From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


What about sama- adhi?

Added (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Parts of this article is bullshit[edit]

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)

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)
@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)

Help required on Samadhi article[edit]

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 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.
Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── But alas, let's compare 13:59, 30 October 2014 and 09:27, 22 November 2014:

  • 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
    • Myths: also WP:OR
  • Buddhism:
    • 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)

Not NPOV yet[edit]

I just came here to look at some good definitions of the concept of Samadhi, and what I encountered was an article that spent a huge amount of time going on about how Buddhists came up with it all and that was... completely unnecessary? It's like there's one or several editors here trying to prove the superiority of Buddhism, like it's some competition. For instance, in the section about Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, I expected to see what the Yoga Sutras say on Samadhi, not whether the techniques or the language were derived from Buddhist practices. That's the sort of thing that might be mentioned at the end of that section, if at all. There's just so much pointless Buddhist willy-waving here that it's not relevant to the discussion of Samadhi itself--all I get from this article is that wow, there's some Buddhist who's really desperate to prove himself, with some sort of power complex. And that's not NPOV. (Or very Buddhist, for that matter...) --Snowgrouse (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

More meaning for samaadhi[edit]

Samadhi is usually translated as concentration. but it is misleading one who knows only English.the pali meaning is therefore not convinced properly. This may be due to initial mistake done by Thomas Rhys Davids samaadhi is (sinhala -චිත්තස්ස එකග්ගතා) unification of the mind ,cognitive consonance not the cognitive dissonance.

  1. Actually Samadhi needs (NIMITHTHA නිමිත්ත) where you focus your attention on ,not some thing outside ,
  2. withdrawal of attention from external things ,guarding the senses.
  3. And also guarding thoughts of past ,future and present.
  4. maintaince of concentration all the time on (NIMITHTHA නිමිත්ත).--RsEkanayake 02:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)