--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > On Apr 18, 2006, at 5:30 AM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > > > I suspect that what you call transcending is not the > > > > > same as what TMers call transcending. Given that TMers > > > > > don't report transcending > > > > > during TM until after-the-fact, this is hardly surprising... > > > > > > > > It'd probably depend on what *style* of shamatha you > > > > were doing. For ex. there is a form of shamatha that > > > > traces the seed syllable back to > > > > it's source--silence--much like TM. > > > > > > TM *can* do this. Is this the goal of this style of > > > meditation, or is it merely a description of an > > > idealized outcome? > > > > It's just one of the styles of shamatha, that's all--the > > beginning part. > > > > Don't get so stuck in your paradigm. > > Good advice, but do you honestly think it's possible? > > From my point of view, Lawson represents an almost- > perfect example of the "TM paradigm," which is based on > the assumption that the TM view of things and descrip- > tion of things is correct, and that any view or description > that differs from that is by definition incorrect. >
Well of course. However, I'm well aware that my paradigm may be flawed, incorrect and/or incomplete. It's entirely possible that the EEG coherence detected in TMers reporting witnessing isn't an important component of the witnessing state, so the fact that practitioners of some other tradition don't show this means nothing save that the TM researchers are looking at the wrong stuff. As you point out, perhaps there is NO WAY of truely looking at this stuff from a scientific point of view. > In my opinion that's really how TMers are taught to > think, both about the mechanics of meditation and about > the scientific measurements thereof. Being "stuck in their > paradigm" is perceived as a *good* thing and is rewarded > in the TMO by "strokes." Unlike those who are involved in some other paradigm, including the "there's no paradigm" paradigm... > > How likely is it that, after decades of this kind of > reinforcement, someone is open to the possibility of > other paradigms being valid? > Shrug. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
