In spiritual consequent, ignoring basic science like we see with the global 
climate science, meditation science, and now within public policy with early 
childhood developmental science, the ignoring of science so readily runs over 
human spiritual decency. 

 This United States administrative isolation and separation of young children 
from their parents seems sinful spiritually to thus do and spiritually sinful 
to advocate for it. By standards it likely rates as something of a crime 
against humanity. It all seems shockingly bad to sensibilities of deeper human 

 Evidently by science and also common sense the policy is much less than 
spiritual but only expedient. Pretty evidently it is incredibly hurtful to the 
development of young people. 
 By science and common sense regardless of politics it apparently is not 
spiritually right for children to be separated from their parents or guardians 
by this administrative action going on. It falls in with resistance to the 
manifest science of climate change and the science of meditation 

 Guru Dev says of morality.. 
 What did ‘Guru Dev’ say on Spiritual Morality and its Moral Compass..


---In, <> wrote :



email response: 

 In my experience as a ..researcher who has read thousands of papers in the 
biomedical field, the TM research as a whole is at least as reliable as the 
average and probably significantly more so. Among peer reviewed papers, some of 
the TM research is of far higher quality than the average.


 Mail: ..There are lots of problems with science generally lately, seemingly 
many more than there used to be. However, those problems are at least as common 
in non-meditation research as in research on meditation. Also, there seem to be 
biases within the scientific community that favor non-TM types of meditation 
over TM itself. (These are impressions, not something I could easily verify.) 
 email  asserts:

The distinction imho is between facts and opinion. I feel there should be as 
little editing of opinions as possible, but facts are different. I would put 
Horgan's ignoring 350 TM studies in peer-reviewed journals as non-factual 
misrepresentation, and also his ignoring the standardization of TM which was 
central to his thesis. And he is just a journalist, not a scientist. The reason 
I feel touchy about this is the audience - local Sidhas who are deciding every 
day whether or not to do group program and to do their practice. And the 
context is the Sidha community goal of helping the country. Posting inaccurate 
material that can easily discourage people from doing TM-Sidhi group practice 
should be avoided to say the least.

 in email: In any event, the Horgan article lumps all kinds of meditation 
together.  He correctly points out that if you take 2 meditation teachers 
you'll get 3 techniques.  Except for TM, because Maharishi had the prescience 
to standardize the teaching.  Therefore you have everyone doing the same 
technique, and you can compare results.  That's why about half the papers in 
Collected Papers are in peer-reviewed journals.  So Horgan's critique of 
meditation research is correct except as far as lumping TM in with all the 


 Some blogger claims:  Research on TM and Other Forms of Meditation Stinks !


 Not much evident good, so the NYTimes and Scientific American say.. 
 scientific evidence is scant for many of the practice's widely touted 



 Bhairitu observes: 


 Scientists probably don't like to have a bowel movement without taking a study 
first. :

Think maybe we're getting a little obsessed with science?  Meditation feels 
good to do and I don't need any studies for that.


Reply via email to