--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradh...@...> wrote: > > > On Aug 22, 2009, at 4:28 PM, raunchydog wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Aug 21, 2009, at 10:39 PM, raunchydog wrote: > > > > > > > Then how come, "Frontal alpha coherence is not reported in other > > > > meditation practices? > > > > > > > > > > Travis isn't talking about "just" alpha which anyone can demonstrate > > doing biofeedback, listening to music, daydreaming etc. He's talking > > specifically about alpha coherence in the frontal lobes of the > > brain, which no one has found in other forms of meditation or in > > people just relaxing. He's comparing three types of meditation > > techniques and TM is the only one that produces "frontal alpha > > coherence." Since relaxation and other forms of meditation can't > > reproduce it, it must be unique to TM. The fact that we don't know > > what it "means" doesn't negate its uniqueness, maybe it just means > > "something good is happening." > > Sorry, not buying it. It's no wonder Travis is viewed at with > suspicion as this is total BS. >
I'm not asking you to buy anything. Just answer the question. Why do researchers find "frontal alpha coherence" in TM'ers and not in people simply relaxing or in other meditation techniques? No answer implies you either don't know the difference between alpha brainwaves in relaxation and "frontal alpha coherence" in TM or you are afraid to admit you're the one pedaling BS and not Travis. If you ever had to own up to the fact that TM produces EEG brainwaves not achievable in other techniques, your raison d'être would crumble and we would see a lot less of you, your Buddhist mumbojumbo and continuous attempts to discredit TM. For what? Why do you have such an axe to grind? If you think you're going to save the world from "dangerous" TM and "evil" Maharishi by posting on FFLife, you're just pissing in a tiny pot of little consequence. Boring, boring, boring. > > > > "Meditation in the Tibetan Buddhism tradition has been generally > > described as: "Reasoned deconstruction of the reality of objects > > experienced in meditation, as well as concentrative practices to > > create moods such as pure compassion, loving kindness; or no self. > > This involves focused attention, and control of the mind. It > > involves concentration. > > Wow, what a horrible description of the literally hundreds---probably > thousands--of meditation techniques in Tibetan Buddhism alone. If this > is his description, it certainly, clearly shows the guy doesn't have a > clue what he's talking about. > If you know the first thing about research you should know that you minimize your variables. Obviously, Travis couldn't pick a thousand different techniques for his study, so he picked one. If there are a thousand techniques in Buddhism, it stands to reason that a least one of them is practiced as Travis describes. By the way, I have yet to hear you pick one Buddhist meditation technique and define it as precisely as Travis did. You're always kind of fuzzy on describing a Buddhist technique so how could anyone listening to you figure out how to structure a research model to compare TM with other techniques? Now there's the ticket. Describe for us one, just one, Buddhist meditation technique that sets clear parameters for a research model comparing it to TM and Mindfulness. Things to consider: How many minutes? How many years of practice? Reasoned deconstruction of the reality of objects experienced in meditation? Concentrative practices to create moods such as pure compassion, loving kindness or no self? What would you add to the mix? What's missing? > > > > Mindfulness Meditation is described by Paul Grossman as: Systematic > > procedure to develop enhanced awareness of moment-to-moment > > experiences. Mindfulness includes two meditation practices: > > - with eyes closed: attention on breath. > > - with eyes open: dispassionate observation of body, senses and > > environment. This meditation involves intention or directing of > > attention to physiological rhythms, inner thoughts, sensations or > > outer objects. > > > > Transcendental Meditation technique is a process of effortless > > transcending... > > > > As a working hypothesis, let's accept that TM is effortless, and > > then generate testable hypotheses. One of these testable hypotheses, > > is: If TM is effortless, then people should quickly master the > > practice of transcending. > > If we know about the metaphysics of meditation, we know that > meditation with objects can never be truly effortless--a fine > distinction, but a crucial one. So we should avoid saying things we > know to be false, as if repeating the lie over and over, someone will > believe it. Perhaps this is why MMY went to such lengths to point that > TM involved a small amount of effort at Estes Park... > Well, I think Travis' idea of a testable hypotheses is perfectly acceptable. In fact people DO transcend right away. O.K. describe for us a meditation technique, any at all, just one, that is "truly effortless." Tell us how long it takes to learn it, and what are the precise steps you would tell a person who wanted to learn it? How would you know that they are doing it properly? What are some typical questions a new meditator might ask about their experience? As you know TM has a checking procedure that helps the person feel confident that they are meditating effortlessly. How would you help a new meditator of a Buddhist technique overcome doubt about his or her experience and verify effortless meditation? > > > > Research supports this hypothesis. In the next slide, we see EEG > > during TM in students of the same age, but with very different > > levels of time practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique. > > The one on the left just learned the TM technique, as a new student > > at Maharishi University of Management. The one on the right has been > > meditating since he was 10 years old." > > > > http://www.fredtravis.com/talk.html > > I'm familiar with the spiel. It's kinda disappointing now that that > MMY is gone, they don't at least TRY to be more honest. > O.K. now it's your turn to be honest. TRY to answer the questions I've asked.
