On Aug 7, 2010, at 11:27 AM, tartbrain wrote: > what about that automatic transcending chinese meditation that was studied? > and the other vedic auto transcending ones?
I remember reading this study when it first was being passed around. It clearly seemed to be a case of 'let's find an example of transcendence that makes it look like 'theirs is SO slow, ours is much betterer'. And then publish it to see if people fall for it. This and a couple of other papers are actually knee-jerk reactions to a bunch of papers on Buddhist meditation, that got published in peer-review journals and showed the neurological maps for transcendence and Open Monitoring styles of meditation. It made TM look lackluster and unimpressive in comparison, so sometime after these papers appeared, a couple of "no, we're still the bestest meditation technique out there" papers came out from TM market researchers. As such reactionary papers often are flawed by their underlying, rather emotional reactions, this paper was no exception. But it was a real strong example of bending science to your own true believerisms while trying hard to diss the other meditation research that is emerging.
