This exchange illustrates perfectly what I've been saying for some time now. When Vaj is challenged, instead of rising to the challenge, he fades...and dances...and sings...and stands on his head...and twists and turns...and wiggles his ears...and thumbs his nose...but he NEVER RESPONDS TO THE CHALLENGE.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradh...@...> wrote: > > Hi RD: > > On Aug 22, 2009, at 8:50 PM, raunchydog wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> 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 > > Whoa. Let's stop you right there. Not "researchers", but "TM zealot > researchers", claiming independent views but espousing "zig heil" TM > movement sputum. > > All I'm getting is 'should I angle my sputum-bucket closer to the > Unified Field of TM or the patient? Oh, I'm sorry...the patient? > > > > 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. > > No, not at all, I'm familiar with brain measurements and neuroscience, > so this type of begging argument just doesn't effect me like it does > the 'willing believers'. I learned a long time ago not to trust these > folks, and it's sad to say: I see the same patterns even after MMY > croaked. > > > > > 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? > > Well that's an interesting statement. I'm sad to say, I do not believe > it is a supportable argument my dear. One needs to be able to > objectively and scientifically observe phenomenon for which we credit > so-called "research". The observations and syllogisms seem almost > childish to me: to render some thing available, now, to "me". Childish. > > Just to own up here: Zen students were able to quickly master the > "alpha" challenge and we know what the concomitants are of "alpha". > It's not appropriate to continuously putsch bizarrely countervening > ideals. It very strange to other legit scientists...cultish at best... > > > Why do you have such an axe to grind? > > I don't have any axe and I have nothing to grind RD. I'm really just a > science fan, when it comes to the realties of everyday AND meditative > (or contemplative) life I just take them as they are. I don't confuse > Vedic science fiction and science fact--and I have honest reasons for > that. > > > > 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. > > Well thanks for that. > > > > > > > > > > > "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. > > Well that would presume you consider Travis to be objective. I don't-- > by any shot consider Travis nowhere near objective. He was bought and > sold ages ago my child. > > Wake the fuck up. > > > By the way, I have yet to hear you pick one Buddhist meditation > > technique and define it as precisely as Travis did. > > Travis did not define any Buddhist technique precisely at all. What > Travis did was pick a TB stance and then try to shoot 'blanks' at > "other techniques. I'm not only unimpressed--I'm appalled. > > > 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? > > I think--and I know--the problem is not one of description, but one of > enmeshment. If you're enmeshed in some technique--any technique--you > abide BY it, not BEYOND it. That's reality. It's 'just a vehicle'. And > honestly, I don't give a fuck if you drive a 25 hundred dollar mantra > madam. > > > > 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. > > I've already done this many times. Why should I waste my ASCII breath? > I've already enumerated the fallacies of the TM mythos in exhausting > detail. (it could be time for a quintessential TM-lies FAQ, and I do > thank you for that). > > > > > > 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? > > Ask me describe a post-doc chain of teaching in a paragraph or two? No > thanks kiddo. > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > So. People OFTEN go thru life where thought-content does not > proliferate, what's the big deal? > > > > 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? > > Well. If you honestly were interested, I guess I could give a full > answer. But I suspect if such a heart-felt question really did seem to > come from what you were saying I'd tell you: it's simply about > establishing nondual compassion as a foremost part of what you are, > not merely a mask thereof. But I know if I said that--stuck in your TM > mindset--I would expect you to NOT understand. Sadly. In such a case > silence may be the most appropriate response... > > > > 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. > > Whoa, whoa, whoa. There we go again on the conditioned "effortlessly" > program. Thanks, we've seen it before, but we're no longer buying that > program here...that's a lie you'll need to forget. <mourning vibes> > > > How would you help a new meditator of a Buddhist technique overcome > > doubt about his or her experience and verify effortless meditation? > > Well my dear, that would depend on the STUDENT, no? > > > -V. >
