--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear Ms. Enlightened: > > On Sep 29, 2008, at 12:10 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: > > > The generally accepted figure is that around 2 million people have > > learned TM worldwide, Mr. Vaj. Even if just one half of one percent > > are continuing the practice (assuming 99.5% no longer do TM), that > > is still 100,000 meditators globally. > > > > You would have had to have done an awful lot of talking with > > practitioners of the technique to be making your claim of majorities > > faking witnessing and ranting about enlightenment. > > > > Perhaps you are right. However to continue claiming these are facts > > as you represent them speaks more to the attachment of you to your > > story than it does any basis in fact. > > > Since scientists have already determined the EEG criteria of both > Patanjali yogins in samadhi and Buddhist yogins in samadhi as the > same: High-Amplitude Gamma coherence; and the fact this has yet to be > observed in TMers, I'd say the prospect looks pretty grim, esp. given > the numbers you propose and zero so far. As soon as I see good > scientific evidence of this in TM practitioners, I'll stop and > celebrate with everyone else. As I pointed out in my post to Ruth, > yogic-style enlightenment has some long-known and pretty darn > impressive qualities. You know as well as I do that if these were > observed in TM practitioners that not only would they be touting the > scientific evidence, we'd be hearing about it all over the media! > > That's of course not to deny the benefits of TM which a well- known > relaxation effect, the so-called relaxation response. Relaxation is a > good thing. > > Do you have some evidence we're not aware of? > Thank you for your information on the EEG High-Amplitude Gamma coherence. An interesting approach to measuring states of consciousness. However, there are still many TM practitioners, thousands, who for whatever reason we know nothing about with regards to their state of consciousness (nor does the TMO).
To proclaim the things you are saying as facts is stretching it, and is an indication of your bias, vs. a valid representation. I am not arguing with your point of view, nor am I saying that you must prove it. However, given what you are presenting, all I continue to see is bias, not facts.
