On Mar 2, 2010, at 2:33 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > > > > > 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.
Actually the medical field has great interest, esp. re: depression, anxiety and to a certain extent, blood pressure. Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy or MBCT is reimbursable in some areas by insurance. Not only does it work for mild to moderate depression, the neuroplastic changes it induces in the brain creates a "resiliency" where the patient can even stop meditating and still remain "depression free". > > > > > > 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. Most TM people are not even aware, that as early as the 1980's, major reviews by neuroscientists debunked most of the TM Org's research. Remember the old graph that showed how TM caused a drop in metabolic rate that was greater than sleep? In the 80's they found out how Wallace had fudged those findings. It turns out TM is basically a controlled form of napping in terms of rest. There is no "deep rest" or "deep meditation" about it. Fuggedabout it dissolving chunks of stress off your nervous system, it just doesn't happen. And too much closed-eyes meditation will make some people depressed or even suicidal. > > > > > 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? Well, what happened was way back in the 50's scientists found lineal Patanjali yogis who could go into trances they called "samadhi". The findings were so shocking, the researchers couldn't believe it. Their cerebral cortex went into an EEG pattern termed "high-amplitude gamma coherence" linking the integrative aspects of brain function. It was only recently it was accidentally rediscovered in a western Buddhist meditator. Even they couldn't believe it; they thought (once again) that it must be an EEG artifact. But then they replicated it at another lab, and another and another. Needless to say a high level journal published the findings immediately. Check out the Dutch documentary Monks, In the Lab link and you see researchers rediscovering samadhi, for the first time since 1950's. The real reason non-movement scientists weren't interested in TM "science" back in the 70's and 80's wasn't because they were jealous or held some grudge, it simply wasn't that impressive. After all, they were just relaxation effects, nothing more. > > > > > 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 believe Sam Harris is doing his Ph.D. research on the neuroscience of meditation and belief, at least in part. > > > > > 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. Well one of the things they did (with Buddhist monks) was test their response to others in distress--extreme distress: burn victims, deformed children with large tumors, etc. Most people have a very small circle of those they truly care for. Yet in these Buddhist monks, instead of "shutting down", as all others habitually do, they actually reached out to the cries or pictures of distress, the parts of the brain that usually "go dark" actually lit up. This is an extremely unusual response in homo sapiens. It turns out not only are the parts of the brain that help us express positive emotions enhanced, the part of the brain responsible for taking actual actions to help others is also enhanced. Many think, if the world we live in is to survive, non-sectarian methods needs to be developed and these techniques need to be made available widely. Leading world scientists together with the Dalai Lama and other yogis have already developed these techniques. The first TTC starts this summer. > 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... The types of meditation we're talking about don't rely overly on introspective states. The end state of both Hindu and Buddhist meditation is open-eyed meditation. If your mind and body are telling you that you've have enough introspective meditation, I think you're wise to accept that. It's one many others would agree with, in experience.
