--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Nov 17, 2006, at 8:51 AM, new.morning wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On Nov 16, 2006, at 5:55 PM, Bhairitu wrote: > >> > >> > >>>> Of course you have, Vaj. How many Buddhist meditation studies have > >>>> been published, > >>>> BTW? > >>>> > >>>> > >>> There are many meditation programs doing just fine without bothering > >>> with "scientific studies." That seems to be a TMO hangup. > >>> > >> > >> Precisely. And the hangup of some TMers. > >> > >> Good meditation techniques don't need research. > >> > >> > > > > Perhaps the subtle implication is that meditation organizations that > > support research are not "good". If that is the implication, that does > > not add up, IMO. > > > > There is a lot of value to see in precise pysiological and behavioral > > terms the effects of meditation. If any meditation technique can > > replace prescriptions and/or expensive treatments -- and/or shown to > > be a credible and strong preventative medicine measure, that is a > > good thing. > > > > And if meditation is shown to "light up" certain areas of the brain, > > leading towards improved performance, health, and happiness, it will > > tend to become more mainstream and society will benefit. > > > > And research is the necessary first step for such. The more research > > on all types of meditation forms, content (mantras), and other > > practices, the better, IMO. > > As long as there is no bias or hidden agenda to promote some style of > brand name recognition and sales it is a good thing.
I don't support bias or hiddne agendas. However, while not ideal, much medical and pharmacutical research is done on a branded product, financed by the producer, and is pretty explictly acknowledged and recognized to promote some style of brand name recognition and sales. Just because Merk sponsors research of one of its pipeline drugs, to support sales of such, does not make it bad research. Most drug research is of this nature. And by maintaining and requiring strict standards for research, the FDA is able to promote good research by explicitly partisan, brand-promoting firms. I would hope that non-profits, and acadameic instutions, such as TMO adn MUM, would be less partisian focussed and more on broad based, multiple practice study. Still, it does not necessarily invalidate their research if they focus on TM, as it does not invalidate pharmas funded research on their products. >However when the > constant, several decades long agenda becomes clear, that nullifies > all the above benefits and should therefore not be trusted. I have been pretty critical of a number of studies I have studied. ME ones in particular. But that doesn't mean I outright reject all research such as that done in conjunction with NIH etc. > Stories > of number massaging or faking results are not encouraging and huge > warning signs. These are some of the primary reasons TM research is > not taken seriously by other non-TMO researchers: it's tainted. And I have posted a lot on concerns about research in an environment where incentives, explicit, material, and status, inner circle time, etc. are for a particular result. > Conversely the same groups should be ready and willing to show their > impartiality by showing, documenting and researching the negative > side effects of their meditation technique(s). Agreed. > > You don't see many pharmaceuticals backed by scientific evidence > which does not list the possible negative side effects. What should > we think if side effects are known to exist in a meditation technique > and exhaustive, obsessive research does not document ANY of these > negative findings? While I agree in concept, many of the TM studies are on a single parameter. And are often not long term. And often are of small sample size. Finding low % strong counterindications are difficult in such types of studies. > > Would other, additional techniques such as those used in improved > versions of Tm like Sahaj Samadhi of SSRS I am curious, how can it be improved if it is as you claim the same (which i disagree with, but is similar). >be beneficial in > alleviating known side efect? If additional techniques like those > used in the AoL org do relieve side-effects, should earlier > techniques like Tm be abandoned in favor of their improved versions? Yes, it is the wide-range of methods in AoL, not SM by itself, which I find beneficial. As a package and program. I observed less manifest unstressing on residence courses -- but those were only one week, not 6 months --so its not a fair comparision. And even week-long AoL courses can trigger strong behaviors: such as people weeping "vioelntly" for hours in the auditorium, or laughing hysterically for long priods (Hi Carla, :)) during, and at the end of the course. Of all of these AoL add-ons, some/many are quite "spiritual", devotional, new-agey, and very cult APPEARING (to newcomers). And given any of the cult characteristic checklists, the AoL scores much higher that the TMO in some areas IMO. THAT however, does make it a cult. It does make some cult-prone persons get pretty "driven" by the AoL lifestyle, and way. And a tendency to be more "guru-dependent. Bottom line, many of these AoL add-ons have limited "acceptability" and appeal for the general population. Of the general population not that many are going to feel comfortable sitting on the floor singing devotional bajans, or often quite wildly dancing to them, explicit guru worship, staring into 50 strangers eyes, for a minute or two at a time, hugging everyone at the beginning of each course and saying the standard "required" greeting "I belong to you". TMO has less add-ons, but still quite a few asanas, pranayam, AV diet and therapy, SV, etc which to go reduce negative effects. But negative effects are primarily on long, long courses. Not what most meditators will pursue. The day-to-day meditator rarely has sharp negative effects. Out of 500 i that I initiated, and sevaral thousand I checked, or were involved in three day followup by several teachers together, i can't recall any extreme cases. I did see several, probably < .1% on long courses. And I taught some 1 month rounding courses. No strong negative effects on any of those. How many did you teach? How many extreme negative effects did you personally see? Regardless, this is all past issues. The TMO is focussing new initiations on the top 1%. In an envisioned high add-on, highly differentiated product offering. Initiations in SV peace palaces, by teachers living in SV homes doing 8 hours of practice a day. AV will be readily available in such peace palaces -- with little income onstraint to do AV by new meditators. I expect little negative effects from such a teaching modality.
