I suspect you are both misreading what Lawson had in mind. He isn't stupid, and he knows the TM research better than anyone here. I'm not sure what he means either, but I'd suggest you wait to draw any conclusions until he can clarify. It's very highly unlikely that either of you would be able to come up with something he had missed or hadn't accounted for.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok <no_reply@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > It turns out that the EEG pattern of long-term TMers during TM remains > > > the same as the EEG pattern found in short-term TMers: it's simple > > > relaxation, no matter how long you have been doing it. Pure Consciousness > > > is just the same pattern in its most extreme form. > > > > > > In every other meditation technique with published research, you see a > > > shift away from simple relaxation towards something different, as you > > > become more experienced. > > > > > > In other words, I wouldn't trust the words of a non-TM teacher with > > > regards to your TM practice. They literally don't understand where you > > > are at and can only attempt to transform your practice into their > > > practice. > > > > Ahem. Isn't another way of interpreting your first two > > paragraphs that there is no *progress* in TM? *You* > > are the one interpreting simple relaxation (which never > > gets deeper or more profound) with "Pure Consciousness." > > I doubt that scientists would. > > Wow, same thought I had. If the pattern is the same, and doesn't change with > longer TM practice, what happened to the idea that with regular practice you > release more and more stress, which in turn leads to more clear transcendence? > > If the meditation is the same and doesn't change, (or those periods of > supposed transcendence / relaxation), why the need to be regular at all? > > Why learn expensive advanced techniques, who are supposed to deepen or widen > the transcendence experience, to have it along with subtle activity? > > With your argument, Lawson, you also wouldn't trust advanced techniques, > because they would alter the original experience, or in case they don't, they > are completely worthless.
