[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey wrote: > > [...] > > > I find it difficult wrapping my head around a "full program" > > > of asanas+pranayama+TM+sutra practice+yogic flying+ > > > rest period+"required reading"= 45 minutes being a > > > long-term program. I'm not being critical, Lawson. Just > > > wondering why that particular choice was made. > > > > 20 minutes TM + 10 minutes other sutras + 5 minutes yogic flying + 10 > > minutes rest = 45 minutes. > > > > The rest would be nice, but I generally don't have time. > > > So you don't practice a full program. Rather, you practice a > program of your own design and have done so for, oh, 28 years. Actually that's a pretty standard and quite logical program for TM-Sidhis practitioners who can't fit in the whole nine yards. I've used it myself during especially busy stretches of my life. > Interesting. > > It looks like truncated *was* the correct word Lawson. > > I find that in reading the posts you make concerning your > theories about mantra effortlessness that I am often struck > that you mistake endless loops of thought as some great > profundity. Sure would be interesting to know which of Lawson's posts struck you this way. I haven't ever gotten that impression. > You also seem to believe it is something that > most others have never considered, much less dismissed as > quite a muddled mess. "It" referring to what, exactly? > > I'm not selling anything but more than anyone I have met > in this incarnation I believe you would benefit from > Mindfullness training. It seems to me you resist due to the > endless loops of TM doctrine you swallowed all those years > ago. I wish you well and sincerely hope that works out for you. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
> > Have you ever taken formal instruction in Mindfulness > > meditation Lawson? > > > > Considered it? > > sparaig: > My own belief and experience is that long-term TM > practice automatically creates mindfulness, without > the baggage... > It might be a good time to review a little Indian history. 'Mindfullness' is one of the seven factors of enlightenment, according to Shakya the Muni (Gotama circa 563 BCE), India's first historical yogin. Right mindfulness in Pali is 'samma-sati' and in Sanskrit it is termed 'samyak-smrti', and the phrase is derived from the Buddha's 'noble eightfold path.' Mindfulness meditation can be traced back to the Upanishads which are a part of the Hindu scriptures and treatises on the Vedas. According to the Vedas all you have to do is remember your mantra - thus, 'mantra yoga'. "...in Buddhism, the faculty of 'mindfulness' (smrti) refers not only to moment-to-moment awareness of present events. Instead, the primary connotation of this Sanskrit term (and its corresponding Pali term sati) is recollection. This includes long-term, short-term, and working memory, non-forgetful, present-centered awareness, and also prospective memory, i.e., remembering to be aware of something or to do something at a designated time in the future." Read more: 'Attention, Memory and the Mind' A Synergy of Psychological, Neuroscientific, and Contemplative Perspectives http://www.mindandlife.org/dialogues/past-conferences/ml18/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
> > So, how many tools such as mantras and yantras > > do you think the average person needs in order > > to live the spiritual life? > > Vaj: > I don't know - how many? I'll promise to write it > down this time. > Answer: It takes zero mantras and yantras in order to live the spiritual life. "In fact, technological advances in brain imaging have given scientists a new range of tools to more accurately observe and measure the apparent causes and manifestations of consciousness. fMRI (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) produces vivid images of the areas of the brain that respond to a variety of stimuli. Instead of trying to measure a purely subjective response, such as "that made me feel good," scientists can also see what part of the subject's brain is responding, for how long, and to what degree." Read more: Mind Science Foundation: http://www.mindscience.org/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
azgrey:
> I'm not selling anything but more than anyone I have met
> in this incarnation I believe you would benefit from
> Mindfullness training...
>
So, what would be the benefit of adding 'Mindfullness'
to his program?
Note to Lawson:
Whatever you do, Lawson, do Not let your mind get full;
avoid 'Mindfullness training'. It may be counter-productive
being in a divided state of attention.
"We should always try to be active coming out of samadhi.
For this, we have to forget things like "I should be
mindful of this or that".
If you are mindful, you are already creating a separation
("I - am - mindful - of - "). Don't be mindful, please!
When you walk, just walk. Let the walk walk. Let the talk
talk (Dogen Zenji says: "When we open our mouths, it is
filled with Dharma"). Let the eating eat, the sitting sit,
the work work. Let sleep sleep." - Muho Noelke
'Stop being mindful'
http://antaiji.dogen-zen.de/eng/adult18.shtml
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
> > It is entirely possible that TM will be found > > better on some measures, and mindfulness will be > > found better on some measures... > > turquoiseb: > Mindfulness, not so much. It can be -- and has been, > in many cases -- divorced from its "spiritual" back- > ground and presented as just a simple technique... > If 'mindfullness' was divorced from its spiritual content, what benefit would accrue from practicing 'Buddhist' mindfullness? If the Buddha is taken out of Buddhist, then you'd be taking the spiritual out of the enlightenment. How could you have a 'Buddhist' who did not aspire to being a 'Buddha', i.e., 'one awakened to enlightenment'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness And, why would anyone want to have their mind full, anyway? Full of thoughts? Or, just being mind-full of their thoughts? If the latter, one would then be practicing a form of mind control - concentration - which as we all know is counterproductive for transcending meditation.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
On Apr 26, 2012, at 7:01 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote: > So, how many tools such as mantras and yantras > do you think the average person needs in order > to live the spiritual life? I don’t know - how many? I’ll promise to write it down this time.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
turquoiseb: > > One can practice mindfulness anytime, any- > > where... > > So, how is your 'mindfullness' technique that different from just a normal waking state? Vaj: > Generally you'll see many Buddhist meditators > learn either mindfulness or shamatha first and > then learning the other. Later they may learn > the unification of shamatha and mindfulness... > There's not much difference between 'TM' practice and Buddhist meditation techniques. In fact, TM is one of the best mindfullness techniques, based on the ancient yoga tradition of India. Unless you're thinking there is some intellectual component that we should figure out. > By then, they'll already have enough tools and > sufficient spiritual maturity to handle most > things in life. > So, how many tools such as mantras and yantras do you think the average person needs in order to live the spiritual life?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
On Apr 26, 2012, at 12:11 PM, turquoiseb wrote: > Plus, it would have *significant* advantages when dealing > with PTSD because (even though Nabby in his blissful TM- > induced ignorance doesn't understand this) mindfulness is > not necessarily a "meditation technique" in the sense that > he thinks of it. One can practice mindfulness anytime, any- > where...no need to sit or close one's eyes, no need to > withdraw from activity or work. Most important, if unwanted > thoughts and emotions come up during the day or night for > a PTSD sufferer, he or she can just practice mindfulness > right then and there and relieve the distress, coming back > to a more balanced mental and emotional state. Generally you’ll see many Buddhist meditators learn either mindfulness or shamatha first and then learning the other. Later they may learn the unification of shamatha and mindfulness. By then, they’ll already have enough tools and sufficient spiritual maturity to handle most things in life.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
On Apr 26, 2012, at 1:15 PM, turquoiseb wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > It's not an either/or thing. The Buddhists who practice > > TM also practice other techniques as well. > > But would you be given a dome pass if you admitted > to having learned mindfulness from a Buddhist teacher? Hell, you can’t even hug a saint and still be admitted to the dome from what I’ve heard. > > You're correct. In Buddhism it's not an either/or thing. > In the TM organization, it is. Good point.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey wrote: > I'm not selling anything but ... Joke of the week :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote:
> >
> > Nice story. I got to see him in Santa Fe, although
> > only from the audience in a room of about 100 others.
> > His presence touched all of us. He and only one other
> > person I've met embody for me the concept of compassion.
> >
> > The other, interestingly enough, was a filmmaker, the
> > director of "Phörpa" ("The Cup"). Khyentse Norbu is a
> > also a Tibetan Buddhist lama and a recognized tulku; he
> > just prefers making movies to doing the tulku thing. :-)
> >
> > Anyway, I got to meet him and observe him at a fund-
> > raising showing of "The Cup" in Santa Fe. The room was
> > full of heavy rollers, there to be seen and to slip
> > Norbu a check, and thus receive a little financially-
> > induced darshan. (Hey!...we're talking about Santa Fe.)
> >
> > It was his *equanimity* that floored me. The co-founder
> > of Microsoft walks up and schmoozes him and puts a
> > check in the bowl and he treats him...uh, there's no
> > other word for it...perfectly, and then he walks off.
> > And the next person he interacts with is a young Chicano
> > woman who has been hired at minimum wage to serve drinks
> > at this fund-raiser, asking if he would like any more
> > tea. And he treats her...uh, there's no other word for
> > it...perfectly, and then she walks off.
> >
> > NOTHING fazed him. NOTHING shook him from his baseline.
> > He treated everyone who he interacted with with perfect
> > equanimity and compassion.
> >
> > The dude could have been a superstar if he'd stayed
> > within the confines of Tibetan Buddhism. But he realized
> > that he liked making movies better. Based on having been
> > able to watch him for a couple of hours, I'd say that
> > he made the correct choice. Dude rocks.
>
> Cool. This reminiscence drew me to the IMDB to look
> up Khyentse Norbu again. I really do love his films,
> and he hasn't released one since "Travelers and
> Magicians."
>
> Happy happy joy joy. Two of his films may be coming
> out soon. The first is listed as completed, and is
> called "Finding Manjushri"
I found a website for this film. Your mileage may
vary, but I found it not only well done, but rather
uplifting. If you like the home page, click on the
other tabs at the top...
http://www.findingmanjushri.com/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > Plus, it would have *significant* advantages when dealing
> > > > with PTSD because (even though Nabby in his blissful TM-
> > > > induced ignorance doesn't understand this) mindfulness is
> > > > not necessarily a "meditation technique" in the sense that
> > > > he thinks of it. One can practice mindfulness anytime, any-
> > > > where...no need to sit or close one's eyes, no need to
> > > > withdraw from activity or work. Most important, if unwanted
> > > > thoughts and emotions come up during the day or night for
> > > > a PTSD sufferer, he or she can just practice mindfulness
> > > > right then and there and relieve the distress, coming back
> > > > to a more balanced mental and emotional state.
> > >
> > > In fact, there are articles published about Tibetan monks
> > > living in this country who are unable to meditate because
> > > of the flashbacks from their PTSD.
> >
> > Cite please. "Unable to meditate." I think not.
> >
> > I believe that you may be misunderstanding the phenomenon
> > and therefore misstating the situation. PTSD, however, certainly
> > exists in some Tibetan monks.
> >
> > I had the good fortune of a chance meeting once, in Phoenix,
> > with Palden Gyatso. To say he is a remarkable fellow would be the
> > grossest understatement of my life. I had no idea who he was.
> > Friends brought him by for me to share lunch with him. The
> > humble manner he showed when I payed for our lunch stays
> > with me to this day. I can only compare it to the gratitude seen
> > in my adopted Greyhounds eyes when given a meal in their
> > adopted home. Anthropomorphism my ass!!
> > It is true gratitude. It was then that I began to understand the
> > real meaning and depth of seeing Buddha nature in sentient
> > beings.
> >
> > He went out to the car my friends had arrived in and then gave
> > me a copy of his autobiography which he then wrote a long
> > inscription inside. It was only upon reading the book that I learned
> > of his 33 years spent in Chinese prisons and labor camps.
> > Someday I hope to view the 2008 documentary film about him
>
> Nice story. I got to see him in Santa Fe, although
> only from the audience in a room of about 100 others.
> His presence touched all of us. He and only one other
> person I've met embody for me the concept of compassion.
>
> The other, interestingly enough, was a filmmaker, the
> director of "Phörpa" ("The Cup"). Khyentse Norbu is a
> also a Tibetan Buddhist lama and a recognized tulku; he
> just prefers making movies to doing the tulku thing. :-)
>
> Anyway, I got to meet him and observe him at a fund-
> raising showing of "The Cup" in Santa Fe. The room was
> full of heavy rollers, there to be seen and to slip
> Norbu a check, and thus receive a little financially-
> induced darshan. (Hey!...we're talking about Santa Fe.)
>
> It was his *equanimity* that floored me. The co-founder
> of Microsoft walks up and schmoozes him and puts a
> check in the bowl and he treats him...uh, there's no
> other word for it...perfectly, and then he walks off.
> And the next person he interacts with is a young Chicano
> woman who has been hired at minimum wage to serve drinks
> at this fund-raiser, asking if he would like any more
> tea. And he treats her...uh, there's no other word for
> it...perfectly, and then she walks off.
>
> NOTHING fazed him. NOTHING shook him from his baseline.
> He treated everyone who he interacted with with perfect
> equanimity and compassion.
>
> The dude could have been a superstar if he'd stayed
> within the confines of Tibetan Buddhism. But he realized
> that he liked making movies better. Based on having been
> able to watch him for a couple of hours, I'd say that
> he made the correct choice. Dude rocks.
Cool. This reminiscence drew me to the IMDB to look
up Khyentse Norbu again. I really do love his films,
and he hasn't released one since "Travelers and
Magicians."
Happy happy joy joy. Two of his films may be coming
out soon. The first is listed as completed, and is
called "Finding Manjushri" --
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2255805/
"A smug young monk embarks upon an intriguing journey
only to discover that the wisdom he seeks is much
closer than he imagines, and much stranger than he
could possibly envisage. Set against the stunning
backdrop of the Himalayas, Lodro battles the elements,
braves the seductions of beautiful women, chases
enchanted children and encounters a magical mule that
can read, in his attempt to reach the mythical mountain
of Wutaishan, in search of Manjushri. Finding Manjushri
was produced on a shoestring budget in a Tibetan refugee
settlement in northern India. It is a delightful and
uplifti
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey wrote: > [...] > > I find it difficult wrapping my head around a "full program" > > of asanas+pranayama+TM+sutra practice+yogic flying+ > > rest period+"required reading"= 45 minutes being a > > long-term program. I'm not being critical, Lawson. Just > > wondering why that particular choice was made. > > 20 minutes TM + 10 minutes other sutras + 5 minutes yogic flying + 10 minutes > rest = 45 minutes. > > The rest would be nice, but I generally don't have time. > > > L. > So you don't practice a full program. Rather, you practice a program of your own design and have done so for, oh, 28 years. Interesting. It looks like truncated *was* the correct word Lawson. I find that in reading the posts you make concerning your theories about mantra effortlessness that I am often struck that you mistake endless loops of thought as some great profundity. You also seem to believe it is something that most others have never considered, much less dismissed as quite a muddled mess. I'm not selling anything but more than anyone I have met in this incarnation I believe you would benefit from Mindfullness training. It seems to me you resist due to the endless loops of TM doctrine you swallowed all those years ago. I wish you well and sincerely hope that works out for you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote:
> > [...]
> > >
> > > Plus, it would have *significant* advantages when dealing
> > > with PTSD because (even though Nabby in his blissful TM-
> > > induced ignorance doesn't understand this) mindfulness is
> > > not necessarily a "meditation technique" in the sense that
> > > he thinks of it. One can practice mindfulness anytime, any-
> > > where...no need to sit or close one's eyes, no need to
> > > withdraw from activity or work. Most important, if unwanted
> > > thoughts and emotions come up during the day or night for
> > > a PTSD sufferer, he or she can just practice mindfulness
> > > right then and there and relieve the distress, coming back
> > > to a more balanced mental and emotional state.
> >
> > In fact, there are articles published about Tibetan monks
> > living in this country who are unable to meditate because
> > of the flashbacks from their PTSD.
>
> Cite please. "Unable to meditate." I think not.
>
> I believe that you may be misunderstanding the phenomenon
> and therefore misstating the situation. PTSD, however, certainly
> exists in some Tibetan monks.
>
> I had the good fortune of a chance meeting once, in Phoenix,
> with Palden Gyatso. To say he is a remarkable fellow would be the
> grossest understatement of my life. I had no idea who he was.
> Friends brought him by for me to share lunch with him. The
> humble manner he showed when I payed for our lunch stays
> with me to this day. I can only compare it to the gratitude seen
> in my adopted Greyhounds eyes when given a meal in their
> adopted home. Anthropomorphism my ass!!
> It is true gratitude. It was then that I began to understand the
> real meaning and depth of seeing Buddha nature in sentient beings.
>
> He went out to the car my friends had arrived in and then gave
> me a copy of his autobiography which he then wrote a long
> inscription inside. It was only upon reading the book that I learned
> of his 33 years spent in Chinese prisons and labor camps.
> Someday I hope to view the 2008 documentary film about him
Nice story. I got to see him in Santa Fe, although
only from the audience in a room of about 100 others.
His presence touched all of us. He and only one other
person I've met embody for me the concept of compassion.
The other, interestingly enough, was a filmmaker, the
director of "Phörpa" ("The Cup"). Khyentse Norbu is a
also a Tibetan Buddhist lama and a recognized tulku; he
just prefers making movies to doing the tulku thing. :-)
Anyway, I got to meet him and observe him at a fund-
raising showing of "The Cup" in Santa Fe. The room was
full of heavy rollers, there to be seen and to slip
Norbu a check, and thus receive a little financially-
induced darshan. (Hey!...we're talking about Santa Fe.)
It was his *equanimity* that floored me. The co-founder
of Microsoft walks up and schmoozes him and puts a
check in the bowl and he treats him...uh, there's no
other word for it...perfectly, and then he walks off.
And the next person he interacts with is a young Chicano
woman who has been hired at minimum wage to serve drinks
at this fund-raiser, asking if he would like any more
tea. And he treats her...uh, there's no other word for
it...perfectly, and then she walks off.
NOTHING fazed him. NOTHING shook him from his baseline.
He treated everyone who he interacted with with perfect
equanimity and compassion.
The dude could have been a superstar if he'd stayed
within the confines of Tibetan Buddhism. But he realized
that he liked making movies better. Based on having been
able to watch him for a couple of hours, I'd say that
he made the correct choice. Dude rocks.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > [...] > > > > Plus, it would have *significant* advantages when dealing > > with PTSD because (even though Nabby in his blissful TM- > > induced ignorance doesn't understand this) mindfulness is > > not necessarily a "meditation technique" in the sense that > > he thinks of it. One can practice mindfulness anytime, any- > > where...no need to sit or close one's eyes, no need to > > withdraw from activity or work. Most important, if unwanted > > thoughts and emotions come up during the day or night for > > a PTSD sufferer, he or she can just practice mindfulness > > right then and there and relieve the distress, coming back > > to a more balanced mental and emotional state. > > > > > In fact, there are articles published about Tibetan monks living in this > country who are unable to meditate because of the flashbacks from their PTSD. Cite please. "Unable to meditate." I think not. I believe that you may be misunderstanding the phenomenon and therefore misstating the situation. PTSD, however, certainly exists in some Tibetan monks. I had the good fortune of a chance meeting once, in Phoenix, with Palden Gyatso. To say he is a remarkable fellow would be the grossest understatement of my life. I had no idea who he was. Friends brought him by for me to share lunch with him. The humble manner he showed when I payed for our lunch stays with me to this day. I can only compare it to the gratitude seen in my adopted Greyhounds eyes when given a meal in their adopted home. Anthropomorphism my ass!! It is true gratitude. It was then that I began to understand the real meaning and depth of seeing Buddha nature in sentient beings. He went out to the car my friends had arrived in and then gave me a copy of his autobiography which he then wrote a long inscription inside. It was only upon reading the book that I learned of his 33 years spent in Chinese prisons and labor camps. Someday I hope to view the 2008 documentary film about him > > Mindfulness and PTSD may not be as good a fit as you think. PTSD evokes > "hypervigilance" where one is acutely aware of everything that is going on > around them. It is conceivable that mindfulness techniques may exacerbate > this problem. > > Here you answer my earlier question as to whether you have ever taken formal Mindfullness training Lawson. If you had, you would be aware that formal as well as informal practice can be done while sitting, standing, walking, or laying down. Your statement is as ill-informed as that of my MBSR instructor's when he described TM as a "meditation in which you concentrate on your mantra." > > I would have to assume that the military would consider > > this a BIG plus. You really can't have soldiers in the field > > taking off for 20 minutes to meditate with eyes closed, after > > all. > > > Of course you can. Soldiers constantly try to get shut-eye time even in the > middle of battle. If someone isn't shooting at you and you aren't explicitly > on guard duty, the most appropriate activity for every soldier in combat is > to sleep whenever possible because you may not get another chance. > > > L >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey wrote: > > > Excellent observation Lawson. > > Have you ever taken formal instruction in Mindfulness > meditation Lawson? > > Considered it? > My own belief and experience is that long-term TM practice automatically creates mindfulness, without the baggage that you're supposed to be non-judgemental. Research on world champion athletes shows that their eyes closed resting EEG is more similar to long-term TMers' than non-world champion athletes is. Both groups report "flow" experiences more often than average, and both groups score better than average on *appropriate* mindfulness tests -that is, if they know what to expect, they prepare for it, and if they don't know what to expect, they don't. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey wrote: [...] > I find it difficult wrapping my head around a "full program" > of asanas+pranayama+TM+sutra practice+yogic flying+ > rest period+"required reading"= 45 minutes being a > long-term program. I'm not being critical, Lawson. Just > wondering why that particular choice was made. 20 minutes TM + 10 minutes other sutras + 5 minutes yogic flying + 10 minutes rest = 45 minutes. The rest would be nice, but I generally don't have time. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > But would you be given a dome pass if you admitted > to having learned mindfulness from a Buddhist teacher? > > You're correct. In Buddhism it's not an either/or thing. Is that why most of the Buddhist's I've met appear, uh, weak ? > In the TM organization, it is. Thank God :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey wrote: > > Though I know you don't, TurquoiseB, I still enjoy my TM. > It feels good. I am not sure why but it feels even better > since I took instruction in some Mindfullness techniques. > It is almost as if some synergy occurs. I would agree. I prefer another form of sitting meditation, but if I still did TM I would feel that a perfect counterpart to it would be the addition of mindfulness practices. It really isn't an either/or, but as you say, a synergy. TMers spend 40 minutes a day (or 90, if they're doing the "full program" you mentioned earlier) meditating and the rest of the day at the prey of their emotions and thoughts. Given some of the thoughts and emotions we've seen around here, a little mindfulness wouldn't hurt. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > It's not an either/or thing. The Buddhists who practice > > TM also practice other techniques as well. > > But would you be given a dome pass if you admitted > to having learned mindfulness from a Buddhist teacher? > > You're correct. In Buddhism it's not an either/or thing. > In the TM organization, it is. I wonder if the dome pass would be withheld if the Mindfullness training came from a secular source such as the MBSR program created by Jon Kabat-Zinn and taught widely thru the UMASS Medical Center? I understand that MBCT, a variation on MBST developed by Zindel Segal, Mark Williams and John Teasdale, is widely taught in the UK and is financially covered by the National Health. This has happened because the medical community in the UK has seen that it works. Unquestionably. Pretty darned simple. Though I know you don't, TurquoiseB, I still enjoy my TM. It feels good. I am not sure why but it feels even better since I took instruction in some Mindfullness techniques. It is almost as if some synergy occurs. I don't spend much time dwelling on why that synergy seems to exist, just as I don't spend time dwelling on enlightenment. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > Thus mindfulness will "win out" in the marketplace, > > > > no matter who "scores better" on scientific tests. > > > > > > Hear Hear, great surprise, the Turq applauds a Buddhist > > > practise ! :-) > > > > > > TM has been around for 50 years, mindfullness 2450 years. > > > One wonders, if it's so superior as the Turq claims why > > > the world is not swamped with this meditation lng > > > ago. In fact, there should be no room for TM at all > > > since the majority of the worlds population already > > > should have been practising this WAY superior technique > > > already. > > > > > > But wait, why is it that leaders of Buddhist monestaries > > > in South East Asia preffer to have their monks practising > > > TM rather their own techniques that has been around for > > > thousands of years ? > > > > > > Probably because it works. > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
Excellent observation Lawson. Have you ever taken formal instruction in Mindfulness meditation Lawson? Considered it? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > It's not an either/or thing. The Buddhists who practice TM also practice > other techniques as well. > > L. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > Thus mindfulness will "win out" in the marketplace, > > > no matter who "scores better" on scientific tests. > > > > > > > > Hear Hear, great surprise, the Turq applauds a Buddhist practise ! :-) > > > > TM has been around for 50 years, mindfullness 2450 years. One wonders, if > > it's so superior as the Turq claims why the world is not swamped with this > > meditation lng ago. In fact, there should be no room for TM at all > > since the majority of the worlds population already should have been > > practising this WAY superior technique already. > > > > But wait, why is it that leaders of Buddhist monestaries in South East Asia > > preffer to have their monks practising TM rather their own techniques that > > has been around for thousands of years ? > > > > Probably because it works. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > [...] > > > > I saw this whole discussion -- as well as recent > > > > discussions about the "TM science" -- as clear > > > > demonstrations of one of the wise sayings Rick > > > > placed on the FFL home page. That is, an exercise > > > > in the "will to believe," as opposed to the "wish > > > > to find out." > > > > > > > > > > But perhaps it goes both ways... > > > > > > > > > I've stuck with TM for nearly 40 years. Is it possible that something has > > > arisen in my TM practice that you missed because you haven't stuck with > > > it for nearly 40 years? > > > > > > > > > L. > > > > > > > Lawson, > > > > What kind of program are you currently practicing? Both > > TM and Sidhi? > > > > A couple of years back you mentioned doing a program > > with a truncated length. > > > > Truncated? Not that I recall. > > > I do the same minimalist TM/TM-Sidhis program that I started in 1985(1984?). > Works out to about 45 minutes (counting rest period) twice-daily, assuming I > keep to a schedule. Before that, I was doing the 2x20 minute TM practice > starting in 1973. > > > L. > Thanks for the reply Lawson. Truncated was probably a bad choice of words as it implies removal of one end or the other. My intention, poorly stated, was, as you said, minimalist. No pejorative meaning intended. I am fully aware of the officially sanctioned methods of reducing the length of a "full program" as the formula was promulgated during my CIC in 1987. A formula for lengthening my 2x20 TM practice was also revealed 3 years after my starting in 1973. Did you ever avail yourself of that instruction or take any advanced techniques before or after the Sidhi instruction? I find it difficult wrapping my head around a "full program" of asanas+pranayama+TM+sutra practice+yogic flying+ rest period+"required reading"= 45 minutes being a long-term program. I'm not being critical, Lawson. Just wondering why that particular choice was made. You probably don't remember, or recognize me by my posting monicker, but we have met at least twice. The most recent was during the creation of the Natural Law Party as an entity here in Arizona. I traveled to Tucson because some NLP muckety mucks asked for my assistance thru the Phoenix TM center folks. I considered it a dubious folly, at best, but it was clear you did not.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > It's not an either/or thing. The Buddhists who practice > > TM also practice other techniques as well. > > But would you be given a dome pass if you admitted > to having learned mindfulness from a Buddhist teacher? > > You're correct. In Buddhism it's not an either/or thing. > In the TM organization, it is. > That goes back to Robin Carlson's thing at MIU several decades ago. In fact, if you aren't living in Fairfield, IA, there isn't nearly as big a deal, and from what Buck says, the policy has changed drastically recently. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: [...] > > Plus, it would have *significant* advantages when dealing > with PTSD because (even though Nabby in his blissful TM- > induced ignorance doesn't understand this) mindfulness is > not necessarily a "meditation technique" in the sense that > he thinks of it. One can practice mindfulness anytime, any- > where...no need to sit or close one's eyes, no need to > withdraw from activity or work. Most important, if unwanted > thoughts and emotions come up during the day or night for > a PTSD sufferer, he or she can just practice mindfulness > right then and there and relieve the distress, coming back > to a more balanced mental and emotional state. > In fact, there are articles published about Tibetan monks living in this country who are unable to meditate because of the flashbacks from their PTSD. Mindfulness and PTSD may not be as good a fit as you think. PTSD evokes "hypervigilance" where one is acutely aware of everything that is going on around them. It is conceivable that mindfulness techniques may exacerbate this problem. > I would have to assume that the military would consider > this a BIG plus. You really can't have soldiers in the field > taking off for 20 minutes to meditate with eyes closed, after > all. Of course you can. Soldiers constantly try to get shut-eye time even in the middle of battle. If someone isn't shooting at you and you aren't explicitly on guard duty, the most appropriate activity for every soldier in combat is to sleep whenever possible because you may not get another chance. L
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > It's not an either/or thing. The Buddhists who practice > TM also practice other techniques as well. But would you be given a dome pass if you admitted to having learned mindfulness from a Buddhist teacher? You're correct. In Buddhism it's not an either/or thing. In the TM organization, it is. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > Thus mindfulness will "win out" in the marketplace, > > > no matter who "scores better" on scientific tests. > > > > Hear Hear, great surprise, the Turq applauds a Buddhist > > practise ! :-) > > > > TM has been around for 50 years, mindfullness 2450 years. > > One wonders, if it's so superior as the Turq claims why > > the world is not swamped with this meditation lng > > ago. In fact, there should be no room for TM at all > > since the majority of the worlds population already > > should have been practising this WAY superior technique > > already. > > > > But wait, why is it that leaders of Buddhist monestaries > > in South East Asia preffer to have their monks practising > > TM rather their own techniques that has been around for > > thousands of years ? > > > > Probably because it works. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
Certainly the cost of mindfulness techniques as made them very popular. However, the US military isn't concerned about cost alone, but cost vs benefits, and they are actively evaluating several different meditation techniques for use in the US military, including mindfulness and TM. The preliminary results on TM and PTSD have already started to be published. The intent, at least with the TM studies that I am aware of, is to track meditators throughout their military careers, so we will, over the next 2-3 decades, get a nice longitudinal view of TM's effects in a military setting. Likewise, I would assume, for mindfulness techniques. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Apr 26, 2012, at 3:15 AM, turquoiseb wrote: > > > To be a successful program for the military or for > > the general public, either mindfulness or TM would > > IMO have to divorce itself from its religious roots > > and stick to being Just A Technique. I do not believe > > that the TM organization is capable of allowing this > > to happen. Their innate desire to prosyletize, to > > declare their technique "the best," and to upsell > > to all comers to get them as involved as possible > > in the cult and its belief systems will likely cause > > them to shoot themselves in the foot. > > My primary concern with TM would be with side effects for one and two, it's > inflexibility in terms of a technique: one technique fits all. There has to > be some variability in any widespread technique because we're simply not > uniform widgets coming off an assembly line. > > > > > Mindfulness, not so much. It can be -- and has been, > > in many cases -- divorced from its "spiritual" back- > > ground and presented as just a simple technique. TM > > never can be, if for no other reason because the TMO > > will never allow it to be taught without the puja, > > and without several days of indoctrination into the > > dogma that underlies it. > > The Dalai Lama, along with neuroscientists, physicians and meditation experts > have created a completely non-sectarian meditation form which should be > acceptable to just about anyone. > > > > > Thus mindfulness will "win out" in the marketplace, > > no matter who "scores better" on scientific tests. > > It's already very widespread in the US. You'd be hard-pressed to find a > hospital here that doesn't teach it. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
It's not an either/or thing. The Buddhists who practice TM also practice other techniques as well. L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > Thus mindfulness will "win out" in the marketplace, > > no matter who "scores better" on scientific tests. > > > > Hear Hear, great surprise, the Turq applauds a Buddhist practise ! :-) > > TM has been around for 50 years, mindfullness 2450 years. One wonders, if > it's so superior as the Turq claims why the world is not swamped with this > meditation lng ago. In fact, there should be no room for TM at all since > the majority of the worlds population already should have been practising > this WAY superior technique already. > > But wait, why is it that leaders of Buddhist monestaries in South East Asia > preffer to have their monks practising TM rather their own techniques that > has been around for thousands of years ? > > Probably because it works. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > On Apr 26, 2012, at 3:15 AM, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > To be a successful program for the military or for > > the general public, either mindfulness or TM would > > IMO have to divorce itself from its religious roots > > and stick to being Just A Technique. I do not believe > > that the TM organization is capable of allowing this > > to happen. Their innate desire to prosyletize, to > > declare their technique "the best," and to upsell > > to all comers to get them as involved as possible > > in the cult and its belief systems will likely cause > > them to shoot themselves in the foot. > > My primary concern with TM would be with side effects for > one and two, it's inflexibility in terms of a technique: > one technique fits all. There has to be some variability > in any widespread technique because we're simply not uniform > widgets coming off an assembly line. Agreed. But as I said, my biggest concern would be the inability of TM teachers to keep from using TM as a "gateway drug" to get them hooked on a whole belief system. > > Mindfulness, not so much. It can be -- and has been, > > in many cases -- divorced from its "spiritual" back- > > ground and presented as just a simple technique. TM > > never can be, if for no other reason because the TMO > > will never allow it to be taught without the puja, > > and without several days of indoctrination into the > > dogma that underlies it. > > The Dalai Lama, along with neuroscientists, physicians and > meditation experts have created a completely non-sectarian > meditation form which should be acceptable to just about > anyone. Plus, it would have *significant* advantages when dealing with PTSD because (even though Nabby in his blissful TM- induced ignorance doesn't understand this) mindfulness is not necessarily a "meditation technique" in the sense that he thinks of it. One can practice mindfulness anytime, any- where...no need to sit or close one's eyes, no need to withdraw from activity or work. Most important, if unwanted thoughts and emotions come up during the day or night for a PTSD sufferer, he or she can just practice mindfulness right then and there and relieve the distress, coming back to a more balanced mental and emotional state. I would have to assume that the military would consider this a BIG plus. You really can't have soldiers in the field taking off for 20 minutes to meditate with eyes closed, after all. > > Thus mindfulness will "win out" in the marketplace, > > no matter who "scores better" on scientific tests. > > It's already very widespread in the US. You'd be hard-pressed > to find a hospital here that doesn't teach it. And they don't try to sell you a set of "add on" courses that will wind up costing you $10,000 just to learn how to bounce around on your butt and bark like a dog. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
What Judy has written here is stated with such calm, wise and unbiased conviction it comes across as truth to me. My first look at FFL in quite a while and I see this. Maybe there is hope for this place after all. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > In an exploratory study on Pure Consciousness, the only > > > baseline needed is between episodes of pure consciousness > > > and the rest of the meditation period. The subjects provide > > > their own baseline. > > > > > > Once you establish that there is a distinction that can be > > > made in those specific subjects, you can then start to compare > > > them with people who don't report regular episodes of pure > > > consciousness, but until you establish that there is something > > > to study, using a control group makes no real sense. You don't > > > even know what to be looking for in the first place. > > > > So like I said, "special" science. Why are you replying? > > I just wanted to get back to this for a moment, because it's > such an outstanding example of the arrogance of ignorance. > > Barry was wrong to call it "special science." Lawson patiently > explained why. And Barry responds, not having understood what > Lawson was telling him, reasserting his mistake, and then > asking, "Why are you replying?" > > This is why it's sometimes necessary to "shoot the > messenger." When the messenger carries a false message-- > whether he's aware of it or not--and tries to throw his > weight around as if his false message was the last word, > you need to do what you can to make sure anyone who might > be affected by his messages knows he can't be trusted. > > It's not impossible that at some point this messenger > could carry an authentic, accurate message without knowing > it. The point is you need to verify any message from him > with some more reliable source before you take it > seriously, because he doesn't care, and doesn't even know > how to tell, whether it's accurate or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Not all studies require controls. Some of the early Pure > > > > > Consciousness studies were merely trying to establish what > > > > > physiological correlates (if any) could be found for the > > > > > self-reports of Pure Consciousness episodes. Control groups > > > > > don't really make sense in that context. > > > > > > > > Because this is "special" science, doncha know? > > > > > > > > You don't need the control groups you need in any > > > > other EEG study if you're doing "special" science. > > > > > > > > You don't need to compare the results you expected > > > > to find to any kind of baseline because...let's face > > > > it...no baseline can possibly compare meaningfully > > > > to the "special" thing we're researching. > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 25, 2012, at 1:40 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's no such thing as "proper controls" in an EEG study on > > > > > > > hand- > > > > > > > picked subjects. > > > > > > > The subjects in many of the Pure Consciousness studies were > > > > > > > selected because they were self-reporting regular periods of Pure > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What you meant to say is "they didn't use any" because they wanted > > > > > > to > > > > > > "handpick their results". It's meaningless to test EEG without EEG > > > > > > controls. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
On Apr 26, 2012, at 3:15 AM, turquoiseb wrote: > To be a successful program for the military or for > the general public, either mindfulness or TM would > IMO have to divorce itself from its religious roots > and stick to being Just A Technique. I do not believe > that the TM organization is capable of allowing this > to happen. Their innate desire to prosyletize, to > declare their technique "the best," and to upsell > to all comers to get them as involved as possible > in the cult and its belief systems will likely cause > them to shoot themselves in the foot. My primary concern with TM would be with side effects for one and two, it's inflexibility in terms of a technique: one technique fits all. There has to be some variability in any widespread technique because we're simply not uniform widgets coming off an assembly line. > > Mindfulness, not so much. It can be -- and has been, > in many cases -- divorced from its "spiritual" back- > ground and presented as just a simple technique. TM > never can be, if for no other reason because the TMO > will never allow it to be taught without the puja, > and without several days of indoctrination into the > dogma that underlies it. The Dalai Lama, along with neuroscientists, physicians and meditation experts have created a completely non-sectarian meditation form which should be acceptable to just about anyone. > > Thus mindfulness will "win out" in the marketplace, > no matter who "scores better" on scientific tests. It's already very widespread in the US. You'd be hard-pressed to find a hospital here that doesn't teach it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > Thus mindfulness will "win out" in the marketplace, > no matter who "scores better" on scientific tests. Hear Hear, great surprise, the Turq applauds a Buddhist practise ! :-) TM has been around for 50 years, mindfullness 2450 years. One wonders, if it's so superior as the Turq claims why the world is not swamped with this meditation lng ago. In fact, there should be no room for TM at all since the majority of the worlds population already should have been practising this WAY superior technique already. But wait, why is it that leaders of Buddhist monestaries in South East Asia preffer to have their monks practising TM rather their own techniques that has been around for thousands of years ? Probably because it works.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > I believe I pointed out that the US military is getting into > meditation research in a big way. The two techniques they > appear to be focusing on are mindfulness and TM. I am > reasonably confident that whatever the military discovers > will be based on impartial research because their orientation > is on results, and not what simply confirms their own spiritual > belief system. > > It is entirely possible that TM will be found better on some > measures, and mindfulness will be found better on some measures. > I can live with that. I wonder if Vaj and Barry can. I would not only have no problem with properly-done research that found this, I would welcome it. I can't help but imagine that *both* practices would greatly help soldiers suffering from PTSD. My concerns would center on "What comes next?" after the studies have been completed. I have a far greater trust in the deliverers of mindfulness training to be able to do so at a reasonable cost than I do the deliverers of TM. Furthermore, I know from experience that most of the high cost of TM is going to go into the pockets of Maharishi's relatives in India, not back into the system, helping others. The biggest "trust" issue I see is whether mindfulness and TM can be taught AS IS, with no accompanying baggage. I believe (because I've seen it done) that mindfulness can. I do not believe that TM can. TM teachers would be unable to leave TM alone and present it as what the military was paying for -- a simple, easily-learned technique of meditation with no philosophy or Woo Woo associated with it. I do not believe that TM teachers would be able to comply with this. They would feel compelled to teach what they had been taught about TM's underlying dogma, and they would feel even more compelled to "upsell" by trying to get people to learn the TM-sidhis. To be a successful program for the military or for the general public, either mindfulness or TM would IMO have to divorce itself from its religious roots and stick to being Just A Technique. I do not believe that the TM organization is capable of allowing this to happen. Their innate desire to prosyletize, to declare their technique "the best," and to upsell to all comers to get them as involved as possible in the cult and its belief systems will likely cause them to shoot themselves in the foot. Mindfulness, not so much. It can be -- and has been, in many cases -- divorced from its "spiritual" back- ground and presented as just a simple technique. TM never can be, if for no other reason because the TMO will never allow it to be taught without the puja, and without several days of indoctrination into the dogma that underlies it. Thus mindfulness will "win out" in the marketplace, no matter who "scores better" on scientific tests.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > Later studies tend to show the discovered effect, whatever it is, is usually > less, often much less than the initial studies implied, for with more > researchers, better ideas how to control for variables tend to come to the > fore. If the discovered effect has important implications, sample sizes in > later studies also tend to improve. Ideally each group (experimental group, > control group, etc.) in a study should contain at least several hundred > persons. This can present economic difficulties in getting a study done > properly. > I believe I pointed out that the US military is getting into meditation research in a big way. The two techniques they appear to be focusing on are mindfulness and TM. I am reasonably confident that whatever the military discovers will be based on impartial research because their orientation is on results, and not what simply confirms their own spiritual belief system. It is entirely possible that TM will be found better on some measures, and mindfulness will be found better on some measures. I can live with that. I wonder if Vaj and Barry can. L
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > In an exploratory study on Pure Consciousness, the only > > baseline needed is between episodes of pure consciousness > > and the rest of the meditation period. The subjects provide > > their own baseline. > > > > Once you establish that there is a distinction that can be > > made in those specific subjects, you can then start to compare > > them with people who don't report regular episodes of pure > > consciousness, but until you establish that there is something > > to study, using a control group makes no real sense. You don't > > even know what to be looking for in the first place. > > So like I said, "special" science. Why are you replying? I just wanted to get back to this for a moment, because it's such an outstanding example of the arrogance of ignorance. Barry was wrong to call it "special science." Lawson patiently explained why. And Barry responds, not having understood what Lawson was telling him, reasserting his mistake, and then asking, "Why are you replying?" This is why it's sometimes necessary to "shoot the messenger." When the messenger carries a false message-- whether he's aware of it or not--and tries to throw his weight around as if his false message was the last word, you need to do what you can to make sure anyone who might be affected by his messages knows he can't be trusted. It's not impossible that at some point this messenger could carry an authentic, accurate message without knowing it. The point is you need to verify any message from him with some more reliable source before you take it seriously, because he doesn't care, and doesn't even know how to tell, whether it's accurate or not. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > Not all studies require controls. Some of the early Pure > > > > Consciousness studies were merely trying to establish what > > > > physiological correlates (if any) could be found for the > > > > self-reports of Pure Consciousness episodes. Control groups > > > > don't really make sense in that context. > > > > > > Because this is "special" science, doncha know? > > > > > > You don't need the control groups you need in any > > > other EEG study if you're doing "special" science. > > > > > > You don't need to compare the results you expected > > > to find to any kind of baseline because...let's face > > > it...no baseline can possibly compare meaningfully > > > to the "special" thing we're researching. > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 25, 2012, at 1:40 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > There's no such thing as "proper controls" in an EEG study on hand- > > > > > > picked subjects. > > > > > > The subjects in many of the Pure Consciousness studies were > > > > > > selected because they were self-reporting regular periods of Pure > > > > > > Consciousness > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What you meant to say is "they didn't use any" because they wanted to > > > > > > > > > > "handpick their results". It's meaningless to test EEG without EEG > > > > > controls. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: >>> >>> In an exploratory study on Pure Consciousness, the only >>> baseline needed is between episodes of pure consciousness >>> and the rest of the meditation period. The subjects provide >>> their own baseline. >>> >>> Once you establish that there is a distinction that can be >>> made in those specific subjects, you can then start to compare >>> them with people who don't report regular episodes of pure >>> consciousness, but until you establish that there is something >>> to study, using a control group makes no real sense. You don't >>> even know what to be looking for in the first place. >> >> So like I said, "special" science. Why are you replying? > > That's not "special" science, Barry. Such studies could be > looking for all kinds of things completely unrelated to TM. > It's a standard methodology for that kind of exploratory > study. That is right preliminary studies are just scientists fishing around for an effect they can write a paper about or make a discovery. These early studies are often just not all that good. The study that first brought attention to the placebo effect is one; it has since been discovered it was not properly controlled and does not actually confirm the effect it claimed. But others took up the mantle, and the placebo effect is now a well established biological fact, as well as an incredibly difficult effect to control for in experiments involving human subjects (and experimenters). Later studies tend to show the discovered effect, whatever it is, is usually less, often much less than the initial studies implied, for with more researchers, better ideas how to control for variables tend to come to the fore. If the discovered effect has important implications, sample sizes in later studies also tend to improve. Ideally each group (experimental group, control group, etc.) in a study should contain at least several hundred persons. This can present economic difficulties in getting a study done properly. >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > Not all studies require controls. Some of the early Pure > Consciousness studies were merely trying to establish what > physiological correlates (if any) could be found for the > self-reports of Pure Consciousness episodes. Control groups > don't really make sense in that context. Because this is "special" science, doncha know? You don't need the control groups you need in any other EEG study if you're doing "special" science. You don't need to compare the results you expected to find to any kind of baseline because...let's face it...no baseline can possibly compare meaningfully to the "special" thing we're researching. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: >> >> On Apr 25, 2012, at 1:40 PM, sparaig wrote: >> >>> There's no such thing as "proper controls" in an EEG study on hand- >>> picked subjects. >>> The subjects in many of the Pure Consciousness studies were >>> selected because they were self-reporting regular periods of Pure >>> Consciousness >> >> What you meant to say is "they didn't use any" because they wanted to >> "handpick their results". It's meaningless to test EEG without EEG >> controls. >> > >>> >> >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
> > You don't need to compare the results you expected > > to find to any kind of baseline because...let's face > > it...no baseline can possibly compare meaningfully > > to the "special" thing we're researching. > > Vaj: > How could you have a baseline when you're comparing > to the ocean of creative intelligence! It's just not > Vedic. :-) > "In the Vedic paradigm, the unified field is therefore not only the source of matter, but also-because it is pure consciousness-the source of mind. I is the common source of mind and body, of subjective experience and material creation." - B. Alan Wallace 'Esoteric Anatomy' The Body as Consciousness by Bruce Burger http://tinyurl.com/7zj566d
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > In an exploratory study on Pure Consciousness, the only > > baseline needed is between episodes of pure consciousness > > and the rest of the meditation period. The subjects provide > > their own baseline. > > > > Once you establish that there is a distinction that can be > > made in those specific subjects, you can then start to compare > > them with people who don't report regular episodes of pure > > consciousness, but until you establish that there is something > > to study, using a control group makes no real sense. You don't > > even know what to be looking for in the first place. > > So like I said, "special" science. Why are you replying? That's not "special" science, Barry. Such studies could be looking for all kinds of things completely unrelated to TM. It's a standard methodology for that kind of exploratory study. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > Not all studies require controls. Some of the early Pure > > > > Consciousness studies were merely trying to establish what > > > > physiological correlates (if any) could be found for the > > > > self-reports of Pure Consciousness episodes. Control groups > > > > don't really make sense in that context. > > > > > > Because this is "special" science, doncha know? > > > > > > You don't need the control groups you need in any > > > other EEG study if you're doing "special" science. > > > > > > You don't need to compare the results you expected > > > to find to any kind of baseline because...let's face > > > it...no baseline can possibly compare meaningfully > > > to the "special" thing we're researching. > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 25, 2012, at 1:40 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > There's no such thing as "proper controls" in an EEG study on hand- > > > > > > picked subjects. > > > > > > The subjects in many of the Pure Consciousness studies were > > > > > > selected because they were self-reporting regular periods of Pure > > > > > > Consciousness > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What you meant to say is "they didn't use any" because they wanted to > > > > > > > > > > "handpick their results". It's meaningless to test EEG without EEG > > > > > controls. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Apr 25, 2012, at 3:26 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > In an exploratory study on Pure Consciousness, the only baseline needed is > > between episodes of pure consciousness and the rest of the meditation > > period. The subjects provide their own baseline. > > > > Once you establish that there is a distinction that can be made in those > > specific subjects, you can then start to compare them with people who don't > > report regular episodes of pure consciousness, but until you establish that > > there is something to study, using a control group makes no real sense. You > > don't even know what to be looking for in the first place. > > > Well, like it or not, when controls are used it makes TM look rather ordinary: > Shrug, if that is the case, than the new DoD research on PTSD and TM will show this more and more as time goes on. I'm prepared to be disappointed. Are you? L
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
On Apr 25, 2012, at 3:26 PM, sparaig wrote:In an exploratory study on Pure Consciousness, the only baseline needed is between episodes of pure consciousness and the rest of the meditation period. The subjects provide their own baseline.Once you establish that there is a distinction that can be made in those specific subjects, you can then start to compare them with people who don't report regular episodes of pure consciousness, but until you establish that there is something to study, using a control group makes no real sense. You don't even know what to be looking for in the first place.Well, like it or not, when controls are used it makes TM look rather ordinary:
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
On Apr 25, 2012, at 3:20 PM, turquoiseb wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > Not all studies require controls. Some of the early Pure > > Consciousness studies were merely trying to establish what > > physiological correlates (if any) could be found for the > > self-reports of Pure Consciousness episodes. Control groups > > don't really make sense in that context. > > Because this is "special" science, doncha know? > > You don't need the control groups you need in any > other EEG study if you're doing "special" science. > > You don't need to compare the results you expected > to find to any kind of baseline because...let's face > it...no baseline can possibly compare meaningfully > to the "special" thing we're researching. How could you have a baseline when you’re comparing to the ocean of creative intelligence! It’s just not Vedic. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > In an exploratory study on Pure Consciousness, the only > baseline needed is between episodes of pure consciousness > and the rest of the meditation period. The subjects provide > their own baseline. > > Once you establish that there is a distinction that can be > made in those specific subjects, you can then start to compare > them with people who don't report regular episodes of pure > consciousness, but until you establish that there is something > to study, using a control group makes no real sense. You don't > even know what to be looking for in the first place. So like I said, "special" science. Why are you replying? > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > Not all studies require controls. Some of the early Pure > > > Consciousness studies were merely trying to establish what > > > physiological correlates (if any) could be found for the > > > self-reports of Pure Consciousness episodes. Control groups > > > don't really make sense in that context. > > > > Because this is "special" science, doncha know? > > > > You don't need the control groups you need in any > > other EEG study if you're doing "special" science. > > > > You don't need to compare the results you expected > > to find to any kind of baseline because...let's face > > it...no baseline can possibly compare meaningfully > > to the "special" thing we're researching. > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 25, 2012, at 1:40 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > > > > > There's no such thing as "proper controls" in an EEG study on hand- > > > > > picked subjects. > > > > > The subjects in many of the Pure Consciousness studies were > > > > > selected because they were self-reporting regular periods of Pure > > > > > Consciousness > > > > > > > > > > > > What you meant to say is "they didn't use any" because they wanted to > > > > "handpick their results". It's meaningless to test EEG without EEG > > > > controls. > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
In an exploratory study on Pure Consciousness, the only baseline needed is between episodes of pure consciousness and the rest of the meditation period. The subjects provide their own baseline. Once you establish that there is a distinction that can be made in those specific subjects, you can then start to compare them with people who don't report regular episodes of pure consciousness, but until you establish that there is something to study, using a control group makes no real sense. You don't even know what to be looking for in the first place. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > Not all studies require controls. Some of the early Pure > > Consciousness studies were merely trying to establish what > > physiological correlates (if any) could be found for the > > self-reports of Pure Consciousness episodes. Control groups > > don't really make sense in that context. > > Because this is "special" science, doncha know? > > You don't need the control groups you need in any > other EEG study if you're doing "special" science. > > You don't need to compare the results you expected > to find to any kind of baseline because...let's face > it...no baseline can possibly compare meaningfully > to the "special" thing we're researching. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 25, 2012, at 1:40 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > > > There's no such thing as "proper controls" in an EEG study on hand- > > > > picked subjects. > > > > The subjects in many of the Pure Consciousness studies were > > > > selected because they were self-reporting regular periods of Pure > > > > Consciousness > > > > > > > > > What you meant to say is "they didn't use any" because they wanted to > > > "handpick their results". It's meaningless to test EEG without EEG > > > controls. > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > Not all studies require controls. Some of the early Pure > Consciousness studies were merely trying to establish what > physiological correlates (if any) could be found for the > self-reports of Pure Consciousness episodes. Control groups > don't really make sense in that context. Because this is "special" science, doncha know? You don't need the control groups you need in any other EEG study if you're doing "special" science. You don't need to compare the results you expected to find to any kind of baseline because...let's face it...no baseline can possibly compare meaningfully to the "special" thing we're researching. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 25, 2012, at 1:40 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > There's no such thing as "proper controls" in an EEG study on hand- > > > picked subjects. > > > The subjects in many of the Pure Consciousness studies were > > > selected because they were self-reporting regular periods of Pure > > > Consciousness > > > > > > What you meant to say is "they didn't use any" because they wanted to > > "handpick their results". It's meaningless to test EEG without EEG > > controls. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > On Apr 25, 2012, at 1:40 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > There's no such thing as "proper controls" in an EEG study on hand- > > picked subjects. > > The subjects in many of the Pure Consciousness studies were > > selected because they were self-reporting regular periods of Pure > > Consciousness > > What you meant to say is "they didn't use any" because they > wanted to "handpick their results". It's meaningless to test > EEG without EEG controls. What Vaj means to say is, "Of course I know that whether EEG controls are needed for results to be considered valid depends entirely on what the purpose of the study is. But I'll pretend this isn't the case." Or perhaps he doesn't know, in which case he's grossly ignorant. What would be meaningless would be to use controls in a study of the type Lawson is talking about.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
Not all studies require controls. Some of the early Pure Consciousness studies were merely trying to establish what physiological correlates (if any) could be found for the self-reports of Pure Consciousness episodes. Control groups don't really make sense in that context. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Apr 25, 2012, at 1:40 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > There's no such thing as "proper controls" in an EEG study on hand- > > picked subjects. > > The subjects in many of the Pure Consciousness studies were > > selected because they were self-reporting regular periods of Pure > > Consciousness > > > What you meant to say is "they didn't use any" because they wanted to > "handpick their results". It's meaningless to test EEG without EEG > controls. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
> > ...referring to someone's professional > > work as a "steaming pile of turds" isn't > > very compassionate. I thought you were > > Buddhist. > > Vaj: > I was being compassionate, believe me. > Well, I think Lawson has pretty much proved his point about research on TM. You didn't cite anyone or any research at all to prove your point about Buddhist meditation. The problem is, Vaj, has got no credibility here, since it's well known that he is biased against MMY. Every claim made by researchers into 'Buddhist' meditation would tend to prove the efficacy of TM practice, not disprove it. In reality there is no 'Buddhist' meditation - it's just meditation based on the ancient yoga tradition of India, which existed long before the advent of the historical Buddha. So, I think I'll take the word of Dr. Alan Wallace and Dr. Robert K. Wallace, over an E.R. doctor on Wikileaks who never learned TM or did any original research of his own. According to B. Alan Wallace: "He proposes that the nature of consciousness can most deeply be studied from a first-person perspective, and not be limited to the third-person methodologies of psychology and cognitive neuroscience." Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._Alan_Wallace 'Contemplative Science' by B. Alan_Wallace Where Buddhism and Neuroscience Converge Columbia Series in Science and Religion Columbia University Press, 2009 Amazon: http://tinyurl.com/8y94e7h
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
On Apr 25, 2012, at 1:40 PM, sparaig wrote: There's no such thing as "proper controls" in an EEG study on hand- picked subjects. The subjects in many of the Pure Consciousness studies were selected because they were self-reporting regular periods of Pure Consciousness What you meant to say is "they didn't use any" because they wanted to "handpick their results". It's meaningless to test EEG without EEG controls.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Apr 24, 2012, at 4:37 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > [...] > > > > > > You were the one who settled for "witnessing 24/7" as > > > a significator of enlightenment (CC), or even the > > > beginnings of it. I do not. I have higher standards. > > > I was merely reminding you that Maharishi did, too. > > > > What higher standard did MMY have for the beginnings of CC? > > > He believed for one that one would remain conscious of > one's environment while still fast asleep. This isn't really > from M. though, it's a traditional well known criteria for > yogic sleep which dawns as awareness expands beyond the three > spheres of waking, dreaming and sleeping. Because he believed > this, they invented an experiment whereby special glasses would > flash while the CC'er slept and the awake one would blink in > response, all the while remaining asleep. All the subjects failed. Well this is an interesting form of reasoning, no? "He believed P" "But he didn't really believe P" "Because he believed P..."
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
On Apr 25, 2012, at 1:41 PM, sparaig wrote: Only in your own mind. BTW, referring to someone's professional work as a "steaming pile of turds" isn't very compassionate. I thought you were Buddhist. I was being compassionate, believe me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Apr 25, 2012, at 5:11 AM, sparaig wrote: > > > Sigh. Unc, all you're doing is taking sides. Vaj says "you never > > show any research... no don't bother." > > > Actually you've showed this steaming pile of turds before. Thanks for > showing it again. It's all been refuted. Before. > Only in your own mind. BTW, referring to someone's professional work as a "steaming pile of turds" isn't very compassionate. I thought you were Buddhist. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
There's no such thing as "proper controls" in an EEG study on hand-picked subjects. The subjects in many of the Pure Consciousness studies were selected because they were self-reporting regular periods of Pure Consciousness. L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > We've discussed these before, it's nothing new. Since they've never > ever come close to showing this magical "pure consciousness" exists > most of this is moot! As the Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness > points out these pure consciousness claims are best seen as > metaphysical assertions. Since the earlier research failed to find > anything significant and independent researchers were able to find > that the EEG is the same as other relaxation techniques you would > have thought these people would have taken another tack on their > "pure con"! The most damning thing is that is already known is that > when independent researchers used proper controls in EEG on TMers, > there was nothing special going on at all. It's the same as someone > relaxing. So it sounds like someone needs to show these guys how to > stop designing poor studies. > > > On Apr 25, 2012, at 4:28 AM, sparaig wrote: > > > Thing is, Unc, I've cited it many times. Vaj just ignores it. > > > > Research on the physiological correlates of pure consciousness > > found during TM practice: > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7045911 > > Breath suspension during the transcendental meditation technique. > > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10512549 > > Pure consciousness: distinct phenomenological and physiological > > correlates of "consciousness itself". > > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9009807 > > Autonomic patterns during respiratory suspensions: possible markers > > of Transcendental Consciousness. > > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10487785 > > Autonomic and EEG patterns during eyes-closed rest and > > transcendental meditation (TM) practice: the basis for a neural > > model of TM practice. > > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19862565 > > A self-referential default brain state: patterns of coherence, > > power, and eLORETA sources during eyes-closed rest and > > Transcendental Meditation practice. > > > > Research on the physiological correlates of the stabilization of > > pure consciousness outside of meditation in long-term TM meditators: > > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12406612 > > Patterns of EEG coherence, power, and contingent negative variation > > characterize the integration of transcendental and waking states. > > > > http://www.tm.org/american-psychological-association > > Abstract for the 2007 Conference of the American Psychological > > Association > > Brain Integration Scale: Corroborating Language-based � > > ��Instruments of Post-conventional Development > > > > Research on the physiological correlates of the stabilization of > > pure consciousness outside of meditation in non-meditators: > > > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./j.1600-0838.2009.01007.x/ > > full > > Higher psycho-physiological refinement in world-class Norwegian > > athletes: brain measures of performance capacity > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > "If you won't list the papers, I won't respond. If you do > > > > list the papers I won't respond." > > > > > > Why is it so important to you that Vaj "respond?" > > > > > > He *does* have a point that you keep talking about > > > "newer research" that you never define. Seems to me > > > that if you wanted to call people's attention to that > > > research, you could cite and describe it, whether Vaj > > > chooses to respond or not. > > > > > > In other words, you keep harping on the supposed > > > fact that comparative studies that were...uh... > > > not impressed with TM ignored research after 1980. > > > But you *also* ignore this research, in that you > > > don't cite it. You just talk about its existence, > > > in the same way that Joe McCarthy used to wave a > > > blank piece of paper around and say, "I have in my > > > hand a list of 432 communists who work in the U.S. > > > government." He never had to produce the "list," > > > only claim it existed. So far, you seem to be in > > > the same ballpark. > > > > > > Yours and Judy's replies seem to be all about *whether > > > you can get Vaj to argue with you*. It's pretty clear > > > that THAT is your goal, *not* any critical examination > > > of the supposed research itself. Just sayin'. I don't > > > see any harm in listing these studies that you feel > > > critics are missing, do you? > > > > > > And, since you know in advance that most here are not > > > going to read them because...uh...they have lives, > > > and they're not as heavily into the "gotta defend TM" > > > thang as you are, why don't you synopsize what you > > > feel are the most sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
> > Vaj takes a stance where he uses derogatory terms > > turquoiseb: > OF COURSE I ignore his rhetoric. I have nothing to > "prove" one way or another... > Well, that's a thought-stopper!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
> > Vaj takes a stance where he uses derogatory terms > > turquoiseb: > OF COURSE I ignore his rhetoric. I have nothing to > "prove" one way or another... > Well, that's a thought-stopper!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
On Apr 25, 2012, at 9:34 AM, marekreavis wrote: I was aware of Swami Rama's demonstrations at the Menninger Institute in Topeka, but understood that he was able to produce theta waves that were associated with sleep but still remain aware of what the researchers were doing and saying around him as he produced those brainwaves for short period, rather than actually observed asleep and later tested for recall of events while asleep. Nevertheless, pretty accomplished behavior. And "certain types" of yogic sleep you mention, thoses are cultivated, specialized states rather than normal sleep with awareness unabated, right? No, while you do see them in many different yogic schools, the techniques themselves are pretty similar. Any tradition that claims to develop awareness all the time will have them. For example in the Shankaracharya tradition, there were sleep yogas from the Gaudapada school which helped develop a panoramic awareness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
I was aware of Swami Rama's demonstrations at the Menninger Institute in Topeka, but understood that he was able to produce theta waves that were associated with sleep but still remain aware of what the researchers were doing and saying around him as he produced those brainwaves for short period, rather than actually observed asleep and later tested for recall of events while asleep. Nevertheless, pretty accomplished behavior. And "certain types" of yogic sleep you mention, thoses are cultivated, specialized states rather than normal sleep with awareness unabated, right? *** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Apr 24, 2012, at 8:28 PM, marekreavis wrote: > > > *** > > This is a new concept for me. It was never my understanding that "not > > losing awareness in sleep", as referenced by Maharishi and the TMO, meant > > remaining "aware of sensory data" or "awareness of events through > > mechanisms outside the physical senses". > > Probably the most famous demonstration of this was Swami Rama, as he wired up > at the Menninger Institute in Kansas and voluntarily went in deep sleep while > listening to everything that went on in the room. Much to the shock of the > researchers who talked and walked around while he was sleeping, as he told > then the details of what went on and what was said. > > > Is it your belief or experience that this occurs? And quite possibly I > > don't understand your assertion. It would seem that for all persons, > > whether "realized" or not, during sleep the sensory apparatus is > > disengaged, so any stimulus normally appreciated by a sense organ would not > > be experienced. Is your belief that the senses remain active for an > > "enlightened" individual even if asleep? > > In certain styles of yogic sleep, yes the person is aware of their > surroundings as they sleep. Maharishi tried to actually test this at MIU - > one subject in particular (who's been on this list). I still have the press > blurb on it somewhere. > > > Or is there some sort of "super sensory" awareness that comes online with > > "enlightenment" that retrieves normal sensory data but without the > > intermediate mechanism of the sense organs? If that is the case, are there > > limits to that faculty's range? > > It's part of the simultaneity that comes with samadhi. Instead of having to > take in sensory data in linear snips, one can kind of "parallel process" > rather than serial processing. Once one has access to the "deaths" that > separate waking, dreaming or sleeping, a lot becomes possible that wasn't > before. > > > > > Thanks for any reply. Like I said, this is a brand new concept for me. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
On Apr 25, 2012, at 5:22 AM, turquoiseb wrote: So you admit that your only point in this is to prove Vaj and these other researchers wrong. NOT to say anything positive about TM. That was my whole point. We've discussed this before, the reasons it's BS has been explained to Lawson many times before. He never hears why this is so and just parrots the same old memorized lines. Lawson has OCD. He's obsessed with these bad studies. We're likely not going to change that - it's just his illness talking, likely exacerbated by TM addiction.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
On Apr 25, 2012, at 5:11 AM, sparaig wrote: Sigh. Unc, all you're doing is taking sides. Vaj says "you never show any research... no don't bother." Actually you've showed this steaming pile of turds before. Thanks for showing it again. It's all been refuted. Before.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
We've discussed these before, it's nothing new. Since they've never ever come close to showing this magical "pure consciousness" exists most of this is moot! As the Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness points out these pure consciousness claims are best seen as metaphysical assertions. Since the earlier research failed to find anything significant and independent researchers were able to find that the EEG is the same as other relaxation techniques you would have thought these people would have taken another tack on their "pure con"! The most damning thing is that is already known is that when independent researchers used proper controls in EEG on TMers, there was nothing special going on at all. It's the same as someone relaxing. So it sounds like someone needs to show these guys how to stop designing poor studies. On Apr 25, 2012, at 4:28 AM, sparaig wrote: Thing is, Unc, I've cited it many times. Vaj just ignores it. Research on the physiological correlates of pure consciousness found during TM practice: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7045911 Breath suspension during the transcendental meditation technique. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10512549 Pure consciousness: distinct phenomenological and physiological correlates of "consciousness itself". http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9009807 Autonomic patterns during respiratory suspensions: possible markers of Transcendental Consciousness. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10487785 Autonomic and EEG patterns during eyes-closed rest and transcendental meditation (TM) practice: the basis for a neural model of TM practice. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19862565 A self-referential default brain state: patterns of coherence, power, and eLORETA sources during eyes-closed rest and Transcendental Meditation practice. Research on the physiological correlates of the stabilization of pure consciousness outside of meditation in long-term TM meditators: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12406612 Patterns of EEG coherence, power, and contingent negative variation characterize the integration of transcendental and waking states. http://www.tm.org/american-psychological-association Abstract for the 2007 Conference of the American Psychological Association Brain Integration Scale: Corroborating Language-based â €¨Instruments of Post-conventional Development Research on the physiological correlates of the stabilization of pure consciousness outside of meditation in non-meditators: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./j.1600-0838.2009.01007.x/ full Higher psycho-physiological refinement in world-class Norwegian athletes: brain measures of performance capacity --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > "If you won't list the papers, I won't respond. If you do > > list the papers I won't respond." > > Why is it so important to you that Vaj "respond?" > > He *does* have a point that you keep talking about > "newer research" that you never define. Seems to me > that if you wanted to call people's attention to that > research, you could cite and describe it, whether Vaj > chooses to respond or not. > > In other words, you keep harping on the supposed > fact that comparative studies that were...uh... > not impressed with TM ignored research after 1980. > But you *also* ignore this research, in that you > don't cite it. You just talk about its existence, > in the same way that Joe McCarthy used to wave a > blank piece of paper around and say, "I have in my > hand a list of 432 communists who work in the U.S. > government." He never had to produce the "list," > only claim it existed. So far, you seem to be in > the same ballpark. > > Yours and Judy's replies seem to be all about *whether > you can get Vaj to argue with you*. It's pretty clear > that THAT is your goal, *not* any critical examination > of the supposed research itself. Just sayin'. I don't > see any harm in listing these studies that you feel > critics are missing, do you? > > And, since you know in advance that most here are not > going to read them because...uh...they have lives, > and they're not as heavily into the "gotta defend TM" > thang as you are, why don't you synopsize what you > feel are the most salient points of this "newer > research." Then people could get a feel for whether > you are waving a blank piece of paper or one with > writing on it. > > What Vaj does or doesn't do isn't the issue. If you > are trying to establish that you have credibility and > he doesn't, I'm just pointing out that you haven't > accomplished that. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 24, 2012, at 9:00 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > > > I am speaking words and you are hearing different ones. > > > > > > > > THe most interesting research on TM has all been published > > > > since 1980. If evaluations of the "signific
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
On Apr 24, 2012, at 9:30 PM, sparaig wrote: "If you won't list the papers, I won't respond. If you do list the papers I won't respond." I'm just saying don't waste your time unless it's something new - I've heard it all before.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > Sigh... > > Vaj takes a stance where he uses derogatory terms (sometimes > going beyond insulting to the point of genuine libel) when > describing TM researchers and you ignore his rhetoric. OF COURSE I ignore his rhetoric. I have nothing to "prove" one way or another. If you're asking whether I'm aware that Vaj has a significant bias in the things he says, OF COURSE I am. But that doesn't push my buttons. It DOES push yours. THAT has been my point in this exchange of posts with you this morning. You're being played. You've been suckered (by Vaj, through his use of language, but also by Judy, who just wants another "pile on Vaj" minion in play) to over-react emotionally to what he says about TM and TM research, and play "shoot the messenger." > I point out that Vaj ignores everything that has been > published in the past 30 years, and you accuse me of trying > to "score points." OF COURSE you're trying to "score points." Duh. I am amazed that you would even try to deny it. > Well, yes, since my original statement was to counter Vaj's > claims, that's all I'm trying to do is "score points" > -points that counter Vaj's claims. But you're missing MY point. You've been suckered -- by Vaj, but also by Judy, who wants this kind of "get Vaj" mentality to proliferate -- into trotting out the classic TMO mentality and trying to "shoot the messenger." Do you actually BELIEVE that anyone sees this behavior and *doesn't* see the desperation and reactiveness that underlies it? My point, Lawson, is that YOU might have some positive things to say -- about TM, about this research, about TM's supposed efficacy. But you've *settled* for trying to "counter Vaj" or "score points on Vaj" or "get Vaj." That's what Judy does, and I suspect that by now even you have understood that very few are impressed by her act, or see it as anything but the vindictive bitchiness it is. YOU could offer more. But you don't. > I have no intent to educate you or Vaj or anyone else on > what the latest research says when I merely assert that > Vaj is wrong to ignore the latest research. That's what I just said. Your "defend TM" posture is just that, a posture. You don't really care about promoting TM or correcting any possible misconceptions about it or the research into it. All you care about is "getting Vaj," because he's w-w-w-wrong. > You seem unable to accept this as a valid stance to take > in this sub-thread: I see it as rather sad, and a waste of a good mind -- yours. > I don't care what Vaj believes or what you believe. I was > merely setting the record straight... Meaning "prove Vaj wrong." > ...concerning what Vaj has asserted about the past 30 years > of TM research: it DOES exist and is being ignored by the > researchers that Vaj likes to cite. And you STILL haven't done a very good job of this. All that you *have* done is to post a few URLs that no one here will ever click on, *because they aren't as over- emotionally invested in either 'protecting TM' or 'getting Vaj' as you are*. > Ironically, people like Fred Travis do NOT ignore the latest > research on other meditation techniques. And so what? He's actually trying to do some research. All you're trying to do -- by your own admission -- is "prove Vaj wrong." Big difference. I'm trying to point out, Lawson, that either your meds are slipping or Judy has managed to suck you back into her eternal quest to "get Vaj." You're engaged in a "get Vaj" fest here. What you are NOT engaged in is anything positive, anything that could provide people with any real and useful information about TM. Above you have said as much yourself. Your only interest in this is proving Vaj (and these other researchers) wrong. You have no interest in presenting -- and in a readable, interesting fashion -- what you think is right. I think that's sad, and a waste of a good mind. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > Sigh. Unc, all you're doing is taking sides. Vaj says "you > > > never show any research... no don't bother." > > > > > > Then, I show the research and you say: "but you didn't pre- > > > digest it for us." > > > > > > I don't have to pre-digest it for you OR Vaj. The fact that > > > EEG research exists that was published 30 years AFTER the > > > comments that Vaj cites to prove he doesn't need to look at > > > new research is all that is needed to prove MY point: Vaj > > > (and the people he likes) ignore the past 30 years of TM > > > research. > > > > So you admit that your only point in this is to prove > > Vaj and these other researchers wrong. NOT to say anything > > positive about TM. > > > > That was my whole point. > > > > > You then proceed to defend Vaj's stance as though he's made > > > some kind of valid argument. > > > > I did nothing of the kind. I said *nothin
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
Sigh... Vaj takes a stance where he uses derogatory terms (sometimes going beyond insulting to the point of genuine libel) when describing TM researchers and you ignore his rhetoric. I point out that Vaj ignores everything that has been published in the past 30 years, and you accuse me of trying to "score points." Well, yes, since my original statement was to counter Vaj's claims, that's all I'm trying to do is "score points" -points that counter Vaj's claims. I have no intent to educate you or Vaj or anyone else on what the latest research says when I merely assert that Vaj is wrong to ignore the latest research. You seem unable to accept this as a valid stance to take in this sub-thread: I don't care what Vaj believes or what you believe. I was merely setting the record straight concerning what Vaj has asserted about the past 30 years of TM research: it DOES exist and is being ignored by the researchers that Vaj likes to cite. Ironically, people like Fred Travis do NOT ignore the latest research on other meditation techniques. L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > Sigh. Unc, all you're doing is taking sides. Vaj says "you > > never show any research... no don't bother." > > > > Then, I show the research and you say: "but you didn't pre- > > digest it for us." > > > > I don't have to pre-digest it for you OR Vaj. The fact that > > EEG research exists that was published 30 years AFTER the > > comments that Vaj cites to prove he doesn't need to look at > > new research is all that is needed to prove MY point: Vaj > > (and the people he likes) ignore the past 30 years of TM > > research. > > So you admit that your only point in this is to prove > Vaj and these other researchers wrong. NOT to say anything > positive about TM. > > That was my whole point. > > > You then proceed to defend Vaj's stance as though he's made > > some kind of valid argument. > > I did nothing of the kind. I said *nothing* about that. > I criticized what *you* were doing, and hypothesized > the reasons why I thought you were doing it. You have > just confirmed that hypothesis. You didn't really care > about presenting the data from the research you cite > as a way of making a case for the efficacy of TM; you > cared about presenting it only as a way to "get Vaj." > > > It's not valid Unc. You either know it's not valid, and > > are every bit as deceitful as Judy claims you are, or > > are just plain stupid. > > Would you care to look back over my posts this morning > and reread what I suggested was the intent of "defender" > posts like yours and Judy's? I think I suggested that > your real motivation was to try to portray TM critics > as deceitful and stupid. Now you've done just that. > And *I* am the one who is stupid? :-) > > I think I've made my point (with your help). I don't > believe for a moment that you actually care about pre- > senting any of this research for the benefit of those > wanting to learn more about TM and why it might be good > for them. I believe that you have confirmed that your > only real motivation is to "get Vaj." And now me. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > Thing is, Unc, I've cited it many times. Vaj just ignores it. > > > > > > Seems to me that's his right. > > > > > > I'm going to ignore it, too, because what you posted > > > *conveys no information*. It is a series of pointers > > > to things that *you* feel are meaningful, but you > > > haven't bothered to "do the work" to describe them, > > > and why it might be worth someone else's time to > > > examine them. > > > > > > Pick one or two of these studies that you feel are > > > most important, and tell us WHY you think that. As > > > it stands, you *have to know* that no one on this > > > forum is going to click on any of the links provided, > > > given one sentence from the Abstract and a URL. > > > > > > And why should they? YOU are the one with a bug up > > > your butt about "proving" TM's efficacy. Most of the > > > rest of us don't give a shit. If you want to make the > > > case that some of this research makes a clear case > > > for TM's value, describe that case and describe that > > > value, in terms that might make a lay person inter- > > > ested enough to read more. > > > > > > As it is, you provided a list that does not entice > > > me to read *any* of it, and then used that list as > > > the basis of a Vaj putdown: "He just ignores it." > > > Well, so did I. So will almost everyone here on this > > > forum. > > > > > > And WHY? Because you didn't "do the work" to make any > > > of this sound interesting enough to us to want to read > > > more. You used it only to bash Vaj. > > > > > > > Research on the physiological correlates of pure consciousness found > > > > during TM prac
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > Sigh. Unc, all you're doing is taking sides. Vaj says "you > never show any research... no don't bother." > > Then, I show the research and you say: "but you didn't pre- > digest it for us." > > I don't have to pre-digest it for you OR Vaj. The fact that > EEG research exists that was published 30 years AFTER the > comments that Vaj cites to prove he doesn't need to look at > new research is all that is needed to prove MY point: Vaj > (and the people he likes) ignore the past 30 years of TM > research. So you admit that your only point in this is to prove Vaj and these other researchers wrong. NOT to say anything positive about TM. That was my whole point. > You then proceed to defend Vaj's stance as though he's made > some kind of valid argument. I did nothing of the kind. I said *nothing* about that. I criticized what *you* were doing, and hypothesized the reasons why I thought you were doing it. You have just confirmed that hypothesis. You didn't really care about presenting the data from the research you cite as a way of making a case for the efficacy of TM; you cared about presenting it only as a way to "get Vaj." > It's not valid Unc. You either know it's not valid, and > are every bit as deceitful as Judy claims you are, or > are just plain stupid. Would you care to look back over my posts this morning and reread what I suggested was the intent of "defender" posts like yours and Judy's? I think I suggested that your real motivation was to try to portray TM critics as deceitful and stupid. Now you've done just that. And *I* am the one who is stupid? :-) I think I've made my point (with your help). I don't believe for a moment that you actually care about pre- senting any of this research for the benefit of those wanting to learn more about TM and why it might be good for them. I believe that you have confirmed that your only real motivation is to "get Vaj." And now me. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > Thing is, Unc, I've cited it many times. Vaj just ignores it. > > > > Seems to me that's his right. > > > > I'm going to ignore it, too, because what you posted > > *conveys no information*. It is a series of pointers > > to things that *you* feel are meaningful, but you > > haven't bothered to "do the work" to describe them, > > and why it might be worth someone else's time to > > examine them. > > > > Pick one or two of these studies that you feel are > > most important, and tell us WHY you think that. As > > it stands, you *have to know* that no one on this > > forum is going to click on any of the links provided, > > given one sentence from the Abstract and a URL. > > > > And why should they? YOU are the one with a bug up > > your butt about "proving" TM's efficacy. Most of the > > rest of us don't give a shit. If you want to make the > > case that some of this research makes a clear case > > for TM's value, describe that case and describe that > > value, in terms that might make a lay person inter- > > ested enough to read more. > > > > As it is, you provided a list that does not entice > > me to read *any* of it, and then used that list as > > the basis of a Vaj putdown: "He just ignores it." > > Well, so did I. So will almost everyone here on this > > forum. > > > > And WHY? Because you didn't "do the work" to make any > > of this sound interesting enough to us to want to read > > more. You used it only to bash Vaj. > > > > > Research on the physiological correlates of pure consciousness found > > > during TM practice: > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7045911 > > > Breath suspension during the transcendental meditation technique. > > > > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10512549 > > > Pure consciousness: distinct phenomenological and physiological > > > correlates of "consciousness itself". > > > > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9009807 > > > Autonomic patterns during respiratory suspensions: possible markers of > > > Transcendental Consciousness. > > > > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10487785 > > > Autonomic and EEG patterns during eyes-closed rest and transcendental > > > meditation (TM) practice: the basis for a neural model of TM practice. > > > > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19862565 > > > A self-referential default brain state: patterns of coherence, power, and > > > eLORETA sources during eyes-closed rest and Transcendental Meditation > > > practice. > > > > > > Research on the physiological correlates of the stabilization of pure > > > consciousness outside of meditation in long-term TM meditators: > > > > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12406612 > > > Patterns of EEG coherence, power, and contingent negative variation > > > characterize the integration of transcendental and waking states. > > > > > > http://www.tm
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
Sigh. Unc, all you're doing is taking sides. Vaj says "you never show any research... no don't bother." Then, I show the research and you say: "but you didn't pre-digest it for us." I don't have to pre-digest it for you OR Vaj. The fact that EEG research exists that was published 30 years AFTER the comments that Vaj cites to prove he doesn't need to look at new research is all that is needed to prove MY point: Vaj (and the people he likes) ignore the past 30 years of TM research. You then proceed to defend Vaj's stance as though he's made some kind of valid argument. It's not valid Unc. You either know it's not valid, and are every bit as deceitful as Judy claims you are, or are just plain stupid. L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > Thing is, Unc, I've cited it many times. Vaj just ignores it. > > Seems to me that's his right. > > I'm going to ignore it, too, because what you posted > *conveys no information*. It is a series of pointers > to things that *you* feel are meaningful, but you > haven't bothered to "do the work" to describe them, > and why it might be worth someone else's time to > examine them. > > Pick one or two of these studies that you feel are > most important, and tell us WHY you think that. As > it stands, you *have to know* that no one on this > forum is going to click on any of the links provided, > given one sentence from the Abstract and a URL. > > And why should they? YOU are the one with a bug up > your butt about "proving" TM's efficacy. Most of the > rest of us don't give a shit. If you want to make the > case that some of this research makes a clear case > for TM's value, describe that case and describe that > value, in terms that might make a lay person inter- > ested enough to read more. > > As it is, you provided a list that does not entice > me to read *any* of it, and then used that list as > the basis of a Vaj putdown: "He just ignores it." > Well, so did I. So will almost everyone here on this > forum. > > And WHY? Because you didn't "do the work" to make any > of this sound interesting enough to us to want to read > more. You used it only to bash Vaj. > > > Research on the physiological correlates of pure consciousness found during > > TM practice: > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7045911 > > Breath suspension during the transcendental meditation technique. > > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10512549 > > Pure consciousness: distinct phenomenological and physiological correlates > > of "consciousness itself". > > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9009807 > > Autonomic patterns during respiratory suspensions: possible markers of > > Transcendental Consciousness. > > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10487785 > > Autonomic and EEG patterns during eyes-closed rest and transcendental > > meditation (TM) practice: the basis for a neural model of TM practice. > > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19862565 > > A self-referential default brain state: patterns of coherence, power, and > > eLORETA sources during eyes-closed rest and Transcendental Meditation > > practice. > > > > Research on the physiological correlates of the stabilization of pure > > consciousness outside of meditation in long-term TM meditators: > > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12406612 > > Patterns of EEG coherence, power, and contingent negative variation > > characterize the integration of transcendental and waking states. > > > > http://www.tm.org/american-psychological-association > > Abstract for the 2007 Conference of the American Psychological Association > > Brain Integration Scale: Corroborating Language-based â¨Instruments of > > Post-conventional Development > > > > Research on the physiological correlates of the stabilization of pure > > consciousness outside of meditation in non-meditators: > > > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./j.1600-0838.2009.01007.x/full > > Higher psycho-physiological refinement in world-class Norwegian athletes: > > brain measures of performance capacity > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > "If you won't list the papers, I won't respond. If you do > > > > list the papers I won't respond." > > > > > > Why is it so important to you that Vaj "respond?" > > > > > > He *does* have a point that you keep talking about > > > "newer research" that you never define. Seems to me > > > that if you wanted to call people's attention to that > > > research, you could cite and describe it, whether Vaj > > > chooses to respond or not. > > > > > > In other words, you keep harping on the supposed > > > fact that comparative studies that were...uh... > > > not impressed with TM ignored research after 1980. > > > But you *also* ignore this research, in that you > > > do
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > Thing is, Unc, I've cited it many times. Vaj just ignores it. Seems to me that's his right. I'm going to ignore it, too, because what you posted *conveys no information*. It is a series of pointers to things that *you* feel are meaningful, but you haven't bothered to "do the work" to describe them, and why it might be worth someone else's time to examine them. Pick one or two of these studies that you feel are most important, and tell us WHY you think that. As it stands, you *have to know* that no one on this forum is going to click on any of the links provided, given one sentence from the Abstract and a URL. And why should they? YOU are the one with a bug up your butt about "proving" TM's efficacy. Most of the rest of us don't give a shit. If you want to make the case that some of this research makes a clear case for TM's value, describe that case and describe that value, in terms that might make a lay person inter- ested enough to read more. As it is, you provided a list that does not entice me to read *any* of it, and then used that list as the basis of a Vaj putdown: "He just ignores it." Well, so did I. So will almost everyone here on this forum. And WHY? Because you didn't "do the work" to make any of this sound interesting enough to us to want to read more. You used it only to bash Vaj. > Research on the physiological correlates of pure consciousness found during > TM practice: > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7045911 > Breath suspension during the transcendental meditation technique. > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10512549 > Pure consciousness: distinct phenomenological and physiological correlates of > "consciousness itself". > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9009807 > Autonomic patterns during respiratory suspensions: possible markers of > Transcendental Consciousness. > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10487785 > Autonomic and EEG patterns during eyes-closed rest and transcendental > meditation (TM) practice: the basis for a neural model of TM practice. > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19862565 > A self-referential default brain state: patterns of coherence, power, and > eLORETA sources during eyes-closed rest and Transcendental Meditation > practice. > > Research on the physiological correlates of the stabilization of pure > consciousness outside of meditation in long-term TM meditators: > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12406612 > Patterns of EEG coherence, power, and contingent negative variation > characterize the integration of transcendental and waking states. > > http://www.tm.org/american-psychological-association > Abstract for the 2007 Conference of the American Psychological Association > Brain Integration Scale: Corroborating Language-based â¨Instruments of > Post-conventional Development > > Research on the physiological correlates of the stabilization of pure > consciousness outside of meditation in non-meditators: > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./j.1600-0838.2009.01007.x/full > Higher psycho-physiological refinement in world-class Norwegian athletes: > brain measures of performance capacity > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > "If you won't list the papers, I won't respond. If you do > > > list the papers I won't respond." > > > > Why is it so important to you that Vaj "respond?" > > > > He *does* have a point that you keep talking about > > "newer research" that you never define. Seems to me > > that if you wanted to call people's attention to that > > research, you could cite and describe it, whether Vaj > > chooses to respond or not. > > > > In other words, you keep harping on the supposed > > fact that comparative studies that were...uh... > > not impressed with TM ignored research after 1980. > > But you *also* ignore this research, in that you > > don't cite it. You just talk about its existence, > > in the same way that Joe McCarthy used to wave a > > blank piece of paper around and say, "I have in my > > hand a list of 432 communists who work in the U.S. > > government." He never had to produce the "list," > > only claim it existed. So far, you seem to be in > > the same ballpark. > > > > Yours and Judy's replies seem to be all about *whether > > you can get Vaj to argue with you*. It's pretty clear > > that THAT is your goal, *not* any critical examination > > of the supposed research itself. Just sayin'. I don't > > see any harm in listing these studies that you feel > > critics are missing, do you? > > > > And, since you know in advance that most here are not > > going to read them because...uh...they have lives, > > and they're not as heavily into the "gotta defend TM" > > thang as you are, why don't you synopsize what you > > feel are the most salient points of this "newer > > research." Then peo
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > "If you won't list the papers, I won't respond. If you do > > list the papers I won't respond." > > Why is it so important to you that Vaj "respond?" > > He *does* have a point that you keep talking about > "newer research" that you never define. Seems to me > that if you wanted to call people's attention to that > research, you could cite and describe it, whether Vaj > chooses to respond or not. > > In other words, you keep harping on the supposed > fact that comparative studies that were...uh... > not impressed with TM ignored research after 1980. > But you *also* ignore this research, in that you > don't cite it. You just talk about its existence, > in the same way that Joe McCarthy used to wave a > blank piece of paper around and say, "I have in my > hand a list of 432 communists who work in the U.S. > government." He never had to produce the "list," > only claim it existed. So far, you seem to be in > the same ballpark. > > Yours and Judy's replies seem to be all about *whether > you can get Vaj to argue with you*. It's pretty clear > that THAT is your goal, *not* any critical examination > of the supposed research itself. Just sayin'. I don't > see any harm in listing these studies that you feel > critics are missing, do you? > > And, since you know in advance that most here are not > going to read them because...uh...they have lives, > and they're not as heavily into the "gotta defend TM" > thang as you are, why don't you synopsize what you > feel are the most salient points of this "newer > research." Then people could get a feel for whether > you are waving a blank piece of paper or one with > writing on it. > > What Vaj does or doesn't do isn't the issue. If you > are trying to establish that you have credibility and > he doesn't, I'm just pointing out that you haven't > accomplished that. Lawson, to clarify again, I'm not trying to give you a hard time, merely to point out what I see as a trend on this forum, and in the TMO itself. That is, that "defenders of the faith" seem more interested in draw- ing critics into head-to-head arguments than they are in establishing any supposed "facts." Their purpose or intent seems to be *the arguments themselves*, driven by the belief that if they can get critics to argue with them, they can then try to erode the critics' credibility by portraying them as stupid or liars or whatever. That is *certainly* Judy's M.O., and has been for 18 years. I am hoping that it is not yours as well. It seems to me that a better case could be made for the efficacy of TM by merely stating the facts, and allowing "lurkers" or bystanders to make their own decisions. Trying to "lead" them into discounting what a critic says by practicing character assassin- ation against them kinda hints to me at a level of desperation in the "defenders," not a sense of surety or faith. We're talking about research here. Cite the research, explain or spin it however you want, and then allow it to stand on its own. Or not. That would be the scientific thing to do. In my opinion, NO ONE HERE has any more credibility than anyone else. FFL is composed of typewritten words in cyberspace, typed for the most part by people we've never met. Some would like to *pretend* that they have more credibility than others, but it isn't true. Berating Vaj for not wanting to get sucked into Yet Another Infinite Argument that he *knows the purpose of* from long experience (to attempt to undermine his credibility and portray him as somehow possessed of evil intent) ain't really scoring you any points. All it points out is that you (and Judy) are frus- trated that so few critics these days are willing to be sucked into that silly game. If what you want to do is make a case for TM being a Good Thing, MAKE THAT CASE. Trying over and over and over and over to make the case that the critics are somehow bad people does NOT make that case. It only makes the case that as "TM defenders" you're more than willing to use that sad and desperate strategy. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 24, 2012, at 9:00 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > > > I am speaking words and you are hearing different ones. > > > > > > > > THe most interesting research on TM has all been published > > > > since 1980. If evaluations of the "significance" of EEG > > > > results during TM don't look at the papers published in > > > > the last 30+ years, well, it is obvious that they are > > > > based on 30 year old research, now isn't it? > > > > > > If you're speaking of some new research I haven't heard > > > of then, maybe. But unless you clearly list titles of > > > papers then how the hell am I supposed to know what your > > > foggy allusions are referring to? I'm not asking you > > > to list them - I'm really not that interested. Relaxation > > > response me
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
Thing is, Unc, I've cited it many times. Vaj just ignores it. Research on the physiological correlates of pure consciousness found during TM practice: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7045911 Breath suspension during the transcendental meditation technique. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10512549 Pure consciousness: distinct phenomenological and physiological correlates of "consciousness itself". http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9009807 Autonomic patterns during respiratory suspensions: possible markers of Transcendental Consciousness. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10487785 Autonomic and EEG patterns during eyes-closed rest and transcendental meditation (TM) practice: the basis for a neural model of TM practice. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19862565 A self-referential default brain state: patterns of coherence, power, and eLORETA sources during eyes-closed rest and Transcendental Meditation practice. Research on the physiological correlates of the stabilization of pure consciousness outside of meditation in long-term TM meditators: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12406612 Patterns of EEG coherence, power, and contingent negative variation characterize the integration of transcendental and waking states. http://www.tm.org/american-psychological-association Abstract for the 2007 Conference of the American Psychological Association Brain Integration Scale: Corroborating Language-based â¨Instruments of Post-conventional Development Research on the physiological correlates of the stabilization of pure consciousness outside of meditation in non-meditators: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./j.1600-0838.2009.01007.x/full Higher psycho-physiological refinement in world-class Norwegian athletes: brain measures of performance capacity --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > "If you won't list the papers, I won't respond. If you do > > list the papers I won't respond." > > Why is it so important to you that Vaj "respond?" > > He *does* have a point that you keep talking about > "newer research" that you never define. Seems to me > that if you wanted to call people's attention to that > research, you could cite and describe it, whether Vaj > chooses to respond or not. > > In other words, you keep harping on the supposed > fact that comparative studies that were...uh... > not impressed with TM ignored research after 1980. > But you *also* ignore this research, in that you > don't cite it. You just talk about its existence, > in the same way that Joe McCarthy used to wave a > blank piece of paper around and say, "I have in my > hand a list of 432 communists who work in the U.S. > government." He never had to produce the "list," > only claim it existed. So far, you seem to be in > the same ballpark. > > Yours and Judy's replies seem to be all about *whether > you can get Vaj to argue with you*. It's pretty clear > that THAT is your goal, *not* any critical examination > of the supposed research itself. Just sayin'. I don't > see any harm in listing these studies that you feel > critics are missing, do you? > > And, since you know in advance that most here are not > going to read them because...uh...they have lives, > and they're not as heavily into the "gotta defend TM" > thang as you are, why don't you synopsize what you > feel are the most salient points of this "newer > research." Then people could get a feel for whether > you are waving a blank piece of paper or one with > writing on it. > > What Vaj does or doesn't do isn't the issue. If you > are trying to establish that you have credibility and > he doesn't, I'm just pointing out that you haven't > accomplished that. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 24, 2012, at 9:00 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > > > I am speaking words and you are hearing different ones. > > > > > > > > THe most interesting research on TM has all been published > > > > since 1980. If evaluations of the "significance" of EEG > > > > results during TM don't look at the papers published in > > > > the last 30+ years, well, it is obvious that they are > > > > based on 30 year old research, now isn't it? > > > > > > If you're speaking of some new research I haven't heard > > > of then, maybe. But unless you clearly list titles of > > > papers then how the hell am I supposed to know what your > > > foggy allusions are referring to? I'm not asking you > > > to list them - I'm really not that interested. Relaxation > > > response meditation is a good thing for many people. > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > "If you won't list the papers, I won't respond. If you do > list the papers I won't respond." Why is it so important to you that Vaj "respond?" He *does* have a point that you keep talking about "newer research" that you never define. Seems to me that if you wanted to call people's attention to that research, you could cite and describe it, whether Vaj chooses to respond or not. In other words, you keep harping on the supposed fact that comparative studies that were...uh... not impressed with TM ignored research after 1980. But you *also* ignore this research, in that you don't cite it. You just talk about its existence, in the same way that Joe McCarthy used to wave a blank piece of paper around and say, "I have in my hand a list of 432 communists who work in the U.S. government." He never had to produce the "list," only claim it existed. So far, you seem to be in the same ballpark. Yours and Judy's replies seem to be all about *whether you can get Vaj to argue with you*. It's pretty clear that THAT is your goal, *not* any critical examination of the supposed research itself. Just sayin'. I don't see any harm in listing these studies that you feel critics are missing, do you? And, since you know in advance that most here are not going to read them because...uh...they have lives, and they're not as heavily into the "gotta defend TM" thang as you are, why don't you synopsize what you feel are the most salient points of this "newer research." Then people could get a feel for whether you are waving a blank piece of paper or one with writing on it. What Vaj does or doesn't do isn't the issue. If you are trying to establish that you have credibility and he doesn't, I'm just pointing out that you haven't accomplished that. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > On Apr 24, 2012, at 9:00 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > I am speaking words and you are hearing different ones. > > > > > > THe most interesting research on TM has all been published > > > since 1980. If evaluations of the "significance" of EEG > > > results during TM don't look at the papers published in > > > the last 30+ years, well, it is obvious that they are > > > based on 30 year old research, now isn't it? > > > > If you're speaking of some new research I haven't heard > > of then, maybe. But unless you clearly list titles of > > papers then how the hell am I supposed to know what your > > foggy allusions are referring to? I'm not asking you > > to list them - I'm really not that interested. Relaxation > > response meditation is a good thing for many people. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > "If you won't list the papers, I won't respond. If you do > list the papers I won't respond." The jaw drops. The mind boggles. We've seen some truly astonishing nonresponse responses from Vaj over the years, but this one tops them all. A classic attempt at cognitive-dissonance reduction. (Not to mention the inadvertent hilariousness of the phrase "foggy allusions," considering how difficult it is to elicit from Vaj documentation of his own claims.) > L. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > On Apr 24, 2012, at 9:00 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > I am speaking words and you are hearing different ones. > > > > > > THe most interesting research on TM has all been published since 1980. If > > > evaluations of the "significance" of EEG results during TM don't look at > > > the papers published in the last 30+ years, well, it is obvious that they > > > are based on 30 year old research, now isn't it? > > > > If you're speaking of some new research I haven't heard of then, maybe. But > > unless you clearly list titles of papers then how the hell am I supposed to > > know what your foggy allusions are referring to? I'm not asking you to list > > them - I'm really not that interested. Relaxation response meditation is a > > good thing for many people.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
"If you won't list the papers, I won't respond. If you do list the papers I won't respond." L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Apr 24, 2012, at 9:00 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > I am speaking words and you are hearing different ones. > > > > THe most interesting research on TM has all been published since 1980. If > > evaluations of the "significance" of EEG results during TM don't look at > > the papers published in the last 30+ years, well, it is obvious that they > > are based on 30 year old research, now isn't it? > > If you�re speaking of some new research I haven�t heard of then, maybe. > But unless you clearly list titles of papers then how the hell am I supposed > to know what your foggy allusions are referring to? I�m not asking you to > list them - I�m really not that interested. Relaxation response meditation > is a good thing for many people. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
On Apr 24, 2012, at 9:00 PM, sparaig wrote: > I am speaking words and you are hearing different ones. > > THe most interesting research on TM has all been published since 1980. If > evaluations of the "significance" of EEG results during TM don't look at the > papers published in the last 30+ years, well, it is obvious that they are > based on 30 year old research, now isn't it? If you’re speaking of some new research I haven’t heard of then, maybe. But unless you clearly list titles of papers then how the hell am I supposed to know what your foggy allusions are referring to? I’m not asking you to list them - I’m really not that interested. Relaxation response meditation is a good thing for many people.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
I am speaking words and you are hearing different ones. THe most interesting research on TM has all been published since 1980. If evaluations of the "significance" of EEG results during TM don't look at the papers published in the last 30+ years, well, it is obvious that they are based on 30 year old research, now isn't it? L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Apr 24, 2012, at 8:24 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 2012, at 6:50 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > > > Sez who? Someone citing an evaluation of TM research from 30 years ago. > > > > > > > > > Barbara Brown was the person who popularized the use of EEG in the > > > biofeedback movement. In fact, I believe she actually started the use of > > > the word biofeedback... > > > > > > > And? > > > > I was referring to your claim that the TM EEG was of no consequence. > > > > It doesn't matter who said it. What matters is what they are basing their > > evaluation on. > > > Typically they�re basing it in comparison to year of clinical experience > and years of experience measuring the greatest contemplatives in numerous > different traditions. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
On Apr 24, 2012, at 8:28 PM, marekreavis wrote: > *** > This is a new concept for me. It was never my understanding that "not losing > awareness in sleep", as referenced by Maharishi and the TMO, meant remaining > "aware of sensory data" or "awareness of events through mechanisms outside > the physical senses”. Probably the most famous demonstration of this was Swami Rama, as he wired up at the Menninger Institute in Kansas and voluntarily went in deep sleep while listening to everything that went on in the room. Much to the shock of the researchers who talked and walked around while he was sleeping, as he told then the details of what went on and what was said. > Is it your belief or experience that this occurs? And quite possibly I don't > understand your assertion. It would seem that for all persons, whether > "realized" or not, during sleep the sensory apparatus is disengaged, so any > stimulus normally appreciated by a sense organ would not be experienced. Is > your belief that the senses remain active for an "enlightened" individual > even if asleep? In certain styles of yogic sleep, yes the person is aware of their surroundings as they sleep. Maharishi tried to actually test this at MIU - one subject in particular (who’s been on this list). I still have the press blurb on it somewhere. > Or is there some sort of "super sensory" awareness that comes online with > "enlightenment" that retrieves normal sensory data but without the > intermediate mechanism of the sense organs? If that is the case, are there > limits to that faculty's range? It’s part of the simultaneity that comes with samadhi. Instead of having to take in sensory data in linear snips, one can kind of “parallel process” rather than serial processing. Once one has access to the “deaths” that separate waking, dreaming or sleeping, a lot becomes possible that wasn’t before. > > Thanks for any reply. Like I said, this is a brand new concept for me.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
On Apr 24, 2012, at 8:24 PM, sparaig wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 24, 2012, at 6:50 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > Sez who? Someone citing an evaluation of TM research from 30 years ago. > > > > > > Barbara Brown was the person who popularized the use of EEG in the > > biofeedback movement. In fact, I believe she actually started the use of > > the word biofeedback... > > > > And? > > I was referring to your claim that the TM EEG was of no consequence. > > It doesn't matter who said it. What matters is what they are basing their > evaluation on. Typically they’re basing it in comparison to year of clinical experience and years of experience measuring the greatest contemplatives in numerous different traditions.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
[Comment at the bottom.] --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Apr 24, 2012, at 4:37 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > [...] > > > > > > You were the one who settled for "witnessing 24/7" as > > > a significator of enlightenment (CC), or even the > > > beginnings of it. I do not. I have higher standards. > > > I was merely reminding you that Maharishi did, too. > > > > What higher standard did MMY have for the beginnings of CC? > > > He believed for one that one would remain conscious of one's environment > while still fast asleep. This isn't really from M. though, it's a traditional > well known criteria for yogic sleep which dawns as awareness expands beyond > the three spheres of waking, dreaming and sleeping. Because he believed this, > they invented an experiment whereby special glasses would flash while the > CC'er slept and the awake one would blink in response, all the while > remaining asleep. All the subjects failed. > *** This is a new concept for me. It was never my understanding that "not losing awareness in sleep", as referenced by Maharishi and the TMO, meant remaining "aware of sensory data" or "awareness of events through mechanisms outside the physical senses". Is it your belief or experience that this occurs? And quite possibly I don't understand your assertion. It would seem that for all persons, whether "realized" or not, during sleep the sensory apparatus is disengaged, so any stimulus normally appreciated by a sense organ would not be experienced. Is your belief that the senses remain active for an "enlightened" individual even if asleep? Or is there some sort of "super sensory" awareness that comes online with "enlightenment" that retrieves normal sensory data but without the intermediate mechanism of the sense organs? If that is the case, are there limits to that faculty's range? Thanks for any reply. Like I said, this is a brand new concept for me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Apr 24, 2012, at 6:50 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > Sez who? Someone citing an evaluation of TM research from 30 years ago. > > > Barbara Brown was the person who popularized the use of EEG in the > biofeedback movement. In fact, I believe she actually started the use of the > word biofeedback... > And? I was referring to your claim that the TM EEG was of no consequence. It doesn't matter who said it. What matters is what they are basing their evaluation on. L.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
On Apr 24, 2012, at 6:50 PM, sparaig wrote: > Sez who? Someone citing an evaluation of TM research from 30 years ago. Barbara Brown was the person who popularized the use of EEG in the biofeedback movement. In fact, I believe she actually started the use of the word biofeedback...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Apr 24, 2012, at 4:59 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > Radically coherent alpha EEG across multiple leads is "hypervigilance? > > > > You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means... > > The type of alpha coherence seen in TMers ain�t any big deal Lawson. And as > Barbara Brown once said "Concluding anything about alpha is perilous.� I > say, therefore TM research is perilous at best. Oh, and thanks Barb. ;-) > Sez who? Someone citing an evaluation of TM research from 30 years ago. And I was commenting on your term "hypervigilance" which doesn't fit anyone's description of coherent alpha EEG, including the people you like to quote. L.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
On Apr 24, 2012, at 5:30 PM, Susan wrote: > Vaj, I can't speak to the quality of the TM research, but I wonder why you > are so certain that no one doing TM is witnessing during the day and/or at > night? Witnessing is not such an unusual experience - and I am not talking > about people with sleep problems. In the strict yogic sense of the word, when awareness resides during sleep in the ananda-maya kosha, the “body of bliss illusion” it’s so deeply resting that the bodies need for sleep is greatly reduced, one awakes as if if cleaned from the inside out. And I do not hear that coming from TMers. Of course there’s also the exaggeration effect whereby whenever you say an experience is “X”, some will say “I’ve experienced “X” even if it only means they thought about it for a while. Many of the people I’ve talked to thought it was a sleep disturbance on reflection. > People who have never learned to meditate sometimes have experiences like > this that suggest that their brains are shifting toward something different > (awakening or cc or who knows what). You make it sound as if only people > doing something other than TM can possibly have witnessing. Maybe your real > argument is that no form of witnessing is good. But I believe it is a fairly > common experience of the beginnings of spiritual growth in many traditions. There’s witnessing and then there’s form of subtle mental hypervigilance masquerading as witnessing (and various other things like vata disturbances, over-meditation, etc.). I’m drawing a sharp line between the two and going with what I see and feel. > > Now to the people whose brain waves were measured in the experiment - maybe > they were in fact witnessing but the test was not looking at the correct > arrows or brain waves. Saying it proves anything is ridiculous, but denying > the reported experiences of people seems harsh - and not very scientific > either. I believe they are having experiences. IMO it’s 99.9% exaggeration - as the research shows. Just as disreputable scientists can exaggerate their findings, so too can mental meditators exaggerate and micromanage merely mental states. That just does not impress me at all. Just because someone's somewhat familiar with subtle mental states does not impress me at all. Now someone who can go beyond thought and show that profound state in their EEG’s - profound states of consciousness and equally profound scientific truths, it’s out there, that’s what grabs me. But I’m SO used to TMers exaggerating about merely mental worlds, I just don’t take the vast majority of them seriously.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
On Apr 24, 2012, at 4:59 PM, sparaig wrote: > Radically coherent alpha EEG across multiple leads is "hypervigilance? > > You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means... The type of alpha coherence seen in TMers ain’t any big deal Lawson. And as Barbara Brown once said "Concluding anything about alpha is perilous.” I say, therefore TM research is perilous at best. Oh, and thanks Barb. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Apr 24, 2012, at 4:04 PM, turquoiseb wrote: > > > Does "24/7 witnessing" constitute your definition of > > full enlightenment? I seem to remember Maharishi's > > definition of what he considered full enlightenment > > (Unity Consciousness) as, "Being able to perform > > the sidhis, especially being able to levitate." Do > > the people who "reported continuous 24/7 witnessing" > > fall into this category? > > > > If so, I should get back in touch with several people > > I've met over the years, who have been experiencing > > 24/7 witnessing since their teens, even though none > > of them have ever practiced any form of meditation. > > I want to ask them to levitate for me. > > > No, they do not. > > What they do represent is the latest TMO farce. After pretending to have > discovered "pure consciousness" in the 70's and 80's - all fraudulent > research BTW, they never came close to the EEG of samadhi, it was just New > Age relaxation stuff. > > Then they took their phony research, that independent neuroscientists said > was "exaggeration", and said "look, the circle we drew around the arrow - > there it is during sleep and waking and dreaming, we found it! Eureka!" > > But we have to be realistic here, none of these people are actually > witnessing, it's just hypervigilance and sleep problems mentally micromanaged > into awakening. Pretty sad really...but that's the latest smoke and mirrors. Vaj, I can't speak to the quality of the TM research, but I wonder why you are so certain that no one doing TM is witnessing during the day and/or at night? Witnessing is not such an unusual experience - and I am not talking about people with sleep problems. People who have never learned to meditate sometimes have experiences like this that suggest that their brains are shifting toward something different (awakening or cc or who knows what). You make it sound as if only people doing something other than TM can possibly have witnessing. Maybe your real argument is that no form of witnessing is good. But I believe it is a fairly common experience of the beginnings of spiritual growth in many traditions. Now to the people whose brain waves were measured in the experiment - maybe they were in fact witnessing but the test was not looking at the correct arrows or brain waves. Saying it proves anything is ridiculous, but denying the reported experiences of people seems harsh - and not very scientific either.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
The Kingston Trio. Nice one. This is an excellent conversation, btw. From: turquoiseb To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 1:14 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > You keep changing the goal-posts, Unc. > > Very dishonest, to join Judy in pointing fingers. > > You said "enlightened". I mentioned "witnessing 24/7" which > is how MMY defines the beginning of Cosmic Consciousness, > as you well know. Then you started talking about "full > enlightenment," "ability to perform all the sidhis," etc. > > Shame on you, Unc. You were the one who settled for "witnessing 24/7" as a significator of enlightenment (CC), or even the beginnings of it. I do not. I have higher standards. I was merely reminding you that Maharishi did, too. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > The TM movement has failed to produce even a > > > > > > single person that it can point to as "enlightened." > > > > > > > > > > You mean other than the people identified as "enlightened' > > > > > in the research published a few years ago? > > > > > > > > Please provide for us an official statement from the > > > > TM movement certifying these people as enlightened. > > > > I'll wait. > > > > > > There are no press releases, sorry. > > > > > > However, studies on individuals who reported continuous > > > witnessing 24/7 for at least year before they were tested, > > > have been published: > > > > Does "24/7 witnessing" constitute your definition of > > full enlightenment? I seem to remember Maharishi's > > definition of what he considered full enlightenment > > (Unity Consciousness) as, "Being able to perform > > the sidhis, especially being able to levitate." Do > > the people who "reported continuous 24/7 witnessing" > > fall into this category? > > > > If so, I should get back in touch with several people > > I've met over the years, who have been experiencing > > 24/7 witnessing since their teens, even though none > > of them have ever practiced any form of meditation. > > I want to ask them to levitate for me. > > > > > http://www.totalbrain.ch/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/eeg-of-enlightenment.pdf > > > > > > " The Long-term TM group (N 1⁄4 17; age 1⁄4 46.5 7.0 > > > years) had practiced TM for about 25 years (24.5 1.2 > > > years) and reported the continuous experience of pure self- > > > referral consciousness throughout daily life." > > > > So "the continuous experience of pure self-referral > > consciousness throughout daily life" -- all self- > > reported in addition to the self-referral, of course > > -- is the definition of enlightenment? > > > > Cool. So if I self-report on my self-referral to the > > right "scientists," I'll be enlightened, too. It's all > > about the outfit. > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCeelWFO56Y > > > > :-) > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > [...] > > > > I saw this whole discussion -- as well as recent > > > > discussions about the "TM science" -- as clear > > > > demonstrations of one of the wise sayings Rick > > > > placed on the FFL home page. That is, an exercise > > > > in the "will to believe," as opposed to the "wish > > > > to find out." > > > > > > > > > > But perhaps it goes both ways... > > > > > > > > > I've stuck with TM for nearly 40 years. Is it possible that something has > > > arisen in my TM practice that you missed because you haven't stuck with > > > it for nearly 40 years? > > > > > > > > > L. > > > > > > > Lawson, > > > > What kind of program are you currently practicing? Both > > TM and Sidhi? > > > > A couple of years back you mentioned doing a program > > with a truncated length. > > > > Truncated? Not that I recall. > > > I do the same minimalist TM/TM-Sidhis program that I started in 1985(1984?). > Works out to about 45 minutes (counting rest period) twice-daily, assuming I > keep to a schedule. Before that, I was doing the 2x20 minute TM practice > starting in 1973. > > > L. > I do that same minimalist program. I really like TM.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: snips from Barry and Nabby Xeno: > Mmm. Barry seems to have actually given the *appearance* of taking a stand > here. I am not responding to Barry here though. > > I have stuck with TM for approximately four decades, plus some other > meditation before that. I have felt the results to be exemplary. Yet I have > almost no interest in what the TMO does. I have never bought the intellectual > system of any tradition, though some are aids to clearer thinking a bit. To > get through a spiritual life without being totally suckered, one needs some > healthy scepticism. Direct experience is the key, yet self-deception is > difficult to entirely avoid. The entire spiritual trip takes place in the > grip of ignorance of one kind or another, until one comes out the other end, > so misapprehension is rampant. > > I came across the following quote from Buddha, which seems to correspond more > or less to the way I have approached my life. This is not to say anyone else > should do the same, but it seems like prudent advice. It is from a document > called the Kalamas Sutta, and for an ancient source, it seems to cover many > logical and informal faults of thinking we humans have, and the heart of the > message is: > > > Do not go by revelation; > > Do not go by tradition; > > Do not go by hearsay; > > Do not go on the authority of sacred texts; > > Do not go on the grounds of pure logic; > > Do not go by a view that seems rational; > > Do not go by reflecting on mere appearances; > > Do not go along with a considered view because you agree with it; > > Do not go along on the grounds that the person is competent; > > Do not go along because "the recluse is our teacher." > > Kalamas, when you yourselves know: These things are unwholesome, these things > are blameworthy; these things are censured by the wise; and when undertaken > and observed, these things lead to harm and ill, abandon them... > > Kalamas, when you know for yourselves: These are wholesome; these things are > not blameworthy; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and > observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness, having undertaken them, > abide in them. > > > Religiously minded people of course will not want you to follow these maxims, > they do not want you to have independent thought, that is, to be > intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually independent - self-sufficient in > other words. > > Don't go by what Barry says, don't go by what Judy says, don't go by what I > say. Take a little initiative and attempt to think outside the box others > would have you fit in, and in particular try to discover the box you yourself > have created - this is the most difficult box to break out of. > > Human beings are a peculiar thing. For some reason, the state we label > 'ignorance' does not feel right, we feel off balance, and so we seek relief, > and seek it almost always in the wrong directions. Getting out of thought is > one key - this is called transcending, though the term is kind of ludicrous > since one goes nowhere during this process. But the structure of our thought > is also a big part of the problem. Theoretically, awakening (unity, satori, > rigpa, BC -- whatever it is called by whoever) takes care of this if the > experience is clear enough, but before this the structure and seeming reality > of what we think is a big problem. Having a lot of diverse input on the > nature of spiritual practice and theory is helpful in breaking those > boundaries. Belief is a big problem because belief is a substitute for what > we do not know. Belief is simply an opinion disguised as truth. Truth in the > spiritual sense is not intellectual, it is not a doctrine, it is not even > describable except covertly, and you cannot tell it to anyone, you have to > experience it for yourself. You can give people clues as to what direction to > follow, and that is as far as it goes. As a human being, you will always have > some preferences. For example I like Hershey's chocolate bars, the philosophy > that came out of the Vienna Circle and its followers, I like TM, I find the > spartan approach of Zen appealing. I like the sentence:" Belief is simply an opinion disguised as truth." For me, belief is also a hope, wishful thinking, and I know that. It was simpler when I really believed in things like reincarnation, that Consciousness pervades everything, that enlightenment was a 24/7 state of intense bliss and joy. Now my beliefs are not certain at all, and the picture I have of enlightenment is of a rather plain and quiet state. Another belief, I guess, a revised version however. > > But a main thing is getting some independence from those who would have you > do what you do their way exclusively. There are times when staying on the > road is useful, and times when driving off the road is an advanta
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Apr 24, 2012, at 4:37 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > [...] > > > > > > You were the one who settled for "witnessing 24/7" as > > > a significator of enlightenment (CC), or even the > > > beginnings of it. I do not. I have higher standards. > > > I was merely reminding you that Maharishi did, too. > > > > What higher standard did MMY have for the beginnings of CC? > > > He believed for one that one would remain conscious of one�s environment > while still fast asleep. This isn�t really from M. though, it�s a > traditional well known criteria for yogic sleep which dawns as awareness > expands beyond the three spheres of waking, dreaming and sleeping. Because he > believed this, they invented an experiment whereby special glasses would > flash while the CC�er slept and the awake one would blink in response, all > the while remaining asleep. All the subjects failed. > Huh. Hadn't heard that, though, in fact, I sometimes find myself snoring while still maintaining some awareness of the outside world. It is a very funny thing to be listening to TV and snoring at the same time. L
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
Radically coherent alpha EEG across multiple leads is "hypervigilance? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Apr 24, 2012, at 4:04 PM, turquoiseb wrote: > > > Does "24/7 witnessing" constitute your definition of > > full enlightenment? I seem to remember Maharishi's > > definition of what he considered full enlightenment > > (Unity Consciousness) as, "Being able to perform > > the sidhis, especially being able to levitate." Do > > the people who "reported continuous 24/7 witnessing" > > fall into this category? > > > > If so, I should get back in touch with several people > > I've met over the years, who have been experiencing > > 24/7 witnessing since their teens, even though none > > of them have ever practiced any form of meditation. > > I want to ask them to levitate for me. > > > No, they do not. > > What they do represent is the latest TMO farce. After pretending to have > discovered �pure consciousness� in the 70�s and 80�s - all fraudulent > research BTW, they never came close to the EEG of samadhi, it was just New > Age relaxation stuff. > > Then they took their phony research, that independent neuroscientists said > was �exaggeration�, and said �look, the circle we drew around the arrow > - there it is during sleep and waking and dreaming, we found it! Eureka!� > > But we have to be realistic here, none of these people are actually > witnessing, it�s just hypervigilance and sleep problems mentally > micromanaged into awakening. Pretty sad really...but that�s the latest > smoke and mirrors. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Apr 24, 2012, at 4:37 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > [...] > > > > > > You were the one who settled for "witnessing 24/7" as > > > a significator of enlightenment (CC), or even the > > > beginnings of it. I do not. I have higher standards. > > > I was merely reminding you that Maharishi did, too. > > > > What higher standard did MMY have for the beginnings of CC? > > > He believed for one that one would remain conscious of one's environment > while still fast asleep. This isn't really from M. though, it's a traditional > well known criteria for yogic sleep which dawns as awareness expands beyond > the three spheres of waking, dreaming and sleeping. Because he believed this, > they invented an experiment whereby special glasses would flash while the > CC'er slept and the awake one would blink in response, all the while > remaining asleep. All the subjects failed. Documentation, please. (Note: Vaj will not supply any.) >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
On Apr 24, 2012, at 4:37 PM, sparaig wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > [...] > > > > You were the one who settled for "witnessing 24/7" as > > a significator of enlightenment (CC), or even the > > beginnings of it. I do not. I have higher standards. > > I was merely reminding you that Maharishi did, too. > > What higher standard did MMY have for the beginnings of CC? He believed for one that one would remain conscious of one’s environment while still fast asleep. This isn’t really from M. though, it’s a traditional well known criteria for yogic sleep which dawns as awareness expands beyond the three spheres of waking, dreaming and sleeping. Because he believed this, they invented an experiment whereby special glasses would flash while the CC’er slept and the awake one would blink in response, all the while remaining asleep. All the subjects failed.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
Fairness and honesty are not among the rules by which Barry plays. Read his latest contribution below, then check what I've highlighted in red from his previous posts in this exchange. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" LEnglish5@ wrote: > > > > You keep changing the goal-posts, Unc. > > > > Very dishonest, to join Judy in pointing fingers. > > > > You said "enlightened". I mentioned "witnessing 24/7" which > > is how MMY defines the beginning of Cosmic Consciousness, > > as you well know. Then you started talking about "full > > enlightenment," "ability to perform all the sidhis," etc. > > > > Shame on you, Unc. > > You were the one who settled for "witnessing 24/7" as > a significator of enlightenment (CC), or even the > beginnings of it. I do not. I have higher standards. > I was merely reminding you that Maharishi did, too. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > The TM movement has failed to produce even a > > > > > > > single person that it can point to as "enlightened." Obviously, if MMY defined enlightenment as beginning with CC, the criterion of which is 24/7 witnessing, then it most certainly could point to the individuals in the research Lawson cites as being enlightened--if it were the TMO's policy to do so, which it is not (as Barry knows). So his assertion is false. > > > > > > You mean other than the people identified as "enlightened' > > > > > > in the research published a few years ago? > > > > > > > > > > Please provide for us an official statement from the > > > > > TM movement certifying these people as enlightened. IOW, Barry would accept such a statement as the TMO's certification that the folks cited in the research were enlightened. > > > > > I'll wait. > > > > > > > > There are no press releases, sorry. > > > > > > > > However, studies on individuals who reported continuous > > > > witnessing 24/7 for at least year before they were tested, > > > > have been published: > > > > > > Does "24/7 witnessing" constitute your definition of > > > full enlightenment? Barry knows CC is not considered "full enlightenment," so the question is disingenuous. This is all a bait-and-switch--as Lawson says, moving the goal posts. It's not about honest discussion, it's about winning points, regardless of what kind of subterfuge Barry has to resort to. That's just Barry's Way. I seem to remember Maharishi's > > > definition of what he considered full enlightenment > > > (Unity Consciousness) as, "Being able to perform > > > the sidhis, especially being able to levitate." Do > > > the people who "reported continuous 24/7 witnessing" > > > fall into this category? > > > > > > If so, I should get back in touch with several people > > > I've met over the years, who have been experiencing > > > 24/7 witnessing since their teens, even though none > > > of them have ever practiced any form of meditation. > > > I want to ask them to levitate for me. > > > > > > > http://www.totalbrain.ch/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/eeg-of-enl\ ightenment.pdf > > > > > > > > " The Long-term TM group (N 1â4 17; age 1â4 46.5 ô° 7.0 > > > > years) had practiced TM for about 25 years (24.5 ô° 1.2 > > > > years) and reported the continuous experience of pure self- > > > > referral consciousness throughout daily life." > > > > > > So "the continuous experience of pure self-referral > > > consciousness throughout daily life" -- all self- > > > reported in addition to the self-referral, of course > > > -- is the definition of enlightenment? > > > > > > Cool. So if I self-report on my self-referral to the > > > right "scientists," I'll be enlightened, too. It's all > > > about the outfit. > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCeelWFO56Y > > > > > > :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
On Apr 24, 2012, at 4:04 PM, turquoiseb wrote: > Does "24/7 witnessing" constitute your definition of > full enlightenment? I seem to remember Maharishi's > definition of what he considered full enlightenment > (Unity Consciousness) as, "Being able to perform > the sidhis, especially being able to levitate." Do > the people who "reported continuous 24/7 witnessing" > fall into this category? > > If so, I should get back in touch with several people > I've met over the years, who have been experiencing > 24/7 witnessing since their teens, even though none > of them have ever practiced any form of meditation. > I want to ask them to levitate for me. No, they do not. What they do represent is the latest TMO farce. After pretending to have discovered “pure consciousness” in the 70’s and 80’s - all fraudulent research BTW, they never came close to the EEG of samadhi, it was just New Age relaxation stuff. Then they took their phony research, that independent neuroscientists said was “exaggeration”, and said “look, the circle we drew around the arrow - there it is during sleep and waking and dreaming, we found it! Eureka!” But we have to be realistic here, none of these people are actually witnessing, it’s just hypervigilance and sleep problems mentally micromanaged into awakening. Pretty sad really...but that’s the latest smoke and mirrors.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > [...] > > > I saw this whole discussion -- as well as recent > > > discussions about the "TM science" -- as clear > > > demonstrations of one of the wise sayings Rick > > > placed on the FFL home page. That is, an exercise > > > in the "will to believe," as opposed to the "wish > > > to find out." > > > > > > > But perhaps it goes both ways... > > > > > > I've stuck with TM for nearly 40 years. Is it possible that something has > > arisen in my TM practice that you missed because you haven't stuck with it > > for nearly 40 years? > > > > > > L. > > > > Lawson, > > What kind of program are you currently practicing? Both > TM and Sidhi? > > A couple of years back you mentioned doing a program > with a truncated length. > Truncated? Not that I recall. I do the same minimalist TM/TM-Sidhis program that I started in 1985(1984?). Works out to about 45 minutes (counting rest period) twice-daily, assuming I keep to a schedule. Before that, I was doing the 2x20 minute TM practice starting in 1973. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: [...] > > You were the one who settled for "witnessing 24/7" as > a significator of enlightenment (CC), or even the > beginnings of it. I do not. I have higher standards. > I was merely reminding you that Maharishi did, too. What higher standard did MMY have for the beginnings of CC? L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > [...] > > I saw this whole discussion -- as well as recent > > discussions about the "TM science" -- as clear > > demonstrations of one of the wise sayings Rick > > placed on the FFL home page. That is, an exercise > > in the "will to believe," as opposed to the "wish > > to find out." > > > > But perhaps it goes both ways... > > > I've stuck with TM for nearly 40 years. Is it possible that something has > arisen in my TM practice that you missed because you haven't stuck with it > for nearly 40 years? > > > L. > Lawson, What kind of program are you currently practicing? Both TM and Sidhi? A couple of years back you mentioned doing a program with a truncated length.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > You keep changing the goal-posts, Unc. > > Very dishonest, to join Judy in pointing fingers. > > You said "enlightened". I mentioned "witnessing 24/7" which > is how MMY defines the beginning of Cosmic Consciousness, > as you well know. Then you started talking about "full > enlightenment," "ability to perform all the sidhis," etc. > > Shame on you, Unc. You were the one who settled for "witnessing 24/7" as a significator of enlightenment (CC), or even the beginnings of it. I do not. I have higher standards. I was merely reminding you that Maharishi did, too. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > The TM movement has failed to produce even a > > > > > > single person that it can point to as "enlightened." > > > > > > > > > > You mean other than the people identified as "enlightened' > > > > > in the research published a few years ago? > > > > > > > > Please provide for us an official statement from the > > > > TM movement certifying these people as enlightened. > > > > I'll wait. > > > > > > There are no press releases, sorry. > > > > > > However, studies on individuals who reported continuous > > > witnessing 24/7 for at least year before they were tested, > > > have been published: > > > > Does "24/7 witnessing" constitute your definition of > > full enlightenment? I seem to remember Maharishi's > > definition of what he considered full enlightenment > > (Unity Consciousness) as, "Being able to perform > > the sidhis, especially being able to levitate." Do > > the people who "reported continuous 24/7 witnessing" > > fall into this category? > > > > If so, I should get back in touch with several people > > I've met over the years, who have been experiencing > > 24/7 witnessing since their teens, even though none > > of them have ever practiced any form of meditation. > > I want to ask them to levitate for me. > > > > > http://www.totalbrain.ch/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/eeg-of-enlightenment.pdf > > > > > > " The Long-term TM group (N 1â4 17; age 1â4 46.5 ô° 7.0 > > > years) had practiced TM for about 25 years (24.5 ô° 1.2 > > > years) and reported the continuous experience of pure self- > > > referral consciousness throughout daily life." > > > > So "the continuous experience of pure self-referral > > consciousness throughout daily life" -- all self- > > reported in addition to the self-referral, of course > > -- is the definition of enlightenment? > > > > Cool. So if I self-report on my self-referral to the > > right "scientists," I'll be enlightened, too. It's all > > about the outfit. > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCeelWFO56Y > > > > :-) > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
You keep changing the goal-posts, Unc. Very dishonest, to join Judy in pointing fingers. You said "enlightened". I mentioned "witnessing 24/7" which is how MMY defines the beginning of Cosmic Consciousness, as you well know. Then you started talking about "full enlightenment," "ability to perform all the sidhis," etc. Shame on you, Unc. L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > The TM movement has failed to produce even a > > > > > single person that it can point to as "enlightened." > > > > > > > > You mean other than the people identified as "enlightened' > > > > in the research published a few years ago? > > > > > > Please provide for us an official statement from the > > > TM movement certifying these people as enlightened. > > > I'll wait. > > > > There are no press releases, sorry. > > > > However, studies on individuals who reported continuous > > witnessing 24/7 for at least year before they were tested, > > have been published: > > Does "24/7 witnessing" constitute your definition of > full enlightenment? I seem to remember Maharishi's > definition of what he considered full enlightenment > (Unity Consciousness) as, "Being able to perform > the sidhis, especially being able to levitate." Do > the people who "reported continuous 24/7 witnessing" > fall into this category? > > If so, I should get back in touch with several people > I've met over the years, who have been experiencing > 24/7 witnessing since their teens, even though none > of them have ever practiced any form of meditation. > I want to ask them to levitate for me. > > > http://www.totalbrain.ch/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/eeg-of-enlightenment.pdf > > > > " The Long-term TM group (N 1â4 17; age 1â4 46.5 ô° 7.0 > > years) had practiced TM for about 25 years (24.5 ô° 1.2 > > years) and reported the continuous experience of pure self- > > referral consciousness throughout daily life." > > So "the continuous experience of pure self-referral > consciousness throughout daily life" -- all self- > reported in addition to the self-referral, of course > -- is the definition of enlightenment? > > Cool. So if I self-report on my self-referral to the > right "scientists," I'll be enlightened, too. It's all > about the outfit. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCeelWFO56Y > > :-) >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > The TM movement has failed to produce even a > > > > single person that it can point to as "enlightened." > > > > > > You mean other than the people identified as "enlightened' > > > in the research published a few years ago? > > > > Please provide for us an official statement from the > > TM movement certifying these people as enlightened. > > I'll wait. > > There are no press releases, sorry. > > However, studies on individuals who reported continuous > witnessing 24/7 for at least year before they were tested, > have been published: Does "24/7 witnessing" constitute your definition of full enlightenment? I seem to remember Maharishi's definition of what he considered full enlightenment (Unity Consciousness) as, "Being able to perform the sidhis, especially being able to levitate." Do the people who "reported continuous 24/7 witnessing" fall into this category? If so, I should get back in touch with several people I've met over the years, who have been experiencing 24/7 witnessing since their teens, even though none of them have ever practiced any form of meditation. I want to ask them to levitate for me. > http://www.totalbrain.ch/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/eeg-of-enlightenment.pdf > > " The Long-term TM group (N 1â4 17; age 1â4 46.5 ô° 7.0 > years) had practiced TM for about 25 years (24.5 ô° 1.2 > years) and reported the continuous experience of pure self- > referral consciousness throughout daily life." So "the continuous experience of pure self-referral consciousness throughout daily life" -- all self- reported in addition to the self-referral, of course -- is the definition of enlightenment? Cool. So if I self-report on my self-referral to the right "scientists," I'll be enlightened, too. It's all about the outfit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCeelWFO56Y :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: >> >>> Think how sad it would be to believe the opposite, that >>> what one was told 30 to 40 years ago was all there WAS >>> to find out. >> >> Your problem is that you didn't have the patience or the >> personal qualities required to stick around long enough >> to find out much of anything. > > Nabby, I write this not for you but for the lurkers > you claim to be wanting to "protect." I know that you > won't be able to hear it, but perhaps they will. > > I do not question your place on this forum, which I > consider as having both entertainment value and educa- > tional value. The latter -- for the lurkers -- is in > having the opportunity to assess the things Nabby says > and realize, "OMG...THIS is what I could turn INTO > if I start TM and believe everything its proponents > tell me to believe." That should be enough to raise > doubts in the "TM message" in most people, without > further commentary from me. :-) > > As for your sentence above, I think the "problem" may > be that you are on the wrong Yahoo forum. You seem to > believe that you're speaking to the ASPIRE_Resource_Site > group, which provides "services for people who are > developmentally challenged." > > It only took me a few years to figure out that the > picture of meditation being given to me by Maharishi > and his parrots was neither the full story nor a > particularly accurate one. If it's taken you longer, > you may want to check out the other group. > >> You just jumped ship and went for the spiritual smorgasbord. > > And where exactly did you hear that this is a Bad > Thing? Oh, wait...I remember now...that was taught > to you by Maharishi. > >> Personally I have much less respect for that then someone >> who sticks to a path and explore the depths of consciousness >> following that path, whether it's TM, Kriya or any other path. > > And again, you were *taught* to believe this. The > fact that you bought it is yet another indication > that you might be happier in the other Yahoo group. > >> The way you have jumped from path to path leads, IMO, to >> confusion and frustration. > > Again, do you even *realize* that you're parroting > things taught to you by Maharishi, the guy who had > a rather vested financial interest in you sticking > around, and never checking out any other spiritual > approach or path? > >> Your aggressiveness here on this board validates my claim. > > Aggressiveness? I merely state my opinion. It seems > to me that the "aggression" you are speaking of tends > to appear in those who actually *require* 30 to 40 > years to figure something out. Some of us are "faster > studies." :-) > > But by all means continue to demonstrate for the lurkers > *what 40 years of TM turns one into*. If I am in any > sense "aggressive" on this forum, it is for the purpose > of *encouraging* you to do so, not to discourage you in > any way. The more examples you present of "How a TM > True Believer thinks and acts," the fewer of them there > are likely to be in the future. Mmm. Barry seems to have actually given the *appearance* of taking a stand here. I am not responding to Barry here though. I have stuck with TM for approximately four decades, plus some other meditation before that. I have felt the results to be exemplary. Yet I have almost no interest in what the TMO does. I have never bought the intellectual system of any tradition, though some are aids to clearer thinking a bit. To get through a spiritual life without being totally suckered, one needs some healthy scepticism. Direct experience is the key, yet self-deception is difficult to entirely avoid. The entire spiritual trip takes place in the grip of ignorance of one kind or another, until one comes out the other end, so misapprehension is rampant. I came across the following quote from Buddha, which seems to correspond more or less to the way I have approached my life. This is not to say anyone else should do the same, but it seems like prudent advice. It is from a document called the Kalamas Sutta, and for an ancient source, it seems to cover many logical and informal faults of thinking we humans have, and the heart of the message is: Do not go by revelation; Do not go by tradition; Do not go by hearsay; Do not go on the authority of sacred texts; Do not go on the grounds of pure logic; Do not go by a view that seems rational; Do not go by reflecting on mere appearances; Do not go along with a considered view because you agree with it; Do not go along on the grounds that the person is competent; Do not go along because "the recluse is our teacher." Kalamas, when you yourselves know: These things are unwholesome, these things are blameworthy; these things are censured by the wise; and when undertaken and observed, these thing
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
Yes very rue. I was there. > I have some friends who were there in India once when Maharishi brought Tat > Walla Baba over for a talk, they tell the story that a course participant > then asked the question of Tat Walla Baba, if he slept? Maharisihi > translated the question and there were peels of laughter from both Maharishi > and Tat Walla Baba and apparently Tat Walla Baba had said in reply, "What > would the world do if I slept?" > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: > > > > > > > > Huh?  I'm so blown away by this clip...can you believe "we" used to > > > > watch that?  The brain is insane.  Incredible.  Now, what was your > > > > point?  RIP Farrah.  > > > > > > > > > > > > ________ > > > > From: obbajeeba > > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > > Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 5:24 PM > > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 2012, at 6:51 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > And given that, where's the effort? Worrying about effort is > > > > > > > futile. TM practice takes advantage of the mind's natural > > > > > > > tendency. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And for you remembering is not the mind�s natural tendency? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The mind's natural tendency is to become aware of what is most > > > > > pleasing... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > L. > > > > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJTBs24szWo > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > The TM movement has failed to produce even a > > > single person that it can point to as "enlightened." > > > > You mean other than the people identified as "enlightened' > > in the research published a few years ago? > > Please provide for us an official statement from the > TM movement certifying these people as enlightened. > I'll wait. > There are no press releases, sorry. However, studies on individuals who reported continuous witnessing 24/7 for at least year before they were tested, have been published: http://www.totalbrain.ch/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/eeg-of-enlightenment.pdf http://www.totalbrain.ch/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/brain-integration-progress-report.pdf " The Long-term TM group (N 1â4 17; age 1â4 46.5 ô° 7.0 years) had practiced TM for about 25 years (24.5 ô° 1.2 years) and reported the continuous experience of pure self-referral consciousness throughout daily life."
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > You just jumped ship and went for the spiritual smorgasbord. > > And where exactly did you hear that this is a Bad > Thing? Oh, wait...I remember now...that was taught > to you by Maharishi. Actually that idea is hardly peculiar to Maharishi. I'd heard it long before I ever heard of TM. > But by all means continue to demonstrate for the lurkers > *what 40 years of TM turns one into*. If I am in any > sense "aggressive" on this forum, it is for the purpose > of *encouraging* you to do so, not to discourage you in > any way. The more examples you present of "How a TM > True Believer thinks and acts," the fewer of them there > are likely to be in the future. Lurkers should be aware that Barry's claim to be only "encouraging" TMers to say what they think is not true. He's hoping to intimidate them into silence by suggesting that what they say will discourage people from trying TM. It's a tactic he's been using without success for many years.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > To further clarify, I've been seeing a LOT of discussions > at Fairfield Life lately devolve (or evolve, depending on > one's point of view) into an re-enactment of the Bertrand > Russell quote on the FFL home page: "What is wanted is not > the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is > the exact opposite." I don't think "re-enactment" is the word Barry wants here, since, according to him, what he's been seeing is NOT what Russell says is wanted. > In this latest round of the re-enactment, it seems to me > that Nabby, Lawson, and Judy are taking the "will to believe" > position. Their comments seem (to me) driven by the desire > to believe that Maharishi knew what he was doing in setting > things up the way that he did, and that his description of > How Meditation Works was RIGHT. Let's change that to How TM Works, just for starters. > There is also an undercurrent > or subtext that (to me) conveys WHY they believe that he > knew what he was doing: 1) because it *was* RIGHT -- he did > what he did with the full support of the Laws Of Nature and > from the platform of supposed enlightenment, so *of course* > it was RIGHT, and 2) it was RIGHT because *I* bought into it. Barry's subtext conveyor seriously needs a tuneup, at least in my case. > It should be obvious that I believe neither piece of subtext. > I think that Maharishi was -- pretty much from the beginning > -- improvising his way through things, trying things out and > if they seemed to "work," sticking with them, No disagreement from moi on this point. Did Barry think there would be? and if they > didn't, ignoring them and hoping that everyone else would > ignore them, too, and pretend that the failures had never > happened. Fortunately for him, the True Believer mindset > is almost always willing to do this, out of fear of > addressing the other possibility -- that they placed their > faith in someone who might not have always deserved it. > > Vaj takes another POV on all of this. On the basis of some- > thing that the others *do not have* -- experience with other > forms of meditation, and other ways of viewing the dogma of > and the mechanics of meditation. He does NOT feel constrained > to use the "proper language" to describe what happens in TM. He should feel constrained to use *accurate* language to describe what happens in TM. He doesn't. There's no need for him or anybody else to use TM lingo per se as long as the language that *is* used is actually descriptive of what happens in TM. For example, Vaj wrote: > > > Those without smriti in > > > their practice languish in discursive thoughts - and fail > > > at TM, while those with smriti succeed because they > > > transcend more per unit of time. As I pointed out in response, in TM how much one transcends per unit of time is not the criterion of "success." So this is not an accurate description. > And THAT, in my opinion, is one of the things that the others > are reacting to most strongly in him. Vaj (and myself, and > Curtis) are "off the reservation." We *no longer believe* > that the way Maharishi taught us to consider and describe > meditation is the "best" way, or the only way. We are, in > fact, more comfortable with our own ways of seeing meditation > and describing it. Which is as it should be, as long as you describe TM accurately. How you describe other meditation techniques isn't relevant. > To the True Believer mindset, this is heresy. It displays > a lack of respect and a possible "danger" to those hearing > these heretical words. But stop for a minute and LOOK at > that reaction, and what it's based on. Note the assumptions in the above and in what follows concerning Lawson's and my mindsets and reactions and how we feel. These assumptions are presented as though they were established fact. > The people feeling this way were taught -- and not only > chose to believe it in their youth but *still* believe it > in their dotage "dotage: a state or period of senile decay marked by decline of mental poise and alertness" I don't think "dotage" is the word Barry wants here either. And "in their youth" may be a bit misleading where I'm concerned, given that I learned TM when I was 32. > -- that there really IS only one RIGHT > way to do things like teach meditation, or experience > meditation, or describe what they experience. Barry would at least have gotten one out of three close to correct if he'd made that "TM" rather than "meditation." For those of us who remember what we were taught concerning TM, there are as many ways to experience it as there are people practicing it, as long as they're following the instructions for practice. And as I already noted, the only RIGHT way to describe TM is *accurately* (PSST: that's a tautology). The specific language used doesn't matter as long as it's accurate. As to there being only one RIGHT way to teach TM, I'll just say *I* can't thi
