Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: abandoning thought
On Jan 14, 2009, at 11:28 PM, sparaig wrote: Doesn't sound at all like the Shamatha Project, but instead a gift from a friend in the early 70's. Whether it had anything to do with his research at that time or not, I have no clue. You seem to fail to understand my point: I'll make it clear: someone who practices Buddhism, studies Buddhism: gives their friends special presents of Buddhist retreats, is consulted with on how to phrase questions ABOUT Buddhism when talking to the Dali Lama, is hardly someone outside the tradition, regardless of whether or not they have a Jewish last name. But someone who studies Buddhism does not necessarily practice Buddha- dharma. Maybe he's lying and they lied about there being no Buddhist researchers on the team, but I've seen no real evidence of that, your posturings aside. It would be hard for someone who has spent years researching advanced yogis not to have some interest in how they got that way. These are extraordinary people we're dealing with. In fact I would hope they did have a good grasp of the subject matter, along with the as many of the numerous techniques and styles of meditation that are out there. Otherwise how could they be an expert in their field? There are many scholars of Buddhism who have no interest in practicing Buddhism, but simply researching it. Quite a few are Christians. No surprise here--although some interesting finds I hadn't seen--thanks Lawson. Are you suggesting this guy isn't a practicing Buddhist, regardless of whether or not he goes to Synagogue (or the Uni-Uni Church for that matter)? I haven't followed him around or spied on him, but it has been said (in regards to the Shamatha Project specifically) he is not a Buddhist, so I take that to mean he does not practice buddha-dharma. It wouldn't matter so much to me if he did, simply because I believe Dr. Saron has integrity. But I suspect he just has a deep interest based on meeting some truly extraordinary people.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: abandoning thought
On Jan 14, 2009, at 8:00 PM, Patrick Gillam wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity wrote: We have no idea as to whether TM successfully produces enlightenment or unity consciousness. Rick says there are dozens of Fairfielders claiming to be enlightened. Some post here. All either did TM for years, or still do. Having only listened to the FF enlightened over the phone or via email I thought it would be interesting if there was someone who would infiltrate the Wednesday Night Satsang, a weekly gathering of the enlightened you refer to. So I had a friend with deep personal experience with actual enlightenment and a certain amount of realization themselves go to the satsang and observe, gauge and report back on their findings based on their own considerable experience. Their conclusion? Some were able to be in the present, that is some of them had gained some basic awareness. That's all. Otherwise they were superficially compassionate but seemingly nice people, but largely ego-bound. The ability to be 'in the present' was then combined with language popular among Neoadvaita teachers and of course, self-fulfilling prophecies of what MMY talked about. The person was little impressed. There was a lot of one upmanship, my enlightenment trumps your enlightenment going on. Much unsolicited advice from well-meaning enlightened. Negative emotions were really no different from the rank and file. Vindictiveness was sometimes present. Personally I was impressed with one gentleman, owner of a successful local business, but his realization stemmed from his childhood, i.e. a pre-existing condition.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: abandoning thought
On Jan 14, 2009, at 1:02 PM, sparaig wrote: Patterns of EEG coherence, power, and contingent negative variation characterize the integration of transcendental and waking states There are others, but this is the one with the complete article available online via pub med. As far as I am aware there is no standard neurological definition of transcendental consciousness, so they made up their own definition. It's self-defined--and therefore quite meaningless--beyond TB's and people who buy the marketing spiel. This is probably why the Cambridge Handbook of Neuroscience considered it a problem to make a claim about the ultimate meaning or nature of the state attained. It doesn't really tell you anything other than 'we're claiming this is significant because it's transcendental consciousness becasue we say it is'. As the Cambridge Handbook comments: Thus, from the vantagepoint of the researcher who stands outside the tradition, it is crucial to separate the highly detailed and verifiable aspects of traditional knowledge about meditation from the transcendental claims that form the metaphysical or theological context of that knowledge. It's not enough to say here is nirvana or here is witnessing. And it certainly demonstrates nothing outside of EEG correlates seen in the normal EEG's of waking, dreaming or sleeping humans. This is why neuroscientists are by and large, underwhelmed by these type of claims. It's also why the TMO needs to desperately to use high marketing spin to mask the ho-hum--or simply bad--science.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: abandoning thought
On Jan 14, 2009, at 2:35 PM, sparaig wrote: As far as I am aware there is no standard neurological definition of transcendental consciousness, so they made up their own definition. It's self-defined--and therefore quite meaningless--beyond TB's and people who buy the marketing spiel. This is probably why the Cambridge Handbook of Neuroscience considered it a problem to make a claim about the ultimate meaning or nature of the state attained. It doesn't really tell you anything other than 'we're claiming this is significant because it's transcendental consciousness becasue we say it is'. As the Cambridge Handbook comments: Thus, from the vantagepoint of the researcher who stands outside the tradition, it is crucial to separate the highly detailed and verifiable aspects of traditional knowledge about meditation from the transcendental claims that form the metaphysical or theological context of that knowledge. It's not enough to say here is nirvana or here is witnessing. And it certainly demonstrates nothing outside of EEG correlates seen in the normal EEG's of waking, dreaming or sleeping humans. This is why neuroscientists are by and large, underwhelmed by these type of claims. It's also why the TMO needs to desperately to use high marketing spin to mask the ho-hum--or simply bad--science. Unlike the BUddhist meditation researchers, natch... As far as I am aware there are no Buddhist meditation techniques that sell and market their form of meditation using research, either legitimate scientific research, pilot research or marketing research. But there were some earlier pilot studies, not unlike many pilot studies, which left something to be desired. I think the difference is they've now moved beyond the pilot level stage and towards more rigorous research that's bearing fruit. That's why insurers are beginning to reimburse for them when used as treatments for depression. It may also be why mindfulness-style meditation is/was increasing at a logarithmic rate--the research is showing some signs of promise, both in terms of meditative mastery and actual health benefits. There's also some new and interesting research on Hindu kundalini meditation as well as Christian (Benedictine IIRC) meditation.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: abandoning thought
On Jan 14, 2009, at 4:12 PM, sparaig wrote: As far as I am aware there are no Buddhist meditation techniques that sell and market their form of meditation using research, either legitimate scientific research, pilot research or marketing research. So, you think the only reason why the TM researchers are marketing TM is for the money? Nyah, and I['m pretty sure you know it too. I'm serious. I believe it's a way to sell TM--AND the researchers are dye-in-the-wool TB's so they do feel it is their mission. I feel their approach is more that of a religious zealot than that of an objective scientist. Religious zealots are always selling something. It might be Jesus on a wafer or Jehovah in a red wrist string, but the gateway drug of the TMO is clearly TM. In their case if they succeed in getting some marginal research some airtime, they could rake in the bucks for their church, the church of TM. Buddhist meditation researchers have every bit as much at stake, emotionally, as TM researchers. Likewise with those that report on the latest Buddihist or TM research. I'd agree they have a lot at stake, for example the Shamatha Project scientists are not Buddhists at all. The reason they're willing to risk their careers--and these include some famous scientists like Elizabeth Blackburn--is numerous scientists have had first hand contact with legitimate yogis in the traditions they're studying. Not only was the advantages of their states of consciousness palpable, it was impressive enough for them to lay their significant careers on the line. That's saying something. They're so impressed with what they've seen, they're banking on the repeatability of these yogis sadhanas in new students. Not so much of a stretch when you realize these traditions have been repeatedly reproducing awakening century after century. And a strong suspicion of repeatability is what any scientist would appreciate. But there were some earlier pilot studies, not unlike many pilot studies, which left something to be desired. I think the difference is they've now moved beyond the pilot level stage and towards more rigorous research that's bearing fruit. That's why insurers are beginning to reimburse for them when used as treatments for depression. It may also be why mindfulness-style meditation is/was increasing at a logarithmic rate--the research is showing some signs of promise, both in terms of meditative mastery and actual health benefits. There's also some new and interesting research on Hindu kundalini meditation as well as Christian (Benedictine IIRC) meditation. And TM has always been elligible (for the past few decades at least) for reimbursement with some insurance companies, and if you can get a VA doctor to recomend it, the VA will pick up at least part of the tab. That's scary--not because it's TM--but because the research IMO certainly does not warrant it. In other words (unless I'm really missing something), it's insurance fraud. Sadly I believe that's well within the style of behavior I do associate with the Maharishi (money laundering, smuggling, shaking down poor Indians, bilking famous Indian professionals, etc.). I know you probably think that's some sort of thing I relish in (picking on TM), but really once the gravity of the situation dawned on me, what I was more interested in was taking action on the many, many people who could, would or did suffer from these cretins.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: abandoning thought
On Jan 14, 2009, at 6:41 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Maybe we've heard different speeches; I've gotten more than that. But in any case, I don't buy that a person has to be intellectually brilliant to claim enlightenment as far as what MMY taught is concerned. Remember Trotaka? That is an interesting example and wasn't he put in charge of the Math? In any case the reason the story worked was that although he appeared to be a big dope he actually was brilliant and it was his exposition on the meaning of the verse they were studying that was the big reveal in the story. So he appeared dumb but was actually really brilliant. You're of course correct. In Vedanta-style realization, you must have BOTH absolute AND relative realization, which means you have not only complete relative knowledge of the path you've just realized, but continuing relative wisdom as life naturally unfolds around you. 100% just doesn't cut it. If Judy was really familiar with MMY's teaching, she'd know about 200% of life, not just 100%. So it's quite silly to argue that Trotaka remained some dumbkoff with only 100%--absolute knowledge. To this very day, the 200% criteria is a requirement for a possible Shankaracharya. You must be a legit jnani.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: abandoning thought
On Jan 14, 2009, at 7:50 PM, sparaig wrote: I'd agree they have a lot at stake, for example the Shamatha Project scientists are not Buddhists at all. The reason they're willing to risk their careers--and these include some famous scientists like Elizabeth Blackburn--is numerous scientists have had first hand contact with legitimate yogis in the traditions they're studying. Not only was the advantages of their states of consciousness palpable, it was impressive enough for them to lay their significant careers on the line. That's saying something. They're so impressed with what they've seen, they're banking on the repeatability of these yogis sadhanas in new students. Not so much of a stretch when you realize these traditions have been repeatedly reproducing awakening century after century. And a strong suspicion of repeatability is what any scientist would appreciate. Who is in charge of the Shamatha Project, and who is doing research on it? The PI is Cliff Saron (who is Jewish). If you saw the movie on the rediscovery of samadhi in humans, Monks, In the Lab LINK he's the pudgy guy who talks about the late great neuroscientific genius Francisco Varela, working with yogis and brainstorming just what type of research they might do in the future--and how that could be a benefit to modern life. That's scary--not because it's TM--but because the research IMO certainly does not warrant it. In other words (unless I'm really missing something), it's insurance fraud. Sadly I believe that's well within the style of behavior I do associate with the Maharishi (money laundering, smuggling, shaking down poor Indians, bilking famous Indian professionals, etc.). I know you probably think that's some sort of thing I relish in (picking on TM), but really once the gravity of the situation dawned on me, what I was more interested in was taking action on the many, many people who could, would or did suffer from these cretins. Right so the research that has been coming out for the last 20 years on TM is all useless, since, afterall, it was considered and debunked by the Cambridge Handbook on COnsciousness, right? No, that's just a prominent example, but yes, an important recent one. It's important to understand that scientists in general, if they think a body of research is BS will, instead of trying to demonize it or point out it's numerous shortcomings, simply ignore it. The idea is 'don't even give it the attention it clearly does not deserve.' I guess the saying might be get even by living well becomes for researchers get even by researching well. 'Stoop not down unto that darkly splendid world.' (of bad science).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: abandoning thought
On Jan 14, 2009, at 8:40 PM, sparaig wrote: The PI is Cliff Saron (who is Jewish). If you saw the movie on the rediscovery of samadhi in humans, Monks, In the Lab LINK he's the pudgy guy who talks about the late great neuroscientific genius Francisco Varela, working with yogis and brainstorming just what type of research they might do in the future--and how that could be a benefit to modern life. A friend of mine at the time, Cliff Saron, who was part of the research group, offered me a weekend retreat at Insight Meditation Society (IMS) in Barre, Massachusetts as a birthday gift. That was very generous of him and it put me in contact with an environment that was pretty much influenced by Buddhist meditation practices. No possible semblance of bias there... Doesn't sound at all like the Shamatha Project, but instead a gift from a friend in the early 70's. Whether it had anything to do with his research at that time or not, I have no clue.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: abandoning thought
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:12 PM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote: I agree that King Tony is intelligent enough in a true believer sort of way. I just don't believe that the highest state of human development and Tony should be used in the same sentence. If enlightened people just show up as ordinary then Maharishi was not being honest or he didn't know what it would do for someone. This would be kind of hard to research, it's been so long since I read this. But is it not true that a feature of enlightenment is that it gives you the gift of gab Maharishi had, the ability to pull many things together intellectually and speak out with charisma? Of course to everything there is a season. Guru Dev only spoke for perhaps 10 minutes at a time and it was all that old time (fundy Vedic) religion. Perhaps some people here where there when Maharishi invited a saint to visit (in India). Maharishi translated from Hindi to English and back. The saint spoke very elegantly, explaining that he could not sleep, because who would hold up creation? Unless Paramahansa Yogananda's book was ghosted, he put words together very well and and his book Autobiography of a Yogi, my first book in the area, was a spellbinder IMO. Myself, I always had a hard time with someone who could dissect the brain and find the Veda there. I don't see that as much as a show of brillance as someone who wanted to please the master, a one-up-manship to Keith Wallace and the bogus article he published in Scientific American. BTW, I got to know Keith Wallaces' brother rather well, he told some great stories about himself and Keith going ashram hopping before setting on Maharishi's.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: abandoning thought
On Jan 14, 2009, at 8:53 PM, sparaig wrote: Likewise: http://tinyurl.com/88f2jk The last member of the group was Dr. Clifford Saron, a pyychologist, neuroscientist, suber tech, and personal friend. CLiff, whose knowledge of the brain and of Buddhism far exceeds mine, was invited to provide no only the essential, high-quality audio recording of the conversation but also to provide with advice during the breaks on phrasing my questions about Buddhism. --Paul Ekman. From the forward: A Conversation Between The Dalai Lama and Paul Ikman, PhD. No possibility of bias there, seeing how he's touted as the expert on Buddhism by the guy writing the book on the subject who consult4ede him on how to properly ask questions about Buddhism (not scientific research) There are many scholars of Buddhism who have no interest in practicing Buddhism, but simply researching it. Quite a few are Christians. No surprise here--although some interesting finds I hadn't seen--thanks Lawson.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: abandoning thought
On Jan 14, 2009, at 9:36 PM, I am the eternal wrote: On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:12 PM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote: I agree that King Tony is intelligent enough in a true believer sort of way. I just don't believe that the highest state of human development and Tony should be used in the same sentence. If enlightened people just show up as ordinary then Maharishi was not being honest or he didn't know what it would do for someone. This would be kind of hard to research, it's been so long since I read this. But is it not true that a feature of enlightenment is that it gives you the gift of gab Maharishi had, the ability to pull many things together intellectually and speak out with charisma? Of course to everything there is a season. Guru Dev only spoke for perhaps 10 minutes at a time and it was all that old time (fundy Vedic) religion. Perhaps some people here where there when Maharishi invited a saint to visit (in India). Maharishi translated from Hindi to English and back. The saint spoke very elegantly, explaining that he could not sleep, because who would hold up creation? Unless Paramahansa Yogananda's book was ghosted, he put words together very well and and his book Autobiography of a Yogi, my first book in the area, was a spellbinder IMO. Myself, I always had a hard time with someone who could dissect the brain and find the Veda there. I don't see that as much as a show of brillance as someone who wanted to please the master, a one-up-manship to Keith Wallace and the bogus article he published in Scientific American. Exactly. I look at his work on finding the Veda in the human nervous system--or whatever he calls it--and it's simply a work of the intellect and jiving various correspondences together. Very Theosophical. His work on mercury rasayanas in nerve regeneration sounded interesting, but I've been unable to find a copy anywhere. And he never answered my emails. I guess I must live in the land of mud.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: abandoning thought
On Jan 14, 2009, at 8:42 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Now on to the real King! Elvis was a bit before my time. I was all wrapped up in the Brits. But I'm making up for lost time now, I'm reading his two volume biography. It restore a piece of the link from my blues guys to today. His first song put out was a cover of Big Boy Cruddup's That's Alright Mama. When you get back I would like to hear how his early performances effected you. He was more interesting and talented than I knew. Youtube is catching me up. In singing some of his songs I am amazed at his expressiveness. Curtis, In the bio of Elvis I read a few years back, the author told the story of how he was recording a song in Sun Studios before he became famous, and he was singing Crying In The Chapel (at least I'm pretty sure that was the song). Anyway, a woman was in there just to pick something up, heard him singing, and asked who it was. When they told her, she said she was so moved by his voice she got the chills. I also remember reading his mother never really understood his stardom and why he became such an iconic figure. But how could she, really? Too close. And there'd never been anyone like him before. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: abandoning thought
On Jan 14, 2009, at 8:42 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I've definitely heard some wisdom from King Tony. I wish he would do more speaking. Hey different strokes for different folks. It would kind of suck for practicers of Maharishi's programs to hate the new guy, so I'm glad you dig him. My millage does vary! If he ever starts belting out Jailhouse Rock, I'll be the first one in his new court. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: abandoning thought
On Jan 12, 2009, at 9:42 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: Let's not forget the last study putsch: the TM is good for your heart marketing campaign. Luckily the BBC caught them on that one, as did some physicians reviews. But it makes me wonder: should someone be pointing all this out to the NIH? Should the NIH sue for fraud and deception? I mean, these are our tax dollars they are, quite actually, stealing. If you look at it, it's pretty clear what they're trying to do: cash in on insurers who are already paying for treatments like MBCT for depression. Once they can get into the medical system with their product, they be able to rake in the $$$ with their over-inflated mantra prices. I have done some letters to Senate and Congress regarding the NIH Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, which is a big money pit for poor research. I think it should be disbanded and research money for alternative therapies needs to be tied to more rigorous requirements. I just signed up for the Harvard conference on meditation research and psychotherapy this May with HH the 14th Dalai Lama. It will be my first foray into the leading edge world of meditation research. I'm looking forward to meeting some of the shining lights like Herbert Benson and Richard Davidson. There are requests for discussion as part of the registration and I hope to be able to ask some questions in that vein: questionable research and it's impact on legitimate meditation research overall. Of course the impact on funding is an important part of that.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: abandoning thought
On Jan 13, 2009, at 3:11 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: So I'm asking out of curiosity. I *understand* the scientist's/medical doctor's skepticism of home- opathy -- we are talking substances so diluted in strength that no trace of them can be found in the pills prescribed. And yet they work, and work consistently enough that most countries in Europe rely on them as often as they do allopathic treat- ment. So what kind of study would be rigorous enough to validate this in your eyes, given the limitation that there can't be any control groups in the traditional sense? Thanks for pondering this, and for your reply if you have one. I'll be interested in Ruth's reply too. My (admittedly limited) experience with homeopathy is that it's little better than a high-class scam, with very few if any results that you wouldn't get from a placebo. I've never heard of any working that didn't seem to come from wishful thinking. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: abandoning thought
Having been in Corporate Sales in Manhattan, I had friends both in Advertising and Pharmaceutical Sales. Sales is about making money - from idea to finished product, it's about money. The buyer, should be about 'awareness'. Awareness, hopefully, creates responsibility in a drugged out world! An endless loop of one hand serving the other with an illusive caveat for taking the high road. Corporations sell needs that may or may not be there - it comes down to the buyer and how that buyer uses the product. 'Fast food brains' are their own worst karma. Arhata Requiring natural remedies to produce verifiable research is a bogus excuse to demonize their use. The politics of allelopathic medicine and the globalization Big Pharma push pills for profit and alternative medicine cuts into their bottom line. Since herbs and homeopathy, rely on history, case studies, subjective reports and trial and error to prove effectiveness, they are an easy target for Big Pharma, to cry, snake oil. Anything that empowers people to treat their own ailments means a smaller piece of pie for the big guys. Drug researchers can produce quantifiable results but they can also cheat by ignoring test results they don't like. Figures can lie and liars can figure. A drug company often pays for its own research, which amounts to the fox guarding the chickens. They push newer, better drugs to market as quickly as possible with all their attendant side effects and 5 years later the drug proves dangerous. It's a risk they are willing to take, squeezing every dime they can out of a market until it becomes obvious a drug is killing more people than it saves. It hypocritical to say that drug research, motivated by profit, is superior to any standard measuring the effectiveness of herbs that DON'T kill people and drugs that DO. --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, TurquoiseB no_re...@.. . wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: Let's not forget the last study putsch: the TM is good for your heart marketing campaign. Luckily the BBC caught them on that one, as did some physicians reviews. But it makes me wonder: should someone be pointing all this out to the NIH? Should the NIH sue for fraud and deception? I mean, these are our tax dollars they are, quite actually, stealing. If you look at it, it's pretty clear what they're trying to do: cash in on insurers who are already paying for treatments like MBCT for depression. Once they can get into the medical system with their product, they be able to rake in the $$$ with their over-inflated mantra prices. I have done some letters to Senate and Congress regarding the NIH Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, which is a big money pit for poor research. I think it should be disbanded and research money for alternative therapies needs to be tied to more rigorous requirements. Just as a question, Ruth, given your background and your feelings on this, what thype of rigorous requirements would you suggest for studies done on homeopathy? I'm asking out of curiosity because a friend of mine is a homeopath, and has clued me in to some of the recent attempts to demonize that practice in the UK. Their stance, which makes sense to me given what I know of the practice, is that con- trol groups are an inappropriate form of rigor- ous requirement because every patient in home- opathy is treated differently, based on their own *particular* symptomology. Two patients com- plaining of the same primary symptom might be treated completely differently given their *other* symptoms. So what, in your opinion, would be a valid study design for homeopathy? In the US, the AMA so successfully demonized homeopathy that it is difficult for it to gain acceptance. But in Europe that is not true, because no such demonization took place until recently. *All* pharmacies in France and Spain sell both allopathic and homeopathic medicines; *all* doctors prescribe both; *all* patients give positive feedback on both. So I'm asking out of curiosity. I *understand* the scientist's/ medical doctor's skepticism of home- opathy -- we are talking substances so diluted in strength that no trace of them can be found in the pills prescribed. And yet they work, and work consistently enough that most countries in Europe rely on them as often as they do allopathic treat- ment. So what kind of study would be rigorous enough to validate this in your eyes, given the limitation that there can't be any control groups in the traditional sense? Thanks for pondering this, and for your reply if you have one. I'm really not trying to challenge you or put you on the spot, and I *agree*
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: abandoning thought
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 8:53 PM, ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: My experience is similar, though I doubt that I have told as many as you have told that I used to do TM. I sure would like to know the drop out rate. I've mentioned to hundreds of people on the plane (front cabin or back cabin), in cocktail lounges, in the capital cities of dozens of countries, you name it. Always the same response, if I get one at all. Now that leads me to suspect that the dropout rate is not 95%. That it's 99.9%. Indeed the number of people still practicing TM can be totaled by counting the people who go to various TM Centers around the world, live in ideal villages, go to Invincible your country, live in Fairfield. Where are the numbers? In South America, if the initiations we here of are true, and in India, based on what the TMO shows us about TMO money at work in India. Now I remember 20 years or more ago there were these missions to places like Thailand, where one could sponsor a meditator and a Governor for something like USD 30 a month. But that seems to have stopped. So we're left, I truly believe, with 10-50 thousand old time meditators, max. It's not a pop into enlightenment before you finish the 7 step program type of meditation. So I believe that Rick knows people who are quietly enlightened, but I'd imagine they represent a small portion of the 10-50K. Look at it this way. We're self-selected special. When you lust after some hot chick, realize that somewhere some guy is really tired of her shit.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: abandoning thought
On Jan 12, 2009, at 7:25 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: All very interesting, I'm sure. But being the simple boob I am, I tend to prefer Lao-Tzu's take on the situation. He managed to say it in 13 words: Just remain in the center, watching. And then forget that you are there. Different situation. Karma-tantra would be for someone with a different disposition. The Hua Hu Jing or Classic on Converting the Barbarians was a Taoist counter-argument against Buddhism.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: abandoning thought
On Jan 12, 2009, at 8:29 AM, raunchydog wrote: Vaj, Do you actually practice these mental acrobatics or are you just recommending techniques to produce a migraine? Simple, natural effortless? Not so much. Barry's, recommendation sounds closer to the TM technique than what you may be doing. What is the purpose of complicating your sadhana? These are quotes from the work Deity Yoga by the current Dalai Lama which was previously posted, thus the quotes from the same book Raunchy. I do not practice Action Tantra although it has helped many fortunate people to Buddhahood--so that is it's ultimate purpose is to attain complete and perfect Enlightenment. A salutary goal for some. The specific quotes you're referring to talk generally about practices of mantra in one aspect of Action Tantra, specifically the siddhi of mind stabilisation through samadhi (i.e. samadhi can be continued for as long as one wants, not mere blips) and then that union of the calm state with that of special insight so as to cognize ultimate reality without cognition, a basis for Buddhahood. Many advanced practices may sound difficult to the inexperienced, however once learned they become as easy as walking. It's just your mind that makes it seem so. Of course I'm sure a lengthy explanation of TM and it's steps, etc, would sound complicated ( esp. if you have to remove the door on the south side of your house!). So it's not that the sadhana is complicated, but it is the mind that fabricates the concept. But of course, it would also depend on your own level of experience. To a kindergartner, multiplication and division seems complicated. From what I've observed in TM practitioners, and based on my own direct experience of mantrayana, even though TM practitioners meditate on the sound of the deity, none that I am aware of have ever realized any actual stabilization siddhi, so that's worth pointing out since that is the goal of yogic (mantra) realization: permanent samadhi. In fact their is no evidence of samadhi in TMers despite many attempts at research, although I understand they are still trying.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: abandoning thought
On Jan 12, 2009, at 9:24 AM, raunchydog wrote: If you don't practice Action Tantra, why don't you do it if you think it's a good technique? Do you practice something better than Action Tantra that gives you the experience of a siddhi of mind stabilization through samadhi. If so, describe the technique you do to experience samadhi and effect your sadhana has on the quality of your life. I'm listening. I generally practice resting in the natural state as my primary practice. If you read meditation research, it's what would generally be called Open Presence meditation. Depending on my actual condition at the time I may practice some brief shamatha or samadhi style meditation or perhaps some vipassana. Rather than having any rote formula, I've learned to gauge practice based how my mind, energy and body are at a given period. Unfabricated meditation forms, as they form an easier bridge to non- meditation, i.e. the practice of just resting in natural suchness without a technique or support, are a seamless bridge to non- meditation during activity, at least for me. In formal retreat setting they form an easier bridge to spontaneous cultivation of Wisdom. Action Tantra contains many excellent techniques, of which the previous are just examples from a particular tantra. Action Tantra will tend to appeal to certain types of people, I'm just not one of them. Having said that, it is beneficial IME to practice some form of ishta-devata meditation (in Hindu parlance) and of course TM is a ubiquitous form of mental devata worship common in Asia. I tend to gravitate towards less formal and simpler forms of ishta meditation, as that's just what appeals to me. What's helpful with yogic forms of ishta meditation in both the Hindu and Buddhist outer and inner tantras is how they continue to refine the mind in increasingly subtle and skillful ways. For example, a tantric meditator wouldn't just stop with 'the gap', s/he would learn once they'd transcended through thought they need to transcend prana, which does not spontaneously occur. And thus they could jump to deep absorption very quickly. The advantage in waking life is that negative emotions and patterns tend to disappear very quickly. The signs of meditative purification begin to arise. One is less encumbered in life. One begins to gain control of the pranas, of the mind and consciousness itself. But don't mistake my post for everyone should practice Action Tantra. It's more an appreciation than a recommendation. It's also fascinating to hear HHDL's experiential treatment of these tantras. It's a good read.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: abandoning thought
On Jan 12, 2009, at 10:49 AM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: given the two respective approaches to established samadhi, the Buddhist one where every t is crossed and every i dotted, as compared with the TM simplicity of take it as it comes, i doubt a Buddhist would even recognize, except at the silent level the continuous samadhi of a TMer. Please go learn the TM checking procedure and then get back to us Dawn. Thanks. Rick has told an interesting story of MMY meeting a teacher whose students could go into effortless and imperturbable samadhi. Mahesh opined 'one day my students will be able to do that'. They still cannot (or I guarantee you, they'd be shouting it from every rooftop). What more is there to say? Of course I remain open to the one day being the case. Actually Buddhist meditation methods jive quite well with those of Patanjali and the Hindu tantras. Real yogis don't tend to perseverate over all the differences and distinctions between doctrine, their methods, it turns out, are often quite similar. After all, ole Patanjali was a Nath! Many ancient Buddhist teachings contain the techniques of rishis. it is offensive to hear you speak this way vaj, and then hide behind the crude instruments of science to make your point and ensure your bias. You shouldn't fear science. Science is very helpful, esp. in modern society. For example, if one can verify actual states of refined attention scientifically, one can then apply them to children with attentional disorders (e.g. ADHD) and then determine if they can help these kids avoid the necessity of pharmaceutical therapies. So science in meditation research should not be feared Dawn, as it has the potential to help alleviate suffering when applied with honesty and integrity. But it does need to be applied with honesty and integrity.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: abandoning thought
On Jan 12, 2009, at 11:12 AM, Richard M wrote: You stole that from my cat. Well, kinda :-) : LINK LINK
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: abandoning thought
On Jan 12, 2009, at 11:38 AM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: Please go learn the TM checking procedure and then get back to us Dawn. Thanks. are you channeling Nabby? Or is Nabby channelling me. I'll never tell. regarding the achievement of a state of continuous samadhi, and shouting it from every rooftop, perhaps the organization whose purpose it is to spread TM would, but what purpose would it serve for a run of the mill TMer experiencing continuous samadhi to ever mention it, to anyone? if in fact enlightenment is to be in tune with the natural order of things, what is the purpose of becoming a human megaphone for enlightenment? the enjoyment of the state itself is satisfaction enough. I don't buy that enlightenment is to be in tune with the natural order of things. To be supported by Natural Law is, IMO, wrongly understood by most TMers, because they don't get the source of this idea. MMY's idea and interpretation of Natural Law and being in tune with Natural Law has to do his the Hindu concept of Dharma. Dharma is derived from the Sanskrit root dhR, to support, to be 'in one's Dharma' is to be 'supported by Natural Law'. The Laws of Dharma or the Laws of Support of Nature are therefore the Dharma- shastras, the Support of Nature scriptures, i.e. the Laws of Manu. One's out of tune if one isn't adhering to Vedic rules written in the Laws of Manu. I guess one could argue that enlightened folks are spontaneously being Manu-like, but sorry, I ain't buying that one either! From my POV a lot people DID buy into this idea, that if they did such-and-such they'd be in their dharma and ended up suffering because of this strange idea they decided to believe which didn't really pan out. Really all it would ultimately mean is that a person is self-actualized in Mazlow's sense of the phrase. Big whoop.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: abandoning thought
On Jan 12, 2009, at 1:11 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: To be supported by Natural Law is, IMO, wrongly understood by most TMers, because they don't get the source of this idea. -snip- you are off on a tangent here-- i didn't mention the natural law angle, nor dharma, nor the laws of manu. all straw men. Hey, it's not my fault you didn't understand the origin of the term. It's been a part of MMY's teaching for quite some time. In fact I believe it used to be the name of a MMY booklet: Life Supported by Natural Law.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: abandoning thought
On Jan 12, 2009, at 1:49 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jan 12, 2009, at 1:11 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: To be supported by Natural Law is, IMO, wrongly understood by most TMers, because they don't get the source of this idea. -snip- you are off on a tangent here-- i didn't mention the natural law angle, nor dharma, nor the laws of manu. all straw men. Hey, it's not my fault you didn't understand the origin of the term. It's been a part of MMY's teaching for quite some time. In fact I believe it used to be the name of a MMY booklet: Life Supported by Natural Law. are all Buddhists as evasive as you are? Don't try to hide your intellectual dishonesty and obfuscation behind ad hominems Dawn.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: abandoning thought
On Jan 12, 2009, at 12:07 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: regarding the achievement of a state of continuous samadhi, and shouting it from every rooftop, perhaps the organization whose purpose it is to spread TM would, but what purpose would it serve for a run of the mill TMer experiencing continuous samadhi to ever mention it, to anyone? Given how the TMOs push marketing (as evidenced by the recent promotion of the non-study on ADHD), if people were achieving a state of continuous samadhi, the TMO would be shouting it from the rooftops. However, the TMO keeps mighty quiet on enlightenment. Orme-Johnson in response to the hypothetical, is anyone getting enlightened writes on his web site: Let's not forget the last study putsch: the TM is good for your heart marketing campaign. Luckily the BBC caught them on that one, as did some physicians reviews. But it makes me wonder: should someone be pointing all this out to the NIH? Should the NIH sue for fraud and deception? I mean, these are our tax dollars they are, quite actually, stealing. If you look at it, it's pretty clear what they're trying to do: cash in on insurers who are already paying for treatments like MBCT for depression. Once they can get into the medical system with their product, they be able to rake in the $$$ with their over-inflated mantra prices.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: abandoning thought
On Jan 12, 2009, at 2:35 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: -snip- Don't try to hide your intellectual dishonesty and obfuscation behind ad hominems Dawn. wtf? the thing you fail to realize about TM is that not all of us practicing the technique, and gaining enlightenment from it, are speaking and thinking in lockstep. there is no such requirement in order to do the technique properly, and gain the world from its practice. in fact i don't personally know -any- TMers who think and speak in terms of the ideas you laid out earlier. All of us have taken the teaching to heart and just go about our lives using the technique successfully. sorry- lol when i say that i equate enlightenment with being in tune with nature, that is my experience and that is what i mean. there is nothing dishonest about that. i just don't think in terms of Natural Law or dharma, or the laws of manu. maybe you know some TMers who do, but i am not one of them. Well, unfortunately, that's apparently what the Hindu tradition feels it means and whether or not you realize that is what you attempting to parrot from TM dogma, it clearly is. People have been parroting that dogma for years my dear. It's always their experience. Usually when you inquire further the answer becomes well, it's very subtle or some similarly parsed schlock. as to my comment about your evasiveness, it is because you are avoiding answering my earlier question. i'll try again: as to the supreme satisfaction derived from a continuous state of samadhi, and therefore no need to preach, or shout it from the rooftops, what do you say about that? I don't buy it. If the TMO had one person in such a state, they'd be marketing the hell out of it to sell more product. Actually, they already HAVE tried it! So there's no reason, based on their past performance, they wouldn't try the same thing over again. If in fact such a person existed who could, say, go into samadhi for just 3 hours like has now been replicated in other yogis, it'd be such a media sensation people WOULD want to hear about it. It's always good to have real evidence to back up your claims.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: abandoning thought
On Jan 12, 2009, at 3:54 PM, yifuxero wrote: ---1. This is to vague to be the sole objective criterion of Enlightenment: when i say that i equate enlightenment with being in tune with nature 2. It's virtually a useless/hopeless endeavor to make a claim for Enlightenment in the context of what MMY taught, since he rarely if ever used that term. 3. Since the term Enlightenment is for the most part derived from Buddhism, which Buddhist School does the claimant conform to, and which particular set of definitions? 4. Since this form is generally oriented to (pro or con) MMY, Guru Dev; etc, and MMY used the terms CC, GC, and UC, claimants to those states of awareness should first not use the term Enlightenment but rather CC, GC, or UC. Next, they should briefly (imo) list the criteria MMY has mentioned regarding those states, then it's OK to say something like: I'm in CC (whatever) because what I experience matches MMY's descriptions of those states. applause The only thing I would add is: --you should include the traditional criteria for Turiyatita (CC), Bhagavad Chetana (GC), and Brahman Chetana (UC). Also keep in mind, TM ONLY corresponds to turiyatita. The other two correspond to other darshanas (i.e. Bhakti Vaishnavism and Advaita Vedanta). This is not, as far as I am aware, ever explained to TM/TMSP practitioners. Most people just seem to go along with it (i.e. believe what they are told), lemmings to the sea of consciousness. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: abandoning thought
On Jan 12, 2009, at 4:20 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: the only thing i am stating is that the practice of TM results in full enlightenment. this isn't a contest or a claim- it is a statement of fact. Unfortunately Dawn just claiming to be special isn't very convincing. Nor is saying you feel in tune with nature. Will you still feel that way when you run over a squirrel with your car? Are will you just frame it as enacting god's will? Now go on YouTube hermetically sealed in an airtight glass enclosure, enter samadhi and we'll let you out in a couple of days. Then we can talk. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: abandoning thought
On Jan 12, 2009, at 5:18 PM, nablusoss1008 wrote: Most Buddhist's are too busy catering to threir own egos and pride than to probe into the possebility of Freedom and Enlightenment through TM. Just ask Vaj Ask me? I find most TMers claiming enlightenment to be some of the most egocentric people I've ever met, either overtly or (more often) covertly. I suspect Buddhists claiming to be Buddhas--and oh so willing to tell everyone about it--would be the very same way. So I do suspect there'd be some great similarities Nabby.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: abandoning thought
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 8:07 PM, ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: millions of us learned TM, and the odds are excellent that there are plenty of enlightened folks out there as a result. the thing about TM and TMSP is that there is no requirement to practice in a group or formally participate in a group. Why would the odds be excellent? Simply because a lot of people were taught TM tells us nothing about its effectiveness. In my experience, mentioning that I do TM, the odds are excellent that I'll hear something like I used to do TM. I have no clue how many still do TM. I haven't in my years of travel, work, mentioning to people that I do TM, found another person who though initiated, do TM. I do know that of the dozen or so people I sponsored to learn TM, not a single one still practices it. Of the dozen or so in my CIC group at the San Francisco Capital of the Age of Enlightenment, perhaps two still do TM. I still do but I'm giving the initiator who learned TM in our group the benefit of the doubt. How many people still do TM? 10,000? Less? Some people are like slinkies. Not useful for much but they sure make you laugh when you push them down the stairs.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: abandoning thought
On Jan 12, 2009, at 8:53 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote: My experience is similar, though I doubt that I have told as many as you have told that I used to do TM. I sure would like to know the drop out rate. 95%. Sal
