Samādhi - a simple definition

Here's a very simple way to understand samādhi.

Think of a sentence as subject, verb/activity, and object.

I - meditate upon - something.

Initially, there is awareness or consciousness of all three parts. Then, one loses consciousness of the subject. Work/activity/thought gets done unselfconsciously. Then, if one is sitting with closed eyes, one loses consciousness of the activity also. What is left is awareness only of the object. This is a simple idea of samādhi.

 

Since one's mind is not used to systematically or regularly doing this, it keeps jumping around the three parts. Much like falling asleep though, even meditation, let alone samādhi, does not occur by doing something, but by relaxing and letting go of activities.

 

dhāraṅa - dhyāna - samādhi form a progression of states. [1] One might say all three (I, meditate, object) are present in dhāraṅa, only two (meditate, object) in dhyāna, and only one (object) in samādhi. [2]

 

NOTES

[1] In the Kūrma Purāṅa, as quoted by Sw. Vivekananda in Raja Yoga, dhāraṅa is a thought that lasts 12 seconds, dhyāna 12x12 or 144 seconds, and samādhi 12x12x12 or 1728 seconds or 28 minutes.

 

[2] samādhi, according to PYS, is not just one state or epiphany. Depending on the type of object and the type of mental activity, it is of multiple types. This is probably why it is widely misunderstood.

Losing one's identity

To continue with the floating up metaphor from Why meditate?, if one's body becomes vaporous to the point where the skin is also gas, wouldn't wind and other physical forces in the sky dissipate it? Wouldn't one's identity get lost?

Yes, that is possible or can definitely be imagined.

So, by analogy, what about losing one's mind or sanity when it goes to subtler and subtler levels?

There are a few traditional reassurances regarding spiritual practice.

One, if subtler levels are reached by one's own volition through relaxation, without chemical or other means that overwhelm the brain's natural processes [1], that will not happen. It is like walking to a strange place versus being taken there in a windowless vehicle.

Two, if one's mind is guided by someone to different levels, that same person will guide it back. [2]

Three, subtler states without jealous individuation or sharp separation from others are more natural, or sane, than our usual fear and other negative emotions-ridden states. In other words, so what if you lose your self? You have gained your Self!

NOTES

[1] Hence the injunction in spiritual paths to avoid alcohol and drugs. The clarity, peace, affection, and joy in subtler mental states far outweigh the relaxation, stupor, and carefree feeling that come with alcohol.

[2] How, or even if, this happens is a matter of experience.

Why meditate?

Why meditate?

Or, why do spiritual practice at all?

One interesting reason is, to evolve one's mind to subtler levels, to expand its capabilities. A different perspective, somewhat complementary, is to prevent one's mind from atrophying, from losing its ability to sustain subtle, but simple, thoughts. The dynamic nature of the mind means it either progresses or regresses.

Let me try to explain with a simple model of a human being [1]

 

I           E

N    D

SI

--------

M    D

IN

--------

BODY

--------

OUTSIDE

Humans are primarily distinguished by their ability to think, to use, more than other species, that part of themselves which is not physical, the non-body. But, like other species, humans also naturally learn and share their knowledge with their own species.

So, thinking is natural to the mind, the non-physical part of a human being.

What kind of thinking does the mind do? Consider these four types of increasingly subtle thoughts, about what is outside the physical body, about the physical body itself, about what is inside the body - the mind - itself, and lastly, about other mental concepts inside the mind. [2]

The mind is constantly thinking. But it may or may not be aware of its own activity. If one observes one's thoughts, the vast majority of them - in frequency, duration, and intensity - are about the outside. Fewer are about the body, and even fewer about the mind. Very rarely are our thoughts about the inside. Conceptual thoughts, yes, but again about the outside - the world and other people. And, if at all about oneself, thoughts about oneself in relation (and usually negative at that) to others.

Consider this analogy. A diver can sink naturally to a certain depth just by body weight. Using momentum - by diving - one can go deeper. Once the buoyant force of water matches the body weight, the diver stays, or is held, at that depth. Greater depths can be reached by increasing one's weight, by holding a boulder, as done by pearl divers, for example.

Imagine the opposite situation, floating or diving up into the sky. Instead of increasing weight, one has to reduce weight to counteract gravity. One can  float up to even greater heights naturally by converting the solid matter of one's body to gaseous matter.

Now, consider thoughts in the mind.

Thoughts about the body are heavier or grosser than the lighter or subtler thoughts about the mind itself. Thoughts about concrete material things outside the body are similarly grosser. Thoughts about ideas and concepts, and about the inside of the mind, are subtler.

Think about energy.

How much energy is needed by mentally to contemplate changing the position of a window in a room? How much energy is needed by one's mind and body to physically make the change?

Obviously, thinking is subtler than physical action.

Extend the idea of reduction in energy to subtlety of thoughts. A subtler thought should require less energy than a grosser thought. Or, if that may be tough to swallow, a simpler idea should require less energy than a complex one. As one's thoughts go to subtler and subtler levels [3] inside, less and less energy is needed. Not less time, but less energy.

But, like one's physical solidity having to become physical vapour to float higher in the sky, one's thoughts have to become lighter to reach more subtle levels. It is easy to understand or imagine that more and more relaxation of one's mind is needed to have subtler and subtler thoughts. So, the opposite and generally-accepted idea, that spiritual practice - or subtle thinking - must be mentally strenuous is axiomatically wrong. Research [4] has validated this assumption.

Reaching simpler or subtler levels of thought requires not just a relaxed mind, but also time. And thus patience. [5]

Finally, habit. If one has never or rarely thought at a subtle level, what are the chances one will do so? Once habituated to thinking only at a particular gross level, or to particular types of thought, one's mind continues that type of activity. Habits, after all, can comfort and give emotional support. But, the nice thing about the mind is its plasticity - it gets used to thinking at simpler and subtler levels also very easily. It just needs time to relax without nagging!

NOTES

[1] A sad attempt (!) at showing arcs of concentric circles, from smaller to larger:

inside -> mind -> body -> outside.

[2] The concept of something beyond the mind, which the mind cannot and will never be able to grasp, is not considered here.

[3] At subtler and subtler or deeper and deeper levels inside, attributes and concepts become simpler, with minimal details. E.g., at the subtlest conceptual level of a principle common to everything is simple be-ing, or existence, in philosophical terms. Another example - in Advaita, Brahman is described using only three words - existence, consciousness, bliss.

[4] See brief note on Krishna and Buddha in Spiritual Illiteracy

[5] Imagine a wildlife photographer. She may have to wait for days or weeks in the jungle for the animal to show up, be visible long enough, and also when there is sufficient light to get a decent shot! Fortunately, such external circumstances are not needed in meditation.

Spiritual illiteracy

Scientific illiteracy is a problem, in India particularly, due to rote learning. My understanding of science boils down to the idea that shallow/direct/surface-level models or theories need not be valid. A simple example - eating fat causes fat build-up in the body. The idea seems commonsensical, but it is not supported by research, after removing confounding factors. Such as eating other things and not just fat alone. Or changing one's usual diet while adding fat to it. One cannot then pinpoint the cause of fat gain. An illiterate might even argue that I am making the opposite statement - eating fat reduces fat build-up in the body! In science, statements should be made carefully, especially those subject to research.

Spiritual illiteracy, or functional spiritual illiteracy, is more a problem outside India. [1] Here again, there are misleading ideas due to the complexity of the domain. E.g., atheistic/agnostic scientists may think that random life events are better than purposeful or directed events. Or, thinking distractedly and unstoppably is normal, so strenuous effort is needed to focus or be free of thoughts. At a higher or subtler level is the idea that one should focus on competing with others to improve, or that life is a zero-sum game - I win only when others fail.

 

Especially pernicious is an idea popular in gym culture - no pain, no gain. This has led to absurd physical and mental "spiritual" practices, debunked millenia ago by Lord Krishna and the Buddha, who said that moderation is most effective for spiritual progress. [2] In a more recent example, Daaji's definition of spiritual meditation as "effortless focus on an infinite object" was an eye-opener - more relaxation than stressing is needed during spiritual practice.

Most theories in spirituality have not been put to experimental verification with large numbers of people. A huge confounding factor is the idea of faith in others, supposedly better or higher in some way. Chariji had said that faith should come after first, belief - based on experience, and then, trust. Much like reasoned brand loyalty in business.

There are strict experimental paths - Heartfulness Way/Sahaj Marg is one - which ask practitioners to validate their spiritual journey based on, first their own experiences, second, their inferences, deductions and predictions, based again on their own experiences and theories, and only third, on what was said by the Guides.

A certain level of guidance or training is however needed to observe one's own experiences. Some of that is needed to set expectations - absolute peace or extreme bliss, in the very first sitting, is unlikely. And some again to change the way one observes - like describing and comparing the mental condition before and after, instead of only during, the meditation. [3]

 

Invariably, though, a difference is felt after a session when introspection is done at various levels. [4] People may not report it to others, like trainers, for various reasons. But if they acknowledge it to themselves, and find that similar effects occur in their solo practice, they may be interested enough to explore further.

 

Spiritual literacy, then, is more about learning to observe in a relaxed and interested way than indulging in frenetic, often strenuous, mind-numbing exercises. It is also about developing an attitude towards an infinite journey.

NOTES

[1] Spiritual researchers have been working in India for two millennia and more. So India has a cultural understanding of valid spirituality, backed up by popular expositions of spiritual theories in storytelling form. Much like public lectures in the US.

 

[2] The Buddha is well-known for having done harsh physical practices, dropping them as ineffective, and getting enlightenment. Lord Krishna's instructions, or arguably Vyasa's, on yoga sadhana in the Gita come after many years, possibly centuries, of difficult practices based on hints in the Vedas.

 

[3] This idea makes sense only if one understands that meditation can also be a cleaning session, and so the effect of cleaning is more important than the stuff coming up during cleaning.

 

[4] One way for systematic observation after a session - check how the heart feels, generally in the chest area; check the mind, generally in the head area; all the joints of the body, including the spine.

Another way - observe how you felt physically, emotionally (mood), mentally (thoughts) - before, during, after. Did your subjective time match the clock time? How were your thoughts? More, less, zero, the same? Jumpy, smooth, obsessive? Did any scenes appear? Colours? Vibrations? Movement from bottom to top of the body? Along the spine?

5 mental states

In traditional Indian psychology [1], the mind is considered to be in one of these five states at any time:

1. kṣipta - jumpy, agitated, disturbed, unsettled on any object for an extended time (rajasic),

2. mūḍha - torpid, dull, stuporous, disinclined to think (like a TV addict!) (tamasic),

3. vikṣipta - a better or special kind of kṣipta - still unsettled and distracted, but can think about objects for a longer time or do self-reflection, (rajasic+sāttvic),

4. ekāgra - settled state, on any object, for an extended period, but subject to distraction without conscious control. A surface calm, with turbulence/distraction at deeper levels, (sāttvic),

5. niruddha - effortless settled state, with calmness at deeper levels as well due to removal of impurities and complexities that cause distractions, (greatest level of sattva).

The Vyāsa Bhāṣya [3] says that the esoteric state called samādhi is characteristic of *all* the states of citta or consciousness. Traditionally though, only the fourth and fifth states are considered conducive to, or examples of, samādhi.

NOTES

[1] Vyāsa talks about them in his very first comment on Pātañjala Yoga Sutras [2] sutra 1.1

[2] Some 2000 years ago, a systematic compilation of yoga tenets known at the time was made. It was called Pātañjala Yoga Sūtras (PYS) after its compiler, Patañjali who put them into sūtra (thread/suture) form.

[3] The PYS are not easy to grasp as, e.g., many terms are not defined before their first use. So, as with the other famous Sūtras, contextual information, or explanation, was given as a bhāṣya, or commentary, on each sutra. Traditionally, the first bhāṣya on the PYS is called the Vyāsa bhāṣya because, again traditionally, it was done by Vyāsa. Now, one meaning of vyāsa is "compiler". And so there is a theory that both the Yoga Sūtras and the first and most important bhāṣya upon it came from Patañjali!

Map of mental evolution - inward and outward

A simple map of progressive mental evolution with meditation

1. focus outward
2. focus inward
3. change focus easily
4. willed focus to natural awareness - both inward and outward awareness

In more detail:

1. be able to focus outward easily - on outside objects - basically on incoming sensations
• shift easily and lightly from sensation to sensation (sound to sound, e.g.)
  
2. be able to focus inward easily - on inside objects - percepts and concepts - thoughts, ideas, emotions, maybe as representations of sensations (visions, sounds, etc.)
   
3. be able to change focus 
• from outward to inward easily and without stickiness or drag. E.g., sit down and go into deep meditation - as effortless inward focus - within seconds. 
• the reverse, i.e., to resume "normal" activity after meditation, easily and lightly.
  
4. willed focus becomes diffused attention or awareness - of inside and outside objects - one aspect of what Daaji calls a 360-degree awareness:
• with eyes closed
• with eyes open

Om kham brahma - Space and Brahman

Think of a rectangular box.

Fill it with marbles. 

There will be some space left over, in between the marbles, and between the sides of the box and the marbles.

The space occupied by all the marbles put together - think of it as immanent space. The space of the entire box - of all the marbles and the spaces outside them - think of it as transcendent space.

Now let the box and the marbles dissolve into mere outlines. The box-space and the marbles-space are unaffected and they can still be traced.

Now let them dissolve completely. Both spaces are now indistinguishable from each other or the surrounding space.

Imagine, if possible, physical space dissolving into the idea of space.

NOTES

1. This is an analogy of laya yoga progression, from sthūla to kāraṇa śarīra.
   
2. These are also some implications of "om kham brahma" - "Om space [is] Brahma[n]" (Br.Up. khila kāṇḍa V.1.i) when space is used as an analogy for Brahman as consciousness.