--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > > > > > > http://what-buddha- > > taught.net/Books/Ajahn_Chah_Dangers_in_Samadhi.htm > > > > > > > > Wrong samadhi is where the mind enters calm and there's no > > awareness > > > > at all. ...the mind enters calm, and we don't want to come out > > to > > > > investigate anything. We just get stuck on that happiness ... > > With > > > > right samadhi, no matter what level of calm is reached, there is > > > > awareness. There is full mindfulness and clear comprehension. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sigh. Samadhi is where the thalamus stops (or at least extremely > > reduces) accepting > > > sensory input from the outside world AND stops (or at least > > extremely reduces) allowing > > > cortical-thalamic-cortical feedback loops, while the brain remains > > in a restfully alert state. > > > > > > There are many things that can be described using the same words > > that might be used to > > > describe samadhi : "the mind calms down..." however, samadhi is > > NOT a state you can > > > deliberately induce or hold onto, by its nature, because > > any "holding on" or "deliberately" > > > implies thinking processes and those go away when the thalamus > > stops passing along the > > > internal sensory feedback loops we call "thinking." > > > > > > > > > EEG readings of someone in samadhi show that by the time they are > > able to consciously > > > note that they are in the pure state, they are no longer in that > > state, so this is another > > > example of the futility of attempting to accurately describe or > > hold onto the state. > > > > At the link, the guy appears to be talking > > about transcendental-consciousness-by-itself > > ("wrong samadhi") versus witnessing thoughts > > during meditation ("right samadhi"). > > There's plenty of possibly ways in which "witnessing of > thoughts" might take place. Not all of them would fulfill > the TM definition of witnessing.
Right. But what's the relevance to what I just said? Did you think I had suggested otherwise? Did you look at the page at the link? > Certainly, putting a "right or wrong" > spin on what happens during meditation makes whatever > happens "unnatural" or at least, "contrived." Indeed.
