--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: <snip> > > > 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?
Lawson didn't say "defined by TM research," he said "defined IN TM research." > All that the researchers can ever possibly do > is to attempt to track and find physical coorelates > of a non-physical subjective experience. Which is, of course, what Lawson is referring to: physical correlates of reports of a 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? Actually, what they're searching for is the physical correlates of reports of the experience by their subjects. Did you really think they just looked at the EEG tracings, found an unusual pattern, and labeled it samadhi? Not incidentally, it's very similar to the way scientists have studied dreaming. They hook the subjects up to the EEG and other measurement devices, have them go to sleep, wake them up at intervals, and ask them if they were dreaming. Then they look at the measurements from the instruments to see if there are distinct patterns correlated with subjective reports of having been dreaming. > 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. Just the way scientists have never been able to "define" dreaming physically, eh? Barry, before you do any more criticism of TM research, it would be a good idea for you to acquire some understanding of what is actually involved in that research.
