Is Samadhi fiction?

Yoga Discussion General Yoga
#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

#73

Suha Tambe,

Your entire post is excellent! Like fresh air. I thank you.

Can you say any more about the fear that causes attachment to words and ideas only, logic, reason and science, which although useful are intrinsically limited. Awareness and understanding beyond words and ideas? Is everything beyond words and ideas only faith?

[I]…“by whatever name”…[/I]it’s good enough for me.

peace,
siva

#74

Siva,

Thanks for your good words. My Yoga knowledge is only experiential and very limited. I will try to suggest answers to your questions.

You ask: Can you say any more about the fear that causes attachment to words and ideas only, logic, reason and science, which although useful are intrinsically limited. Awareness and understanding beyond words and ideas? Is everything beyond words and ideas only faith?

Science will always be limited, because it is exploring truth - bottom-up. From fragmented pieces like physics, chemistry, biology etc. it is trying to make a whole picture which is never possible. Vedanta, on the other hand, is top-down, starts with holistic premise and then applies it to parts of life. So, parts are always as true as the whole.

You are right about attachment. Our ego does that mischief. It makes us own our ideas, thoughts (words), perception and images with a hope to own the objects that are perceived. (I couldn’t understand “fear that causes attachment”) But attachment, as described above, causes fear - fear of losing, fear of transience, fear of death.

Patanjali describes the universe as - gross (physical), subtle (astral) and the subtlest (causal) all perceivable and also the fourth state beyond that can’t be perceived, you can only BE in that state. In perception, form/ appearance is physical, words/ thoughts are astral and ideas/ concepts are causal. Beyond that is an enlightened state. Which is faith, only for us who’s awareness is still only physical. A Yoga Master who has been that state may call it real and not just faith and he/she may claim awareness of it and not just intellectual understanding like us. Hope there is something useful here.

#75

Suhas Tambe,

Yes. Very useful. This part especially in that, it’s the experiential aspect between faith and awareness, or Being, that is difficult to communicate to another who has not experienced the same, at which point logic and reason break down and we have to rely on art and not science.

Only thing I might say differently is that it is fear (and desire) that cause attachment, and not visa versa. It happens all the time that one may break the bond to one attachment only to form another because the underlying fear or desire are still there. In this case, it’s a clinging to knowledge, logic and reason, but we have yet to acknowledge that fear might be involved. Right Adam?

ready…aim…:smiley:
siva

#76

[QUOTE=siva;33705] In this case, it’s a clinging to knowledge, logic and reason, but we have yet to acknowledge that fear might be involved. Right Adam?
[/QUOTE]

I don’t know what CLINGING to knowledge, logic and reason actually means. That’s a very abstract idea. If I have a piece of meat in the fridge that smells and is getting moldy, I won’t eat it, cause reason and logic tells me I will get sick. But I don’t, in anyway, ‘cling’ to that reason and logic.
It’s far far more simple than what your making it. I simply observe the world with logic and reason, and leave it at that. All I’m doing different to you, is not fill in the missing gaps with guess work. If science can’t find an answer, I just leave it, cause I don’t feel that guessing an answer, or using my emotions to get an answer is very reliable.
If you want to talk about things I fear and cling to, I can talk about that if you really like.

#77

Adam,

No. It’s your nose that tells you…“I won’t eat it. I will get sick.” It’s logic and reason that says throw it out, although if you were trying to grow mold in your fridge, then that would not be very logical would it. You see how logic and reason might not be connected, but rather they are constructed?

Here ya go! What about intuition? Instinct? Don’t trust them? Hmmmm…You trusted your nose.

siva

#78

[QUOTE=siva;33716]Here ya go! What about intuition? Instinct? Don’t trust them? Hmmmm…You trusted your nose.[/QUOTE]

Of course I trust my nose. We have evolved to be hard wired to not make ourselves deliberately, we’ve also learnt not to touch the stove using reason. I certainly don’t put intuition and instinct before reason and logic. If I see some girls in public that I want instinctually have sex with (cause I’m hard wired to think that) I know logically that that wouldn’t be a good idea. I’ve had relationships where my intuition told me that my partner was faithful, only to find out they were cheating. I don’t certainly don’t put instinct and intuition before reason, that’s were rapists and suicide bombers come from.

#79

I’ve had that myself.:wink:

Or rather i questionioned it at the time(in fact i think she tried to tell me but i was’nt really listening). But then dismissed it,rubbed it off ,choosing not to give it too much thought.I was comparitively young at the time & it was a long time ago though.Funny how the mind works or rather likes to work.

#80

The conscious mind does’nt wanna know.Is not interested.