|
Home > Archive > Yoga > July 2005 > Samadhi?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| willytex@yahoo.com 2005-06-15, 12:19 pm |
| The word Samadhi is found in the early Buddhist leterature,
specifically the Anguttara Nikaya IV.94 of the Samadhi Sutra of Shakya
the Muni, namely Gautama of Kapilavastu, India's first historical
yogin. There is a long history of the use of this word in early
pre-sectarian Buddhism, in the Chan tradition and in Zen Buddhism. In
the index of the Visuddi Magga, for example, there are over twenty-five
references to Samadhi that need to be read in context.
However, the word Samadhi is not found in any of the 10 Upanishads
commented on by Shankara Acharya. This is no small mattter and cannot
be passed over, for if, as you say, the attainment of Samadhi is
central to the experiential verification of the Vedanta, one would
expect the phrase to occur in the sacred texts, would one not?
Samadhi: 1. Sanskrit (Sa=FAma=FAdhi) n. Jap., sanmai or zanmai 2.
Nirvana, Parinirvana 3. from the root word 'Sam', to establish, make
firm. 4. A conscious experience that lies beyond waking, dreaming, and
deep sleep. 5. A non-meditative meditative mental equipose.
| |
| Sevenhundred Elves 2005-06-15, 12:19 pm |
| willytex@yahoo.com wrote:
> The word Samadhi is found in the early Buddhist leterature,
> specifically the Anguttara Nikaya IV.94 of the Samadhi Sutra of Shakya
> the Muni, namely Gautama of Kapilavastu, India's first historical
> yogin. There is a long history of the use of this word in early
> pre-sectarian Buddhism, in the Chan tradition and in Zen Buddhism. In
> the index of the Visuddi Magga, for example, there are over twenty-five
> references to Samadhi that need to be read in context.
>
> However, the word Samadhi is not found in any of the 10 Upanishads
> commented on by Shankara Acharya. This is no small mattter and cannot
> be passed over, for if, as you say, the attainment of Samadhi is
> central to the experiential verification of the Vedanta, one would
> expect the phrase to occur in the sacred texts, would one not?
>
> Samadhi: 1. Sanskrit (Saúmaúdhi) n. Jap., sanmai or zanmai 2.
> Nirvana, Parinirvana 3. from the root word 'Sam', to establish, make
> firm. 4. A conscious experience that lies beyond waking, dreaming, and
> deep sleep. 5. A non-meditative meditative mental equipose.
I'm sorry that I don't remember this as well as I would like to, but I
have read somewhere that the yogic tradition used to be a subculture or
even a contraculture to Brahminism. Maybe this could explain why the
Vedas don't use that (really very technical) term. I'm not certain at
all about this, or whether whatever book I once read it in was very
authoritative, but perhaps it could be worth looking into, if you could
find any references to it.
BTW, I always thought Samadhi meant "sameness meditation" from a root
meaning same, and another root which also "Dhyana", meditation, comes
from.
S.
| |
|
| samadhi has nothing to do with jnana aka bodhi.
<willytex@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118754887.493628.118150@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
However, the word Samadhi is not found in any of the 10 Upanishads
commented on by Shankara Acharya. This is no small mattter and cannot
be passed over, for if, as you say, the attainment of Samadhi is
central to the experiential verification of the Vedanta, one would
expect the phrase to occur in the sacred texts, would one not?
| |
| willytex@yahoo.com 2005-06-15, 12:19 pm |
| Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
> I always thought Samadhi meant "sameness meditation" from a
> root meaning same, and another root which also "Dhyana",
> meditation, comes from.
>
The key word here is cessation - an experience of epistemological
reflection. The most ancient sustained expression of yogic ideas is
found in the early discourses of the historical Buddha, thus
Patanjali's conception of freedom is related to the ancient Buddhist
view that the source of suffering is the craving for permanence in a
universe of impermanence.
Both the 'Four Noble Truths' and the 'Eightfold Path' articulated in
the Buddha's first discourse are elements that underlie the yoga
system. Two striking examples of this are Patanjali's use of the word
nirodha in the opening definition of yoga as citta-vrtti-nirodha, that
is, 'Yoga is the cessation of the turnings of thought' and the
statement that "all is suffering, dukkha, for the wise man."
Dukkha, suffering, and nirodha, cessation, are crucial terms in
Buddhist vocabulary and the doctrine of suffering is the core of what
Buddhists believe the Buddha taught after gaining enlightenment.
Patanjali's ashtang eight-limbed practice is parallel to the
eight-limbed path of Buddha.
| |
| willytex@yahoo.com 2005-06-15, 12:19 pm |
| anon wrote:
> samadhi has nothing to do with jnana aka bodhi.
>
The Buddha's Eightfold Path to Bodhi (enlightenment)
8. Right Samadhi
Pali samma samadhi: A mental factor present in every state of
consciousness.
The Eightfold Path:
http://buddhism.about.com/library/bleightpath.htm
| |
| LawsonE 2005-06-15, 12:19 pm |
|
<willytex@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118807915.961280.140910@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
> The key word here is cessation - an experience of epistemological
> reflection. The most ancient sustained expression of yogic ideas is
> found in the early discourses of the historical Buddha, thus
> Patanjali's conception of freedom is related to the ancient Buddhist
> view that the source of suffering is the craving for permanence in a
> universe of impermanence.
>
> Both the 'Four Noble Truths' and the 'Eightfold Path' articulated in
> the Buddha's first discourse are elements that underlie the yoga
> system. Two striking examples of this are Patanjali's use of the word
> nirodha in the opening definition of yoga as citta-vrtti-nirodha, that
> is, 'Yoga is the cessation of the turnings of thought' and the
> statement that "all is suffering, dukkha, for the wise man."
>
> Dukkha, suffering, and nirodha, cessation, are crucial terms in
> Buddhist vocabulary and the doctrine of suffering is the core of what
> Buddhists believe the Buddha taught after gaining enlightenment.
> Patanjali's ashtang eight-limbed practice is parallel to the
> eight-limbed path of Buddha.
>
The concept of "spirit" as in "breath" appears in virtually all the
languages of the world, from Chinese to Latin to Japanese to Hopi.
The deepest state of Samadhi is the breathless state where your "true
spirit" is. I suspect that the Hopi word for spirit didn't come from some
samadhi technique brought to America by Buddhists.
IOW, the "experience" called "samadhi" predates Buddhism, and is probably
found within all mystical/spiritual/religious traditions at some point in
their development since it is certainly referenced by the languages that
evolved along with these traditions.
| |
|
|
<willytex@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118808201.728663.42060@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> anon wrote:
> The Buddha's Eightfold Path to Bodhi (enlightenment)
>
> 8. Right Samadhi
>
> Pali samma samadhi: A mental factor present in every state of
> consciousness.
>
samadhi is concentration practice (ie, one-pointedness, or exclusion of
everything else).
bodhi is the culmination of awareness (ie, choiceless awareness) where one
is even aware of the seed of existence.
| |
|
| samadhi is one of the paths leading to bodhi. it is not a necessary
requirement. neither is it sufficient.
also, most esoteric teachings were passed secretly to students in the yoga
path. the upanishads do not mention vipassana type of meditation either. yet
the buddha got his bodhi by that method. so the method existed before the
buddha and must have been well-regarded in is time to be followed by him. it
just shows the principal upanishads are discourses on jnana and not yoga or
practice.
vedanta is a path of discrimination and direct awakening, unlike yoga which
is a gradual practice.
the vedas also do not mention the main practice in modern hinduism - bhakti.
<willytex@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118754887.493628.118150@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
However, the word Samadhi is not found in any of the 10 Upanishads
commented on by Shankara Acharya.
| |
| Dave ©¿©¬ 2005-06-16, 8:54 am |
| "LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:23Ore.6117$i81.3560@fed1read05...
>
> <willytex@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1118807915.961280.140910@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> The concept of "spirit" as in "breath" appears in virtually all the
> languages of the world, from Chinese to Latin to Japanese to Hopi.
>
> The deepest state of Samadhi is the breathless state where your "true
> spirit" is. I suspect that the Hopi word for spirit didn't come from some
> samadhi technique brought to America by Buddhists.
>
> IOW, the "experience" called "samadhi" predates Buddhism, and is probably
> found within all mystical/spiritual/religious traditions at some point in
> their development since it is certainly referenced by the languages that
> evolved along with these traditions.
>
Howdy!
IMHO: All discussion about what samadhi is, isn't or might be is pointless.
Samadhi is an entirely different plane of perception. The best description
of samadhi that I can give is:
Samadhi is an experience of reality in which all superimpositions, points of
reference and comparison have been removed. (Same principle as my contention
that one can not discuss reality.)
IOW: You will immediately recognize it when you get there!
Once you have experienced it, the only way to communicate the experience is
to say the word. If a twinkle of understanding appears in the listeners eye,
all is understood -- if not, then any attempts to convey the experience
(sensation?) are pointless.
--
Dave ©¿©¬
http://www.howdydave.com
| |
| tantricone@aol.com 2005-06-16, 8:54 am |
| Dave =A9=BF=A9=AC wrote:
> Howdy!
Howdy.
> IMHO: All discussion about what samadhi is, isn't or might be is pointles=
s=2E
>
> Samadhi is an entirely different plane of perception. The best description
> of samadhi that I can give is:
>
> Samadhi is an experience of reality in which all superimpositions, points=
of
> reference and comparison have been removed. (Same principle as my content=
ion
> that one can not discuss reality.)
>
> IOW: You will immediately recognize it when you get there!
>
> Once you have experienced it, the only way to communicate the experience =
is
> to say the word. If a twinkle of understanding appears in the listeners e=
ye,
> all is understood -- if not, then any attempts to convey the experience
> (sensation?) are pointless.
Nice. That's it, exactly.
The word is merely a label for something that cannot possibly
be expressed in words, the classic finger pointing to the moon.
When you point, some people think fondly of their experiences
with the moon and smile. Others think you're giving them the
finger.
Unc
| |
| LawsonE 2005-06-18, 6:24 pm |
| But what did that have to do with MY point about the probable universality
of samadhi, regardless of what label is used?
<tantricone@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1118916441.716564.47300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dave ©¿©¬ wrote:
> Howdy!
Howdy.
> IMHO: All discussion about what samadhi is, isn't or might be is
> pointless.
>
> Samadhi is an entirely different plane of perception. The best description
> of samadhi that I can give is:
>
> Samadhi is an experience of reality in which all superimpositions, points
> of
> reference and comparison have been removed. (Same principle as my
> contention
> that one can not discuss reality.)
>
> IOW: You will immediately recognize it when you get there!
>
> Once you have experienced it, the only way to communicate the experience
> is
> to say the word. If a twinkle of understanding appears in the listeners
> eye,
> all is understood -- if not, then any attempts to convey the experience
> (sensation?) are pointless.
Nice. That's it, exactly.
The word is merely a label for something that cannot possibly
be expressed in words, the classic finger pointing to the moon.
When you point, some people think fondly of their experiences
with the moon and smile. Others think you're giving them the
finger.
Unc
| |
| tantricone@aol.com 2005-06-18, 6:24 pm |
| LawsonE wrote:
> But what did that have to do with MY point about the probable
> universality of samadhi, regardless of what label is used?
Those who have experienced it can tell what you're
talking about, because they have experienced it.
Those who have not are trying to fit words -- any
words -- to a concept they have never personally
experienced. They're trying to fit the words into
the things they *have* experienced in their lives,
and they just don't fit.
Describe silence for me. Not in terms of the
absence of something, but in terms of its own
attributes. I'll wait. :-)
And that's *easy*, compared to trying to describe
samadhi...
Unc
| |
| LawsonE 2005-06-18, 6:24 pm |
|
<tantricone@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1119045409.064230.119720@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> LawsonE wrote:
>
> Those who have experienced it can tell what you're
> talking about, because they have experienced it.
> Those who have not are trying to fit words -- any
> words -- to a concept they have never personally
> experienced. They're trying to fit the words into
> the things they *have* experienced in their lives,
> and they just don't fit.
>
> Describe silence for me. Not in terms of the
> absence of something, but in terms of its own
> attributes. I'll wait. :-)
>
> And that's *easy*, compared to trying to describe
> samadhi...
>
But what did that have to do with MY point about the probable universality
of samadhi, regardless of what label is used?
| |
| tantricone@aol.com 2005-06-18, 6:24 pm |
| LawsonE wrote:
> But what did that have to do with MY point about the probable
> universality of samadhi, regardless of what label is used?
Did you somehow think I was replying to you? I was
replying to Dave=A9=BF=A9=AC.
It seems to me you're trying to pick a fight, and
an intellectual one at that. Not my interest.
Dave=A9=BF=A9=AC made a cool point. I responded to it.
End of story, man...
Unc
| |
| mazlov@yahoo.com 2005-06-18, 6:24 pm |
| "If a twinkle of understanding appears ..." good point!
The Samadhi is not the sense of perception of any idea; it is an
experience of "arrival", coming home from an alien land (of the
ignorant humans).
Narayana 
| |
| LawsonE 2005-06-18, 6:24 pm |
|
<mazlov@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119050347.274797.184510@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> "If a twinkle of understanding appears ..." good point!
>
> The Samadhi is not the sense of perception of any idea; it is an
> experience of "arrival", coming home from an alien land (of the
> ignorant humans).
>
> Narayana
>
Samadhi isn't an experience at all, though its the closest word we can use
without stepping back and talking physiological states.
| |
| Dave ©¿©¬ 2005-06-18, 6:24 pm |
| "LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:NPJse.1081$iG5.384@fed1read05...
>
> <mazlov@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1119050347.274797.184510@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Samadhi isn't an experience at all, though its the closest word we can use
> without stepping back and talking physiological states.
>
>
I rest my case!
--
Dave ©¿©¬
http://www.howdydave.com
| |
| Dave ©¿©¬ 2005-06-18, 6:24 pm |
| "LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:9KHse.991$iG5.651@fed1read05...
>
> <tantricone@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1119045409.064230.119720@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> But what did that have to do with MY point about the probable
universality
> of samadhi, regardless of what label is used?
>
>
Howdy!
In answer to your question...
Of course samadhi pre-dates Buddhism.
To the best of my knowledge Yoga was merely the first philosophy to DOCUMENT
it.
--
Dave ©¿©¬
http://www.howdydave.com
| |
| mazlov@yahoo.com 2005-06-18, 6:24 pm |
| Samadhi isn't an experience at all - if not, where are u and where is
your samadhi ??? LOL
| |
| Atman 2005-06-21, 11:52 am |
|
"Dave ©¿©¬"
>
> Howdy!
>
> IMHO: All discussion about what samadhi is, isn't or might be is
> pointless.
>
> Samadhi is an entirely different plane of perception. The best description
> of samadhi that I can give is:
>
> Samadhi is an experience of reality in which all superimpositions, points
> of
> reference and comparison have been removed. (Same principle as my
> contention
> that one can not discuss reality.)
>
> IOW: You will immediately recognize it when you get there!
>
> Once you have experienced it, the only way to communicate the experience
> is
> to say the word. If a twinkle of understanding appears in the listeners
> eye,
> all is understood -- if not, then any attempts to convey the experience
> (sensation?) are pointless.
>
> --
> Dave ©¿©¬
>
> http://www.howdydave.com
It seems that you're inconsistent. On one hand Samadhi is an
experience of reality in which all superimpositions, points of
reference and comparison have been removed, on the other
Samadhi is an entirely different plane of perception. You're
talking about -either- the same plain-Jane reality that
everybody experience minus all superimpositions, points of
reference and comparison -or- an entirely different plane of
perception of another reality altogether. They seem to be
different.
| |
| jstein@panix.com 2005-06-21, 11:52 am |
|
Atman wrote:
> "Dave =A9=BF=A9=AC"
ion[vbcol=seagreen]
ts[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> It seems that you're inconsistent. On one hand Samadhi is an
> experience of reality in which all superimpositions, points of
> reference and comparison have been removed, on the other
> Samadhi is an entirely different plane of perception. You're
> talking about -either- the same plain-Jane reality that
> everybody experience minus all superimpositions, points of
> reference and comparison -or- an entirely different plane of
> perception of another reality altogether. They seem to be
> different.
Same reality, different plane of perception of
that reality.
The same plain-Jane reality that everybody
experiences MINUS all superimpositions, points
of reference, and comparisons IS a different plane
of perception OF THAT SAME REALITY than the "normal"
plane of perception that involves superimpositions,
points of reference, and comparisons.
| |
| jstein@panix.com 2005-06-21, 5:53 pm |
|
jstein@panix.com wrote:
> Atman wrote:
<snip>
>
> Same reality, different plane of perception of
> that reality.
>
> The same plain-Jane reality that everybody
> experiences MINUS all superimpositions, points
> of reference, and comparisons IS a different plane
> of perception OF THAT SAME REALITY than the "normal"
> plane of perception that involves superimpositions,
> points of reference, and comparisons.
Strictly speaking, samadhi is not a "perception" of
reality because no organs of perception are involved,
nor any cognitive processes whatsoever. Or to put it
another way, in samadhi, that which is perceived is
also that which perceives; samadhi is reality knowing
itself. Or to put it still another way, in samadhi
one *is* reality, rather than perceiving reality as
something external to and distinct from oneself.
This is why it's very hard to talk about precisely. ;-)
| |
| LawsonE 2005-06-21, 5:53 pm |
|
<jstein@panix.com> wrote in message
news:1119374047.268638.62910@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> Strictly speaking, samadhi is not a "perception" of
> reality because no organs of perception are involved,
> nor any cognitive processes whatsoever. Or to put it
> another way, in samadhi, that which is perceived is
> also that which perceives; samadhi is reality knowing
> itself. Or to put it still another way, in samadhi
> one *is* reality, rather than perceiving reality as
> something external to and distinct from oneself.
>
> This is why it's very hard to talk about precisely. ;-)
>
Exactly.
Huh?
| |
| tiresias 2005-06-21, 10:54 pm |
| LawsonE wrote:
> <jstein@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:1119374047.268638.62910@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> [...]
>
>
>
> Exactly.
>
> Huh?
>
>
T---no organs of perception...you are lying, that's why you can't talk
about it
| |
| punditster@gmail.com 2005-06-22, 8:55 am |
| jstein@panix.com wrote:
> Strictly speaking, samadhi is not a "perception" of
> reality because no organs of perception are involved,
> nor any cognitive processes whatsoever.
>
According to Vyasa, Samadhi is Yoga, the cessation of mental
fluctuations, a state in which the Self remains by itself, alone,
Kavailya, isolated from Prakriti, a witness to the Purusha which is
completely separate.
Yoga is akin to Samkhya, which are both based a dualsim, the
fundamental distinction between subject and object, which is
obliterated in deep sleep and in Samadhi.
| |
| punditster@gmail.com 2005-06-22, 8:55 am |
| tiresias wrote:
> T---no organs of perception...you are lying, that's why
> you can't talk about it
>
In fact, the word Samadhi seems to have been deliberately avoided,
except in the case of the later Vedanta work, Vedantasara. There is no
reference in the Upanishads to a meditation practice leading to the
suspension of the faculties such as we find in the literature dealing
with yoga.
In the Hindu scriptures the word Samadhi first appears in the Maitrayni
(6.18, 34), a late Upanishad. This text apparently recognizes five of
the eight limbs of Patanjali's classical Ashtanga Yoga.
It should be noted that there are over 200 Upanishads in the Vedic
literature and all were composed after the Gautama Buddha's passing. It
would seem that yogic practice entered into Upanishadic and Vedantic
literature osmosis-like, a blending of Buddhist yogic and Upanishadic
milieus.
| |
| jstein@panix.com 2005-06-22, 8:55 am |
|
tiresias wrote:
> LawsonE wrote:
> T---no organs of perception...you are lying, that's why you can't talk
> about it
I beg your pardon?
Do you have some kind of reading problem?
| |
| punditster@gmail.com 2005-06-22, 8:55 am |
| LawsonE wrote:
> Huh?
>
According to Shankara, duality is only temporarily obliterated in
Samadhi. Duality reappears when one comes out of yoga enstasis and the
reason why duality persists is because false knowledge has not been
removed.
The attainment of Samadhi is not a sufficient cause to eradicate false
knowledge, and since false knowledge is the cause of bondage, Samadhi
cannot therefore be the cause of liberation.
As stated in Brahmasutra 2.1.3, "Thereby the Yoga is refuted..."
| |
| tiresias 2005-06-22, 8:55 am |
| jstein@panix.com wrote:
>
> tiresias wrote:
>
>
>
> I beg your pardon?
>
> Do you have some kind of reading problem?
>
T---do you
| |
| LawsonE 2005-06-22, 10:52 pm |
|
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119414418.399419.103310@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> LawsonE wrote:
> According to Shankara, duality is only temporarily obliterated in
> Samadhi. Duality reappears when one comes out of yoga enstasis and the
> reason why duality persists is because false knowledge has not been
> removed.
>
> The attainment of Samadhi is not a sufficient cause to eradicate false
> knowledge, and since false knowledge is the cause of bondage, Samadhi
> cannot therefore be the cause of liberation.
>
> As stated in Brahmasutra 2.1.3, "Thereby the Yoga is refuted..."
>
Of course, MMY uses Shankara's analogy of dieing (sp) the cloth cold. You
dip it in and then let it sit in the sun until the color fades. You repeat
over and over again until eventually the color doesn't fade.
Likewise, meditation cultures the nervous system to be in a certain state.
You then perform normal daily activities and the state fades. You repeat and
eventually the state doesn't fade. This is enlightenment, where the nervous
system has been cultured to maintain both samadhi and activity at the same
time.
| |
| omjaroo 2005-06-23, 9:00 am |
| snip
> This is enlightenment, where the nervous
> system has been cultured to maintain both samadhi and activity at the same
> time.
I would suggest that this is what often times passes for "enlightenment"
but does not in itself constitute "enlightenment".
"Enlightenment" in the spiritual sense is knowing and accepting "who"
and "what" you are. Samahdi, meditation, various religious observances,
etc. are some of the paths used to try and obtain this knowledge but
they are not the knowledge, nor do they necessarily impart the
knowledge.
Jared
Namaste
| |
| LawsonE 2005-06-23, 9:00 am |
|
"omjaroo" <omjaroo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:omjaroo-AFB74F.21091022062005@news.corenews.com...
> snip
>
>
> I would suggest that this is what often times passes for "enlightenment"
> but does not in itself constitute "enlightenment".
>
> "Enlightenment" in the spiritual sense is knowing and accepting "who"
> and "what" you are. Samahdi, meditation, various religious observances,
> etc. are some of the paths used to try and obtain this knowledge but
> they are not the knowledge, nor do they necessarily impart the
> knowledge.
>
> Jared
>
According to TM theory, ala Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, "enlightenment" is a
catch-all phrase for several different physiological states of the nervous
system. It isn't about "knowledge" in the intellectual sense, but about the
state of the knower and how the knower processes the known.
By definition, samadhi is the collected unity of knower, process of knowing
and known. Current TM researchers speculate that samadhi is the context or
attention-switching mechanism of the brain left by itself without any object
of peception or any mental content to allow one to make distinctions between
one regular state and the next. It is held to be the ultimate state of rest
for the nervous system -complete anti-stress. "Knowing" who and what you are
is inherit in samadhi, since "who" you are is defined by the most
non-changing aspect of your mental landscape. Samadhi, being the changeless
observer, is the ultimate "who" in "who you are," since it lies at the basis
of all possible mental and emotional states. You can't have a mental or
emotional state without awareness, and samadhi is "pure awareness" without
content, and hence the ultimate who (as well as the ultimate what).
| |
|
|
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119412926.231667.262230@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> It should be noted that there are over 200 Upanishads in the Vedic
> literature and all were composed after the Gautama Buddha's passing.
>
a distinction s usually made between the "principal" upanishads
(which were commented on by Shankaracharya), and the
later ones.
the distinction, as you mentioned is over the content (the later
ones are obviously influenced by buddhist and tantric practices),
but also the style of the language, which is used to discern the
era of writing.
the principal upanishads are said to predate the buddha and
be almost as old as the rest of the vedas.
| |
| willytex@yahoo.com 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
| punditster@gmail.com> wrote
anon wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> a distinction s usually made between the "principal" upanishads
> (which were commented on by Shankaracharya), and the
> later ones.
>
Not by devotees - according to the Upanishadic tradition, Vyasa
arranged all the Vedas into four books, then he composed the Brahman
Sutra, and the Srimad Bhagwatam for our understanding.
> the distinction, as you mentioned is over the content (the later
> ones are obviously influenced by buddhist and tantric practices),
> but also the style of the language, which is used to discern the
> era of writing.
>
According to historians, most, if not all, of the major Upanishads were
composed after the historical Buddha's passing.
> the principal upanishads are said to predate the buddha and
> be almost as old as the rest of the vedas.
>
If the Upanishads were older than the Buddha we would find references
to them in the Buddhist Canon - Indian history begins with the
historical Buddha.
| |
|
| On 2005-06-22 00:26:58 -0400, punditster@gmail.com said:
> According to Shankara, duality is only temporarily obliterated in
> Samadhi. Duality reappears when one comes out of yoga enstasis and the
> reason why duality persists is because false knowledge has not been
> removed.
>
> The attainment of Samadhi is not a sufficient cause to eradicate false
> knowledge, and since false knowledge is the cause of bondage, Samadhi
> cannot therefore be the cause of liberation.
>
> As stated in Brahmasutra 2.1.3, "Thereby the Yoga is refuted..."
A very astute observation.
In the Samkhya style realisation a la Patanjali after one has begun to
remove obscurations thru seedless samadhi, eventually one can make the
discriminative leap, viveka-khyati and then truly attain nirodha. Then
realization can occur. At that point transcendence is measured in
hours, not minutes.
| |
|
| On 2005-06-22 23:16:52 -0400, "LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> said:
> Of course, MMY uses Shankara's analogy of dieing (sp) the cloth cold.
> You dip it in and then let it sit in the sun until the color fades. You
> repeat over and over again until eventually the color doesn't fade.
>
> Likewise, meditation cultures the nervous system to be in a certain
> state. You then perform normal daily activities and the state fades.
> You repeat and eventually the state doesn't fade. This is
> enlightenment, where the nervous system has been cultured to maintain
> both samadhi and activity at the same time.
After a while--20 30 years in most people--one will develop witnessing
as an artifact of this style of meditation, that's all. Not liberation.
The scientific evidence on meditation backs this assertion. Mantra
style meditation will eventually lead to a EEG where the witnessing
bands are present. In higher forms of meditation, this band disappears
and the EEG essentially goes blank.
If you stop dyeing the cloth and keep it exposed to the sun, the cloth
will fade, irregardless of how many times it had been dyed before. And
this is what the Shankaracharya tradition teaches--yoga will not
produce permanent results, only formless, non-dual meditation will.
| |
| John Manning 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
| Vaj. wrote:
> On 2005-06-22 23:16:52 -0400, "LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> said:
>
>
>
> After a while--20 30 years in most people--one will develop witnessing
> as an artifact of this style of meditation, that's all. Not liberation.
> The scientific evidence on meditation backs this assertion. Mantra style
> meditation will eventually lead to a EEG where the witnessing bands are
> present. In higher forms of meditation, this band disappears and the EEG
> essentially goes blank.
>
> If you stop dyeing the cloth and keep it exposed to the sun, the cloth
> will fade, irregardless of how many times it had been dyed before. And
> this is what the Shankaracharya tradition teaches--yoga will not produce
> permanent results, only formless, non-dual meditation will.
Of course you know this from personal
experience, right?
| |
|
| On 2005-06-24 08:37:49 -0400, John Manning <jrobertm@terra.com.br> said:
> Vaj. wrote:
>
> Of course you know this from personal experience, right?
Of course.
| |
| John Manning 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
| Vaj. wrote:
> On 2005-06-24 08:37:49 -0400, John Manning <jrobertm@terra.com.br> said:
>
>
>
> Of course.
LOL!
| |
| LawsonE 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
|
"Vaj." <no-reply@shunyata.net> wrote in message
news:2005062408195450073%noreply@shunyatanet...
> On 2005-06-22 23:16:52 -0400, "LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> said:
>
>
> After a while--20 30 years in most people--one will develop witnessing as
> an artifact of this style of meditation, that's all. Not liberation. The
> scientific evidence on meditation backs this assertion. Mantra style
> meditation will eventually lead to a EEG where the witnessing bands are
> present. In higher forms of meditation, this band disappears and the EEG
> essentially goes blank.
>
You mean, like Terry Schiavo?
> If you stop dyeing the cloth and keep it exposed to the sun, the cloth
> will fade, irregardless of how many times it had been dyed before. And
> this is what the Shankaracharya tradition teaches--yoga will not produce
> permanent results, only formless, non-dual meditation will.
>
>
And the distinction between this and TM is?
| |
| LawsonE 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
|
"John Manning" <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote in message
news:11bo2jggghhm91e@news.supernews.com...
> Vaj. wrote:
>
> LOL!
Mahasamatman Vaj. He's a no-returning jivanmukti.
| |
|
|
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ua_ue.7944$go.535@fed1read05...
>
>
> Mahasamatman Vaj. He's a no-returning jivanmukti.
the desire to not-return to the world is based on fear of living.
that is why India is such a hopeless place. its culture is based on it.
wisdom without compassion is useless. and if there is compassion, there will
be an intention of helping those "not free yet", hence a desire to return.
| |
|
|
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ua_ue.7944$go.535@fed1read05...
>
> "John Manning" <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote in message
> news:11bo2jggghhm91e@news.supernews.com...
said:[vbcol=seagreen]
cold.[vbcol=seagreen]
fades.[vbcol=seagreen]
doesn't[vbcol=seagreen]
certain[vbcol=seagreen]
fades.[vbcol=seagreen]
maintain[vbcol=seagreen]
witnessing[vbcol=seagreen]
liberation.[vbcol=seagreen]
Mantra[vbcol=seagreen]
witnessing[vbcol=seagreen]
disappears[vbcol=seagreen]
cloth[vbcol=seagreen]
before. And[vbcol=seagreen]
will.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Mahasamatman Vaj. He's a no-returning jivanmukti.
Say, isn't Neil Sadhaka a jivanmukta?
| |
| John Manning 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
| LawsonE wrote:
> "Vaj." <no-reply@shunyata.net> wrote in message
> news:2005062408195450073%noreply@shunyatanet...
>
>
>
> You mean, like Terry Schiavo?
>
>
>
>
>
> And the distinction between this and TM is?
Well done, Lawson. This fellow, Vaj, never
manages to give concrete objective
distinctions that anyone can actually look
at. He apparently just repeats what he's
been told, throwing around terminology that
he doesn't appear to understand himself or
have any ability to articulate intelligibly.
| |
| LawsonE 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
|
"Vaj." <no-reply@shunyata.org> wrote in message
news:2005062421251616807%noreply@shunyataorg...
> On 2005-06-24 16:37:31 -0400, "LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> said:
>
>
> You really don't know do you?
Enlighten me, O sagacious one.
BTW, I consider TM to be beyond categories because any attempt to describe
my mental experiences is futile. The "results" of the technique can range
from something identical to Benson's relaxation response, to something
indescribable while still not being samadhi, and still fit within the
"rubric" of "TM."
And of course, samadhi isn't describable, either.
| |
| Dave ©¿©¬ 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
| <jstein@panix.com> wrote in message
news:1119374047.268638.62910@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> jstein@panix.com wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Strictly speaking, samadhi is not a "perception" of
> reality because no organs of perception are involved,
> nor any cognitive processes whatsoever. Or to put it
> another way, in samadhi, that which is perceived is
> also that which perceives; samadhi is reality knowing
> itself. Or to put it still another way, in samadhi
> one *is* reality, rather than perceiving reality as
> something external to and distinct from oneself.
>
> This is why it's very hard to talk about precisely. ;-)
Howdy!
You are confusing "perception" with "sensation!"
They are not the same thing.
--
Dave ©¿©¬
http://www.howdydave.com
| |
| Dave ©¿©¬ 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
| <punditster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119412852.821720.286980@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> jstein@panix.com wrote:
> According to Vyasa, Samadhi is Yoga, the cessation of mental
> fluctuations, a state in which the Self remains by itself, alone,
> Kavailya, isolated from Prakriti, a witness to the Purusha which is
> completely separate.
>
> Yoga is akin to Samkhya, which are both based a dualsim, the
> fundamental distinction between subject and object, which is
> obliterated in deep sleep and in Samadhi.
Howdy!
There are several different types of samadhi. Which one was he talking
about?
--
Dave ©¿©¬
http://www.howdydave.com
| |
| Gadget 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
|
"Dave ©¿©¬" <dave@_nospam_howdydave.com> wrote in message
news:4Fjve.174$pg.109@news01.roc.ny...
> <jstein@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:1119374047.268638.62910@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Howdy!
>
> You are confusing "perception" with "sensation!"
>
> They are not the same thing.
Please explain. Also please reply to what Atman said.
| |
| Dave ©¿©¬ 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
| "Gadget" <gadget@whatstheplace.com> wrote in message
news:11brigs2d75u639@news.supernews.com...
>
> "Dave ©¿©¬" <dave@_nospam_howdydave.com> wrote in message
> news:4Fjve.174$pg.109@news01.roc.ny...
>
> Please explain. Also please reply to what Atman said.
>
Howdy!
To the best of my knowledge, there are no "organs of perception." I must
therefore assume that the intended meaning is the "organs of sensation"
i.e.; eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin (sight, sound, smell, taste &
touch.)
Sensation has to do with receiving information from outside of your own
body.
Perception on the other hand has to do with your "point of view."
SENSATION:
It is 50 degrees F. outside.
PERCEPTION:
If it's late summer your perception may be: "it's a cool day!"
If it's the middle of the winter, your perception may be: "it's a warm day!"
Perceptions not only can involve sensations. They can also involve emotions,
memories (correct and incorrect), fantasies, dreams, prejudices, thought and
probably one or two others that I've omitted.
In all of your perceptions there is a self awareness. (Capital "S" in "Self"
or not as per your own preferences.)
So... perception involves your self awareness and any or all (or NONE) of
the other elements listed above.
--
Dave ©¿©¬
http://www.howdydave.com
| |
| jstein@panix.com 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
|
Dave =A9=BF=A9=AC wrote:
> <jstein@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:1119374047.268638.62910@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
<snip>[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> You are confusing "perception" with "sensation!"
>
> They are not the same thing.
Actually, "Perception" has several different
meanings, but one common one is perception via
the five senses, which is the way I was using
it. "Organs of perception" is a standard phrase
describing the sensory organs.
| |
| jstein@panix.com 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
|
Dave =A9=BF=A9=AC wrote:
<snip>
> Sensation has to do with receiving information from outside of your own
> body.
>
> Perception on the other hand has to do with your "point of view."
>From Merriam-Webster's online dictionary:
1 a : a result of perceiving : OBSERVATION b : a mental image : CONCEPT
2 obsolete : CONSCIOUSNESS
3 a : awareness of the elements of environment through physical
sensation <color perception> b : physical sensation interpreted in the
light of experience
4 a : quick, acute, and intuitive cognition : APPRECIATION b : a
capacity for comprehension
synonym see DISCERNMENT
Note definition 3a.
| |
| LawsonE 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
|
"Dave ©¿©¬" <dave@_nospam_howdydave.com> wrote in message
news:4Fjve.174$pg.109@news01.roc.ny...
> <jstein@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:1119374047.268638.62910@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Howdy!
>
> You are confusing "perception" with "sensation!"
>
> They are not the same thing.
Actually, in Yogic parlance, all sensations, thoughts and the like are based
on the 5 senses, so your distinction doesn't make sense.
In the case of samadhi, the state is held to be where observer, process of
observation and observed have merged. There's nothing to talk about because
there's nothing to talk about WITH.
| |
| LawsonE 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
|
"Dave ©¿©¬" <dave@_nospam_howdydave.com> wrote in message
news:LOjve.142$9g.98@news02.roc.ny...
> <punditster@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1119412852.821720.286980@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Howdy!
>
> There are several different types of samadhi. Which one was he talking
> about?
>
Explain what they are...
| |
| LawsonE 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
|
"John Manning" <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote in message
news:11brpg2fjhfjh40@news.supernews.com...
> Vaj. wrote:
>
> And you claim that you do, without ANY substance.
Of course. It's his style to hit and run this way.
| |
| jstein@panix.com 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
|
LawsonE wrote:
> "John Manning" <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote in message
> news:11brpg2fjhfjh40@news.supernews.com...
>
> Of course. It's his style to hit and run this way.
He's done this right from the start here. I wouldn't
be surprised to find he just copies stuff out of
books that seems like it might be related to whatever's
being discussed, but without any knowledge or
understanding of it himself. So if you try to get
him to explain further, he's stuck.
| |
| Dave ©¿©¬ 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
| "LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:CDmve.8180$go.5977@fed1read05...
>
> "Dave ©¿©¬" <dave@_nospam_howdydave.com> wrote in message
> news:LOjve.142$9g.98@news02.roc.ny...
>
> Explain what they are...
>
Howdy!
I found the following classifications in the index of my
"YOGA PHILOSOPHY OF PATANJALI":
Asamprakiata-samadhi
Dharma-megha-samadhi
Nirodha
Nirvija-samadhi
Sampra-jnata-samadhi
I am not a guru and am not qualified to otherwise teach anybody Indian
Philosophy.
Get a translation of Patanjali for yourself -- read it, mark it, learn it,
inwardly digest it and decide for yourself "what it means."
BTW: The specifics of the book I cited are:
"Yoga Philosophy of Patanjali"
By: Samkhya-yogacharya, Swami Hariharananda Aranya
Translated: P.N. Mukerji
Pub: State university of New York Press (SUNY) Albany 1983
ISBN 0-87395-729-6
I got mine from Amazon.
--
Dave ©¿©¬
http://www.howdydave.com
| |
| Dave ©¿©¬ 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
| <jstein@panix.com> wrote in message
news:1119739051.482650.198140@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dave ©¿©¬ wrote:
<snip>
> Sensation has to do with receiving information from outside of your own
> body.
>
> Perception on the other hand has to do with your "point of view."
>From Merriam-Webster's online dictionary:
1 a : a result of perceiving : OBSERVATION b : a mental image : CONCEPT
2 obsolete : CONSCIOUSNESS
3 a : awareness of the elements of environment through physical
sensation <color perception> b : physical sensation interpreted in the
light of experience
4 a : quick, acute, and intuitive cognition : APPRECIATION b : a
capacity for comprehension
synonym see DISCERNMENT
Note definition 3a.
Howdy!
You appear to be going through the dictionary and chosing the definition of
a word that best suits your argument. I am attempting to fathom the meaning
of the original Hindi word and using the word in English that comes closest
to the concept of the terminology used in the original language.
There are no exact translations for many (if not most) of the "technical
terminology."
I love playing word-games (probably more than you do!)
HOWEVER....
When attempting to explain a "technical term" used in any philosophy or
discipline you MUST go back to the intended concept in the original
language. If you don't, the correctness gets "lost in translation!"
--
Dave ©¿©¬
http://www.howdydave.com
| |
| Dave ©¿©¬ 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
| "Dave ©¿©¬" <dave@_nospam_howdydave.com> wrote in message
news:qtpve.201$pg.18@news01.roc.ny...
> <jstein@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:1119739051.482650.198140@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Dave ©¿©¬ wrote:
> <snip>
>
>
> 1 a : a result of perceiving : OBSERVATION b : a mental image : CONCEPT
> 2 obsolete : CONSCIOUSNESS
> 3 a : awareness of the elements of environment through physical
> sensation <color perception> b : physical sensation interpreted in the
> light of experience
> 4 a : quick, acute, and intuitive cognition : APPRECIATION b : a
> capacity for comprehension
> synonym see DISCERNMENT
>
> Note definition 3a.
>
> Howdy!
>
> You appear to be going through the dictionary and chosing the definition
of
> a word that best suits your argument. I am attempting to fathom the
meaning
> of the original Hindi word and using the word in English that comes
closest
> to the concept of the terminology used in the original language.
>
> There are no exact translations for many (if not most) of the "technical
> terminology."
>
> I love playing word-games (probably more than you do!)
>
> HOWEVER....
>
> When attempting to explain a "technical term" used in any philosophy or
> discipline you MUST go back to the intended concept in the original
> language. If you don't, the correctness gets "lost in translation!"
>
>
> --
> Dave ©¿©¬
>
> http://www.howdydave.com
>
>
BTW: This is one reason why I don't like cross-postings.
The terminology and definitions that I am talking about have very PRECISE
meanings when they are discussed within the context of a very fine focus. In
my case the focus is "within the context of Jnana Yoga and/or non-dualism."
When in doubt my "default definitions" are those applicable when a term is
used within the confines of Jnana Yoga by a non-dualist.
--
Dave ©¿©¬
http://www.howdydave.com
| |
| LawsonE 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
|
"Dave ©¿©¬" <dave@_nospam_howdydave.com> wrote in message
news:Jhpve.163$9g.80@news02.roc.ny...
> "LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:CDmve.8180$go.5977@fed1read05...
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I found the following classifications in the index of my
> "YOGA PHILOSOPHY OF PATANJALI":
>
>
> Asamprakiata-samadhi
> Dharma-megha-samadhi
> Nirodha
> Nirvija-samadhi
> Sampra-jnata-samadhi
>
Eki, care to give us an in-depth semantic/linguistic analysis of these
sanskrit terms?
> I am not a guru and am not qualified to otherwise teach anybody Indian
> Philosophy.
Philosophers generally aren't qualified to teach Indian Philosophy.
>
> Get a translation of Patanjali for yourself -- read it, mark it, learn it,
> inwardly digest it and decide for yourself "what it means."
>
> BTW: The specifics of the book I cited are:
>
> "Yoga Philosophy of Patanjali"
> By: Samkhya-yogacharya, Swami Hariharananda Aranya
> Translated: P.N. Mukerji
> Pub: State university of New York Press (SUNY) Albany 1983
> ISBN 0-87395-729-6
>
> I got mine from Amazon.
>
There's plenty of online sites that give the Sanskrit and an attempt at
translation/commentary as well.
| |
| LawsonE 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
|
"Dave ©¿©¬" <dave@_nospam_howdydave.com> wrote in message
news:YEpve.165$9g.127@news02.roc.ny...
> "Dave ©¿©¬" <dave@_nospam_howdydave.com> wrote in message
> news:qtpve.201$pg.18@news01.roc.ny...
> of
> meaning
> closest
>
> BTW: This is one reason why I don't like cross-postings.
>
> The terminology and definitions that I am talking about have very PRECISE
> meanings when they are discussed within the context of a very fine focus.
> In
> my case the focus is "within the context of Jnana Yoga and/or
> non-dualism."
>
> When in doubt my "default definitions" are those applicable when a term is
> used within the confines of Jnana Yoga by a non-dualist.
>
So all alt.yoga readers are into Jnana Yoga and are non-dualists?
| |
| jstein@panix.com 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
|
Dave =A9=BF=A9=AC wrote:
> <jstein@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:1119739051.482650.198140@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dave =A9=BF=A9=AC wrote:
> <snip>
>
>
> 1 a : a result of perceiving : OBSERVATION b : a mental image : CONCEPT
> 2 obsolete : CONSCIOUSNESS
> 3 a : awareness of the elements of environment through physical
> sensation <color perception> b : physical sensation interpreted in the
> light of experience
> 4 a : quick, acute, and intuitive cognition : APPRECIATION b : a
> capacity for comprehension
> synonym see DISCERNMENT
>
> Note definition 3a.
>
> Howdy!
>
> You appear to be going through the dictionary and chosing the definition =
of
> a word that best suits your argument. I am attempting to fathom the meani=
ng
> of the original Hindi word and using the word in English that comes close=
st
> to the concept of the terminology used in the original language.
Don't know nuttin' about the original Hindi
word, or what text you're getting it from.
(If you mean the word "samadhi," that's
Sanskrit, not Hindi.)
I wasn't trying to translate a term, I was just
using a common English phrase to refer to the
five senses, which don't operate in samadhi.
Look at what I wrote again:
"Strictly speaking, samadhi is not a 'perception'
of reality because no organs of perception are
involved."
This isn't an "argument," it's just a
description.
> There are no exact translations for many (if not most) of the "technical
> terminology."
>
> I love playing word-games (probably more than you do!)
>
> HOWEVER....
>
> When attempting to explain a "technical term" used in any philosophy or
> discipline you MUST go back to the intended concept in the original
> language. If you don't, the correctness gets "lost in translation!"
Look, dimwit, I'm not playing word games, you are.
I'm not attempting to translate anything from the
original language. I'm simply pointing out that in
samadhi, the five senses aren't operating, so the
(English) term "perception" isn't appropriate. I had
just *used* that term, you see, and I wanted to make
the point that it wasn't precise, and why.
| |
| jstein@panix.com 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
|
Dave =A9=BF=A9=AC wrote:
<snip>
> When in doubt my "default definitions" are those applicable when a term is
> used within the confines of Jnana Yoga by a non-dualist.
When in doubt about how someone is using
a term, rather than use your own "default
definitions," it's probably a much better
idea to ask them what they mean by it.
Know whatta mean, Vern?
| |
| LawsonE 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
|
<jstein@panix.com> wrote in message
news:1119759976.084413.266810@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dave ©¿©¬ wrote:
> <jstein@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:1119739051.482650.198140@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dave ©¿©¬ wrote:
> <snip>
>
>
> 1 a : a result of perceiving : OBSERVATION b : a mental image : CONCEPT
> 2 obsolete : CONSCIOUSNESS
> 3 a : awareness of the elements of environment through physical
> sensation <color perception> b : physical sensation interpreted in the
> light of experience
> 4 a : quick, acute, and intuitive cognition : APPRECIATION b : a
> capacity for comprehension
> synonym see DISCERNMENT
>
> Note definition 3a.
>
> Howdy!
>
> You appear to be going through the dictionary and chosing the definition
> of
> a word that best suits your argument. I am attempting to fathom the
> meaning
> of the original Hindi word and using the word in English that comes
> closest
> to the concept of the terminology used in the original language.
Don't know nuttin' about the original Hindi
word, or what text you're getting it from.
(If you mean the word "samadhi," that's
Sanskrit, not Hindi.)
I wasn't trying to translate a term, I was just
using a common English phrase to refer to the
five senses, which don't operate in samadhi.
Look at what I wrote again:
"Strictly speaking, samadhi is not a 'perception'
of reality because no organs of perception are
involved."
This isn't an "argument," it's just a
description.
> There are no exact translations for many (if not most) of the "technical
> terminology."
>
> I love playing word-games (probably more than you do!)
>
> HOWEVER....
>
> When attempting to explain a "technical term" used in any philosophy or
> discipline you MUST go back to the intended concept in the original
> language. If you don't, the correctness gets "lost in translation!"
Look, dimwit, I'm not playing word games, you are.
I'm not attempting to translate anything from the
original language. I'm simply pointing out that in
samadhi, the five senses aren't operating, so the
(English) term "perception" isn't appropriate. I had
just *used* that term, you see, and I wanted to make
the point that it wasn't precise, and why.
I'm never sure if the texts mean that the 5 senses aren't operating, or if
they are operating in such a manner that no distinctions can be made (if
indeed there is a difference). Seems to me that physiological research might
clear this up, but then you'll be left with claims that either phyisological
research isn't valid in this case, or that the interpretations of the
research are invalid, or that the researchers are looking under the wrong
rock in the first place...
| |
| jstein@panix.com 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
|
LawsonE wrote:
> <jstein@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:1119759976.084413.266810@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> I'm simply pointing out that in
> samadhi, the five senses aren't operating, so the
> (English) term "perception" isn't appropriate. I had
> just *used* that term, you see, and I wanted to make
> the point that it wasn't precise, and why.
>
> I'm never sure if the texts mean that the 5 senses aren't operating, or if
> they are operating in such a manner that no distinctions can be made (if
> indeed there is a difference).
In such a manner that no distinctions can
be made by what?
(For the record, I've been talking about
pure transcendental consciousness by itself,
or turiya, no-thoughts-no-mantra.)
Seems to me that physiological research might
> clear this up, but then you'll be left with claims that either phyisological
> research isn't valid in this case, or that the interpretations of the
> research are invalid, or that the researchers are looking under the wrong
> rock in the first place...
| |
| LawsonE 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
|
<jstein@panix.com> wrote in message
news:1119792936.513792.58650@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> LawsonE wrote:
> <snip>
>
> In such a manner that no distinctions can
> be made by what?
Exactly... seriously, the Gita talks about withdrawing the senses like a
tortoise draws its limbs into its shell. But what does this mean on a
physiological level?
>
> (For the record, I've been talking about
> pure transcendental consciousness by itself,
> or turiya, no-thoughts-no-mantra.)
>
I understand...
>
>
> Seems to me that physiological research might
>
| |
| LawsonE 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
|
<jstein@panix.com> wrote in message
news:1119793110.928685.112110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> LawsonE wrote:
> <snip>
>
> What I remember is I-ness, am-ness, Is-ness (the
> last being Being, or Beingness). But I have the
> sneaking suspicion there's one more that I'm
> forgetting. Not sure what it could be, though.
> Also not sure of the nature of the distinction
> between I-ness and am-ness.
>
I think they are Maharishi's English translation of the various
levels/kinds/whatevers of samadhi that Patajali lists.
| |
| jstein@panix.com 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
|
LawsonE wrote:
> <jstein@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:1119792936.513792.58650@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Exactly... seriously, the Gita talks about withdrawing the senses like a
> tortoise draws its limbs into its shell. But what does this mean on a
> physiological level?
Well, I was asking about a different level.
I think you have to elucidate that before
you can know what it means to say the senses
are operating in such a manner that no
distinctions can be made.
But on the physiological level, any idea
what an MRI shows? Are the sensory areas
of the brain dark, meaning no activity?
| |
| LawsonE 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
|
<jstein@panix.com> wrote in message
news:1119797234.286586.95050@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> LawsonE wrote:
>
> Well, I was asking about a different level.
> I think you have to elucidate that before
> you can know what it means to say the senses
> are operating in such a manner that no
> distinctions can be made.
>
> But on the physiological level, any idea
> what an MRI shows? Are the sensory areas
> of the brain dark, meaning no activity?
>
Don't know. I have yet to see any MRI/fMRI stuff from MUM. Makes me wonder
if the research didn't pan out, or if its just not ready yet.
| |
| Sevenhundred Elves 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
| LawsonE wrote:
>
> "Dave ©¿©¬" <dave@_nospam_howdydave.com> wrote in message
> news:YEpve.165$9g.127@news02.roc.ny...
>
> So all alt.yoga readers are into Jnana Yoga and are non-dualists?
No, but the terminology we are accustomed to is generally consistent
with Dave's usage.
S.
| |
| Sevenhundred Elves 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
| jstein@panix.com wrote:
>
>
> Dave ©¿©¬ wrote:
> <snip>
> <snip>
>
> Actually, "Perception" has several different
> meanings, but one common one is perception via
> the five senses, which is the way I was using
> it. "Organs of perception" is a standard phrase
> describing the sensory organs.
Yes, that is the standard phrase. But in doing Pratyahara, the
"withdrawal of the sense organs" does not refer to physical organs, but
rather the link between your mind and the signals from the physical
organs. Most of the time I think of it as directing attention inwards,
and when attention is sufficiently controlled and directed, the signals
from the physical sense organs don't enter the mind, because the link to
the mind, the "mental sense organs", if you will, have been withdrawn
from the nerve impulses from the eyes, ears etc.
S.
| |
| LawsonE 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
|
"Sevenhundred Elves" <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote in message
news:KjMve.27976$d5.180491@newsb.telia.net...
> jstein@panix.com wrote:
>
>
> Yes, that is the standard phrase. But in doing Pratyahara, the
> "withdrawal of the sense organs" does not refer to physical organs, but
> rather the link between your mind and the signals from the physical
> organs. Most of the time I think of it as directing attention inwards,
> and when attention is sufficiently controlled and directed, the signals
> from the physical sense organs don't enter the mind, because the link to
> the mind, the "mental sense organs", if you will, have been withdrawn
> from the nerve impulses from the eyes, ears etc.
IIRC, Yoga makes a distinction between the gross organs of perception (eyes,
ears, etc) and the subtle organs of perception.
It would be the subtle organs that are being "withdrawn." In modern
terminology, the brain is no longer processing the sensory input. Brain
activity at 40Hz , according to some researchers, is involved in
coordinating the mental activity of the brain, including sensory input,
thought and dreaming. If this is so and if the state of samadhi involves
"withdrawing of the senses" as tradition claims, certain changes in 40Hz EEG
should be found during samadhi (aka "transcendental" or "pure"
consciousness). Alarik Arenander and company discuss a proposed research
study to test this hypothesis at the link below:
http://brainresearchinstitute.org/research/meg_text.pdf
MEG 4.2, 8/17; page 1
THE EFFECTS OF THE
TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION TECHNIQUE
ON THE TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL MAPPING
OF THE BRAIN-A MEG STUDY
Abstract
Previous research has suggested that a unique "fourth state" of awareness,
Transcendental
Consciousness (TC), distinct from waking, dreaming, and sleeping, occurs
during the practice of
the Transcendental Meditation technique. Subjectively, this state has been
described as free of
mental content but with alert, broaden awareness. Objectively, this state
has been characterized,
in part, by very high levels of short- and long-range EEG
(electroencephalographic) coherence
along with spontaneous respiratory "suspension" and phasic adjustments of
various autonomic
variables. Research also suggests that brain rhythms centered on 40 Hz may
participate in the
mechanics of temporal binding of diverse brain activity underlying the
content and unity of
cognitive experience. This proposed study is designed to help clarify the
unique nature of this
state of TC and its relationship to 40 Hz rhythms using a multichannel
magnetoencephalography
(MEG) and electroencephalography (EEG) system. This meditative state (TC) is
predicted to
be (1) distinct from all three other states of awareness in the appearance
of high levels of
broadly distributed, phase-coherent MEG and EEG activity, in particular, 40
Hz oscillations,
suggesting a higher degree of global brain integration and the presence of
cognitive experience;
and (2) distinct from the waking or dreaming states of consciousness in its
lack of "resetting" of
the 40 Hz oscillations reported by Llinas and Ribary (1993)-either 40 Hz
reset to external
evoked stimuli as in waking state, or to spontaneous, endogenous stimuli as
in REM state.
| |
| Sevenhundred Elves 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
| LawsonE wrote:
>
> "Sevenhundred Elves" <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote in message
> news:KjMve.27976$d5.180491@newsb.telia.net...
>
> IIRC, Yoga makes a distinction between the gross organs of perception (eyes,
> ears, etc) and the subtle organs of perception.
>
> It would be the subtle organs that are being "withdrawn."
Yes, this is what I meant. Thank you.
> In modern
> terminology, the brain is no longer processing the sensory input. Brain
> activity at 40Hz , according to some researchers, is involved in
> coordinating the mental activity of the brain, including sensory input,
> thought and dreaming. If this is so and if the state of samadhi involves
> "withdrawing of the senses" as tradition claims,
You don't need to rely on tradition, you can learn to experience it
yourself. The tradition is merely a guide for how to proceed with the
learning.
> certain changes in 40Hz EEG
> should be found during samadhi (aka "transcendental" or "pure"
> consciousness). Alarik Arenander and company discuss a proposed research
> study to test this hypothesis at the link below:
>
> http://brainresearchinstitute.org/research/meg_text.pdf
>
> MEG 4.2, 8/17; page 1
>
>
> THE EFFECTS OF THE
> TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION TECHNIQUE
> ON THE TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL MAPPING
> OF THE BRAIN-A MEG STUDY
> Abstract
> Previous research has suggested that a unique "fourth state" of awareness,
> Transcendental
> Consciousness (TC), distinct from waking, dreaming, and sleeping, occurs
> during the practice of
> the Transcendental Meditation technique. Subjectively, this state has been
> described as free of
> mental content but with alert, broaden awareness. Objectively, this state
> has been characterized,
> in part, by very high levels of short- and long-range EEG
> (electroencephalographic) coherence
> along with spontaneous respiratory "suspension" and phasic adjustments of
> various autonomic
> variables. Research also suggests that brain rhythms centered on 40 Hz may
> participate in the
> mechanics of temporal binding of diverse brain activity underlying the
> content and unity of
> cognitive experience. This proposed study is designed to help clarify the
> unique nature of this
> state of TC and its relationship to 40 Hz rhythms using a multichannel
> magnetoencephalography
> (MEG) and electroencephalography (EEG) system. This meditative state (TC) is
> predicted to
> be (1) distinct from all three other states of awareness in the appearance
> of high levels of
> broadly distributed, phase-coherent MEG and EEG activity, in particular, 40
> Hz oscillations,
> suggesting a higher degree of global brain integration and the presence of
> cognitive experience;
> and (2) distinct from the waking or dreaming states of consciousness in its
> lack of "resetting" of
> the 40 Hz oscillations reported by Llinas and Ribary (1993)-either 40 Hz
> reset to external
> evoked stimuli as in waking state, or to spontaneous, endogenous stimuli as
> in REM state.
I'm pleased to see that modern science has learned how to study these
things, even if it's done "from the outside", a method that I guess will
be less efficient than learning from your own experience. Still, studies
such as this may serve to give meditation a better reputation. Thank you
for providing the above excerpt.
S.
| |
| jstein@panix.com 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
|
Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
> jstein@panix.com wrote:
<snip>
>
> Yes, that is the standard phrase. But in doing Pratyahara, the
> "withdrawal of the sense organs" does not refer to physical organs, but
> rather the link between your mind and the signals from the physical
> organs. Most of the time I think of it as directing attention inwards,
> and when attention is sufficiently controlled and directed, the signals
> from the physical sense organs don't enter the mind, because the link to
> the mind, the "mental sense organs", if you will, have been withdrawn
> from the nerve impulses from the eyes, ears etc.
Yes, well explained.
I wasn't intending to make such fine distinctions,
however; "no organs of perception are involved" in
samadhi is a pretty general statement that applies
whatever the specific mechanism, whether you're
talking about the physical organs or their input to
the mind.
| |
| willytex@yahoo.com 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
| > Enlighten me, O sagacious one.
>
Lawson - The word "samadhi" is derived from the Tamil word for "put"
and is probably non-Vedic in origin. The word samadhi isn't found in
any of Shankara's writings or in the Upanishads. The reason Samadhi
isn't found in Shankara's writings is because Shakara was not an
advocate of Yoga, which he considered to be a dualistic notion.
> I consider TM to be beyond categories because any
> attempt to describe my mental experiences is futile.
>
You haven't even defined what "TM" is, much less what the definition of
"samadhi" is. : )
> The "results" of the technique can range from
> something identical to Benson's relaxation response,
> to something indescribable while still not being
> samadhi, and still fit within the "rubric" of "TM."
>
Somwhow I think you missed my point. Shankara taught Adwaita, not
dualistic Yoga. Classical yoga is mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita but
the word Samadhi isn't found there either. Samadhi is a Buddhistic
notion and has nothing to do with Shankara, the Upanishads, or Vedanta.
> And of course, samadhi isn't describable, either.
>
So, in other words, you don't have any information to add to this topic
- the word samadhi - because your experience is "indescribable"? Go
figure.
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental, alt.yoga
Date: 14 Jun 2005 06:14:47 -0700
Local: Tues,Jun 14 2005 9:14 am
Subject: Samadhi?
However, the word Samadhi is not found in any of the 10 Upanishads
commented on by Shankara Acharya. This is no small mattter and cannot
be passed over, for if, as you say, the attainment of Samadhi is
central to the experiential verification of the Vedanta, one would
expect the phrase to occur in the sacred texts, would one not?
Samadhi: 1. Sanskrit (Sa=FAma=FAdhi) n. Jap., sanmai or zanmai 2.
Nirvana, Parinirvana 3. from the root word 'Sam', to establish, make
firm. 4. A conscious experience that lies beyond waking, dreaming, and
deep sleep. 5. A non-meditative meditative mental equipose.
| |
| jstein@panix.com 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
|
Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
<snip>
> I'm pleased to see that modern science has learned how to study these
> things, even if it's done "from the outside", a method that I guess will
> be less efficient than learning from your own experience. Still, studies
> such as this may serve to give meditation a better reputation.
People who haven't experienced systematic
inner exploration tend to devalue anything
"subjective" that cannot be verified "from
the outside." In many contexts "subjective"
is just about synonymous with "imaginary."
I was one of those people before I learned
to meditate; I decided to start TM *solely*
because there appeared to be scientific
evidence behind its claims. Otherwise I
would have dismissed them out of hand.
| |
| willytex@yahoo.com 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
| > Strictly speaking, samadhi is not a "perception" of
> reality because no organs of perception are involved,
> nor any cognitive processes whatsoever.
>
Non sequitur.
> Or to put it another way, in samadhi, that which is
> perceived is also that which perceives; samadhi is
> reality knowing itself.
>
You didn't cite any sources for this statement. Why not?
The word Samadhi seems to have been deliberately avoided by Shankara,
except in the case of the later Vedanta work, Vedantasara. There's no
reference in the Upanishads to a meditation practice leading to the
suspension of the faculties such as we find in the literature dealing
with yoga.
> Or to put it still another way, in samadhi
> one *is* reality, rather than perceiving reality as
> something external to and distinct from oneself.
>
According to whom?
According to Shankara, duality is only temporarily obliterated in
Samadhi. Duality reappears when one comes out of yoga enstasis and the
reason why duality persists is because false knowledge has not been
removed.
> This is why it's very hard to talk about precisely. ;-)
>
Indeed - until you've defined the word samadhi there's not much to
discuss.
| |
| willytex@yahoo.com 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
| anon wrote:
> the desire to not-return to the world is based on fear of living.
>
Incorrect - the desire to "not-return" is based on desire.
| |
| LawsonE 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
| "Sevenhundred Elves" <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote in message
news:hbTve.27989$d5.180963@newsb.telia.net...
> LawsonE wrote:
>
[...]
>
> Yes, this is what I meant. Thank you.
>
>
> You don't need to rely on tradition, you can learn to experience it
> yourself. The tradition is merely a guide for how to proceed with the
> learning.
I have been practicing TM for 32 years, thanks. I have a 3rd-personish style
of writing about this stuff --its a way of trying to maintain objectivity of
the "scientific" sort since I always wanted to get into the meditation
research field but never did.
>
>
> I'm pleased to see that modern science has learned how to study these
> things, even if it's done "from the outside", a method that I guess will
> be less efficient than learning from your own experience. Still, studies
> such as this may serve to give meditation a better reputation. Thank you
> for providing the above excerpt.
>
That's the point of doing the studies --that and giving scientists something
meditation-related to do within their dharma. Alarik Arenander has been a
meditation teacher for many decades, but his main profession has been as a
neurological researcher.
| |
| willytex@yahoo.com 2005-06-27, 10:02 am |
| jstein@panix.com wrote:
> He's done this right from the start here.
>
Try to stay on topic, please. Last time I checked, you couldn't read or
write a single word in Sanskrit. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> I wouldn't be surprised to find he just copies stuff
> out of books that seems like it might be related to
> whatever's being discussed,
>
If you can't keep, why not just keep you your pie hole shut?
> but without any knowledge or understanding of it himself.
>
Mind-reading again?
> So if you try to get him to explain further, he's stuck.
>
I already explained to you - the word samadhi isn't used in Vedanta -
it's a dualistic notion derived from Buddhist and classical yoga. The
attainment of Samadhi is not a sufficient cause to eradicate false
knowledge, and since false knowledge is the cause of bondage, Samadhi
cannot therefore be the cause of liberation.
As stated in Brahmasutra 2.1.3, "Thereby the Yoga is refuted..."
| |
| Sevenhundred Elves 2005-06-27, 11:52 am |
| LawsonE wrote:
> "Sevenhundred Elves" <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote in message
> news:hbTve.27989$d5.180963@newsb.telia.net...
> [...]
>
> I have been practicing TM for 32 years, thanks. I have a 3rd-personish style
> of writing about this stuff --its a way of trying to maintain objectivity of
> the "scientific" sort since I always wanted to get into the meditation
> research field but never did.
I see. I meant no offence, I just couldn't resist the opportunity to
spread some meditation propaganda :-)
But perhaps, as an experienced meditator, you could be a test subject
for those studies. Then you would be involved in meditation research
anyway. I don't know how those scientists go about finding their
subjects, but I suspect you are better updated on such matters.
S.
| |
| Sevenhundred Elves 2005-06-27, 11:52 am |
| jstein@panix.com wrote:
>
>
> Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
> <snip>
>
> People who haven't experienced systematic
> inner exploration tend to devalue anything
> "subjective" that cannot be verified "from
> the outside." In many contexts "subjective"
> is just about synonymous with "imaginary."
Yes. I, too, have noticed that.
>
> I was one of those people before I learned
> to meditate; I decided to start TM *solely*
> because there appeared to be scientific
> evidence behind its claims. Otherwise I
> would have dismissed them out of hand.
Your example is sufficient reason for us to support these studies, I
think. Thank you.
S.
| |
| Sevenhundred Elves 2005-06-27, 11:52 am |
| jstein@panix.com wrote:
>
>
> Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Yes, well explained.
Thank you.
> I wasn't intending to make such fine distinctions,
> however; "no organs of perception are involved" in
> samadhi is a pretty general statement that applies
> whatever the specific mechanism, whether you're
> talking about the physical organs or their input to
> the mind.
Yes, it covers both pretty well.
S.
| |
| jstein@panix.com 2005-06-27, 11:52 am |
|
Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
<snip>
> Your example is sufficient reason for us to support these studies, I
> think. Thank you.
You're very gracious, all seven hundred of you. ;-)
| |
| LawsonE 2005-06-27, 11:52 am |
|
"Sevenhundred Elves" <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote in message
news:NEUve.140944$dP1.493842@newsc.telia.net...
> LawsonE wrote:
>
>
> I see. I meant no offence, I just couldn't resist the opportunity to
> spread some meditation propaganda :-)
>
> But perhaps, as an experienced meditator, you could be a test subject
> for those studies. Then you would be involved in meditation research
> anyway. I don't know how those scientists go about finding their
> subjects, but I suspect you are better updated on such matters.
>
A lot of the TM research is done at the TM university in Fairfield, IA. They
have a meditating population of about 2000 people and some have been
practicing as long as 45 years so they have plenty of subjects handy. I
always wanted to move out there, but family and personal matters always held
me back.
It's an interesting place to visit, however. There's even an all-organic,
totally vedic architecture village associated with the meditating community.
Have lots of interesting things to see, if you're into that kind of thing:
http://www.vediccity.com
| |
|
| I love reading Willytex's posts--very broadminded and good independent
thinker. Great post WT, thanks.
On 2005-06-27 10:17:15 -0400, willytex@yahoo.com said:
> Lawson - The word "samadhi" is derived from the Tamil word for "put"
> and is probably non-Vedic in origin. The word samadhi isn't found in
> any of Shankara's writings or in the Upanishads. The reason Samadhi
> isn't found in Shankara's writings is because Shakara was not an
> advocate of Yoga, which he considered to be a dualistic notion.
>
> You haven't even defined what "TM" is, much less what the definition of
> "samadhi" is. : )
>
> Somwhow I think you missed my point. Shankara taught Adwaita, not
> dualistic Yoga. Classical yoga is mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita but
> the word Samadhi isn't found there either. Samadhi is a Buddhistic
> notion and has nothing to do with Shankara, the Upanishads, or Vedanta.
>
> So, in other words, you don't have any information to add to this topic
> - the word samadhi - because your experience is "indescribable"? Go
> figure.
>
> Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental, alt.yoga
> Date: 14 Jun 2005 06:14:47 -0700
> Local: Tues,Jun 14 2005 9:14 am
> Subject: Samadhi?
>
> However, the word Samadhi is not found in any of the 10 Upanishads
> commented on by Shankara Acharya. This is no small mattter and cannot
> be passed over, for if, as you say, the attainment of Samadhi is
> central to the experiential verification of the Vedanta, one would
> expect the phrase to occur in the sacred texts, would one not?
>
> Samadhi: 1. Sanskrit (Saúmaúdhi) n. Jap., sanmai or zanmai 2.
> Nirvana, Parinirvana 3. from the root word 'Sam', to establish, make
> firm. 4. A conscious experience that lies beyond waking, dreaming, and
> deep sleep. 5. A non-meditative meditative mental equipose.
| |
|
| On 2005-06-27 10:28:42 -0400, willytex@yahoo.com said:
> According to Shankara, duality is only temporarily obliterated in
> Samadhi. Duality reappears when one comes out of yoga enstasis and the
> reason why duality persists is because false knowledge has not been
> removed.
Yep, exactly--Brahman is the only cure.
| |
| LawsonE 2005-06-28, 11:07 pm |
|
"Vaj." <no-reply@shunyata.net> wrote in message
news:2005062808261443658%noreply@shunyatanet...
> On 2005-06-27 10:40:15 -0400, willytex@yahoo.com said:
>
>
> Yeah but Samadhi is a great weed-killer...mental weed-killer that is...
>
If that is the case, explain the long-term TMers reporting witnessing 24
hours a day for up to 12 years non-stop.
| |
| LawsonE 2005-06-28, 11:07 pm |
|
<jstein@panix.com> wrote in message
news:1119974830.383694.186290@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> LawsonE wrote:
>
> But snoring doesn't occur only during deep sleep.
>
> There has to be some threshold level of stimulus
> that the senses can dete | | |