>>13714839>Depending on what you mean by 'indifferent', there may be. I mean feeling the pain as you normally do, without surpassing it at all, but at the same time not getting any suffering from it. An anology I could give is playing a videogame and taking it so seriously that you sperg out whenever something annoying happens vs simply enjoying the videogame. From the game's perspective nothing changes at all, but for the subjects it does.
That could depend on semantics of "psychology". But generally yogic and Buddhist approaches are radically different to those of psychologists.
>then there will be a natural explanation of those resultsThere's never anything unnatural. Let's imagine there is a monk capable of levitating in the air. Scientists would come, measure everything and find a natural explanation of his trick. Would it raise any interests in spirituality? It wouldn't at all, except that after a while there might appear flying yoga classes for laymen focusing only on the physical aspect of it. People see planes daily, and they're quite amazing, but does it make people want to study aerodynamics and stuff? Very few people get interested in the essence of it. That is why there's no reason to demonstrate any "supernatural" tricks by the masters who were supposedly initiated into them.
As you see itt I mentioned samadhi which is about your subjective state and being happy, but the ifls annon began comparing it with supernatural which is reductio ad absurdum.
And lastly there is fundamental difference for example between acting as if God exists and acting knowing as God exist. So whether the explanations are natural or not, subject is to be accounted for.
