dear navashok, if you hold breath for a week, you will probably die. Please don't. Thank you (-:
________________________________ From: navashok <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 11:31 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > I suspect you are both misreading what Lawson had in mind. Ooopsie, can you say mindreading? This is hilarious, well a priceless jewel of Judean logic. So we shouldn't both respond to what Lawson actually wrote here, but to what he had in mind? Well, right! > He isn't stupid, and he knows the TM research better than > anyone here. I am sure he knows the TM research better than anyone here, and nobody said he is stupid. I think he is just being honest here, and that the data he gives is open to different interpretations. That's what we did. Three people responded, all very much alike. I had in mind what Barry answered, and then then saw that he had already given the comment. Xeno's approach was slightly different, but he understood it in very much the same way as we did. > I'm not sure what he means either, Now that's even more funny. First you say that he doesn't mean what he says, and ask us to read his mind, and then you go on to say that you actually don't know what he means yourself, but it couldn't be what he wrote. Can you say brezel mind? > but I'd > suggest you wait to draw any conclusions until he can clarify. And you are suggesting he should? Wait he gave us some information about the research and his interpretation already. > It's very highly unlikely that either of you would be able to > come up with something he had missed or hadn't accounted for. Of course not, by law. So, I'm now holding my breath. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > It turns out that the EEG pattern of long-term TMers during TM remains > > > > the same as the EEG pattern found in short-term TMers: it's simple > > > > relaxation, no matter how long you have been doing it. Pure > > > > Consciousness is just the same pattern in its most extreme form. > > > > > > > > In every other meditation technique with published research, you see a > > > > shift away from simple relaxation towards something different, as you > > > > become more experienced. > > > > > > > > In other words, I wouldn't trust the words of a non-TM teacher with > > > > regards to your TM practice. They literally don't understand where you > > > > are at and can only attempt to transform your practice into their > > > > practice. > > > > > > Ahem. Isn't another way of interpreting your first two > > > paragraphs that there is no *progress* in TM? *You* > > > are the one interpreting simple relaxation (which never > > > gets deeper or more profound) with "Pure Consciousness." > > > I doubt that scientists would. > > > > Wow, same thought I had. If the pattern is the same, and doesn't change > > with longer TM practice, what happened to the idea that with regular > > practice you release more and more stress, which in turn leads to more > > clear transcendence? > > > > If the meditation is the same and doesn't change, (or those periods of > > supposed transcendence / relaxation), why the need to be regular at all? > > > > Why learn expensive advanced techniques, who are supposed to deepen or > > widen the transcendence experience, to have it along with subtle activity? > > > > With your argument, Lawson, you also wouldn't trust advanced techniques, > > because they would alter the original experience, or in case they don't, > > they are completely worthless. >
