--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 20, 2006, at 12:54 AM, sparaig wrote: <snip> > > Well, in the case of samadhi, the original tests asked for > > people to push a button. Turned out that they were in a > > normalish state of consciousness when they pushed the > > button, but some short time BEFORE they pushed the button, > > they were in a different state. You can't say "I'm in > > samadhi." You can only say "I WAS in samadhi." > > Not true, there are forms of samadhi which occur with > the eyes open dude.
Gosh, try as I might, I cannot find where Lawson said there weren't such forms of samadhi. Could you point to where he said this? It's so strange, because what *I* understand him to be referring to is the "form" of samadhi that that TMers experience during TM practice (which is done with eyes closed), and is defined as no thoughts, no mantra. Seems to me given that definition, you can't say "I'm in [this "form" of] samadhi" because it would require thought. Moreover, in his next paragraph, he explicitly acknowledges there are other "forms" of samadhi: > Of course, other meditation traditions induce > different states which THEIR practitioenrs also > call samadhi You seem to have deleted this. And finally, of course, TMers recognize that there are "forms" of samadhi that co-exist with thought (which TM calls "witnessing"). But that isn't what the TM researchers were testing for, as noted. So it appears to me that your comment is a non sequitur. Would you care to explain how you believe it isn't? (Silly me. Of course not.)
