Talk:Samadhi

Help required on Samadhi article

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.

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

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

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Samadhi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304135225/http://www.asianscholarship.org/asf/AnnualFellows/July8_9/Li%20Jianxin,%20A%20Comparative%20Study%20between%20Yoga%20and%20Indian%20Buddhism.doc to http://www.asianscholarship.org/asf/AnnualFellows/July8_9/Li%20Jianxin,%20A%20Comparative%20Study%20between%20Yoga%20and%20Indian%20Buddhism.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Mahāsamādhi into Samādhi (Implemented)

Even even ignoring the fact "mahāsamādhi" itself literally means "great samādhi", Mahāsamādhi reads:

"According to this belief, a realized and enlightened (Jivanmukta), yogi (male) or yogini (female) who has attained the state of nirvikalpa samādhi, can consciously exit from their body and attain enlightenment, often while in a deep, conscious meditative state."

In context, the "deep, conscious meditative state" here is samādhi, which is explicitly mentioned earlier in the same sentence. Not only does it explicitly refer to samādhi, it refers to a particular form of it which is described with a subsection under Samadhi#Hinduism which provides essential context absent from Mahāsamādhi. Further, the Mahāsamādhi is a stub and has been for over a decade, which clearly demonstrates it does not need a separate article. Thus, I suggest they be merged with Mahāsamādhi redirecting to an appropriate section of Samadhi. Scyrme (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Since no objections were raised, I've implemented this merge by restoring the redirect. Scyrme (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Merge from Aimlessness (Buddhism) (Implemented)

Aimlessness (Buddhism) is a neglected stub and has been so for years. Before my recent minor edits, it had last been edited in 2019. I think it qualifies as a redundant fork and so would be better merged into an appropriate subsection of Samadhi#Buddhism. The merge would also open up the option of properly covering the other two of the three forms of samādhi mentioned in Aimlessness (Buddhism).

Additionally, at present, Aimlessness (Buddhism) covers only the Zen/Thien Buddhist perspective, but this group of three forms of samādhi is also attested in the Madhyamaka and Tibetan Mahāyana Buddhist traditions where it seems to be very different from the interpretation described by the article/references in Aimlessness (Buddhism). (See: [1]) I think this must be reflected in the merge if/when it takes place. ie. Concentration on aimlessness (apraṇihita-samādhi) must not be sub-sectioned under Samadhi#Zen, or at least not entirely. Scyrme (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Do you mind pings? Apologies if you do. I just thought you may be able to help here. Scyrme (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Pings are fine. Aimlessness may be WP:UNDUE for samadhi, other than mentioning it shortly. I'm not sure if aimlessness fits samadi; it also reminds me of dhyana and of Tathātā. Maybe that would be the correct approach: not ask what to do with the aimlessness article, but ask what's relevant for the samadhi-article. I think I'd leave the aimlessness-article for what it is, and concentrate on samadhi. @Javierfv1212: what do you think? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I would merge, honestly not sure why there is an article for aimlessness, it doesn't seem to be doing much. It would be good to discuss the three samadhis under the main samadhi article. ☸Javierfv1212☸ 21:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think it might be undue weight. I don't see how it might compromise the neutrality of the article; if anything the Buddhist section of Samadhi currently relies heavily on Buddhaghosa's perspective (although I'm aware that Buddhagosa is to some extent an example of Theravada more broadly). Several Mahayana views are mentioned but they're not really described as Buddhagosa's perspective is. So it seems like adding another perspective would help with neutrality rather than detract from it. Samadhi as a whole currently leans a bit toward a Hindu perspective, so adding to the Buddhist side might help with neutrality on that front too. I also don't think apraṇihita-samādhi etc. count as a fringe or small minority view. It's evidently somewhat widespread in Buddhism, being discussed in the work of Nagarjuna and Thich Nhat Hanh, who are prominent figures in two distinct Buddhist traditions. Seems like a perspective that's worth including in the main article. It would be a better place for the topic of apraṇihita-samādhi than a separate article where it's removed from context and neglected as it has been until now. Scyrme (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Do you still maintain an objection or are we now in agreement? Scyrme (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I've now implemented this merge, with some additions to give some coverage to all three rather than only aimlessness. Scyrme (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)