--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradh...@...> wrote: > > > On May 1, 2009, at 7:31 AM, sparaig wrote: > > >> What aspects are being validated? That meditation can be good > >> for you is abvious but what about the underlying philosophy. > >> Are they implying that John Hagelin has proved anything? > >> > > > > He showed that it was possible to do a literary interpretation of > > western > > QM and vedic cosmology and cross-polinate one field from the other. > > He attempted to show this. His attempt failed.
Huh. So Revised Flipped SU(5) is a total failure? > > > > > Whether or not this has significance deeper than some elaborate Law > > of Fives > > demo hasn't been proven. > > > >> I'm actually interested in this because objective validation > >> is the only thing that will convince anyone other than those > >> with a pre-disposition to TM. > >> > > > > Vaj despises the TM interpretation of samadhi and the like, but its > > reasonably > > self-consistent and not hard to see how it might fit in with modern > > physiological > > theories. > > I don't "despise" the TM interpretation of samadhi, I know from > experience other than mucho murcha, swooning, we don't see any fourth > state of consciousness in TM. At least not yet. But we do see the > light trance states typical of self-hypnosis and the relaxation > response. The "alpha buzz". It's funny how people believe what people > say, just because the TM org said it, backed at one time by a phony > yogi. The facts are relatively simple: if TM can demonstrate samadhi > they can 1) go into it at will and 2) go into it for whatever > duration they desire (hours, days) and 30 demonstrate a marked > decrease in metabolic rate. This very clearly hasn't happened > (although they have tried to fool people on metabolic rate until > Harvard researchers figured out they were in error). And if you > understand the mechanics of samadhi and higher states of > consciousness and know how TM is practiced, you'll realize the chance > of it ever happening are just happenchance, i.e. very small. > WE see things differently, obviously. L.
