--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 20, 2007, at 10:03 AM, authfriend wrote:
>
> > > They are supported by the original research from the 50's and
more
> > > recently duplicated in modern research. This recent research
was
> > > highly praised and I believe this was simply because, despite a
> > > flurry of research on meditation, we had never had a
duplication
> > on
> > > the original 1950's occurrence of high amplitude gamma waves in
> > the
> > > advanced Hindu yogis. So the new findings were a big surprise.
In
> > > addition we also have repeats of this phenomenon in unpublished
> > > research on samadhi (of the correlation between high-amplitude
> > gamma
> > > waves and the occurrence of samadhi in humans). It is for this
> > reason
> > > that we know that high-amplitude gamma waves correlate with
> > samadhi.
> > > Long term, deep meditators show evidence of this even outside
of
> > > meditation. New research on this will be published within the
next
> > > year hopefully providing further evidence.
> >
> > Again, this is all based on one particular
> > definition of "legitimate" samadhi taken from
> > the "traditional" literature. It does not prove
> > that other definitions are somehow wrong or
> > illegitimate.
>
> Isn't this where you dust off that old study (Larry Domash?)
which
> has a reputed and hilarious history of TM that only a certified
TB
> with Vedic Koolaid® in their veins would believe?
>
> I don't buy it Judy. Maybe you'd have more success with a TB
audience.
>
> Maybe you're right and Mahesh isn't practicing in the Patanjali
or
> Shankaracharya tradition. That would be a good dodge if objective
> listeners would buy it. I don't, I think it's just a lame excuse
on
> your part (one you repeatedly try to use). If he wants to make up
a
> new definition, then maybe he should call it "Maharishi's New
> Samadhi" and trademark it?
>
Judy, you really *must* learn as Vaj has, to keep Samadhi in a nice
neat box. After all if it can't be quantified and qualified by us,
conquered in a sense, what good is it???:-0
