--- In [email protected], Vaj <vajradh...@...> wrote: > > > On Mar 2, 2010, at 12:36 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > > > > Also keep in mind, as reported here before by Turq, myself, and > > > others, one can have the experience of "transcending the > > > transcendent" they experienced with TM! What does THAT mean? > > > > Don't you think it would be a hard thing to compare between people? > > Not if one has real subjective experience of the stages of > meditation, although even having an experienced yogin with an > excellent intellectual understanding of the stages of meditation can > be helpful in objective assessment.
Of course if you meet an impressive person you might want to forgo all the science stuff. > > And of course that's what scientists have been ding for decades now-- > doing meditation research on different types of meditators. I don't > think it should come as a surprise to state that independent > scientists views on TM have found it seriously lacking many of the > "transcendental" qualities it's founder and his "researchers" claimed. Yes this is definitely an issue with the field that is so new with mostly fringe interest. > > > I certainly believe that you had experiences after TM that you > > interpret as deeper but I have had so many versions of "deeper" > > from all the techniques I received in the movement that I'm not > > sure a comparison is valid. Maybe my super duper transcendence > > after Jaiminy sutras on the WPA in Amhurst was deeper than anything > > you got to! We are in a world of subjective valuation. Now if you > > floated and I didn't you might have more of a case. > > I think the problem I'd have with that--despite my own super-duper > experiences I believed I was having during TM and/or the TMSP--is > that we still, after what, 50 years?, have no tangible scientific > evidence of higher states of consciousness in TMers. It's a sad fact, > a fact often covered by the reams of bogus science this org still > touts from every media outlet they can. Agreed. Their enthusiasm has exceeded their proof from the beginning starting with how "special" Maharishi was himself. > > But let's not forget higher (or "other") states of consciousness have > been found in other Hindu and Buddhist meditators. I'm not aware of this. At best this must also be pretty preliminary, right? > > So it is important to not only have a means of comparison, it's > important to have some objective verification as well. > > One of the most satisfying aspects of leaving an involvement with TM > practices decades ago was to find Hindu yogis who didn't just talk > about it and offer basic mantra cogitation, but could explain, from > their own experience the various stages, and directly share those > experiences with their students. Again I wouldn't expect someone to wait for the science if they found someone impressive in some way but from outside that influence I am not apt to accept anyone's authority. I think the ancient traditions should be tested, I believe they may have value but I seriously doubt it will be the yogis explanation that wins out once we understand it better. Descriptions of subjective states are really tricky IMO. We spent a lot of time linking experiences with scripture descriptions and I don't think it was worth much now, although it felt valid then. > > > Perhaps > > > just that there are deeper or different levels of "transcendence" > > and > > > a coached transcendent may not be as important as we were lead to > > > believe. Or it just could be the brain "doing something different". > > > > All good questions but hard to pin down without some objective > > standard. Personally I felt all samadied up from TM. I know you > > have mentioned sitting in samadhi for days which does sound > > different but I have never witnessed that. > > > > > TMers believe havin' wonderfabululous alpha coherence is what it's > > > all about, but neuroscientists disagree. > > > > I am excited about the research progressing. I hope I live long > > enough to see some real advancements in this area. > > I guess you're referring to TM. No, the whole field of brain research with states of mind. If TM can add anything to the party, then great but I don't expect them to have the most interesting input since they are so fraught with marketing agenda and we can fit Bevan into any MRI. I am taking Sam Harris's view that these valued states should be studied but we should go in without the prejudices of the past. We don't even know if these states are really a good thing since so many exponents were such eccentric individuals anyway. Maybe this state of mind is the worst thing for modern people. Maybe we just need a little bit of meditation before all the strong changes come. I am certainly not trusting my neurology to ancient traditions or writing them off as having no valule out of hand. > > I have to say from my own experiences, when we started getting > westerners who could go into samadhi, while in an fMRI and just stay > there at will for 3 or more hours at a time, that for me was proof > that effective meditation methods could do more than relax you a > little bit. Agreed, but the question remains is that change a good one? I can think of nothing more worthless to my life unless I could deduct an equivalent period of sleep. I am much more interested in applications of mental processes than enjoyable states of mind. Personally I believe that in my own life TM is already too much of a dissociative influence. More of that has no appeal. And I really don't need any more cosmic experiences to appreciate the connections between living beings and our planet. I got the memo. So many exponents of meditation seem endlessly fascinated with their one states of mind and poetic language to express it. And the scriptures are such a letdown as ethical guides. But I digress... > > > > > > Siddhi cultivation for it's own sake has long been known in India to > > > be a way for disreputable gurus to gain control over students. > > > > It has also been used as a way to claim that the inner state is > > really special. > > Well really, siddhis are more an "outward stroke" thang IME. That's > why they're usually not worth cultivating in and of themselves. > > > It is even used in the Bible as proof of specialness. Getting to > > the bottom of these claims would be useful except people who > > believe in these powers are not stating it in a falsifiable form. > > There is always one more guy in the mountains who really really has > > the powers after you debunk the fist thousand. > > I found it pretty wild when they started releasing the actual videos > of these 'guys in the mountains' that Herbert Benson had researched > (after leaving TM) and seeing the insane video of bare-chested men, > in a freezing cold room, dipping sheets in water and them draping > themselves in them--and then steam beginning to rise, till they dried > the sheets. Not really all that special in a way, but pretty amazing > nonetheless. And a very interesting form of verification. I would love to see that. It is plenty special and should be studied more if it is real. >
