[FairfieldLife] Re: Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending:

[tartbrain]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Aug 9, 2010, at 11:08 AM, tartbrain wrote:
> 
> > If one drives to FF by way of deserts and another gets there by way of 
> > mountains -- is FF actually different to the two drivers?
> 
> According to recent research like this paper by TM researchers, their map of 
> transcendence (long considered insignificant for anything other than for 
> relaxation effects by independent researchers) is the RIGHT one. An even more 
> recent observation by a leading meditation researcher that ANY basic 
> meditation technique you like is equally beneficial was also met with boos by 
> frightened TM researchers. The key thing is that it's something you like, as 
> that means it's likely you'll continue with the practice. It really doesn't 
> matter if it's the TM brand, the Mindfulness brand or whatever.
>

That was my point. TM may be an ox cert, but if it gets you there, if you 
maintain the practice for embedded reasons (family, friends, socially etc) then 
it is of value. Other methods may be awesomely more fantastic. But if both 
routes get you to where you wnat to go, seems ok.

And non techniques work. One can transcend on just awareness -- an dI am sure 
many through the ages did this -- and that perhaps many  inspirations came from 
this non method.  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending:

[Vaj]

On Aug 9, 2010, at 11:08 AM, tartbrain wrote:

> If one drives to FF by way of deserts and another gets there by way of 
> mountains -- is FF actually different to the two drivers?

According to recent research like this paper by TM researchers, their map of 
transcendence (long considered insignificant for anything other than for 
relaxation effects by independent researchers) is the RIGHT one. An even more 
recent observation by a leading meditation researcher that ANY basic meditation 
technique you like is equally beneficial was also met with boos by frightened 
TM researchers. The key thing is that it's something you like, as that means 
it's likely you'll continue with the practice. It really doesn't matter if it's 
the TM brand, the Mindfulness brand or whatever.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending:

[tartbrain]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Aug 7, 2010, at 11:27 AM, tartbrain wrote:
> 
> > what about that automatic transcending chinese meditation that was studied? 
> > and the other vedic auto transcending ones?
> 
> 
> I remember reading this study when it first was being passed around. It 
> clearly seemed to be a case of 'let's find an example of transcendence that 
> makes it look like 'theirs is SO slow, ours is much betterer'. And then 
> publish it to see if people fall for it.
> 
> This and a couple of other papers are actually knee-jerk reactions to a bunch 
> of papers on Buddhist meditation, that got published in peer-review journals 
> and showed the neurological maps for transcendence and Open Monitoring styles 
> of meditation. It made TM look lackluster and unimpressive in comparison, so 
> sometime after these papers appeared, a couple of "no, we're still the 
> bestest meditation technique out there" papers came out from TM market 
> researchers. As such reactionary papers often are flawed by their underlying, 
> rather emotional reactions, this paper was no exception. But it was a real 
> strong example of bending science to your own true believerisms while trying 
> hard to diss the other meditation research that is emerging.
>

If one drives to FF by way of deserts and another gets there by way of 
mountains -- is FF actually different to the two drivers?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending:

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:

> As such reactionary papers often are flawed by their underlying,
> rather emotional reactions, this paper was no exception.

Very funny. You really have to have a very active
imagination to see any "emotional reaction" in the
paper.

> But it was a real strong example of bending science to your
> own true believerisms while trying hard to diss the other
> meditation research that is emerging.

Which example Vaj, unfortunately, won't have the time,
or more likely the inclination, to attempt to debunk on
its merits.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending:

[Vaj]

On Aug 7, 2010, at 11:27 AM, tartbrain wrote:

> what about that automatic transcending chinese meditation that was studied? 
> and the other vedic auto transcending ones?


I remember reading this study when it first was being passed around. It clearly 
seemed to be a case of 'let's find an example of transcendence that makes it 
look like 'theirs is SO slow, ours is much betterer'. And then publish it to 
see if people fall for it.

This and a couple of other papers are actually knee-jerk reactions to a bunch 
of papers on Buddhist meditation, that got published in peer-review journals 
and showed the neurological maps for transcendence and Open Monitoring styles 
of meditation. It made TM look lackluster and unimpressive in comparison, so 
sometime after these papers appeared, a couple of "no, we're still the bestest 
meditation technique out there" papers came out from TM market researchers. As 
such reactionary papers often are flawed by their underlying, rather emotional 
reactions, this paper was no exception. But it was a real strong example of 
bending science to your own true believerisms while trying hard to diss the 
other meditation research that is emerging.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending:

[shukra69]

the transcending chinese is a Qi gong practice, it typically takes years to get 
the same results as beginning TM. the other Vedic ones are NOT transcending.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain  wrote:
>
> what about that automatic transcending chinese meditation that was studied? 
> and the other vedic auto transcending ones?
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh, these are spitting fight'ng words..
> > 
> > Pehaps, but it shows that Maharishi is right and the Turq and other 
> > Buddhists are wrong: TM is by far the most effective technique of 
> > meditation.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending:

[seventhray1]

Peter  wrote:

> As you say, different strokes for different folks. This is why it is 
> profoundly important on a spiritual path that you take advantage of what your 
> karma delivers on your doorstep, but also that you are self-referrential 
> enough to recognize when it is time to find another path towards that common 
> goal.

Buddhism was one of those things I kept meaning to check out, but never did.  
Closest I got was reading Herman Hesse's Siddhartha in high school, and trying 
hard to make it meaningful for me (but did not succeed)

But reading some of the comments about the Buddhist approach to meditation, I 
think it is likely that I would not have been well suited to that.  I was more 
drawn to a service path.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending:

[jpgillam]

Comments interleaved below...

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote:
>
> please tell me to butt out if commenting on others 
> conversations is considered rude 

The whole point of having a written conversations in 
a public forum is to invite others to join in. The more 
input, the better, I say.

> I sense (probably I am all wet) that you have some 
> modest disappointment that you have not experienced 
> Bliss -- only Love. Man, that sucks! Slap, Slap. Slap! 

:-)

No disappointment here. Just comparing my experience 
to what's so often talked about. Bliss and transcending? 
Don't know what you're talking about. Quietness and 
love? I'm all over it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending:

[tartbrain]

My two bits  below. (And sorry if I am interupting a personal conversation or 
otherwise breaking some FFL protocol. (Someone accused another of breaking into 
a convo I was having with Willie -- which I didn't mind, and didn't see as 
breaking in. Perhaps the distinction is rude catcalls or putdowns (I think 
"Fartbrain" was meant as such, however, to me its like saying that "your 
thoughts rise to the highest level"))Anyway, please tell me to butt out if 
commenting on others conversations is considered rude or an unwanted 
distraction.)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jpgillam"  wrote:
>
> Comments interleaved below...
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter wrote:
> >
> > With TM we're talking about one technique which 
> > produces tremendous bliss and mental clarity for 
> > many people, especially after years of practice. 
> > With Buddhist meditation techniques there are 
> > many. So you might be comparing apples with 
> > oranges. 
> 
> Or comparing *an apple* with oranges, to follow 
> your preceding observation.
> 
> > My experiences of sitting quietly and following 
> > the breath or placing the mind's attention on 
> > attention itself is tremendous quietness and 
> > clarity, but little bliss. 
> 
> I have to say that in 32 years of doing the TM 
> technique, I could report nothing I would call 
> bliss. Love, yes; bliss, no. Semantical quibble, 
> or real difference? More below.

A syndrome that I see -- because I fell into it for years, is that we are on 
one trail, many have been before us and clearly marked milestones, and if we 
don't see or even care much for their milestones we feel a bit lost.

I think its a mistake to let any teacher, tradition, person or friend define 
what your (my) journey should be, what the milestones are, what the milestones 
mean, or even that there is a journey -- and if there is that it is worth 
taking. These are things we must take ownership of IMO. (Hell, we have falsely 
taken ownership of everything else, why not this too.) 

I sense (probably I am all wet) that you have some modest disappointment that 
you have not experienced Bliss -- only Love. Man, 
that sucks! Slap, Slap. Slap! Wake up(meant in the most friendly of ways).  Is 
Love not fulfilling, golden and whole? Some say Bliss  is Dumb, and Bliss is a 
sheath of illusion. Love is eternal. Don't short change yourself on Love.

And EVERYONES' EVERY experience,and reporting of experience, through massive 
layers of interpretation, are totally individual. What some -- even "seers" 
experience and report as bliss may be cow farts to you - in that you may 
experience things more sublime.

Regardless, it is NOT a contest, not a comparison. It is your unique nervous 
system, genes, karma, and all that is unfolding life as only you can. You are a 
unique explorer, with unique maps and journals of inner and outer space as 
reflected upon your nervous system. And "reflection" is a key point. No one, No 
one, experiences Bliss, Atman, Brahman or God. They only experience a 
reflection of those realities or illusions upon THEIR nervous system. (and not 
of course Atman in the universe does not disappear when your nervous system 
dies and decays -- just the reflection goes away).

Reflect,polish and enjoy a reflection no soul has ever experienced.  And enjoy 
Love. Many can't (yet).

 
> > Also, I think the mantra opens the mind to 
> > celestial/subtle perception so there is a "rippling 
> > sensory profundity" that comes to the mind 
> > through the senses. 
> 
> I noticed more alertness immediately upon learning 
> TM, and I really noticed people's eyes for the first 
> time upon returning from TM teacher training, but 
> otherwise, I have only the most modest experience 
> of anything I would call celestial or subtle perception.
> 
> The two activities the helped my perception were 
> art appreciation classes and reading "The Power of 
> Now." After reading Tolle's book I simply paid more 
> attention to things, and that helped elicit more 
> profundity from perception.
> 
> > The mind transcends with both approaches, 
> > but the residual impact on the mind is different. 
> > I don't think one approach is right and or wrong. 
> > Different technologies, so to speak, that people 
> > have different preferences for.  
> 
> I wish there were an organization that would 
> evaluate what a person's most productive path 
> would be in terms of meditation technologies, 
> physical purification practices, devotional activities 
> and what have you. Would a given client be better 
> served by a Buddhist meditation or TM? By a 
> vegetarian diet or Paleolithic diet?
> 
> A friend who dabbles in jyotish told me that, 
> based on my chart, I'm well-served by a path
> that centers around the body, which he 
> called the path of tantra. I believe him. Some of 
> the most profound growth I've had has come 
> from dietary changes and herbal concoctions. 
> If I had to go back in time and choose between

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending:

[Peter]

--- On Sat, 8/7/10, jpgillam  wrote:

> From: jpgillam 
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic 
> self-transcending:
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, August 7, 2010, 12:33 PM
> Comments interleaved below...
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
> Peter wrote:
> >
> > With TM we're talking about one technique which 
> > produces tremendous bliss and mental clarity for 
> > many people, especially after years of practice. 
> > With Buddhist meditation techniques there are 
> > many. So you might be comparing apples with 
> > oranges. 
> 
> Or comparing *an apple* with oranges, to follow 
> your preceding observation.
> 
> > My experiences of sitting quietly and following 
> > the breath or placing the mind's attention on 
> > attention itself is tremendous quietness and 
> > clarity, but little bliss. 
> 
> I have to say that in 32 years of doing the TM 
> technique, I could report nothing I would call 
> bliss. Love, yes; bliss, no. Semantical quibble, 
> or real difference? More below.
> 
> > Also, I think the mantra opens the mind to 
> > celestial/subtle perception so there is a "rippling 
> > sensory profundity" that comes to the mind 
> > through the senses. 
> 
> I noticed more alertness immediately upon learning 
> TM, and I really noticed people's eyes for the first 
> time upon returning from TM teacher training, but 
> otherwise, I have only the most modest experience 
> of anything I would call celestial or subtle perception.
> 
> The two activities the helped my perception were 
> art appreciation classes and reading "The Power of 
> Now." After reading Tolle's book I simply paid more 
> attention to things, and that helped elicit more 
> profundity from perception.
> 
> > The mind transcends with both approaches, 
> > but the residual impact on the mind is different. 
> > I don't think one approach is right and or wrong. 
> > Different technologies, so to speak, that people 
> > have different preferences for.  
> 
> I wish there were an organization that would 
> evaluate what a person's most productive path 
> would be in terms of meditation technologies, 
> physical purification practices, devotional activities 
> and what have you. Would a given client be better 
> served by a Buddhist meditation or TM? By a 
> vegetarian diet or Paleolithic diet?
> 
> A friend who dabbles in jyotish told me that, 
> based on my chart, I'm well-served by a path
> that centers around the body, which he 
> called the path of tantra. I believe him. Some of 
> the most profound growth I've had has come 
> from dietary changes and herbal concoctions. 
> If I had to go back in time and choose between 
> Pianta's food plan and TM, I would have to chose 
> the food plan. It produced more profound 
> benefits in daily life. (But it was difficult, and TM
> was easy, and I surely would not have pursued
> the food plan had it not been for TM, so to heck
> with that whole silly scenario.)


As you say, different strokes for different folks. This is why it is profoundly 
important on a spiritual path that you take advantage of what your karma 
delivers on your doorstep, but also that you are self-referrential enough to 
recognize when it is time to find another path towards that common goal.




> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To subscribe, send a message to:
> fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Or go to: 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>     fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
> 
> 
> 


  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending:

[jpgillam]

Comments interleaved below...

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter wrote:
>
> With TM we're talking about one technique which 
> produces tremendous bliss and mental clarity for 
> many people, especially after years of practice. 
> With Buddhist meditation techniques there are 
> many. So you might be comparing apples with 
> oranges. 

Or comparing *an apple* with oranges, to follow 
your preceding observation.

> My experiences of sitting quietly and following 
> the breath or placing the mind's attention on 
> attention itself is tremendous quietness and 
> clarity, but little bliss. 

I have to say that in 32 years of doing the TM 
technique, I could report nothing I would call 
bliss. Love, yes; bliss, no. Semantical quibble, 
or real difference? More below.

> Also, I think the mantra opens the mind to 
> celestial/subtle perception so there is a "rippling 
> sensory profundity" that comes to the mind 
> through the senses. 

I noticed more alertness immediately upon learning 
TM, and I really noticed people's eyes for the first 
time upon returning from TM teacher training, but 
otherwise, I have only the most modest experience 
of anything I would call celestial or subtle perception.

The two activities the helped my perception were 
art appreciation classes and reading "The Power of 
Now." After reading Tolle's book I simply paid more 
attention to things, and that helped elicit more 
profundity from perception.

> The mind transcends with both approaches, 
> but the residual impact on the mind is different. 
> I don't think one approach is right and or wrong. 
> Different technologies, so to speak, that people 
> have different preferences for.  

I wish there were an organization that would 
evaluate what a person's most productive path 
would be in terms of meditation technologies, 
physical purification practices, devotional activities 
and what have you. Would a given client be better 
served by a Buddhist meditation or TM? By a 
vegetarian diet or Paleolithic diet?

A friend who dabbles in jyotish told me that, 
based on my chart, I'm well-served by a path
that centers around the body, which he 
called the path of tantra. I believe him. Some of 
the most profound growth I've had has come 
from dietary changes and herbal concoctions. 
If I had to go back in time and choose between 
Pianta's food plan and TM, I would have to chose 
the food plan. It produced more profound 
benefits in daily life. (But it was difficult, and TM
was easy, and I surely would not have pursued
the food plan had it not been for TM, so to heck
with that whole silly scenario.)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending:

[jpgillam]

This does look interesting. I'm pretty sure I'll 
never get around to reading it, but it's the kind 
of research I like to see coming from Maharishi 
University - looking at consciousness and 
meditation from a larger perspective that just 
TM/SCI. Great to see Jon Shear involved, too.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter  wrote:
>
> Nice find, Nabsgoing to buy and download i.t
> 
> --- On Sat, 8/7/10, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> 

>.http://tinyurl.com/22n7v7a
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending:

[tartbrain]

While I see you in your essence as Shiva, slayer of demons of ignorance, the 
silence that pervades the universe, I am puzzled by your sutras below.

Anyone can close their eyes and Transcend. Can't you? Then why the fuss about 
methods? If a non-method leads to Transcendence, why can't any meditation 
method do the same. The nature of the mind is to seek greater happiness, and 
the mind naturally goes to infinite bliss. Doesn't the Transcendent Transcend 
methods?



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter  wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
> > > "Buck"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oh, these are spitting fight'ng words..
> > > 
> > > Pehaps, but it shows that Maharishi is right and the Turq
> > > and other Buddhists are wrong: TM is by far the most
> > > effective technique of meditation.
> > 
> > I tend to agree with you, Nabs. With TM we're talking about one technique 
> > which produces tremendous bliss and mental clarity for many people, 
> > especially after years of practice. With Buddhist meditation techniques 
> > there are many. So you might be comparing apples with oranges.
> 
> 
> Or a Bugatti to a BMW. Both are good, but only a Bugatti is a Bugatti.
> 
> 
>  My experiences of sitting quietly and following the breath or lacing the 
> mind's attention on attention itself is tremendous quietness and clarity, but 
> little bliss.
> 
> 
> Perhaps that's why the Buddhists on this forum vainly have tried to 
> degenerate the value of bliss simply because never having the experience they 
> simply don't know what it is.
> 
> 
>  Also, I think the mantra opens the mind to celestial/subtle perception so 
> there is a "rippling sensory profundity" that comes to the mind through the 
> senses. The mind transcends with both approaches, but the residual impact on 
> the mind is different.
> 
> 
> That's an interesting point. One of these days perhaps someone doing these 
> techniques would step forward and explain how they experience life in the 
> relative after experiencing transcendence. If there is no experience of bliss 
> in the relative I doubt that transcendence occurred.
> 
> 
>  I don't think one approach is right and or wrong. Different technologies, so 
> to speak, that people have different preferences for.  
> 
> Agreed, there are many ways to Rome. You could walk there also, at least from 
> Europe, but driving there in a Bugatti would be much more fun. :-)
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending:

[tartbrain]

Peter,

I am trying to understand your concept of "waking state concepts" --
used I think, pejoratively. (Aside from the loop of waking state concepts being 
a waking state concept) how do the categories  below escape, transcend or get a 
pass from being "waking state concepts" which if I understood you previously, 
are detours if not utter traps for true understanding?

tartbrain (sometimes known as hard-headed brain, or adoringly by joe as 
"fartbrain". Which reminds me of my favorite quote "If I have farted further 
than other men, its because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.") 


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- On Sat, 8/7/10, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> 
> > From: nablusoss1008 
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Focused attention, open monitoring and 
> > automatic self-transcending:
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Saturday, August 7, 2010, 8:13 AM
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
> > "Buck"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh, these are spitting fight'ng words..
> > 
> > Pehaps, but it shows that Maharishi is right and the Turq
> > and other Buddhists are wrong: TM is by far the most
> > effective technique of meditation.
> 
> I tend to agree with you, Nabs. With TM we're talking about one technique 
> which produces tremendous bliss and mental clarity for many people, 
> especially after years of practice. With Buddhist meditation techniques there 
> are many. So you might be comparing apples with oranges. My experiences of 
> sitting quietly and following the breath or placing the mind's attention on 
> attention itself is tremendous quietness and clarity, but little bliss. Also, 
> I think the mantra opens the mind to celestial/subtle perception so there is 
> a "rippling sensory profundity" that comes to the mind through the senses. 
> The mind transcends with both approaches, but the residual impact on the mind 
> is different. I don't think one approach is right and or wrong. Different 
> technologies, so to speak, that people have different preferences for.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > To subscribe, send a message to:
> > fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> > 
> > Or go to: 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
> > 
> > 
> >     fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
> > 
> > 
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending:

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter  wrote:

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
> > "Buck"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh, these are spitting fight'ng words..
> > 
> > Pehaps, but it shows that Maharishi is right and the Turq
> > and other Buddhists are wrong: TM is by far the most
> > effective technique of meditation.
> 
> I tend to agree with you, Nabs. With TM we're talking about one technique 
> which produces tremendous bliss and mental clarity for many people, 
> especially after years of practice. With Buddhist meditation techniques there 
> are many. So you might be comparing apples with oranges.


Or a Bugatti to a BMW. Both are good, but only a Bugatti is a Bugatti.


 My experiences of sitting quietly and following the breath or lacing the 
mind's attention on attention itself is tremendous quietness and clarity, but 
little bliss.


Perhaps that's why the Buddhists on this forum vainly have tried to degenerate 
the value of bliss simply because never having the experience they simply don't 
know what it is.


 Also, I think the mantra opens the mind to celestial/subtle perception so 
there is a "rippling sensory profundity" that comes to the mind through the 
senses. The mind transcends with both approaches, but the residual impact on 
the mind is different.


That's an interesting point. One of these days perhaps someone doing these 
techniques would step forward and explain how they experience life in the 
relative after experiencing transcendence. If there is no experience of bliss 
in the relative I doubt that transcendence occurred.


 I don't think one approach is right and or wrong. Different technologies, so 
to speak, that people have different preferences for.  

Agreed, there are many ways to Rome. You could walk there also, at least from 
Europe, but driving there in a Bugatti would be much more fun. :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending:

[tartbrain]

what about that automatic transcending chinese meditation that was studied? and 
the other vedic auto transcending ones?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> >
> > Oh, these are spitting fight'ng words..
> 
> Pehaps, but it shows that Maharishi is right and the Turq and other Buddhists 
> are wrong: TM is by far the most effective technique of meditation.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending:

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter  wrote:
>
> Also, I think the mantra opens the mind to celestial/subtle
> perception

You misspelled "opens the mind to Satan."

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending:

[Peter]

--- On Sat, 8/7/10, nablusoss1008  wrote:

> From: nablusoss1008 
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic 
> self-transcending:
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, August 7, 2010, 8:13 AM
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
> "Buck"  wrote:
> >
> > Oh, these are spitting fight'ng words..
> 
> Pehaps, but it shows that Maharishi is right and the Turq
> and other Buddhists are wrong: TM is by far the most
> effective technique of meditation.

I tend to agree with you, Nabs. With TM we're talking about one technique which 
produces tremendous bliss and mental clarity for many people, especially after 
years of practice. With Buddhist meditation techniques there are many. So you 
might be comparing apples with oranges. My experiences of sitting quietly and 
following the breath or placing the mind's attention on attention itself is 
tremendous quietness and clarity, but little bliss. Also, I think the mantra 
opens the mind to celestial/subtle perception so there is a "rippling sensory 
profundity" that comes to the mind through the senses. The mind transcends with 
both approaches, but the residual impact on the mind is different. I don't 
think one approach is right and or wrong. Different technologies, so to speak, 
that people have different preferences for.  






> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To subscribe, send a message to:
> fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Or go to: 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>     fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
> 
> 
> 


  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending:

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> Oh, these are spitting fight'ng words..

Pehaps, but it shows that Maharishi is right and the Turq and other Buddhists 
are wrong: TM is by far the most effective technique of meditation.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending:

[Buck]

Oh, these are spitting fight'ng words..

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> Review Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic
> self-transcending: Categories to organize meditations from Vedic,
> Buddhist and Chinese traditions[Purchase the full-text article] 
>  -1&_cdi=6752&_user=10&_pii=S105381001097&_orig=search&_coverDate=02%\
> 2F18%2F2010&_sk=9&view=c&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkWA&md5=c6bf0c9e2a5c1da0\
> c26e28a8db4a4ab6&ie=/sdarticle.pdf>
> 
> 
> 
> References and further reading may be available for this article. To
> view references and further reading you must purchase
>  1&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F18%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=search&_cdi\
> =6752&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C50221&_version=1&_urlVersion\
> =0&_userid=10&md5=00d828b8b4ece95d50349c58ab30ff97>  this article.
> 
> 
> Fred Travisa
>  1&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F18%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sor\
> t=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C50221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid\
> =10&md5=eb2c74713d56cbc18cffbe#aff1> , b
>  1&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F18%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sor\
> t=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C50221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid\
> =10&md5=eb2c74713d56cbc18cffbe#aff2> ,  [Corresponding Author Contact
> Information] 
>  1&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F18%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sor\
> t=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C50221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid\
> =10&md5=eb2c74713d56cbc18cffbe#cor1> ,  [E-mail The Corresponding
> Author]    and Jonathan Shearc
>  1&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F18%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sor\
> t=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C50221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid\
> =10&md5=eb2c74713d56cbc18cffbe#aff3>
> 
> a Center for the Brain, Consciousness, and Cognition, Maharishi
> University of Management, 1000 North 4th Street, Fairfield, IA 52557,
> United States
> 
> b Maharishi University of Management Research Institute, Maharishi Vedic
> City, IA 52557, United States
> 
> c Department of Philosophy, Virginia Commonwealth University, 817 West
> Franklin Street, Richmond, VA 23284-9002, United States
> Received 29 March 2008.   Available online 18 February 2010.
> Abstract
> This paper proposes a third meditation-category—automatic
> self-transcending— to extend the dichotomy of focused attention and
> open monitoring proposed by Lutz. Automatic self-transcending includes
> techniques designed to transcend their own activity. This contrasts with
> focused attention, which keeps attention focused on an object; and open
> monitoring, which keeps attention involved in the monitoring process.
> Each category was assigned EEG bands, based on reported brain patterns
> during mental tasks, and meditations were categorized based on their
> reported EEG. Focused attention, characterized by beta/gamma activity,
> included meditations from Tibetan Buddhist, Buddhist, and Chinese
> traditions. Open monitoring, characterized by theta activity, included
> meditations from Buddhist, Chinese, and Vedic traditions. Automatic
> self-transcending, characterized by alpha1 activity, included
> meditations from Vedic and Chinese traditions. Between categories, the
> included meditations differed in focus, subject/object relation, and
> procedures. These findings shed light on the common mistake of averaging
> meditations together to determine mechanisms or clinical effects.
> 
> Keywords: Meditation; Mindfulness; TM; Transcendental Meditation;
> Coherence; Zen; Tibetan Buddhism; Gamma; Alpha
> Article Outline  1. Introduction
>  1&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F18%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=search&_cdi\
> =6752&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C50221&_version=1&_urlVersion\
> =0&_userid=10&md5=00d828b8b4ece95d50349c58ab30ff97#secx1>   2. Cognitive
> processing and EEG frequency bands
>  1&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F18%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=search&_cdi\
> =6752&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C50221&_version=1&_urlVersion\
> =0&_userid=10&md5=00d828b8b4ece95d50349c58ab30ff97#secx2>2.1. Gamma
> bands (30–50 Hz) and Beta 2 (20–30 Hz)
>  1&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F18%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=search&_cdi\
> =6752&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C50221&_version=1&_urlVersion\
> =0&_userid=10&md5=00d828b8b4ec