--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> First of all Lawson, I really appreciate the dialogue we are having. Don't 
> think that I want to dump TM. I think it is a very good technique to start 
> meditation, and I think that at a later stage it is up to everybody to either 
> continue to advance with TM or with something else.  
>

Navashok,  That is entirely what meditating Fairfield has become all about.  
It's a very exciting and special place spiritually that way now.
-Buck

   
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > The pattern during TM is one of increased alpha EEG coherence, and that 
> > > > starts to level off (but never completely stops changing) after a few 
> > > > months of TM , but the longer one has been practicing the more the EEG 
> > > > outside of TM practice starts to resemble the EEG during TM practice.
> > > > 
> > > > Now, the EEG found during pure consciousness is the most coherent found 
> > > > in a given TMer and if you look just at the EEG during PC, there's 
> > > > obviously some room for refinement during practice, but the average 
> > > > outside of practice starts to resemble the average during, and that was 
> > > > my point...
> > > > 
> > > > because, in contrast, the average EEG during mantra-based meditation 
> > > 
> > > What do you mean by mantra based meditation? TM IS mantra based.
> > 
> > Well, technically, a mantra is used in TM practice, but mantra-based 
> > practices are considered focused attention practices, and those tend to 
> > show more and more gamma EEG the longer you have been doing them.
> 
> 
> Okay.
> > > 
> > > > shifts from relaxed alpha to concentrative gamma as one becomes more 
> > > > experienced, and the average EEG outside of such practices also shifts 
> > > > towards less alpha and more gamma.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > And that is bad or worse? How do you know?
> > > 
> > 
> > Well, insomuch as these techniques all tend to fragment the brain as a 
> > side-effect of the long-term practice, while PC is a period where the brain 
> > is idling in a vary coherent way, showing the EEG associated with 
> > relaxation and rest, rather than concentration and effort, I have no way of 
> > knowing...
> > 
> > > In my experience, with higher states there comes a spontaneous 
> > > concentration, really concentrated awareness, completely focused and 
> > > without effort. Maharishi might say point value.
> > >
> > 
> > Well with TM, if you REALLY are in samadhi (pure consciousness), you can't 
> > note it until such time as some degree of waking state consciousness 
> > reassumes, and by then, you are no longer in the pure state.
> 
> And this is something that raises question marks for me. How could you say 
> that you experience pure consciousness, when you 'notice' it only afterwards? 
> Does it mean you are not conscious during the experience, or does it mean you 
> are unable to press a button while you are in?
> 
> What kind of 'purity' is this, when it is *lost* so easily? So whole model of 
> having pure consciousness, as an overlay over normal activity, and also the 
> normally active mind, rests on the assertion, that the purity of PC doesn't 
> get lost, right?
> 
> I think that the whole contradiction comes about, because of the definitions, 
> how you define PC in TM, and then attribute a certain physiological signature 
> to it. In this way, you already limit how it can be expressed in activity. 
> Really speaking you should start from the other end, find somebody who lives 
> in CC / GC /UC, and then measure his brainwaves, and then compare it to the 
> experiences that are called 'transcending' in TM.
> 
> How does a person in TM know he has transcended? It is clear that he is being 
> told so. The technical definition in TM of TC is: No mantra, no thought. But 
> that could be some kind of nap too! Maybe it#s yoga nidra.
> 
> I have very practical reasons for saying all this: when at a certain point, I 
> was still in the movement, actually meditating in Purusha, I had an opening 
> in the higher chakras, I was in a state of transcendence that was totally 
> different than anything that I had ever known in TM. It wasn't just a more of 
> what I had experienced before. It was so totally different, that it had no 
> connection, with what is defined as transcendence in TM. No relation. Yet it 
> is noticed, known. 
> 
> So, Lawson, I have a problem with the TM definitions, of extrapolating one 
> experience, which according to you is there right from the beginning of TM in 
> it's full blast, (and in the beginning obviously also in other techniques, 
> according to your reporting -. which is a surprise in and of itself), of 
> extrapolating this PC experience with other states, like CC or GC or UC. I 
> think these are simplifying models, having PC together with waking state and 
> you get CC, etc.
> 
> What is if you are not identified with an "I" as the doer? How do you 
> identify this with the world, with the outside? If you have nondoership, you 
> cannot project this anywhere, there is no need,  because there is NO DOER 
> ANYWHERE. 
> 
> > While the PC signature becomes more and more obvious outside of PC, PC + 
> > waking, even during meditation, is still not the real deal.
> 
> Again, I don't think it's like one experience as an overlay. The PC+ has to 
> be much bigger to start with. It's not anymore the small and isolated PC.
> 
> > The way that can be spoken about is not the real way.
> > 
> > The literal translation, btw, is: 
> > 
> > the way that can be way-ed, is not a way.
> > 
> > In other words, if it is concrete enough to be something you can point to 
> > or even attempt to describe, its not the real deal.
> 
> That's wrong. You cannot describe it, but that doesn't mean that it is not 
> something that you can point to or *attempt* to describe. In fact Maharishi 
> was always clear about it, that that is what people should really do. They 
> *should* notice it, for example the transition to CC or GC, and he thought it 
> should be so slow that people could notice and describe it, for example 
> through poetry.
> 
> > Calling in "total concentration" or "pure consciousness" or whatever is 
> > just a philosophical fiction based on your waking state + PC experience.
> 
> In this case you just don't know it. It's not any abstract philosophy at all. 
> It is my experience for many, many, many years. If you are not the doer, 
> there is simply no point of speaking about effort or no effort. Again I am 
> not dwelling in abstractions. But as you say yourself, it is difficult if not 
> impossible to describe. It's like with the taste of the mango: you have to 
> eat it in order to know it. And here we are speaking of an experience that is 
> outside of any normal category of experience at all.
>

Reply via email to