--- In [email protected], kaladevi93 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], kaladevi93 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "llundrub" <llundrub@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I don't think he says TM is a fraud, just that some aspects > > > > > of the teaching are very limited and limiting. > > > > > > > > He says it's a fraud because it claims *not* to be > > > > limited and limiting. > > > > > > > > However, he obviously doesn't understand the teaching. > > > > It would be one thing if he were able to state it > > > > clearly and accurately, then explain how it's limited > > > > and limiting; but what he presents as MMY's teaching > > > > is one misconception after another. > > > > > > > > Plus which, his approach to discussion is intellectually > > > > dishonest in the extreme, this current exchange with > > > > Lawson being a particularly egregious example. > > > > > > > > Just for one thing, in discussions with knowledgeable > > > > TMers, when asked to explain why such-and-such in > > > > the Buddhist or Yogic tradition is superior to or > > > > contradicts MMY's teaching, he either comes out with > > > > a string of impenetrable jargon and obscure references > > > > or claims the TMers couldn't possibly understand his > > > > point. > > > > > > > > If he himself actually understands what he's talking > > > > about, he ought to be able to explain it in plain > > > > language. Instead, he becomes evasive. > > > > > > > > > Funny, I find his comments insightful and clear. He just doesn't take any > > > BS or is sick > of > > it > > > to death (like many of us, no doubt!). > > > > Alright. So you're saying that Vaj, who can't furnish any direct reference > > to the studies > he > > claims exists, is being more clear than moi, who does furnish references to > > such > studies. > > > We talked about the Mindfulness study. It's actually pretty cool (probably > also why you see > the technique ubiquitously across America in hospitals, gratis). Basically > what you're > seeing in the EEG is someone in continuous samyama on the web of > compassionate > relationship.
So you think that high synchronous gamma in one area of the brain is "continuous samyama?" The reason it's so effortless to do this level of contiunuous samadhi is Or do you mean "continuous samadhi?" > because fueling of compassion into the dakini-net of reality is something > nature totally > and completely supports. Don't ya just love it! > > Meanwhile other less supported meditations are dying on the vine, paying > Indian > meditation outsourcers. > > And they try to use research as their favorite crutch still. Ho hum. > > I'm not impressed by a bunch of citations selling your product, neither are > all but a few > others...even if a rich weirdo is footing the bill... > BTW, where is the research on continuous samadhi? SURELY such research exists...
