--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote: > > > > --- 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
I'm sure its a great place, and I even know a few very nice Fairfielders personally, no nobody who posts here, but I guess for me I'm prejudiced, too many Americans and too many TMers. > > --- 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. > > >
