[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On May 6, 2009, at 6:13 PM, sparaig wrote: [...] That is how the yogic tradition perceives the intent of those who try to skip the angas. Is that how you perceive the TM-Sidhis program? Black magicians? It's one possibility but not necessarily in the way you would think of it as. Some masters like to use such techniques to enslave their students so they tend to stick around. So for a disreputable teacher, they have a certain function. More often though it's just an error in the way the yoga-sutras are taught. SBS certainly agrees, as he clearly states siddhis should trail behind you (i.e. not you chasing after them with formulae). He quite clearly echoes the sentiments of the yogic tradition and the Holy Shankaracharya Order as well. I meant do you perceive the TM-SIdhis as trying to skip the angas? Lawson
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
On May 7, 2009, at 2:42 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On May 6, 2009, at 6:13 PM, sparaig wrote: [...] That is how the yogic tradition perceives the intent of those who try to skip the angas. Is that how you perceive the TM-Sidhis program? Black magicians? It's one possibility but not necessarily in the way you would think of it as. Some masters like to use such techniques to enslave their students so they tend to stick around. So for a disreputable teacher, they have a certain function. More often though it's just an error in the way the yoga-sutras are taught. SBS certainly agrees, as he clearly states siddhis should trail behind you (i.e. not you chasing after them with formulae). He quite clearly echoes the sentiments of the yogic tradition and the Holy Shankaracharya Order as well. I meant do you perceive the TM-SIdhis as trying to skip the angas? Yes. I'm not alone on that perception.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On May 7, 2009, at 2:42 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On May 6, 2009, at 6:13 PM, sparaig wrote: [...] That is how the yogic tradition perceives the intent of those who try to skip the angas. Is that how you perceive the TM-Sidhis program? Black magicians? It's one possibility but not necessarily in the way you would think of it as. Some masters like to use such techniques to enslave their students so they tend to stick around. So for a disreputable teacher, they have a certain function. More often though it's just an error in the way the yoga-sutras are taught. SBS certainly agrees, as he clearly states siddhis should trail behind you (i.e. not you chasing after them with formulae). He quite clearly echoes the sentiments of the yogic tradition and the Holy Shankaracharya Order as well. I meant do you perceive the TM-SIdhis as trying to skip the angas? Yes. I'm not alone on that perception. Sure, but is that n innate issue with the TM-Sidhis program, or with the people who insist on learning it in order to fly? Lawson
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
On May 6, 2009, at 1:26 AM, sparaig wrote: Well, I think you need to ask some different questions, namely, can an actual attentional improvement be found in the subjects, will they be randomized AND will that stand when compared to good controls, not just some lame controls? Of course if they're to prove attentional resiliency, they also need to show neuroplastic changes. There are a new and growing list of criteria in this area. Right and Fred and Aleric have never mentioned neoplsticity in any TM context... Mentioning does not constitute scientific proof. I'm sure they've mentioned all sorts of things. And Hari Sharma wasn't talking about free radicals and MAK 20 years ago because he was an ignorant fool That's a huge non sequitur--what does that have to do with ADHD?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
On May 6, 2009, at 1:27 AM, sparaig wrote: As I said, we agree to disagree... Or, to quote a famous anonymous sage: there are as many legitimate i interpretations of the Veda as there are enlightened persons. Unfortunately this is one area where the sages of the yoga-darshana (not the Veda) are in agreement. Generally the type of people who subvert the angas are what would in western languages be referred to as black magicians or in theosophical lingo black brothers: give me the magic, let me circumvent the virtues, they will come on their own, just give me power, NOW. Is that how you see the TM-Sidhis program? That is how the yogic tradition perceives the intent of those who try to skip the angas.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
On May 6, 2009, at 1:28 AM, sparaig wrote: Such states are easily demonstrable by methods known for thousands of years. So if the state is legit., it would be relatively easy to know, even without a lot of fancy science. What I've found is TMers learn to talk and think in flowery language as a part of the TM mythos and that ends up having little basis in reality, although they're quite convinced what they're experiencing is something remarkable. Remarkable experiences require remarkable proof. So far no proof... Aside from the thousands of non-TM hits on the term pure consciousness event cointed by someone writing about TM research and adopted by all sorts of non-TM reserachers over teh past decade or so. Attaching coached experiences to ambiguous wording is of little value. Show us the hard data. The actual originator of the term, Robert Foreman pointed out, pure consciousness is not a very helpful word. It's not only imprecise, you can attach whatever you want to it. That's why it's better to have an experiential understanding of the various states of consciousness so we can label them precisely, this is murcha/swooning or this is a certain type of laya, rather than to try to impress with big sounding words. Creating new words and avoiding traditional ones is a great way to fool people, but that's typically not the goal of authentic spirituality. The question really is not to define the fact—for we cannot do that— but to get at and experience it. - Edward Carpenter (1844–1929) A word is a word. An experience is an experience. Both are different. - S. Shigematsu
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On May 6, 2009, at 1:27 AM, sparaig wrote: As I said, we agree to disagree... Or, to quote a famous anonymous sage: there are as many legitimate i interpretations of the Veda as there are enlightened persons. Unfortunately this is one area where the sages of the yoga-darshana (not the Veda) are in agreement. Generally the type of people who subvert the angas are what would in western languages be referred to as black magicians or in theosophical lingo black brothers: give me the magic, let me circumvent the virtues, they will come on their own, just give me power, NOW. Is that how you see the TM-Sidhis program? That is how the yogic tradition perceives the intent of those who try to skip the angas. So you're the spokesperson for the yogic tradition? Self-certified? These skippable angas seem jolly arcane for such a well studied tradition as Yoga. You need to put Wikepedia right Vaj, eh? The earliest reference to Angas (???) occurs in the Atharava Veda (V.22.14) where they find mention along with the Magadhas, Gandharis and the Mujavatas, all apparently as a despised people. The Jain Prajnapana ranks the Angas and the Vangas in the first group of Aryan peoples. According to Buddhist texts like the Anguttara Nikaya, Anga was one of the sixteen great nations (solas Mahajanapadas) which had flourished in central and north-west India in the 6th century BC. Anga also finds mention in the Jain Bhagvati-Sutra's list of ancient Janapadas. What's the instruction for skipping them?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
On May 6, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Richard M wrote: That is how the yogic tradition perceives the intent of those who try to skip the angas. So you're the spokesperson for the yogic tradition? Self-certified? These skippable angas seem jolly arcane for such a well studied tradition as Yoga. You need to put Wikepedia right Vaj, eh? The earliest reference to Angas (???) occurs in the Atharava Veda (V.22.14) where they find mention along with the Magadhas, Gandharis and the Mujavatas, all apparently as a despised people. The Jain Prajnapana ranks the Angas and the Vangas in the first group of Aryan peoples. According to Buddhist texts like the Anguttara Nikaya, Anga was one of the sixteen great nations (solas Mahajanapadas) which had flourished in central and north-west India in the 6th century BC. Anga also finds mention in the Jain Bhagvati-Sutra's list of ancient Janapadas. What's the instruction for skipping them? You're looking at a different word Rich. Anga refers here to the sequential steps in yoga or samadhi. in HK: aGga or limbs, especially of a science (e.g. yoga). I think the sages speak quite well for themselves. I guess a better question is why were these facts hidden from you and other TM folks?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On May 6, 2009, at 1:27 AM, sparaig wrote: As I said, we agree to disagree... Or, to quote a famous anonymous sage: there are as many legitimate i interpretations of the Veda as there are enlightened persons. Unfortunately this is one area where the sages of the yoga-darshana (not the Veda) are in agreement. Generally the type of people who subvert the angas are what would in western languages be referred to as black magicians or in theosophical lingo black brothers: give me the magic, let me circumvent the virtues, they will come on their own, just give me power, NOW. Is that how you see the TM-Sidhis program? That is how the yogic tradition perceives the intent of those who try to skip the angas. So you're the spokesperson for the yogic tradition? Self-certified? These skippable angas seem jolly arcane for such a well studied tradition as Yoga. You need to put Wikepedia right Vaj, eh? The earliest reference to Angas (???) occurs in the Atharava Veda (V.22.14) where they find mention along with the Magadhas, Gandharis and the Mujavatas, all apparently as a despised people. The Jain Prajnapana ranks the Angas and the Vangas in the first group of Aryan peoples. According to Buddhist texts like the Anguttara Nikaya, Anga was one of the sixteen great nations (solas Mahajanapadas) which had flourished in central and north-west India in the 6th century BC. Anga also finds mention in the Jain Bhagvati-Sutra's list of ancient Janapadas. What's the instruction for skipping them? I think Vaj meant the 'angas' in Patanjali's Ashtanga (8 limbs)Yoga, With the practice of ALL of these limbs, **or means**, simultaneously, the state of Yoga grows simultaneously in all the eight spheres of life, eventually to become permanent. MMY Gita appendix under Yoga!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: Well fortunately researchers have had access to yogis in higher states of consciousness, particularly over the last 16 years or so. What they've found is there are remarkable changes indeed. I don't think most TM'ers or most meditators in any group have been able to achieve the 'breathless' state which is indicative of Samadhi. Even if TM research merely points out TM produces states of rest comparable to sleep or better it is good and legitimate research bolstering the usefulness of TM in daily lifehowever, to suggest it proves higher states of consciousness without demonstrating complete cessation of the breath (and in some cases heart rate as well) is wishful thinking and TM spin.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
On May 6, 2009, at 8:27 AM, BillyG. wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: Well fortunately researchers have had access to yogis in higher states of consciousness, particularly over the last 16 years or so. What they've found is there are remarkable changes indeed. I don't think most TM'ers or most meditators in any group have been able to achieve the 'breathless' state which is indicative of Samadhi. Even if TM research merely points out TM produces states of rest comparable to sleep or better it is good and legitimate research bolstering the usefulness of TM in daily lifehowever, to suggest it proves higher states of consciousness without demonstrating complete cessation of the breath (and in some cases heart rate as well) is wishful thinking and TM spin. It would be virtually impossible for them to do so without further instruction and guidance. But with authentic instruction, they'd be a ripe group for learning to do so. Perhaps it's best to think of TM folks as a large, untapped resource. I only know a handful who went on after TM to independently deepen their studies to this level.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On May 6, 2009, at 1:27 AM, sparaig wrote: As I said, we agree to disagree... Or, to quote a famous anonymous sage: there are as many legitimate i interpretations of the Veda as there are enlightened persons. Unfortunately this is one area where the sages of the yoga-darshana (not the Veda) are in agreement. Generally the type of people who subvert the angas are what would in western languages be referred to as black magicians or in theosophical lingo black brothers: give me the magic, let me circumvent the virtues, they will come on their own, just give me power, NOW. Is that how you see the TM-Sidhis program? That is how the yogic tradition perceives the intent of those who try to skip the angas. So you're the spokesperson for the yogic tradition? Self-certified? These skippable angas seem jolly arcane for such a well studied tradition as Yoga. You need to put Wikepedia right Vaj, eh? The earliest reference to Angas (???) occurs in the Atharava Veda (V.22.14) where they find mention along with the Magadhas, Gandharis and the Mujavatas, all apparently as a despised people. The Jain Prajnapana ranks the Angas and the Vangas in the first group of Aryan peoples. According to Buddhist texts like the Anguttara Nikaya, Anga was one of the sixteen great nations (solas Mahajanapadas) which had flourished in central and north-west India in the 6th century BC. Anga also finds mention in the Jain Bhagvati-Sutra's list of ancient Janapadas. What's the instruction for skipping them? I think Vaj meant the 'angas' in Patanjali's Ashtanga (8 limbs)Yoga, With the practice of ALL of these limbs, **or means**, simultaneously, the state of Yoga grows simultaneously in all the eight spheres of life, eventually to become permanent. MMY Gita appendix under Yoga! Well - may well be so. But my point is that to assert with great authority that The Yogic Tradition asserts such and such of these thingies is a con (i.e. a claim to some privileged *insight* into the tradition). After all, if these angas are too arcane a subject for Wikipedia, it is hardly sensible to imply that there can be no ambiguity of interpretation hanging over them. In other words it is an instance, to go by flavour of the day, of a thought stopper. What, when you think about, IS The Yoga Tradition (singular)?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: It would be virtually impossible for them to do so without further instruction and guidance. But with authentic instruction, they'd be a ripe group for learning to do so. Perhaps it's best to think of TM folks as a large, untapped resource. I only know a handful who went on after TM to independently deepen their studies to this level. What benefits in daily life have you or the half dozen found from such deeper studies and authentic instruction?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
On May 6, 2009, at 8:56 AM, Richard M wrote: I think Vaj meant the 'angas' in Patanjali's Ashtanga (8 limbs) Yoga, With the practice of ALL of these limbs, **or means**, simultaneously, the state of Yoga grows simultaneously in all the eight spheres of life, eventually to become permanent. MMY Gita appendix under Yoga! Well - may well be so. But my point is that to assert with great authority that The Yogic Tradition asserts such and such of these thingies is a con (i.e. a claim to some privileged *insight* into the tradition). After all, if these angas are too arcane a subject for Wikipedia, it is hardly sensible to imply that there can be no ambiguity of interpretation hanging over them. In other words it is an instance, to go by flavour of the day, of a thought stopper. What, when you think about, IS The Yoga Tradition (singular)? Just to be clearer for you Rich, these angas exist in BOTH Hindu and Buddhist traditions of samadhi, and while the number of angas does vary, the insistence of their sequential performance in all Hindu yogic literature is quite notable, so much so that the mechanics of it has been delineated. And thus the yogic saying 'Those who skip the prerequisites of samadhi (i.e. the angas), even if they meditate for hundreds of years, will never attain samadhi.'
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On May 6, 2009, at 8:56 AM, Richard M wrote: I think Vaj meant the 'angas' in Patanjali's Ashtanga (8 limbs) Yoga, With the practice of ALL of these limbs, **or means**, simultaneously, the state of Yoga grows simultaneously in all the eight spheres of life, eventually to become permanent. MMY Gita appendix under Yoga! Well - may well be so. But my point is that to assert with great authority that The Yogic Tradition asserts such and such of these thingies is a con (i.e. a claim to some privileged *insight* into the tradition). After all, if these angas are too arcane a subject for Wikipedia, it is hardly sensible to imply that there can be no ambiguity of interpretation hanging over them. In other words it is an instance, to go by flavour of the day, of a thought stopper. What, when you think about, IS The Yoga Tradition (singular)? Just to be clearer for you Rich, these angas exist in BOTH Hindu and Buddhist traditions of samadhi, and while the number of angas does vary, the insistence of their sequential performance in all Hindu yogic literature is quite notable, so much so that the mechanics of it has been delineated. And thus the yogic saying 'Those who skip the prerequisites of samadhi (i.e. the angas), even if they meditate for hundreds of years, will never attain samadhi.' And you base your point on one esoteric saying translated from centuries ago across probably multiple languages? I am not defending the opposite, but you seem to hardly made a case for your view.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
On May 6, 2009, at 9:37 AM, grate.swan wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On May 6, 2009, at 8:56 AM, Richard M wrote: I think Vaj meant the 'angas' in Patanjali's Ashtanga (8 limbs) Yoga, With the practice of ALL of these limbs, **or means**, simultaneously, the state of Yoga grows simultaneously in all the eight spheres of life, eventually to become permanent. MMY Gita appendix under Yoga! Well - may well be so. But my point is that to assert with great authority that The Yogic Tradition asserts such and such of these thingies is a con (i.e. a claim to some privileged *insight* into the tradition). After all, if these angas are too arcane a subject for Wikipedia, it is hardly sensible to imply that there can be no ambiguity of interpretation hanging over them. In other words it is an instance, to go by flavour of the day, of a thought stopper. What, when you think about, IS The Yoga Tradition (singular)? Just to be clearer for you Rich, these angas exist in BOTH Hindu and Buddhist traditions of samadhi, and while the number of angas does vary, the insistence of their sequential performance in all Hindu yogic literature is quite notable, so much so that the mechanics of it has been delineated. And thus the yogic saying 'Those who skip the prerequisites of samadhi (i.e. the angas), even if they meditate for hundreds of years, will never attain samadhi.' And you base your point on one esoteric saying translated from centuries ago across probably multiple languages? I am not defending the opposite, but you seem to hardly made a case for your view. Don't assume I was interested in going into any lengthy defense. It's worthless to do such a thing here any longer. Really this is a kind of yoga 101 revelation, it should hardly be surprising. Not to sound offensive but if you're that ignorant of basic yogic teachings, I'd recommend cracking a book or two first. I base my observations on my own direct experience and being taught by a lineal teacher who was part of a line that had been replicating the same results for centuries. The Patanjali tradition.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On May 6, 2009, at 9:37 AM, grate.swan wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On May 6, 2009, at 8:56 AM, Richard M wrote: I think Vaj meant the 'angas' in Patanjali's Ashtanga (8 limbs) Yoga, With the practice of ALL of these limbs, **or means**, simultaneously, the state of Yoga grows simultaneously in all the eight spheres of life, eventually to become permanent. MMY Gita appendix under Yoga! Well - may well be so. But my point is that to assert with great authority that The Yogic Tradition asserts such and such of these thingies is a con (i.e. a claim to some privileged *insight* into the tradition). After all, if these angas are too arcane a subject for Wikipedia, it is hardly sensible to imply that there can be no ambiguity of interpretation hanging over them. In other words it is an instance, to go by flavour of the day, of a thought stopper. What, when you think about, IS The Yoga Tradition (singular)? Just to be clearer for you Rich, these angas exist in BOTH Hindu and Buddhist traditions of samadhi, and while the number of angas does vary, the insistence of their sequential performance in all Hindu yogic literature is quite notable, so much so that the mechanics of it has been delineated. And thus the yogic saying 'Those who skip the prerequisites of samadhi (i.e. the angas), even if they meditate for hundreds of years, will never attain samadhi.' And you base your point on one esoteric saying translated from centuries ago across probably multiple languages? I am not defending the opposite, but you seem to hardly made a case for your view. Don't assume I was interested in going into any lengthy defense. It's worthless to do such a thing here any longer. Really this is a kind of yoga 101 revelation, it should hardly be surprising. Not to sound offensive but if you're that ignorant of basic yogic teachings, I'd recommend cracking a book or two first. I base my observations on my own direct experience and being taught by a lineal teacher who was part of a line that had been replicating the same results for centuries. The Patanjali tradition. Fair enough. But you said some-such to someone (SpareEgg I think) as You're position is wrong because you believe/do 'P' and *THE YOGA TRADITION* says/do 'Q'. Which sounds ever-so authoritative. If you had said Q is better based on my experience and according to my teacher and his/her tradition, you would not have rattled my chains. But then you would not have made much of a point either.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On May 6, 2009, at 9:37 AM, grate.swan wrote: Buddhist traditions of samadhi, and while the number of angas does vary, the insistence of their sequential performance in all Hindu yogic literature is quite notable, so much so that the mechanics of it has been delineated. And thus the yogic saying 'Those who skip the prerequisites of samadhi (i.e. the angas), even if they meditate for hundreds of years, will never attain samadhi.' And you base your point on one esoteric saying translated from centuries ago across probably multiple languages? I am not defending the opposite, but you seem to hardly made a case for your view. Don't assume I was interested in going into any lengthy defense. It's worthless to do such a thing here any longer. Really this is a kind of yoga 101 revelation, it should hardly be surprising. Not to sound offensive but if you're that ignorant of basic yogic teachings, I'd recommend cracking a book or two first. I base my observations on my own direct experience and being taught by a lineal teacher who was part of a line that had been replicating the same results for centuries. The Patanjali tradition. Thanks for pointing out my huge omission to my list of 6 year old's arguments the to questions about their claims (of stronger dads and better gizmos) 3) You are so stupid (and thus I am not going to say more)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On May 6, 2009, at 9:37 AM, grate.swan wrote: Buddhist traditions of samadhi, and while the number of angas does vary, the insistence of their sequential performance in all Hindu yogic literature is quite notable, so much so that the mechanics of it has been delineated. And thus the yogic saying 'Those who skip the prerequisites of samadhi (i.e. the angas), even if they meditate for hundreds of years, will never attain samadhi.' And you base your point on one esoteric saying translated from centuries ago across probably multiple languages? I am not defending the opposite, but you seem to hardly made a case for your view. Don't assume I was interested in going into any lengthy defense. It's worthless to do such a thing here any longer. Really this is a kind of yoga 101 revelation, it should hardly be surprising. Not to sound offensive but if you're that ignorant of basic yogic teachings, I'd recommend cracking a book or two first. I base my observations on my own direct experience and being taught by a lineal teacher who was part of a line that had been replicating the same results for centuries. The Patanjali tradition. Thanks for pointing out my huge omission to my list of 6 year old's arguments the to questions about their claims (of stronger dads and better gizmos) 3) You are so stupid (and thus I am not going to say more) ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: snip Don't assume I was interested in going into any lengthy defense. It's worthless to do such a thing here any longer. Really this is a kind of yoga 101 revelation, it should hardly be surprising. Not to sound offensive but if you're that ignorant of basic yogic teachings, I'd recommend cracking a book or two first. I base my observations on my own direct experience and being taught by a lineal teacher who was part of a line that had been replicating the same results for centuries. The Patanjali tradition. Thanks for pointing out my huge omission to my list of 6 year old's arguments the to questions about their claims (of stronger dads and better gizmos) 3) You are so stupid (and thus I am not going to say more) That wouldn't be a gasp thought-stopper, would it? cackle
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: snip Don't assume I was interested in going into any lengthy defense. It's worthless to do such a thing here any longer. Really this is a kind of yoga 101 revelation, it should hardly be surprising. Not to sound offensive but if you're that ignorant of basic yogic teachings, I'd recommend cracking a book or two first. I base my observations on my own direct experience and being taught by a lineal teacher who was part of a line that had been replicating the same results for centuries. The Patanjali tradition. Thanks for pointing out my huge omission to my list of 6 year old's arguments the to questions about their claims (of stronger dads and better gizmos) 3) You are so stupid (and thus I am not going to say more) That wouldn't be a gasp thought-stopper, would it? cackle Indeed it is. As soon a Vaj said the mahavakaya, all thoughts stopped, I obtained the breathless samadhi, the heavens opened up, I saw the universe in my dogs mouth, and my alpha waves were way cool.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
On May 6, 2009, at 10:06 AM, Richard M wrote: And you base your point on one esoteric saying translated from centuries ago across probably multiple languages? I am not defending the opposite, but you seem to hardly made a case for your view. Don't assume I was interested in going into any lengthy defense. It's worthless to do such a thing here any longer. Really this is a kind of yoga 101 revelation, it should hardly be surprising. Not to sound offensive but if you're that ignorant of basic yogic teachings, I'd recommend cracking a book or two first. I base my observations on my own direct experience and being taught by a lineal teacher who was part of a line that had been replicating the same results for centuries. The Patanjali tradition. Fair enough. But you said some-such to someone (SpareEgg I think) as You're position is wrong because you believe/do 'P' and *THE YOGA TRADITION* says/do 'Q'. Which sounds ever-so authoritative. If you had said Q is better based on my experience and according to my teacher and his/her tradition, you would not have rattled my chains. But then you would not have made much of a point either. Well I think the crux of the argument here would be that TM is claiming to be from this tradition, yet time after time it comes up against that tradition in terms of errors, typically on things that were simply never told to us. This actually clarifies a lot of the deadends people will run into, so it is something worthwhile, not mere specious intellectualizing. Now some will claim that MMY restored the tradition to some original, better working state. The fact is, the Patanjali/yogic tradition(s) continues to be passed down and replicated like it always has been. There's was never any thing that needed to be restored or fixed. It works just fine. But it is interesting to see where the departures are and the issues they give rise to.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
On May 6, 2009, at 10:14 AM, grate.swan wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On May 6, 2009, at 9:37 AM, grate.swan wrote: Buddhist traditions of samadhi, and while the number of angas does vary, the insistence of their sequential performance in all Hindu yogic literature is quite notable, so much so that the mechanics of it has been delineated. And thus the yogic saying 'Those who skip the prerequisites of samadhi (i.e. the angas), even if they meditate for hundreds of years, will never attain samadhi.' And you base your point on one esoteric saying translated from centuries ago across probably multiple languages? I am not defending the opposite, but you seem to hardly made a case for your view. Don't assume I was interested in going into any lengthy defense. It's worthless to do such a thing here any longer. Really this is a kind of yoga 101 revelation, it should hardly be surprising. Not to sound offensive but if you're that ignorant of basic yogic teachings, I'd recommend cracking a book or two first. I base my observations on my own direct experience and being taught by a lineal teacher who was part of a line that had been replicating the same results for centuries. The Patanjali tradition. Thanks for pointing out my huge omission to my list of 6 year old's arguments the to questions about their claims (of stronger dads and better gizmos) 3) You are so stupid (and thus I am not going to say more) LOL, Is this where you throw yourself on the ground and have a tantrum? I'll continue to interject when I want, as I feel appropriate. It's not my job to educate you or make up for your own lack of experience!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On May 6, 2009, at 10:06 AM, Richard M wrote: Well I think the crux of the argument here would be that TM is claiming to be from this tradition, yet time after time it comes up against that tradition in terms of errors, typically on things that were simply never told to us. This actually clarifies a lot of the deadends people will run into, so it is something worthwhile, not mere specious intellectualizing. Now some will claim that MMY restored the tradition to some original, better working state. The fact is, the Patanjali/yogic tradition(s) continues to be passed down and replicated like it always has been. There's was never any thing that needed to be restored or fixed. It works just fine. But it is interesting to see where the departures are and the issues they give rise to. So your argument appears primarily to be a scholarly a sort of comparative, historical view of meditation methods. Interesting, but of no value to me in any practical sense. The one possible practical point your raised is This actually clarifies a lot of the deadends people will run into, so it is something worthwhile, I would think each individual is best to determine what is worthwhile for them -- and perhaps don't need you to tell them, at a distance. This is smelling like another version of the White Knight syndrome -- a need to save feeble, non-thinking, immature, and unworldly practicioners / women from caddish, brutish, practices / men. Thanks again another great point for the list. 4) You are too (stupid, lazy, uneducatioed, imature, feeble) to figure out whats GOOD for YOU. Stand aside knave, Mighty mouse is bow here!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
On May 6, 2009, at 10:38 AM, grate.swan wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On May 6, 2009, at 10:06 AM, Richard M wrote: Well I think the crux of the argument here would be that TM is claiming to be from this tradition, yet time after time it comes up against that tradition in terms of errors, typically on things that were simply never told to us. This actually clarifies a lot of the deadends people will run into, so it is something worthwhile, not mere specious intellectualizing. Now some will claim that MMY restored the tradition to some original, better working state. The fact is, the Patanjali/yogic tradition(s) continues to be passed down and replicated like it always has been. There's was never any thing that needed to be restored or fixed. It works just fine. But it is interesting to see where the departures are and the issues they give rise to. So your argument appears primarily to be a scholarly a sort of comparative, historical view of meditation methods. Interesting, but of no value to me in any practical sense. If it was a scholarly comparative, etc. view, it might have less value. It's interesting I see this same comment when TM folks are confronted with others with more experience. They're often very reactive for some reason to people experientially familiar with the tradition(s) they claim to be from. I do think the scholarly POV is quite worthwhile, but I also, for example have found it valuable to find out what that gap was in my awareness during my TM practice and why my breath stopped. It was even more interesting to then be able to be guided beyond that in an authentic way to the next steps. It was amazing to me (but obviously much less so to you) that there was a record and tradition of others who had not only had experienced the same thing, but that they had been repeating this simple process of exploration and unfoldment for so long, so successfully. It was amazing that they had a vocabulary for all this. The one possible practical point your raised is This actually clarifies a lot of the deadends people will run into, so it is something worthwhile, I would think each individual is best to determine what is worthwhile for them -- and perhaps don't need you to tell them, at a distance. This is smelling like another version of the White Knight syndrome -- a need to save feeble, non-thinking, immature, and unworldly practicioners / women from caddish, brutish, practices / men. Hmmm. Bizarre. Thanks again another great point for the list. 4) You are too (stupid, lazy, uneducatioed, imature, feeble) to figure out whats GOOD for YOU. Stand aside knave, Mighty mouse is bow here! How childish. Whatever.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: So your argument appears primarily to be a scholarly a sort of comparative, historical view of meditation methods. Interesting, but of no value to me in any practical sense. If it was a scholarly comparative, etc. view, it might have less value. It's interesting I see this same comment when TM folks are confronted with others with more experience. They're often very reactive for some reason to people experientially familiar with the tradition(s) they claim to be from. I do think the scholarly POV is quite worthwhile, but I also, for example have found it valuable to find out what that gap was in my awareness during my TM practice and why my breath stopped. It was even more interesting to then be able to be guided beyond that in an authentic way to the next steps. It was amazing to me (but obviously much less so to you) that there was a record and tradition of others who had not only had experienced the same thing, but that they had been repeating this simple process of exploration and unfoldment for so long, so successfully. It was amazing that they had a vocabulary for all this. So you have gained some intellectual satisfaction. Still, you continue to divert from the original question -- What practical benefits in daily life in the realm of improved thinking and cognitive function, improved body / health function, improved social behavior? Its your perogative to punt -- but I assume that would men you have no such benefits and diversion and deflection are the best that you can come up with.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
On May 6, 2009, at 11:03 AM, grate.swan wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: So your argument appears primarily to be a scholarly a sort of comparative, historical view of meditation methods. Interesting, but of no value to me in any practical sense. If it was a scholarly comparative, etc. view, it might have less value. It's interesting I see this same comment when TM folks are confronted with others with more experience. They're often very reactive for some reason to people experientially familiar with the tradition(s) they claim to be from. I do think the scholarly POV is quite worthwhile, but I also, for example have found it valuable to find out what that gap was in my awareness during my TM practice and why my breath stopped. It was even more interesting to then be able to be guided beyond that in an authentic way to the next steps. It was amazing to me (but obviously much less so to you) that there was a record and tradition of others who had not only had experienced the same thing, but that they had been repeating this simple process of exploration and unfoldment for so long, so successfully. It was amazing that they had a vocabulary for all this. So you have gained some intellectual satisfaction. Still, you continue to divert from the original question -- No, again you try to misrepresent what I'm saying. It's not that important, it's the experiential understanding satisfaction that's really satisfying. It's yours. It can be shared. The intellectual understanding, the inseparable relative aspect, is the means to share. What practical benefits in daily life in the realm of improved thinking and cognitive function, improved body / health function, improved social behavior? Yes, of course, these are helpful. Its your perogative to punt -- but I assume that would men you have no such benefits and diversion and deflection are the best that you can come up with. No, I don't really thinks it's helpful to brag these kind of things. It's sufficient to say 'yes, many of the things you've heard are true.' The more wood the more fire. Your wood and your fire will be different from mine, so why bother talking about my fire? Negative energy can transform into wisdom and insight. Negative emotions can diminish, yes, it's true. Virtue can blossom and have an impact in your way in the world. Your role as a compassionate human being can expand your role in the world, yes this can and does happen. Pass it on as best you can.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... wrote: Well - may well be so. But my point is that to assert with great authority that The Yogic Tradition asserts such and such of these thingies is a con (i.e. a claim to some privileged *insight* into the tradition). After all, if these angas are too arcane a subject for Wikipedia, it is hardly sensible to imply that there can be no ambiguity of interpretation hanging over them. In other words it is an instance, to go by flavour of the day, of a thought stopper. What, when you think about, IS The Yoga Tradition (singular)? Probably Maharishi Patanjali, considered by some to be the Father of Yoga. MMY defaulted the other limbs to one's own Religion (or didn't you know?), unfortunately for many, if not most, TM has become 'TM in lieu of Religion', a big mistake IMO. Ritual and the dogmatic aspects of religion are certainly *necessary*, because for the soul to exist so must the body. MMY SOB Religion The rituals of the various religions represent the body, and the practice of directly experiencing Being represents the spirit. *Both* are necessary and should go hand in hand. One will not survive without the other. MMY SOB Religion page 256
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
Dear Vaj, I appreciate your beef with the research but seems you're crossing a line of denigration here. Is one level to dismiss their research, is another to be a complete TM-denier. Is kind of like that thinking of holocaust deniers. Such haters, they'll deny anything about the holocaust, like Anne Frank never could have happened. You deny TM with the (some) research. You deny and you take away their experience too just dismissing it. There is something not honest in going that far against a whole people. Whoa. Is not really yours to do. With Best Regards, -Doug in FF --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: Such states are easily demonstrable by methods known for thousands of years. So if the state is legit., it would be relatively easy to know, even without a lot of fancy science. What I've found is TMers learn to talk and think in flowery language as a part of the TM mythos and that ends up having little basis in reality, although they're quite convinced what they're experiencing is something remarkable. Remarkable experiences require remarkable proof. So far no proof... A word is a word. An experience is an experience. Both are different. - S. Shigematsu
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote: Well - may well be so. But my point is that to assert with great authority that The Yogic Tradition asserts such and such of these thingies is a con (i.e. a claim to some privileged *insight* into the tradition). After all, if these angas are too arcane a subject for Wikipedia, it is hardly sensible to imply that there can be no ambiguity of interpretation hanging over them. In other words it is an instance, to go by flavour of the day, of a thought stopper. What, when you think about, IS The Yoga Tradition (singular)? Probably Maharishi Patanjali, considered by some to be the Father of Yoga. I think that's like saying THE Christian tradition is the Bible. That's obviosly true- but there are many alternative traditions of interpreting the Bible, as we all know. MMY defaulted the other limbs to one's own Religion (or didn't you know?), unfortunately for many, if not most, TM has become 'TM in lieu of Religion', a big mistake IMO. Yes I know you're hot on this Billy. And I sometimes wonder if you may be on to something. However I can't quite see how MMY defaulted limb 3, for example (posture/asanas) to religion! Interestingly, my 'Concordance' does not have an entry for angas. MMY seems to say that ANY limb will do (not just dhyana/meditation). All roads lead to Rome, but you don't need to toil on all of them: A close scrutiny of Patanjali's exposition of Yoga reveals that the actual process of attaining the state of Yoga belongs not only to dhyana, or meditation...but to all the other limbs of his eightfold Yogathese different limbs have been mistakenly regarded as different steps...whereas in truth each limb is designed to create the state of Yoga in the sphere of life to which it relates (BG p.486). Ritual and the dogmatic aspects of religion are certainly *necessary*, because for the soul to exist so must the body. MMY SOB Religion The rituals of the various religions represent the body, and the practice of directly experiencing Being represents the spirit. *Both* are necessary and should go hand in hand. One will not survive without the other. MMY SOB Religion page 256
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote: Well - may well be so. But my point is that to assert with great authority that The Yogic Tradition asserts such and such of these thingies is a con (i.e. a claim to some privileged *insight* into the tradition). After all, if these angas are too arcane a subject for Wikipedia, it is hardly sensible to imply that there can be no ambiguity of interpretation hanging over them. In other words it is an instance, to go by flavour of the day, of a thought stopper. What, when you think about, IS The Yoga Tradition (singular)? Probably Maharishi Patanjali, considered by some to be the Father of Yoga. I think that's like saying THE Christian tradition is the Bible. That's obviosly true- but there are many alternative traditions of interpreting the Bible, as we all know. MMY defaulted the other limbs to one's own Religion (or didn't you know?), unfortunately for many, if not most, TM has become 'TM in lieu of Religion', a big mistake IMO. Yes I know you're hot on this Billy. And I sometimes wonder if you may be on to something. However I can't quite see how MMY defaulted limb 3, for example (posture/asanas) to religion! Sorry, didn't mean to include that one, he of course teaches that, I have a bad knee to prove it! :-) Interestingly, my 'Concordance' does not have an entry for angas. Ashtanga is a sanskrit compound word made by joining together ashta (aSTa) or eight with anga (aMga) or limb. Wiki MMY seems to say that ANY limb will do (not just dhyana/meditation). All roads lead to Rome, but you don't need to toil on all of them: True, he clearly mentions in one lecture in particular that TM is all you need, but I think what he 'wrote' is more authoritative to me, than what he said in front of thousands of people promoting TM. A close scrutiny of Patanjali's exposition of Yoga reveals that the actual process of attaining the state of Yoga belongs not only to dhyana, or meditation...but to all the other limbs of his eightfold Yogathese different limbs have been mistakenly regarded as different steps...whereas in truth each limb is designed to create the state of Yoga in the sphere of life to which it relates (BG p.486). Yes, but this comment is relevant primarily to the 'step' question and not the necessity of practicing all of them *simultaneously*. Remember MMY uses the word *means* to describe Patanjali's 8 limbs. Each one is a *means* to Yoga..shouldn't we be practicing them all? as Patanjali recommended? PS You can row a boat with one paddle but two are better...and eight?, well, you get the idea. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
Vaj wrote: I don't think most TM'ers or most meditators in any group have been able to achieve the 'breathless' state which is indicative of Samadhi. Vaj, Define breathless. Seems to me that living is living, and that means some use of ATP at the least. I'm guessing that suspension of breath merely means that the level of bodily excitation is so low that oxygen is not being removed from the bloodstream fast enough to justify inhalation for the nonce. The body will take another breath when it needs to. I personally love the concept of the bricked-up-in-a-cave yogi who is only hanging out by a thread. But, however slowly it may be, the yogi is still processing and using oxygen. I like your stages of consciousness concepts, because I can, as if, see the rate-of-oxidation spectrum they comprise. But, is that the whole truth? Do you think there's some sort of miraculous oxygenless format of some stage of consciousness that would be eternal -- that is, the bricked yogi never takes another breath? Does God breathe astral oxygen? Does prana have any utility in Vicuntha? Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: Vaj wrote: I don't think most TM'ers or most meditators in any group have been able to achieve the 'breathless' state which is indicative of Samadhi. Ahh, I think I wrote that, at any rate see below... Define breathless. Seems to me that living is living, and that means some use of ATP at the least. *that man doth not live by bread only*, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live. -- Deuteronomy 8: 2-3 (KJV) What this means Edg according to Swami Yoganada is that man's life precludes nutrition, the 'prana' that is the life of plants, animals and humans is the real source of mans existence. When during deep meditation the metabolic rate comes to zero, the individual prana is withdrawn (not the earth prana) and man is sustained by pure prana which is life itself! The 'silver cord' remains attached or the man would die, true transcending is conscious death. I'm guessing that suspension of breath merely means that the level of bodily excitation is so low that oxygen is not being removed from the bloodstream fast enough to justify inhalation for the nonce. The body will take another breath when it needs to. Actually it means the breath ceases altogether and man is living by the 'inner bread of life' a true state of transcendental consciousness. I personally love the concept of the bricked-up-in-a-cave yogi who is only hanging out by a thread. But, however slowly it may be, the yogi is still processing and using oxygen. Some Yogis have been buried for years, (remember Autobiography of a Yogi?) and resuscitated. I like your stages of consciousness concepts, because I can, as if, see the rate-of-oxidation spectrum they comprise. But, is that the whole truth? Do you think there's some sort of miraculous oxygenless format of some stage of consciousness that would be eternal -- that is, the bricked yogi never takes another breath? Does God breathe astral oxygen? Does prana have any utility in Vicuntha? Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: Vaj wrote: I don't think most TM'ers or most meditators in any group have been able to achieve the 'breathless' state which is indicative of Samadhi. Vaj, Define breathless. Seems to me that living is living, and that means some use of ATP at the least. I'm guessing that suspension of breath merely means that the level of bodily excitation is so low that oxygen is not being removed from the bloodstream fast enough to justify inhalation for the nonce. The body will take another breath when it needs to. I personally love the concept of the bricked-up-in-a-cave yogi who is only hanging out by a thread. But, however slowly it may be, the yogi is still processing and using oxygen. I like your stages of consciousness concepts, because I can, as if, see the rate-of-oxidation spectrum they comprise. But, is that the whole truth? Do you think there's some sort of miraculous oxygenless format of some stage of consciousness that would be eternal -- that is, the bricked yogi never takes another breath? Does God breathe astral oxygen? Does prana have any utility in Vicuntha? Edg My understanding of the breathless state is that there is no breathing at all. Of course, this cannot continue indefinitely as you would die. I think it was David Blane (not sure on spelling), the magician, ( who seems to me to be someone who has remarkable control over the body) who managed to hold his breath underwater for 17 minutes or thereabouts. . Divers and yogis use certain techniques to increase the ability to breath hold. Practice. And then before a big breath hold, first you do a slow and steady filling of the lungs, then exhalations to purge CO2 and then a final series of quick gulps of air. Most people can learn to hold their breath for 2 or 3 minutes pretty easily, but you shouldn't if you have ventricular abnormalities.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: Vaj wrote: I don't think most TM'ers or most meditators in any group have been able to achieve the 'breathless' state which is indicative of Samadhi. Vaj, Define breathless. Seems to me that living is living, and that means some use of ATP at the least. I'm guessing that suspension of breath merely means that the level of bodily excitation is so low that oxygen is not being removed from the bloodstream fast enough to justify inhalation for the nonce. The body will take another breath when it needs to. I personally love the concept of the bricked-up-in-a-cave yogi who is only hanging out by a thread. But, however slowly it may be, the yogi is still processing and using oxygen. I like your stages of consciousness concepts, because I can, as if, see the rate-of-oxidation spectrum they comprise. But, is that the whole truth? Do you think there's some sort of miraculous oxygenless format of some stage of consciousness that would be eternal -- that is, the bricked yogi never takes another breath? Does God breathe astral oxygen? Does prana have any utility in Vicuntha? Edg My understanding of the breathless state is that there is no breathing at all. Of course, this cannot continue indefinitely as you would die. Or breath. I think it was David Blane (not sure on spelling), the magician, ( who seems to me to be someone who has remarkable control over the body) who managed to hold his breath underwater for 17 minutes or thereabouts. Divers and yogis use certain techniques to increase the ability to breath hold. Practice. And then before a big breath hold, first you do a slow and steady filling of the lungs, then exhalations to purge CO2 and then a final series of quick gulps of air. Most people can learn to hold their breath for 2 or 3 minutes pretty easily, but you shouldn't if you have ventricular abnormalities.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: Vaj wrote: I don't think most TM'ers or most meditators in any group have been able to achieve the 'breathless' state which is indicative of Samadhi. Vaj, Define breathless. Seems to me that living is living, and that means some use of ATP at the least. I'm guessing that suspension of breath merely means that the level of bodily excitation is so low that oxygen is not being removed from the bloodstream fast enough to justify inhalation for the nonce. The body will take another breath when it needs to. I personally love the concept of the bricked-up-in-a-cave yogi who is only hanging out by a thread. But, however slowly it may be, the yogi is still processing and using oxygen. I like your stages of consciousness concepts, because I can, as if, see the rate-of-oxidation spectrum they comprise. But, is that the whole truth? Do you think there's some sort of miraculous oxygenless format of some stage of consciousness that would be eternal -- that is, the bricked yogi never takes another breath? Does God breathe astral oxygen? Does prana have any utility in Vicuntha? Edg My understanding of the breathless state is that there is no breathing at all. Of course, this cannot continue indefinitely as you would die. Or breathe. I think it was David Blane (not sure on spelling), the magician, ( who seems to me to be someone who has remarkable control over the body) who managed to hold his breath underwater for 17 minutes or thereabouts. Divers and yogis use certain techniques to increase the ability to breath hold. Practice. And then before a big breath hold, first you do a slow and steady filling of the lungs, then exhalations to purge CO2 and then a final series of quick gulps of air. Most people can learn to hold their breath for 2 or 3 minutes pretty easily, but you shouldn't if you have ventricular abnormalities.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: My understanding of the breathless state is that there is no breathing at all. Of course, this cannot continue indefinitely as you would die. Or breathe. This is not actually true according to Yogic Science, 'life' in the body is not from air, food and sun alone but also the prana, the subtle 'life force' without which one would die. One will learn, eventually, through meditations like TM to withdraw the attention completely and live sustained solely by the prana. It's a complex subject but 'basically' there are four pranas in question here, two apparently stay with the objective physical body and two completely leave and give rise to higher states of consciousness like transcendental consciousness. See MMY's talk on immortality on the physical level previously posted. From Autobiography of a Yogi below: No responsive stir from Master; I approached him cautiously. He was not breathing. This was my first observation of him in the yogic trance; it filled me with fright. His heart must have failed! I placed a mirror under his nose; no breath-vapor appeared. To make doubly certain, for minutes I closed his mouth and nostrils with my fingers. His body was cold and motionless. In a daze, I turned toward the door to summon help. This state is also mentioned in St. John's Revelation. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet, (sound of OM, from where all mantras come). 17 When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, Do not be afraid; I think it was David Blane (not sure on spelling), the magician, ( who seems to me to be someone who has remarkable control over the body) who managed to hold his breath underwater for 17 minutes or thereabouts. Divers and yogis use certain techniques to increase the ability to breath hold. Practice. And then before a big breath hold, first you do a slow and steady filling of the lungs, then exhalations to purge CO2 and then a final series of quick gulps of air. Most people can learn to hold their breath for 2 or 3 minutes pretty easily, but you shouldn't if you have ventricular abnormalities.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
ruthsimplicity wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: Vaj wrote: I don't think most TM'ers or most meditators in any group have been able to achieve the 'breathless' state which is indicative of Samadhi. Vaj, Define breathless. Seems to me that living is living, and that means some use of ATP at the least. I'm guessing that suspension of breath merely means that the level of bodily excitation is so low that oxygen is not being removed from the bloodstream fast enough to justify inhalation for the nonce. The body will take another breath when it needs to. I personally love the concept of the bricked-up-in-a-cave yogi who is only hanging out by a thread. But, however slowly it may be, the yogi is still processing and using oxygen. I like your stages of consciousness concepts, because I can, as if, see the rate-of-oxidation spectrum they comprise. But, is that the whole truth? Do you think there's some sort of miraculous oxygenless format of some stage of consciousness that would be eternal -- that is, the bricked yogi never takes another breath? Does God breathe astral oxygen? Does prana have any utility in Vicuntha? Edg My understanding of the breathless state is that there is no breathing at all. Of course, this cannot continue indefinitely as you would die. I think it was David Blane (not sure on spelling), the magician, ( who seems to me to be someone who has remarkable control over the body) who managed to hold his breath underwater for 17 minutes or thereabouts. . Divers and yogis use certain techniques to increase the ability to breath hold. Practice. And then before a big breath hold, first you do a slow and steady filling of the lungs, then exhalations to purge CO2 and then a final series of quick gulps of air. Most people can learn to hold their breath for 2 or 3 minutes pretty easily, but you shouldn't if you have ventricular abnormalities. One friend who is an Indian MD (and not associated with the TM movement in any way) has talked about these cases of people (not necessarily yogis because anyone can master the technique) who would come into a hospital and ask doctors to check them while they went into a state that resembled death. And indeed they were able slow their metabolism so much that they would appear dead according to medical tests. There are some mantras that can really slow the metabolism and must be handled with care. It would be interesting to check long term practitioners of meditation techniques (and this MUST include non-TM ones) for sleep apnea because I bet if the metabolic state gets very low it may appear they are having one of those attacks but of course they're not and should not be treated for it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
On May 6, 2009, at 1:07 PM, Duveyoung wrote: Vaj wrote: I don't think most TM'ers or most meditators in any group have been able to achieve the 'breathless' state which is indicative of Samadhi. Uh, Edg, I didn't say this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On May 6, 2009, at 1:27 AM, sparaig wrote: As I said, we agree to disagree... Or, to quote a famous anonymous sage: there are as many legitimate i interpretations of the Veda as there are enlightened persons. Unfortunately this is one area where the sages of the yoga-darshana (not the Veda) are in agreement. Generally the type of people who subvert the angas are what would in western languages be referred to as black magicians or in theosophical lingo black brothers: give me the magic, let me circumvent the virtues, they will come on their own, just give me power, NOW. Is that how you see the TM-Sidhis program? That is how the yogic tradition perceives the intent of those who try to skip the angas. Is that how you perceive the TM-Sidhis program? L
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: Vaj wrote: I don't think most TM'ers or most meditators in any group have been able to achieve the 'breathless' state which is indicative of Samadhi. Vaj, Define breathless. Seems to me that living is living, and that means some use of ATP at the least. I'm guessing that suspension of breath merely means that the level of bodily excitation is so low that oxygen is not being removed from the bloodstream fast enough to justify inhalation for the nonce. The body will take another breath when it needs to. I personally love the concept of the bricked-up-in-a-cave yogi who is only hanging out by a thread. But, however slowly it may be, the yogi is still processing and using oxygen. I like your stages of consciousness concepts, because I can, as if, see the rate-of-oxidation spectrum they comprise. But, is that the whole truth? Do you think there's some sort of miraculous oxygenless format of some stage of consciousness that would be eternal -- that is, the bricked yogi never takes another breath? Does God breathe astral oxygen? Does prana have any utility in Vicuntha? Edg My understanding of the breathless state is that there is no breathing at all. Of course, this cannot continue indefinitely as you would die. Or breathe. I think it was David Blane (not sure on spelling), the magician, ( who seems to me to be someone who has remarkable control over the body) who managed to hold his breath underwater for 17 minutes or thereabouts. Divers and yogis use certain techniques to increase the ability to breath hold. Practice. And then before a big breath hold, first you do a slow and steady filling of the lungs, then exhalations to purge CO2 and then a final series of quick gulps of air. Most people can learn to hold their breath for 2 or 3 minutes pretty easily, but you shouldn't if you have ventricular abnormalities. Quite a few years ago, the TM researchers admitted that the breath suspension state during TM was only apparent. There's several studies that have looked at the state in-depth and I'm pretty sure I've cited all of them here more than 5 times each. The big three citations follow: http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/reprint/44/2/133 http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/reprint/46/3/267 http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/reprint/44/2/133 All three are full reprints. Enjoy. Lawson.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
On May 6, 2009, at 6:13 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On May 6, 2009, at 1:27 AM, sparaig wrote: As I said, we agree to disagree... Or, to quote a famous anonymous sage: there are as many legitimate i interpretations of the Veda as there are enlightened persons. Unfortunately this is one area where the sages of the yoga-darshana (not the Veda) are in agreement. Generally the type of people who subvert the angas are what would in western languages be referred to as black magicians or in theosophical lingo black brothers: give me the magic, let me circumvent the virtues, they will come on their own, just give me power, NOW. Is that how you see the TM-Sidhis program? That is how the yogic tradition perceives the intent of those who try to skip the angas. Is that how you perceive the TM-Sidhis program? Black magicians? It's one possibility but not necessarily in the way you would think of it as. Some masters like to use such techniques to enslave their students so they tend to stick around. So for a disreputable teacher, they have a certain function. More often though it's just an error in the way the yoga-sutras are taught. SBS certainly agrees, as he clearly states siddhis should trail behind you (i.e. not you chasing after them with formulae). He quite clearly echoes the sentiments of the yogic tradition and the Holy Shankaracharya Order as well.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: I'd rather discuss the new, cutting edge stuff coming out at events like Mind and Life 18 or the Harvard conference last weekend, than lament over your spilt milk again! Of course should something eventually come out on TM that is reputable, worthwhile and new--sure I'd love to hear it. I'm just not holding my breath on that one. The same old relaxation response findings just aren't that exciting for those of us interested in higher states of consciousness. An interesting parallel to the thousands who, unlike some who found Maharishi's talks brilliant and incisive, moved on to some other teacher who didn't recycle the same mind-pablum ad absurdum. Interestingly enough, the ones who never tired of Maharishi saying the same old things are the ones who still claim to find the TM science believable. It's just like kids, in a way. Some like to hear the same old bedtime stories read to them over and over and over. Others edit the same old stories and try to find new ways to tell them and new ways to sell them and think of that as being creative. Yet others grow up to write their own stories. Call me silly, but I'm going to reserve the word creative for those who actually create something new.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: A vaguely related thought on research and claims -- in our lives. People make a lot of claims, here and everywhere. For example some may claim that if an age difference between beer drinkers is to wide, the younger is quite subject to corruption, disruption, and even severe discombobulation. Yet, this is only a claim. Perhaps based on observation of a small sample of people. Hardly epistimologically strong. Perhaps we should run an experiment. Gather 200 women under 30. let 100 b a control group. Have Turq talk to the other 100 of them -- individually - or possibly in groups not 3, over a beer. Let the dialogue take its course. That is, some will end in 5 minutes, some may carry on. Even for some time. Beyond breakfast. Then test all 200 women. See if there is a statistically significant difference between the control and dosed' groups -- in psychological trauma, adoption of false ideas as beliefs (aka been snowed, erratic behavior, problems with subsequent relations, a social closing up -- increased anxiety or fear of meeting new people, lower grades (if students), loss of job or diminishment of income, poorer athletic ability, degraded memory and cognitive function, higher blood pressure, different brain waves, depression, anxiety, etc. Until such evidence is forthcoming, it would appear prudent to take claims about the deleterious effects of such age- gapped dialogs as simply speculation, dreaming or fantasy. Regardless, in the name of science, I sugggest we all send Turq $50 to fund such research. See? This is *exactly* the difference between creativity and complacency I was talking about in my earlier post this morning. Some are content with rehashing the same old same old research, just as they were content with listening to the same old same old talks from Maharishi for decades. They never seem to get tired of it. But others, displaying a little creativity, think of newer, more interesting scientific studies. I heartily applaud grate.swan's idea for a research project. I am so taken with the idea that I will reject his suggestion to send me $50, and will offer to fund the study myself. Don't send money...send test subjects. This is selfless service on my part, and I hope that you all appreciate it. I shall forward the peer-reviewed test results to you as soon as the study is completed. All I ask in return is the chance to hit on the 100 women in the control group after the study is completed.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
On May 4, 2009, at 10:15 PM, Peter wrote: The physiological/neurological research on TM has always been interesting and legit because its just a straight measure of brain wave activity. The problem has come in when there is an attempt to correlate these measure with complex psychological traits. The worst is when you see a degree of hemispheric coherence at some frequency and someone claims that this means that TM allows you to use more of your brain and therefore you are better at something than someone who doesn't have this coherence. The politics of consciousness enter when the non-scientists or the either deceptive/naive scientists make very self-serving statements regarding the research. This was non-physiological, but it is like the latest research that, according to the TMO, shows that TM reduces the symptoms of ADHD. Even the TM scientist David Orme- Johnson claimed this and it is just patently false. The design of the study does not allow you to conclude this at all, primarily because there was no control group and each subject functioned as there own control. If you know anything about research design, such a study essentially tells you nothing other than a bunch of students over x amount of time had a lessening of their ADHD symptoms. Why this lessening occurred, which is the most important question, can not be concluded because no variables have been controlled. I would love to ask David, why he believes you can conclude that TM is the one variable that caused these results when not a single variable has been controlled. They seem to be operating on the premise that you can fool some of the people most of the time. Make no mistake, ADHD and meditation has a potential to make some big $$$ for the TMO, so they will no doubt continue to attempt to get into school districts with there science and they will try to get it used for cardiac patients, another mistake. There has been some validated success with ADHD and other forms of meditation, so I suspect they'll try to ride on the backs of them.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
On May 5, 2009, at 2:45 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: I'd rather discuss the new, cutting edge stuff coming out at events like Mind and Life 18 or the Harvard conference last weekend, than lament over your spilt milk again! Of course should something eventually come out on TM that is reputable, worthwhile and new--sure I'd love to hear it. I'm just not holding my breath on that one. The same old relaxation response findings just aren't that exciting for those of us interested in higher states of consciousness. An interesting parallel to the thousands who, unlike some who found Maharishi's talks brilliant and incisive, moved on to some other teacher who didn't recycle the same mind-pablum ad absurdum. Interestingly enough, the ones who never tired of Maharishi saying the same old things are the ones who still claim to find the TM science believable. You know it's funny, someone posted some old MMY lecture videos on YouTube, so I decided to watch one to see how it stood the test of time. I watched the one on yoga (and it's limbs) and found it really didn't stand the test of time. In fact in terms of authentic lineal yoga teachings, he was flat out WRONG. The most noticeable thing however was his use of repetition. I used to parse it as 'he wants to really get the point across' but listening to it now, one gets the sense he's just acting and trying to come up with something convincing to say. Unfortunately, if you had any real training in Patanjali, it was easy to see he was just making up something new and convincing and the droning repetition made it sound profound.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
Of course should something eventually come out on TM that is reputable, worthwhile and new--sure I'd love to hear it. I'm just not holding my breath on that one. The same old relaxation response findings just aren't that exciting for those of us interested in higher states of consciousness. TurquoiseB wrote: An interesting parallel to the thousands who, unlike some who found Maharishi's talks brilliant and incisive, moved on to some other teacher who didn't recycle the same mind-pablum ad absurdum. The more you give, the more people we can help. - Frederick Lenz http://www.ex-cult.org/Groups/Rama/wired Interestingly enough, the ones who never tired of Maharishi saying the same old things are the ones who still claim to find the TM science believable. It's just like kids, in a way. Some like to hear the same old bedtime stories read to them over and over and over. Others edit the same old stories and try to find new ways to tell them and new ways to sell them and think of that as being creative. Yet others grow up to write their own stories. Call me silly, but I'm going to reserve the word creative for those who actually create something new.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: I watched the one on yoga (and it's limbs) and found it really didn't stand the test of time. In fact in terms of authentic lineal yoga teachings, he was flat out WRONG. The most noticeable thing however was his use of repetition. I used to parse it as 'he wants to really get the point across' but listening to it now, one gets the sense he's just acting and trying to come up with something convincing to say. Unfortunately, if you had any real training in Patanjali, it was easy to see he was just making up something new and convincing and the droning repetition made it sound profound. You see, the thing is, there is knower, the known and the process of knowing. This is very beautiful. And when you have two people each observing a thing, you have two knowers, two processes of knowing -- but only one thing, one object of knowing. This is very beautiful. What is this object of knowing? huh? huh? So when one person says, the rose is red and the other person says the rose is black, then we know that there may be many truths, but only One Truth. You see the point? Whether the rose is red or black, is not material. (howls of laughter). Its not material. You see? The rose is not material. But the person who sees black, that may be because they are black inside. Dark. No light. And the person who sees the red rose is full of light inside. You see? The rose is the rose but each person seeing the rose, sees it in their own way. They create their own reality, their own level of awareness. Sometimes there is enough light to just see the surface value. Other times there is sufficient light to see the entire rose -- all of its values, from surface down to the sap, the quantum level of sap. Now the Ved is so profound that it sees truth in everything. There is truth in the man who sees black rose. And there is truth in the man who sees infinite value of the rose. Both are true according to their own level of awareness, the level of light they have inside, and shine onto the process of knowing. Yous see? Its very beautiful. So the Ved sees from the level of Brahman. The Ved sees the wholeness of life. The complete wholeness. Even the man who sees the rose in full light, who sees the infinite value of the rose, is still not the full truth. Ved shines Its light, and the whole thing is revealed. You see. Its so profound, so profound this very simple knowledge from our tradition of masters. It is not a complicated thing, its the most simple thing. the most simple, relaxed thing on the entire universe. So the man who sees the rose is black, we don't say you are black inside. No we smile and say, yes, that is part of the truth. very good. You are getting part of the truth. Now if this man who sees black, this man in darkness, then if he takes his awareness to the level of the Ved, then instantly, as fast as light travels, he will see the total truth. the whole truth. the wholeness. So we invite the man who sees dark to just dive deep into that fundamental level of the Ved -- and all his darkness and grumbling will go away. Like darkness in a room. It does not exist. Its gone once the light is turned on. You see? Its very beautiful. We celebrate the man who sees only blackness, only darkness, the blindman, we see the blindman as part of the Ved. And when we take our awareness to the level of Brahm, the level of the Ved, then we see the totality of the man in darkness. Darkness is a reflection of the Ved. Light is a reflection of the Ved. Together, they are what Ved Sees. When Knower, Object, and Process of Knowing become one. Become One on the Unified Field of Awareness. Then the man in darkness just disappears. You see the point?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: The physiological/neurological research on TM has always been interesting and legit because its just a straight measure of brain wave activity. The problem has come in when there is an attempt to correlate these measure with complex psychological traits. The worst is when you see a degree of hemispheric coherence at some frequency and someone claims that this means that TM allows you to use more of your brain and therefore you are better at something than someone who doesn't have this coherence. The politics of consciousness enter when the non-scientists or the either deceptive/naive scientists make very self-serving statements regarding the research. This was non-physiological, but it is like the latest research that, according to the TMO, shows that TM reduces the symptoms of ADHD. Even the TM scientist David Orme-Johnson claimed this and it is just patently false. The design of the study does not allow you to conclude this at all, primarily because there was no control group and each subject functioned as there own control. If you know anything about research design, such a study essentially tells you nothing other than a bunch of students over x amount of time had a lessening of their ADHD symptoms. Why this lessening occurred, which is the most important question, can not be concluded because no variables have been controlled. I would love to ask David, why he believes you can conclude that TM is the one variable that caused these results when not a single variable has been controlled. Pete, In some hundreds of studies published now, some of them are controlled? David O-J was retired to Florida wasn't he? Seems he left (was cast out?) with some lot of other faculty about that time. Does he still have movement credentials? Does seems if they could just use the two, three or four hundred good studies then they'd still be able to credibly crow. Seems to be they're getting killed out in the public domain over parts of what had been their research. However, evidently they're teaming more with real universities to publish now. Probably a good strategy longterm. --- On Mon, 5/4/09, dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony...@... wrote: From: dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony...@... Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, May 4, 2009, 9:24 PM paste Dear Doug, On a more pragmatic note: As you can see from the recent News bulletin included below. The mere fact that a peer reviewed Professional Journal accepts this type of research silently speaks with a mightier voice than all the critics on FFL. One has to bust a gut to get published in one of these journals. One's work has to be impeccable and considered relevant by the your peers to even be considered. Like any stable worthy of it's hard earned reputation, no professional Journal wants to be seen backing the wrong horse. All love, paste For me the radical arguments like the ones you brought to my attention seem to pose either/or choices. Either the measurement of EEG alpha waves is an accurate indicator of higher states of consciousness or they are not. But I have learned to appreciate that the relative universe I have enjoyed for more than 60 years, is a limitless reservoir of infinite choice. I have often observed that a concept that our imaginations project as being 'either/or' is seamlessly integrated into a greater whole as new knowledge is gained and expands. For this reason, I conclude that all the scientific research on consciousness has some value. In its most elemental form it has a value in that it will take us to greater knowledge. But more pragmatically speaking, I believe that there will be an integration of everything that is being learned as the measurements of consciousness come together to give us an understanding that is greater than their collective technical components. On a final note, I believe it is myopically prejudicial for a critic to say of a brilliant scientist that he is clinging to his theory because his theory is what he wants to believe to be true. On the contrary, to my surprise the brilliant scientist that I have met here at Maharishi University of Management our true seekers of knowledge, (are) ready, willing, and able to let the light of science illuminate their path. end paste To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
On May 5, 2009, at 11:33 AM, dhamiltony2k5 wrote: Does he still have movement credentials? Does seems if they could just use the two, three or four hundred good studies then they'd still be able to credibly crow. Seems to be they're getting killed out in the public domain over parts of what had been their research. However, evidently they're teaming more with real universities to publish now. Probably a good strategy longterm. Yes, they have used universities--with TB's who are hidden behind the studies. I suspect what will happen next is they'll just get better at hiding the TB's behind them. That appears to be their new tack: http://spacecityskeptics.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/how-to-design-a- positive-study-meditation-for-childhood-adhd/ LINK
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
Dear Grate.swan, This is good. I'm glad you wrote this here. People evidently do have their own experience with it around any of what is said. Any of this is easy to dismiss or miss if you have no experience with it. And yet, absolutely if 2 out of 3, or even 1 out of 3 of the TM studies are good then proly likely that what is going on here is quite extraordinary and possibly significant. self-validation is some of the experience of folks here too and evidently it can stand way more than some of the absolutism of the TM-hating as they may say it. Jai Guru Dev, -Doug in FF --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: The physiological/neurological research on TM has always been interesting and legit because its just a straight measure of brain wave activity. The problem has come in when there is an attempt to correlate these measure with complex psychological traits. The worst is when you see a degree of hemispheric coherence at some frequency and someone claims that this means that TM allows you to use more of your brain and therefore you are better at something than someone who doesn't have this coherence. The politics of consciousness enter when the non-scientists or the either deceptive/naive scientists make very self-serving statements regarding the research. This was non-physiological, but it is like the latest research that, according to the TMO, shows that TM reduces the symptoms of ADHD. Even the TM scientist David Orme-Johnson claimed this and it is just patently false. The design of the study does not allow you to conclude this at all, primarily because there was no control group and each subject functioned as there own control. If you know anything about research design, such a study essentially tells you nothing other than a bunch of students over x amount of time had a lessening of their ADHD symptoms. Why this lessening occurred, which is the most important question, can not be concluded because no variables have been controlled. I would love to ask David, why he believes you can conclude that TM is the one variable that caused these results when not a single variable has been controlled. Your points are well taken. And I cringe at sloppy research cast as something else. However, epistimologically, in day to day life, most of us live in pretty muddy and murky waters. We all do self-control, single subject experiments all the time. And we actually believe some of them. You eat a food, take a drug, do a meditation method, read a book and make (tentative) conclusions about the value to you -- and possibly others. It may be only a bit better than 50:50 (if its a yes/no type question) odds but 55:45 is better than random. We tend to muddle through this way. Did you start TM or any other methods because of the scientific research? Perhaps. But the real deal was trying it for yourself. If you felt better, you continued, if worse didn't. Better or worse than what? your single subject self-controlled past experience. I suppose even ad hoc, informal experiments, with more than a single subject, even if self-controlled can tell you something. Like a focus group used widely in marketing -- it's not statistically valid, but you get a feel if the thing, idea, concept, has any juice to it. I would rather see a self-controlled experiment over no experiment. As a preliminary / experimental basis, it may provide enough juice to warrant or inspire more rigorous research.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On May 4, 2009, at 10:15 PM, Peter wrote: The physiological/neurological research on TM has always been interesting and legit because its just a straight measure of brain wave activity. The problem has come in when there is an attempt to correlate these measure with complex psychological traits. The worst is when you see a degree of hemispheric coherence at some frequency and someone claims that this means that TM allows you to use more of your brain and therefore you are better at something than someone who doesn't have this coherence. The politics of consciousness enter when the non-scientists or the either deceptive/naive scientists make very self-serving statements regarding the research. This was non-physiological, but it is like the latest research that, according to the TMO, shows that TM reduces the symptoms of ADHD. Even the TM scientist David Orme- Johnson claimed this and it is just patently false. The design of the study does not allow you to conclude this at all, primarily because there was no control group and each subject functioned as there own control. If you know anything about research design, such a study essentially tells you nothing other than a bunch of students over x amount of time had a lessening of their ADHD symptoms. Why this lessening occurred, which is the most important question, can not be concluded because no variables have been controlled. I would love to ask David, why he believes you can conclude that TM is the one variable that caused these results when not a single variable has been controlled. They seem to be operating on the premise that you can fool some of the people most of the time. Make no mistake, ADHD and meditation has a potential to make some big $$$ for the TMO, so they will no doubt continue to attempt to get into school districts with there science and they will try to get it used for cardiac patients, another mistake. There has been some validated success with ADHD and other forms of meditation, so I suspect they'll try to ride on the backs of them. But of course, neither Fred Travis nor Alaric Arenander nor any other TM researcher could possibly perform legitimate positive research on ADHD and TM... L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On May 5, 2009, at 2:45 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: I'd rather discuss the new, cutting edge stuff coming out at events like Mind and Life 18 or the Harvard conference last weekend, than lament over your spilt milk again! Of course should something eventually come out on TM that is reputable, worthwhile and new--sure I'd love to hear it. I'm just not holding my breath on that one. The same old relaxation response findings just aren't that exciting for those of us interested in higher states of consciousness. An interesting parallel to the thousands who, unlike some who found Maharishi's talks brilliant and incisive, moved on to some other teacher who didn't recycle the same mind-pablum ad absurdum. Interestingly enough, the ones who never tired of Maharishi saying the same old things are the ones who still claim to find the TM science believable. You know it's funny, someone posted some old MMY lecture videos on YouTube, so I decided to watch one to see how it stood the test of time. I watched the one on yoga (and it's limbs) and found it really didn't stand the test of time. In fact in terms of authentic lineal yoga teachings, he was flat out WRONG. The most noticeable thing however was his use of repetition. I used to parse it as 'he wants to really get the point across' but listening to it now, one gets the sense he's just acting and trying to come up with something convincing to say. Unfortunately, if you had any real training in Patanjali, it was easy to see he was just making up something new and convincing and the droning repetition made it sound profound. As I said, we agree to disagree... Or, to quote a famous anonymous sage: there are as many legitimate i interpretations of the Veda as there are enlightened persons. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
Epistemologically day to day. Similarly, from our friend on campus: paste ,,,truth is an experience that occurs when our personal belief (s), be they individual or socially-consensual, intersect with our experience. My argument is not to say that what we believe is true at one moment in time is not extremely valuable. On the contrary, it is upon the foundation of apparent-truths that the entire relative world progress from. I therefore expect virtually everything I think I know to be true about the world to change. I also expect that, that change will become more and more frequent as we progress forward through time. As I said, I'm not really qualified academically to shed much light on whether alpha-waves coherence indicates higher states of consciousness. I don't believe that neuroscience has developed a significant enough understanding of the entire brain measurement process to make a definitive determination. However, my expectations based on personal experience, is that this measurement process is going to become more and more and more refined over time as new knowledge or truths are revealed. Personally, I have serious doubts as to whether we will ever be able to physically measure the mechanics of consciousness. I believe that at best we may hope to get some indicators which can be cross referenced with sufficient confidence to provide theoretical validity. Like many long term meditators I have experienced 'Being' beyond time-space. At that level of consciousness there is no relative world, no relative universe. How then, can a measurement be taken of the deepest level of consciousness when nothing physical like the brain exists to measure. end paste However, epistimologically, in day to day life, most of us live in pretty muddy and murky waters. We all do self-control, single subject experiments all the time. And we actually believe some of them. You eat a food, take a drug, do a meditation method, read a book and make (tentative) conclusions about the value to you -- and possibly others. It may be only a bit better than 50:50 (if its a yes/no type question) odds but 55:45 is better than random. We tend to muddle through this way. Did you start TM or any other methods because of the scientific research? Perhaps. But the real deal was trying it for yourself. If you felt better, you continued, if worse didn't. Better or worse than what? your single subject self-controlled past experience. I suppose even ad hoc, informal experiments, with more than a single subject, even if self-controlled can tell you something. Like a focus group used widely in marketing -- it's not statistically valid, but you get a feel if the thing, idea, concept, has any juice to it. I would rather see a self-controlled experiment over no experiment. As a preliminary / experimental basis, it may provide enough juice to warrant or inspire more rigorous research. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony...@... wrote: Dear Grate.swan, This is good. I'm glad you wrote this here. People evidently do have their own experience with it around any of what is said. Any of this is easy to dismiss or miss if you have no experience with it. And yet, absolutely if 2 out of 3, or even 1 out of 3 of the TM studies are good then proly likely that what is going on here is quite extraordinary and possibly significant. self-validation is some of the experience of folks here too and evidently it can stand way more than some of the absolutism of the TM-hating as they may say it. Jai Guru Dev, -Doug in FF --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: The physiological/neurological research on TM has always been interesting and legit because its just a straight measure of brain wave activity. The problem has come in when there is an attempt to correlate these measure with complex psychological traits. The worst is when you see a degree of hemispheric coherence at some frequency and someone claims that this means that TM allows you to use more of your brain and therefore you are better at something than someone who doesn't have this coherence. The politics of consciousness enter when the non-scientists or the either deceptive/naive scientists make very self-serving statements regarding the research. This was non-physiological, but it is like the latest research that, according to the TMO, shows that TM reduces the symptoms of ADHD. Even the TM scientist David Orme-Johnson claimed this and it is just patently false. The design of the study does not allow you to conclude this at all, primarily because there was no control group and each subject functioned as there own control. If you know anything about research design, such a study
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
On May 5, 2009, at 8:44 PM, sparaig wrote: They seem to be operating on the premise that you can fool some of the people most of the time. Make no mistake, ADHD and meditation has a potential to make some big $$$ for the TMO, so they will no doubt continue to attempt to get into school districts with there science and they will try to get it used for cardiac patients, another mistake. There has been some validated success with ADHD and other forms of meditation, so I suspect they'll try to ride on the backs of them. But of course, neither Fred Travis nor Alaric Arenander nor any other TM researcher could possibly perform legitimate positive research on ADHD and TM... Well, I think you need to ask some different questions, namely, can an actual attentional improvement be found in the subjects, will they be randomized AND will that stand when compared to good controls, not just some lame controls? Of course if they're to prove attentional resiliency, they also need to show neuroplastic changes. There are a new and growing list of criteria in this area.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
On May 5, 2009, at 8:46 PM, sparaig wrote: You know it's funny, someone posted some old MMY lecture videos on YouTube, so I decided to watch one to see how it stood the test of time. I watched the one on yoga (and it's limbs) and found it really didn't stand the test of time. In fact in terms of authentic lineal yoga teachings, he was flat out WRONG. The most noticeable thing however was his use of repetition. I used to parse it as 'he wants to really get the point across' but listening to it now, one gets the sense he's just acting and trying to come up with something convincing to say. Unfortunately, if you had any real training in Patanjali, it was easy to see he was just making up something new and convincing and the droning repetition made it sound profound. As I said, we agree to disagree... Or, to quote a famous anonymous sage: there are as many legitimate i interpretations of the Veda as there are enlightened persons. Unfortunately this is one area where the sages of the yoga-darshana (not the Veda) are in agreement. Generally the type of people who subvert the angas are what would in western languages be referred to as black magicians or in theosophical lingo black brothers: give me the magic, let me circumvent the virtues, they will come on their own, just give me power, NOW.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
On May 5, 2009, at 9:15 PM, dhamiltony2k5 wrote: Epistemologically day to day. Similarly, from our friend on campus: paste ,,,truth is an experience that occurs when our personal belief (s), be they individual or socially-consensual, intersect with our experience. My argument is not to say that what we believe is true at one moment in time is not extremely valuable. On the contrary, it is upon the foundation of apparent-truths that the entire relative world progress from. I therefore expect virtually everything I think I know to be true about the world to change. I also expect that, that change will become more and more frequent as we progress forward through time. As I said, I'm not really qualified academically to shed much light on whether alpha-waves coherence indicates higher states of consciousness. I don't believe that neuroscience has developed a significant enough understanding of the entire brain measurement process to make a definitive determination. Well fortunately researchers have had access to yogis in higher states of consciousness, particularly over the last 16 years or so. What they've found is there are remarkable changes indeed. However, my expectations based on personal experience, is that this measurement process is going to become more and more and more refined over time as new knowledge or truths are revealed. Personally, I have serious doubts as to whether we will ever be able to physically measure the mechanics of consciousness. I believe that at best we may hope to get some indicators which can be cross referenced with sufficient confidence to provide theoretical validity. Like many long term meditators I have experienced 'Being' beyond time-space. At that level of consciousness there is no relative world, no relative universe. How then, can a measurement be taken of the deepest level of consciousness when nothing physical like the brain exists to measure. end paste Such states are easily demonstrable by methods known for thousands of years. So if the state is legit., it would be relatively easy to know, even without a lot of fancy science. What I've found is TMers learn to talk and think in flowery language as a part of the TM mythos and that ends up having little basis in reality, although they're quite convinced what they're experiencing is something remarkable. Remarkable experiences require remarkable proof. So far no proof...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On May 5, 2009, at 8:44 PM, sparaig wrote: They seem to be operating on the premise that you can fool some of the people most of the time. Make no mistake, ADHD and meditation has a potential to make some big $$$ for the TMO, so they will no doubt continue to attempt to get into school districts with there science and they will try to get it used for cardiac patients, another mistake. There has been some validated success with ADHD and other forms of meditation, so I suspect they'll try to ride on the backs of them. But of course, neither Fred Travis nor Alaric Arenander nor any other TM researcher could possibly perform legitimate positive research on ADHD and TM... Well, I think you need to ask some different questions, namely, can an actual attentional improvement be found in the subjects, will they be randomized AND will that stand when compared to good controls, not just some lame controls? Of course if they're to prove attentional resiliency, they also need to show neuroplastic changes. There are a new and growing list of criteria in this area. Right and Fred and Aleric have never mentioned neoplsticity in any TM context... And Hari Sharma wasn't talking about free radicals and MAK 20 years ago because he was an ignorant fool Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On May 5, 2009, at 8:46 PM, sparaig wrote: You know it's funny, someone posted some old MMY lecture videos on YouTube, so I decided to watch one to see how it stood the test of time. I watched the one on yoga (and it's limbs) and found it really didn't stand the test of time. In fact in terms of authentic lineal yoga teachings, he was flat out WRONG. The most noticeable thing however was his use of repetition. I used to parse it as 'he wants to really get the point across' but listening to it now, one gets the sense he's just acting and trying to come up with something convincing to say. Unfortunately, if you had any real training in Patanjali, it was easy to see he was just making up something new and convincing and the droning repetition made it sound profound. As I said, we agree to disagree... Or, to quote a famous anonymous sage: there are as many legitimate i interpretations of the Veda as there are enlightened persons. Unfortunately this is one area where the sages of the yoga-darshana (not the Veda) are in agreement. Generally the type of people who subvert the angas are what would in western languages be referred to as black magicians or in theosophical lingo black brothers: give me the magic, let me circumvent the virtues, they will come on their own, just give me power, NOW. Is that how you see the TM-Sidhis program? Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On May 5, 2009, at 9:15 PM, dhamiltony2k5 wrote: Epistemologically day to day. Similarly, from our friend on campus: paste ,,,truth is an experience that occurs when our personal belief (s), be they individual or socially-consensual, intersect with our experience. My argument is not to say that what we believe is true at one moment in time is not extremely valuable. On the contrary, it is upon the foundation of apparent-truths that the entire relative world progress from. I therefore expect virtually everything I think I know to be true about the world to change. I also expect that, that change will become more and more frequent as we progress forward through time. As I said, I'm not really qualified academically to shed much light on whether alpha-waves coherence indicates higher states of consciousness. I don't believe that neuroscience has developed a significant enough understanding of the entire brain measurement process to make a definitive determination. Well fortunately researchers have had access to yogis in higher states of consciousness, particularly over the last 16 years or so. What they've found is there are remarkable changes indeed. However, my expectations based on personal experience, is that this measurement process is going to become more and more and more refined over time as new knowledge or truths are revealed. Personally, I have serious doubts as to whether we will ever be able to physically measure the mechanics of consciousness. I believe that at best we may hope to get some indicators which can be cross referenced with sufficient confidence to provide theoretical validity. Like many long term meditators I have experienced 'Being' beyond time-space. At that level of consciousness there is no relative world, no relative universe. How then, can a measurement be taken of the deepest level of consciousness when nothing physical like the brain exists to measure. end paste Such states are easily demonstrable by methods known for thousands of years. So if the state is legit., it would be relatively easy to know, even without a lot of fancy science. What I've found is TMers learn to talk and think in flowery language as a part of the TM mythos and that ends up having little basis in reality, although they're quite convinced what they're experiencing is something remarkable. Remarkable experiences require remarkable proof. So far no proof... Aside from the thousands of non-TM hits on the term pure consciousness event cointed by someone writing about TM research and adopted by all sorts of non-TM reserachers over teh past decade or so. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
Again: you can't use studies from 25 years ago to refute research done just 2-3 years ago unless you're willing to discuss the more recent research's findings explicitly and directly, which is something neither you nor the researchers you quote have actually done. Lawson --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On May 4, 2009, at 12:19 PM, Rick Archer wrote: For me the radical arguments like the ones you brought to my attention seem to pose either/or choices. Either the measurement of EEG alpha waves is an accurate indicator of higher states of consciousness or they are not. But I have learned to appreciate that the relative universe I have enjoyed for more than 60 years, is a limitless reservoir of infinite choice. I have often observed that a concept that our imaginations project as being 'either/or' is seamlessly integrated into a greater whole as new knowledge is gained and expands. For this reason, I conclude that all the scientific research on consciousness has some value. In its most elemental form it has a value in that it will take us to greater knowledge. But more pragmatically speaking, I believe that there will be an integration of everything that is being learned as the measurements of consciousness come together to give us an understanding that is greater than their collective technical components. On a final note, I believe it is myopically prejudicial for a critic to say of a brilliant scientist that he is clinging to his theory because his theory is what he wants to believe to be true. On the contrary, to my surprise the brilliant scientist that I have met here at Maharishi University of Management our true seekers of knowledge, (are) ready, willing, and able to let the light of science illuminate their path. end paste Concluding anything about alpha is perilous. -Barbara Brown [EEG expert] Within a bandwidth of perhaps 2 Hz near this spectral peak, alpha frequencies frequently produce spontaneously moderate to large coherence (0.3�0.8 over large interelectrode distance (Nunez et al., 1997). The alpha coherence values reported in TM studies, as a trait in the baseline or during meditation, belong to this same range. Thus a global increase of alpha power and alpha coherence might not reflect a more �ordered� or �integrated� experience, as frequently claimed in TM literature (...) To summarize, alpha global increases and alpha coherence mostly over frontal electrodes are associated with TM practice when meditating compared to baseline (Morse, Martin, Furst, Dubin, 1977). This global alpha increase is similar to that produced by other relaxation techniques. The passive absorption during the recitation of the mantra, as practiced in this technique, produces a brain pattern that suggests a decrease of processing of sensory or motor information and of mental activity in general. Because alpha rhythms are ubiquitous and functionally non-specific, the claim that alpha oscillations and alpha coherence are desirable or are linked to an original and higher state of consciousness seem quite premature. Antoine Lutz, John D. Dunne, and Richard J. Davidson The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness When compared to appropriate controls, alpha amplitude actually decreases during TM: http://www.mail-archive.com/fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com/msg152269.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
On May 4, 2009, at 4:07 PM, sparaig wrote: Again: you can't use studies from 25 years ago to refute research done just 2-3 years ago unless you're willing to discuss the more recent research's findings explicitly and directly, which is something neither you nor the researchers you quote have actually done. Again, the reasons for this have already been pointed out to you in previous posts. Please consult the FFL archives. I'm afraid we have to go with the good science in this case. These alpha coherence buzzings are common to all relaxation response meditation forms. I have new list of all these from the conference with HHDL this last weekend which Herbert Benson spoke at (real nice guy!), I'll post it when I get a chance.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On May 4, 2009, at 4:07 PM, sparaig wrote: Again: you can't use studies from 25 years ago to refute research done just 2-3 years ago unless you're willing to discuss the more recent research's findings explicitly and directly, which is something neither you nor the researchers you quote have actually done. Again, the reasons for this have already been pointed out to you in previous posts. Please consult the FFL archives. I'm afraid we have to go with the good science in this case. These alpha coherence buzzings are common to all relaxation response meditation forms. I have new list of all these from the conference with HHDL this last weekend which Herbert Benson spoke at (real nice guy!), I'll post it when I get a chance. Again: when researchers don't comment directly on research published in the past 2-3 years, you gotta wonder what is up. Fact is, the TM findings don't fit their pet theories so they ignore the findings. Goes both ways, of course. L.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
On May 4, 2009, at 4:43 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On May 4, 2009, at 4:07 PM, sparaig wrote: Again: you can't use studies from 25 years ago to refute research done just 2-3 years ago unless you're willing to discuss the more recent research's findings explicitly and directly, which is something neither you nor the researchers you quote have actually done. Again, the reasons for this have already been pointed out to you in previous posts. Please consult the FFL archives. I'm afraid we have to go with the good science in this case. These alpha coherence buzzings are common to all relaxation response meditation forms. I have new list of all these from the conference with HHDL this last weekend which Herbert Benson spoke at (real nice guy!), I'll post it when I get a chance. Again: when researchers don't comment directly on research published in the past 2-3 years, you gotta wonder what is up. Fact is, the TM findings don't fit their pet theories so they ignore the findings. Goes both ways, of course. Lawson, you're obsessing. This has already been explained to you a number of times. The TM org has consistently put out crap research for decades. Just because they re-spin the same schtick once again, which had been previously dismissed using good, solid science, means legitimate scientists will not need to take it seriously. So you can wish and lament all you want and pray on your thick copy of the TM research bible, but I'm afraid that ship has already sailed. And in case you haven't been listening, the Hindu, Tibetan and Zen Buddhist yogic explanations of the undermined of breath pauses in TM have been made in the last couple of months. These are well known pitfalls. Those who are experientially familiar with them via the TM and TMSP program, and were able to move beyond them understand directly what this means. Of course the good news is, some people are able to get good relaxation response consistently from TM, even if it doesn't promote higher states of consciousness demonstrably. And of course, even if he was a charlatan yogi, we do owe some respect to Mahesh Varma for at least helping popularize meditation research. There's some truly amazing new research going on right now in Buddhist, Christian and Hindu meditation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On May 4, 2009, at 4:43 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On May 4, 2009, at 4:07 PM, sparaig wrote: Again: you can't use studies from 25 years ago to refute research done just 2-3 years ago unless you're willing to discuss the more recent research's findings explicitly and directly, which is something neither you nor the researchers you quote have actually done. Again, the reasons for this have already been pointed out to you in previous posts. Please consult the FFL archives. I'm afraid we have to go with the good science in this case. These alpha coherence buzzings are common to all relaxation response meditation forms. I have new list of all these from the conference with HHDL this last weekend which Herbert Benson spoke at (real nice guy!), I'll post it when I get a chance. Again: when researchers don't comment directly on research published in the past 2-3 years, you gotta wonder what is up. Fact is, the TM findings don't fit their pet theories so they ignore the findings. Goes both ways, of course. Lawson, you're obsessing. This has already been explained to you a number of times. The TM org has consistently put out crap research for decades. Just because they re-spin the same schtick once again, which had been previously dismissed using good, solid science, means legitimate scientists will not need to take it seriously. So you can wish and lament all you want and pray on your thick copy of the TM research bible, but I'm afraid that ship has already sailed. And in case you haven't been listening, the Hindu, Tibetan and Zen Buddhist yogic explanations of the undermined of breath pauses in TM have been made in the last couple of months. These are well known pitfalls. Those who are experientially familiar with them via the TM and TMSP program, and were able to move beyond them understand directly what this means. Of course the good news is, some people are able to get good relaxation response consistently from TM, even if it doesn't promote higher states of consciousness demonstrably. And of course, even if he was a charlatan yogi, we do owe some respect to Mahesh Varma for at least helping popularize meditation research. There's some truly amazing new research going on right now in Buddhist, Christian and Hindu meditation. I guess this is one of those we agree to disagree moments. To me, your oh-so- cogent points sidestep what I say, and apparently you feel the same about what *I* am saying. O well... Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On May 4, 2009, at 4:43 PM, sparaig wrote: snip Again: when researchers don't comment directly on research published in the past 2-3 years, you gotta wonder what is up. Fact is, the TM findings don't fit their pet theories so they ignore the findings. Goes both ways, of course. Lawson, you're obsessing. This has already been explained to you a number of times. Your explanations have been consistently inadequate, unresponsive, and unconvincing. The TM org has consistently put out crap research for decades. Just because they re-spin the same schtick once again, which had been previously dismissed using good, solid science, means legitimate scientists will not need to take it seriously. They don't have to take it seriously, but they are obligated to evaluate the very latest research regardless of whether they think it's crap and the same as previous research they've dismissed (nice scientific term there, Vaj). If it has the same flaws, they have to *demonstrate* that, not take it for granted. Their case would be *stronger* if they could find the same flaws they purported to find in the earlier research, so that they avoid the opportunity to give it a definitive one-two punch looks very odd indeed. snip And in case you haven't been listening, the Hindu, Tibetan and Zen Buddhist yogic explanations of the undermined of breath pauses in TM have been made in the last couple of months. These are well known pitfalls. Have been made by *you*. Big whoop. (Goodness knows what you're actually trying to say here. Your syntax always seems to get mangled when you're straining.) That you have managed to dig up stuff about the purported pitfalls of breath suspension and use it as your latest hobbyhorse to disparage TM is really not terribly impressive. snip Of course the good news is, some people are able to get good relaxation response consistently from TM, even if it doesn't promote higher states of consciousness demonstrably. According to *your* standards. Again, big whoop. Enough reliable, non-TB-like folks (including Peter and Marek, among others) have described their experiences of higher consciousness to make your claim that TM doesn't promote higher states questionable, to say the least. And of course, even if he was a charlatan yogi, we do owe some respect to Mahesh Varma But not enough to use the name by which he is known throughout the world, while at the same time calling him a charlatan.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
On May 4, 2009, at 6:17 PM, sparaig wrote: I guess this is one of those we agree to disagree moments. To me, your oh-so- cogent points sidestep what I say, and apparently you feel the same about what *I* am saying. O well... I'm not sidestepping--that's your obsessive POV. But this has already been broached by Ruth and I (and others) in the past. It's already been explained ad nauseam. If you didn't get it before, it means you either aren't listening, can't listen or just aren't able to hear it. I'd rather discuss the new, cutting edge stuff coming out at events like Mind and Life 18 or the Harvard conference last weekend, than lament over your spilt milk again! Of course should something eventually come out on TM that is reputable, worthwhile and new--sure I'd love to hear it. I'm just not holding my breath on that one. The same old relaxation response findings just aren't that exciting for those of us interested in higher states of consciousness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On May 4, 2009, at 6:17 PM, sparaig wrote: I guess this is one of those we agree to disagree moments. To me, your oh-so- cogent points sidestep what I say, and apparently you feel the same about what *I* am saying. O well... I'm not sidestepping--that's your obsessive POV. But this has already been broached by Ruth and I (and others) in the past. It's already been explained ad nauseam. If you didn't get it before, it means you either aren't listening, can't listen or just aren't able to hear it. I'd rather discuss the new, cutting edge stuff coming out at events like Mind and Life 18 or the Harvard conference last weekend, than lament over your spilt milk again! Of course should something eventually come out on TM that is reputable, worthwhile and new--sure I'd love to hear it. I'm just not holding my breath on that one. The same old relaxation response findings just aren't that exciting for those of us interested in higher states of consciousness. As I said, we agree to disagree... Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: Who are you quoting below? Dear Rick, Om, actually is un-important who it is saying it. What the person is saying though is proly highly relevant as a description of what is going on here in FF. Is an important journalism that is not much said here on FFL (or the BBC) that I brought over as a chronicle of FF. Criticism here does seems mighty one side-ed and not so much by way of an other side offered. Yes, is a lot of cutting people off at their knees here and lots of other stuff. So, I was suspecting that there is some substantial thinking going on inside the TMmovement; hence, I sought it out from someone who I figured was doing that. This one taken together with the aspects of those other three pastes in that other thread makes a pretty good honest take of things FF. With best regards, -Doug in FF Subject: [FairfieldLife] Utopian voice in MUM an he's a real TM meditator. We'll have no more shit said about real meditators here. Okay. Be respectful. Jai Guru Dev, -Doug in FF paste For me the radical arguments like the ones you brought to my attention seem to pose either/or choices. Either the measurement of EEG alpha waves is an accurate indicator of higher states of consciousness or they are not. But I have learned to appreciate that the relative universe I have enjoyed for more than 60 years, is a limitless reservoir of infinite choice. I have often observed that a concept that our imaginations project as being 'either/or' is seamlessly integrated into a greater whole as new knowledge is gained and expands. For this reason, I conclude that all the scientific research on consciousness has some value. In its most elemental form it has a value in that it will take us to greater knowledge. But more pragmatically speaking, I believe that there will be an integration of everything that is being learned as the measurements of consciousness come together to give us an understanding that is greater than their collective technical components. On a final note, I believe it is myopically prejudicial for a critic to say of a brilliant scientist that he is clinging to his theory because his theory is what he wants to believe to be true. On the contrary, to my surprise the brilliant scientist that I have met here at Maharishi University of Management our true seekers of knowledge, (are) ready, willing, and able to let the light of science illuminate their path. end paste
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
paste Dear Doug, On a more pragmatic note: As you can see from the recent News bulletin included below. The mere fact that a peer reviewed Professional Journal accepts this type of research silently speaks with a mightier voice than all the critics on FFL. One has to bust a gut to get published in one of these journals. One's work has to be impeccable and considered relevant by the your peers to even be considered. Like any stable worthy of it's hard earned reputation, no professional Journal wants to be seen backing the wrong horse. All love, paste For me the radical arguments like the ones you brought to my attention seem to pose either/or choices. Either the measurement of EEG alpha waves is an accurate indicator of higher states of consciousness or they are not. But I have learned to appreciate that the relative universe I have enjoyed for more than 60 years, is a limitless reservoir of infinite choice. I have often observed that a concept that our imaginations project as being 'either/or' is seamlessly integrated into a greater whole as new knowledge is gained and expands. For this reason, I conclude that all the scientific research on consciousness has some value. In its most elemental form it has a value in that it will take us to greater knowledge. But more pragmatically speaking, I believe that there will be an integration of everything that is being learned as the measurements of consciousness come together to give us an understanding that is greater than their collective technical components. On a final note, I believe it is myopically prejudicial for a critic to say of a brilliant scientist that he is clinging to his theory because his theory is what he wants to believe to be true. On the contrary, to my surprise the brilliant scientist that I have met here at Maharishi University of Management our true seekers of knowledge, (are) ready, willing, and able to let the light of science illuminate their path. end paste
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
The physiological/neurological research on TM has always been interesting and legit because its just a straight measure of brain wave activity. The problem has come in when there is an attempt to correlate these measure with complex psychological traits. The worst is when you see a degree of hemispheric coherence at some frequency and someone claims that this means that TM allows you to use more of your brain and therefore you are better at something than someone who doesn't have this coherence. The politics of consciousness enter when the non-scientists or the either deceptive/naive scientists make very self-serving statements regarding the research. This was non-physiological, but it is like the latest research that, according to the TMO, shows that TM reduces the symptoms of ADHD. Even the TM scientist David Orme-Johnson claimed this and it is just patently false. The design of the study does not allow you to conclude this at all, primarily because there was no control group and each subject functioned as there own control. If you know anything about research design, such a study essentially tells you nothing other than a bunch of students over x amount of time had a lessening of their ADHD symptoms. Why this lessening occurred, which is the most important question, can not be concluded because no variables have been controlled. I would love to ask David, why he believes you can conclude that TM is the one variable that caused these results when not a single variable has been controlled. --- On Mon, 5/4/09, dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: From: dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony...@yahoo.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, May 4, 2009, 9:24 PM paste Dear Doug, On a more pragmatic note: As you can see from the recent News bulletin included below. The mere fact that a peer reviewed Professional Journal accepts this type of research silently speaks with a mightier voice than all the critics on FFL. One has to bust a gut to get published in one of these journals. One's work has to be impeccable and considered relevant by the your peers to even be considered. Like any stable worthy of it's hard earned reputation, no professional Journal wants to be seen backing the wrong horse. All love, paste For me the radical arguments like the ones you brought to my attention seem to pose either/or choices. Either the measurement of EEG alpha waves is an accurate indicator of higher states of consciousness or they are not. But I have learned to appreciate that the relative universe I have enjoyed for more than 60 years, is a limitless reservoir of infinite choice. I have often observed that a concept that our imaginations project as being 'either/or' is seamlessly integrated into a greater whole as new knowledge is gained and expands. For this reason, I conclude that all the scientific research on consciousness has some value. In its most elemental form it has a value in that it will take us to greater knowledge. But more pragmatically speaking, I believe that there will be an integration of everything that is being learned as the measurements of consciousness come together to give us an understanding that is greater than their collective technical components. On a final note, I believe it is myopically prejudicial for a critic to say of a brilliant scientist that he is clinging to his theory because his theory is what he wants to believe to be true. On the contrary, to my surprise the brilliant scientist that I have met here at Maharishi University of Management our true seekers of knowledge, (are) ready, willing, and able to let the light of science illuminate their path. end paste To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: The physiological/neurological research on TM has always been interesting and legit because its just a straight measure of brain wave activity. The problem has come in when there is an attempt to correlate these measure with complex psychological traits. The worst is when you see a degree of hemispheric coherence at some frequency and someone claims that this means that TM allows you to use more of your brain and therefore you are better at something than someone who doesn't have this coherence. The politics of consciousness enter when the non-scientists or the either deceptive/naive scientists make very self-serving statements regarding the research. This was non-physiological, but it is like the latest research that, according to the TMO, shows that TM reduces the symptoms of ADHD. Even the TM scientist David Orme-Johnson claimed this and it is just patently false. The design of the study does not allow you to conclude this at all, primarily because there was no control group and each subject functioned as there own control. If you know anything about research design, such a study essentially tells you nothing other than a bunch of students over x amount of time had a lessening of their ADHD symptoms. Why this lessening occurred, which is the most important question, can not be concluded because no variables have been controlled. I would love to ask David, why he believes you can conclude that TM is the one variable that caused these results when not a single variable has been controlled. Your points are well taken. And I cringe at sloppy research cast as something else. However, epistimologically, in day to day life, most of us live in pretty muddy and murky waters. We all do self-control, single subject experiments all the time. And we actually believe some of them. You eat a food, take a drug, do a meditation method, read a book and make (tentative) conclusions about the value to you -- and possibly others. It may be only a bit better than 50:50 (if its a yes/no type question) odds but 55:45 is better than random. We tend to muddle through this way. Did you start TM or any other methods because of the scientific research? Perhaps. But the real deal was trying it for yourself. If you felt better, you continued, if worse didn't. Better or worse than what? your single subject self-controlled past experience. I suppose even ad hoc, informal experiments, with more than a single subject, even if self-controlled can tell you something. Like a focus group used widely in marketing -- it's not statistically valid, but you get a feel if the thing, idea, concept, has any juice to it. I would rather see a self-controlled experiment over no experiment. As a preliminary / experimental basis, it may provide enough juice to warrant or inspire more rigorous research.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: The physiological/neurological research on TM has always been interesting and legit because its just a straight measure of brain wave activity. The problem has come in when there is an attempt to correlate these measure with complex psychological traits. The worst is when you see a degree of hemispheric coherence at some frequency and someone claims that this means that TM allows you to use more of your brain and therefore you are better at something than someone who doesn't have this coherence. The politics of consciousness enter when the non-scientists or the either deceptive/naive scientists make very self-serving statements regarding the research. This was non-physiological, but it is like the latest research that, according to the TMO, shows that TM reduces the symptoms of ADHD. Even the TM scientist David Orme-Johnson claimed this and it is just patently false. The design of the study does not allow you to conclude this at all, primarily because there was no control group and each subject functioned as there own control. If you know anything about research design, such a study essentially tells you nothing other than a bunch of students over x amount of time had a lessening of their ADHD symptoms. Why this lessening occurred, which is the most important question, can not be concluded because no variables have been controlled. I would love to ask David, why he believes you can conclude that TM is the one variable that caused these results when not a single variable has been controlled. A vaguely related thought on research and claims -- in our lives. People make a lot of claims, here and everywhere. For example some may claim that if an age difference between beer drinkers is to wide, the younger is quite subject to corruption, disruption, and even severe discombobulation. Yet, this is only a claim. Perhaps based on observation of a small sample of people. Hardly epistimologically strong. Perhaps we should run an experiment. Gather 200 women under 30. let 100 b a control group. Have Turq talk to the other 100 of them -- individually - or possibly in groups not 3, over a beer. Let the dialogue take its course. That is, some will end in 5 minutes, some may carry on. Even for some time. Beyond breakfast. Then test all 200 women. See if there is a statistically significant difference between the control and dosed' groups -- in psychological trauma, adoption of false ideas as beliefs (aka been snowed, erratic behavior, problems with subsequent relations, a social closing up -- increased anxiety or fear of meeting new people, lower grades (if students), loss of job or diminishment of income, poorer athletic ability, degraded memory and cognitive function, higher blood pressure, different brain waves, depression, anxiety, etc. Until such evidence is forthcoming, it would appear prudent to take claims about the deleterious effects of such age-gapped dialogs as simply speculation, dreaming or fantasy. Regardless, in the name of science, I sugggest we all send Turq $50 to fund such research.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: The physiological/neurological research on TM has always been interesting and legit because its just a straight measure of brain wave activity. The problem has come in when there is an attempt to correlate these measure with complex psychological traits. The worst is when you see a degree of hemispheric coherence at some frequency and someone claims that this means that TM allows you to use more of your brain and therefore you are better at something than someone who doesn't have this coherence. The politics of consciousness enter when the non-scientists or the either deceptive/naive scientists make very self-serving statements regarding the research. This was non-physiological, but it is like the latest research that, according to the TMO, shows that TM reduces the symptoms of ADHD. Even the TM scientist David Orme-Johnson claimed this and it is just patently false. The design of the study does not allow you to conclude this at all, primarily because there was no control group and each subject functioned as there own control. If you know anything about research design, such a study essentially tells you nothing other than a bunch of students over x amount of time had a lessening of their ADHD symptoms. Why this lessening occurred, which is the most important question, can not be concluded because no variables have been controlled. I would love to ask David, why he believes you can conclude that TM is the one variable that caused these results when not a single variable has been controlled. A vaguely related thought on research and claims -- in our lives. People make a lot of claims, here and everywhere. For example some may claim that if an age difference between beer drinkers is to wide, the younger is quite subject to corruption, disruption, and even severe discombobulation. Yet, this is only a claim. Perhaps based on observation of a small sample of people. Hardly epistimologically strong. Perhaps we should run an experiment. Gather 200 women under 30. let 100 b a control group. Have Turq talk to the other 100 of them -- individually - or possibly in groups not 3, over a beer. Let the dialogue take its course. That is, some will end in 5 minutes, some may carry on. Even for some time. Beyond breakfast. Then test all 200 women. See if there is a statistically significant difference between the control and dosed' groups -- in psychological trauma, adoption of false ideas as beliefs (aka been snowed, erratic behavior, problems with subsequent relations, a social closing up -- increased anxiety or fear of meeting new people, lower grades (if students), loss of job or diminishment of income, poorer athletic ability, degraded memory and cognitive function, higher blood pressure, different brain waves, depression, anxiety, etc. Until such evidence is forthcoming, it would appear prudent to take claims about the deleterious effects of such age-gapped dialogs as simply speculation, dreaming or fantasy. Regardless, in the name of science, I sugggest we all send Turq $50 to fund such research. If the experimental design was done well, a number of other interesting phenomenon could be studied. In addition to the 200 / woman Turq experiment -- we of course should do the same with a other sexes and sexual preferences. However, beyond that, taking 200 random bystanders, 100 would be the control group and not exposed, 100 others would be exposed to the Turq experiment. And the reactions would be compared to see if they are significantly different -- along a number of psychological and emotional scales. To add to the diversity, the Turq sample could include not only wide-age gaps, but should include some differentiation along the lines of polyamorous, interracial, wide gaps in social stratas and education levels, nationalities and wealth -- and see if some sub groups are more prone to damage form beer-initiated conversations. And see the reaction of the observers. Count how many heads explode (few if any I would guess). Of course to get statistical significance in some of the subgroups, we may need to increase the sample size. 200-500 perhaps.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: The physiological/neurological research on TM has always been interesting and legit because its just a straight measure of brain wave activity. The problem has come in when there is an attempt to correlate these measure with complex psychological traits. The worst is when you see a degree of hemispheric coherence at some frequency and someone claims that this means that TM allows you to use more of your brain and therefore you are better at something than someone who doesn't have this coherence. The politics of consciousness enter when the non-scientists or the either deceptive/naive scientists make very self-serving statements regarding the research. This was non-physiological, but it is like the latest research that, according to the TMO, shows that TM reduces the symptoms of ADHD. Even the TM scientist David Orme-Johnson claimed this and it is just patently false. The design of the study does not allow you to conclude this at all, primarily because there was no control group and each subject functioned as there own control. If you know anything about research design, such a study essentially tells you nothing other than a bunch of students over x amount of time had a lessening of their ADHD symptoms. Why this lessening occurred, which is the most important question, can not be concluded because no variables have been controlled. I would love to ask David, why he believes you can conclude that TM is the one variable that caused these results when not a single variable has been controlled. A vaguely related thought on research and claims -- in our lives. People make a lot of claims, here and everywhere. For example some may claim that if an age difference between beer drinkers is to wide, the younger is quite subject to corruption, disruption, and even severe discombobulation. Yet, this is only a claim. Perhaps based on observation of a small sample of people. Hardly epistimologically strong. Perhaps we should run an experiment. Gather 200 women under 30. let 100 b a control group. Have Turq talk to the other 100 of them -- individually - or possibly in groups not 3, over a beer. Let the dialogue take its course. That is, some will end in 5 minutes, some may carry on. Even for some time. Beyond breakfast. Then test all 200 women. See if there is a statistically significant difference between the control and dosed' groups -- in psychological trauma, adoption of false ideas as beliefs (aka been snowed, erratic behavior, problems with subsequent relations, a social closing up -- increased anxiety or fear of meeting new people, lower grades (if students), loss of job or diminishment of income, poorer athletic ability, degraded memory and cognitive function, higher blood pressure, different brain waves, depression, anxiety, etc. And of course we would need to test for positive effects. Its an open question. Some women may benefit from the Turq interaction, others may not. However, just testing the Turq dosage may hide various factors. Maybe Turq is charming, maybe hes toxic. The test may tell us more about him than a generalization to wide-age gapped relations. Since, Curtis is nearby in Italy, for the cause of science, perhpas he could join the doser group. Perhaps Card could pry himself away from Finland and fly to sunny Spain. And for extra extreme shock dosage, perhaps Nabs would descend from his level and participate. Getting some variation in the doser group would strengthen the experiment greatly. Until such evidence is forthcoming, it would appear prudent to take claims about the deleterious effects of such age-gapped dialogs as simply speculation, dreaming or fantasy. Regardless, in the name of science, I sugggest we all send Turq $50 to fund such research.
