- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok <no_reply@> wrote: "I think that the whole contradiction comes about, because of the definitions, how you define PC in TM, and then attribute a certain physiological signature to it. In this way, you already limit how it can be expressed in activity. Really speaking you should start from the other end, find somebody who lives in CC / GC /UC, and then measure his brainwaves, and then compare it to the experiences that are called 'transcending' in TM."
Great idea! I'd really be curious about the comparisons - Puts the cart back behind the horse. Experience proves consciousness, not somebody sitting in a lab doing TM. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sound of stillness" <soundofstillness@...> wrote: > > > > > First of all Lawson, I really appreciate the dialogue we are having. Don't > > think that I want to dump TM. I think it is a very good technique to start > > meditation, and I think that at a later stage it is up to everybody to > > either continue to advance with TM or with something else. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect you are both misreading what Lawson had in mind. > > > > > > He isn't stupid, and he knows the TM research better than > > > > > > anyone here. I'm not sure what he means either, but I'd > > > > > > suggest you wait to draw any conclusions until he can clarify. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The pattern during TM is one of increased alpha EEG coherence, and > > > > > that starts to level off (but never completely stops changing) after > > > > > a few months of TM , but the longer one has been practicing the more > > > > > the EEG outside of TM practice starts to resemble the EEG during TM > > > > > practice. > > > > > > > > > > Now, the EEG found during pure consciousness is the most coherent > > > > > found in a given TMer and if you look just at the EEG during PC, > > > > > there's obviously some room for refinement during practice, but the > > > > > average outside of practice starts to resemble the average during, > > > > > and that was my point... > > > > > > > > > > because, in contrast, the average EEG during mantra-based meditation > > > > > > > > What do you mean by mantra based meditation? TM IS mantra based. > > > > > > Well, technically, a mantra is used in TM practice, but mantra-based > > > practices are considered focused attention practices, and those tend to > > > show more and more gamma EEG the longer you have been doing them. > > > > > > Okay. > > > > > > > > > shifts from relaxed alpha to concentrative gamma as one becomes more > > > > > experienced, and the average EEG outside of such practices also > > > > > shifts towards less alpha and more gamma. > > > > > > > > > > > > > And that is bad or worse? How do you know? > > > > > > > > > > Well, insomuch as these techniques all tend to fragment the brain as a > > > side-effect of the long-term practice, while PC is a period where the > > > brain is idling in a vary coherent way, showing the EEG associated with > > > relaxation and rest, rather than concentration and effort, I have no way > > > of knowing... > > > > > > > In my experience, with higher states there comes a spontaneous > > > > concentration, really concentrated awareness, completely focused and > > > > without effort. Maharishi might say point value. > > > > > > > > > > Well with TM, if you REALLY are in samadhi (pure consciousness), you > > > can't note it until such time as some degree of waking state > > > consciousness reassumes, and by then, you are no longer in the pure state. > > > > And this is something that raises question marks for me. How could you say > > that you experience pure consciousness, when you 'notice' it only > > afterwards? Does it mean you are not conscious during the experience, or > > does it mean you are unable to press a button while you are in? > > > > What kind of 'purity' is this, when it is *lost* so easily? So whole model > > of having pure consciousness, as an overlay over normal activity, and also > > the normally active mind, rests on the assertion, that the purity of PC > > doesn't get lost, right? > > > > I think that the whole contradiction comes about, because of the > > definitions, how you define PC in TM, and then attribute a certain > > physiological signature to it. In this way, you already limit how it can be > > expressed in activity. Really speaking you should start from the other end, > > find somebody who lives in CC / GC /UC, and then measure his brainwaves, > > and then compare it to the experiences that are called 'transcending' in TM. > > > > How does a person in TM know he has transcended? It is clear that he is > > being told so. The technical definition in TM of TC is: No mantra, no > > thought. But that could be some kind of nap too! Maybe it#s yoga nidra. > > > > I have very practical reasons for saying all this: when at a certain point, > > I was still in the movement, actually meditating in Purusha, I had an > > opening in the higher chakras, I was in a state of transcendence that was > > totally different than anything that I had ever known in TM. It wasn't just > > a more of what I had experienced before. It was so totally different, that > > it had no connection, with what is defined as transcendence in TM. No > > relation. Yet it is noticed, known. > > > > So, Lawson, I have a problem with the TM definitions, of extrapolating one > > experience, which according to you is there right from the beginning of TM > > in it's full blast, (and in the beginning obviously also in other > > techniques, according to your reporting -. which is a surprise in and of > > itself), of extrapolating this PC experience with other states, like CC or > > GC or UC. I think these are simplifying models, having PC together with > > waking state and you get CC, etc. > > > > What is if you are not identified with an "I" as the doer? How do you > > identify this with the world, with the outside? If you have nondoership, > > you cannot project this anywhere, there is no need, because there is NO > > DOER ANYWHERE. > > > > > While the PC signature becomes more and more obvious outside of PC, PC + > > > waking, even during meditation, is still not the real deal. > > > > Again, I don't think it's like one experience as an overlay. The PC+ has to > > be much bigger to start with. It's not anymore the small and isolated PC. > > > > > The way that can be spoken about is not the real way. > > > > > > The literal translation, btw, is: > > > > > > the way that can be way-ed, is not a way. > > > > > > In other words, if it is concrete enough to be something you can point to > > > or even attempt to describe, its not the real deal. > > > > That's wrong. You cannot describe it, but that doesn't mean that it is not > > something that you can point to or *attempt* to describe. In fact Maharishi > > was always clear about it, that that is what people should really do. They > > *should* notice it, for example the transition to CC or GC, and he thought > > it should be so slow that people could notice and describe it, for example > > through poetry. > > > > > Calling in "total concentration" or "pure consciousness" or whatever is > > > just a philosophical fiction based on your waking state + PC experience. > > > > In this case you just don't know it. It's not any abstract philosophy at > > all. It is my experience for many, many, many years. If you are not the > > doer, there is simply no point of speaking about effort or no effort. Again > > I am not dwelling in abstractions. But as you say yourself, it is difficult > > if not impossible to describe. It's like with the taste of the mango: you > > have to eat it in order to know it. And here we are speaking of an > > experience that is outside of any normal category of experience at all. > > >
