--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> 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? >
Yes I did. And I disagree completely. The only "wrongness" of samadhi would be to try to cling to it, which is actually impossible: you can, by the nature of samadhi, only cling to an illusion that you believe is samadhi. The REAL wrongness would be to not engage in some kind of activity outside of meditation to integrate samadhi with activity. But it's not samadhi that is wrong. > > Certainly, putting a "right or wrong" > > spin on what happens during meditation makes whatever > > happens "unnatural" or at least, "contrived." > > Indeed. >
