This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Samadhi, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
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)
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)
Example: Samadhi#Samadhi is a time-bound state of consciousness. 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)
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)
@UnusualExplorer: 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)
Copied from User talk:Prasangika37#Help required on Samadhi article
Hello Prasangika. thanks for you message on the Samadhi talk page. I am not very sound in terms of the Wikipedia policies and have started contributing very recently. It would really be very helpful for me if you can guide me on how to deal with the conflict on the article. Please have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samadhi&oldid=634699711. This is what the article was like after the information being submitted by various authors. This has got references form the books/articles publish by renowned publications and very few are from the primary sources. But instead of making changes one by one after discussion, all the information was removed by Jonathan. My main aim was to educate the readers with the physical aspect of Samadhi as it is considered by many to be just a mental state and nothing more. Also, by reading the current information being shared by Jonathan it seems like he is to much influences by Buddhism and is intentionally trying the shadow the Hindu perspective of Samadhi by referring it to be just a copy of the Buddhist texts. Please guide.UnusualExplorer (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi UnEx; here are some responses:
I've pointed out to you before that your additions are not "encyclopedical". Please read WP:RS to learn more.
As for samadhi being "just a mental state": let it go. You know, I know, Prasangika knows, and many others know, that "it" "works". Wikipedia is not the place to fight over such trivia. If anyone wants to argue that samadhi is "just" a mental state, they'll have to provide WP:RS too.
Regarding Buddhism: I think the sources I've given there are clear. Read Bronkhorst, "The Two Traditions of Meditation in Ancient India"; it's very informative. A pdf can easily be found at the web. Vetter is also very interesting; his "ideas and practices of early Buddhism" can also easily be found at the web. Funny thing is, according to Vetter, the Buddha himself probably "only" practiced dhyana/samadhi, and deemed that to be "liberating" - a "Hindu" stance which is criticised by many contemporary Buddhists! Hey, and Buddhism is Indian, isn't it?!? Read Geoffrey Samuel, "The origins of Yoga and Tantra", for the common history of Buddhism and Hinduism.
Lead: shortened; only the most relevant info; removed weazle-words and new age-jargon
Nomenclature, orthography and etymology: split into "definitions" and "etymology"
Hinduism: removed unsourced info; merged sections, added comprehensive backgoround and overview of Patanjali; added info on kevala and sahaja
Samadhi a state of physical transcendence: removed. This is WP:OR.
It starts with a "research program", which is UnEp own "research agenda": "With modern science being skeptical about Samadhi and sometimes finds itself helpless to explain the physical state of a yogi in Samadhi, there is ample information available in the ancient scriptures which has been observed to be true in case of many saints in recent history. The modern Hindu saints/scholars have also written extensively to guide the modern scientific community on the phenomenon of Samadhi." Not only is it unsourced, it's also incorrect: there's abundant research on meditation and brain-activity.
Vivekananda is as primary as a source can be
Scriptural references: the use of primary sources should be minimal; the interpretation od primary sources is to be avoided
Scientific case studies: WP:UNDUE. Why this one study on one person?
Instances of samadhi from recent history: again, WP:OR: interpretation of primary sources
Replaced info on dhyana by a lsit of the jhanas, and the interplay of dhyana and insight; moved info from Samadhi (Buddhism to this article, minus the unsourced text
So, concluding: I've removed a lot of WP:OR, and added sourced details on the stages of samadhi in both Buddhism and Patanjali's Yoga sutras. See also the section on "Ananda and asmita"; that's the kind of information which really adds a new perspective. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
UnusualExplorer, I get that you prefer the other article. From one point of view, I find it a little more interesting to read and a little more helpful. But, JoshuaJonathan is correct that it is lacking from a variety of points of view in regards to encyclopedia-level quality. What I would suggest is to find attributions to the various yogi's you're speaking about that have been explained by other scholars, as explained in WP:RS talking about secondary sources. By doing this, you will be able to include this information in a concise, clear manner while still having it cited properly. I would do this for you but alas don't have the time. It shouldn't be terribly complicated. Look up on google books scholars talking about Samadhi and you'll find some good stuff to include. I do agree with the mass changes as a little bit sad instead of gradual alteration, but perhaps you could change back anything in particular you find lacking here? I can't imagine you think ALL of the changes are bad, no? Prasangika37 (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)