--- In [email protected], ruthsimplicity <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Richard M" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > > We have EEG evidence of Samadhi in Patanjali > > > yogins, so we know what it looks like. If you can't replicate those > > > findings in students, I would hope that would be a point of concern > > > > Vaj - can you not see the methodological flaw in this? It's circular. > > > > Let me re-phase your statement slightly: > > > > We have tested these guys and found a pattern. We see that that pattern > > matches what samadhi looks like. Therefore we now know what samadhi > > looks like. Groan... > > > > Or is it: > > > > We don't know what samadhi is, but whatever it is, we know these guys > > have got it (how, if we don't know what samadhi is?). So now we've measured > > them, and as a result we now know what samadhi is. Groan... > > > We have correlated physiological markers to specific described experiences > that occur in more than one person. We do not know if the same markers might > occur in different people in different circumstances. We do not know if > there is any "cosmic" meaning (for lack of a better word) for the experience > or the markers. > > >
More interestingly, we have radically different markers in different meditation traditions for the same self-reported experiences (or lack thereof). L.
