--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> 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. However when the > > constant, several decades long agenda becomes clear, that nullifies > > all the above benefits and should therefore not be trusted. 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. > > > > 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). In some cases a large > > percentage of people experience negative side-effects. Why? What can > > be done to ameliorate these side-effects? > > > > 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? Should we even take them seriously? > > > > Would other, additional techniques such as those used in improved > > versions of Tm like Sahaj Samadhi of SSRS 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? > > > > > Where's the Buddhist-sponsored research on the negative side effects of Bhuddist > meditation? Likewise with the SSRS-sponsored research on SSRS meditation? etc?
Perhaps it simply boils down to one single fact; there are today no Buddhist in Unity Consciousness, or even CC ? Not to mention one who would be willing to get hooked up to a EEG machine. Perhaps there are some Saints here and there, like in Christianity, Shinto and Islam, but not on a grand scale like in the TMO, brought there by a effective method of meditation, self-discipline, service to the world and guided by a living Master of Masters. "It is said that Buddha brought 500 people to Enlightenment. I think we will do better." Maharishi on Buddha Yayanti, The River Rhein, Germany, May 1982
