--- While the authenticity of research papers done by TM TB'ers is questionable, the fact remains that TM is far superior to any single Buddhist technique available. In the distant future, Buddhists in droves (including all the monks you see in those TV ads where they gather around a laptop) will embrace TM. That's a fact!.
In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mar 9, 2007, at 11:06 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Mar 9, 2007, at 7:53 PM, sparaig wrote: > >> > >>> Heh. Sorry, Vaj. Internal politics in the TMO isn't supposed to > >>> influence how scientists deal > >>> with published research. The research has to be evaluated on its > >>> own merits. > >> > >> Well, yes, of course, but that is not what I'm referring to. What I'm > >> referring to is reports of Mahesh *telling* researchers 'this is what > >> you'll find' and threatening them if they don't. > > > > Documentation? And where did MMY tell researchers that they would > > find reductions in > > thalamic activity? > > Read the archives of this list dude. Darth Rishi has a long history > of forced micromanagement. > > > > > This would be like > >> tobacco companies or a college president looming over your research > >> result interpretation before it's reported. Except in this case the > >> researchers are being loomed over by someone they (despite being > >> scientists) accept as perfect, omniscient and enlightened. Even > >> cigarette company researchers or oil company climatologists aren't > >> under that much pressure. > >> > >> > >>> And to ignore the research, rather than to evaluate it, shows that > >>> they simply don't want to > >>> deal with the implications. > >> > >> I don't feel that is the case. I just don't think they're impressed > >> nor do they consider it significant. > >> > > > > In the context of a paper purporting to give a general overview of > > meditation and > > meditation research, they are REQUIRED to say why they don't feel > > it significant. > > > > Instead, they pretend the research doesn't exist. > > See the previous post on why this is the case. >
