--- In [email protected], Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From a friend: "More cogently, we have to ask whether the research approach is really appropriate to the subject. Are brainwave measurements, no matter how sophisticated, really indicative of the operation or qualities of consciousness? Ontologically, consciousness is a transcendental quality of a transcendental object: the jivatma or spirit soul. Material senses or their extensions such as scientific instruments and ordinary logic cannot detect, measure or predict the behavior of transcendental objects. The proof is that after so much intensive theorizing and experimentation, science is no closer to an adequate predictive theory of consciousness today than they were 30 years ago."
... consciousness is a transcendental quality of a transcendental object: the jivatma or spirit soul. Material senses or their extensions such as scientific instruments and ordinary logic cannot detect, measure or predict the behavior of transcendental objects. Doug writing: yes, this writing of Baba's is a great antidote to all the enthusiasms of their (the TMorg) researching in quest of the holy grail of science; feeling they have got the moral certainty of their point-of=view in that brainwave stuff. And yes, they have possibly verified their hypnotically induced mantra state of 'transcendental' mind yes, different from the soul and its enlightenment of the body and body subtle energy systems that house an ensoulment of imortality. It may show that TM is a great foundational technique above the head. Other techniques are well what bring great consciousness in to the body. By experience there are other techniques and teachers as well as advanced techniques to TM. For instance, Ammachi's IAM techniques. Some of SSRS. Others who have come along. There is a lot of advanced work beyond TM and that is an experience now of the TM meditating community. MMY stopped attending and teaching years ago. Impressive as it looks with their charts, peer- review and publications , Dick, Craig, Beavan and John and so much of the Prsident's office cult is stuck in the mind trying to measure it. They ought to try to 'lighten' up as well, it might also go better for them in the spiritual practice market place. Jai Guru Dev, -Doug in FF > > Dear Rick > > I forwarded the tm article by Hebert and the comparison buddhist study on to > David Bruce Hughes aka Gaurahari Dasanudas Bhaktisiddhartha or Baba. I > thought he might find it interesting. He asked me to forward on to his > reply. > Here it is: > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" wrote: > > This is your brain on TM. Look at figure 2, page 10: > > http://brainresearchinstitute.org/research/totalbrain/TM&synch_Signal Proc05_ > Hebert.pdf > > This is your brain doing one of the Buddhist meditation techniques. Clearly > a difference, > though what it means is anyone¹s guess at this point: > > http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/46/16369/FIG1 > > End forwarded message > > > Well, first of all the measurements were made with different analytical > interpretive modalities, electrode placements, baselines and timescales. So > it is very difficult to draw any comparison whatsoever between the two EEGs, > because any perceived differences could just as easily be artifacts of the > measurements, sampling processes and presentations. Similarly, under these > circumstances, any perceived similarities in the data would most likely be > purely coincidental. > > More cogently, we have to ask whether the research approach is really > appropriate to the subject. Are brainwave measurements, no matter how > sophisticated, really indicative of the operation or qualities of > consciousness? Ontologically, consciousness is a transcendental quality of a > transcendental object: the jivatma or spirit soul. Material senses or their > extensions such as scientific instruments and ordinary logic cannot detect, > measure or predict the behavior of transcendental objects. The proof is that > after so much intensive theorizing and experimentation, science is no closer > to an adequate predictive theory of consciousness today than they were 30 > years ago. > > The presentation is a classic case of using an ontologically inappropriate > approach and methodology. Consciousness is transcendental, therefore only a > transcendental instrument can apprehend it. Consciousness is subjective, > therefore only subjective processes of measurement and analysis are > appropriate to it. > > If we are to establish a truly scientific platform for the study of > consciousness, it must itself be of the equivalent ontological quality as > the object being studied. Therefore at the final conclusion, the original > Vedic method of submission to the sruti-siddhanta and obediance to guru is > really the best platform for consciousness study. Until the scientific > community accepts this axiomatic truth, they will never make significant > progress in their study of consciousness because they are not even able to > observe it. > > love, > Baba > To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
