On Dec 22, 2007, at 9:58 AM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
Interesting, fun and fraught with danger! For example, you tell 30 people to meditate (injunction). You tell them that some people who meditate experience thoughts of a jelly donut. (another injunction). You ask each one what they experienced and 50% tell you that they experienced thoughts of a jelly donut. (apprehension or data). What is confirmed? That there is a strong liklihood that if people are told they will experience a jelly donut during a particular meditation that they may have thoughts about a jelly donut.
I believe that's just the blog writers comments. IIRC, that example does not appear in the video.
The jelly donut idea has more to do with confirmation of your experience to a 'community of the experienced' to see if historically that is what others have also experienced in their Zazen practice. And of course the outcome they're supposed to have is Satori, not jelly donuts. All your example would prove is that you can bias someone towards a certain thought though bad study design and via suggestion. You're not supposed to bias their decision making process by suggesting what the experience should be.
