masters? Is samadhi none other than the non-dual state? Is samadhi a more mature state of satori? --ED " Samadhi in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and yogic schools is a higher level of concentrated meditation, or dhyÄna. In the yoga tradition, it is the eighth and final limb identified in the Yoga SÅ«tras of Patañjali. It has been described as a non-dualistic state of consciousness in which the consciousness of the experiencing subject becomes one with the experienced object, and in which the mind becomes still, one-pointed or concentrated while the person remains conscious. In Buddhism, it can also refer to an abiding in which mind becomes very still but does not merge with the object of attention, and is thus able to observe and gain insight into the changing flow of experience." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samadhi <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samadhi> --- In [email protected], mike brown <uerusuboyo@...> wrote: > > Joe, > > > I think that the ability to enter samadhi strengthens any insight gained from kensho/satori. Without it, awakening is fleeting because any insight is much weaker. > > Samadhi allows us to experience the mind in its pure state for significant periods of time, rather than just mind-moments. This can then give us a better idea of 'where to be' when outside events threaten to over whelm us. I notice in western Zen that the older, more Buddha-inspired, teachings are looked down on as unnecessary/superflous and the 'Just This!' view is over-emphasized. Could this be a result of the western propensity to want things the easy way? I know people here will probably say that it is easy and it's just selling water by the river (and other too cute by half platitudes), but there were reasons why early Buddhism taught what it taught. Anyone can sit on a sofa and say 'Just This!' - even tho it is Just This! (tip of the hat to Bill!). > > Mike
