One-Pointedness of Mind

[Mark Foote]

I posted a reply on someone's personal practice thread--didn't realize that's what it was, at first. I thought it might be of interest to the wider community.

Forthwith!

 

Quote

 

On 1/14/2026 at 11:20 AM, Keith108 said:

 

Good advice!

 

A minor quibble though. There is nothing direct about the Pali Canon. It was written over four centuries after he died, in a place where he didn't live, in a language he didn't speak. Folks seem to fetishize the idea that Theravada is some kind of original Buddhism, spoken by the Buddha himself. It isn't. That's not good or bad. Just something not to get too hung up on, imho.

 

_/|\_ 

 

 

 

You're right about the circumstances in which the teachings were finally committed to writing, and the language. I wouldn't have to rely on them  so much, if anyone else taught the things that are in those texts. I think their uniqueness, especially with regard to states of concentration and mindfulness as a way of living, speaks to their authenticity.

Something that might interest you. I spent part of yesterday reading an e-book by Kumari Bhikkyu, titled "What You Might Not Know About Jhana and Samadhi". In the book, he talks about modern Theravadin teachings that separate Samadhi/jhanas from Vipassana in the attainment of enlightenment, based largely on the Visuddhimagga commentary (composed a millennia after Gautama's death). He points out that the Pali sermon teachings do not make such a distinction.

Would seem that present-day orthodox Theravadin teaching is not necessarily in accord with the early Buddhist texts. 

I did write to Kumari Bhikkyu, after I read what he had to say about "one-pointedness of mind":

 

Ekaggacitta has three parts: eka (one) + agga + citta (mind). When a translator renders ekaggatā as “one-pointedness”, he would have to render ekaggacitta as “one-pointed mind”, which you may have seen. “One-pointed mind”—what does it mean? It is an odd expression, not understandable in normal English.

 

Some of what I wrote:

 

Here’s another way of looking at “one-pointedness”, from my experience:

 

… “one-pointedness” occurs when the movement of breath necessitates the placement of attention at a singular location in the body, and a person “lays hold of one-pointedness” when they remain awake as the singular location shifts.

 

(Just to Sit)

 

 

I find support from modern neurobiology, which speaks of “the experience that the self is localized at a specific position in space within one’s bodily borders”:

 

A key aspect of the bodily self is self-location, the experience that the self is localized at a specific position in space within one’s bodily borders (embodied self-location).

 

(Journal of Neuroscience 26 May 2010, 30 (21) 7202-7214)

I would have to guess that an inability to discover the correlate of "one-pointedness" or "one-pointedness of mind" in personal experience is the cause of the divergence of Theravadin teachings from the the Pali sermon teachings. If a person hasn't had the experience, they can't begin to talk about the concentrations outlined in the Pali sermons, since Gautama made clear that "right concentration" WAS "one-pointedness of mind".

Bhikkyu Kumari is not alone in his dismay. Bhikkyu Thannisaro dedicated a sermon to deriding "one-pointedness" (How Pointy is One-pointedness), concluding that it meant focusing one's attention on a single object. 

 

I prefer Zen teacher Koun Franz's approach:

 

So (in seated meditation), have your hands… palms up, thumbs touching, and there’s this common instruction:  place your mind here. Different people interpret this differently. Some people will say this means to place your attention here, meaning to keep your attention on your hands. It’s a way of turning the lens to where you are in space so that you’re not looking out here and out here and out here. It’s the positive version, perhaps, of ‘navel gazing’.

 

The other way to understand this is to literally place your mind where your hands are–to relocate mind (let’s not say your mind) to your center of gravity, so that mind is operating from a place other than your brain. Some traditions take this very seriously, this idea of moving your consciousness around the body. I wouldn’t recommend dedicating your life to it, but as an experiment, I recommend trying it, sitting in this posture and trying to feel what it’s like to let your mind, to let the base of your consciousness, move away from your head. One thing you’ll find, or that I have found, at least, is that you can’t will it to happen, because you’re willing it from your head. To the extent that you can do it, it’s an act of letting go–and a fascinating one.

 

(No Struggle [Zazen Yojinki, Part 6], by Koun Franz, from the “Nyoho Zen” site)
 

 

In Gautama's teaching, the first concentration follows "an act of letting go":

 

Making self-surrender the object of thought, one lays hold of concentration, one lays hold of one-pointedness.

 

(SN 48.10, tr. PTS vol. V p 174)

 

 

 

Edited January 16 by Mark Foote

[Keith108]

Thanks Mark!

 

I remember reading a talk from Ajahn Buddhadasa, and thinking, this guy sounds like a Zen Master. Turns out he got in some trouble for teaching moment to moment DO, instead of lifetime to lifetime (See his book: Under the Bodhi Tree). Obviously, the Pali Canon is a tremendous wealth of teaching, and I have benefitted greatly from it.  

 

My quibble is not seeing it for what it is...how Buddhism developed when it left India and went to Southeast Asia. Here in the West, it gets interpreted as the original and "true" form of Buddhism. It isn't, as direct and useful as it is.

 

Thanks for the "one pointedness" words. I always thought that was samadhi, which is something that happens while practicing, but not the goal. When I have experienced it, it felt like noticing everything in my field of experience, nothing left out. Like a spreading out of attention where everything is noticed. Nice, but not the point. 

 

I teach newcomers to allow our body's energy, our breathing, and our attention to settle down to the center (dan tian). That way there is no pushing or forcing activity, just a settling. I ran into a Tai Chi teaching that says: relaxed upper body, dynamic center, stable base. Great instructions for sitting!

 

_/|\_

Edited January 17 by Keith108

[Krenx]

 

19 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

Gautama made clear that "right concentration" WAS "one-pointedness of mind".

 

The Buddha never said "right" concentration was one-pointedness. He said the noble right concentration is only right when it is developed within the framework of the 8 fold path, with right view as its basis. 

 

The Jhanas has a quality of one pointedness. But it is not the determining factor that makes it "right" in the context of buddhism.  The determining quality that makes it right in the context of buddhism, is the first factor right view. The jhanas can be done wrongly. The Buddha made that distinction. 

 

But if one is not interested in Buddhism, the goal of the path. Then sure, they can highlight that quality of one pointedness as the prominent factor for their practice. 

Edited January 17 by Krenx

[Tommy]

When I first learned about "ONE POINTED CONCENTRATION", I had thought it meant a special state of mind that would transform one's outlook on life. Of course those ideas quickly changed. It seems to me that it is only a stage one goes thru as one progresses in their practice of meditation. I have heard of others saying meditation is easy. You just sit there and let your mind wander. Which I know is not true. Letting the mind wander is daydreaming. And as far as I know, daydreams are desires and wishes made into images. Then another person said he found the key. That it was to stop thought. Having no thoughts at all. Which was the same as hitting one over the head with an iron rod. It won't work. There is no enlightenment by bashing brain cells. When meditating, one is not stopping thoughts or letting the mind wander. But actually following rules or guide lines. Along the way, one pointed concentration happens. Well, this is the way I see it. But, I do have my own misconceptions. So, I try not to listen to myself so much. Just sit, pay attention and be quiet. One might think that is such an easy thing to do??? Crap, lost in a daydream. Now, I forgot what I wanted to say. Nevrmind.

[Lairg]

8 minutes ago, Tommy said:

"ONE POINTED CONCENTRATION", I had thought it meant a special state of mind that would transform one's outlook on life.

 

Males tend to yangness in thought.  Females, not so much

 

 

[stirling]

It isn't mysterious:

 

Quote

This is the unification of the mind on its object. Although this factor comes to prominence in the jhānas, where it functions as a jhāna factor, the Abhidhamma teaches that the germ of that capacity for mental unification is present in all types of consciousness, even the most rudimentary. It there functions as the factor which fixes the mind on its object. One-pointedness has non-wandering or non-distraction as its characteristic. Its function is to conglomerate or unite the associated states. - Bhikku Bodhi

Put your attention on an object (pick an object, ANY object - your breath (or someone elses!), a crack in the floor, the ringing in your ears). The mind goes quiet, and attention only rests on the single object. You now have access concentration. The mind is still and concentrated. Congratulations!

 

Most students can do this within a few weeks of practice or sooner, with guidance. 

 

[Keith108]

1 hour ago, stirling said:

It isn't mysterious:

 

Put your attention on an object (pick an object, ANY object - your breath (or someone elses!), a crack in the floor, the ringing in your ears). The mind goes quiet, and attention only rests on the single object. You now have access concentration. The mind is still and concentrated. Congratulations!

 

Most students can do this within a few weeks of practice or sooner, with guidance. 

 

Ah…so not samadhi then. 

[stirling]

1 hour ago, Keith108 said:

Ah…so not samadhi then. 

 

One-pointedness is an ingredient and precursor -  the laser-like focus - while samadhi is the larger practice and state of that intense focus creating space for insight and tranquility. 

 

You can break all of these things into many constituent parts, but I honestly don't find it very helpful. I think most people can use very simple instruction to come to satisfactory results, unless they are working on the jhana "project" or something. Some of my Zen colleagues just tell people to sit and watch their mind, and some actually manage to find samadhi from those instructions! I like to give a little more instruction than that...   

 

_/\_

[Tommy]

58 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

One-pointedness is an ingredient and precursor -  the laser-like focus - while samadhi is the larger practice and state of that intense focus creating space for insight and tranquility. 

 

You can break all of these things into many constituent parts, but I honestly don't find it very helpful. I think most people can use very simple instruction to come to satisfactory results, unless they are working on the jhana "project" or something. Some of my Zen colleagues just tell people to sit and watch their mind, and some actually manage to find samadhi from those instructions! I like to give a little more instruction than that...   

 

_/\_

 

2 hours ago, Keith108 said:

Ah…so not samadhi then. 

If I have this right then one pointed concentration is not samadhi and samadhi is necessary for realizing the true nature of oneself?? Yeah, all too complicated for me. Can't I just sit and do my regular practice without expectations. And if I have difficulties to ask questions about what I can do to find resolutions? Lately, I find myself eating more and more. Must have put on a few pounds. I notice my breathing has changed because of this. Will have to think about something else other than food?? Sorry, drifting off again.

Edited January 18 by Tommy

[Mark Foote]

On 1/17/2026 at 7:38 AM, Krenx said:

 

The Buddha never said "right" concentration was one-pointedness. He said the noble right concentration is only right when it is developed within the framework of the 8 fold path, with right view as its basis. 

 

The Jhanas has a quality of one pointedness. But it is not the determining factor that makes it "right" in the context of buddhism.  The determining quality that makes it right in the context of buddhism, is the first factor right view. The jhanas can be done wrongly. The Buddha made that distinction. 

 

But if one is not interested in Buddhism, the goal of the path. Then sure, they can highlight that quality of one pointedness as the prominent factor for their practice. 
 

 

And what… is the (noble) right concentration with the causal associations, with the accompaniments?  It is right view, right purpose, right speech, right action, right mode of livelihood, right endeavor, right mindfulness.  Whatever one-pointedness of mind is accompanied by these seven components , this… is called the (noble) right concentration with the causal associations and the accompaniments.  

(MN 117, tr. Pali Text Society vol III p 114; “noble” substituted for Ariyan; emphasis added)

Bhikkyu Thanissaro references the above passage in his introduction to How Pointy is One-Pointedness?:

 

A Pali sutta, MN 44, defines concentration as cittass’ek’aggatā, which is often translated as “one-pointedness of mind”: cittassa = “of the mind” or “of the heart,” eka = one, agga = point, -tā = -ness. MN 117 defines noble right concentration as any one-pointedness of mind supported by the first seven factors of the noble path, from right view through right mindfulness. MN 43 states further that one-pointedness is a factor of the first jhāna, the beginning level of right concentration.

 

 

Thanissaro concludes the "one-pointedness of mind" means focus on a single object, and he recommends doubling-down on that. 

Here's Gautama's definition of "wrong view":

 

There is no (result of) gift … no (result of) offering … no (result of) sacrifice; there is no fruit or ripening of deeds well done or ill done; there is not this world, there is not a world beyond; there is no (benefit from serving) mother and father; there are no beings of spontaneous uprising; there are not in the world recluses and brahmans… who are faring rightly, proceeding rightly, and who proclaim this world and the world beyond having realized them by their own super-knowledge.

(MN 117, tr. Pali Text Society vol III pp 113-121)

 

"Beings of spontaneous uprising" appears to be a reference to fairy-like beings that spring into existence without parents. According to the notes on the Pali Text Society translation of SN (vol III p 197), such beings were common in Vedic folklore.

 

His definition of mundane right view was the view that is the opposite of wrong view, but he qualified that by saying that such "right view" is the right view that "has cankers, that is on the side of merit, that ripens unto cleaving (to new birth)". The right view which is “[noble], supermundane, cankerless and a component of the way” was:

 

Whatever … is wisdom, the cardinal faculty of wisdom, the power of wisdom, the component of enlightenment which is investigation into things, the right view that is a component of the Way in one who, by developing the [noble] Way, is of [noble] thought, conversant with the [noble] Way–this… is a right view that is [noble], cankerless, supermundane, a component of the Way.
 

(Ibid)

 

 

Here's "right effort":

 

As to this… right view comes first. And how… does right view come first? If one comprehends that wrong purpose is wrong purpose and comprehends that right purpose is right purpose, that is… right view. And what… is wrong purpose? Purpose for sense-pleasures, purpose for ill-will, purpose for harming. This… is wrong purpose. And what… is right purpose? Now I… say that right purpose is twofold. There is… the right purpose that has cankers, is on the side of merit, and ripens unto cleaving (to new birth). There is… the right purpose which is [noble], cankerless, supermundane, a factor of the Way. And what… is the purpose which is on the side of merit, and ripens unto cleaving? Purpose for renunciation, purpose for non-ill-will, purpose for non-harming. This… is right purpose that… ripens unto cleaving. And what… is the right purpose that is [noble], cankerless, supermundane, a component of the Way? Whatever… is reasoning, initial thought, purpose, an activity of speech through the complete focussing and application of the mind in one who, by developing the [noble] Way, is of [noble] thought, of cankerless thought, and is conversant with the [noble] Way–this… is right purpose that is [noble], cankerless, supermundane, a component of the Way.

 

(ibid; "noble" substituted for "Ariyan")

 

The fundamental method for attaining the jhanas, according to Gautama, is "lack of desire". Here's his description of the induction of the first concentration:

 

Herein… the (noble) disciple, making self-surrender the object of (their) thought, lays hold of concentration, lays hold of one-pointedness.  (The disciple), aloof from sensuality, aloof from evil conditions, enters on the first trance, which is accompanied by thought initial and sustained, which is born of solitude, easeful and zestful, and abides therein.  

(SN 48.10, © Pali Text Society vol V p 174; parentheticals para­phrase original; Horner’s “initial” (MN 119) substituted for Woodward’s “di­rected”; emphasis added)
 

 

Did I mention my take?

 

In my experience, “one-pointedness” occurs when the movement of breath necessitates the placement of attention at a singular location in the body, and a person “lays hold of one-pointedness” when they remain awake as the singular location shifts.

 

(Just to Sit)

 

 

 

 

Cowboy Buddhist...

 

 

Edited January 22 by Mark Foote

[Mark Foote]

On 1/17/2026 at 5:00 PM, stirling said:

 

It isn't mysterious:

Put your attention on an object (pick an object, ANY object - your breath (or someone elses!), a crack in the floor, the ringing in your ears). The mind goes quiet, and attention only rests on the single object. You now have access concentration. The mind is still and concentrated. Congratulations!

 

Most students can do this within a few weeks of practice or sooner, with guidance. 

 

 

 

To sum up, the “samādhi” of the Suttas (EBT’s) is about concentrating the mind itself, while the “samādhi” of the Visuddhimagga is about concentrating on an object.

(Bhikkyu Kumara, What You Might Not Know About Jhana and Samadhi, p 35)

 

 

Bhikkyu Kumara saw the different views of immersive concentration as rooted in two different interpretations of a particular Pali word:

 

For a long time in Theravāda Buddhism, ekaggatā has been commonly translated as “one pointedness”.

 

… “One-pointedness” has gained such wide acceptance as the translation for ekaggatā that most people don’t question it. So, people who assume it means “fixing of close, undivided attention on a spatially limited location”, and believe it’s necessary, will try to practice that.

(ibid, p 42)

 

 

The Pāli word has three parts: eka (one), agga, and tā (-ness). So clearly this common translation takes agga to mean “pointed”.

 

… Actually, “agga” has another meaning, as a contracted form of “agāra”. … it’s literally “empty place”, with agāra being simply “place”.

 

Could this other meaning of agga, i.e. “place”, be the actual meaning in “ekaggatā”?

 

Let’s join the parts: ekaggatā = eka (one) + agga (place) + tā (ness) = “one-place-ness” or “oneplacedness” (modelling after “one-pointedness”).

(ibid, pp 42, 45)

 

 

From something I hope to post soon to my site:

 

In my experience, “one-pointedness” or “oneplacedness” is a description of consciousness, when consciousness is retained with the location of self. The location of self has become a subject of study in neurobiology:

 

A key aspect of the bodily self is self-location, the experience that the self is localized at a specific position in space within one’s bodily borders (embodied self-location).

 

(Journal of Neuroscience 26 May 2010, 30 (21) 7202-7214)

 

 

When consciousness is retained with the location of self, the “specific position in space” of consciousness has place, yet that place is apart from the contents of the body—that place is empty, or “agga”.

 

Just so happens that when "self-surrender" is made the object of thought, as in the induction of the first concentration, the necessity of breath tends to place consciousness with the specific position in space of self-location--at least, that's my experience.

 

 

Edited January 22 by Mark Foote

[Mark Foote]

On 1/17/2026 at 7:23 PM, stirling said:

 

One-pointedness is an ingredient and precursor -  the laser-like focus - while samadhi is the larger practice and state of that intense focus creating space for insight and tranquility. 

 

You can break all of these things into many constituent parts, but I honestly don't find it very helpful. I think most people can use very simple instruction to come to satisfactory results, unless they are working on the jhana "project" or something. Some of my Zen colleagues just tell people to sit and watch their mind, and some actually manage to find samadhi from those instructions! I like to give a little more instruction than that...   

 

_/\_
 

"... Watch their mind", yes?

Sometimes when you think that you are doing zazen with an imperturbable mind, you ignore the body, but it is also necessary to have the opposite understanding at the same time. Your body is practicing zazen in imperturbability while your mind is moving.

 

(“Whole-Body Zazen”, Shunryu Suzuki; June 28, 1970, Tassajara [edited by Bill Redican])

 

 

The advice I plan to give my neighbor, if we ever sit together again (he's never sat, and our one attempt ended early):

 

I don’t think I’ll advise my friend to “follow the breath”. ... I expect I will tell him to let the place where his attention goes do the sitting, and maybe even the breathing.

(Just to Sit)

 

Action, solely by virtue of the location of consciousness--look, Ma, no hands! Or in England:

 

 

 

 

Edited January 22 by Mark Foote

[stirling]

Practice suggestion: Turn one-pointedness inside out:

 

 

Take a moment and stare at the back of your hand. Take in it's details - notice it's skin texture, color, the dark patches, or views or musculature that lie underneath.

 

Now, ask yourself - did you have any real consciousness of the room you were in, or any environmental factors happening outside of your hand when you were concentrating on it?  Was your view narrowly focused, only having room for the small, tight reality of your hand? Was the area around, or behind, your hand in sharp focus and full of detail, or is it difficult to really remember anything about it?

 

Next, take your arms and put them straight out to either side so the hands are out of view. Turn your hands forward so you fingers are facing forward and wiggle them, slowly moving them until you can JUST see their movement in your peripheral vision, but now further. Continue wiggling them for a moment and take in the completeness of the room. Slowly drop your hands to your sides, but hold on to the panoramic but diffuse view of the room and it's contents. Hold that view for a few seconds.

 

Were you aware of any individual objects, or was it just a panorama of color and light? Did any of the objects have a separateness from the background, or were the homogenous? Can you clearly remember the colors and shapes of the room as you saw it? Was it surprising to see how widely your eyesight could be?

 

This panoramic view technique isn't commonly spoken of, but is common in the teachings of Tibetan teachers, and many Zen teachers. The act of "holding the room" in your gaze keeps the mind quiet. Rather than taking in any single point in concentration, one takes in the whole dharmakaya. One can see the unlabeled emptiness of the objects in the room, and see emptiness in action, though it helps to have this aspect pointed out. The point? Practicing like this is resting in enlightened mind. The unlabeled stillness, lack of objects, etc. is how enlightened mind sees reality, and naturally becomes the primary way of experiencing. 
 

[Mark Foote]

6 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

... This panoramic view technique isn't commonly spoken of, but is common in the teachings of Tibetan teachers, and many Zen teachers. The act of "holding the room" in your gaze keeps the mind quiet. Rather than taking in any single point in concentration, one takes in the whole dharmakaya. One can see the unlabeled emptiness of the objects in the room, and see emptiness in action, though it helps to have this aspect pointed out. The point? Practicing like this is resting in enlightened mind. The unlabeled stillness, lack of objects, etc. is how enlightened mind sees reality, and naturally becomes the primary way of experiencing. 
 

 

 

 

I was taught we should be constantly aware of our eyes when we sit. Specifically, we should be aware of how we narrow and widen the aperture, how our field of vision gets narrower and narrower as our mind gets narrower and narrower. When you see that clearly, you also see how easily you can just open it up; the degree to which we open it up is the degree to which we’re here.

(No Struggle [Zazen Yōjinki, Part 6], Koun Franz, on Nyoho Zen)

 

 

From the piece I'm currently writing:

 

The difficulty in the apprehension of “one-pointedness” and “one-pointedness of mind” is made clear in Gautama’s elaboration on the practice of the first concentration:

 

… just as a handy bathman or attendant might strew bath-powder in some copper basin and, gradually sprinkling water, knead it together so that the bath-ball gathered up the moisture, became enveloped in moisture and saturated both in and out, but did not ooze moisture; even so, (a person) steeps, drenches, fills, and suffuses this body with zest and ease, born of solitude, so that there is not one particle of the body that is not pervaded by this lone-born zest and ease.
 

(AN 5.28, tr. Pali Text Society vol. III pp 18-19)

 

The juxtaposition of a singular “bath-ball” with the extension of “zest and ease” such that “there is not one particle of the body that is not pervaded by this lone-born zest and ease” is sure to produce cognitive dissonance. How can a singular “bath-ball” be gathered together at the same time “zest and ease” is extended?

 

 

 

[Lairg]

I have read that women make better ecosystem scientists than men.  This seems to be because women think in whole-of-system ways rather than in one-pointed ways.

 

Women are used for managing families with all that complexity.

 

Perhaps it is better to consider learning to transcend the personal mind and thus enter into transpersonal functionality.

Edited January 22 by Lairg

[Tommy]

1 hour ago, Lairg said:

I have read that women make better ecosystem scientists than men.  This seems to be because women think in whole-of-system ways rather than in one-pointed ways.

 

Women are used for managing families with all that complexity.

 

Perhaps it is better to consider learning to transcend the personal mind and thus enter into transpersonal functionality.

I thought it was because women seem to do better when dealing with people and men do better when dealing with things. Look at schools and hospitals where women are in the majority. And look at auto mechanics or construction where men are in the majority.

[Lairg]

55 minutes ago, Tommy said:

women seem to do better when dealing with people and men do better when dealing with things.

 

Exactly.  Now generalize the proposition

 

[Mark Foote]

On 1/22/2026 at 3:47 PM, Tommy said:

I thought it was because women seem to do better when dealing with people and men do better when dealing with things. Look at schools and hospitals where women are in the majority. And look at auto mechanics or construction where men are in the majority.
 

 

 

Quote

 

AI poses bigger threat in jobs with more women, study finds

 

By Mary Cunningham

January 29, 2026 / 7:43 AM EST / CBS News

 

Employees in women-dominated occupations are deeply vulnerable to the potentially transformative impact of artificial intelligence on the American workforce, according to researchers. 

 

That's one of the main takeaways of a recent report from the Brookings Institution, a nonpartisan think tank, and the Centre for the Governance of AI, a policy research firm.

 

Drawing on a mix of public and private data, the report looks at which fields have the highest risk of being disrupted by AI and how workers in those sectors are likely to fare. 

 

Of the employees most at risk of losing their jobs due to AI, more than 6 million workers would likely struggle to cope because they're older, have limited savings and other factors, the researchers said. Most of those workers are in clerical and administrative jobs — roles that historically have been dominated by women. 

 

AI supplanting human workers in these jobs would continue a decades-long pattern of advancements in information technology handling work formerly done by people, Mark Muro, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Brookings Institution, told CBS News.
 

 

 

 

If we assume women have more jobs dealing with people, and men have more jobs dealing with things, then is AI better at dealing with people than things?

 

 

[Mark Foote]

"Who cooks for you", said the owl!

 

From the piece about Bhikkyu Kumāra's book, What You Might Not Know About Jhana and Samadhi. that I am still working on (many rewrites later):
 

Gautama described the first concentration in detail:

 

… just as a handy bathman or attendant might strew bath-powder in some copper basin and, gradually sprinkling water, knead it together so that the bath-ball gathered up the moisture, became enveloped in moisture and saturated both in and out, but did not ooze moisture; even so, (a person) steeps, drenches, fills, and suffuses this body with zest and ease, born of solitude, so that there is not one particle of the body that is not pervaded by this lone-born zest and ease.
 

(AN 5.28, tr. Pali Text Society vol. III pp 18-19)

 

How can a singular “bath-ball” be kneaded together, at the same time “zest and ease” is extended so that “there is not one particle of the body that is not pervaded”?

As I wrote previously:

 

To drench the entire body with the feelings of zest and ease such that “there is not one particle of the body that is not pervaded” ensures that the consciousness can remain “one-pointed”, even as the specific position of “one-pointedness” shifts and moves.

(“The Place Where You Stop and Rest”, edited)

 

 

Moreover:

 

Words like “steeps” and “drenches” convey that the weight of the body accompanies the feelings of zest and ease.

 

The weight of the body sensed at a particular point in the body can shift the body’s center of gravity, and a shift in the body’s center of gravity can result in what Moshe Feldenkrais termed “reflex movement”. Feldenkrais described how “reflex movement” can be engaged in standing up from a chair:
 

…When the center of gravity has really moved forward over the feet a reflex movement will originate in the old nervous system and straighten the legs; this automatic movement will not be felt as an effort at all.
 

(“Awareness Through Movement”, Moshe Feldenkrais, p 78)

 

“Drenching” the body “so that there is not one particle of the body that is not pervaded” with zest and ease allows the weight of the body and “one-pointedness” to effect “reflex movement” in the activity of the body.
 

In falling asleep, the mind can sometimes react to hypnagogic sleep paralysis with an attempt to reassert control over the muscles of the body, causing a “hypnic jerk”. The extension of a weighted zest and ease can pre-empt the tendency to reassert voluntary control in the induction of concentration, and make possible a conscious experience of “reflex movement” in inhalation and exhalation.
 

 

That, and:

 

I remind myself that the activity of the body in inhalation and exhalation tends toward coordination by the free placement of consciousness, and look for ease.

 

(Applying the Pali Instructions)
 

 

Until:

 

So most teacher may say shikantaza is not so easy, you know. It is not possible to continue more than one hour, because it is intense practice to take hold of all our mind and body by the practice which include everything. So in shikantaza, our mind should pervade every parts of our physical being. That is not so easy.

(“I have nothing in my mind”, Shunryu Suzuki, July 15, 1969)

 

 

Gautama spoke similarly about the mind pervading the body:

 

… seated, (one) suffuses (one’s) body with purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind so that there is not one particle of the body that is not pervaded with purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind.

(AN 5.28, tr. PTS vol. III pp 18-19, parentheticals paraphrase original)

 

 

“The pureness of mind” Gautama referred to is the pureness of the mind without any will or intent with regard to the activity of the body.

(Just to Sit)

 

 

For me, the kinesiology is crucial--that's in Just to Sit, and as soon as I wrote "Just to Sit", I published my book ("A Natural Mindfulness"). It's free online.

 

 

Edited 14 hours ago by Mark Foote

[Tommy]

1 hour ago, Mark Foote said:

By Mary Cunningham

January 29, 2026 / 7:43 AM EST / CBS News

 

Employees in women-dominated occupations are deeply vulnerable to the potentially transformative impact of artificial intelligence on the American workforce, according to researchers. 

 

That's one of the main takeaways of a recent report from the Brookings Institution, a nonpartisan think tank, and the Centre for the Governance of AI, a policy research firm.

 

Drawing on a mix of public and private data, the report looks at which fields have the highest risk of being disrupted by AI and how workers in those sectors are likely to fare. 

 

Of the employees most at risk of losing their jobs due to AI, more than 6 million workers would likely struggle to cope because they're older, have limited savings and other factors, the researchers said. Most of those workers are in clerical and administrative jobs — roles that historically have been dominated by women. 

 

AI supplanting human workers in these jobs would continue a decades-long pattern of advancements in information technology handling work formerly done by people, Mark Muro, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Brookings Institution, told CBS News.

Robots have already displaced many manual labor jobs. Look at the manufacturers who use robots instead of people to do their assembly, welding, etc. This happened before AI. Which only reminds me of an episode of the "Twilight Zone" where a worker was being replaced by automation and robots. The supervisor who was installing the robots taunted the worker. Expelling the worker from his job and livelihood. In the end, the supervisor himself was replaced by the same technology.

 

My understanding that corporations will save money by using such technology. Unfortunately, who buys the products or uses the services when no one has a job to earn the money to pay for all this. Ford knew this and increased the pay to his workers. This so they could afford the same products the workers were making. Who would need the clerical or administrative work done by AI if there are no people to use the information provided by AI?? AI to develop more information for AI to absorb?? Does AI have the ability to develop and create new ideas? Could AI have developed the theory of relativity and the understanding that time and gravity and electromagnetic effects are properties of space? 

 

AI was thought to benefit mankind. How would it do that by replacing the people that they were suppose to help??