[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jun 11, 2009, at 7:08 PM, sparaig wrote: [...] You missed MY point, which is that glitches in one person's eye, are a career as the Director of Research of CERN in another's. And you can't tell who is right or wrong by looking at what the participants say, because everybody gets it wrong, at least at first. No, I heard your non sequitur. Oh, ok. L
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Jun 9, 2009, at 12:33 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote: We have correlated physiological markers to specific described experiences that occur in more than one person. We do not know if the same markers might occur in different people in different circumstances. We do not know if there is any cosmic meaning (for lack of a better word) for the experience or the markers. We also know that these traditions have for thousands of years described these states as extraordinary in some manner. What's the Sagan saying 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'? Extraordinary states of mind should therefore possess some extraordinary characteristics, that is extraordinary physiologic evidence. If I had to give one overriding impression of most meditation research is that there's little that is truly extraordinary. Absolutely agree. That is why there is little replication work, it just isn't that interesting to researchers. Hm Ever think that maybe since certain findings (e.g. TM 'breath suspension') fall so far outside the mainstream that no-one is willing to consider the implications because there's no theory to explain the findings? And no, most scientists do NOT notice anomalies. Ask George Ellis about how he became famous at CERN. He noticed an unexpected glitch in his cloud chamber plates, and rather than throwing it out, he set about seeing if anyone else had seen the same glitch. In fact, many people had, but they *assumed* it was a glitch and threw it out. He found many photographic plates showing the same glitch in the same [rare] circumstances and established his reputation by showing that it wasn't an instrument failure, but signs of a heretofore un predicted elementar particle. And, according it Imre Lakotos, this isn't that rare an occurrence: established scientists cling to the theories they know and ignore evidence to the contrary. Of course it goes both ways: crackpots defend their theories beyond any logic (according to everyone else). The point is: in Science, you can't tell whose side of the argument is correct (if that even makes sense) WHILE the argument is still going on. Creative imagination is likely to find corroborating novel evidence even for the most 'absurd' programme, if the search has sufficient drive. This look-out for new confirming evidence is perfectly permissible. Scientists dream up phantasies and then pursue a highly selective hunt for new facts which fit these phantasies. This process may be described as 'science creating its own universe' (as long as one remembers that 'creating' here is used in a provocative-idiosyncratic sense). A brilliant school of scholars (backed by a rich society to finance a few well-planned tests) might succeed in pushing any fantastic programme ahead, or alternatively, if so inclined, in overthrowing any arbitrarily chosen pillar of 'established knowledge'. â Imre Lakatos 'Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes', in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London 1965 (1970), Vol. 4, 187-8. It is not that we propose a theory and Nature may shout NO; rather, we propose a maze of theories, and Nature may shout INCONSISTENT. â Imre Lakatos 'Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes', in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London 1965 (1970), Vol. 4, 130. No experimental result can ever kill a theory: any theory can be saved from counterinstances either by some auxiliary hypothesis or by a suitable reinterpretation of its terms. â Imre Lakatos 'Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes', in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London 1965 (1970), Vol. 4, 116. L.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
On Jun 11, 2009, at 4:13 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Jun 9, 2009, at 12:33 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote: We have correlated physiological markers to specific described experiences that occur in more than one person. We do not know if the same markers might occur in different people in different circumstances. We do not know if there is any cosmic meaning (for lack of a better word) for the experience or the markers. We also know that these traditions have for thousands of years described these states as extraordinary in some manner. What's the Sagan saying 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'? Extraordinary states of mind should therefore possess some extraordinary characteristics, that is extraordinary physiologic evidence. If I had to give one overriding impression of most meditation research is that there's little that is truly extraordinary. Absolutely agree. That is why there is little replication work, it just isn't that interesting to researchers. Hm Ever think that maybe since certain findings (e.g. TM 'breath suspension') fall so far outside the mainstream that no-one is willing to consider the implications because there's no theory to explain the findings? And no, most scientists do NOT notice anomalies. Ask George Ellis about how he became famous at CERN. He noticed an unexpected glitch in his cloud chamber plates, and rather than throwing it out, he set about seeing if anyone else had seen the same glitch. In fact, many people had, but they *assumed* it was a glitch and threw it out. He found many photographic plates showing the same glitch in the same [rare] circumstances and established his reputation by showing that it wasn't an instrument failure, but signs of a heretofore un predicted elementar particle. And, according it Imre Lakotos, this isn't that rare an occurrence: established scientists cling to the theories they know and ignore evidence to the contrary. Of course it goes both ways: crackpots defend their theories beyond any logic (according to everyone else). The point is: in Science, you can't tell whose side of the argument is correct (if that even makes sense) WHILE the argument is still going on. You're missing (I believe) the central point Ruth was responding to, which is 'extraordinary states of consciousness require extraordinary proof' and there is no extraordinary proof in any TM research. If so, they'd be dying to get it replicated independently (like that will ever happen). Instead they continue to put out extremely questionable research (bad controls, bias, etc.) with things of little value. IOW, they're essentially no different from napping X 20 B.I.D. Since Purusha and Mother Divine both have the same or MORE experience in terms of hours meditating, there is simply no excuse.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
Ruth wrote: We have correlated physiological markers to specific described experiences that occur in more than one person... Apparently there are no scientific studies that prove a correlation between a physiological state and a 'meditation state'. If we did, it would change the entire scientific world. A purely mental technique that could change physics? That would be astounding! Correct me if I am wrong about this, Ruth.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: [...] Of course it goes both ways: crackpots defend their theories beyond any logic (according to everyone else). The point is: in Science, you can't tell whose side of the argument is correct (if that even makes sense) WHILE the argument is still going on. You're missing (I believe) the central point Ruth was responding to, which is 'extraordinary states of consciousness require extraordinary proof' and there is no extraordinary proof in any TM research. If so, they'd be dying to get it replicated independently (like that will ever happen). Instead they continue to put out extremely questionable research (bad controls, bias, etc.) with things of little value. IOW, they're essentially no different from napping X 20 B.I.D. Since Purusha and Mother Divine both have the same or MORE experience in terms of hours meditating, there is simply no excuse. You missed MY point, which is that glitches in one person's eye, are a career as the Director of Research of CERN in another's. And you can't tell who is right or wrong by looking at what the participants say, because everybody gets it wrong, at least at first. L.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
On Jun 11, 2009, at 7:08 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: [...] Of course it goes both ways: crackpots defend their theories beyond any logic (according to everyone else). The point is: in Science, you can't tell whose side of the argument is correct (if that even makes sense) WHILE the argument is still going on. You're missing (I believe) the central point Ruth was responding to, which is 'extraordinary states of consciousness require extraordinary proof' and there is no extraordinary proof in any TM research. If so, they'd be dying to get it replicated independently (like that will ever happen). Instead they continue to put out extremely questionable research (bad controls, bias, etc.) with things of little value. IOW, they're essentially no different from napping X 20 B.I.D. Since Purusha and Mother Divine both have the same or MORE experience in terms of hours meditating, there is simply no excuse. You missed MY point, which is that glitches in one person's eye, are a career as the Director of Research of CERN in another's. And you can't tell who is right or wrong by looking at what the participants say, because everybody gets it wrong, at least at first. No, I heard your non sequitur.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
Leaving aside the kids learning via the David Lynch FOundation, you mean... Yes, and quite rightly so. Counting only the people who make a choice to learn off of their own backs gives us a better idea of the level of demand in society as compared with including people who are a captive audience and learn as part of a package. To judge the actual popularity of TM amongst kids you'd have to check out the traffic on Facebook amongst kids regarding TM. It's close to nil. Which implies that even though hundreds and thousands have learned there's little real enthusiasm and therefore very few are going to go on to become teachers. The probability that one of the at risk kids who learn as part of the DLF package going on to become a TM teacher is close to nil. If someone walks in to a TM center, pays their own course fees, and learns because they've made up their own mind, then the probability that they go on to become a TM teacher although it's still close to nil it is much greater. We don't have figures but I'd guess it's orders of magnitude greater. In the long run it's not the number of people that learn that counts, it's the number that become teachers. Therefore it's not worth counting the number of at risk kids who learn.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: [...] Tex, apnea simply means breath suspension for whatever reason. Even when you are awake. Vaj wasn't talking about SLEEP apnea, but apnea. Though, let's be clear, the apparent breath suspension associated with periods of pure consciousness during TM practice isn't apnea, but apneusis that lasts long enough that respiration isn't apparent to the casual observer. Additionally, there's some evidence of ~1HZ fluctuations during the apneusis that may indicate respiration driven by the beating of the heart. Main Entry: ap·neu·sis Pronunciation: ap-'n(y)ü-ss Function: noun Inflected Form: plural ap·neu·ses /-sEz/ : sustained tonic contraction of the respiratory muscles resulting in prolonged inspiration Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, guyfawkes91 no_re...@... wrote: Leaving aside the kids learning via the David Lynch FOundation, you mean... Yes, and quite rightly so. Counting only the people who make a choice to learn off of their own backs gives us a better idea of the level of demand in society as compared with including people who are a captive audience and learn as part of a package. To judge the actual popularity of TM amongst kids you'd have to check out the traffic on Facebook amongst kids regarding TM. It's close to nil. Which implies that even though hundreds and thousands have learned there's little real enthusiasm and therefore very few are going to go on to become teachers. The probability that one of the at risk kids who learn as part of the DLF package going on to become a TM teacher is close to nil. If someone walks in to a TM center, pays their own course fees, and learns because they've made up their own mind, then the probability that they go on to become a TM teacher although it's still close to nil it is much greater. We don't have figures but I'd guess it's orders of magnitude greater. In the long run it's not the number of people that learn that counts, it's the number that become teachers. Therefore it's not worth counting the number of at risk kids who learn. Unless they believe that they have learned something important and are inspired to share that Something Important with others. As an ADHD person myself, my own experience with TM suggests it is very good at at least temporarily ameliorating the symptoms. If others with ADHD have the same experience they might decide to go on to become TM teachers even if it wasn't a voluntary decision on their part to learn in the first place. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Lynch reportedly told MMy that he wasn't getting many donors for his foundation because the price was too high, so MMY told him to talk to Hagelin about setting a lower price. The upshot is that schools, or large segments thereof, can learn TM for $600 a head. While I still believe that this price is 10X too high, given the current market price for meditation instruction in America, I praise David Lynch both for his dedication and for his efforts to make TM more affordable. My conversations a few years ago with the woman who was his long-time personal secretary convinced me that he is a good-hearted person, and I have no doubts that he is trying everything he can to help make something he feels is valuable more available to young people. It's just a shame that he has to fight the organization that provides that something valuable to achieve his laudable good intentions. Keep in mind that Lynch is a TBer like myself who believes that TM is unique or durned close to it. While I wouldn't be surprised if various non-TM teachers offer TM-like techniques to their students. the quality control just isn't there. Radically different techniques go by the same name. What is bothersome, even telling, is that many of you former TBers are confident that its all the same, despite the obvious physiological evidence to the contrary (not to mention common sense understanding of how TM differs from most run-of-the-mill mantra meditation that *I* have heard of). This criticism is directed at many former TM teachers on this group, who appear to have missed things the entire time they were parroting MMY's words. Which suggests that MMY's words aren't as good as they could be, I guess. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Lynch reportedly told MMy that he wasn't getting many donors for his foundation because the price was too high, so MMY told him to talk to Hagelin about setting a lower price. The upshot is that schools, or large segments thereof, can learn TM for $600 a head. While I still believe that this price is 10X too high, given the current market price for meditation instruction in America, I praise David Lynch both for his dedication and for his efforts to make TM more affordable. My conversations a few years ago with the woman who was his long-time personal secretary convinced me that he is a good-hearted person, and I have no doubts that he is trying everything he can to help make something he feels is valuable more available to young people. It's just a shame that he has to fight the organization that provides that something valuable to achieve his laudable good intentions. Keep in mind that Lynch is a TBer like myself who believes that TM is unique or durned close to it. While I wouldn't be surprised if various non-TM teachers offer TM-like techniques to their students. the quality control just isn't there. Radically different techniques go by the same name. What is bothersome, even telling, is that many of you former TBers are confident that its all the same, despite the obvious physiological evidence to the contrary (not to mention common sense understanding of how TM differs from most run-of-the-mill mantra meditation that *I* have heard of). This criticism is directed at many former TM teachers on this group, who appear to have missed things the entire time they were parroting MMY's words. Which suggests that MMY's words aren't as good as they could be, I guess. Or that they were lies. Or, more kind, hopeful fantasies on his part. I can agree with the kinder interpretation for some of his claims, but not all. Some were knowing lies. The person who sat there on the stage looking out at the rows of twitching, spasming, out-of-control meditators in Fiuggi and still claimed that TM could not possibly have any negative effects was definitely lying. But the bottom line is that my experience learn- ing, practicing, and teaching both TM and other techniques of meditation is that Maharishi's claims to: 1) the uniqueness of TM, 2) the effect- iveness of its followup, 3) the differences between the supposed positive effects of TM and the positive effects of other techniques, and most importantly 4) what it is *worth* in the marketplace are at best mistaken and are at worst knowing lies. When you have had the same experience learning, practicing, and teaching both TM and some other technique of meditation, then you are qualified to criticize me. Until then, you are still in the position of being a person who has tried only one technique of meditation in his life, has practiced *it* sporadically, has never taught it or been trained to teach it, and has never learned, practiced or taught any of the other techniques you still believe TM is superior to. In other words, Get real.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: [snip] Or that they were lies. Or, more kind, hopeful fantasies on his part. I can agree with the kinder interpretation for some of his claims, but not all. Some were knowing lies. The person who sat there on the stage looking out at the rows of twitching, spasming, out-of-control meditators in Fiuggi and still claimed that TM could not possibly have any negative effects was definitely lying. I rate *kind* Turq higher. After all I too have surveyed rows of twitching, spasming, out- of-control meditators. No, I did not see those as negative effects (or any other negative effects quite frankly). Actually I didn't see anything I would ultimately judge as out of control either. Makes me a liar? That's not to say that there may NOT have EVER been any negative effects. For one thing, if you push to an extreme, there is NOTHING that cannot EVER have some negative effects. Even a saint will tread on an ant. Even the simple, natural, effortless sipping of peppermint tea is bound to affect someone, some place in a negative fashion. By these standards no one could ever say of anything that there are no negative effects. That would damage our language. But the bottom line is that my experience learn- ing, practicing, and teaching both TM and other techniques of meditation is that Maharishi's claims to: 1) the uniqueness of TM, 2) the effect- iveness of its followup, 3) the differences between the supposed positive effects of TM and the positive effects of other techniques, and most importantly 4) what it is *worth* in the marketplace are at best mistaken and are at worst knowing lies. I have good reason to respect your opinion because of your experience (and I do). But of course the force of your claim from experience is opposed by every individual with similar, or greater experience that disagrees. Let's take Jerry Jarvis. I'm assuming he disagrees with you. And I'm assuming his CV is even more impressive than yours. Does that make him right and you wrong? Or, in preferred language, does that make his opinion more credible than yours? When you have had the same experience learning, practicing, and teaching both TM and some other technique of meditation, then you are qualified to criticize me. Noo! The greatest crime against thinking is the attempt to shut down debate (IMO of course). (Presumably by your lights you are not *qualified* to criticise MMY, as I would doubt even you have had the same experience learning, practicing, and teaching both TM and some other technique of meditation as he had). Until then, you are still in the position of being a person who has tried only one technique of meditation in his life, has practiced *it* sporadically, has never taught it or been trained to teach it, and has never learned, practiced or taught any of the other techniques you still believe TM is superior to. In other words, Get real.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
On Jun 9, 2009, at 5:23 AM, sparaig wrote: While I still believe that this price is 10X too high, given the current market price for meditation instruction in America, I praise David Lynch both for his dedication and for his efforts to make TM more affordable. My conversations a few years ago with the woman who was his long-time personal secretary convinced me that he is a good-hearted person, and I have no doubts that he is trying everything he can to help make something he feels is valuable more available to young people. It's just a shame that he has to fight the organization that provides that something valuable to achieve his laudable good intentions. Keep in mind that Lynch is a TBer like myself who believes that TM is unique or durned close to it. While I wouldn't be surprised if various non-TM teachers offer TM-like techniques to their students. the quality control just isn't there. Radically different techniques go by the same name. At the Harvard conference on meditation last month, Herbert Benson listed 8 meditation techniques that have the same physiological signature: Vipassana Meditation Mantra Meditation Mindfulness Meditation Transcendental Meditation Breath Focus Kripalu Yoga Kundalini Yoga Repetitive Prayer So much for uniqueness, huh? The uniqueness lie is a marketing myth used by disreputable and biased TM researchers to push their product. Apparently they're the only ones who believe this. Other researchers know better than to accept such BS. The independent research Meditation: In Search of a Unique Effect put this and a number of other TM research untruths to rest way back in the 80's!
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
Richard, 1) I respect your opinions, 2) you are entitled to them even if I didn't :-), and 3) I have no interest in arguing with you or anyone else about this (to me) dead horse. But I'm curious that you don't be able to see a funda- mental difference in the *types* of experience being discussed. See below: But the bottom line is that my experience learn- ing, practicing, and teaching both TM and other techniques of meditation is that Maharishi's claims to: 1) the uniqueness of TM, 2) the effect- iveness of its followup, 3) the differences between the supposed positive effects of TM and the positive effects of other techniques, and most importantly 4) what it is *worth* in the marketplace are at best mistaken and are at worst knowing lies. I have good reason to respect your opinion because of your experience (and I do). But of course the force of your claim from experience is opposed by every individual with similar, or greater experience that disagrees. Let's take Jerry Jarvis. I'm assuming he disagrees with you. You should definitely not have picked Jerry. I knew him well and worked closely with him for many years. To the best of my knowledge he has never learned or practiced any technique of meditation other than TM and the other techniques marketed by MMY. From what has been said on this forum by people who have stayed in touch with him, he has not tried any other techniques since leaving the TM movement. How then would you consider his experience similar to mine? Jerry may, in fact, be smarter and wiser than me. But let's talk apples and oranges. Jerry (to the best of my knowledge) has only ever eaten and sold apples, during the entire course of his life. He has never tasted an orange; he's only *heard about* oranges, or been told about them. I have eaten and sold both apples and oranges. Which of us is likely to have more credibility when it comes to a comparison of apples and oranges? THAT was my point to Lawson. NOT that his opinion is not valid, merely that it lacks *breadth* in the greater spiritual smorgasbord. So (to the best of my knowledge) does Jerry's. Jerry undoubtedly knows MUCH more about apples (TM) than I do. But I kinda doubt that he would suggest that he knew as much about a technique that he has never practiced and that I have. The thing is, Jerry wouldn't do that. He might have his opinion, but I remember him as being up-front about it when opinion is based *on what he has been told*, and is not based on his personal experience. Jerry is a TM True Believer, and I don't fault him for that because he (in my memory) is a fairly nice one, and one who rarely used his belief *in what he has been told* to beat people into submission. :-) And I'm assuming his CV is even more impressive than yours. Does that make him right and you wrong? Or, in preferred language, does that make his opinion more credible than yours? As stated above, there is no question that Jerry's CV *about TM* is more impressive than mine. But I'm not talking about *only* TM. I'm comparing TM to some other techniques that I have both learned and taught. Jerry has (to the best of my knowledge) never learned or taught them. How then could his opinion on the theoretical differences between them and one of them's superiority over the other be based on anything other than theory and what he's been told? My opinion is based on actual experience. That may not make me more credible, but it sure takes things out of the realm of empty speculation, which I think is the realm you're in when you have someone who claims that something he has never experienced is inferior to something he has. This is a point that long-term TMers on this forum NEVER SEEM TO GET. They are talking *theory*, and belief *in what they have been told*. Those of us who have played both sides of the net are talking our own personal experience. There is a difference.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
SpareEgg: Keep in mind that Lynch is a TBer like myself who believes that TM is unique or durned close to it. While I wouldn't be surprised if various non-TM teachers offer TM-like techniques to their students. the quality control just isn't there. Radically different techniques go by the same name. Vaj: At the Harvard conference on meditation last month, Herbert Benson listed 8 meditation techniques that have the same physiological signature: Vipassana Meditation Mantra Meditation Mindfulness Meditation Transcendental Meditation Breath Focus Kripalu Yoga Kundalini Yoga Repetitive Prayer So much for uniqueness, huh? (Now I'm confused. I thought Vaj had been trying to claim that TM does NOT have the same physiological signature as his preferred techniques?) Anyhoo... I find rugby to be a pretty unique sport. Yet here are seven other sports that I wouldn't mind betting have the same physiological signature: * Cross country running * US Football * Soccer * Basketball * Tennis * Ice Hockey * Swimming So much for uniqueness, huh? The uniqueness lie is a marketing myth used by disreputable and biased TM researchers to push their product. Apparently they're the only ones who believe this. Other researchers know better than to accept such BS. The independent research Meditation: In Search of a Unique Effect put this and a number of other TM research untruths to rest way back in the 80's! Any uniqueness claimed for TM does not lie in its effect. The doctrine is that pretty much all roads lead to Rome, but TM is particulary suitable for normal folks. (OK, I know, there's a come-back there). The TM technique can (or could at the time) claim uniqueness as being: * Not a skill i.e. something that you develop and get better at, as in, for example, learning a musical instrument. In theory you can't say I meditate better now than I did five years ago (unless you were doing it wrong five years ago). * Not an aptitude that you may or may not have. You can't say A is better at TM than B. * Not mental effort (in the sense of trying to still the mind, or empty the mind of thoughts, or concentrate on an object of attention. That is how meditation is thought of in the popular imagination. Where on earth did folks get these ideas from, except from other techniques pushing those ideas?) * Of practical value for folks-in-the-world (as opposed to folks who want simply to make religious progress or gain altered states of consciousness) * Benefits are not conditional on buying into a belief system. Even if you are a Lennonist (above us only sky), TM will still work and be (practically) effective for you. Although these points have all been thoroughly discussed here, I still find them broadly true. Taken individually you can of course prod and poke and question. But taken together, like the strands that make up a rope, I think the claim for uniqueness is not unreasonable. In all likelihood the other seven techniques listed above have some claim to uniqueness as well.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
On Jun 9, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Richard M wrote: SpareEgg: Keep in mind that Lynch is a TBer like myself who believes that TM is unique or durned close to it. While I wouldn't be surprised if various non-TM teachers offer TM-like techniques to their students. the quality control just isn't there. Radically different techniques go by the same name. Vaj: At the Harvard conference on meditation last month, Herbert Benson listed 8 meditation techniques that have the same physiological signature: Vipassana Meditation Mantra Meditation Mindfulness Meditation Transcendental Meditation Breath Focus Kripalu Yoga Kundalini Yoga Repetitive Prayer So much for uniqueness, huh? (Now I'm confused. I thought Vaj had been trying to claim that TM does NOT have the same physiological signature as his preferred techniques?) Maybe you should listen closer? Anyhoo... I find rugby to be a pretty unique sport. Yet here are seven other sports that I wouldn't mind betting have the same physiological signature: * Cross country running * US Football * Soccer * Basketball * Tennis * Ice Hockey * Swimming So much for uniqueness, huh? How much did you want to bet? The uniqueness lie is a marketing myth used by disreputable and biased TM researchers to push their product. Apparently they're the only ones who believe this. Other researchers know better than to accept such BS. The independent research Meditation: In Search of a Unique Effect put this and a number of other TM research untruths to rest way back in the 80's! Any uniqueness claimed for TM does not lie in its effect. Agreed. The doctrine is that pretty much all roads lead to Rome, but TM is particulary suitable for normal folks. (OK, I know, there's a come-back there). Of course all the others on the list could be used by normal people as well. The TM technique can (or could at the time) claim uniqueness as being: * Not a skill i.e. something that you develop and get better at, as in, for example, learning a musical instrument. In theory you can't say I meditate better now than I did five years ago (unless you were doing it wrong five years ago). So, in your opinion the cloth does not get dyed by repetition, the gap does not widen and TM does not lead to higher states of consciousness. Interesting. * Not an aptitude that you may or may not have. You can't say A is better at TM than B. Do you have evidence for this belief? Many people quit TM, more than stay with it. Recent anecdotal reports of MUM students claims that for a significant number of students, TM doesn't seem to work for them. * Not mental effort (in the sense of trying to still the mind, or empty the mind of thoughts, or concentrate on an object of attention. That is how meditation is thought of in the popular imagination. Where on earth did folks get these ideas from, except from other techniques pushing those ideas?) This is your misunderstanding of meditation theory and practice, which is also sadly pervasive in TM circles. Prayatna or technique = effort. It's inescapable. * Of practical value for folks-in-the-world (as opposed to folks who want simply to make religious progress or gain altered states of consciousness) Again, not unique. Many folks-in-the-world practice non-TM forms of meditation quite successfully. * Benefits are not conditional on buying into a belief system. Even if you are a Lennonist (above us only sky), TM will still work and be (practically) effective for you. Same with many other meditation forms.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
Notice they don't give actual numbers. What they could be saying is only a thousand people were learning before, now all the McCartney, Pearl Jam and Moby fans are signing up so we had a spike of three thousand! Yippy! It's in the hundreds, if that. For a while it was about 30/month. It's not much more now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Lynch reportedly told MMy that he wasn't getting many donors for his foundation because the price was too high, so MMY told him to talk to Hagelin about setting a lower price. The upshot is that schools, or large segments thereof, can learn TM for $600 a head. While I still believe that this price is 10X too high, given the current market price for meditation instruction in America, I praise David Lynch both for his dedication and for his efforts to make TM more affordable. My conversations a few years ago with the woman who was his long-time personal secretary convinced me that he is a good-hearted person, and I have no doubts that he is trying everything he can to help make something he feels is valuable more available to young people. It's just a shame that he has to fight the organization that provides that something valuable to achieve his laudable good intentions. Keep in mind that Lynch is a TBer like myself who believes that TM is unique or durned close to it. While I wouldn't be surprised if various non-TM teachers offer TM-like techniques to their students. the quality control just isn't there. Radically different techniques go by the same name. What is bothersome, even telling, is that many of you former TBers are confident that its all the same, despite the obvious physiological evidence to the contrary (not to mention common sense understanding of how TM differs from most run-of-the-mill mantra meditation that *I* have heard of). This criticism is directed at many former TM teachers on this group, who appear to have missed things the entire time they were parroting MMY's words. Which suggests that MMY's words aren't as good as they could be, I guess. Or that they were lies. Or, more kind, hopeful fantasies on his part. I can agree with the kinder interpretation for some of his claims, but not all. Some were knowing lies. The person who sat there on the stage looking out at the rows of twitching, spasming, out-of-control meditators in Fiuggi and still claimed that TM could not possibly have any negative effects was definitely lying. Assuming those were temporary side-effects of unstressing or normalization as he claimed, he was definitely NOT lying... But the bottom line is that my experience learn- ing, practicing, and teaching both TM and other techniques of meditation is that Maharishi's claims to: 1) the uniqueness of TM, 2) the effect- iveness of its followup, 3) the differences between the supposed positive effects of TM and the positive effects of other techniques, and most importantly 4) what it is *worth* in the marketplace are at best mistaken and are at worst knowing lies. When you have had the same experience learning, practicing, and teaching both TM and some other technique of meditation, then you are qualified to criticize me. Until then, you are still in the position of being a person who has tried only one technique of meditation in his life, has practiced *it* sporadically, has never taught it or been trained to teach it, and has never learned, practiced or taught any of the other techniques you still believe TM is superior to. In other words, Get real. Well, based on your avoidance of my points, specifically that there's a huge range of techniques that go by the same name, I can only assume that you're blind. L
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jun 9, 2009, at 5:23 AM, sparaig wrote: While I still believe that this price is 10X too high, given the current market price for meditation instruction in America, I praise David Lynch both for his dedication and for his efforts to make TM more affordable. My conversations a few years ago with the woman who was his long-time personal secretary convinced me that he is a good-hearted person, and I have no doubts that he is trying everything he can to help make something he feels is valuable more available to young people. It's just a shame that he has to fight the organization that provides that something valuable to achieve his laudable good intentions. Keep in mind that Lynch is a TBer like myself who believes that TM is unique or durned close to it. While I wouldn't be surprised if various non-TM teachers offer TM-like techniques to their students. the quality control just isn't there. Radically different techniques go by the same name. At the Harvard conference on meditation last month, Herbert Benson listed 8 meditation techniques that have the same physiological signature: Vipassana Meditation Mantra Meditation Mindfulness Meditation Transcendental Meditation Breath Focus Kripalu Yoga Kundalini Yoga Repetitive Prayer So much for uniqueness, huh? The uniqueness lie is a marketing myth used by disreputable and biased TM researchers to push their product. Apparently they're the only ones who believe this. Other researchers know better than to accept such BS. The independent research Meditation: In Search of a Unique Effect put this and a number of other TM research untruths to rest way back in the 80's! So, by physiological signature, he was discussing breath suspension of up to 1 minute, 5x during a 10 minute meditation period? Where's the research to back this up? L
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, guyfawkes91 guyfawke...@... wrote: Notice they don't give actual numbers. What they could be saying is only a thousand people were learning before, now all the McCartney, Pearl Jam and Moby fans are signing up so we had a spike of three thousand! Yippy! It's in the hundreds, if that. For a while it was about 30/month. It's not much more now. Leaving aside the kids learning via the David Lynch FOundation, you mean... L
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
On Jun 9, 2009, at 10:55 AM, sparaig wrote: At the Harvard conference on meditation last month, Herbert Benson listed 8 meditation techniques that have the same physiological signature: Vipassana Meditation Mantra Meditation Mindfulness Meditation Transcendental Meditation Breath Focus Kripalu Yoga Kundalini Yoga Repetitive Prayer So much for uniqueness, huh? The uniqueness lie is a marketing myth used by disreputable and biased TM researchers to push their product. Apparently they're the only ones who believe this. Other researchers know better than to accept such BS. The independent research Meditation: In Search of a Unique Effect put this and a number of other TM research untruths to rest way back in the 80's! So, by physiological signature, he was discussing breath suspension of up to 1 minute, 5x during a 10 minute meditation period? Where's the research to back this up? I don't believe any of them consider these TM-induced apneas significant. You keep bringing this up again and again, like you're still having a hard time letting go of this. It's an interesting chosen artifact, but that's about it. Experientially, from my own experience of breath cessation during TM, it does not represent anything worthwhile. I'd agree with Austin on this, at best it represents the shallow preludes of samadhi. Reductions in metabolic rate however, as recorded by Benson of 60 some per cent is very significant--the highest drop ever recorded in humans.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: Richard M: The TM technique can (or could at the time) claim uniqueness as being: ... * Not a skill i.e. something that you develop and get better at, as in, for example, learning a musical instrument. In theory you can't say I meditate better now than I did five years ago (unless you were doing it wrong five years ago). Vaj: So, in your opinion the cloth does not get dyed by repetition, the gap does not widen and TM does not lead to higher states of consciousness. Interesting. No, no, quite wrong. To take an unfortunate example - I think TM as a technique is a bit like learning to smoke a cigarette. In THAT sense it is not a skill (unless you are being perverse and over-literal). And yet, by repetition, the cloth/the lungs do get dyed/die by repetition. This contrasts to the whole idea of adepts and experts that are referred to in other schools (and your posts). Let me put it this way: I think staements such as John Doe is a TM expert or John Doe is a TM master or adept are close to being oxymorons. That is a pointer to an element of uniqueness about the technique and its philosophy. It's very democratic too: I can readily admit my lowly place in the spiritual food chain. But I need bow to no one as to my ability to do TM. This is a great contribution by Maharishi IMO and seems to me to be overlooked here. He was a sort of analog to Luther in this regard. And you, Vaj, with your emphasis on whether traditions are kosher or not, whether MMY has a right to be titled Maharishi, whether he was from the right caste, and your zealous love of architectonic - that all stands against that liberating influence. In My Opinion. Richard M: * Not an aptitude that you may or may not have. You can't say A is better at TM than B. Vaj: Do you have evidence for this belief? Why should I? It's just obvious. I would say if you don't understand these points then I don't think you understand where TM is coming from. Consider two people seated side by side practising TM. Let's say Nabster and Raunchy. They're either doing it right or doing it wrong. But it's quite meaningless to suppose that one could have a talent for it whilst the other might not. Talent and aptitude do not enter into it. (That's NOT to say that their experiences wil be the same, that they will each get the same value from it, or find it equally beneficial).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
On Jun 9, 2009, at 11:23 AM, Richard M wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: Richard M: The TM technique can (or could at the time) claim uniqueness as being: ... * Not a skill i.e. something that you develop and get better at, as in, for example, learning a musical instrument. In theory you can't say I meditate better now than I did five years ago (unless you were doing it wrong five years ago). Vaj: So, in your opinion the cloth does not get dyed by repetition, the gap does not widen and TM does not lead to higher states of consciousness. Interesting. No, no, quite wrong. To take an unfortunate example - I think TM as a technique is a bit like learning to smoke a cigarette. In THAT sense it is not a skill (unless you are being perverse and over-literal). And yet, by repetition, the cloth/the lungs do get dyed/die by repetition. This contrasts to the whole idea of adepts and experts that are referred to in other schools (and your posts). Let me put it this way: I think staements such as John Doe is a TM expert or John Doe is a TM master or adept are close to being oxymorons. That is a pointer to an element of uniqueness about the technique and its philosophy. It's very democratic too: I can readily admit my lowly place in the spiritual food chain. But I need bow to no one as to my ability to do TM. This is a great contribution by Maharishi IMO and seems to me to be overlooked here. He was a sort of analog to Luther in this regard. Unfortunately for your belief, it is just that your belief. Science tells us something quite different and that is that samadhi is a skill like many other acquisitions, language, walking, etc. and the acquisition of such skills follows a certain observable acquisition curve. Of course it could that TM is just an introductory technique and does not lead to such acquisition, but it is perfectly good at what it does do, for some people. And you, Vaj, with your emphasis on whether traditions are kosher or not, Frankly this is your opinion and certainly not mine. TM is a perfectly fine intro. form of meditation, aside from the truncated mantras, but it should not be misconstrued as a complete Hindu mantra path IME and IMO. whether MMY has a right to be titled Maharishi, My interest is largely historical, whether he was or not is immaterial, it was an alias he assumed. What concerns me is the insult to realizers of the various Hindu paths. Many find it insulting and I can see why. whether he was from the right caste, This really is not MY concern what caste he comes from. But it was a strong concern for his guru and the lineage he comes from. and your zealous love of architectonic - that all stands against that liberating influence. In My Opinion. OK... Richard M: * Not an aptitude that you may or may not have. You can't say A is better at TM than B. Vaj: Do you have evidence for this belief? Why should I? Why shouldn't you? We have EEG evidence of Samadhi in Patanjali yogins, so we know what it looks like. If you can't replicate those findings in students, I would hope that would be a point of concern-- unless of course your primary interest is in stress reduction, which Relaxation Response forms of meditation are all great at. It's just obvious. I would say if you don't understand these points then I don't think you understand where TM is coming from. Actually I do. TM is believed to be a form of sahaj meditation where the principle of charm is believed to spontaneously focus or concentrate the mind with only a minimal amount of effort being necessary.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: We have EEG evidence of Samadhi in Patanjali yogins, so we know what it looks like. If you can't replicate those findings in students, I would hope that would be a point of concern Vaj - can you not see the methodological flaw in this? It's circular. Let me re-phase your statement slightly: We have tested these guys and found a pattern. We see that that pattern matches what samadhi looks like. Therefore we now know what samadhi looks like. Groan... Or is it: We don't know what samadhi is, but whatever it is, we know these guys have got it (how, if we don't know what samadhi is?). So now we've measured them, and as a result we now know what samadhi is. Groan...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
On Jun 9, 2009, at 12:07 PM, Richard M wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: We have EEG evidence of Samadhi in Patanjali yogins, so we know what it looks like. If you can't replicate those findings in students, I would hope that would be a point of concern Vaj - can you not see the methodological flaw in this? It's circular. Since this has been discussed before here, ad nauseum, I did not feel I needed to explain in any detail. The statement relies on the assumption that the traditional Patanjali yogins were not lying and that they knew, through their lineal instruction, what that state of consciousness was. However, given that we've now replicated this finding in numerous other yogins, in numerous independent labs, and that the same process now is understood to underlie neuroplastic restructuring of the brain, I have a significant degree of confidence in such statements--or I wouldn't make them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: We have EEG evidence of Samadhi in Patanjali yogins, so we know what it looks like. If you can't replicate those findings in students, I would hope that would be a point of concern Vaj - can you not see the methodological flaw in this? It's circular. Let me re-phase your statement slightly: We have tested these guys and found a pattern. We see that that pattern matches what samadhi looks like. Therefore we now know what samadhi looks like. Groan... Or is it: We don't know what samadhi is, but whatever it is, we know these guys have got it (how, if we don't know what samadhi is?). So now we've measured them, and as a result we now know what samadhi is. Groan... We have correlated physiological markers to specific described experiences that occur in more than one person. We do not know if the same markers might occur in different people in different circumstances. We do not know if there is any cosmic meaning (for lack of a better word) for the experience or the markers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jun 9, 2009, at 12:07 PM, Richard M wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: We have EEG evidence of Samadhi in Patanjali yogins, so we know what it looks like. If you can't replicate those findings in students, I would hope that would be a point of concern Vaj - can you not see the methodological flaw in this? It's circular. Since this has been discussed before here, ad nauseum, I did not feel I needed to explain in any detail. The statement relies on the assumption that the traditional Patanjali yogins were not lying and that they knew, through their lineal instruction, what that state of consciousness was. However, given that we've now replicated this finding in numerous other yogins, in numerous independent labs, and that the same process now is understood to underlie neuroplastic restructuring of the brain, I have a significant degree of confidence in such statements--or I wouldn't make them. A circular line of reasoning remains circular no matter how many times you turn the handle. Putting back your snip: Let me re-phase your statement slightly: We have tested these guys and found a pattern. We see that that pattern matches what samadhi looks like. Therefore we now know what samadhi looks like. Groan... Or is it: We don't know what samadhi is, but whatever it is, we know these guys have got it (how, if we don't know what samadhi is?). So now we've measured them, and as a result we now know what samadhi is. Groan... You seem to have gone with version 2. But as a rider to we know these guys have got it you've introduced: the assumption that the traditional Patanjali yogins were not lying and that they knew, through their lineal instruction, what that state of consciousness was. That doesn't do it for me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: We have EEG evidence of Samadhi in Patanjali yogins, so we know what it looks like. If you can't replicate those findings in students, I would hope that would be a point of concern Vaj - can you not see the methodological flaw in this? It's circular. Let me re-phase your statement slightly: We have tested these guys and found a pattern. We see that that pattern matches what samadhi looks like. Therefore we now know what samadhi looks like. Groan... Or is it: We don't know what samadhi is, but whatever it is, we know these guys have got it (how, if we don't know what samadhi is?). So now we've measured them, and as a result we now know what samadhi is. Groan... We have correlated physiological markers to specific described experiences that occur in more than one person. We do not know if the same markers might occur in different people in different circumstances. We do not know if there is any cosmic meaning (for lack of a better word) for the experience or the markers. Yes. I buy that reading. That means I haven't bought much, eh?
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jun 9, 2009, at 10:55 AM, sparaig wrote: At the Harvard conference on meditation last month, Herbert Benson listed 8 meditation techniques that have the same physiological signature: Vipassana Meditation Mantra Meditation Mindfulness Meditation Transcendental Meditation Breath Focus Kripalu Yoga Kundalini Yoga Repetitive Prayer So much for uniqueness, huh? The uniqueness lie is a marketing myth used by disreputable and biased TM researchers to push their product. Apparently they're the only ones who believe this. Other researchers know better than to accept such BS. The independent research Meditation: In Search of a Unique Effect put this and a number of other TM research untruths to rest way back in the 80's! So, by physiological signature, he was discussing breath suspension of up to 1 minute, 5x during a 10 minute meditation period? Where's the research to back this up? I don't believe any of them consider these TM-induced apneas significant. Well Benson is the one claiming that TM's physiological signature is the same as the RR, not I. You keep bringing this up again and again, like you're still having a hard time letting go of this. It's an interesting chosen artifact, but that's about it. Experientially, from my own experience of breath cessation during TM, it does not represent anything worthwhile. I'd agree with Austin on this, at best it represents the shallow preludes of samadhi. You think its supposed to be something special? Something striking? Something NOTEWORTHY!!!??? Earth to Vaj: if its a sign of samadhi, you won't even notice it. Reductions in metabolic rate however, as recorded by Benson of 60 some per cent is very significant--the highest drop ever recorded in humans. Interesting stuff. But, has he replicated it back at Harvard, especially with non-monks? L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jun 9, 2009, at 11:23 AM, Richard M wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: Richard M: The TM technique can (or could at the time) claim uniqueness as being: ... * Not a skill i.e. something that you develop and get better at, as in, for example, learning a musical instrument. In theory you can't say I meditate better now than I did five years ago (unless you were doing it wrong five years ago). Vaj: So, in your opinion the cloth does not get dyed by repetition, the gap does not widen and TM does not lead to higher states of consciousness. Interesting. No, no, quite wrong. To take an unfortunate example - I think TM as a technique is a bit like learning to smoke a cigarette. In THAT sense it is not a skill (unless you are being perverse and over-literal). And yet, by repetition, the cloth/the lungs do get dyed/die by repetition. This contrasts to the whole idea of adepts and experts that are referred to in other schools (and your posts). Let me put it this way: I think staements such as John Doe is a TM expert or John Doe is a TM master or adept are close to being oxymorons. That is a pointer to an element of uniqueness about the technique and its philosophy. It's very democratic too: I can readily admit my lowly place in the spiritual food chain. But I need bow to no one as to my ability to do TM. This is a great contribution by Maharishi IMO and seems to me to be overlooked here. He was a sort of analog to Luther in this regard. Unfortunately for your belief, it is just that your belief. Science tells us something quite different and that is that samadhi is a skill like many other acquisitions, language, walking, etc. and the acquisition of such skills follows a certain observable acquisition curve. Of course it could that TM is just an introductory technique and does not lead to such acquisition, but it is perfectly good at what it does do, for some people. And you, Vaj, with your emphasis on whether traditions are kosher or not, Frankly this is your opinion and certainly not mine. TM is a perfectly fine intro. form of meditation, aside from the truncated mantras, but it should not be misconstrued as a complete Hindu mantra path IME and IMO. whether MMY has a right to be titled Maharishi, My interest is largely historical, whether he was or not is immaterial, it was an alias he assumed. What concerns me is the insult to realizers of the various Hindu paths. Many find it insulting and I can see why. whether he was from the right caste, This really is not MY concern what caste he comes from. But it was a strong concern for his guru and the lineage he comes from. and your zealous love of architectonic - that all stands against that liberating influence. In My Opinion. OK... Richard M: * Not an aptitude that you may or may not have. You can't say A is better at TM than B. Vaj: Do you have evidence for this belief? Why should I? Why shouldn't you? We have EEG evidence of Samadhi in Patanjali yogins, so we know what it looks like. If you can't replicate those findings in students, I would hope that would be a point of concern-- unless of course your primary interest is in stress reduction, which Relaxation Response forms of meditation are all great at. It's just obvious. I would say if you don't understand these points then I don't think you understand where TM is coming from. Actually I do. TM is believed to be a form of sahaj meditation where the principle of charm is believed to spontaneously focus or concentrate the mind with only a minimal amount of effort being necessary. Actually, with NO effort being necessary... L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jun 9, 2009, at 12:07 PM, Richard M wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: We have EEG evidence of Samadhi in Patanjali yogins, so we know what it looks like. If you can't replicate those findings in students, I would hope that would be a point of concern Vaj - can you not see the methodological flaw in this? It's circular. Since this has been discussed before here, ad nauseum, I did not feel I needed to explain in any detail. The statement relies on the assumption that the traditional Patanjali yogins were not lying and that they knew, through their lineal instruction, what that state of consciousness was. However, given that we've now replicated this finding in numerous other yogins, in numerous independent labs, and that the same process now is understood to underlie neuroplastic restructuring of the brain, I have a significant degree of confidence in such statements--or I wouldn't make them. Unlike MMY, and the TM researchers, etc... L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: We have EEG evidence of Samadhi in Patanjali yogins, so we know what it looks like. If you can't replicate those findings in students, I would hope that would be a point of concern Vaj - can you not see the methodological flaw in this? It's circular. Let me re-phase your statement slightly: We have tested these guys and found a pattern. We see that that pattern matches what samadhi looks like. Therefore we now know what samadhi looks like. Groan... Or is it: We don't know what samadhi is, but whatever it is, we know these guys have got it (how, if we don't know what samadhi is?). So now we've measured them, and as a result we now know what samadhi is. Groan... We have correlated physiological markers to specific described experiences that occur in more than one person. We do not know if the same markers might occur in different people in different circumstances. We do not know if there is any cosmic meaning (for lack of a better word) for the experience or the markers. More interestingly, we have radically different markers in different meditation traditions for the same self-reported experiences (or lack thereof). L.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
On Jun 9, 2009, at 12:33 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote: We have correlated physiological markers to specific described experiences that occur in more than one person. We do not know if the same markers might occur in different people in different circumstances. We do not know if there is any cosmic meaning (for lack of a better word) for the experience or the markers. We also know that these traditions have for thousands of years described these states as extraordinary in some manner. What's the Sagan saying 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'? Extraordinary states of mind should therefore possess some extraordinary characteristics, that is extraordinary physiologic evidence. If I had to give one overriding impression of most meditation research is that there's little that is truly extraordinary.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
On Jun 9, 2009, at 1:01 PM, Richard M wrote: Since this has been discussed before here, ad nauseum, I did not feel I needed to explain in any detail. The statement relies on the assumption that the traditional Patanjali yogins were not lying and that they knew, through their lineal instruction, what that state of consciousness was. However, given that we've now replicated this finding in numerous other yogins, in numerous independent labs, and that the same process now is understood to underlie neuroplastic restructuring of the brain, I have a significant degree of confidence in such statements--or I wouldn't make them. A circular line of reasoning remains circular no matter how many times you turn the handle. Putting back your snip: Let me re-phase your statement slightly: We have tested these guys and found a pattern. We see that that pattern matches what samadhi looks like. Therefore we now know what samadhi looks like. Groan... Or is it: We don't know what samadhi is, but whatever it is, we know these guys have got it (how, if we don't know what samadhi is?). So now we've measured them, and as a result we now know what samadhi is. Groan... You seem to have gone with version 2. But as a rider to we know these guys have got it you've introduced: the assumption that the traditional Patanjali yogins were not lying and that they knew, through their lineal instruction, what that state of consciousness was. That doesn't do it for me. Not close to what I'm saying. You're misdirecting. Mis-parse it however you like Richard. It's a replicated scientific finding published in a major journal that shows physiologic markers, parallel to people in a certain meditative state, which they're able to replicate at will, often for hours at a a time.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
On Jun 9, 2009, at 1:09 PM, sparaig wrote: You keep bringing this up again and again, like you're still having a hard time letting go of this. It's an interesting chosen artifact, but that's about it. Experientially, from my own experience of breath cessation during TM, it does not represent anything worthwhile. I'd agree with Austin on this, at best it represents the shallow preludes of samadhi. You think its supposed to be something special? Something striking? Something NOTEWORTHY!!!??? Earth to Vaj: if its a sign of samadhi, you won't even notice it. ROFLOL. Reductions in metabolic rate however, as recorded by Benson of 60 some per cent is very significant--the highest drop ever recorded in humans. Interesting stuff. But, has he replicated it back at Harvard, especially with non-monks? I don't know. I assume it's all monks.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
On Jun 9, 2009, at 1:16 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jun 9, 2009, at 12:07 PM, Richard M wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: We have EEG evidence of Samadhi in Patanjali yogins, so we know what it looks like. If you can't replicate those findings in students, I would hope that would be a point of concern Vaj - can you not see the methodological flaw in this? It's circular. Since this has been discussed before here, ad nauseum, I did not feel I needed to explain in any detail. The statement relies on the assumption that the traditional Patanjali yogins were not lying and that they knew, through their lineal instruction, what that state of consciousness was. However, given that we've now replicated this finding in numerous other yogins, in numerous independent labs, and that the same process now is understood to underlie neuroplastic restructuring of the brain, I have a significant degree of confidence in such statements--or I wouldn't make them. Unlike MMY, and the TM researchers, etc... Very little confidence in most of their research. I just don't see a lot of credibility there. Of course if I heard they were replicating EEG evidence seen in Patanjali yogins, I'd be very interested--esp. if independent labs could replicate the findings and the yogins could go into those states at will. for as long as they desired...
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jun 9, 2009, at 1:01 PM, Richard M wrote: Since this has been discussed before here, ad nauseum, I did not feel I needed to explain in any detail. The statement relies on the assumption that the traditional Patanjali yogins were not lying and that they knew, through their lineal instruction, what that state of consciousness was. However, given that we've now replicated this finding in numerous other yogins, in numerous independent labs, and that the same process now is understood to underlie neuroplastic restructuring of the brain, I have a significant degree of confidence in such statements--or I wouldn't make them. A circular line of reasoning remains circular no matter how many times you turn the handle. Putting back your snip: Let me re-phase your statement slightly: We have tested these guys and found a pattern. We see that that pattern matches what samadhi looks like. Therefore we now know what samadhi looks like. Groan... Or is it: We don't know what samadhi is, but whatever it is, we know these guys have got it (how, if we don't know what samadhi is?). So now we've measured them, and as a result we now know what samadhi is. Groan... You seem to have gone with version 2. But as a rider to we know these guys have got it you've introduced: the assumption that the traditional Patanjali yogins were not lying and that they knew, through their lineal instruction, what that state of consciousness was. That doesn't do it for me. Not close to what I'm saying. You're misdirecting. Mis-parse it however you like Richard. It's a replicated scientific finding published in a major journal that shows physiologic markers, parallel to people in a certain meditative state, which they're able to replicate at will, often for hours at a a time. Willful samadhi seems an oxymoron to me, but oh well. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jun 9, 2009, at 12:33 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote: We have correlated physiological markers to specific described experiences that occur in more than one person. We do not know if the same markers might occur in different people in different circumstances. We do not know if there is any cosmic meaning (for lack of a better word) for the experience or the markers. We also know that these traditions have for thousands of years described these states as extraordinary in some manner. What's the Sagan saying 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'? Extraordinary states of mind should therefore possess some extraordinary characteristics, that is extraordinary physiologic evidence. Well, I guess turya is the basis for other states could be interpreted as saying that turya is special... If I had to give one overriding impression of most meditation research is that there's little that is truly extraordinary. And why would there be, given MMY's model? L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jun 9, 2009, at 1:16 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Jun 9, 2009, at 12:07 PM, Richard M wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: We have EEG evidence of Samadhi in Patanjali yogins, so we know what it looks like. If you can't replicate those findings in students, I would hope that would be a point of concern Vaj - can you not see the methodological flaw in this? It's circular. Since this has been discussed before here, ad nauseum, I did not feel I needed to explain in any detail. The statement relies on the assumption that the traditional Patanjali yogins were not lying and that they knew, through their lineal instruction, what that state of consciousness was. However, given that we've now replicated this finding in numerous other yogins, in numerous independent labs, and that the same process now is understood to underlie neuroplastic restructuring of the brain, I have a significant degree of confidence in such statements--or I wouldn't make them. Unlike MMY, and the TM researchers, etc... Very little confidence in most of their research. I just don't see a lot of credibility there. Of course if I heard they were replicating EEG evidence seen in Patanjali yogins, I'd be very interested--esp. if independent labs could replicate the findings and the yogins could go into those states at will. for as long as they desired... Yeah, that Buddha they keep failing to slay is so important... L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
Vaj wrote: I don't believe any of them consider these TM-induced apneas significant... There is no medical evidence of a sleep apnea induced by TM practice. In most cases, TM doesn't cause sleeping, but a 'rest-full alertness'. This was demonstrated by Steve Perino, who had no indications of physiological sleeping apnea. In contrast, sleep apnea is considered a sleep disorder which is characterized by pauses in breathing during sleep. Sleeping or sleeping apnea has nothing to do with TM meditation practice. Read more: Sleep apnea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_apnea Apnea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apnea There are no 'pauses in breathing' in TM practice, only a slight reduction in CO2 output, but suspension of external breathing in sleep apnea shows the volume of the lungs to be unchanged. This has been measured by Herbert Benson and Keith Wallace. Dr. Benson verified the physiological changes brought about by meditation and Christian prayer, then cut away the mythology, dogma, and ritual. The process which remained is simple enough to fit on two pages of the book... - Anthony P. Mayo Read more: 'The Relaxation Response' by Herbert Benson, M.D. Harper, 1975 http://tinyurl.com/koptfh
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams willy...@... wrote: Vaj wrote: I don't believe any of them consider these TM-induced apneas significant... There is no medical evidence of a sleep apnea induced by TM practice. In most cases, TM doesn't cause sleeping, but a 'rest-full alertness'. This was demonstrated by Steve Perino, who had no indications of physiological sleeping apnea. In contrast, sleep apnea is considered a sleep disorder which is characterized by pauses in breathing during sleep. Sleeping or sleeping apnea has nothing to do with TM meditation practice. Read more: Sleep apnea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_apnea Apnea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apnea There are no 'pauses in breathing' in TM practice, only a slight reduction in CO2 output, but suspension of external breathing in sleep apnea shows the volume of the lungs to be unchanged. This has been measured by Herbert Benson and Keith Wallace. Dr. Benson verified the physiological changes brought about by meditation and Christian prayer, then cut away the mythology, dogma, and ritual. The process which remained is simple enough to fit on two pages of the book... - Anthony P. Mayo Read more: 'The Relaxation Response' by Herbert Benson, M.D. Harper, 1975 http://tinyurl.com/koptfh Tex, apnea simply means breath suspension for whatever reason. Even when you are awake. Vaj wasn't talking about SLEEP apnea, but apnea.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jun 9, 2009, at 12:33 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote: We have correlated physiological markers to specific described experiences that occur in more than one person. We do not know if the same markers might occur in different people in different circumstances. We do not know if there is any cosmic meaning (for lack of a better word) for the experience or the markers. We also know that these traditions have for thousands of years described these states as extraordinary in some manner. What's the Sagan saying 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'? Extraordinary states of mind should therefore possess some extraordinary characteristics, that is extraordinary physiologic evidence. If I had to give one overriding impression of most meditation research is that there's little that is truly extraordinary. Absolutely agree. That is why there is little replication work, it just isn't that interesting to researchers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
ruthsimplicity wrote: ...apnea simply means breath suspension for whatever reason. Even when you are awake. Vaj wasn't talking about SLEEP apnea, but apnea. There is no medical evidence that TM causes apnea, Ruth. Dr. Herbert Benson verified the physiological changes brought about by meditation, and apnea breath suspension was not mentioned. There is no 'breath suspension' in TM practice. The studies, so far, indicate a decrease in CO2 output. Currently there are no scientific, blind studies that prove a physiological correlate to a 'meditation state'. There are physiological changes in apnea that can be measured. There is no medical evidence of a sleep apnea induced by TM practice. In most cases, TM doesn't cause sleeping, but a 'rest-full alertness'. This was demonstrated by Steve Perino, who had no indications of physiological sleeping apnea. In contrast, sleep apnea is considered a sleep disorder which is characterized by pauses in breathing during sleep. Sleeping or sleeping apnea has nothing to do with TM meditation practice. Read more: Sleep apnea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_apnea Apnea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apnea There are no 'pauses in breathing' in TM practice, only a slight reduction in CO2 output, but suspension of external breathing in sleep apnea shows the volume of the lungs to be unchanged. This has been measured by Herbert Benson and Keith Wallace. Dr. Benson verified the physiological changes brought about by meditation and Christian prayer, then cut away the mythology, dogma, and ritual. The process which remained is simple enough to fit on two pages of the book... - Anthony P. Mayo Read more: 'The Relaxation Response' by Herbert Benson, M.D. Harper, 1975 http://tinyurl.com/koptfh
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Eustace emf...@... wrote: Sorry for being dated, but I just came across this February Guardian article http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/jan/27/david-lynch-meditation where it says: Beloved of hippie celebrities everywhere since the 1960s, TM's expensive teaching courses risked it being priced into oblivion until Lynch was credited with persuading Maharishi Mahesh Yogi - to whom he became close in 2003 after paying $1m to participate in the guru's four-week Millionaire's Enlightenment Course - to radically reduce the TM learning fee so that more younger people could learn the practice. I was unaware that David Lynch had persuaded Maharishi to radically reduce the TM learning fee. Actually, I first heard of the fee sales last January - to $1500 until September for now. Does anybody have more information about this? When did it start? And what fees are agreed upon by the David Lynch Foundation and the movement for the scholarship initiations of students? Lynch reportedly told MMy that he wasn't getting many donors for his foundation because the price was too high, so MMY told him to talk to Hagelin about setting a lower price. The upshot is that schools, or large segments thereof, can learn TM for $600 a head. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote: Lynch reportedly told MMy that he wasn't getting many donors for his foundation because the price was too high, so MMY told him to talk to Hagelin about setting a lower price. The upshot is that schools, or large segments thereof, can learn TM for $600 a head. While I still believe that this price is 10X too high, given the current market price for meditation instruction in America, I praise David Lynch both for his dedication and for his efforts to make TM more affordable. My conversations a few years ago with the woman who was his long-time personal secretary convinced me that he is a good-hearted person, and I have no doubts that he is trying everything he can to help make something he feels is valuable more available to young people. It's just a shame that he has to fight the organization that provides that something valuable to achieve his laudable good intentions.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , sparaig lengli...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , Eustace emf202@ wrote: Sorry for being dated, but I just came across this February Guardian article http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/jan/27/david-lynch-meditation http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/jan/27/david-lynch-meditation where it says: Beloved of hippie celebrities everywhere since the 1960s, TM's expensive teaching courses risked it being priced into oblivion until Lynch was credited with persuading Maharishi Mahesh Yogi - to whom he became close in 2003 after paying $1m to participate in the guru's four-week Millionaire's Enlightenment Course - to radically reduce the TM learning fee so that more younger people could learn the practice. I was unaware that David Lynch had persuaded Maharishi to radically reduce the TM learning fee. Actually, I first heard of the fee sales last January - to $1500 until September for now. Does anybody have more information about this? When did it start? And what fees are agreed upon by the David Lynch Foundation and the movement for the scholarship initiations of students? Lynch reportedly told MMy that he wasn't getting many donors for his foundation because the price was too high, so MMY told him to talk to Hagelin about setting a lower price. The upshot is that schools, or large segments thereof, can learn TM for $600 a head. I didn't know that. That's cool. Now Vaj and Turq will have to drone on about something else. Vaj probably charges much more for his New age meditation courses, that simply serve to damage people's brains. OffWorld Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
the reduction in fee that the article is talking about is the for the David Lynch projects where the fee is a fraction of what it is otherwise. The fees for individual instruction are only slightly lowered. $--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Eustace emf...@... wrote: Sorry for being dated, but I just came across this February Guardian article http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/jan/27/david-lynch-meditation where it says: Beloved of hippie celebrities everywhere since the 1960s, TM's expensive teaching courses risked it being priced into oblivion until Lynch was credited with persuading Maharishi Mahesh Yogi - to whom he became close in 2003 after paying $1m to participate in the guru's four-week Millionaire's Enlightenment Course - to radically reduce the TM learning fee so that more younger people could learn the practice. I was unaware that David Lynch had persuaded Maharishi to radically reduce the TM learning fee. Actually, I first heard of the fee sales last January - to $1500 until September for now. Does anybody have more information about this? When did it start? And what fees are agreed upon by the David Lynch Foundation and the movement for the scholarship initiations of students? I didn't know about David Lynch being in the Millionaire's Enlightenment Course either. That explains a few things. So that's how Lynch managed to represent the meditators at the top circles of the movement, where normally you have to be a governor or more to participate. It's nice to know that there is someone representing the meditators' point of view up there. As for TM's expensive teaching courses risked it being priced into oblivion it was clear. It is not surprising what John Hagelin in his recent email writes: The number of adults learning the Transcendental Meditation® technique this year has almost tripled â and this month more people learned than in any month in the past 15 years! What *is* surprising is that he goes on to say that: The new TM.org website, the national media from our April Change Begins Within Benefit Concert with Paul McCartney and friends, and our reduced course fees have produced a sharp rise of interest. The new TM.org website! What was wrong with the old one in the first place? Whom is he trying to fool? I would bet that the new website played nil role in the sharp rise of interest. And the Concert without the reduced fees would have produced much less impressive results in initiation numbers. emf
