Thing is, Unc, I've cited it many times. Vaj just ignores it. Research on the physiological correlates of pure consciousness found during TM practice: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7045911 Breath suspension during the transcendental meditation technique.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10512549 Pure consciousness: distinct phenomenological and physiological correlates of "consciousness itself". http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9009807 Autonomic patterns during respiratory suspensions: possible markers of Transcendental Consciousness. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10487785 Autonomic and EEG patterns during eyes-closed rest and transcendental meditation (TM) practice: the basis for a neural model of TM practice. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19862565 A self-referential default brain state: patterns of coherence, power, and eLORETA sources during eyes-closed rest and Transcendental Meditation practice. Research on the physiological correlates of the stabilization of pure consciousness outside of meditation in long-term TM meditators: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12406612 Patterns of EEG coherence, power, and contingent negative variation characterize the integration of transcendental and waking states. http://www.tm.org/american-psychological-association Abstract for the 2007 Conference of the American Psychological Association Brain Integration Scale: Corroborating Language-based â¨Instruments of Post-conventional Development Research on the physiological correlates of the stabilization of pure consciousness outside of meditation in non-meditators: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.01007.x/full Higher psycho-physiological refinement in world-class Norwegian athletes: brain measures of performance capacity --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > "If you won't list the papers, I won't respond. If you do > > list the papers I won't respond." > > Why is it so important to you that Vaj "respond?" > > He *does* have a point that you keep talking about > "newer research" that you never define. Seems to me > that if you wanted to call people's attention to that > research, you could cite and describe it, whether Vaj > chooses to respond or not. > > In other words, you keep harping on the supposed > fact that comparative studies that were...uh... > not impressed with TM ignored research after 1980. > But you *also* ignore this research, in that you > don't cite it. You just talk about its existence, > in the same way that Joe McCarthy used to wave a > blank piece of paper around and say, "I have in my > hand a list of 432 communists who work in the U.S. > government." He never had to produce the "list," > only claim it existed. So far, you seem to be in > the same ballpark. > > Yours and Judy's replies seem to be all about *whether > you can get Vaj to argue with you*. It's pretty clear > that THAT is your goal, *not* any critical examination > of the supposed research itself. Just sayin'. I don't > see any harm in listing these studies that you feel > critics are missing, do you? > > And, since you know in advance that most here are not > going to read them because...uh...they have lives, > and they're not as heavily into the "gotta defend TM" > thang as you are, why don't you synopsize what you > feel are the most salient points of this "newer > research." Then people could get a feel for whether > you are waving a blank piece of paper or one with > writing on it. > > What Vaj does or doesn't do isn't the issue. If you > are trying to establish that you have credibility and > he doesn't, I'm just pointing out that you haven't > accomplished that. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 24, 2012, at 9:00 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > > > I am speaking words and you are hearing different ones. > > > > > > > > THe most interesting research on TM has all been published > > > > since 1980. If evaluations of the "significance" of EEG > > > > results during TM don't look at the papers published in > > > > the last 30+ years, well, it is obvious that they are > > > > based on 30 year old research, now isn't it? > > > > > > If you're speaking of some new research I haven't heard > > > of then, maybe. But unless you clearly list titles of > > > papers then how the hell am I supposed to know what your > > > foggy allusions are referring to? I'm not asking you > > > to list them - I'm really not that interested. Relaxation > > > response meditation is a good thing for many people. > > > > > >
