Is Samadhi fiction?

Yoga Discussion General Yoga
#53

[QUOTE=benralston;33006]Now, as you said yourself Adam - ‘you can’t know it all’. That’s where faith is necessary.[/QUOTE]

I understand what your saying. I know we will disagree on this because you are saying that faith takes over where science ends (if I’ve understood you correctly), and I’m saying faith is not truth. That’s why it’s called faith, cause we can’t know. Faith is what we believe. It is not fact.

Let me use an example to clearly explain,
-Let’s say we walk through a new house, and we look at all the new rooms. All the walls in the rooms are painted different colours The kitchen is painted orange, the hall way is cream, the master bedroom is light blue, the bathroom is yellow. But a door to one of the rooms is locked. We don’t know what colour the walls are painted. using our knowledge of the material world, we can determine what colours the rooms are all painted, except for the room that is locked. This is where some people would like to use faith to answer the mysteries of the unknown. Christians say the room is red, Muslims say the room is grey, Hindus say the room is lilac, Jews say it’s black… they have all gone beyond what science discovered, but what they have discovered is not a truth. They just have faith in the colour that their particular faith asserts. Some of the faithful even have the arrogance to brag to the scientist, because through science, he was unable to answer this question.

Do you see my point? Have I made it clear? I do understand your point, I just disagree. It’s fine to disagree.

#54

Please don’t confuse faith with spirituality. Faith is dangeorus. Do you actually need evidence for this look at the last 2000 years of history to see how dangerous faith is.

Spirituality is what we validate through direct experience. It is all about our own personal development and realising our highest potentials. There is no faith in spirituality.

Yogiadam only accepts empiricism and rejects logic. So he is limited to only what the senses can know. If we functioned like that in the real world we would get nowhere. I would see smoke in the distance issuing from a home, and rather than using my logic and saying “There house is on fire, calll the fire brigade” you would have to go there to see the fire to know there is fire. Another example could be cooking rice and checking to see if they are cooked by checking a few, rather than using my logic and saying, “a few are cooked, therefore they’re all cooked” you would have to check every grain of rice once by one to see if it is cooked.

If we were strict empiricists we would not have even had the curiosity to build a wheel. We would have just said, “What is the empirical proof that this wheel will work” It is due the limited empirical ways of modern science that we discover things at such a painstreaking slow pace. Fortunately science does have a place for rational proof. Most of general relativity was based on rational proofs. Ditto for string theory which is almost completely theoretical.

If you want to know things beyond the empirical you need rational methods. I mean who has ever an atom or a quark? They are completely theoretical entities. We infer them base on the effects we can see but have not actually seen an atom, much less a quark.
So if we can use logic to conceptualize invisible entities like atoms, I see no problems to use logic to develop a metaphysics to conceptualize invisible entities like lifeforces. You can’t have double standards where you accept logic sometimes and at others times you reject it.

#55

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;33009]I would see smoke in the distance issuing from a home, and rather than using my logic and saying “There house is on fire, calll the fire brigade” you would have to go there to see the fire to know there is fire. [/QUOTE]

You can’t know it’s a house on fire! It could be the fire department burning off. I’d call the fire department, but I’m not going to tell them a bloody house is on fire, when I don’t know. That’s just assumption.

#56

Well one thing is clear that you would infer there is a fire. Otheriwse why would you call at all.

#57

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;33018]Well one thing is clear that you would infer there is a fire. Otheriwse why would you call at all.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I would infer there was a fire. Usually when there’s smoke there’s a fire. I would assume there was a fire, but I wouldn’t KNOW there was a fire, unless I saw the fire, and I certainly wouldn’t KNOW what was on fire… I’d hate to be someone reading this post from our current conversation. They’d go “what the f@#k are these people talking about a fire for on a yoga forum?!” lol

#58

You would know based on the known laws of the world that if you see a particular kind of smoke that there is fire. Similarly if I drop something from the top of a building it will always fall and I know this because of the known law of gravity. Do you really need empirical proof that the object will fall? No, logical proof is enough.

We knew the earth went around the sun long before we empirically discovered it as far as back as the time of the Greeks from the way the shadow was on being cast. From that it was easy to infer the earth was going around the earth.

Similarly we knew about atoms long before they were empirically discovered again through logical argument. The Indian logicians argued thus: If matter is continious(infinitely divisble) and not made up of indivisible parts then we could split up a mustard seed into infinite parts then use those infinite parts to build a mountain. This is impossible though because one begins with a mustard seed and ends up with a moutain. Therefore matter is not continious but made up of indivisible parts.

It is clear that rational methods are just as valid as empirical methods and they can be used to discover the same thing empiricism can. They are much more faster and take you to the same conclusions. So why wait for empirical proof when you can rationally prove something?

Have a bit of faith in reason :wink:

#59

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;33022]Do you really need empirical proof that the object will fall? No, logical proof is enough.[/QUOTE]

I suppose I do use a bit of faith. I have faith in my partner. I will never have scientific evidence that my girlfriend is faithful, but I trust her, which is faith. I also have experienced a massive change in my life since the practice of yoga, and that’s enough to keep practicing and learning everyday, and I have faith I will discover more. I’m under the impression that my arguments I have presented, may make me sound a little bit like a science robot, and less like the human that I am.

#60

You are very much human Adam, hence your interest in life, the spirit, and science…all of which can happily and peacefully sit next to each other :smiley:

#61

I am more of a science robot than you are Yogiadam :smiley: I do not take anything for granted. I do not take for granted for instance that my partners would remain with me any moment longer. I do not take for granted that I will still be living in my home the next moment. The future is uncertain.

However what I do take for granted is logic because it has never failed me and because it is clear the universe obeys the laws of logic. I can use my logic to come to various conclusions about things that I have not yet seen. To me it is clear that the mind exists in another dimension which is more fundamental than the physical? How do I know?

  1. The physical world is simply the 5 sense world. The mind exists in the 6th sense world where such entities like thoughts, desires and emotions exist. If the mind existed in the 5 sense world then I would be able to measure thoughts. No, I cannot measure thoughts, I can only measure the effects of thoughts. If I look at you with my 5 senses I do not see any evidence of you having a mind. The reason I know you have a mind is because of my 6th sense of mind.

  2. All things in the world begin very minute and subtle and then they become massive and gross. It makes absolutely no logical sense that a non-physical entity like mind would come after hard, physical solid matter, because it is far more minute, subtle, invisible in fact. So logic tells me that the mind has to precede physical matter.

  3. It is clear that all effects have causes and we cannot see causes. We can only know effects. The entire world of perception is therefore an effect and what is the actual cause of it therefore different to the world of perception. It only looks massive and solid to me in perception when it in fact it cannot be massive and solid.

None of my arguments are any less valid than arguments scientists give to postulate quarks and atoms. The chances are you accept the existence of atoms, correct?

#62

Like Like[quote=YogiAdam;33008]I understand what your saying. I know we will disagree on this because you are saying that faith takes over where science ends (if I’ve understood you correctly), and I’m saying faith is not truth. That’s why it’s called faith, cause we can’t know. Faith is what we believe. It is not fact.[/quote]

Adam,
What if we say it’s “nature” that takes over where science ends? Would that be any different? Did you ever think that science can also be “faith?”

Would there be any light in this room? And is the light is a relatively consistent position to the room?

We do know that color is only reflected light, right? And that a surface only reflects whatever wavelength of light is missing from that light being reflected, all others being absorbed? So in “truth” the rooms are every other color except what they appear to be? Science would tell us then that all the rooms in “reality” are gray. Lovely.

As much as I love science, and have “faith” in science, it’s not absolute, and can never be, sometimes even very ignorant: very selective in what it wants to see/believe, because there…is the mind, the senses, etc., which are extremely limited.

Keep pushing Adam!

siva

#63

[QUOTE=siva;33054]We do know that color is only reflected light, right? And that a surface only reflects whatever wavelength of light is missing from that light being reflected, all others being absorbed? So the actual truth is that the rooms are every other color except what they appear to be? Science would tell us then that all the rooms in “reality” are gray.[/QUOTE]

Wow, you really missed my point completely!.. I know about light and colour, I work as an Optical Dispenser and studied light and optics, But my example of the house has nothing to do with houses or how light behaves at all. It was a metaphor. So you need to read it with a simpler mind. It has nothing to do with colour or rooms, it’s got to do with the difference between facts and faith. Think about the story of the boy who cried wolf. It has nothing to do with wolves, or how to look after sheep, it’s a fable about lying. Keep this in mind and reread my example.

#64

[QUOTE=YogiAdam;33008]I understand what your saying. I know we will disagree on this because you are saying that faith takes over where science ends (if I’ve understood you correctly), and I’m saying faith is not truth. That’s why it’s called faith, cause we can’t know. Faith is what we believe. It is not fact.

Let me use an example to clearly explain,
-Let’s say we walk through a new house, and we look at all the new rooms. All the walls in the rooms are painted different colours The kitchen is painted orange, the hall way is cream, the master bedroom is light blue, the bathroom is yellow. But a door to one of the rooms is locked. We don’t know what colour the walls are painted. using our knowledge of the material world, we can determine what colours the rooms are all painted, except for the room that is locked. This is where some people would like to use faith to answer the mysteries of the unknown. Christians say the room is red, Muslims say the room is grey, Hindus say the room is lilac, Jews say it’s black… they have all gone beyond what science discovered, but what they have discovered is not a truth. They just have faith in the colour that their particular faith asserts. Some of the faithful even have the arrogance to brag to the scientist, because through science, he was unable to answer this question.

Do you see my point? Have I made it clear? I do understand your point, I just disagree. It’s fine to disagree.[/QUOTE]

I never mentioned religion. I just said Faith. The first definition of faith is not religious - it simply means conviction that is not based on rational understanding.
You mistake me because you have an emotional association attached to your understanding of the word faith. So be it

Also, you say Faith is what you believe. It’s not. Faith is beyond belief.

#65

No need for me to reread anything. I get it. And I’m saying the “difference between fact and faith” here is whether or not there’s A LIGHT ON IN THE ROOM! HELLO!

SIVA

#66

[QUOTE=benralston;33058]I never mentioned religion. I just said Faith. The first definition of faith is not religious - it simply means conviction that is not based on rational understanding.
You mistake me because you have an emotional association attached to your understanding of the word faith. So be it[/QUOTE]

I don’t have an emotional association attached to my understanding of the word faith, I have a definition attached to the word faith. The definition that has already be associated with the word as used in the english language.

#67

[QUOTE=siva;33059]No need for me to reread anything. I get it. And I’m saying the “difference between fact and faith” here is whether or not there’s A LIGHT ON IN THE ROOM! HELLO!

SIVA[/QUOTE]

NO NO NO. My point is that you don’t even know what is in the room. All you know is there is a locked door. That’s all you need to know for this metaphor to work. You have no idea what is behind the door!

#68

Adam,

I don’t know what’s in the room, but I do know it’s gray.

peace buddy,

siva

#69

[QUOTE=siva;33064]Adam,

I don’t know what’s in the room, but I do know it’s gray.

peace buddy,

siva[/QUOTE]

Oh God :smiley:

#70

It really must be frightening after that many frauds to find that Samadhi is one, too. There went your last chance. Now you must face what you are.

I feel for you. (In fact, I must sadly realize that I am not … which is quite a shame. Maybe I’ll get another chance …)

#71

Original Quote: If Samadhi is a plausible idea, then why so many interpretations?

This discussion trail itself is the answer. Where was the original thought and where all the thinking minds reached! Thinking process led by the indulgent mind is the real culprit. In the Yoga-Sutra model, ‘idea’ belongs to the causal world, while when it becomes an ‘interpretation’ it descends to the less subtle astral level. That descent is dominated by thinking and verbalising. Both bring in colors of the individual’s pre-formed ideas and the stances of the self-serving ego. On the top of that ‘words’ have limited ability to embrace ideas, so they proliferate. So, samadhi as an idea can never be grasped in the world of words.

Original Quote: If I sit in a ‘state of bliss’ for an hour, what do I achieve?

There is a fundamental error there. State of bliss is considered a Fourth State or a “No-mind” state. So, it is devoid of “I”. Putting I and bliss in one statement is a mis-statement.

Yoga brings about a progressive transformation in which “I” sense melts and in its stead emerges ability to discern between the Spirit and the mind-matter, by whatever names called. (Again as long as words remain words, there will be infinite thoughts about this.) This makes it possible for a mahayogi to slowly anchor him/ her self in the Spirit consciousness. When fully anchored and there is no awareness of ‘having so anchored’ it is samadhi.

What is the use of it? Two-fold. For that mahayogi, samadhi is a skill, a means to an end of ‘enlightenment’ and very useful. For the rest of us, such a mahayogi is the best person to be around who desires nothing for self but ready to help others with no strings attached.

#72

[QUOTE=Suhas Tambe;33570]Original Quote: If Samadhi is a plausible idea, then why so many interpretations?

This discussion trail itself is the answer. Where was the original thought and where all the thinking minds reached! Thinking process led by the indulgent mind is the real culprit. In the Yoga-Sutra model, ‘idea’ belongs to the causal world, while when it becomes an ‘interpretation’ it descends to the less subtle astral level. That descent is dominated by thinking and verbalising. Both bring in colors of the individual’s pre-formed ideas and the stances of the self-serving ego. On the top of that ‘words’ have limited ability to embrace ideas, so they proliferate. So, samadhi as an idea can never be grasped in the world of words.

Original Quote: If I sit in a ‘state of bliss’ for an hour, what do I achieve?

There is a fundamental error there. State of bliss is considered a Fourth State or a “No-mind” state. So, it is devoid of “I”. Putting I and bliss in one statement is a mis-statement.

Yoga brings about a progressive transformation in which “I” sense melts and in its stead emerges ability to discern between the Spirit and the mind-matter, by whatever names called. (Again as long as words remain words, there will be infinite thoughts about this.) This makes it possible for a mahayogi to slowly anchor him/ her self in the Spirit consciousness. When fully anchored and there is no awareness of ‘having so anchored’ it is samadhi.

What is the use of it? Two-fold. For that mahayogi, samadhi is a skill, a means to an end of ‘enlightenment’ and very useful. For the rest of us, such a mahayogi is the best person to be around who desires nothing for self but ready to help others with no strings attached.[/QUOTE]

Now here is an answer I can begin to work with. Thanks very much