On Jul 27, 2005, at 1:18 AM, sparaig wrote: > To claim to be giving > an unbiased report about meditation research *in general* while not > mentioning the TM studies, especially the one I just described, shows > either extreme ignorance or extreme bias.
Hi Lawson: I think an important aspect that might preclude TM from inclusion (if I am understanding their criteria correctly) is that the teaching should not be one where the methods were not grounded in a "deep understanding of ancient meditation traditions and not conducted over an adequate period of time by an experienced instructor." Teaching by an initiator only familiar with a fairly new technique and not a meditation master (as in often done in extended retreats, Hindu or Buddhist) in the broadest sense of that word most likely would not qualify. What *is* interesting is that they are covering a range of meditative techniques, some of which are very similar to "TM". TM may bear some mention in the later parts of the study, so I guess we'll have to wait and see. My understanding is that the component most likely to be closest to TM will aim at basically "transcending" for hours at a time, so it would certainly be an interesting comparison. -Vaj. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
