--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jun 20, 2007, at 12:14 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jun 19, 2007, at 5:36 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > > > > > Vaj, you've made some high-sounding claims that > > > > you haven't even begun to document. > > <snip> > > > > Here are the claims I was referring to (as you > > > > know): > > > > > > > > "Mahesh holds incorrect views in regards to stages of > > > > meditation as described in the YS of Patanjali." > > > > > > > > "Actually ["modern science"] has [had an EEG > > > > definition of "legitimate" samadhi] since at least > > > > the 1950's. Interestingly this [definition of samadhi] > > > > is the same as traditional definitions and science has > > > > been able to verify the claims." > > > > > > Very good, yeah! > > > > Yes, glad you agree. Now, the question is, why on > > earth would you make claims you knew you couldn't > > possibly support? > > > They are supported by the original research from the 50's and more > recently duplicated in modern research. This recent research was > highly praised and I believe this was simply because, despite a > flurry of research on meditation, we had never had a duplication on > the original 1950's occurrence of high amplitude gamma waves in the > advanced Hindu yogis. So the new findings were a big surprise. In > addition we also have repeats of this phenomenon in unpublished > research on samadhi (of the correlation between high-amplitude gamma > waves and the occurrence of samadhi in humans). It is for this reason > that we know that high-amplitude gamma waves correlate with samadhi. > Long term, deep meditators show evidence of this even outside of > meditation. New research on this will be published within the next > year hopefully providing further evidence.
Again, this is all based on one particular definition of "legitimate" samadhi taken from the "traditional" literature. It does not prove that other definitions are somehow wrong or illegitimate. > Regarding your confusion on Mahesh's fallacious views on the > angas, see my response to New Morn. See above. My original comment is still the relevant one: MMY has a different view. You have always had the tendency to claim that if MMY's view (of anything) did not conform to the "traditional" view you happen to favor, therefore MMY's view must be wrong. But this, again, is like claiming Martin Luther's views must have been wrong because they differed from those of the pope. MMY has always been explicit that he is, like Luther, a *reformer*, correcting erroneous views that had crept into the "traditional" teaching. To prove that his corrections are in error, you can't simply point out that what he says is different from the "traditional" teaching, you have to address what he says on its own terms. You've never been able to do this. And BTW, with reference to your post to billy jim, those who display "anesthesia" and catalepsy don't necessarily have to have a history of seizures.
