Talk:Samadhi/Archive 1

Samadhi is a valid, yet obscure Sanskrit term.

"Samadhi Meditation" entry is some New Age mumbo-jumbo mixture. Please do NOT merge, the meaning will be lost.

Quality concerns
I am concerned about the quality of this page. Some parts of it read like poor translations from other languages, and the grammar sometimes impedes understanding of the material. However, I lack sufficient knowledge of the material to be able to edit this article. --John Hupp 06:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"Cosmic Consciousness" redirect
I concerned about the use of the term "Cosmic Consciousness" as a redirect for this article, particularly because it is a term that is used frequently in comic books throughout the Marvel Universe continuity. I feel that using this term as a redirect may be somewhat misleading and that a separate article should be created. Thoughts? Gnosis1185 04:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
While I am not a native English speaker (who is nowadays? :)), I believe I'm a fairly competent reader, and I can't make anything out of the first section. The following paragraph seems in particularly poor shape:
 * Samadhi (...) is Sanskrit term for the practice which produces complete meditation (among "normal" one). According to Vyasa, "yoga is samadhi" deciphered as complete control (samadhana) over the functions of consciousness (better is it so Higher control, that it Release...). (...). The result is various degrees of veridical coalescent acquisition of truth (samapatti).

Now, this does not only pose as fact what may be the respectable belief of a religious group, but far from an established truth, it does it in quite poor style. This is either an attempt at editing from someone rather unacquainted with English grammar, or simple rambling. I believe serious editing is needed. Taragüí @ 08:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There are parts of this article I can't understand, and I am a native English speaker. I made some major edits and removed some bits that didn't seem to make sense by commenting them out in the HTML. The article probably needs major reorganization, which is more than I can do right now. SQFreak 02:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree also and am fluent in English and have an M.A. in philosophy. I am going to try to improve the first opening definition. I am taking this from Meher Baba's "God Speaks" (1955, Dodd Meade) which is the most reliable syncretic source I know and is considered authoritative. I am using the glossary definition from the second edtition. The book also describes the meaning of nirvikalpa samadhi and sahaj samadhi and gives Sufi equivolent terms for these latter states: fana-fillah and baqa-billah. chris 12:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I went ahead and did a whole reworking of the page. I corrected style conflicts and changed the order slightly to make it more clear. I also omitted a few passages, either because they were redundant (stated elsewhere in the article) or because they had no references. Some omissions appeared to be endorsements for a particular teacher or appeared to be original research or personal opinion that was unreferenced. One of the main persistant errors was that samadi was occasionally confused with the practice of meditation itself, when it is actually the state that is induced by meditation. I think it at least gives a clear overview to the novice westerner curious to get a handle on the term. Of course it is not the final word, just my best effort. chris 14:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Different types of samadhi in Buddhism
On 21 Sept. 2006, the Buddhism section of this article was expanded in a manner that over all appears to be intelligent, well informed and highly useful. There is one part of it I have questions about though. In particular, the following text was included:


 * There are different types of samadhi mentioned as well:
 * 1) access concentration (upacara samadhi)
 * 2) fixed concentration (appana samadhi)
 * 3) momentary samadhi (khanikha samadhi)
 * 4) ‘concentraion without interruption’(anantharika samadhi)
 * 5) immeasurable concentration (appamana samadhi)

Based on the context of this statement (which is still intact in the current article), the place where these different types of samadhi are reputedly mentioned is in the Pali Canon.

My concerns are as follows:
 * 1) I don't think ' (or, more broadly, ' in regards to samādhi) is mentioned in the Pali Canon.  For instance, a search of the tipitaka using http://www.chaf.lib.latrobe.edu.au/dcd/pali.htm appears to show that this term is likely first encountered in the post-canonical Visuddhimagga.  In addition, the referenced source for this statement (Visuddhacara, n.d.) alludes to the canon twice (in the context of other teachers' statements) but such seems to be in the context of stating that the canon supports vipassana without samantha (which is true, though anamolous), not in terms of the term ' per se.  Additionally, in terms of ordering, the Visuddhimagga itself lists the three types of concentration in the following manner: '.  (Visuddhacara, n.d., lists these three in different ways in his article.) FWIW, I think that this concern (if correct) could essentially be addressed by changing the context from the "Pali Canon" to "Pali literature" and by re-ordering the listed types of samadhi.
 * 2) The sutral reference for "concentration without interruption" does not appear to suggest that this is different from regular references to samadhi in the canon and different translations appear to support this (e.g., Piyadassi, 1999, translates the line in question as "The Supreme Buddha extolled a path of purity (the Noble Eightfold Path) calling it the path which unfailingly brings concentration.").  Thus what is the basis for describing this as a "different type of samadhi"?
 * 3) Similarly, the sutral reference for "immeasurable concentration" appears to me to simply refer to concentration on the four Brahmaviharas which are four of the forty recommended objects of concentration in the Visuddhimagga (e.g., see Kammatthana); which, again, indicates that this is a reference to typical Buddhist samadhi but in this case with a singular object.  So, again, how is this a "different type of samadhi"?

So, I'm thinking the current text should be changed to something like:


 * Post-canonical Pali literature identifies three different types of samadhi:
 * 1) momentary samadhi () (Buddhaghosa &, 1999; Visuddhacara, n.d.)
 * 2) access concentration (upacārasamādhi)
 * 3) fixed concentration ()

Any objections? In particular, if I error in my assessment above, I'd be grateful for any contrary evidence. Otherwise, I will likely make the above change in the next week or so. (I'll also post a pointer to this entry on the talk page of the WP editor who introduced this text.) Thanks so much, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's been over three weeks since I posted the above here and on the initial editor's talk page, so I'm going to implement this change momentarily. (Please revert and explain here if there are any last-minute objections.  Thanks!)  With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What about the Three Samadhis (trayaḥ samādhayaḥ) in Buddhism? --Komitsuki (talk) 08:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

In a day or so.
The article will need to be moved to Samadhi not Samādhi as it is most popular use. Wikid as&#169; 17:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In Hinduism
For example, see the following passages from Ramana Maharshi (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharashi 2006): "The Self does not come from anywhere else and enter the body through the crown of the head. It is as it is, ever sparkling, ever steady, unmoving and unchanging. ... The individual confines himself to the limits of the changeful body or of the mind which derives its existence from the unchanging Self. All that is necessary is to give up this mistaken identity, and that done, the ever-shining Self will be seen to be the single non-dual Reality." [p. 596] "The Heart is used in the Vedas and the scriptures to denote the place whence the notion ‘I’ springs. Does it spring only from the fleshy ball? It springs within us somewhere right in the middle of our being. The ‘I’ has no location. Everything is the Self." [p. 34] "To imagine Muladhara at the bottom, the Heart at the centre, or the head at the top or over all these, is all wrong. In one word, to think is not your real nature." [p. 184]
 * Added references on types of Samadhi.
 * Removed superfluous paragraph on Nirvikalpa Samadhi containing such unreferenced passages as "all cells of the physical body are flooded with the Ocean of Divine Love and Divine Bliss".
 * Removed descripton of Samadhi as "a blissful state in which spiritual currents pass through the body and the soul rests about six inches above the head." This must be an incomplete quote as in the Yoga tradition, the consciousness is withdrawn to the top of the head (sahasrara) and then loses all body-consciousness, going beyond time and space.
 * Added quote from Nisargadatta Maharaj describing relationship between meditation and Samadhi. Samyama8 (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * May I suggest creating a sub-page for the Hindu-specific aspect of this topic? On similar lines to Samadhi (Buddhism)? -Mayuresh 15:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

As mausoleum: Darga and Samadhi
I have not seen anything in the article on the connection between Samadhi of a Saint and the Darga of Sufi Saints. Is there any Samadhi in India from before the arrival of Islam ? Jonathansammy (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You can look at Samadhi (disambiguation). There's a link to Baqaa in See also here too. Wakari07 (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Samādhi and Samadhi
Also started discuss on: Talk:Samadhi (Buddhism) There are two very substantial articles on the (for me, single) subject of Samādhi: Samadhi ("Hinduist version") and Samadhi (Buddhism). The best would be to have one article for the common elements in both views. No question to say that one Dharma is better than the other. Just would like to point to the fact that the lemma Samādhi is essentially available. Wakari07 (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

nonsense
As one self-realized yogi explained, "You can meditate but after some time you will get stuck at some point. That is the time you need a guru. Otherwise, without a Guru, chances are very slim."

This is complete bullocks .-- Cloak' 13:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Questioning single-author statements as Trivia
The recently added section New Age analysis, added by 117.254.19.45, is the opinion of a single person from a single website, an engineer named Anil Rajvanshi. The referenced website article by him is found here. The same author also relates reincarnation to cloud computing. See here. These are the original ideas of a single author who is not an expert in the field of Hindu concepts. They are not broad ideas held by any group. Thus the inclusion of this idea about samadhi explained by physics amounts to Trivia -- as there are literally scores of such theories by individuals that are not included. I propose deleting it. The same holds for the single opinion of Meher Baba (Analogous Concepts), who did not belong to any Dharmic religion listed at the top of the page. It should also be deleted. If such single-author opinions are added, it would turn into endless opinions as sections. I think the article should remain on the topic named at the top of the page, and not be a forum for speculations, opinions, or unique single-author ideas -- unless those opinions are by Hindu experts and then they should be incorporated into the main article. Dazedbythebell (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Anil K. Rajvanshi's views
Dr. Anil K. Rajvanshi has a Doctorate in Mechanical Engineering and is an expert in Agricultural alternative technology. His "New Age" views about explaining spiritual states of mind with soliton is Original Research in Wikipedia. Hoverfish Talk 14:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Samadhi when not induced by meditation
The article repeatedly implies samadhi is the result of intense meditation, when I find this is a little inaccurate. Time and time again mystics and saints have been reported as falling into spontaneous samadhi at the smallest of triggers. Yet people not so naturally inclined towards ecstatic states would require more practice to develop an ability to fall into samadhi. So from, say, the average person's POV it might make sense to call samadhi the result of meditation, but this is definitely not universal. Ramakrishna had a habit of falling into samadhi all the time whenever he heard or saw something that reminded him of Kali. As a little girl, Amritanandamayi would fall into samadhi even when she was using the toilet and would completely pass out--neither were sitting around and meditating when these samadhi experiences happened. So I suggest taking out the implication that it's only a result of meditation. --Snowgrouse (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not only this but there are few other myths related to Samadhi. I feel we should create a section to dispel the myths. Some specific examples have already been shared in the 'Recent Instances of Samadhi' section, we can refer to those instances while commenting on a particular myth. Do let me know your thoughts on the same. UnusualExplorer (talk) 06:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Instances of Samadhi from Recent History
I have added a section containing some instances of Samadhi. While i agree with one of the fellow editor Joshua Jonathan that if we include the instances for every saint who went into samadhi, the page will become endless. But i have specifically shortlisted only the instances from the recent history that depicts the physical aspect of Samadhi and that too related to the very prominent saints. The main idea before adding these instances is that there is hardly any information available on the physical aspect of samadhi even this article talks only in terms of consciousness. Moreover there are a lot of myths related to Samadhi that can only be dispelled by quoting some real examples like samadhi can be while talking (e.g. Lahiri Mahasaya), it can be while standing, moving (e.g. Ramkrishna Paramhansa & Chaitanya Mahaprabhu), biological processes may switch off & the body may require extensive care (e.g. Ramkrishna Paramhansa).

Kindly discuss if someone has a suggestion to improve this section UnusualExplorer (talk) 06:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * How about renaming the article to "Samadhi (Hinduism)", and removing the Buddhist section?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * In that case we will have to remove the section for 'Sikhism' too. Is there a specific process to be followed in order to make such a big change or discussing the same with fellow editors will be enough ? also, will this change affect the URL of this article ? UnusualExplorer (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Etymolgy
What about sama- adhi?
 * Added 59.180.43.33 (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Parts of this article is bullshit
Example: Samadhi. It is obvious to anyone that what is described there could not have happened. It is myth. However, I do believe that Samadhi is real, as a form of mental state one can reach through for example meditation. A clear separation between myth and plausible reality should be created for this article, in my humble opinion. Before I might go on and reorganize everything in this article, does anyone have any objections, ideas or anything to say about this? KaosMuppet (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Go ahead.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, i can see that almost all the contributions that i made to the article have been reverted where as i have provided references to each point of information. I don't find it justified to remove all that information just by referring it as a Myth. All the information that i have quoted has been produced/documented by the Yogis who are followed and are considered to be authentic by millions of Hindus and since the changes were made specifically to the Hinduism section i find no reason to call the sources unreliable just because you feel that samadhi is only a mental state. UnusualExplorer (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi UnE. The point is (for me), your additons were not encyclopedical. An encyclopdia provides a short and concise (is that the rigth word?) overview. For details, such as personal accounts, people can use Google. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   19:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * True, but it also provides compiled information on a subject. People can find everything on Google, then what is the need for an encyclopedia? Moreover when you talk about Hinduism, you need to present the information that is quoted by the authors & spiritual leaders that are considered authentic by the Hindu masses and not by you as an individual. What i can see is that you have removed all the Hinduism specific philosophy except the Patanjali. And even with Patanjali you have very smartly referred foreign authors to state the he was inspired by Buddhism, which is not true as the philosophy of Yoga had been very well established in the Upanishads much before the advent of Buddhism. UnusualExplorer (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on WP:RS (read it, please; it's informative]], not on primary sources.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   20:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * JoshuaJonathan is right, but you can find similar things through accessing scholars who have commented on similar accounts. Wikipedia avoids primary sources or first hand accounts of things like this, but undoubtedly you can find scholars explaining things like Samadhi quite adequately. Perhaps consult Feuerstein or Doniger to start.. Doniger in her text The Hindus, expains extensively about the pre-Buddhism development of Hinduism. You can find great quotes there and elsewhere. Feel free to message me on my page if you need a little more help Prasangika37 (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)