On Mar 5, 2008, at 2:59 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
> According to whom? Have you independently corroborated what those
> signs are in the Shank. trad. of what you're claiming? Can you
> provide a shastric reference? Familiar with the term
> "self-fulfilling prophecy?"
Exactly. I've noticed this for
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mar 4, 2008, at 5:41 PM, sparaig wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity"
> > wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > Again, you obviously didn't look at the article. The article in
> > question proposed t
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 4, 2008, at 5:41 PM, sparaig wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity"
> > wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Why do you want to argue with me? I missed the journal reference,
> > > that is all. Jud
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 4, 2008, at 5:45 PM, sparaig wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> >
> > > And not willing to admit you goofed, either and instead pointing
> > fingers at me for pointing
> > > out
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 4, 2008, at 5:33 PM, sparaig wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mar 3, 2008, at 10:16 AM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why do you want to argue with me? I miss
On Mar 4, 2008, at 5:33 PM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 3, 2008, at 10:16 AM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
>
> > Why do you want to argue with me? I missed the journal reference,
> > that is all. Judy kindly gave it to me right away.
On Mar 4, 2008, at 5:45 PM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And not willing to admit you goofed, either and instead pointing
fingers at me for pointing
> out you shot your mouth off without looking (and obviously STILL
haven't, ev
On Mar 4, 2008, at 5:41 PM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Why do you want to argue with me? I missed the journal reference,
> that is all. Judy kindly gave it to me right away.
>
Well, yes you did: ON the front page,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And not willing to admit you goofed, either and instead pointing fingers at
> me for pointing
> out you shot your mouth off without looking (and obviously STILL haven't,
> even now).
>
Anyone who wonders why I'm not
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...]
> Why do you want to argue with me? I missed the journal reference,
> that is all. Judy kindly gave it to me right away.
>
Well, yes you did: ON the front page, a rather unmistakeable logo of a major
pu
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 3, 2008, at 10:16 AM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
>
> > Why do you want to argue with me? I missed the journal reference,
> > that is all. Judy kindly gave it to me right away.
> >
> > Earth shattering? You think that any
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As far as I'm concerned the authors of this other paper (from
> the Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness), which was discussed
> originally last spring IIRC, did a great job of covering TM and
> other research, it's good point
On Mar 3, 2008, at 11:05 AM, authfriend wrote:
As you know but are pretending not to, I'm referring
to the three "world-class" researchers who wrote the
study we've been discussing here: Antoine Lutz, John D.
Dunne, and Richard J. Davidson.
Actually the research I was originally referring to
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 3, 2008, at 10:48 AM, authfriend wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mar 3, 2008, at 10:16 AM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
> >
> > > > You know, I am sick of all the arguing. I w
On Mar 3, 2008, at 10:48 AM, authfriend wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mar 3, 2008, at 10:16 AM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
> > You know, I am sick of all the arguing. I would have become a
> > lawyer if I thought the best way to find truth was th
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mar 3, 2008, at 10:16 AM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
> > You know, I am sick of all the arguing. I would have become a
> > lawyer if I thought the best way to find truth was through
> > argument. I am going to read what Judy
On Mar 3, 2008, at 10:16 AM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
Why do you want to argue with me? I missed the journal reference,
that is all. Judy kindly gave it to me right away.
Earth shattering? You think that anything in all the studies is earth
shattering? Like what? Brain wave coherence? Interesting
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity"
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mar 2, 2008, at 6:34 PM, sparaig wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Likewise,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> >
> > Well, people can read both the book excerpt AND the 2004
> > study by Travis et al. via the two urls above and come
> > to their own conclusions. Its not
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I also don't feel they dismissed 20 years of research, they
> merely put it into a scientific perspective and showed the
> defects therein.
No, Vaj, they didn't report on it *at all*.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mar 2, 2008, at 7:24 PM, authfriend wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
> > > Judy, scientists refuted much what had been claimed on TM
> > > way back in the 80's--with good science and it was p
On Mar 3, 2008, at 3:12 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well, people can read both the book excerpt AND the 2004
> study by Travis et al. via the two urls above and come
> to their own conclusions. Its not necessary to posture
On Mar 2, 2008, at 10:14 PM, sparaig wrote:
Dismissing 20 years of research doesn't make someone "world class"
regardless of their credentials elsewhere. Davidson is touted as
the head guy in charge of the Dali Lama's
project to do research on Buddhist meditation. That doesn't make
him a s
On Mar 2, 2008, at 7:24 PM, authfriend wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 2, 2008, at 6:17 PM, authfriend wrote:
>
> > > > When someone with an agenda makes obviously factually
> > > > inaccurate statements, as Chopra has and as the
> > > >
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well, people can read both the book excerpt AND the 2004
> study by Travis et al. via the two urls above and come
> to their own conclusions. Its not necessary to posture
> at all.
Gotta praise Lawson for his stance
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mar 2, 2008, at 6:34 PM, sparaig wrote:
> >
>
> > >
> > > Likewise, they can read the article in question by travis et al,
> > > which the afo
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mar 2, 2008, at 6:34 PM, sparaig wrote:
> >
>
> > >
> > > Likewise, they can read the article in question by travis et al,
> > > which the afo
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lawson, is Travis's study published by any third party journals, or
> just by TMO affiliates?
Travis, F., Arenander, A., & DuBois, D. (2004). Psychological
and physiological characteristics of a proposed object-
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 2, 2008, at 6:34 PM, sparaig wrote:
>
> >
> > Likewise, they can read the article in question by travis et al,
> > which the aforementioned
> > book dismisses so cavalierly (IMHO, of course):
> >
> > http://www.b
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 2, 2008, at 6:34 PM, sparaig wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
> > [...]
> > > What a pathetic response. I suspect you actually absorbed very
> > little
> > > of what I was actually sa
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There are over 1600 google hits to google:
> >
> > search: PCE "pure consciousness"
> >
> > http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-
> > us&q=PCE+pure+consciousness&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
> >
> > or
> >
> > http://tinyur
On Mar 2, 2008, at 6:34 PM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> What a pathetic response. I suspect you actually absorbed very
little
> of what I was actually saying (or what these other fine scientists
are
> saying) because you are s
3rd sending!
On Mar 2, 2008, at 12:19 PM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
[...]
> > All the paper is is an honest assessment of current meditation
> > research and because it expos
On Mar 2, 2008, at 12:19 PM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
[...]
> > All the paper is is an honest assessment of current meditation
> > research and because it exposes some blata
On Mar 2, 2008, at 12:19 PM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
[...]
> > All the paper is is an honest assessment of current meditation
> > research and because it exposes some blata
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > What a pathetic response. I suspect you actually absorbed
> > > very little of what I was actually saying (or what these
> > > other fine scientists are saying) because you are so damn
> > > busy protecting your "castle".
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 2, 2008, at 6:17 PM, authfriend wrote:
>
> > > > When someone with an agenda makes obviously factually
> > > > inaccurate statements, as Chopra has and as the
> > > > Buddhist researchers have (not to mention as Vaj
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
The
> > technology was quite sufficient back then and the results are
> > the same today, although of course I'm sure TM researchers
> > would love us to believe that
I posted it twice. It still hasn't appeared on the list. Sometimes
there are delays of 6 hours or more.
I tried to cut-&-paste the text into the website (which typically does
post quickly), but all the indents and quotations are lost if you do
that, rendering it unreadable.
It should post
Vaj, I'd rather you respond in the public forum rather than in email. With your
permission I'll
post what you sent me, or you can repost.
Or you can reconsider your remarks and post something else.
Your choice.
lawson
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 2, 2008, at 6:17 PM, authfriend wrote:
>
> > > > When someone with an agenda makes obviously factually
> > > > inaccurate statements, as Chopra has and as the
> > > > Buddhist researchers have (not to mention as Vaj
On Mar 2, 2008, at 6:17 PM, authfriend wrote:
> > When someone with an agenda makes obviously factually
> > inaccurate statements, as Chopra has and as the
> > Buddhist researchers have (not to mention as Vaj has),
> > there's always a question of deliberate dishonesty.
>
> What a pathetic resp
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> What a pathetic response. I suspect you actually absorbed very little
> of what I was actually saying (or what these other fine scientists are
> saying) because you are so damn busy protecting your "castle". The
> te
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 2, 2008, at 10:01 AM, authfriend wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
> > >
> > > On Feb 25, 2008, at 1:26 PM, sparaig wrote:
> > >
> > > > Er, there's no such thing as a "scientific proof
On Mar 2, 2008, at 10:01 AM, authfriend wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Feb 25, 2008, at 1:26 PM, sparaig wrote:
>
> > Er, there's no such thing as a "scientific proof of alleged
> > bias." However, the section you mention, "Meditation and the
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
[...]
> > All the paper is is an honest assessment of current meditation
> > research and because it exposes some blatant exaggerations of TM
> > research--which y
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Feb 25, 2008, at 1:26 PM, sparaig wrote:
>
> > Er, there's no such thing as a "scientific proof of alleged
> > bias." However, the section you mention, "Meditation and the
> > Neuroscience of Consciousness," discusses and
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The human tendency would
> be to believe the perceptions to be "truth."
Actually, to claim that a person should make a
distinction between what they believe and what
is "true" is just playing with words. "To beli
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is no objective measurement for beliefs religiously held, is
> there. If I saw god I might be rejecting objective measures as
well.
> What could they tell me? After all, I saw god. Anything people
> wou
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
> > >
> > > It's all about the cookie metaphor from two
> > > posts of mine back, Jim. Yo
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
> >
> > It's all about the cookie metaphor from two
> > posts of mine back, Jim. You are trying to make
> > us believe that you honestly think that the one
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
> >
> > It's all about the cookie metaphor from two
> > posts of mine back, Jim. You are trying to make
> > us believe that you honestly think that the one
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
[...]
> > If that "best" thing had never been an integral
> > part of the TM dogma, my bet is that the whole
> > *concept* of "bestness" would never have e
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It's all about the cookie metaphor from two
> posts of mine back, Jim. You are trying to make
> us believe that you honestly think that the one
> cookie you've tasted in your life is "the best,"
> based on your "intuiti
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108"
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> >
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108"
> > wrote:
> > >
>
> > Get the distinction? You can *state* anything you
> > want; you can *bel
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008
> wrote:
> >
> > He will will not adress your question.
> > As Judy so often has pointed out; when challenged on fundamentals
> > Turq will simply not respond.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >> Jim, face it. You're a mental midget who assumes that
> > what you believe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108"
> wrote:
> >
> Get the distinction? You can *state* anything you
> want; you can *believe* anything you want. But
> even the fact that you're saying it only *for y
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB
> wrote:
> > > >
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Seriously...is this an appropriate forum to discuss such things?
> >If
> > not I can repsectfully refrain.
>
> Right church, right pew, welcome. Cool post.
>
Om, where do the Buddhists sit?
< "About
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108"
> wrote:
> >
> > if I read his response to me correctly...
>
> You didn't. No surprise there. :-)
>
> > ...what he seems to imply is
> > that there are personal pr
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108"
> wrote:
>> Jim, face it. You're a mental midget who assumes that
> what you believe is true IS true, simply because you
> believe it.
Who is the midget; he who b
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108"
>
> > > wrote:
> > >
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> if I read his response to me correctly...
You didn't. No surprise there. :-)
> ...what he seems to imply is
> that there are personal preferences with for example
> meditation, where I can state openly, "TM is th
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB
> wrote:
> > > Simila
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Mr. Ed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ...So...where would you people go to find out.what research has
> been done and by whom? Is there a comprehensive reference resource on
> this topic?
The largest compendium of research on meditation is the Noe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Mr. Ed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ...So...where would you people go to find out.what research has
> been done and by whom? Is there a comprehensive reference resource on
> this topic?
The largest compendium of research on meditation is the Noe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB
wrote:
> > Similarly, would you trust a study on a form of meditation
> > > done by someone who h
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB
wrote:
> > Similarly, would you trust a study on a form of meditation
> > > done by someone who
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
> Similarly, would you trust a study on a form of meditation
> > done by someone who had an emotional tie to that type of
> > meditation (often a TM teacher h
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Similarly, would you trust a study on a form of meditation
> done by someone who had an emotional tie to that type of
> meditation (often a TM teacher hoping to get "strokes"
> from MMY for having a study published), and w
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Mr. Ed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ...So...where would you people go to find out.what
> research has been done and by whom? Is there a comprehensive
> reference resource on this topic? I've made progress at libraries
> and by googling and such b
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "matrixmonitor"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ---Thanks. The best way for the TMO to attain success in its
ventures
> is to abandon all such research and put Wolfgang Puck at the head of
> the Organization. Then turn all the Peace Palaces into restaurants
---Thanks. The best way for the TMO to attain success in its ventures
is to abandon all such research and put Wolfgang Puck at the head of
the Organization. Then turn all the Peace Palaces into restaurants.
http://www.wolfgangpuck.com
In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hagen J. Holtz"
<[EMAIL
...So...where would you people go to find out.what research has
been done and by whom?
I think there is no final reliable source other than you in the role of a
premature scientist. Hypothesis, theory and practice have to match, that is
all. And if you have a theory, get it verified thr
...So...where would you people go to find out.what research has
been done and by whom? Is there a comprehensive reference resource on
this topic? I've made progress at libraries and by googling and such
but If you really wanted to know what credible conlusions have gone
from hypothesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In Fairfie
On Feb 25, 2008, at 1:26 PM, sparaig wrote:
Er, there's no such thing as a"scientific proof of alleged bias."
However, the section you
mention, "Meditation and the Neuroscience of Consciousness,"
discusses and dismisses
TM research "as a whole" while ignoring all TM research published
in t
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 24, 2008, at 10:18 AM, sparaig wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Feb 24, 2008, at 12:03 AM, sparaig wrote:
> > >
> > > > Vaj has his own agenda concerning TM researc
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "uns_tressor"
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ---
I tell people that meditation can be a great thing and "don't
throw the baby out with the bath water", but everyone.
I see it the same way and yet coming from another ankle,
leading to another conclusion. There is nothing objectionable
to do TM research and more than ever there is no harm in
> Seriously...is this an appropriate forum to discuss such things? If
> not I can repsectfully refrain.
Right church, right pew, welcome. Cool post.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Mr. Ed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Hi all:
>
>I was pleased with this post. It seems there'
Hi all:
I was pleased with this post. It seems there's an aversion to
critical analysis emanating from the core of the TM movement. The
Fooling People post should be dropped in leaflet form by a plane over
Fairfieldor catapulted from Batavia..no?(sigh)
I tell people that
Re: Fooling people with meditation research, TMO-style.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "uns_tressor"
> wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> > > Vaj has his own agenda concerning TM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "uns_tressor"
> wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> > > Vaj has his own agenda concerning TM research.
> >
> > Yes. He has his brand of Buddhism to
On Feb 24, 2008, at 10:18 AM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 24, 2008, at 12:03 AM, sparaig wrote:
>
> > Vaj has his own agenda concerning TM research. The book he
quotes is
> > by a well-
> > respected neuroscientist who happ
On Feb 24, 2008, at 10:05 AM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 24, 2008, at 3:46 AM, cardemaister wrote:
>
> > I think Vaj's biggest "sin" is that he keeps repeating
> > the misunderstanding that "te samaadhaav upasargaa vyutthaane
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB
wrote:
> > > Yes. He has his brand of Buddhism to sell. In the meanwhile,
> > > he is hoping to prove t
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "uns_tressor"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Vaj has
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "uns_tressor"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> > >
> > > Vaj has his own agenda concerning TM research.
> >
> > Yes. He has his brand of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 24, 2008, at 12:03 AM, sparaig wrote:
>
> > Vaj has his own agenda concerning TM research. The book he quotes is
> > by a well-
> > respected neuroscientist who happens to be a devout practitioner of
> > Buddhis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 24, 2008, at 3:46 AM, cardemaister wrote:
>
> > I think Vaj's biggest "sin" is that he keeps repeating
> > the misunderstanding that "te samaadhaav upasargaa vyutthaane
> > siddhayaH" (III 37 or 38) is a warning aga
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "uns_tressor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> >
> > Vaj has his own agenda concerning TM research.
>
> Yes. He has his brand of Buddhism to sell. In the meanwhile,
> he is hoping to prove that honey is s
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Vaj has his own agenda concerning TM research.
>
Yes. He has his brand of Buddhism to sell. In the meanwhile,
he is hoping to prove that honey is salty to people who
have stuck their fingers in a honeypot and sucked them
On Feb 24, 2008, at 3:46 AM, cardemaister wrote:
I think Vaj's biggest "sin" is that he keeps repeating
the misunderstanding that "te samaadhaav upasargaa vyutthaane
siddhayaH" (III 37 or 38) is a warning against practising the
saMyama-techniques of the vibhuuti-paada of yoga-suutra. :-)
It'
On Feb 24, 2008, at 12:03 AM, sparaig wrote:
Vaj has his own agenda concerning TM research. The book he quotes is
by a well-
respected neuroscientist who happens to be a devout practitioner of
Buddhist meditation
and is often identified as "A longtime friend of the Dalai Lama,
some of his
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity"
> wrote:
>
> > As near as I can determine, the researchers had no affiliation
> > with the TMO, but that is not always transparent, which is highly
> > frustr
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> I didn't see Vaj as misleading. As Judy says, and Vaj also said in
> his original post, the researchers performed all three studies with
> the first being a pilot study. The interesting point, as the
> research
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All the research in this series of posts come from the text
> Consciousness and Self-Regulation 3 which is a series of
> textbooks on advances in research and theory. One of the papers
> in volume 3 is entitled "Meditation, I
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
