[FairfieldLife] The state of government -- from bad to verse
A bill introduced in the Minnesota Legistature to appoint a poet laureate is itself written in verse: http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0224.0.htmlsession=ls85 or http://tinyurl.com/33a8tj
[FairfieldLife] I Was A Tool Of Satan
No, this is not another reply to Peter Klutz. It's just an interesting read passed along from a friend: This article in the Columbia Journalism Review, well worth the time investment, is by a Pulitzer prize- winning cartoonist writing very well and clearly about fatwas against him and the following: Niceness is the new face of censorship in this country. The censors no longer come to us in jackboots with torches and baying dogs in the middle of the night. They arrive now in broad daylight with marketing surveys and focus-group findings. http://www.cjr.org/issues/2003/6/satan-marlette.asp
[FairfieldLife] 80 More Pandits expected March 12
More Vedic Pandits Coming, Will Live in Maharishi Vedic City Eighty more Vedic Pandits are expected to arrive around March 12, adding to the 374 already in the community. The new arrivals are housed in the new campus for Vedic Pandits in Maharishi Vedic City. Last month volunteers helped prepare the 30 manufactured homes and community center for the new residents. Each home has two bedrooms and will accommodate two to four Vedic Pandits. In addition to the homes, other construction on the campus includes a 7,000-square-foot dining, kitchen, and program hall and a 6,000-square-foot building for the performance of Maharishi Vedic technologies for peace. The campus has infrastructure completed for 100 homes immediately. Some 500 homes are planned on the 80-acre site. Funds are currently being acquired to complete the first 200 homes. To contribute, please go to http://www.maharishivediccity.net According to Raja Robert Wynne, Mayor of Maharishi Vedic City, a total of 1,050 Vedic Pandits will be in the community by June, participating in the Invincible America Assembly and assuring that there will be 2,500 Yogic Flyers crowning America with invincibility. source: The Review, Vol. 22, #11, March 7, 2007 http://www.mum.edu/TheReview Copyright 2007, Maharishi University of Management
[FairfieldLife] Re: Running over our own Dogma, was Effort
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: Eh. Upset with covers a lot of ground. It's kinda a truism, though, that if you didn't care at least somewhat, you wouldn't bother posting. Better watch yourself, Lawson. You are risking The Wrath Of Stein here. :-) Heh. Sauce for the goose, Unc. You're every bit as nonchalant about your non-caring as Judy is and yet...
[FairfieldLife] King Tony named after Gurudev?
http://www.srigurudev.net/srigurudev/gurudev/biography.html Born Rajaram...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Running over our own Dogma, was Effort
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: Eh. Upset with covers a lot of ground. It's kinda a truism, though, that if you didn't care at least somewhat, you wouldn't bother posting. Better watch yourself, Lawson. You are risking The Wrath Of Stein here. :-) Heh. Sauce for the goose, Unc. You're every bit as nonchalant about your non-caring as Judy is and yet... Nonchalant is not about what one says, but about what one DOES. I would imagine that the test will be when Judy posts the list of MY quotes that you just KNOW she's busy compiling, right? :-) For the record, I won't mind a bit if she refers to me as old, because I am. In fact, if she'd like me to supply the email addresses of people who have met me to confirm this, I shall be happy to do so. As for anything else she calls me, well, after the first few hundred times you've heard them, how much can they really affect you, eh? :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: King Tony named after Gurudev?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.srigurudev.net/srigurudev/gurudev/biography.html Born Rajaram... Interesting.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Running over our own Dogma, was Effort
On Mar 8, 2007, at 2:14 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Judy...this is another one of those things that you'd rather prefer to believe is a lie or a trick on my part, but it's another of those things that is not. The person in question *did* say that. Duh. You *are* old...what's your problem with *looking* old? Well, at least she doesn't *act* old.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Running over our own Dogma, was Effort
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: You know, Judy, if you're so upset about seeing your own words supposedly out of context (I believe you said that a while back) just go through what Barry posts and give the context. Considering the amount you usually post by your own admission, I would think that would not be much of a problem. Except, Brry hsan't told us where he is repeating the words. And googling a phrase, doesn't always reveal all instances of that phrase on the internet, because not all forums are archived in google, I've noticed. They can use the Yahoo Groups search feature on the FFL page and find out whose post it was. And they'll also get the context. (Note that Sal is using Barry's trick of pretending any TMer who comes up with a criticism is upset.) And note that the person who has now made at least a dozen posts complaining about the lack of context -- to at least two different Internet forums -- is now claiming that she isn't upset. That's right, Barry. I'm making a point about your execrable behavior. And on the 3rd forum she posted to in the last few days, trying to do damage control surrounding THINGS TMers BELIEVE, the thing she wasn't upset about there was a comment from me correcting a typo in which I mentioned that someone we knew in common who had met her had described her as looking...uh...old. Ditto: making a point about your execrable behavior, in this case your gross dishonesty. We don't know anybody in common, and as I said, nobody with normal eyesight would say I looked any older than my actual age. You made that tale up out of whole cloth. Judy...this is another one of those things that you'd rather prefer to believe is a lie or a trick on my part, but it's another of those things that is not. The person in question *did* say that. There isn't any such person, Barry. You made it up. Duh. You *are* old...what's your problem with *looking* old? (For those who haven't seen his post on alt.m.t, Barry claimed this fictional person said I looked 300 years old.) I'm 65, and I have no problem whatsoever looking my age (or being 65, for that matter). But think of it this way...now you have one more thing to be not upset about, don't you? :-) You know, Barry, one of these days *you're* going to be 65 (God willing). You aren't as old as I am, but you're getting there. If you can't bring yourself to welcome it, for your own peace of mind you at least need to *resign* yourself to it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: LAX Wired Assh*le no threat
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: In a message dated 3/7/07 7:47:06 P.M. Central Standard Time, sparaig@ writes: The first thing that went through MY mind was schizophrenia. Good cover if caught. Remember the shoelace bomber? No reason why both theories can't have some validity. Possibly a freelancer who didn't know what the hell he was doing, but I seriously doubt part of any dry run plotted by competent terrorists. They'd surely have known the metal detectors would pick up what he'd stowed, and that he'd be given a body search.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Running over our own Dogma, was Effort
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: You know, Judy, if you're so upset about seeing your own words supposedly out of context (I believe you said that a while back) just go through what Barry posts and give the context. Considering the amount you usually post by your own admission, I would think that would not be much of a problem. Except, Brry hsan't told us where he is repeating the words. And googling a phrase, doesn't always reveal all instances of that phrase on the internet, because not all forums are archived in google, I've noticed. They can use the Yahoo Groups search feature on the FFL page and find out whose post it was. And they'll also get the context. (Note that Sal is using Barry's trick of pretending any TMer who comes up with a criticism is upset.) And note that the person who has now made at least a dozen posts complaining about the lack of context -- to at least two different Internet forums -- is now claiming that she isn't upset. That's right, Barry. I'm making a point about your execrable behavior. Which you're not the least upset about, eh? :-) And on the 3rd forum she posted to in the last few days, trying to do damage control surrounding THINGS TMers BELIEVE, the thing she wasn't upset about there was a comment from me correcting a typo in which I mentioned that someone we knew in common who had met her had described her as looking...uh...old. Ditto: making a point about your execrable behavior, in this case your gross dishonesty. We don't know anybody in common, and as I said, nobody with normal eyesight would say I looked any older than my actual age. You made that tale up out of whole cloth. Judy...this is another one of those things that you'd rather prefer to believe is a lie or a trick on my part, but it's another of those things that is not. The person in question *did* say that. There isn't any such person, Barry. You made it up. Think about it. I'm sure it'll come to you. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Running over our own Dogma, was Effort
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: [...] (Note that Sal is using Barry's trick of pretending any TMer who comes up with a criticism is upset.) Insomuch as why else would someone bother to post save that they care about what they are posting about, you're left with the choices: upset with or supporting the thing you're posting about. Uh, no. Lots of other possibilities. Eh. Upset with covers a lot of ground. It's kinda a truism, though, that if you didn't care at least somewhat, you wouldn't bother posting. If you want to equate care with upset, but that's a pretty broad definition. So yeah, any criticism, MUST be because you're upset.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Running over our own Dogma, was Effort
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: You know, Judy, if you're so upset about seeing your own words supposedly out of context (I believe you said that a while back) just go through what Barry posts and give the context. Considering the amount you usually post by your own admission, I would think that would not be much of a problem. Except, Brry hsan't told us where he is repeating the words. And googling a phrase, doesn't always reveal all instances of that phrase on the internet, because not all forums are archived in google, I've noticed. They can use the Yahoo Groups search feature on the FFL page and find out whose post it was. And they'll also get the context. (Note that Sal is using Barry's trick of pretending any TMer who comes up with a criticism is upset.) And note that the person who has now made at least a dozen posts complaining about the lack of context -- to at least two different Internet forums -- is now claiming that she isn't upset. That's right, Barry. I'm making a point about your execrable behavior. Which you're not the least upset about, eh? :-) Nope. The more opportunities you provide to call attention to your lack of credibility, the better. snip There isn't any such person, Barry. You made it up. Think about it. I'm sure it'll come to you. :-) Barry, it's not working.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Running over our own Dogma, was Effort
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Haven't you ever considered the possibility that some of your close friends follow your exploits on the Internet without making any posts of their own, and laugh at you behind your back? Hmm, let me consider it. Nope, I don't have any friends like that. I can definitely confirm that you have at least one.
[FairfieldLife] The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness
Already being hailed at the definitive work on consciousness and the first of it's kind (in won't officially be released till July), the handbook includes sections of the neurophysiology of meditation (Meditation and the neuroscience of consciousness) and quantum physics (Quantum approaches to consciousness). It will likely be the textbook on consciousness for years to come. http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521674126 --- Meditation and the Neuroscience of Consciousness Antoine Lutz, John D. Dunne, Richard J. Davidson http://brainimaging.waisman.wisc.edu/~lutz/ Meditation_Neuroscience_2005_AL_JDD_RJD_2.pdf Quantum theory in neuroscience and psychology: a neurophysical model of mind/brain interaction. (Oct 20, 2004) [Schwartz, Stapp, Beauregard: Phil. Trans. Royal Society, B 360(1458) 1309-27 (2005)] http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/PTRS.pdf
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Already being hailed at the definitive work on consciousness... There you go with the bashing again, Vaj. Better than The Science of Being? Not. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Running over our own Dogma, was Effort
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Haven't you ever considered the possibility that some of your close friends follow your exploits on the Internet without making any posts of their own, and laugh at you behind your back? Hmm, let me consider it. Nope, I don't have any friends like that. I can definitely confirm that you have at least one. Peculiar definition of Friend.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Running over our own Dogma, was Effort
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Haven't you ever considered the possibility that some of your close friends follow your exploits on the Internet without making any posts of their own, and laugh at you behind your back? Hmm, let me consider it. Nope, I don't have any friends like that. I can definitely confirm that you have at least one. Nope, you can't.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Already being hailed at the definitive work on consciousness... There you go with the bashing again, Vaj. Better than The Science of Being? Not. :-) Indeed.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness
On Mar 8, 2007, at 9:05 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Already being hailed at the definitive work on consciousness... There you go with the bashing again, Vaj. Better than The Science of Being? Not. Actually, legitimate neuroscientists had this to say about TM (from the Handbook of Consciousness): TM researchers further view this EEG picture as reflecting a single and original state of “Transcendental pure consciousness” (Maharishi, 1969; Travis et al., 2004). Transcendental state is conceptualized as a “fourth” state of consciousness”, a “wakeful hypometabolic state”, that differs from hypnosis and ordinary or sleep states (R.K. Wallace, 1970). Although these descriptions might best be interpreted as metaphysical assertions rather than first-person descriptions, they do suggest that this state of absorption could also involve some form of meta-awareness. Nevertheless, despite the possibility of a more sophisticated phenomenological interpretation and the need to relate physiological data to subjective data, it is still unclear whether and how TM meditation practices produce increased alpha beyond a general arousal effect or, an inhibition of task-irrelevant cortical zones. Other relaxation techniques have led to the same EEG profile and studies that employed counterbalanced control relaxation conditions consistently found a lack of alpha power increases or even decreases comparing relaxation or hypnosis to TM meditation (Morse et al., 1977; Tebecis, 1975; Warrenburg, Pagano, Woods, Hlastala, 1980). Similarly, the initial claim that TM produces a unique state of consciousness different than sleep has been refuted by several EEG meditation studies which reported sleep-like stages during this technique with increased alpha and then theta power (Pagano, Rose, Stivers, Warrenburg, 1976; Younger, Adriance, Berger, 1975). -Meditation and the Neuroscience of Consciousness Antoine Lutz, John D. Dunne, Richard J. Davidson
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Already being hailed at the definitive work on consciousness... There you go with the bashing again, Vaj. Better than The Science of Being? Not. :-) Indeed. The difference is, I was joking.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Already being hailed at the definitive work on consciousness and the first of it's kind (in won't officially be released till July), the handbook includes sections of the neurophysiology of meditation (Meditation and the neuroscience of consciousness) and quantum physics (Quantum approaches to consciousness). It will likely be the textbook on consciousness for years to come. http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521674126 --- Meditation and the Neuroscience of Consciousness Antoine Lutz, John D. Dunne, Richard J. Davidson http://brainimaging.waisman.wisc.edu/~lutz/ Meditation_Neuroscience_2005_AL_JDD_RJD_2.pdf Oh yeah, Lutz has published one study on meditation (co-authored with Davidson) and Davidson has published two studies on meditation (including the one with Luz). A classic in the field published by some of the greatest experts ever. And they refer to one or two modern studies on TM and refute them with references to 30-year-old studies and complain that there are no studies done on experienced TMers, ignoring the fact that the modern studies they cite are on TMers with 20-30 years experience. Yep, a non-biased publication for sure. Quantum theory in neuroscience and psychology: a neurophysical model of mind/brain interaction. (Oct 20, 2004) [Schwartz, Stapp, Beauregard: Phil. Trans. Royal Society, B 360(1458) 1309-27 (2005)] http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/PTRS.pdf
[FairfieldLife] Re: Running over our own Dogma, was Effort
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Haven't you ever considered the possibility that some of your close friends follow your exploits on the Internet without making any posts of their own, and laugh at you behind your back? Hmm, let me consider it. Nope, I don't have any friends like that. I can definitely confirm that you have at least one. Peculiar definition of Friend. And not just a friend, but a *close* friend, according to Barry.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Running over our own Dogma, was Effort
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Haven't you ever considered the possibility that some of your close friends follow your exploits on the Internet without making any posts of their own, and laugh at you behind your back? Hmm, let me consider it. Nope, I don't have any friends like that. I can definitely confirm that you have at least one. Peculiar definition of Friend. And not just a friend, but a *close* friend, according to Barry. I never said that. Just someone who has met you in person, and with whom I exchanged quite a few emails. Most of them were *not* concerning you (you're just not that important), but we definitely shared a few laughs at your expense.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 8, 2007, at 9:05 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Already being hailed at the definitive work on consciousness... There you go with the bashing again, Vaj. Better than The Science of Being? Not. Actually, legitimate neuroscientists had this to say about TM (from the Handbook of Consciousness): Note that the studies they use to refute the TM researchers are all from the 70's throught to 1980. Nothing about anything more recent,. Given that there have been 150-200 peer- reviewed studies published since the 70's, this is is obviously editorial bias of the highest and most despicable kind. Just your type of people, Vaj. Oh, and the three authors have published 2 studies on meditation between them. And one of them has yet to publish a single study on meditation. TM researchers further view this EEG picture as reflecting a single and original state of Transcendental pure consciousness (Maharishi, 1969; Travis et al., 2004). Transcendental state is conceptualized as a fourth state of consciousness, a wakeful hypometabolic state, that differs from hypnosis and ordinary or sleep states (R.K. Wallace, 1970). Although these descriptions might best be interpreted as metaphysical assertions rather than first-person descriptions, they do suggest that this state of absorption could also involve some form of meta-awareness. Nevertheless, despite the possibility of a more sophisticated phenomenological interpretation and the need to relate physiological data to subjective data, it is still unclear whether and how TM meditation practices produce increased alpha beyond a general arousal effect or, an inhibition of task-irrelevant cortical zones. Other relaxation techniques have led to the same EEG profile and studies that employed counterbalanced control relaxation conditions consistently found a lack of alpha power increases or even decreases comparing relaxation or hypnosis to TM meditation (Morse et al., 1977; Tebecis, 1975; Warrenburg, Pagano, Woods, Hlastala, 1980). Similarly, the initial claim that TM produces a unique state of consciousness different than sleep has been refuted by several EEG meditation studies which reported sleep-like stages during this technique with increased alpha and then theta power (Pagano, Rose, Stivers, Warrenburg, 1976; Younger, Adriance, Berger, 1975). -Meditation and the Neuroscience of Consciousness Antoine Lutz, John D. Dunne, Richard J. Davidson
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Already being hailed at the definitive work on consciousness... There you go with the bashing again, Vaj. Better than The Science of Being? Not. :-) Indeed. The difference is, I was joking. Quite so. A simple pubmed searchon the authors reveals their expertise. Vaj's own quote reveals their selective bias.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Running over our own Dogma, was Effort
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Haven't you ever considered the possibility that some of your close friends follow your exploits on the Internet without making any posts of their own, and laugh at you behind your back? Hmm, let me consider it. Nope, I don't have any friends like that. I can definitely confirm that you have at least one. Peculiar definition of Friend. And not just a friend, but a *close* friend, according to Barry. I never said that. Just someone who has met you in person, and with whom I exchanged quite a few emails. Most of them were *not* concerning you (you're just not that important), but we definitely shared a few laughs at your expense. How exciting for you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Already being hailed at the definitive work on consciousness... There you go with the bashing again, Vaj. Better than The Science of Being? Not. :-) Indeed. The difference is, I was joking. Quite so. A simple pubmed search on the authors reveals their expertise. Vaj's own quote reveals their selective bias. Are you trying out for the position of The Blindfolded Science Reviewer, Lawson? You haven't *read* the book in question yet, have you? And yet you're already trash- ing it, and its authors. Now I understand why you and Judy get along. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Running over our own Dogma, was Effort
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Haven't you ever considered the possibility that some of your close friends follow your exploits on the Internet without making any posts of their own, and laugh at you behind your back? Hmm, let me consider it. Nope, I don't have any friends like that. I can definitely confirm that you have at least one. Peculiar definition of Friend. And not just a friend, but a *close* friend, according to Barry. I never said that. Yes, you did. It's right up there at the top. Just someone who has met you in person, and with whom I exchanged quite a few emails. Most of them were *not* concerning you (you're just not that important), but we definitely shared a few laughs at your expense. Barry, it's not working. You're just digging yourself in deeper.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 8, 2007, at 9:05 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Already being hailed at the definitive work on consciousness... There you go with the bashing again, Vaj. Better than The Science of Being? Not. Actually, legitimate neuroscientists had this to say about TM (from the Handbook of Consciousness): TM researchers further view this EEG picture as reflecting a single and original state of Transcendental pure consciousness (Maharishi, 1969; Travis et al., 2004). Transcendental state is conceptualized as a fourth state of consciousness, a wakeful hypometabolic state, that differs from hypnosis and ordinary or sleep states (R.K. Wallace, 1970). Although these descriptions might best be interpreted as metaphysical assertions rather than first-person descriptions, they do suggest that this state of absorption could also involve some form of meta-awareness. Nevertheless, despite the possibility of a more sophisticated phenomenological interpretation and the need to relate physiological data to subjective data, it is still unclear whether and how TM meditation practices produce increased alpha beyond a general arousal effect or, an inhibition of task- irrelevant cortical zones. Other relaxation techniques have led to the same EEG profile and studies that employed counterbalanced control relaxation conditions consistently found a lack of alpha power increases or even decreases comparing relaxation or hypnosis to TM meditation (Morse et al., 1977; Tebecis, 1975; Warrenburg, Pagano, Woods, Hlastala, 1980). Similarly, the initial claim that TM produces a unique state of consciousness different than sleep has been refuted by several EEG meditation studies which reported sleep-like stages during this technique with increased alpha and then theta power (Pagano, Rose, Stivers, Warrenburg, 1976; Younger, Adriance, Berger, 1975). -Meditation and the Neuroscience of Consciousness Antoine Lutz, John D. Dunne, Richard J. Davidson Per your emphasized section, it just goes to show how one person doing TM can refute the incorrect assumptions of a bunch of scientists. As Jerry Jarvis used to say, there is nothing like TM; it is unique.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Running over our own Dogma, was Effort
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Haven't you ever considered the possibility that some of your close friends follow your exploits on the Internet without making any posts of their own, and laugh at you behind your back? Hmm, let me consider it. Nope, I don't have any friends like that. I can definitely confirm that you have at least one. Peculiar definition of Friend. And not just a friend, but a *close* friend, according to Barry. Doesn't say much for Barry's friends, does it?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness
On Mar 8, 2007, at 9:42 AM, sparaig wrote: Oh yeah, Lutz has published one study on meditation (co-authored with Davidson) and Davidson has published two studies on meditation (including the one with Luz). A classic in the field published by some of the greatest experts ever. And they refer to one or two modern studies on TM and refute them with references to 30-year-old studies and complain that there are no studies done on experienced TMers, ignoring the fact that the modern studies they cite are on TMers with 20-30 years experience. Yep, a non-biased publication for sure. What can I say, since it's basically the same EEG as sleep (thus accounting for the gaps in breathing) and the same as hypnosis, from a purely scientific point of view, I could see a reason for excluding it from serious meditation research. There clearly is a scientific basis to do so.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Running over our own Dogma, was Effort
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Haven't you ever considered the possibility that some of your close friends follow your exploits on the Internet without making any posts of their own, and laugh at you behind your back? Hmm, let me consider it. Nope, I don't have any friends like that. I can definitely confirm that you have at least one. Peculiar definition of Friend. And not just a friend, but a *close* friend, according to Barry. I never said that. Dude, look about five inches up the page at your excerpted quote...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness
On Mar 8, 2007, at 9:50 AM, sparaig wrote: Oh, and the three authors have published 2 studies on meditation between them. And one of them has yet to publish a single study on meditation. Two ground-breaking studies in the field. There's the difference. Heck, even the Wall Street Journal wrote it up. I guess you could good research require only one good study to be noted worldwide, whereas questionable research using hundreds of examples falls by the wayside. But who knows, maybe they'll find something of value. For example, maybe it would have some useful implications for hypnosis research or sleep research.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 8, 2007, at 9:42 AM, sparaig wrote: Oh yeah, Lutz has published one study on meditation (co- authored with Davidson) and Davidson has published two studies on meditation (including the one with Luz). A classic in the field published by some of the greatest experts ever. And they refer to one or two modern studies on TM and refute them with references to 30-year-old studies and complain that there are no studies done on experienced TMers, ignoring the fact that the modern studies they cite are on TMers with 20-30 years experience. Yep, a non-biased publication for sure. What can I say, since it's basically the same EEG as sleep (thus accounting for the gaps in breathing) and the same as hypnosis, from a purely scientific point of view, I could see a reason for excluding it from serious meditation research. There clearly is a scientific basis to do so. Some folks tenaciously hold on to their ignorance, eh Vaj? you can lead a horse to water...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Running over our own Dogma, was Effort
Haven't you ever considered the possibility that some of your close friends follow your exploits on the Internet without making any posts of their own, and laugh at you behind your back? Hmm, let me consider it. Nope, I don't have any friends like that. I can definitely confirm that you have at least one. Peculiar definition of Friend. And not just a friend, but a *close* friend, according to Barry. I never said that. Yes, you did. It's right up there at the top. Read it again. I *asked* whether you had ever considered the possibility. I didn't say that the person I exchanged emails with was close to you. Just someone who has met you in person, and with whom I exchanged quite a few emails. Most of them were *not* concerning you (you're just not that important), but we definitely shared a few laughs at your expense. Barry, it's not working. You're just digging yourself in deeper. Keep thinking about it, Judy. You'll figure it out one of these days. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 8, 2007, at 9:50 AM, sparaig wrote: Oh, and the three authors have published 2 studies on meditation between them. And one of them has yet to publish a single study on meditation. Two ground-breaking studies in the field. There's the difference. Heck, even the Wall Street Journal wrote it up. I guess you could good research require only one good study to be noted worldwide, whereas questionable research using hundreds of examples falls by the wayside. But who knows, maybe they'll find something of value. For example, maybe it would have some useful implications for hypnosis research or sleep research. Oh blind man, what will you tell us about the elephant today?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Running over our own Dogma, was Effort
Haven't you ever considered the possibility that some of your close friends follow your exploits on the Internet without making any posts of their own, and laugh at you behind your back? Hmm, let me consider it. Nope, I don't have any friends like that. I can definitely confirm that you have at least one. Peculiar definition of Friend. And not just a friend, but a *close* friend, according to Barry. Doesn't say much for Barry's friends, does it? My friends laugh at me to my face, and urge me to laugh at myself. That's precisely why they *are* my friends. You're not suggesting that yours actually take you *seriously*, are you?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Running over our own Dogma, was Effort
Haven't you ever considered the possibility that some of your close friends follow your exploits on the Internet without making any posts of their own, and laugh at you behind your back? Hmm, let me consider it. Nope, I don't have any friends like that. I can definitely confirm that you have at least one. Peculiar definition of Friend. And not just a friend, but a *close* friend, according to Barry. I never said that. Dude, look about five inches up the page at your excerpted quote... Hmmm. It would seem that, like Judy, you can't tell the difference between a question and an assertion. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Running over our own Dogma, was Effort
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Haven't you ever considered the possibility that some of your close friends follow your exploits on the Internet without making any posts of their own, and laugh at you behind your back? Hmm, let me consider it. Nope, I don't have any friends like that. I can definitely confirm that you have at least one. Peculiar definition of Friend. And not just a friend, but a *close* friend, according to Barry. Doesn't say much for Barry's friends, does it? Even if it were true that he has a friend who said what he claims, because *they'd* have been lying to him. But if so, he wouldn't exactly be able to blame them for getting him into such trouble. I mean, this is such a perfect demonstration of what kind of person Barry really is, self-destructive behavior and all.
[FairfieldLife] A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
If you read the puja, however, what is actually happening is the initiator is bringing Guru Dev, the Maharishi's dead teacher, to my awareness. To the Maharishi, Guru Dev was a still living presence in the Absolute. So I've often wondered if the Maharishi thought of the Puja as being a sort of possession of the initiator by Guru Dev's spirit? Mr Knapp on TMBlog. I wonder where he got the idea that Maharishi thought Guru Dev was still a living presence IN the absolute? That does not even jive with Eastern metaphysics 101, the Guru Dev had reached 'Tat tvam asi' i.e. *Thou Art That*it's too painful to go on it's so moronic, possessed?, gads!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Running over our own Dogma, was Effort
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Haven't you ever considered the possibility that some of your close friends follow your exploits on the Internet without making any posts of their own, and laugh at you behind your back? Hmm, let me consider it. Nope, I don't have any friends like that. I can definitely confirm that you have at least one. Peculiar definition of Friend. And not just a friend, but a *close* friend, according to Barry. I never said that. Yes, you did. It's right up there at the top. Read it again. I *asked* whether you had ever considered the possibility. I didn't say that the person I exchanged emails with was close to you. Yes, you did. I said I had no friends like that (i.e., close friends), and you claimed I had at least one. Just someone who has met you in person, and with whom I exchanged quite a few emails. Most of them were *not* concerning you (you're just not that important), but we definitely shared a few laughs at your expense. Barry, it's not working. You're just digging yourself in deeper. Keep thinking about it, Judy. You'll figure it out one of these days. :-) Good grief, Barry, stop embarrassing yourself. The ploy isn't working, and you're just making yourself look worse and worse.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some folks tenaciously hold on to their ignorance, eh Vaj? you can lead a horse to water... This from the person who has never read any books on Buddhism and believes that Buddha said, God is love. And who only yesterday said of one of the world's most noted Buddhist scholars, It would be better if he did TM... Yes, indeed. Some folks tenaciously hold onto their ignorance, all right. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Running over our own Dogma, was Effort
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Haven't you ever considered the possibility that some of your close friends follow your exploits on the Internet without making any posts of their own, and laugh at you behind your back? Hmm, let me consider it. Nope, I don't have any friends like that. I can definitely confirm that you have at least one. Peculiar definition of Friend. And not just a friend, but a *close* friend, according to Barry. Doesn't say much for Barry's friends, does it? My friends laugh at me to my face But not behind your back, one hopes. Oopsie. , and urge me to laugh at myself. That's precisely why they *are* my friends. You're not suggesting that yours actually take you *seriously*, are you?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Running over our own Dogma, was Effort
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Haven't you ever considered the possibility that some of your close friends follow your exploits on the Internet without making any posts of their own, and laugh at you behind your back? Hmm, let me consider it. Nope, I don't have any friends like that. I can definitely confirm that you have at least one. Peculiar definition of Friend. And not just a friend, but a *close* friend, according to Barry. I never said that. Dude, look about five inches up the page at your excerpted quote... Hmmm. It would seem that, like Judy, you can't tell the difference between a question and an assertion. :-) The assertion: I can definitely confirm that you have at least one [friend like that, i.e., close friend].
[FairfieldLife] Re: Running over our own Dogma, was Effort
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Keep thinking about it, Judy. You'll figure it out one of these days. :-) Good grief, Barry, stop embarrassing yourself. The ploy isn't working, and you're just making yourself look worse and worse. And by now you've figured out who it is, and are pretending that you haven't.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Mar 8, 2007, at 9:05 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Already being hailed at the definitive work on consciousness... There you go with the bashing again, Vaj. Better than The Science of Being? Not. Actually, legitimate neuroscientists had this to say about TM (from the Handbook of Consciousness): TM researchers further view this EEG picture as reflecting a single and original state of Transcendental pure consciousness (Maharishi, 1969; Travis et al., 2004). Transcendental state is conceptualized as a fourth state of consciousness, a wakeful hypometabolic state, that differs from hypnosis and ordinary or sleep states (R.K. Wallace, 1970). Although these descriptions might best be interpreted as metaphysical assertions rather than first-person descriptions, they do suggest that this state of absorption could also involve some form of meta-awareness. Nevertheless, despite the possibility of a more sophisticated phenomenological interpretation and the need to relate physiological data to subjective data, it is still unclear whether and how TM meditation practices produce increased alpha beyond a general arousal effect or, an inhibition of task- irrelevant cortical zones. Other relaxation techniques have led to the same EEG profile and studies that employed counterbalanced control relaxation conditions consistently found a lack of alpha power increases or even decreases comparing relaxation or hypnosis to TM meditation (Morse et al., 1977; Tebecis, 1975; Warrenburg, Pagano, Woods, Hlastala, 1980). Similarly, the initial claim that TM produces a unique state of consciousness different than sleep has been refuted by several EEG meditation studies which reported sleep-like stages during this technique with increased alpha and then theta power (Pagano, Rose, Stivers, Warrenburg, 1976; Younger, Adriance, Berger, 1975). -Meditation and the Neuroscience of Consciousness Antoine Lutz, John D. Dunne, Richard J. Davidson Per your emphasized section, it just goes to show how one person doing TM can refute the incorrect assumptions of a bunch of scientists. As Jerry Jarvis used to say, there is nothing like TM; it is unique. Note the dates of the research: 1975, 1976, 1977, 1980... Nothing in the last 25 years. It's a thinly veiled promotional for Buddhism and Buddhist meditation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Already being hailed at the definitive work on consciousness... There you go with the bashing again, Vaj. Better than The Science of Being? Not. :-) Indeed. The difference is, I was joking. Quite so. A simple pubmed search on the authors reveals their expertise. Vaj's own quote reveals their selective bias. Are you trying out for the position of The Blindfolded Science Reviewer, Lawson? You haven't *read* the book in question yet, have you? And yet you're already trash- ing it, and its authors. Now I understand why you and Judy get along. :-) The pdf file is apparently the segment to be published on meditation. I read portions of that and scanned the rest.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 8, 2007, at 9:42 AM, sparaig wrote: Oh yeah, Lutz has published one study on meditation (co-authored with Davidson) and Davidson has published two studies on meditation (including the one with Luz). A classic in the field published by some of the greatest experts ever. And they refer to one or two modern studies on TM and refute them with references to 30-year-old studies and complain that there are no studies done on experienced TMers, ignoring the fact that the modern studies they cite are on TMers with 20-30 years experience. Yep, a non-biased publication for sure. What can I say, since it's basically the same EEG as sleep (thus accounting for the gaps in breathing) and the same as hypnosis, from a purely scientific point of view, I could see a reason for excluding it from serious meditation research. There clearly is a scientific basis to do so. According to studies conducted 30+ years ago, you mean. Guess what? If you check CURRENT studies on hypnosis, you won't find a concensus on what the EEG of hypnosis looks like.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 8, 2007, at 9:50 AM, sparaig wrote: Oh, and the three authors have published 2 studies on meditation between them. And one of them has yet to publish a single study on meditation. Two ground-breaking studies in the field. There's the difference. Heck, even the Wall Street Journal wrote it up. I guess you could good research require only one good study to be noted worldwide, whereas questionable research using hundreds of examples falls by the wayside. But who knows, maybe they'll find something of value. For example, maybe it would have some useful implications for hypnosis research or sleep research. A ground-breaking study where the researchers admit that they're not sure which range of gamma frequencies were in-synch due to problems with the apparatus, but golly, them tracks sure are purty.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Running over our own Dogma, was Effort
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Haven't you ever considered the possibility that some of your close friends follow your exploits on the Internet without making any posts of their own, and laugh at you behind your back? Hmm, let me consider it. Nope, I don't have any friends like that. I can definitely confirm that you have at least one. Peculiar definition of Friend. And not just a friend, but a *close* friend, according to Barry. I never said that. Yes, you did. It's right up there at the top. Read it again. I *asked* whether you had ever considered the possibility. I didn't say that the person I exchanged emails with was close to you. I can definitely confirm that you have at least one You're a brat.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Running over our own Dogma, was Effort
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Keep thinking about it, Judy. You'll figure it out one of these days. :-) Good grief, Barry, stop embarrassing yourself. The ploy isn't working, and you're just making yourself look worse and worse. And by now you've figured out who it is, and are pretending that you haven't. Let me say it another way: Good grief, Barry, stop embarrassing yourself. The ploy isn't working, and you're just making yourself look worse and worse. On second though, no, please keep going just the way you have been.
[FairfieldLife] Coherence schmoherence
Large-scale alpha synchronization blocks information processing because very large populations of neurons oscillate with the same phase and frequency; thus, it is a state of high integration but low differentiation. Within a bandwidth of perhaps 2Hz near this spectral peak, alpha frequencies frequently produce spontaneously moderate to large coherence (0.3-0.8 over large inter-electrode distance (Nunez et al., 1997)). The alpha coherence values reported in TM studies, as a trait in the baseline or during meditation, belong to this same range. Thus a global increase of alpha power and alpha coherence might not reflect a more “ordered” or “integrated” experience, as frequently claimed in TM literature, but rather a relaxed, inactive mental state (Fenwick, 1987). -The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness
RE: [FairfieldLife] A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mr. Magoo Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 9:31 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] A really silly comment..by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM If you read the puja, however, what is actually happening is the initiator is bringing Guru Dev, the Maharishi's dead teacher, to my awareness. To the Maharishi, Guru Dev was a still living presence in the Absolute. So I've often wondered if the Maharishi thought of the Puja as being a sort of possession of the initiator by Guru Dev's spirit? Mr Knapp on TMBlog. I wonder where he got the idea that Maharishi thought Guru Dev was still a living presence IN the absolute? That does not even jive with Eastern metaphysics 101, the Guru Dev had reached 'Tat tvam asi' i.e. *Thou Art That*it's too painful to go on it's so moronic, possessed?, gads! In the intro to Love and God, p. 11, with reference to Guru Dev, Maharishi says We only pray Him to keep on guiding us, implying that he considers Guru Dev to still be playing a active role from wherever he is.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Coherence schmoherence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Large-scale alpha synchronization blocks information processing because very large populations of neurons oscillate with the same phase and frequency; thus, it is a state of high integration but low differentiation. Within a bandwidth of perhaps 2Hz near this spectral peak, alpha frequencies frequently produce spontaneously moderate to large coherence (0.3-0.8 over large inter-electrode distance (Nunez et al., 1997)). The alpha coherence values reported in TM studies, as a trait in the baseline or during meditation, belong to this same range. Thus a global increase of alpha power and alpha coherence might not reflect a more ordered or integrated experience, as frequently claimed in TM literature, but rather a relaxed, inactive mental state (Fenwick, 1987). -The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness Are you under the impression that PC is an active mental state, filled with thoughts and problem-solving activities?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Coherence schmoherence
On Mar 8, 2007, at 11:18 AM, sparaig wrote: Are you under the impression that PC is an active mental state, filled with thoughts and problem-solving activities? There is no mention of PC in the citation Sparaig. I believe the researchers refer to PC as a metaphysical assertion rather than any sceintific reality. In fact the idea that people are experiencing something called PC, is one indoctrinated in them before they begin the practice. Unfortunately, it does not appear the researchers are aware of the tendency for experience coaching. TM researchers further view this EEG picture as reflecting a single and original state of “Transcendental pure consciousness” (Maharishi, 1969; Travis et al., 2004). Transcendental state is conceptualized as a “fourth” state of consciousness”, a “wakeful hypometabolic state”, that differs from hypnosis and ordinary or sleep states (R.K. Wallace, 1970). Although these descriptions might best be interpreted as metaphysical assertions rather than first-person descriptions, they do suggest that this state of absorption could also involve some form of meta-awareness. Nevertheless, despite the possibility of a more sophisticated phenomenological interpretation and the need to relate physiological data to subjective data, it is still unclear whether and how TM meditation practices produce increased alpha beyond a general arousal effect or, an inhibition of task-irrelevant cortical zones. Other relaxation techniques have led to the same EEG profile and studies that employed counterbalanced control relaxation conditions consistently found a lack of alpha power increases or even decreases comparing relaxation or hypnosis to TM meditation (Morse et al., 1977; Tebecis, 1975; Warrenburg, Pagano, Woods, Hlastala, 1980). Similarly, the initial claim that TM produces a unique state of consciousness different than sleep has been refuted by several EEG meditation studies which reported sleep-like stages during this technique with increased alpha and then theta power (Pagano, Rose, Stivers, Warrenburg, 1976; Younger, Adriance, Berger, 1975). -The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness
[FairfieldLife] Re: Running over our own Dogma, was Effort
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Keep thinking about it, Judy. You'll figure it out one of these days. :-) Good grief, Barry, stop embarrassing yourself. The ploy isn't working, and you're just making yourself look worse and worse. And by now you've figured out who it is, and are pretending that you haven't. Let me say it another way: Good grief, Barry, stop embarrassing yourself. The ploy isn't working, and you're just making yourself look worse and worse. On second though, no, please keep going just the way you have been. She's definitely figured it out now. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: Some folks tenaciously hold on to their ignorance, eh Vaj? you can lead a horse to water... This from the person who has never read any books on Buddhism and believes that Buddha said, God is love. And who only yesterday said of one of the world's most noted Buddhist scholars, It would be better if he did TM... Yes, indeed. Some folks tenaciously hold onto their ignorance, all right. :-) LOL! You are cracking me up dude! Vaj is an ignorant fool- it has been proved time and again here. Say what you will about me. Who the f*ck cares?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Running over our own Dogma, was Effort
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Haven't you ever considered the possibility that some of your close friends follow your exploits on the Internet without making any posts of their own, and laugh at you behind your back? Hmm, let me consider it. Nope, I don't have any friends like that. I can definitely confirm that you have at least one. Peculiar definition of Friend. And not just a friend, but a *close* friend, according to Barry. Doesn't say much for Barry's friends, does it? My friends laugh at me to my face, and urge me to laugh at myself. That's precisely why they *are* my friends. You're not suggesting that yours actually take you *seriously*, are you? LOL! What are *you* suggesting?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you read the puja, however, what is actually happening is the initiator is bringing Guru Dev, the Maharishi's dead teacher, to my awareness. To the Maharishi, Guru Dev was a still living presence in the Absolute. So I've often wondered if the Maharishi thought of the Puja as being a sort of possession of the initiator by Guru Dev's spirit? Mr Knapp on TMBlog. I wonder where he got the idea that Maharishi thought Guru Dev was still a living presence IN the absolute? That does not even jive with Eastern metaphysics 101, the Guru Dev had reached 'Tat tvam asi' i.e. *Thou Art That*it's too painful to go on it's so moronic, possessed?, gads! It is pretty funny/sad. Oh well John is in it to drum up money from all the TM victims out there. I wsh him well in his dependent/co- dependent quest.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Coherence schmoherence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Large-scale alpha synchronization blocks information processing because very large populations of neurons oscillate with the same phase and frequency; thus, it is a state of high integration but low differentiation. Within a bandwidth of perhaps 2Hz near this spectral peak, alpha frequencies frequently produce spontaneously moderate to large coherence (0.3-0.8 over large inter-electrode distance (Nunez et al., 1997)). The alpha coherence values reported in TM studies, as a trait in the baseline or during meditation, belong to this same range. Thus a global increase of alpha power and alpha coherence might not reflect a more ordered or integrated experience, as frequently claimed in TM literature, but rather a relaxed, inactive mental state (Fenwick, 1987). -The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness Looks like you've found your Bible Vaj-- blah, blah, blah...
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mr. Magoo Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 9:31 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] A really silly comment..by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM If you read the puja, however, what is actually happening is the initiator is bringing Guru Dev, the Maharishi's dead teacher, to my awareness. To the Maharishi, Guru Dev was a still living presence in the Absolute. So I've often wondered if the Maharishi thought of the Puja as being a sort of possession of the initiator by Guru Dev's spirit? Mr Knapp on TMBlog. I wonder where he got the idea that Maharishi thought Guru Dev was still a living presence IN the absolute? That does not even jive with Eastern metaphysics 101, the Guru Dev had reached 'Tat tvam asi' i.e. *Thou Art That*it's too painful to go on it's so moronic, possessed?, gads! In the intro to Love and God, p. 11, with reference to Guru Dev, Maharishi says We only pray Him to keep on guiding us, implying that he considers Guru Dev to still be playing a active role from wherever he is. Guru Dev IS playing an active role, from wherever He is. It just isn't in the Absolute. It is very much a relative place.
Re: [FairfieldLife] A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
On Mar 8, 2007, at 10:30 AM, Mr. Magoo wrote: If you read the puja, however, what is actually happening is the initiator is bringing Guru Dev, the Maharishi's dead teacher, to my awareness. To the Maharishi, Guru Dev was a still living presence in the Absolute. So I've often wondered if the Maharishi thought of the Puja as being a sort of possession of the initiator by Guru Dev's spirit? Mr Knapp on TMBlog. I wonder where he got the idea that Maharishi thought Guru Dev was still a living presence IN the absolute? That does not even jive with Eastern metaphysics 101, the Guru Dev had reached 'Tat tvam asi' i.e. *Thou Art That*it's too painful to go on it's so moronic, possessed?, gads! Esp. since we know Jim met the ghost of Guru Dev and went for a walk with it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 8, 2007, at 10:30 AM, Mr. Magoo wrote: If you read the puja, however, what is actually happening is the initiator is bringing Guru Dev, the Maharishi's dead teacher, to my awareness. To the Maharishi, Guru Dev was a still living presence in the Absolute. So I've often wondered if the Maharishi thought of the Puja as being a sort of possession of the initiator by Guru Dev's spirit? Mr Knapp on TMBlog. I wonder where he got the idea that Maharishi thought Guru Dev was still a living presence IN the absolute? That does not even jive with Eastern metaphysics 101, the Guru Dev had reached 'Tat tvam asi' i.e. *Thou Art That*it's too painful to go on it's so moronic, possessed?, gads! Esp. since we know Jim met the ghost of Guru Dev and went for a walk with it. Ha-Ha! Have you ever seen a ghost? Me neither...another idiotic comment from you.
Re: [FairfieldLife] A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
On Mar 8, 2007, at 10:42 AM, Vaj wrote: Esp. since we know Jim met the ghost of Guru Dev and went for a walk with it.___ Was it dragging a chain and saying, Lighten up, Ebenezer!? Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip In the intro to Love and God, p. 11, with reference to Guru Dev, Maharishi says We only pray Him to keep on guiding us, implying that he considers Guru Dev to still be playing a active role from wherever he is. MMY says, We only pray..., he doesn't say he IS!! MMY may or may not know, or it may be presumptous for him to say. Whether Swami Brahmananda took on a 'Bodhisattva' role in the governence of the Universe is speculative at best and CLEARLY has nothing to do with 'awareness' spoken of in the puja!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Running over our own Dogma, was Effort
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Keep thinking about it, Judy. You'll figure it out one of these days. :-) Good grief, Barry, stop embarrassing yourself. The ploy isn't working, and you're just making yourself look worse and worse. And by now you've figured out who it is, and are pretending that you haven't. Let me say it another way: Good grief, Barry, stop embarrassing yourself. The ploy isn't working, and you're just making yourself look worse and worse. On second though, no, please keep going just the way you have been. She's definitely figured it out now. :-) Nope. Never needed to do any figuring. From the instant I first read it, I knew it was a lie.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Running over our own Dogma, was Effort
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Keep thinking about it, Judy. You'll figure it out one of these days. :-) Good grief, Barry, stop embarrassing yourself. The ploy isn't working, and you're just making yourself look worse and worse. And by now you've figured out who it is, and are pretending that you haven't. Let me say it another way: Good grief, Barry, stop embarrassing yourself. The ploy isn't working, and you're just making yourself look worse and worse. On second though, no, please keep going just the way you have been. She's definitely figured it out now. :-) Nope. Never needed to do any figuring. From the instant I first read it, I knew it was a lie. Hint: he's visited you at your house in New Jersey.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: In the intro to Love and God, p. 11, with reference to Guru Dev, Maharishi says We only pray Him to keep on guiding us, implying that he considers Guru Dev to still be playing a active role from wherever he is. MMY says, We only pray..., he doesn't say he IS!! MMY may or may not know, or it may be presumptous for him to say. Whether Swami Brahmananda took on a 'Bodhisattva' role in the governence of the Universe is speculative at best and CLEARLY has nothing to do with 'awareness' spoken of in the puja! Have you ever heard Maharishi admit to the possibility of someone who is enlightened dying and taking on a 'Bodhisattva' role? I sure haven't. I remember one long lecture in which he went on and on and on saying that the *only* possibility for what happens to an enlight- ened being when they die is that the drop returns to the ocean, and he said definitely in that talk (in response to several direct questions) that there was *no* possibility of an enlightened being ever incarnating again in any form -- human or subtle. Now I don't personally believe this, but that's what the man said. But then he has waffled on many subjects before, so it's possible that he later recanted and allowed for there being more possibilities than the one he was adamant about in that talk. Has anyone here ever heard Maharishi speak of anything other than the drop returns to the ocean model? I'm mentioning it because if no one has, then Jim's claim to have met Guru Dev would seem to imply that Maharishi was...uh...wrong. Either that or it's possible that Jim was...uh...wrong, and what he met was the aftereffects of one of his burger and margarita feasts. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
On Mar 8, 2007, at 11:50 AM, Sal Sunshine wrote: On Mar 8, 2007, at 10:42 AM, Vaj wrote: Esp. since we know Jim met the ghost of Guru Dev and went for a walk with it.___ Was it dragging a chain and saying, Lighten up, Ebenezer!? Now let's not make a joke of it! Everyone knows there's a saddening lack of restaurants on the astral plane. It's therefore only scientifically reasonable to assume TM pujas are the where the poor guy goes to get a meal. He's probably gettin' a little thin these days...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Running over our own Dogma, was Effort
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Keep thinking about it, Judy. You'll figure it out one of these days. :-) Good grief, Barry, stop embarrassing yourself. The ploy isn't working, and you're just making yourself look worse and worse. And by now you've figured out who it is, and are pretending that you haven't. Let me say it another way: Good grief, Barry, stop embarrassing yourself. The ploy isn't working, and you're just making yourself look worse and worse. On second though, no, please keep going just the way you have been. She's definitely figured it out now. :-) Nope. Never needed to do any figuring. From the instant I first read it, I knew it was a lie. Hint: he's visited you at your house in New Jersey. Then *he's* lying.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Coherence schmoherence
Vaj wrote: Large-scale alpha synchronization blocks information processing because very large populations of neurons oscillate with the same phase and frequency; thus, it is a state of high integration but low differentiation. Within a bandwidth of perhaps 2Hz near this spectral peak, alpha frequencies frequently produce spontaneously moderate to large coherence (0.3-0.8 over large inter-electrode distance (Nunez et al., 1997)). The alpha coherence values reported in TM studies, as a trait in the baseline or during meditation, belong to this same range. Thus a global increase of alpha power and alpha coherence might not reflect a more “ordered” or “integrated” experience, as frequently claimed in TM literature, but rather a relaxed, inactive mental state (Fenwick, 1987). -The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness It is the theta as well as aware-delta frequencies that are more a signed of higher consciousness. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/4It09A/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo wgm4u@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: In the intro to Love and God, p. 11, with reference to Guru Dev, Maharishi says We only pray Him to keep on guiding us, implying that he considers Guru Dev to still be playing a active role from wherever he is. MMY says, We only pray..., he doesn't say he IS!! MMY may or may not know, or it may be presumptous for him to say. Whether Swami Brahmananda took on a 'Bodhisattva' role in the governence of the Universe is speculative at best and CLEARLY has nothing to do with 'awareness' spoken of in the puja! Have you ever heard Maharishi admit to the possibility of someone who is enlightened dying and taking on a 'Bodhisattva' role? I sure haven't. I remember one long lecture in which he went on and on and on saying that the *only* possibility for what happens to an enlight- ened being when they die is that the drop returns to the ocean, and he said definitely in that talk (in response to several direct questions) that there was *no* possibility of an enlightened being ever incarnating again in any form -- human or subtle. Now I don't personally believe this, but that's what the man said. But then he has waffled on many subjects before, so it's possible that he later recanted and allowed for there being more possibilities than the one he was adamant about in that talk. Has anyone here ever heard Maharishi speak of anything other than the drop returns to the ocean model? I'm mentioning it because if no one has, then Jim's claim to have met Guru Dev would seem to imply that Maharishi was...uh...wrong. Either that or it's possible that Jim was...uh...wrong, and what he met was the aftereffects of one of his burger and margarita feasts. :-) In the broader context, I think a Master can reconstitute his form at any time, the essence (consciousness) is the same. Even Christ appeared to his disciples after the Resurrection. Form is not soul!
[FairfieldLife] TM claims quite premature
To summarize, alpha global increases and alpha coherence mostly over frontal electrodes are associated with TM practice when meditating compared to baseline (Morse, Martin, Furst, Dubin, 1977). This global alpha increase is similar to other relaxation techniques. The passive absorption during the recitation of the mantra, as practiced in this technique, produces a brain pattern that suggests a decrease of processing of sensory or motor information and of mental activity in general. Because alpha rhythms are ubiquitous and functionally non-specific, the claim that alpha oscillations and alpha coherence are desirable or are linked to an original and higher state of consciousness seem quite premature. -The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness
Re: [FairfieldLife] A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
Mr. Magoo wrote: If you read the puja, however, what is actually happening is the initiator is bringing Guru Dev, the Maharishi's dead teacher, to my awareness. To the Maharishi, Guru Dev was a still living presence in the Absolute. So I've often wondered if the Maharishi thought of the Puja as being a sort of possession of the initiator by Guru Dev's spirit? Mr Knapp on TMBlog. I wonder where he got the idea that Maharishi thought Guru Dev was still a living presence IN the absolute? That does not even jive with Eastern metaphysics 101, the Guru Dev had reached 'Tat tvam asi' i.e. *Thou Art That*it's too painful to go on it's so moronic, possessed?, gads! Performing the puja simply enlivens shakti and therefore enlivens the mantra which is about to be given.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Take the fight to the enemy
peterklutz wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The-illuminati-order/ http://www.hawkscafe.com/070106.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: enlightenment just another RELATIVE - thanks
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Mar 7, 2007, at 3:26 PM, Alex Stanley wrote: The pattern since getting involved with Waking Down is that I keep revisiting the same stuff over and over again in cycles of pressure and release. And, I feel into it a bit deeper in each pressure cycle. Thing is, this stuff is all I've known for more than 30 years. I don't even know what's innate and what's conditioned. And, I don't know how to work with it other than just be with whatever is holding my attention. Sounds like you found one of the evolutionary reasons for witnessing which is if you can witness, you can go into that state and let the tape loops roll and let the unconscious pour its crapola (without being involved in the mind-sewer). Then you're no longer feeding the loops. If you're experiencing them as suffering, there are probably still elements where you separate from them through aversion (pushing away). You have a number of choices: witness and remain uninvolved or be so spacious, it's all one and there is no separation. One way I work with this type of pattern is to invoke them in dreaming sleep and then freeze them. Believe me, if you use your *utter annoyance* at the repetition of the tape loops to inspire your focus, you can get the dream to stop. It's just a karmic VCR and you're the only one with the remote. Then just hold the loop elements in your awareness till they open, relax and go away. Then you might go to another set of loops, but hopefully one that is either so long you aren't annoyed by it's constant repetitions or it's content is simply more livable without having to resort to witnessing. Or it may completely open up. The best antitode IME is non-dual meditation, eyes open, in a unified state and let the clouds come and go. If there is no separation, there is no possible tension and so the loops resolve, of themselves, by themselves, like a snake untying itself from a knot. But that's not TM witnessing. Yeah, so what? Neither Vaj nor I are talking about TM on this thread.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo wgm4u@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: In the intro to Love and God, p. 11, with reference to Guru Dev, Maharishi says We only pray Him to keep on guiding us, implying that he considers Guru Dev to still be playing a active role from wherever he is. MMY says, We only pray..., he doesn't say he IS!! MMY may or may not know, or it may be presumptous for him to say. Whether Swami Brahmananda took on a 'Bodhisattva' role in the governence of the Universe is speculative at best and CLEARLY has nothing to do with 'awareness' spoken of in the puja! Have you ever heard Maharishi admit to the possibility of someone who is enlightened dying and taking on a 'Bodhisattva' role? I sure haven't. I remember one long lecture in which he went on and on and on saying that the *only* possibility for what happens to an enlight- ened being when they die is that the drop returns to the ocean, and he said definitely in that talk (in response to several direct questions) that there was *no* possibility of an enlightened being ever incarnating again in any form -- human or subtle. Now I don't personally believe this, but that's what the man said. But then he has waffled on many subjects before, so it's possible that he later recanted and allowed for there being more possibilities than the one he was adamant about in that talk. Has anyone here ever heard Maharishi speak of anything other than the drop returns to the ocean model? The holy tradition of great masters, which is responsible for reviving the teaching after every lapse, has captured the mind and heart of lovers of Truth in every age. It is not merely held in high regard, but has come to be actually worshipped by seekers of Truth and knowers of Reality. A verse(*) recording the names of the greatest and most highly revered masters has not only inspired seekers, but has been a joy even to the fulfilled hearts of realized souls passing through the long corridor of time. --Commentary to 4:2 in MMY's Gita translation (copyright 1967) * The listing of the masters of the holy tradition chanted during the puja.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Coherence schmoherence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 8, 2007, at 11:18 AM, sparaig wrote: Are you under the impression that PC is an active mental state, filled with thoughts and problem-solving activities? There is no mention of PC in the citation Sparaig. Non sequitur. Answer the question. I believe the researchers refer to PC as a metaphysical assertion rather than any sceintific reality. In fact the idea that people are experiencing something called PC, is one indoctrinated in them before they begin the practice. Unfortunately, it does not appear the researchers are aware of the tendency for experience coaching. TM researchers further view this EEG picture as reflecting a single and original state of Transcendental pure consciousness (Maharishi, 1969; Travis et al., 2004). Transcendental state is conceptualized as a fourth state of consciousness, a wakeful hypometabolic state, that differs from hypnosis and ordinary or sleep states (R.K. Wallace, 1970). Although these descriptions might best be interpreted as metaphysical assertions rather than first-person descriptions, they do suggest that this state of absorption could also involve some form of meta-awareness. Nevertheless, despite the possibility of a more sophisticated phenomenological interpretation and the need to relate physiological data to subjective data, it is still unclear whether and how TM meditation practices produce increased alpha beyond a general arousal effect or, an inhibition of task-irrelevant cortical zones. Other relaxation techniques have led to the same EEG profile and studies that employed counterbalanced control relaxation conditions consistently found a lack of alpha power increases or even decreases comparing relaxation or hypnosis to TM meditation (Morse et al., 1977; Tebecis, 1975; Warrenburg, Pagano, Woods, Hlastala, 1980). Similarly, the initial claim that TM produces a unique state of consciousness different than sleep has been refuted by several EEG meditation studies which reported sleep-like stages during this technique with increased alpha and then theta power (Pagano, Rose, Stivers, Warrenburg, 1976; Younger, Adriance, Berger, 1975). -The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo wgm4u@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: In the intro to Love and God, p. 11, with reference to Guru Dev, Maharishi says We only pray Him to keep on guiding us, implying that he considers Guru Dev to still be playing a active role from wherever he is. MMY says, We only pray..., he doesn't say he IS!! MMY may or may not know, or it may be presumptous for him to say. Whether Swami Brahmananda took on a 'Bodhisattva' role in the governence of the Universe is speculative at best and CLEARLY has nothing to do with 'awareness' spoken of in the puja! Have you ever heard Maharishi admit to the possibility of someone who is enlightened dying and taking on a 'Bodhisattva' role? I sure haven't. I remember one long lecture in which he went on and on and on saying that the *only* possibility for what happens to an enlight- ened being when they die is that the drop returns to the ocean, and he said definitely in that talk (in response to several direct questions) that there was *no* possibility of an enlightened being ever incarnating again in any form -- human or subtle. Now I don't personally believe this, but that's what the man said. But then he has waffled on many subjects before, so it's possible that he later recanted and allowed for there being more possibilities than the one he was adamant about in that talk. Has anyone here ever heard Maharishi speak of anything other than the drop returns to the ocean model? I'm mentioning it because if no one has, then Jim's claim to have met Guru Dev would seem to imply that Maharishi was...uh...wrong. Either that or it's possible that Jim was...uh...wrong, and what he met was the aftereffects of one of his burger and margarita feasts. :-) In the broader context, I think a Master can reconstitute his form at any time, the essence (consciousness) is the same. Even Christ appeared to his disciples after the Resurrection. Form is not soul! I don't disagree with you in the least. What I was asking is whether anyone here has ever heard *Maharishi* say this, or anything like it. I ask because I and others here (if I remember correctly) have heard him say the exact opposite.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
In the broader context, I think a Master can reconstitute his form at any time, the essence (consciousness) is the same. Even Christ appeared to his disciples after the Resurrection. Form is not soul! This fact was captured on film in the groundbreaking work by Michael Jackson in his Thriller documentary video. I believe choreographed dance sequences were effective in keeping them from eating your brains. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo wgm4u@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: In the intro to Love and God, p. 11, with reference to Guru Dev, Maharishi says We only pray Him to keep on guiding us, implying that he considers Guru Dev to still be playing a active role from wherever he is. MMY says, We only pray..., he doesn't say he IS!! MMY may or may not know, or it may be presumptous for him to say. Whether Swami Brahmananda took on a 'Bodhisattva' role in the governence of the Universe is speculative at best and CLEARLY has nothing to do with 'awareness' spoken of in the puja! Have you ever heard Maharishi admit to the possibility of someone who is enlightened dying and taking on a 'Bodhisattva' role? I sure haven't. I remember one long lecture in which he went on and on and on saying that the *only* possibility for what happens to an enlight- ened being when they die is that the drop returns to the ocean, and he said definitely in that talk (in response to several direct questions) that there was *no* possibility of an enlightened being ever incarnating again in any form -- human or subtle. Now I don't personally believe this, but that's what the man said. But then he has waffled on many subjects before, so it's possible that he later recanted and allowed for there being more possibilities than the one he was adamant about in that talk. Has anyone here ever heard Maharishi speak of anything other than the drop returns to the ocean model? I'm mentioning it because if no one has, then Jim's claim to have met Guru Dev would seem to imply that Maharishi was...uh...wrong. Either that or it's possible that Jim was...uh...wrong, and what he met was the aftereffects of one of his burger and margarita feasts. :-) In the broader context, I think a Master can reconstitute his form at any time, the essence (consciousness) is the same. Even Christ appeared to his disciples after the Resurrection. Form is not soul!
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo wgm4u@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo wgm4u@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: In the intro to Love and God, p. 11, with reference to Guru Dev, Maharishi says We only pray Him to keep on guiding us, implying that he considers Guru Dev to still be playing a active role from wherever he is. MMY says, We only pray..., he doesn't say he IS!! MMY may or may not know, or it may be presumptous for him to say. Whether Swami Brahmananda took on a 'Bodhisattva' role in the governence of the Universe is speculative at best and CLEARLY has nothing to do with 'awareness' spoken of in the puja! Have you ever heard Maharishi admit to the possibility of someone who is enlightened dying and taking on a 'Bodhisattva' role? I sure haven't. I remember one long lecture in which he went on and on and on saying that the *only* possibility for what happens to an enlight- ened being when they die is that the drop returns to the ocean, and he said definitely in that talk (in response to several direct questions) that there was *no* possibility of an enlightened being ever incarnating again in any form -- human or subtle. Now I don't personally believe this, but that's what the man said. But then he has waffled on many subjects before, so it's possible that he later recanted and allowed for there being more possibilities than the one he was adamant about in that talk. Has anyone here ever heard Maharishi speak of anything other than the drop returns to the ocean model? snip In the broader context, I think a Master can reconstitute his form at any time, the essence (consciousness) is the same. Even Christ appeared to his disciples after the Resurrection. Form is not soul! I don't disagree with you in the least. What I was asking is whether anyone here has ever heard *Maharishi* say this, or anything like it. I ask because I and others here (if I remember correctly) have heard him say the exact opposite. What do you think he means by realized souls passing through the long corridor of time?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Coherence schmoherence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 8, 2007, at 11:18 AM, sparaig wrote: Are you under the impression that PC is an active mental state, filled with thoughts and problem-solving activities? There is no mention of PC in the citation Sparaig. I believe the researchers refer to PC as a metaphysical assertion rather than any sceintific reality. In fact the idea that people are experiencing something called PC, is one indoctrinated in them before they begin the practice. Unfortunately, it does not appear the researchers are aware of the tendency for experience coaching. Er, yeah, but the citation of Travis 2004 clearly discusses PC and CC. 1: Conscious Cogn. 2004 Jun;13(2):401-20. Links Psychological and physiological characteristics of a proposed object-referral/self-referral continuum of self-awareness. Travis F, Arenander A, DuBois D. Institute for Research on Higher States of Consciousness, Maharishi University of Management, Fairfield, IA 52557-1001, USA. [EMAIL PROTECTED] This research extends and confirms recent brainwave findings that distinguished an individual's sense-of-self along an Object-referral/Self-referral Continuum of self- awareness. Subjects were interviewed and were given tests measuring inner/outer orientation, moral reasoning, anxiety, and personality. Scores on the psychological tests were factor analyzed. The first unrotated PCA component of the test scores yielded a Consciousness Factor, analogous to the intelligence g factor, which accounted for over half of the variance among groups. Analysis of unstructured interviews of these subjects revealed fundamentally different descriptions of self-awareness. Individuals who described themselves in terms of concrete cognitive and behavioral processes (predominantly Object-referral mode) exhibited lower Consciousness Factor scores, lower frontal EEG coherence, lower alpha and higher gamma power during tasks, and less efficient cortical preparatory responses (contingent negative variation). In contrast, individuals who described themselves in terms of an abstract, independent sense-of-self underlying thought, feeling and action (predominantly Self-referral mode) exhibited higher Consciousness Factor scores, higher frontal coherence, higher alpha and lower gamma power during tasks, and more efficient cortical responses. These data suggest that definable states of brain activity and subjective experiences exist, in addition to waking, sleeping and dreaming, that may be operationally defined by psychological and physiological measures along a continuum of Object-referral/Self-referral Continuum of self-awareness. PMID: 15134768 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] TM researchers further view this EEG picture as reflecting a single and original state of Transcendental pure consciousness (Maharishi, 1969; Travis et al., 2004). Transcendental state is conceptualized as a fourth state of consciousness, a wakeful hypometabolic state, that differs from hypnosis and ordinary or sleep states (R.K. Wallace, 1970). Although these descriptions might best be interpreted as metaphysical assertions rather than first-person descriptions, they do suggest that this state of absorption could also involve some form of meta-awareness. Nevertheless, despite the possibility of a more sophisticated phenomenological interpretation and the need to relate physiological data to subjective data, it is still unclear whether and how TM meditation practices produce increased alpha beyond a general arousal effect or, an inhibition of task-irrelevant cortical zones. Other relaxation techniques have led to the same EEG profile and studies that employed counterbalanced control relaxation conditions consistently found a lack of alpha power increases or even decreases comparing relaxation or hypnosis to TM meditation (Morse et al., 1977; Tebecis, 1975; Warrenburg, Pagano, Woods, Hlastala, 1980). Similarly, the initial claim that TM produces a unique state of consciousness different than sleep has been refuted by several EEG meditation studies which reported sleep-like stages during this technique with increased alpha and then theta power (Pagano, Rose, Stivers, Warrenburg, 1976; Younger, Adriance, Berger, 1975). -The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness
[FairfieldLife] Re: Coherence schmoherence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vaj wrote: Large-scale alpha synchronization blocks information processing because very large populations of neurons oscillate with the same phase and frequency; thus, it is a state of high integration but low differentiation. Within a bandwidth of perhaps 2Hz near this spectral peak, alpha frequencies frequently produce spontaneously moderate to large coherence (0.3-0.8 over large inter-electrode distance (Nunez et al., 1997)). The alpha coherence values reported in TM studies, as a trait in the baseline or during meditation, belong to this same range. Thus a global increase of alpha power and alpha coherence might not reflect a more ordered or integrated experience, as frequently claimed in TM literature, but rather a relaxed, inactive mental state (Fenwick, 1987). -The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness It is the theta as well as aware-delta frequencies that are more a signed of higher consciousness. Er, yeah. And this is documented, where?
[FairfieldLife] Re: enlightenment just another RELATIVE - thanks
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Mar 7, 2007, at 3:26 PM, Alex Stanley wrote: The pattern since getting involved with Waking Down is that I keep revisiting the same stuff over and over again in cycles of pressure and release. And, I feel into it a bit deeper in each pressure cycle. Thing is, this stuff is all I've known for more than 30 years. I don't even know what's innate and what's conditioned. And, I don't know how to work with it other than just be with whatever is holding my attention. Sounds like you found one of the evolutionary reasons for witnessing which is if you can witness, you can go into that state and let the tape loops roll and let the unconscious pour its crapola (without being involved in the mind-sewer). Then you're no longer feeding the loops. If you're experiencing them as suffering, there are probably still elements where you separate from them through aversion (pushing away). You have a number of choices: witness and remain uninvolved or be so spacious, it's all one and there is no separation. One way I work with this type of pattern is to invoke them in dreaming sleep and then freeze them. Believe me, if you use your *utter annoyance* at the repetition of the tape loops to inspire your focus, you can get the dream to stop. It's just a karmic VCR and you're the only one with the remote. Then just hold the loop elements in your awareness till they open, relax and go away. Then you might go to another set of loops, but hopefully one that is either so long you aren't annoyed by it's constant repetitions or it's content is simply more livable without having to resort to witnessing. Or it may completely open up. The best antitode IME is non-dual meditation, eyes open, in a unified state and let the clouds come and go. If there is no separation, there is no possible tension and so the loops resolve, of themselves, by themselves, like a snake untying itself from a knot. But that's not TM witnessing. Yeah, so what? Neither Vaj nor I are talking about TM on this thread. So there is no evolutionary basis for TM witnessing? Just what kind of witnessing are we talking about then?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Coherence schmoherence
On Mar 8, 2007, at 12:43 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 8, 2007, at 11:18 AM, sparaig wrote: Are you under the impression that PC is an active mental state, filled with thoughts and problem-solving activities? There is no mention of PC in the citation Sparaig. I believe the researchers refer to PC as a metaphysical assertion rather than any sceintific reality. In fact the idea that people are experiencing something called PC, is one indoctrinated in them before they begin the practice. Unfortunately, it does not appear the researchers are aware of the tendency for experience coaching. Er, yeah, but the citation of Travis 2004 clearly discusses PC and CC. Exactly the point, these are all metaphysical assertions, not scientific realities, further more TMers--particularly long-term TMers are coached as to what these experiences are supposed to be and what they are supposed to mean. I can't say for sure, but it looks to me as if TM research has largely been discredited here. All the claims we've heard for years and years were not only huge exaggerations, but really, really reaching beyond what was scientifically feasible. A bunch of more research on the same old thing isn't likely to change anything (except perhaps make it look even more suspect). What I am forced to wonder is 'was there some high-up figurehead in the TMO *insisting* this is what the data meant', even though it did not. That's what it sounds like is happening.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo wgm4u@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: In the intro to Love and God, p. 11, with reference to Guru Dev, Maharishi says We only pray Him to keep on guiding us, implying that he considers Guru Dev to still be playing a active role from wherever he is. MMY says, We only pray..., he doesn't say he IS!! MMY may or may not know, or it may be presumptous for him to say. Whether Swami Brahmananda took on a 'Bodhisattva' role in the governence of the Universe is speculative at best and CLEARLY has nothing to do with 'awareness' spoken of in the puja! Have you ever heard Maharishi admit to the possibility of someone who is enlightened dying and taking on a 'Bodhisattva' role? I sure haven't. I remember one long lecture in which he went on and on and on saying that the *only* possibility for what happens to an enlight- ened being when they die is that the drop returns to the ocean, and he said definitely in that talk (in response to several direct questions) that there was *no* possibility of an enlightened being ever incarnating again in any form -- human or subtle. Now I don't personally believe this, but that's what the man said. But then he has waffled on many subjects before, so it's possible that he later recanted and allowed for there being more possibilities than the one he was adamant about in that talk. Has anyone here ever heard Maharishi speak of anything other than the drop returns to the ocean model? I'm mentioning it because if no one has, then Jim's claim to have met Guru Dev would seem to imply that Maharishi was...uh...wrong. Either that or it's possible that Jim was...uh...wrong, and what he met was the aftereffects of one of his burger and margarita feasts. :-) lol! I don't see things after drinking- to each his own. As to what Maharishi said, one of the brilliant things about him is that he always speaks appropriately according to his audience. Why should he go into details that folks like you don't have a hope of comprehending?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 8, 2007, at 11:50 AM, Sal Sunshine wrote: On Mar 8, 2007, at 10:42 AM, Vaj wrote: Esp. since we know Jim met the ghost of Guru Dev and went for a walk with it.___ Was it dragging a chain and saying, Lighten up, Ebenezer!? Now let's not make a joke of it! Everyone knows there's a saddening lack of restaurants on the astral plane. It's therefore only scientifically reasonable to assume TM pujas are the where the poor guy goes to get a meal. He's probably gettin' a little thin these days... Ha-Ha! But not thin on common sense. So tell us blind man, what does the Guru Dev elephant look like today?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo wgm4u@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: In the intro to Love and God, p. 11, with reference to Guru Dev, Maharishi says We only pray Him to keep on guiding us, implying that he considers Guru Dev to still be playing a active role from wherever he is. MMY says, We only pray..., he doesn't say he IS!! MMY may or may not know, or it may be presumptous for him to say. Whether Swami Brahmananda took on a 'Bodhisattva' role in the governence of the Universe is speculative at best and CLEARLY has nothing to do with 'awareness' spoken of in the puja! Have you ever heard Maharishi admit to the possibility of someone who is enlightened dying and taking on a 'Bodhisattva' role? I sure haven't. I remember one long lecture in which he went on and on and on saying that the *only* possibility for what happens to an enlight- ened being when they die is that the drop returns to the ocean, and he said definitely in that talk (in response to several direct questions) that there was *no* possibility of an enlightened being ever incarnating again in any form -- human or subtle. Now I don't personally believe this, but that's what the man said. But then he has waffled on many subjects before, so it's possible that he later recanted and allowed for there being more possibilities than the one he was adamant about in that talk. Has anyone here ever heard Maharishi speak of anything other than the drop returns to the ocean model? I'm mentioning it because if no one has, then Jim's claim to have met Guru Dev would seem to imply that Maharishi was...uh...wrong. Either that or it's possible that Jim was...uh...wrong, and what he met was the aftereffects of one of his burger and margarita feasts. :-) In the broader context, I think a Master can reconstitute his form at any time, the essence (consciousness) is the same. Even Christ appeared to his disciples after the Resurrection. Form is not soul! To think otherwise would be to consider the Master not a master of Reality at all. Perhaps that is what Vaj and Barry are saying, reflecting their starving consciousness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo wgm4u@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo wgm4u@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: In the intro to Love and God, p. 11, with reference to Guru Dev, Maharishi says We only pray Him to keep on guiding us, implying that he considers Guru Dev to still be playing a active role from wherever he is. MMY says, We only pray..., he doesn't say he IS!! MMY may or may not know, or it may be presumptous for him to say. Whether Swami Brahmananda took on a 'Bodhisattva' role in the governence of the Universe is speculative at best and CLEARLY has nothing to do with 'awareness' spoken of in the puja! Have you ever heard Maharishi admit to the possibility of someone who is enlightened dying and taking on a 'Bodhisattva' role? I sure haven't. I remember one long lecture in which he went on and on and on saying that the *only* possibility for what happens to an enlight- ened being when they die is that the drop returns to the ocean, and he said definitely in that talk (in response to several direct questions) that there was *no* possibility of an enlightened being ever incarnating again in any form -- human or subtle. Now I don't personally believe this, but that's what the man said. But then he has waffled on many subjects before, so it's possible that he later recanted and allowed for there being more possibilities than the one he was adamant about in that talk. Has anyone here ever heard Maharishi speak of anything other than the drop returns to the ocean model? I'm mentioning it because if no one has, then Jim's claim to have met Guru Dev would seem to imply that Maharishi was...uh...wrong. Either that or it's possible that Jim was...uh...wrong, and what he met was the aftereffects of one of his burger and margarita feasts. :-) In the broader context, I think a Master can reconstitute his form at any time, the essence (consciousness) is the same. Even Christ appeared to his disciples after the Resurrection. Form is not soul! I don't disagree with you in the least. What I was asking is whether anyone here has ever heard *Maharishi* say this, or anything like it. I ask because I and others here (if I remember correctly) have heard him say the exact opposite. He didn't want to freak out people like you. Sorry.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Coherence schmoherence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 8, 2007, at 12:43 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Mar 8, 2007, at 11:18 AM, sparaig wrote: Are you under the impression that PC is an active mental state, filled with thoughts and problem-solving activities? There is no mention of PC in the citation Sparaig. I believe the researchers refer to PC as a metaphysical assertion rather than any sceintific reality. In fact the idea that people are experiencing something called PC, is one indoctrinated in them before they begin the practice. Unfortunately, it does not appear the researchers are aware of the tendency for experience coaching. Er, yeah, but the citation of Travis 2004 clearly discusses PC and CC. Exactly the point, these are all metaphysical assertions, not scientific realities, further more TMers--particularly long-term TMers are coached as to what these experiences are supposed to be and what they are supposed to mean. I can't say for sure, but it looks to me as if TM research has largely been discredited here. All the claims we've heard for years and years were not only huge exaggerations, but really, really reaching beyond what was scientifically feasible. A bunch of more research on the same old thing isn't likely to change anything (except perhaps make it look even more suspect). What I am forced to wonder is 'was there some high-up figurehead in the TMO *insisting* this is what the data meant', even though it did not. That's what it sounds like is happening. Even if all the research is BS, you just can't argue with Reality, can ya?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
On Mar 8, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Mr. Magoo wrote: In the broader context, I think a Master can reconstitute his form at any time, the essence (consciousness) is the same. Even Christ appeared to his disciples after the Resurrection. Sure, and if you drank as much wine as they did back then, bet he'd begin appearing to you too. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Coherence schmoherence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I can't say for sure, but it looks to me as if TM research has largely been discredited here. How much of the TM research later than 1980 does it deal with, Vaj?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: I don't disagree with you in the least. What I was asking is whether anyone here has ever heard *Maharishi* say this, or anything like it. I ask because I and others here (if I remember correctly) have heard him say the exact opposite. He didn't want to freak out people like you. Sorry. I think you should get a handle on your elitism, Jim. I believe that Maharishi was WRONG when he said empatically that when an enlightened being dies that there is *no possibility* of ever taking incarnation again, in any form. So, obviously, do YOU.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: I don't disagree with you in the least. What I was asking is whether anyone here has ever heard *Maharishi* say this, or anything like it. I ask because I and others here (if I remember correctly) have heard him say the exact opposite. He didn't want to freak out people like you. Sorry. I think you should get a handle on your elitism, Jim. I believe that Maharishi was WRONG when he said empatically that when an enlightened being dies that there is *no possibility* of ever taking incarnation again, in any form. So, obviously, do YOU. What do you think MMY means by realized souls passing through the long corridor of time? giggle
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: I don't disagree with you in the least. What I was asking is whether anyone here has ever heard *Maharishi* say this, or anything like it. I ask because I and others here (if I remember correctly) have heard him say the exact opposite. He didn't want to freak out people like you. Sorry. I think you should get a handle on your elitism, Jim. I believe that Maharishi was WRONG when he said empatically that when an enlightened being dies that there is *no possibility* of ever taking incarnation again, in any form. So, obviously, do YOU. What do you think MMY means by realized souls passing through the long corridor of time? I think you're reading something into that quote that isn't there.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: I don't disagree with you in the least. What I was asking is whether anyone here has ever heard *Maharishi* say this, or anything like it. I ask because I and others here (if I remember correctly) have heard him say the exact opposite. He didn't want to freak out people like you. Sorry. I think you should get a handle on your elitism, Jim. I believe that Maharishi was WRONG when he said empatically that when an enlightened being dies that there is *no possibility* of ever taking incarnation again, in any form. So, obviously, do YOU. Guru Dev dsidn't incarnate again, He didn't go anywhere. Are you confused about That?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 8, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Mr. Magoo wrote: In the broader context, I think a Master can reconstitute his form at any time, the essence (consciousness) is the same. Even Christ appeared to his disciples after the Resurrection. Sure, and if you drank as much wine as they did back then, bet he'd begin appearing to you too. Sal Only if one was enlightened and began seeing double ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Coherence schmoherence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Mar 8, 2007, at 12:43 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Mar 8, 2007, at 11:18 AM, sparaig wrote: Are you under the impression that PC is an active mental state, filled with thoughts and problem-solving activities? There is no mention of PC in the citation Sparaig. I believe the researchers refer to PC as a metaphysical assertion rather than any sceintific reality. In fact the idea that people are experiencing something called PC, is one indoctrinated in them before they begin the practice. Unfortunately, it does not appear the researchers are aware of the tendency for experience coaching. Er, yeah, but the citation of Travis 2004 clearly discusses PC and CC. Exactly the point, these are all metaphysical assertions, not scientific realities, further more TMers--particularly long- term TMers are coached as to what these experiences are supposed to be and what they are supposed to mean. I can't say for sure, but it looks to me as if TM research has largely been discredited here. All the claims we've heard for years and years were not only huge exaggerations, but really, really reaching beyond what was scientifically feasible. A bunch of more research on the same old thing isn't likely to change anything (except perhaps make it look even more suspect). What I am forced to wonder is 'was there some high-up figurehead in the TMO *insisting* this is what the data meant', even though it did not. That's what it sounds like is happening. Even if all the research is BS, you just can't argue with Reality, can ya? LOL! Thought of something about Vaj's rant this morning- he is saying everyone's experience with TM is predicated on auto suggestion, and on the other hand redicules me for having had experiences they *never* discuss in the TMO. What's up with that? He can't win with him Self...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Coherence schmoherence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LOL! Thought of something about Vaj's rant this morning- he is saying everyone's experience with TM is predicated on auto suggestion, and on the other hand redicules me for having had experiences they *never* discuss in the TMO. What's up with that? He can't win with him Self... Has anyone noticed that Mr. Self Realized has a tendency to get a little...uh...testy and elitist when anyone questions his experiences? :-)
