--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On May 22, 2007, at 11:57 AM, boo_lives wrote: > > > First of all scientific research doesn't prove anything about TM, with > > the possible exception that it's good for high blood pressure. > > Well, let's keep in mind, if you use a control who's doing a > relaxation style technique for comparison, you'll also see the same > thing. In fact the difference between a tmers metabolic rate during > tm is only 1% different (read: essentially the same) as someone > napping. The latest research in the Cambridge Handbook of > Consciousness furthermore shows how the coherence spiel was just > that, it is alpha coherence that is insignificant from waking and > sleeping types of patterns. It's common. They've made a whole > marketing and consciousness spinoff of this based on at best > exaggerations and at worst, outright lies.
I tend to agree that TM doesn't lend itself very well to all of the scientific jargon and supposedly scientific benefits. That isn't its purpose or the domain in which it is especially effective. However it is a scientific age, and that it the language it must conform to, however unsuitably. The only other choice would be to cast it as a new religion, and there are already enough of those so that TM would not have made much of a splash with that tack.
