--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jun 19, 2007, at 9:36 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > > Correct translation: Mahesh holds incorrect views in regards to > > > stages of meditation as described in the YS of Patanjali. But > > > Mahesh's version is more marketable, even if it happens to be > > > a untrue. > > > > Translation: MMY has a different view than Vaj does. > > Actually the reason we know Mahesh's view is fallacious is because > what he calls samadhi actually is a state that is defined in > Sanskrit, very precisely, and it is an important sign of beginning > practice, but definitely not samadhi. This is the nice thing about > the Sanskrit language is that it has an extensive vocabulary for > states of consciousness which do not exist in most other languages.
Translation: MMY has a different view than Vaj does. > > > > > > > Since there is NO EEG evidence for samadhi in TM after > > > > > > > almost 50 years, that belief has proven truly foolish > > > > > > > indeed. > > > > > > > > > > > > Translation: For Vaj's definition of "EEG evidence > > > > > > for samadhi." > > > > > > > > > > Actual translation: modern science's definition of EEG > > > > > evidence for legitimate samadhi. > > > > > > > > Fact: "Modern science" doesn't *have* a definition > > > > of EEG evidence for "legitimate samadhi." > > > > > > Actually it has since at least the 1950's. > > > > No, it hasn't. > > Actually it has. Here's a direct quote for you: > > Samadhi was defined as a state during which "the perfectly > motionless subject is insensible to all that surrounds > him and is conscious of nothing but the subject of his > meditation." (Das & Gastaut, 1955) This would be Das and Gastaut's definition, not "modern science's" definition. In any case, of course, it isn't what you claimed, a "definition of EEG evidence for legitimate samadhi." > > > Interestingly this is the same as traditional definitions > > > > There is no traditional definition of EEG > > evidence for "legitimate samadhi." > > I wasn't referring to EEG. Non sequitur. I was pointing out your sloppy syntax. > > > and science has been able to verify the claims. > > > > No, it hasn't (and can't). > > > > What science can do is measure EEG and correlate > > the measurements with subjective reports of > > samadhi. But then, of course, you're back to the > > issue of how to define samadhi. And all you've > > verified is that certain EEG signatures are > > correlated with what people will say when they're > > asked what their experience was at the point when > > that signature was measured. > > In genuine samadhi, According to Vaj's definition. one of it's characteristics is that the yogin can > go into it at will and often chose the duration. This makes it > easier to measure. Being "insensible" to surroundings is easy to > measure. While the subject is in samadhi, you plunge the arm into > ice cold water and look for a response to physiological > measurements. Testing the startle reflex is another relatively > simple test. That's a test for your (and Das and Gastaut's) definition of samadhi. And it isn't even an EEG test. Ooops!
