--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Apr 4, 2008, at 6:26 AM, sparaig wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Apr 2, 2008, at 3:28 PM, sparaig wrote: > >> > >>> Well, the 2004 study and its sister study on the same subjects was > >>> done on people > >>> reporting 24 hour a day witnessing for at least one year. > >>> Obviously, since they are already > >>> IN what the reserachers considered CC, expecting them to "enter it > >>> at will" is a strange > >>> concept. > >> > >> The key phrase here is "what the reserachers considered CC". The fact > >> is, if they were actually in turiyatita, since they'd be in samadhi > >> 24/7/365 all they need to do is demonstrate: > >> > >> --the ability to change states of consciousness at will > > > > Yeah, the upanishads went into that in great detail as a requisite > > for the state... > > > Exactly, that's why the Mandukya-karika in the Shank. trad. is so > important. You're not 'beyond the fourth' if you can't actually be > beyond waking,sleeping and dreaming. It's common sense. > > >> --the ability to hear what is going on externally to the meditator, > >> while EEG shows it's in deep sleep. > >> > >> > > > > In fact, why would this be the case? > > Because "the fourth', turiya, is beyond waking, dreaming and sleeping > of course. > > > One of hte indicators of sleep is that the thalamus > > shuts done connection to the outside world. Why would a condition > > (samadhi) where the > > brain reamins in a wakeful state while the thalamus shuts down > > connection to both the > > outside senses AND the inner sensory-feedback mechanism (thought) > > lead to some > > change in sleep where suddenly the thalamus is no longer doing what > > it used to do? > > > > > >> etc. > >> > >> What we have here is simple 'sleight of hand'. They redefine CC from > >> it's real yogic definition to what they think they can scrape up data > >> for, dumbing it down and redefining it. This is an extremely > >> deceitful and dishonest approach. > >> > >> > > > > Perhaps it is dumbed down, but given it is what MMY said about the > > subject for 50 years, > > its hardly redefining it in the TM researchers' minds. You're > > projecting a great deal here, I > > think. > > Unless you actually got some sort of independent corroboration from > the Shank. trad. itself or other yogis, you'd never know, would you? >
Well, Gurudev's oldest student thought very highly of MMY. YOu could claim it was all because they were in cahoots to kill the old man and make him the shankaracharya, I suppose... > > > > >>> > >>> The closest is a woman who learned TM about 50 years ago when she > >>> was a kid (Helen > >>> Olson I suspect) who showed breath suspension periods that in > >>> total, lasted about 60 > >>> percent of a 10 minute meditation session, but they were only a > >>> minute or so at a time. > >>> > >> > >> Yes, those examples were from the Olson daughter I am told by a > >> friend of hers. > >> > > > > So you're aware of someone showing 60% of her time spent in the > > meditation state and > > you still say the above. > > Yes. It's no big deal. As if often the case with Tm research, they're > trying to make it look like something it is not. Unless the metabolic > rate and heart rate really drops significantly, it's just an anomaly, > that's all. In fact, yogic tradition warns about unconscious pauses > in breathing in the untrained as dangerous. Ah, so, Helen Olson's 60% breath suspension is no big deal (even though no-one else in the world that you can point to in published research shows this) and is actually dangerous... > > Of course what they'd like you to think is that these people are > experiencing samadhi, but nothing could be further from the truth. > Of course, you're always right, because YOUR sources are correct and mine are incorrect, and that's that. Lawson
