Samādhi is nothing particular, no possession with a name

The temptation to possess states —“I have attained samādhi”, “I am in samādhi”— is the final trap of the spiritual ego. Vasiṣṭha deconstructs this possession: na paricchinnaḥ —undelimited, not particular, not specifiable—. Anything that can be named as “samādhi” is already a mental experience, already an object of vijñāna —dualistic knowledge—. True samādhi is not an experience: it is the basis of all experience, prior to the duality of experiencer and experienced. Na parigrahaḥ —non-possession— negates appropriation: there is no “my samādhi”, no “state that I have”. Parigraha —possession— is the root of saṅkalpa: whatever is possessed must be maintained, defended, repeated. Samādhi as a possession would be contradictory: it would become an object of attachment, a source of fear of losing it, a cause of pride in having it.

The stillness Vasiṣṭha describes is aparigraha —without possession— not as an ethical virtue but as an ontological impossibility: no one can possess what is their own nature. It is like trying to possess the space you inhabit: space is not possessed; one is inhabited by it. The Yoga Sūtra (I.15) defines vairāgya as dṛṣṭa-anuśravika-viṣaya-vitṛṣṇasya vaśīkāra-saṃjñā vairāgyam —detachment from the seen and the heard— but Vasiṣṭha completes it: even detachment from samādhi as an object is necessary for stillness to be genuine.

The temptation to possess states—“I have attained samādhi,” “I am in samādhi”—is the final trap of the spiritual ego. Vasiṣṭha dismantles this very notion of possession: na paricchinnaḥ—undelimited, not particular, not specifiable. Anything that can be named as “samādhi” is already a mental experience, already an object of vijñāna—dualistic knowledge. True samādhi is not an experience: it is the basis of all experience, prior to the duality of experiencer and experienced. Na parigrahaḥ—non-possession—denies appropriation: there is no “my samādhi,” no “state that I have.” Parigraha—possession—is the root of saṅkalpa: whatever is possessed must be maintained, defended, repeated. Samādhi as a possession would be contradictory: it would become an object of attachment, a source of fear of losing it, a cause of pride in having it.

The stillness Vasiṣṭha describes is aparigraha—without possession—not as an ethical virtue but as an ontological impossibility: no one can possess what is their own nature. It is like trying to possess the space you inhabit: space is not possessed; you are inhabited by it. The Yoga Sūtra (I.15) defines vairāgya as dṛṣṭa-anuśravika-viṣaya-vitṛṣṇasya vaśīkāra-saṃjñā vairāgyam—detachment from the seen and the heard—but Vasiṣṭha completes the thought: even detachment from samādhi as an object is necessary for stillness to be genuine.