Skip to main content

Insight vs Concentration

One occasionally hears today, from a variety of different sources, that the Buddha taught two different forms of meditation: one is referred to as concentration, the other as insight. Concentration is a practice wherein the mind learns to settle and maintain awareness on a single, reoccurring event, such focusing on the breath or by repeating metta phrases; this practice is regarded as the most efficient route of developing states of tranquility and single minded focus, known as jhana. Insight is the process of developing enough bare attention—i.e. freedom from distracting thoughts and perceptions—to allow the mind to observe any internal experienced from an unbiased, neutral perspective. The mind is free to move from object to object—it doesn’t stay pinned as in concentration—noting the impermanence and lack of lasting, underlying identity inherent to each event that arises in life. The detached view this observational state entails ultimately results equanimity, which we’re informed is the way to liberation from suffering.

Yet the Buddha never taught insight without concentration; in fact he presented the two as complimentary companions. If we want to end suffering then, in addition to cultivating harmless behavior, we should develop both: “When a practitioner develops tranquility together with insight the path is born. Peace comes from following that path and developing it.” (Yuganaddha Sutta).

If we single-mindedly practice concentration without insight, we may find ourselves blissed out, but we’ll also find that bliss framed by dark shadows of repressed, challenging underlying energies, such as sadness, fear, loneliness and depression that we’re avoiding while staying with the breath. Psychological healing from early woundings requires open awareness. In other words, concentration can be a kind of spiritual bypass.

On the other hand, if we single-mindedly practice insight without equal measures of concentration, our spiritual practice will turn needlessly dark and dry; for in observing our lives in terms of impermanence, we’ll find ourselves feeling groundless and lost, until the breakthrough comes when we attain full equanimity; insight alone leaves us stuck amidst a lot of phenomena that arises and passes. That’s not a lot of joy there to say the least. Mixing both concentration and insight, however, allows us to grow spiritually while experiencing the bliss of focused attention.

Now, let’s finally examine why a day at the beach feels so good: we sit in a folding chair, feeling the warmth, relaxing the body, hearing the sounds of the waves arising and passing, our thoughts of work and life’s dramas miles away, back in the city so to speak. But while the beach, sand, sunshine and ocean are conditional, and subject to specific conditions—ability to take a day off from work when its sunny and warm—the real underlying states that create the bliss of the beach can actually be recreated virtually anywhere on any day. We can sit in a chair, feel the outline of the body, relax the body and note the arising and passing sensations of the breath, while putting aside life’s dramas for awhile.

If we use insight to investigate what makes the impermanent experiences of life—an afternoon on the beach, a new relationship, relaxing into the couch after a long day, etc—feel so good, we can then use concentration to recreate the inner states and bring joy into the rest of life, when the external conditions are less pleasing. And so, when it comes to practice, when it comes to concentration or insight, my question is: Why not both?

Josh Korda, april 15, 2014

Comments

  1. I think that the English translation of "samadhi" into "concentration" may be part of the confusion since the original terms has probably different connotations than what our notion of concentration. However, some Theravada Schools have long taught that its is important to develop insight before moving to the jhana states. Hence "mindfulness" is the seventh and "concerntration" the eighth of aspect of the path. It makes sense to me. I can enjoy relaxation, a focused mind, have some kind of extatic experience through meditation without much personal and social development in my life.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is There Life on Earth?

Our ancestors knew that physical proximity, being seen in the eye of others via direct, face-to-face contact was, and is, the core foundation of mental and physical health. Without the emotional co-regulation that community provides, our sympathetic nervous systems never switch off, we’re forever on guard. 
Remember: The human species survived and thrived because we lived in tribes where individuals labored not just for themselves, but the benefit of others; we didn't survive by outrunning predators, for we are without wings, shells or claws; we survive because we are pack animals, wired to connect, our primary means to survive threats and heal our wounds; without connection chronic stress is the inevitable result.
     Loneliness is not a spiritual state to seek, it’s a health risk: the bonds of community, emotional mirroring, acceptance heal our wounds, help us grow, produce states of ease and confidence. People in communities live significantly longer, healthier lives.
     Withou…

Buddhism and the Bilateral Brain: A Brief Sketch of Ideas Ranging from the Ancient Greeks, Early Buddhism, Nietzsche and a Smattering of Neuroscience

In Greek mythology, Apollo was the god of the reason and logic, appealing to the ideals of precision and abstract purity. Dionysus was the god of the spontaneous, the emotional, embodied, often irrational instinct. These gods were not considered to be antagonistic but rather complimentary.
Today, from the vantage of contemporary neuropsychology, especially in the works of Iain McGilchrist, Allan Schore and Robert Ornstein, we can readily note how these twin gods neatly represented the asymmetrical brain: • Apollo depicts the perspective of the left hemisphere, which represents the world in static ideas; reality is comprised of separate and fragmented objects, abstracted from their context; reality is separated into parts. The kind of attention is inherently dualistic and isolating—self versus other, me versus you, humankind versus nature; this attention tends to represent the fluid and organic as lifeless, static, in language or symbols. • Dionysus depicts the worldview of the r…

5 ways to resist obsessive thoughts (Vitakkasanthana)

The mind can be thought of as a committee
Our thoughts are present by many "voices," some skillful and unskillful
W there are some skillful voices in there, focusing on useful ideas, there are also the many voices in the "committee" that cause us suffering by advancing and encouraging useless, stress inducing ideas, plans, worries.

Some examples of unskillful, stress producing obsessions
—are dedictated to figuring out the worst possible outcomes (fear) of any situation
—fixate on unknowable future events, i.e. what will we experience later in life?
—try to figure out what other people are thinking about us
—compare ourselves with others, especially in material concerns
in general, the buddha broke these down the thoughts of craving, aversion and delusion.

How unskillful internal voices persuade us
some of these committee members try to get their way by
—most work by repeating the same thought over and over
—some split into thousands of variations that seem different, but are …