new.morning wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. Many yogis love to hook themselves up to scientific gear to see what their sadhana produces but it is more out of curiosity and many seem to think that the gear is still in a crude state of development too. And isn't *everyone* a "scientist" nowadays? It seems that people want to measure everything and stand by statements that *appear* scientific. As someone who has a background in science it is quite laughable and I know many other scientists who feel the same way.
I don't see anything wrong with the research just its misapplication.
