--- In [email protected], Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > sparaig wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > >> On Nov 15, 2006, at 9:12 PM, sparaig wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Long periods of research are meaningless if these scum > >>> > >>> > >>>> were only using research and some market savvy to push "their brand, > >>>> the best brand"--which clearly (based on what you've shared) is the > >>>> case. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Just who is a "scum" here? Care to name names? > >>> > >> I'm referring to any researchers who claim to be meditation > >> researchers who are doing it to bolster brand name recognition and > >> acceptance, esp. without knowing or understanding meditation as a whole. > >> > >> Of course this would include TM-research-as-a-marketing-and-PR-and- > >> fundraising tool. > >> > >> > >>>>> Quite a few, but it's not something I'm at all obsessed about. I've > >>>>> seen the destructive side and demand something beneficial to beings, > >>>>> not just the Srivistavas and the Varmas and the latest donors... > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> "quite a few" means 10, 20, 50, 100? 3000? > >>>> > >>>> How many, within an order of magnitude? > >>>> > >>>> I've read 100+ studies all the way through, plus the abstracts of > >>>> many hundreds more. If > >>>> you count the Esalen online book, I've read summaries of over 2500 > >>>> studies on meditation. > >>>> Ain't no-one who studies this esoteric branch of research who does > >>>> NOT have an agenda. > >>>> To suggest otehrwise is being knowingly deceptive. > >>>> > >>>> That's not quite the same as being "scum" but hey, only the worst > >>>> of the worst (like TM > >>>> researchers, apparently) should be referred to that way. > >>>> > >> It's absolutely immaterial "how many", what is most important is that > >> there is no bias and that the researchers understand the spectrum of > >> meditation practice, not merely a single, isolated brand or technique > >> they are (in violation of a *true* null hypothesis) trying to > >> forward. Suffice to say I am able to access a huge number of studies > >> most people would never see unless they were privy to specialized > >> journals, so therefore I read a lot more than your average person, on > >> a monthly basis. > >> > >> I've easily read as much as you, most likely much more. > >> > >> > > > > Of course you have, Vaj. How many Buddhist meditation studies have been > > published, > > BTW? > There are many meditation programs doing just fine without bothering > with "scientific studies." That seems to be a TMO hangup. >
No doubt, since Buddhist meditation has been around for thousands of years. That wasn't my question, however.
