--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <LEnglish5@...> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > [...] > > However, TM theory predicts that episodes of pure consciousness are not a > > good indicator of enlightenment because a single episode of PC might cause > > changes in the nervous system that take months or years to fully resolve, > > and during that period, meditations might be less restful. > > I should have said, "not a good indicator of *partial* enlightenment." > > One traditional definition of nirvakalpa samadhi is that one enters samadhi > during meditation and never leaves, but you can have some "witnessing value" > constantly throughout waking, dreaming and sleeping, and not be having ANY > noticeable pure consciousness episodes during meditation. > > L > If a person experiences 'pure consciousness' in meditation along with breath suspension, we might have a different situation with more long term meditators. Obviously if a person is 'witnessing' during activity, many of the markers of a restful state in meditation are not going to be present. I think we could expect that the markers of progress would change over time, as experience changes.
The term partial enlightenment seems kind of odd. Partial skydiving might be jumping out of a plane without a parachute. Leaving the plane, falling for a while, and landing are all taken care of, but it is not the same as full skydiving.
