--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 <vajradhatu@> 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. >
Well, alpha is generally associated with being restful but alert, or so virtually all the literature says. And, in respect to TM at least, there's a definite correlation between long- term practice, and higher alpha outside 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. > As opposed to findings comparing Zen masters with neophytes. Lots of variation in what is considered important. Why should I consider gamma more important than alpha? Alpha occurs during relaxation. Gamma occurs during concentration. Both are important, depending on the activity. However, long-term TM seems to reset what is required to be be seen as active... > 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. Ah, yeah. > > 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. > /shrug. I listen to myself snore all the time. > > > 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. > Who's whining? > > > >>> > >>>> 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. > But she's so fragile she couldn't respond online? I wonder if she responded to Judy offline, or was it only to a person whom she felt was sympathetic to her original bias... > > > > > 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. > LOL. Such persons don't brag about who they are the way she did. Regardless of her day job, she's insecure about it. > Anyhew, have a great weekend. > Thanks, you too. Lawson
