--- In [email protected], "larry.potter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ---- Original Message ----- > From: "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 7:38 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi > > > --- In [email protected], "larry.potter" > <larry.potter@> wrote: > > > > > > From: "authfriend" <jstein@> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 10:58 AM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi > > > > > > <snip> > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > > > > > > But MMY, in my understanding, teaches exactly the > > opposite: samadhi is prerequisite to samyama. > > Obviously samyama is not the same as "pure" > > samadhi; 3:8 is a DEscription, not a PREscription. > > > > >> > > > > Can you refer us to any source by MMY to that effect, that reflect > > that that samadhi is prerequisite to samyama ? > > It's not my understanding of the MMY's teaching (Samyama). > > > > As I understand it, Samyama flows and go thru stages (processes, > > refinement) that "evolves" into a samadhi "stage" and not vice > > versa. Only later on, after more practice, the states of samyama > and > > samadhi almost become one almost instantly. > > > > <snip> > > > > <<One must already know TM and practice to learn and practice > MMY's samyama technique. > That's a prerequisit in the first place. >> > > right, in that context that Judy was referring to, of teaching new > students the Sidhi technique after they are familiar with TM. I > understood that she was referring to that later on. > > initially I was more thinking in the context of a specific one > session, of using the mantra in meditation until the flow becomes a > full evolved Samadhi. > Samyama is basically a pulse of attention, hence any session of > meditation will have parts of it as well (not just the Sidhis), > therefore also before the full blown Samadhi there will be an > ongoing samyama pulses. >
It seems plausible that you can describe TM as samyama without intention, while the sidhis are samyama with intention.
