In Theravada Buddhism, the definitions of meditation and enlightenment are quite detailed and can be helpful. However, while these definitions serve as guidelines, they become quite ambiguous towards the end, resulting in explanations that are both understandable and incomprehensible.

Often, in Theravada or Vipassana Buddhism, the discussion revolves around whether it is concentration meditation or mindfulness meditation.

The stages of meditation are categorized into color realm meditation and formless realm meditation. "Color" refers to physical objects, roughly equivalent to matter. The formless realm, on the other hand, refers to the realm of the mind.

In Theravada Buddhism, the practice generally starts with color realm (material realm) meditation to transcend the world of desire, and eventually progresses to formless realm meditation before attaining enlightenment as an Arhat. However, in some Theravada or Vipassana schools, only color realm meditation is considered essential, while formless realm meditation is recommended but not mandatory.

By bringing up these distinctions, the phrase "concentration meditation is not necessary for enlightenment" often arises among practitioners of Theravada or Vipassana meditation.

The explanation often involves experiencing "impermanence" and directly attaining enlightenment as an Arhat.

Therefore, there are likely to be people who are recognized by their school and attain the title of Arhat, which signifies enlightenment, and reach a certain level.

This is a somewhat difficult explanation to understand, and I used to think, "Is this explanation appropriate?" However, now I think, "Even if the explanation is somewhat difficult to understand, it doesn't necessarily hinder practice, as understanding comes after reaching a certain point."

Therefore, while these Theravada explanations are often insufficient and can lead to misunderstandings, I don't think they necessarily hinder practice.

Ultimately, this kind of statement is not entirely wrong, and at the same time, it is somewhat incorrect. However, as an explanation for those who are unfamiliar, it is what it is. I would provide a different explanation if I were doing it myself, but I don't think it's necessary to deliberately refute such explanations or seek better expressions.

I occasionally feel like writing more about this, but ultimately, the discussion always revolves around whether concentration exists or not, because I can only perceive meditation through the senses. "Concentration" is the best that can be achieved as an "action," and "mindfulness" is what "occurs" as a result of meditation.

However, based on the Theravada explanation, even "mindfulness" becomes an "action," which makes the explanation confusing. The goal becomes to "mindfully" meditate, but this is an "action" that cannot be performed. Mindfulness is a state that "occurs." In that state, there is a certain level of conscious observation, which can be considered a deliberate action, but it is at a level different from normal decision-making in the conscious mind.

According to the definition of Theravada Buddhism, enlightenment is "concentration," but based on that explanation, concentration is not necessary for enlightenment. This statement is not entirely wrong, but it is somewhat lacking in explanation.

I have written about this many times, but I would like to write more about it when I have the time.