Sorry I believe this is my last post tonight and awhile since I'm gone
till monday. ...
On Apr 4, 2008, at 7:33 PM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Apr 4, 2008, at 4:04 PM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote:
On Apr 4, 2008, at 2:27 PM, sparaig wrote:
The TM finding that samadhi is basically simple alpha offends many
people, but fits in with
what you're saying though.
I don't know that it "offends" anyone, it's just not simply
correct.
Of course its not.
Alpha coherence of any kind is functionally non-specific.
Well, yes, of course. "Idling" has no function in and of itself, as
far as the car user is
concerned. BUt a poorly set idle is quite detrimental to all normal
uses of a given car.
But also keep in mind, the idling idea is just a theory. Not to
mention how you interpret what idling means in relation to meditation.
And even the
latest and greatest digital EEG machines are just 'microphones over
NYC'.
Well, not sure quite what you mean there. The research you like to
tout on Buddhist
Meditators and Gamma waves is even MORE vague than much of the TM
EEG research as it
involved taking the outputs from multiple leads and averaging them
and THEN running
mathematically analysis on groups of 6 of them.
Well we're talking of something quite different in that example. That
raises the question 'why is hi-amp gamma coherence even interesting at
all' and the answer is the first generally accepted case of hi-amp
gamma coherence was back in the 50's with traditional Hindu yogis
doing introverted, eyes closed samadhi in the yoga tradition. It's
kind of the benchmark for samadhi up until it recurred with the
research you seem concerned about (Lutz, et al). The other important
variable that was determined there was that in tradition Hindu
introverted samadhi style meditation there was no alpha blocking.
The reason early and recent researchers weren't and aren't really
excited about TM and other similar popularized techniques was because
they just didn't see any duplication of those results (until the
recent gamma hi-amp research)...in other words, there was nothing
outside the normal circadian wake-sleep-dream cycles in the research
that's been presented. So it just seemed rather ho-hum to workaday
neuro-nerds.
In terms of analysis there are different forms, some of which are
considered superior to raw or eyed data.
The people you deal with don't like the results and you don't
either.
It's really not about 'not liking', it's about what they, as
professionals in the field of neuroscience and neurology, understand.
Right... As though all professionals in teh field of neuroscience
and neurology were in
100% agreement on all details about what these measurements mean...
No of course not, but there are certain "landmarks" in any field and
the earlier 1950's gamma coherence findings in indian yogis was
seminal. The early 'rosetta stone' of meditation research if you will.
And EEG isn't really a good way to measure what the brain's doing
anyways, as Wulff (1992) notes:
"However impressive the EEG may be, its application in meditation
research is roughly akin to using half-dozen microphones to assess
life in New York City. In either case, we can detect trends in
general activity--the shift say, from early evening to early
morning--
but the subtleties of these innumerable components that make up the
global measures still lie beyond the capacities of these
instruments."
A remark from 18 years ago may or may not be valid today.
In this case, even with eventually quite large matrices, it will be a
blunt instrument.
Made even blunter by the Gamma EEG research protocol you like to
cite, but that doesn't
stop you from citing it.
Please see the above.
And really the "Vedic" texts are quite clear that samadhi lies
beyond
waking, dreaming and sleeping, but alpha rhythms are part of parcel
of normal human circadian (wake-sleep-dream) rhythms. There are a
host of problems with meditation research via EEG, esp. with bad
study design.
Actually, "turiya" is the BASIS for waking, dreaming and sleeping,
according to the "Vedic
literature,", so I'm not sure where you're getting the above.
The above quote was speaking from the POV of someone in ignorance
experientially. Yes, eventually you have the non-conventional
experience that it arises out of it. Then, mastery over the 3 other
states is complete and permanent. Witnessing any of the other states
is (allegedly) permanent and effortless.
But that says nothing about "willing" those states.
Just a mere gear shift in attention. Swami Rama demonstrated it at the
Menninger Inst. (and on stage according to L.B. Shriver). It's also
been claimed on MMY by John Gray. Gray used to dictate to M. while he
was sleeping. He'd even snore John said. When John first started doing
dictations, he'd pause when he saw M. go to sleep. So he'd stop
dictating, thinking M. was asleep. Then MMY woke up and gestured for
him to continue! And so JG got in the habit of just continuing
dictating when MMY fell asleep. He'd wake up later and just pick up
where they left off as if nothing ever happened.
The question arises: who wills them? --
--but philosophy aside, a description of the state being the basis
for all the others says
nothing about voluntary control over the individual states.
When you learn to, you can decide. Until then, I guess you'll have to
wait. Get to it otherwise and stop whining about it.
Perhaps as I have more time I can remove some of the quite
obsessive
misconceptions you have on this subject.
I'm so greatful to you...
What a smartass response.
Right, as though you don't indulge in such stuff, both towards
people you respond to and
towards people who you don't like, including the recently deceased.
You know, Ruth wrote me after she left and really was hurt by such
tripe, that what made her, as a professional, leave. Try to be a bit
more respectful and flexible. No one likes a schmuck.
Ruth showed she hadn't read materials she was claiming to have read
and rather than
admitting to it, she left in a huff. Your defense of her is amusing
but birds of a feather and
all that.
Actually she read all of it and responded off list in detail to me.
Unfortunately I had just returned myself from a scientific conference
in CA, so I missed it for quite a bit. So I do apologize for not
passing it on sooner. It was kinda dated by the time I'd returned and
read it.
And your revelation that she left because of things I (and/or
others) said, goes against her
public claim that she was merely going on vacation. Thanks for
confirming what I had
already surmised: she couldn't' take the heat so she left,
regardless of what she claimed as
she left.
Please see the above. She's an expert in research and the practical
implications of this in real life; unless you have a really detailed
knowledge of medicine, biochemistry, physics etc. and humans in
practice, I suspect you might not realize how insightful such
professionals are.
Anyhew, have a great weekend.
