Very cool response Lawson. I appreciate that. And I do dig that you put out research for us to think about concerning brain states in TM. I am still a work in progress in analyzing any of this, and find the initial biases daunting to cut through. But the subject is worthy of discussion and I'm very glad you continue to bring it up.
The perspective of how this research gets scoffed at doesn't surprise me. And I hope that the more obvious biases of certain researchers doesn't mean that the topic itself gets ditched. In my lifetime I would like some more evidence whether TM or another form of meditation is worth my time. I am biased in favor of the experience of TM for myself through so much exposure. But if it turns out that some other practice is really better for my brain I would learn another one. I am less inclined to believe that the so called "higher states" of TM are anything close to what they are sold as. I think they might be an aberration that is undesirable, at least for me. Anyway keep posting this stuff, it feeds the minds on all perspectives of this issue. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@...> wrote: > > It is certainly true that I don't really *know* what meditation techniques > are better or best, or if the TM definition of enlightenment is right or > wrong or if the end-result of consistently produced coherent gamma EEG from > most other techniques isn't the same or better than the end result of > consistently produced coherent alpha EEG from TM. > > All theories can only be approximations of the "truth" anyway, and that is > assuming that there is "a" truth in the first place. > > but I run into a lot of people who insist that TM is just another mantra > technique, and if you point out that this conclusion was reached in the > 1970's based on looking at the EEG of "long term meditators" who had only > been practicing a year or three, while, the latest long-term research on TM > (and Buddhist techniques for that matter) looks at people who have been > meditating as long as 50 years, the same people just look at you funny, > insisting that the 1-to-3-year study can be extrapolated to the 10-to-50-year > study and if there are any differences found, it is due to experimenter bias > on the part of the TM researchers. > > That attitude, plus the attitude by many prominent researchers into Buddhist > meditation, that the breath suspension state found in PC during TM is "just > an idling state" rather than something profound, gets to me. I mean, of > course it is "just an idling state": that is what makes in profound in the > first place. > > Hence my hostility and arrogant tone. It's a response to what I perceive as > everyone else's arrogant tone. I'm very envious of Fred Travis' ability to > maintain some level of equanimity given all the innuendo and veiled insults > he gets from the rest of the scientific community. Unfortunately, I take > things personally, even if the criticism is leveled against him, rather than > me. > > > L > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > So, even if one practices and "masters" jhana techniques, one really > > > > isn't doing anything spiritually good. You can see signs of this in the > > > > entire world-wide Buddhist culture that celebrates people burning > > > > themselves alive as a good thing.> > > > > > > I am very interested in the research that distinguishes the different brain > > states in different meditation practices, and enjoyed your post up to here. > > But this seems like a very anti-intellectual statement bordering on > > fanaticism induced, credibility destroying, stupidity. > > > > Reading this reminds me that the chances that we are actually get to the > > bottom of what is a serious question is slim. > > > > I propose that neither side KNOWS, and should approach the research with a > > tad more appropriate humility. It would be interesting to know what effects > > each have without the assumption that one or the other exists on an apriori > > high ground of "spirituality" and its interpretive value judgements. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All of the samatha practices that have been studied, start out as simple > > > relaxation techniques, producing some level of coherent alpha, just as TM > > > does. However, over time, practitioners start to show more and more gamma > > > EEG -the signature of paying attention to specific objects of attention- > > > both during and outside of meditation. > > > > > > As well, virtually all meditation techniques other than TM, tend to > > > compartmentalize the brain during practice, as well as suppressing the > > > specific portions of the brain thought to be responsible for our "sense > > > of self" -this last is proposed by some researchers, in positive tones no > > > less, as the reason why long-term meditators (non-TM) become "selfless." > > > > > > The irony is that all eyes-closed techniques tend to activate the same > > > general regions of the brain. Scientists call this set of regions the > > > "default mode network" (DMN)and the current theory is that it is the > > > style of functioning of the brain, especially specific parts of the > > > brain, that activates during introspection, while the outward attention > > > suppresses the DMN and activates the parts of the brain having to do with > > > paying attention to things. > > > > > > The default way in which the DMN activates whenever you close your eyes > > > involves increasing alpha EEG and alpha coherence. This goes right along > > > with MMY's claim that any and all thoughts have a tendency to settle down > > > towards silence when let on their own. TM, according to MMY, takes > > > advantage of this natural tendency and merely enhances what naturally > > > goes on anyway. > > > > > > On the other hand, other techniques, regardless of how they are described > > > (effortless, effortless concentration, full-concentration, etc), over the > > > years start to produce the situation where the normal activity of the DMN > > > involves increased gamma EEG, which is a very unnatural situation. At the > > > same time, these techniques have suppressed the self-centers of the > > > brain, leading to a loss of sense of self, also a very unnatural > > > situation. > > > > > > So, even if one practices and "masters" jhana techniques, one really > > > isn't doing anything spiritually good. You can see signs of this in the > > > entire world-wide Buddhist culture that celebrates people burning > > > themselves alive as a good thing. > > > > > > Afterall, since they are without a "self," it's not wrong for them to do > > > violence to a specific living thing: their own physical body. > > > > > > L > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" <emptybill@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > So called "mindfulness", as taught in the Western world, is an > > > > incomplete practice. > > > > > > > > In the Buddhist traditions (the original source lineage), the practice > > > > of mindfulness is preceded by the practice of jhana/dhyana-samaapatti. > > > > Having successfully mastered regular 2-3 hour absorptions in the deep > > > > states of vitarka/vichara/priti/sukha, a practitioner is then fit to > > > > practice "mindfulness" (smrityupashtaana). > > > > > > > > Because this deep meditation was not mastered first, many people with 30 > > > > years > > > > of vipassana practice are now wondering why this method doesn't give > > > > "enlightenment" > > > > as detailed in the Pali and Sanskrit Buddhist scriptures. > > > > > > > > Incomplete practice is the reason. If you only do "mindfulness", you > > > > will indeed become > > > > more mindful but only on the surface level of the mind. Deep and abiding > > > > dhyana-samadhi is the prerequisite. > > > > > > > > Also, we have experienced death many times. If death is a samadhi, then > > > > where has the > > > > "samadhi" gone? > > > > > > > > We are still here ... searching for fullfilment. > > > > This ain't no realm of samadhi. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dunno about death, but the drug method seems to be temporary, and just > > > > because you have feelings that can be described a certain way, doesn't > > > > mean it's the real deal. > > > > > > > > > > Look at the long-term results of practicing mindfulness on a > > > > physiological level. Scary. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > L > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" awoelflebater@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Forty-three years transcending through the lens of > > > > Saraswati(Knowledge of Nature), experience and understanding higher > > > > states of consciousness by the grace of Shankaracharya, a dose of > > > > stability and adventure, 3.5 grams dried psilocyben cubensis, two ounces > > > > lemon juice, a pinch of ginger in one shot and it ALL makes perfect > > > > sense! Five- plus hours of Transcendental awareness, unbounded, > > > > infinite, pure love ,compassion, mercy, empathy, spiritual in-site, joy > > > > and bliss. A *little* unorthodox? Yes, but what an experience! Dude, > > > > this must be Soma! P.S. my personal formula, do not try this at home... > > > > or any other place! > > > > > > > > > > > > It sounds exactly like the NDE's I've been reading about lately. So, > > > > there are at least three ways to get to samadhi - drugs, meditation and > > > > death. Anybody know of a fourth way? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
