--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "David Fiske" <fiskedavid@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Do any of you have speculation as how what Jill Bolte Taylor > > > http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229 said ties in with Maharishi's > > > once held view of the dual nervous system. It seems she implies that > > > the right brain gives an experience of Being and the left of > > > individual concerns. The problem is, as always, how to function > > > individually while enjoying non local awareness. > > > David > > > http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229 > > > > What I found most fascinating and uplifting about > > the talk was that it DIDN'T "tie in" with any > > pre-existing framework or philosophy. It really > > seemed to me as if Jill approached this situation > > *without* having been pre-programmed to have ideas > > about Being, samadhi, nirvana, etc. I got the > > feeling that she learned of these terms and these > > concepts *after* having experienced what she did, > > in an attempt to understand them. > > > > As you suggest, there seems to be some *literal* > > overshadowing effect of the left brain that tends > > to "hide" the expansive, non-local right brain. > > It's like the left brain is a "worrywart," and > > nags and talks all the time, while the right brain > > is more Rastafarian. "Ja, mon...I hear what you be > > sayin', but chill. Don't worry...be happy." > > > > I think what we need is for the left brain to sit > > down with the right brain and share a big spliff > > from time to time, so that they can get along > > better and coexist more peacefully. :-) > > Samadhi, as defined in TM research, comes about when the > left and right hemispheres are *in balance* in the frontal > lobes. IOW, neither the right nor left hemisphere is dominating.
Lawson, Lawson, Lawson...when are you going to understand that samadhi cannot possibly be "defined" by research? All that the researchers can ever possibly do is to attempt to track and find physical coorelates of a non-physical subjective experience. They are Wile E. Coyotes chasing a roadrunner they will never catch. At best they can catch glimpses of the roadrunner and try to measure the piles of dust as he says "Beep Beep" and runs away. The scientists in ALL of the research on meditation are GUESSING, dude. They're measuring people who are meditating and they're searching for something -- anything -- out of the ordinary. And of course they're going to think that those out of the ordin- ary things that they find are coorelates of samadhi. But are they? Some of the things that Wallace believed were the "definitors" of higher states of consciousness when he did his experiments have been shown not to be. I would expect that ALL of the things found so far will be found to be just as non-definitive. I -- unlike you and your belief in MMY's idea that there IS a physiological coorelate to everything spiritual -- do not believe that scientists will EVER be able to "define" samadhi or enlightenment physically. The roadrunner's going to keep getting away. That's just the way things work in this cartoon universe.
