--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], cardemaister <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], cardemaister <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yoga-suutra mentions several stages of samaadhi. > > > > The main distinction seems to be sabiija- vs. > > > > nirbiija-samaadhi. The highest stage is, I guess, > > > > dharma-megha-samaadhi. > > > > I wonder what stage "typically"(?) is the one mentioned > > > > in Vibhuuti-paada (third book). It's hardly nirbiija, > > > > because of "artha-maatra-nirbhaasam". Or, then again, > > > > I don't understand anything about the stages of > > > > samaadhi, LOL. > > > > > > http://web.mac.com/lawsonenglish/iWeb/Site/Meditation%20EEG.html > > > > > > The highest stage might corresdpond to the periods of > > > universal EEG coherence where the vertical lines are drawn... > > > > > > Compare samadhi with turiya in Mandukya Upanishad. > > > > Interesting, the postcontrol breathing seems like more > > rapid than the precontrol. Huccome? > > Just as fodder for discussion, if anyone's on that > wavelength, it seems to me that the Vedic/Hindu > approach to these different types of samadhi > interprets them as "stages" because they're stuck > in a hierarchical mindset. Because they bring a > hierarchical set of assumptions to the table, they > see these different types of samadhi experience as > existing within a linear structure of experiences > that has a "top" and a "bottom," a structure in > which the experiences at the "top" are "better" > than those further "down," which are perceived to > be "less better." > > This is not the only way to view samadhi exper- > iences. I've heard talks from several different > teachers who share my more relational view of > the structure of creation, and they don't see it > that way at all. For them there is NO "highest > state of consciousness." Such a concept simply > doesn't exist for them. There is only the state > of consciousness that is going on at the time. > If that is "stage one samadhi," cool; if it is > "stage ten samadhi," that's cool, too. If it's > normal, vanilla waking state, that's OK, too. > > They assume (and I do, too, because it jibes > with my personal experiences) that there IS no > linear sequence of evolution from "lowest" to > "highest." No state of consciousness -- even > the states of consciousness one associates with > "ignorance" -- is either "better" or "worse" > than another. They are just what's going on at > the time, the level of self-realization you are > comfortable with at the time, that's all. > > They also assume that states of consciousness > will continue to change and fluctuate, even > after enlightenment is stable. One day you'll > be experiencing "stage one samadhi," and next > something else. Your state of consciousness will > continue to fluctuate as long as you have a > body, because that is the nature of having a > body. And that's OK. They view the idea that one > could "achieve" a certain state of consciousness > and consider it the "end point" and then *stay* > there with a great deal of amusement. They laugh > until their sides ache, as if someone has just > told them the funniest joke they've ever heard. >
And MMY doesn't claim this and neither does Patanjali. There's a point past which discussion is impossible, however.
