--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Siddhi means perfection. > > > > > > > > http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/siddhi?s=t > > > > > > > > > > LOL. > > > > > > You're going by an online English dictionary's definition of a technical > > > Sanskrit term? > > > > > > Technical term interpreted for you by who? The guy who told > > you you could fly? > > > > Besides that isn't really the only definition I could find > > just the one most suited to an emial discussion. I could > > photograph someothers or scan them and post if you like? > > > > http://dictionary.babylon.com/siddhi/ > > > several different definitions.
Whatever, I remember the lectures and can't help noticing it all came to nought. > The TM research that everyone likes to malign shows very clearly that TM is > twice as effective as other forms of meditation and relaxation at addressing > anxiety. While many people like to point at the meta-analyses that say that > TM research sucks, they miss the important point that according to those same > meta-analyses, ALL meditation research, without fail, sucks. > > > > Probably because it's an old type of coping mechanism, > > pleasant to do but not worth the effort compared to > > other techniques of self development if you have a particular > > complaint to address. > > > > > > Or not. THe studies the US military are conducting will provide some pretty > interesting data points. Or not. Still wont change my experience from actually knowing many people who have done it for many years and aren't exactly the best adverts. > > THis includes the most recent studies on mindfulness published in the past > > few days, weeks, months, etc, because those analyses claim that unless you > > use a true double-blind study performed by only by researchers who have no > > attachment to the techniques being tested, the study is pretty much > > worthless. > > > > I'm not tub thumping for anything other than common sense. > > > > Common sense is neither, as the saying goes, and common sense doesn't predict > highly unusual events, by definition. Highly unusual things like flying unaided or seeing through walls?
