Bhagat ji,
Quote:Samadhi (Sanskrit: समाधि) in Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and yogic schools is a higher level of concentrated meditation, or dhyāna. In the yoga tradition, it is the eighth and final limb identified in the Yoga Sūtras of Patañjali.
It has been described as a non-dualistic state of consciousness in which the consciousness of the experiencing subject becomes one with the experienced object,[1] and in which the mind becomes still, one-pointed or concentrated[2] though the person remains conscious. In Buddhism, it can also refer to an abiding in which mind becomes very still but does not merge with the object of attention, and is thus able to observe and gain insight into the changing flow of experience.[3]
In Hinduism, samādhi can also refer to videha mukti or the complete absorption of the individual consciousness in the self at the time of death - usually referred to as mahasamādhi.
Bhagat:
Now onto the rest of your post.
Do you agree that the above quote is what Samadhi really is?
C: I have a problem with it for several reasons.
1. An attempt to explain Samadhi by making reference to different ‘schools’ gives the impression almost, that different causes can lead to the same result.
2. Although one could talk about creating dualities and unnecessary distinctions, the idea of “non-dualistic state” is wrong; being that consciousness arises to experience an object, one performing the function which the other does not.
3. To suggest that “the person remains conscious” while in Samadhi, creates a mental picture in which two consciousness can arise at the same time, or else creating a duality in which a ‘person’ stands apart from the consciousness?
4. What is said about the Buddhist view on Samadhi is not correct. There Samadhi is used in reference to two different kinds of development. One is the development of calm leading to what is called Jhana. The other is a reference to the mental factor ‘concentration’, which arises with all consciousness, but here one which accompanies moments of Right Understanding.
It is therefore very misleading to suggest:
“the mind becomes very still but does not merge with the object of attention, and is thus able to observe and gain insight into the changing flow of experience”.
The mind becoming concentrated and calm is result of one kind of development and this *does not* lead to the ability to discern ‘the changing flow of experiences’. Being that the ability to understand moment to moment experiences is result of a very different path of development. While in the other, the goal itself is to *remain concentrated*. Besides, again here, it creates a misleading mental picture where consciousness with one object can somehow influence a subsequent consciousness with a totally different object. When the fact is that the conditions for the arising of one falls away completely and the next one arises by totally new set of conditions.
=========
Bhagat:
If so, how can you say that anyone can enter samadhi "when they are absorbed in some activity"?
C: That was to point out the nature of samadhi experienced by the monk in the illustration. I was saying that one could train oneself to have what I’d call “wrong samadhi” which would be fueled by attachment rather than any understanding. The example of being ‘absorbed in some activity’ was to highlight attachment as being the conditioning factor and common to both.
=========
Bhagat:
Samadhi is not for everyone. Sometimes there are genetic and environmental factors that limit or inhibit a person from entering samadhi.
C: Yes, Samadhi is not for everyone. But why is this? Is it not due to lack of understanding about some aspect of one’s experience? If so, why then refer to such things as genetics as being possibly an influencing factor? It sounds like the ‘mona’ idea to me. ;-)
As you well know, there have been scientific experiments involving doing brain scans of the subjects in an attempt to compare people who mediate with those who do not. The observation made is that those who do meditate, their brain exhibit patterns which are similar to one another and those who don’t have totally different patterns. And in the end the conclusion is that meditation is good for you.
But what do they know!!?
The scientists were completely ignorant, came from a materialistic outlook and had nothing better to do, while the meditators; they were just sheep and quite stupid ones at that.
No one who can enter Samadhi would involve himself in such kind of experiments. Why? Because he’d know that it is actually about the development of understanding and that experiment like these very easily mislead. Indeed one of the conditions for entering deep concentration (of the right kind), is being removed from ‘crowds’. How this is actually determined is by the knowledge and understanding expressed. In other words, those who do know what Samadhi really is and seek to find out whether someone else has the ability to experience such a state, would do so by *talking to that person*. It would be his understanding particularly, that of the difference between a wholesome and unwholesome state of mind, which will provide a clue as to whether what he is involved in is worthy of respect. And even if we were to have confidence that such a person is indeed wise, we’d still have to find out if we ourselves are any close to being qualified to do Samadhi.
=========
Bhagat:
You say:
Quote:It is clear that the monk did what he did driven by very strong aversion
Aversion to what? Please clarify.
.
C: To the situation towards which he protested.
Did you think that I was referring to the state of mind when he was seated and set fire upon? No, that must have been strong attachment and wrong view at play.
=========
Bhagat:
You say that what he did was a wordly effort. Indeed it was. But if enlightened people don't make worldly efforts for betterment, who will?
C: Worldly in the sense of having no understanding of the way things are and instead being influenced by Maya. Instead of acting based on right knowledge about what is wholesome and what is not and about what is right cause and what is wrong, his is a case of being mired in ignorance and drawn in by situations judged as good and bad. While the wise would know that this is due to one’s own projections, this monk was busy pointing his finger at others.
Being enlightened does not stop one from doing what must be done; on the contrary, one’s actions are pure and considered in fact to have only now become productive. But productive towards what end? Certainly not one which must conform to any misguided sense of values that we are likely to entertain, must it? ;-)
=========
Bhagat:
There is a concept of Miri Piri in Sikhism. In essence, it means that a Sikh must balance her wordly and spiritual affairs.
C: I’d suggest:
Develop understanding, this is the only solution. The distinction between worldly vs. spiritual is something I’d not make. I think it can lead to problems, starting with this very idea to “balance”. If indeed this is a wrong distinction to make then it must be the result of wrong perception of things, and would this not then lead to misdirected efforts? Would not much of it involve ‘self’ who goes about trying to balance situations? And would this not give rise inevitably, to attachment?
On the other hand, if there is understanding in which no situation is seen as better or worse than any other, would not one then act rightly given that it is now not burdened by the kind of value judgements? In other words, there is no time or place in which understanding is not to be developed. This kind of understanding does not lead to an attempt to move away from responsibilities, but on the contrary, face them unhindered by attachment towards any particular outcome.
========
Bhagat:
Renouncing the world is discouraged in Sikhism for this reason. However, one must live detached while living amongst and participating in wordly affairs.
C: Renouncing in the final analysis means renouncing one’s attachments. Not having this understanding, if someone seeks to give up living the household life, this would actually reflect attachment to an idea / situation on his part. But on the other hand, if someone fails to see attachment for what it is, any decision on his part to live amongst people, this would likewise be an excuse for giving in to attachments. And yes, he would definitely be involved in attempting to control / manipulate situations all the time.
So again, develop understanding, is what I’dsuggest.
==========
Bhagat:
Quote:At no time is there any justification for anger, let alone acts of violence
Confused ji, it is not possible to justify anger, as it is an emotion that will always arise as a response to the environment. However, one can feel anger and not react to it, as great saints do. This of course, requires intense meditation through which intuitive understanding is obtained.
.
C: Anger, like all unwholesome states, is dealt with only by coming to gradually understand it better and better, which happens only when it arises and appears to wisdom. It is eradicated however, not before craving for sense objects is completely eradicated. In the meantime anger can be known for what it is and like an enemy having now been identified, would have less opportunity of overwhelming us.
With this in mind one might then ask, would so-called meditation, in which the consciousness experiences an object other than anger, how could this ever lead to the diminishing of anger in general? And if when coming out of the meditation, attachment to sense objects arises as it used to before, why should it be seen as capable of controlling anger?
=======
Bhagat:
About violence, hmm... what if someone came at you with a knife and stabbed you. And you figured she was going to do it again then again ...and again... as she draws her knife back, ready to plunge in your gut.
What would you do at this point?
a) let her stab and kill you
b) defend yourself
I await your response.
C: It is useless to think along such lines, the fact being that no one knows what will happen when the time comes. But of course, you misunderstood my point and I therefore need to clarify.
Forget about defending. Would I actually kill? Given the love for oneself and so much aversion accumulated in my case, I think I would. But not only in such a situation, if for example my children were threatened, I’d not hesitate to kill any number of people whom I consider a threat. And talk about threat, how much of a threat is the situation of termites infesting a part of one’s house and destroying a few things? Not that much isn’t it? Yet, although with some hesitation and bearing with the situation for some time, that is what I do. Only in this case, it is by hiring pest controllers who end up doing the dirty job for me. And now the time for the rats is coming, they have been troubling us for a few years now…. :-/
Bhagat ji, I was not expecting anyone here to be without evil tendencies. What I was trying to encourage however, was to understand them for what they are. And I was trying to discourage strongly, any tendency to judge some expressions of evil in certain situations as being justified. I consider this a very dangerous position.
While I may kill in self-defense because of so much attachment and accumulated aversion, so long as I know these to be harmful and are what lead to the wrong deed, the chance of getting on the right track which is the development of right understanding still exists. However if I believed that this is OK in some situations and not in others, it must be due to *not* taking into consideration that fact of attachment and aversion being cause which must necessarily bring corresponding results. Instead I have taken right and wrong as being determined by situations, ones in which a lot of wrong understanding is invested. This is a situation of facing in exact opposite direction to the light.
What do you think is behind the thinking of the Islamic suicide bomber for example? Having failed to see harm in aversion and attachment, and being involved in thoughts about this and that, he has spun a good story which is then used as excuse to kill other people. If we continue to supply justification for some evil act, are we not then moving in the direction of the Islamic extremist?