On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 10:38 AM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> > > L: > Research will furnish answers, I am sure, but in the meantime, anyone who > says that TM leads to the same place as mindfulness and concentration is > full of it... > > M: You bring up a valid point about the difference between subjective > experience and research. I guess the next question would be to get behind > the terms we are using like "mindfulness" which is not taught in the same > fixed way TM is. Are you confident that you know what I am doing under the > umbrella of the term mindfulness and that it is the same thing as what was > studied by other people who took completely different paths to their > practice? > > According to Harris, vipassana or "mindlullness" is simple concentration on the breath with the goal of calming the mind. The emphasis is on the use of mindfulness to gain insight into the impermanence of the self-view. In contrast, Adyashanti's meditation is based on the Mahayana Zen practice of *"shikantaza"*, or just sitting and allowing everything to be as it is. This "just sitting" IS enlightenment. > > > I am also open to the realiy that I will never experience mindfulness > without my long association with the conditioning of my TM practice. > > I once "checked" the mindfulness practice of a friend to see if I could > discern any differences in the answers he gave from checking TM. I > couldn't. When he described his practice as we would do in 3 days checking > I couldn't figure out how we might determine if his internal experience was > different from TM people's. The language is too imprecise to make these > distinctions. > > I don't know if the distinctions discovered in the research on particular > types of mindfulness practices apply to mine. So without standardization I > am left to draw my own conclusions from what I experience. TM and > mindfulness practice lead me to a similar internal experience. YMMV and I > agree that research will help us sort out the differences in brain states. > > But it is gunna take a while for the very young science of neuroscience as > a whole to describe what these states mean with close to the same > confidence you and most TM affiliated researchers put behind your theories. > I think your confidence in your interpretation comes from TM triumphalist > bias. Time will tell. > > > ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <LEnglish5@...> wrote : > > MIndfulness and concentrative practices disrupt the Default Mode Network > of the brain, which is highly involved with self-referral processing and > sense-of-self. > > In fact, long-term practices lead to a new style of functioning of the > nervous system where the original functioning of the DMN, complete with > relaxed, mind-wandering alpha, starts to become a thing of the past. > > TM, on the other hand, enhances the functioning of the DMN and enhances > the brain circuits associated with sense-of-self. > > Which is better? > > Research will furnish answers, I am sure, but in the meantime, anyone who > says that TM leads to the same place as mindfulness and concentration is > full of it... > > > L > > > ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <noozguru@...> wrote : > > My experience has been that "I" don't exist. It just seems that "I" go > through the week as someone just doing something. And it's not weird at > all. Like you say it may be a little difficult to fathom intellectually > especially if some people have had few experiences even of transcending. > It's just at some point you no longer "come out" of meditation and it's not > "spaciness" either an issue that David Frawely has tackled in some of his > writings about "false" enlightenment. Just do some grounding things and if > the experience remains it isn't spaciness. > > On 09/17/2014 08:47 AM, fleetwood_macncheese@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: > > > > It is an automatic process, Richard. The Self begins to witness in every > moment, so that rather than having any attention, on giving up anything, it > actually becomes impossible to be attached to anything. This can't be > understood in the waking state. Once a person lives in freedom, a person > can tackle any situation successfully. Life becomes as simple as we want it > to be. Attachment is impossible, so even the most joyful and the most > painful moments will pass. Contrary to what the rational mind may think, > the witness capability, is not some sort of anesthetic. As Ann and I were > discussing, life is so visceral, sensual and alive within itself, that even > the witness revels in fullness. Everything is uncovered and seen for what > it is. The inside and outside are balanced. Attachment, and its consequent > delusion, are impossible, in a life lived in eternal freedom. No need > whatsoever, to think about non-attachment. It is automatic, after awhile. > > - > > > >
