On Apr 2, 2008, at 4:53 AM, sparaig wrote:
--- In [email protected], Angela Mailander
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can you cite studies that these folks have missed that
do show methodologies and results they would accept
for any meditation practice?
How could we answer that, since we're not the researchers in question?
However, there are quite a few studies out there that were not
examined...
For example, in the Cambridge Handbook meditation section, studies
between 1986 and
2004 on TM were cited, even though that was the period when the
first studies on the
correlation of breath suspension and samadhi were published
Unfortunately none of these meet the criteria for samadhi. Maybe they
should've called it "Maharishi samadhi"? :-) TM does not range
outside of normal human circadian rhythms according to independent
researchers. And the apnea "study" is so biased and non-randomized
that I doubt a real scientist would even consider it "science".
The fact is, there no examples in TM lit. of samadhi at all, just
theoretical conclusions they expect us to accept as beliefs.
In order to do so they'd have to show that they had attained samadhi,
in which case they'd be able to go into samadhi at will, for whatever
length of time they chose and be unperturbed by their environment.
This level of attainment is not present in even long term TMers.
After 30+ years, it's seriously doubtful they ever will.
That's not of course to say that TM isn't relaxing--it is. And
relaxing is good for most people.
