Talk:Samatha meditation

Latest comment: 16 years ago by Larry Rosenfeld in topic Samatha in the Pali Canon

Although it may be argued that samatha [shamata] is not an explicitly or exclusively Buddhist style of meditation... I suggest that this be redirected to the article on “Buddhist meditation”, and things further clarified there.--Mindzpore 16:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Samatha is equivelant to Samadhi (Concentration). It is incorrect to equate Samatha as Samatha Meditation. Samatha meditation is a mean to attain Samatha. Therefore, I'm changing the title of this article to Samatha meditation. Vapour

I'd like to correct this. Samatha is a slice within the broader category of Samadhi. Samadhi refers to a broad range of practices aimed at developing a highly stable mind, including, for example, meditations on Empathetic Joy, Lovingkindness, and Equanimity. nlseaver

Re pdf #1 edit

Re ref # 1 pdf - the link is to an explanatory intro only. Julia Rossi 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Samatha in the Pali Canon edit

While I've yet to complete my reading on this matter, it appears to me that the notion of "samatha meditation" is post-canonical. That is, I can't find it in the Pali Canon. (Tangentially, FWIW, I've been told that it exists in the Visuddhimagga [which I'l try to double check] which suggests that it is part of the Theravada tradition, as well as, evidently, Mahayana practices.) As an example, in my current incomplete review of the Dhammasangani (where the word and its cognates seem to appear about 40 times), "samatho" is recognized as a "wholesome state" (dhamma kusala) and as an adjective (e.g., in describing "right concentration"); but, thus far, no context seems to support interpreting "samatha" as a type of meditation. (FWIW, this is far from "original research": I recall that Thanissaro Bhikkhu has written on this matter in a couple of places -- which, indubitably, I'll have to locate. As a counter example, in Maurice O'C. Walshe's translation of the Digha Nikaya, in regards to DN 33 (I think), he mentions "samatha meditation" in an end note but he does not cite any canonical sources for this).

My questions:

  1. Does anyone know of any mention of "samatha meditation" in the Pali Canon? (I'm particularly weak regarding the Vinaya.)
  2. If there is no mention of "samatha meditation" in the Pali Canon but ample mention (hundreds of instances) where "samatha" is used as an adjective or mental state, would anyone seriously mind if I change the Samatha article so it is no longer just a redirect to this page? That is, if my limited observation turns out to be true, I'd like to create an article at Samatha regarding "samatha" independent of its thusfar-seeming post-canonical usage as a type of meditation.

FWIW, tangentially, according to this article's history page, this article was moved from Samatha on "21:14, 14 April 2006" with the Edit Summary: "moved Samatha to Samatha Meditation: Samathat meditation is a mean to attaining Samatha." Thus, with this justification, I can readily understand the desire for this current article, Samatha meditation; and, I appreciate that this Edit Summary appears to be cognizant that "Samatha meditation" is independent of (in fact, a potential precursor to) "samatha"; as a result, I can also readily understand the value of an independent article on canonical (and non-canonical?) notions of Samatha. (Of course, such an article would contain appropriate links to this article.)

If there are no reasonable objections, I'd like to create the non-redirect Samatha article in a week or so. (I'll work in my sandboxes in the meantime.) Thanks for any feedback -- especially any clear examples showing "samatha medition" in the Pali Canon! With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

As an aside, I'd like to point out that this article includes a wikilinked reference to "Samatha" — which currently, if clicked, returns the reader to this article. I take this as another indication that at least someone else out there has the expectation that "samatha" is deserving of its own article? :-) Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply