--- 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], "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. > > So do I. So what's the relevance of your > comment to what I wrote? >
I think I was adding a sub-commentary to your commentary rather disagreeing with you. /shrug. > > > 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. > > > > > >
