Most brain imaging techniques are actually very dangerous. There are "cooling off periods" measured in weeks or even a month or more, before a second test can be performed, except in emergencies. This is because they are extremely intrusive, by nature, involving the ingestion of toxic and/or radioactive substances, and/or the use of power levels so great that they cause overheating in the brain.
There is also a tradeoff between accuracy of space and accuracy of time. Most brain imaging techniques require many minutes to establish an image, but have a relatively fine resolution at the 1 mm^2 level. EEG, on the other hand, has a resolution on the order of square inches but can resolve changes that take place in 1/128 (or less) of a second. EEG is also quite safe. I don't know of any safety guidelines concerning how many times a day an EEG can be performed (sleep studies look at EEG all night, after all). the more intrusive and dangerous brain imaging techniques can look at any portion of the brain, no matter how deep. EEG, only looks at surface electrical activity, which can be obscured by random electrical activity from muscles. There are always tradeoffs, but given that the TM organization worries about radiation from cell phones (and its not just a danger of cancer, BTW), I'm not surprised they don't authorize fMRI studies on a regular basis. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 8, 2012, at 10:59 PM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote: > > > >> I do not think there is scientific evidence of anyone ever, being > >> enlightened. > > > > There actually is research project looking into the graduated > > neurological and biological processes in awakening and Buddhahood. > > It will probably be a good number of years till the first results > > begin to trickle in. > > I think that would be really interesting. I do not > think this reasearch will come from the TMO because > there are restrictions on the kinds of investigation > (no fMRI I have been told) allowed. > Awakening experiences tend to be sudden and brief > though the effects can be permanently life changing. > Changes before this are more gradual and could be > more easily documented. > > According to Dr. Fred Travis at MUM, the only > clear marker for long term meditators is persistent > phase coherence of EEG. At one time long ago, when > I met Fred once he told me that many of the markers > found in the earlier research were not replicated > and that it was 'up to him' to find out what > the difference was. > > It is also certainly possible that there are > different markers for different kinds of meditation. > It is known that Buddhist mindfulness meditation > results in an increase in gray matter in the brain. > > >> No one knows what the physiological parameters of enlightenment > >> are. MMY never said he was enlightened. He talked about it > >> incessantly. Some people assume he was enlightened based on their > >> belief. If you are a follower of some teacher, but have not yet > >> awakened, how does one ever able to conclude that such and such a > >> teacher is enlightened? > > > > From the POV of Dzogchen Atiyoga, it's believed the natural or > > enlightened condition is "self verifying", that is it needs no > > verification. > > Yes, that is the experience, but only the person > that has the experience knows it . How to verify > someone else's experience if you are a researcher > or just curious or someone else on the enlightenment > path is the crux of the question. Suppose you have > been meditating for 40 years and then somebody comes > along and says it happened to them and they have > been meditating for just a couple of years. Why the > nerve of that !#@#&%#! upstart! And not only that > they were doing something else from what *I* was doing. >
