--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Nov 17, 2006, at 8:51 AM, new.morning wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On Nov 16, 2006, at 5:55 PM, Bhairitu wrote: > >> > >> > >>>> 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. > >>> > >> > >> Precisely. And the hangup of some TMers. > >> > >> Good meditation techniques don't need research. > >> > >> > > > > Perhaps the subtle implication is that meditation organizations that > > support research are not "good". If that is the implication, that does > > not add up, IMO. > > > > There is a lot of value to see in precise pysiological and behavioral > > terms the effects of meditation. If any meditation technique can > > replace prescriptions and/or expensive treatments -- and/or shown to > > be a credible and strong preventative medicine measure, that is a > > good thing. > > > > And if meditation is shown to "light up" certain areas of the brain, > > leading towards improved performance, health, and happiness, it will > > tend to become more mainstream and society will benefit. > > > > And research is the necessary first step for such. The more research > > on all types of meditation forms, content (mantras), and other > > practices, the better, IMO. > > As long as there is no bias or hidden agenda to promote some style of > brand name recognition and sales it is a good thing. However when the > constant, several decades long agenda becomes clear, that nullifies > all the above benefits and should therefore not be trusted. Stories > of number massaging or faking results are not encouraging and huge > warning signs. These are some of the primary reasons TM research is > not taken seriously by other non-TMO researchers: it's tainted. > > Conversely the same groups should be ready and willing to show their > impartiality by showing, documenting and researching the negative > side effects of their meditation technique(s). In some cases a large > percentage of people experience negative side-effects. Why? What can > be done to ameliorate these side-effects? > > You don't see many pharmaceuticals backed by scientific evidence > which does not list the possible negative side effects. What should > we think if side effects are known to exist in a meditation technique > and exhaustive, obsessive research does not document ANY of these > negative findings? Should we even take them seriously? > > Would other, additional techniques such as those used in improved > versions of Tm like Sahaj Samadhi of SSRS be beneficial in > alleviating known side efect? If additional techniques like those > used in the AoL org do relieve side-effects, should earlier > techniques like Tm be abandoned in favor of their improved versions? >
Where's the Buddhist-sponsored research on the negative side effects of Bhuddist meditation? Likewise with the SSRS-sponsored research on SSRS meditation? etc?
