I put proper in parentheses to convey sarcasm about my question as there may not be a proper blend


Please be patient.  I'm probably a bit of a noob compared to most of you on here.


So...The classic manifestation of doubt revolving around the blending of Concentration and Insight in our meditation practices.  Let me start with context.  I just finished a 10 day course with the Goenka organization.  The retreat went very well, in fact, up until this point my concentration was basically non-existent which made my practice agitating and infuriating the majority of the time.  Upon reflection I cannot understand why we are not taught to at least make it to Access Concentration before proceeding further, I think it should be the first thing meditators learn.

Anyway the retreat was smooth.  My concentration has obviously improved dramatically which lead to more freedom from the hindrances and lead to longer periods of strong determination sitting.  This I think is good!  But I have a but of doubt in regards to that being good, here's why:

When we are performing insight practices while we have entered into Samadhi (lets say Access Concentration as this is what I used througout my retreat) how can we be sure we are actually doing insight?  In the U Ba Khin tradition you stick to Vedana on the body and scan from head to toe continuously.  I was absolutely doing this and in fact better than I ever had before with the help of the Samadhi.  My worry is that does samadhi buffer or cushion our experience and therefore hinder our progress of insight?  Or is the progress of insight meant to be carried out through samadhi that enhances our practice?

And on that note do you find it important to know which nana you are in and how can you be sure it is an Insight Knowledge?  For example:  The Dukkha Nanas just being lack of concentration leading to intense worry, axiety, feelings of failure, etc.

Again, if this is noob matieral just be gentle and patient as a practioner of Dhamma should be.

Thanks!

Seems like an insight.

I was just reading "In the Buddha's Words" by Bikkhu Bodhi  "Thus the immediate condition for the arising of wisdom is concentration". Right Contentration is one of the "folds" on the eightfold path.

The following, from that book, might be relevant:

Sometimes the dominant faculty rather than the level of attainment is used to classify noble disciples (Kitagiri Sutta). The arahant can be liberated in "both ways" or "by wisdom" - both ways refers to mastery of the formless attainments. Those who are not yet arahant are divided into three categories "body-witness" have mastered the formless attainments, "one attained-to-view" lacks the formless attainments and gives prominence to wisdom, "one liberated by faith" lacks the formless attainments and gives prominence to faith. It should be noted that this scheme does not mention a person at the path of stream-entry who posseses the formless attainments. This should be taken to mean that it was considered as irrelevant for purposes of classification. 

By formless attainment Bodhi means jhana (deep state of concentration). 

The Buddha distinguishes disciples by their mode of development. One class takes the "difficult" approach, which uses meditation subjects that generate sharp wisdom and lead directly to disenchantment and dispassion. The other class takes the smoother and more pleasant route leading through the four jhanas. These two types correspond roughly to those who give emphasis to insight and those who give emphasis to serenity.

Various meditation objects are mentioned here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kammaṭṭhāna

No solid answers sorry but hopefully some directions for investigation!

The latter rather than the former. Samadhi enhances recognition (perception) of "things as they are." This is why the practitioner works at deepening mindfulness and clear comprehension (sati-sampajanna) in order to lessen the time it takes to achieve awakening.

I would recommend obtaining the book The Heart of Buddhist Meditation by Nyanaponika Thera, if you would like to delve more deeply into this issue. It will be well worth your time to read and to comprehend.


I never used these maps so I cannot comment with any consistency with regard to the theme of this forum. However, it should seem obvious to one that he recognize what attitude he is coming from with regard to the example given. Whether one wants to equate that with a nana or not is up to the observer. If that's the map one is using, then it may be beneficial.