--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emilymae.reyn" <emilymae.reyn@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Does meditation work to balance out the chemical makeup of > > > > one's physiology? Does it release our natural feel good > > > > chemicals within the body? Or, maintain balanced levels > > > > of serotonin, dopamine, etc. > > > > > > My experience with TM meditation and its associated practices > > > is that it is a way to hijack our usual brain reward system > > > for achievement in our lives. > > > > Maybe this should say, "...it is a way to hijack my usual > > brain reward system for achievement in my life," since this > > is your personal experience. > > I believe your brain and mine are similar in this regard. > If you transcend into what Maharishi called bliss > consciousness you are giving your brain such a high > reward it forgets everything else.
During meditation, yes. > This is just Maharishi's teaching. But you raise an > interesting point that perhaps there is a difference > between the kind of brain that would go into a sidhaland > or Purusha and someone who has integrated TM into their > life the way you have. Yes, "perhaps" there is, TM being for householders and all. > > > And this was Maharishi's stated goal, fulfillment divorced > > > from achievement. > > > > When did he say this? Do you have a quote? Was this one > > of the "secret teachings" just for teachers? Because I > > sure don't remember having heard him say it. > > It is a core part of his message I don't know how you > missed it. Yeah, I don't think so, Curtis. Certainly I didn't hear it during *my* three days' checking, and I never heard it subsequently, either. I think you must be misinterpreting something, or expressing it badly. > We go to bliss consciousness and establish ourselves in > that to give us complete fulfillment which bypasses the > whole action for achievement for fulfillment cycle. It is > actually taught in 3 days checking. You didn't include "action" in what you said above. With "action," you might invoke "Do less and accomplish more/ Do nothing and accomplish everything" to make your point. But what you said to start with sounds as if you meant there was no *accomplishment* involved. And then there's the old "200 percent of life," and the idea that you don't meditate for the sake of meditation but for fulfillment *in activity*. The impression you've been conveying is that you just sit around in bliss rather than accomplishing anything. But that would not be an accurate picture of Maharishi's teaching (at least not his teaching to the Great TM Unwashed). > Where I differ with his teaching is that he thinks this > automatically makes people better at and more dynamic > in activity and I don't. Well, reasonable people could disagree on this point. > > Anybody else remember Maharishi saying this was his goal? > > > > > If you keep mediating you cultivate the mind to trigger > > > highly pleasurable states. It becomes very addictive. > > > Many meditators show signs of extreme irritation if they > > > miss a mediation once they get hooked on it just like > > > any other addict. > > > > How many meditators show this? What percentage would you > > say? And how have you determined this? > > I lived with thousands of meditators while in the movement. > I have seen many meditators reactions to missing meditation. > Discussed many with my own TM students. I have discussed the > experiences of dozens of people who quit TM as I did. As > well as some who have gone back and forth as I have. But > your question is valid. And I don't have an answer for you, > I am just presenting my view and believe it does not only > apply to me. OK. When you're addressing someone who has no experience of living or working with TMers (Emily in this case), it's really important for you to be clear that your assertions reflect your own views and beliefs, and not necessarily established fact. > Skip afternoon meditation for a week and see how tired you > get around meditation time. When you are conditioned to > get this state your brains begins to need it. After a week > or so off TM you mind recovers and you no longer feel tired > in the afternoon. > > When I get addicted to TM I crave the state. YMMV. MMDV. Or rather, I've never gotten "addicted" to TM. > > In what follows, you shift back and forth from statements > > about your personal experience to general statements as to > > how TM affects people in general. With regard to the latter, > > could you explain how you've determined that these are > > effects common to everyone who practices TM? (Or meditation > > in general, depending on which you mean, which you don't > > always specify.) > > This is my current working model of understanding. I don't > doubt that others will see it differently. I believe that > we all share a similar physiology. Your criticism could > equally apply to anyone making any claim about what > meditation does for people. I am trying to explain what I > believe is the underlying mechanism in the brain functioning. > It is my alternative model to Maharishi's. Yes, I understand this. Emily might not unless you're explicit that it's your own opinion. I'm suggesting you haven't been explicit enough about that. > > I ask because none of what you describe resembles my > > own experience. > > I don't know how many times you have gone off and on TM. > This insight came to me after I had done that a few times. I've also been "off and on" several times. > But your general question of what part of this is just > personal seems valid. That is true of most inductive > reasoning. How man examples are enough? Right, and if you can't quantify, it's especially important to note that it's *in your observation*. > But people may have completely different experiences with > TM just as all brains don't react to cocaine the same. > Some people dive in and become addicts and some say "that > was annoying". And everything in between. I think "addiction" is a tricky term to use. It's handy when you want to discourage people from trying TM or suggest there's something dangerous about it, because the term is usually pejorative; but then there's the whole "positive addiction" theory to be considered. Of course, when you cite cocaine addiction as if it were similar to "addiction" to TM, your intention to load your argument becomes obvious. > I appreciate your points though and will give them more thought. I am just > trying to figure this out and this is what I have so far. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So IMO mediation can become a problem like any other form of hijacking > > > the pleasure states, meant to reward our species for doing things that > > > promote our survival or express our creativity. I believe there is no > > > neuronal free lunch, every pleasure state has a cost. > > > > > > Of course this is a highly heretical view in circles where regular > > > meditation and more meditation are both seen as only positives. But for > > > me the balance is trickier. I use meditation when I need some of what it > > > does for my brain, but regular meditation just leads to me getting hooked > > > on the mental states it produces. And for me these states do not produce > > > my optimum functioning. > > > > > > They are as advertized, very charming to our minds. But they can easily > > > lead to an end in themselves since our brains are inherently lazy and > > > getting the quick reward is neurologically preferred. Unfortunately that > > > does not lead to my fullest creative potential any more than hitting the > > > slot lever again and again. Although they say that meditation is a > > > preparation for activity, and I don't doubt that for really impulsive > > > people it is a real benefit, for people like me who have perhaps > > > cultivated this functioning a bit too much, it can become a real > > > distraction. I get a lot more done with my eyes opened! > > > > > > This understanding is still just a work in progress. I am fascinated > > > that some like Barry maintain that other forms of meditation do no > > > exhibit some of what I see as downsides of TM's passive bliss states > > > style. > > >
