[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Very beautiful, navashok, thank you. I love that part about renouncing the renunciation even. I've never before heard of the Ribhu Gita. Is it part of the Vedic literature? You could say so. It's part of the Shivarahasya Purana, and is to it, what the Gita is to the Mahabharatam. It's a very fundamental Vedantic scripture, and a favorite of Ramana Maharshi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shivarahasya_Purana It seems, that there was a Tamil translation of this book the library of one of the older Ashrams in Tiruvannamalai - the Eshanya Math - http://wikimapia.org/20376193/ESANYA-MADAM and he read it there for the first time - and recognized that he finally found a text which exactly described his experience. It is still being read every day as part of the ceremonies at the Ramana Ashram, but in Tamil. There is another Sadhu near Tiru, who's main teaching is the Ribhu Gita, his name is Thuli Baba. I came across it, when Poonjaji (Guru of Gangaji, disciple of Ramana) read it every day in the lecture hall in Lucknow. I don't think we really have to let go of anything. That which is, is always letting go and holding on, That doesn't need any help from us. But I just walked to the library and the air was so fresh and the sun huge and orange on the western horizon. The branches of trees are still bare against the light blue sky, some birds are singing. At such a time Truth is a sweet companion. From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 6:17 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: A professor at MUM once explained that as one progresses, especially from CC to GC, what happens can be described as the depth coming up to the surface of life.àSo we might not feel deep, even during TM.àAnd we shouldn't TRY to feel deep. Deep is only a word. A concept. Deep also is used in deep sleep. I sometimes say, that I am very high up. But you are right. In a similar way it seems, with the TMSP, we more and more experience a mix of silence and liveliness together.àSo I extrapolate from that that it's counter productive to try and experience PURE silence. You can't try anyway. One has to remember that all these descriptions are concepts, and unless we let go of the concepts, we can't really get there. Here from the Ribhu Gita: All is a built-up structure of words and meanings. The apprehension of all worlds does not exist. All holy waters are, indeed, unreal. All temples of gods, too, are unreal. All being only Consciousness, the name all never is. Renouncing all forms, be of the certitude that all is Brahman. All is Brahman; that is the Truth. The phenomenal world and prakriti (manifestation), verily do not exist. Renounce the remembrance of prakriti and resort to the remembrance of Brahman. Then, renouncing even that, be firm in your own nature. Renouncing further this established nature, remain only as the Self. Renouncing the renunciation even, ever leave off the idea of any difference. Surrounding yourself yourself, abide in yourself yourself. What the finger points out as this is a deceased thought; this is only of words and speech. All is supposition. There is no doubt of this. All is unreal. There is no uncertainty of this. All is insignificant. There is no doubt of this. All is delusion. There is no doubt of this. (Rib.G 18, 24-30) From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 6:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object? à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: It turns out that the EEG pattern of long-term TMers during TM remains the same as the EEG pattern found in short-term TMers: it's simple relaxation, no matter how long you have been doing it. Pure Consciousness is just the same pattern in its most extreme form. In every other meditation technique with published research, you see a shift away from simple relaxation towards something different, as you become more experienced. In other words, I wouldn't trust the words of a non-TM teacher with regards to your TM practice. They literally don't understand where you are at and can only attempt to transform your practice into their practice. Ahem. Isn't another way of interpreting your first two
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Very beautiful, navashok, thank you. I love that part about renouncing the renunciation even. I've never before heard of the Ribhu Gita. Is it part of the Vedic literature? You could say so. It's part of the Shivarahasya Purana, and is to it, what the Gita is to the Mahabharatam. It's a very fundamental Vedantic scripture, and a favorite of Ramana Maharshi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shivarahasya_Purana It seems, that there was a Tamil translation of this book the library of one of the older Ashrams in Tiruvannamalai - the Eshanya Math - http://wikimapia.org/20376193/ESANYA-MADAM and he read it there for the first time - and recognized that he finally found a text which exactly described his experience. It is still being read every day as part of the ceremonies at the Ramana Ashram, but in Tamil. There is another Sadhu near Tiru, who's main teaching is the Ribhu Gita, his name is Thuli Baba. http://www.gurusfeet.com/guru/thuli-baba I came across it, when Poonjaji (Guru of Gangaji, disciple of Ramana) read it every day in the lecture hall in Lucknow. http://books.google.de/books?id=8XL-bc7TzRwCdq I don't think we really have to let go of anything. That which is, is always letting go and holding on, That doesn't need any help from us. But I just walked to the library and the air was so fresh and the sun huge and orange on the western horizon. The branches of trees are still bare against the light blue sky, some birds are singing. At such a time Truth is a sweet companion. From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 6:17 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: A professor at MUM once explained that as one progresses, especially from CC to GC, what happens can be described as the depth coming up to the surface of life.àSo we might not feel deep, even during TM.àAnd we shouldn't TRY to feel deep. Deep is only a word. A concept. Deep also is used in deep sleep. I sometimes say, that I am very high up. But you are right. In a similar way it seems, with the TMSP, we more and more experience a mix of silence and liveliness together.àSo I extrapolate from that that it's counter productive to try and experience PURE silence. You can't try anyway. One has to remember that all these descriptions are concepts, and unless we let go of the concepts, we can't really get there. Here from the Ribhu Gita: All is a built-up structure of words and meanings. The apprehension of all worlds does not exist. All holy waters are, indeed, unreal. All temples of gods, too, are unreal. All being only Consciousness, the name all never is. Renouncing all forms, be of the certitude that all is Brahman. All is Brahman; that is the Truth. The phenomenal world and prakriti (manifestation), verily do not exist. Renounce the remembrance of prakriti and resort to the remembrance of Brahman. Then, renouncing even that, be firm in your own nature. Renouncing further this established nature, remain only as the Self. Renouncing the renunciation even, ever leave off the idea of any difference. Surrounding yourself yourself, abide in yourself yourself. What the finger points out as this is a deceased thought; this is only of words and speech. All is supposition. There is no doubt of this. All is unreal. There is no uncertainty of this. All is insignificant. There is no doubt of this. All is delusion. There is no doubt of this. (Rib.G 18, 24-30) From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 6:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object? à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: It turns out that the EEG pattern of long-term TMers during TM remains the same as the EEG pattern found in short-term TMers: it's simple relaxation, no matter how long you have been doing it. Pure Consciousness is just the same pattern in its most extreme form. In every other meditation technique with published research, you see a shift away from simple relaxation towards something different, as you become more experienced. In other words, I wouldn't
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Very beautiful, navashok, thank you. I love that part about renouncing the renunciation even. I've never before heard of the Ribhu Gita. Is it part of the Vedic literature? You could say so. It's part of the Shivarahasya Purana, and is to it, what the Gita is to the Mahabharatam. It's a very fundamental Vedantic scripture, and a favorite of Ramana Maharshi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shivarahasya_Purana It seems, that there was a Tamil translation of this book the library of one of the older Ashrams in Tiruvannamalai - the Eshanya Math - http://wikimapia.org/20376193/ESANYA-MADAM and he read it there for the first time - and recognized that he finally found a text which exactly described his experience. It is still being read every day as part of the ceremonies at the Ramana Ashram, but in Tamil. There is another Sadhu near Tiru, who's main teaching is the Ribhu Gita, his name is Thuli Baba. http://www.gurusfeet.com/guru/thuli-baba I came across it, when Poonjaji (Guru of Gangaji, disciple of Ramana) read it every day in the lecture hall in Lucknow. http://books.google.de/books?id=8XL-bc7TzRwCdq More directly giving the quote http://books.google.de/books?id=8XL-bc7TzRwClpg=PA295vq=brahmanpg=PA155#v=snippetq=155f=false I don't think we really have to let go of anything. That which is, is always letting go and holding on, That doesn't need any help from us. But I just walked to the library and the air was so fresh and the sun huge and orange on the western horizon. The branches of trees are still bare against the light blue sky, some birds are singing. At such a time Truth is a sweet companion. From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 6:17 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: A professor at MUM once explained that as one progresses, especially from CC to GC, what happens can be described as the depth coming up to the surface of life.àSo we might not feel deep, even during TM.àAnd we shouldn't TRY to feel deep. Deep is only a word. A concept. Deep also is used in deep sleep. I sometimes say, that I am very high up. But you are right. In a similar way it seems, with the TMSP, we more and more experience a mix of silence and liveliness together.àSo I extrapolate from that that it's counter productive to try and experience PURE silence. You can't try anyway. One has to remember that all these descriptions are concepts, and unless we let go of the concepts, we can't really get there. Here from the Ribhu Gita: All is a built-up structure of words and meanings. The apprehension of all worlds does not exist. All holy waters are, indeed, unreal. All temples of gods, too, are unreal. All being only Consciousness, the name all never is. Renouncing all forms, be of the certitude that all is Brahman. All is Brahman; that is the Truth. The phenomenal world and prakriti (manifestation), verily do not exist. Renounce the remembrance of prakriti and resort to the remembrance of Brahman. Then, renouncing even that, be firm in your own nature. Renouncing further this established nature, remain only as the Self. Renouncing the renunciation even, ever leave off the idea of any difference. Surrounding yourself yourself, abide in yourself yourself. What the finger points out as this is a deceased thought; this is only of words and speech. All is supposition. There is no doubt of this. All is unreal. There is no uncertainty of this. All is insignificant. There is no doubt of this. All is delusion. There is no doubt of this. (Rib.G 18, 24-30) From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 6:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object? à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: It turns out that the EEG pattern of long-term TMers during TM remains the same as the EEG pattern found in short-term TMers: it's simple relaxation, no matter how long you have been
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
I have heard of the Shiva Puranas from a friend who loves to browse in used bookstores and find long lost copies of Vedic literature. She has metioned the Shiva Puranas a few times. I've been told that Shiva is my ishta devata and that feels right to me. When Poonjaji read the Ribhu Gita at Lucknow did he read it in English or Tamil? What did you experience? It amazes me to think that Ramana found a book that describes his experience. In another thread you wrote: Sahaja Yoga or Shri Mataji is not a very good example, because the lady is really weird and it's really a Hindu cult, BUT, it's free, and it works *very well* - at least for me. I took it, it's a kundalini raising initiation, and what shall I say, it really did it. I dislike the lady, but the initiation gave me a strong kundalini experience that lasted for two weeks. What do you mean when you say that your kundalini experience lasted for two weeks? From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 6:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Very beautiful, navashok, thank you. I love that part about renouncing the renunciation even. I've never before heard of the Ribhu Gita. Is it part of the Vedic literature? You could say so. It's part of the Shivarahasya Purana, and is to it, what the Gita is to the Mahabharatam. It's a very fundamental Vedantic scripture, and a favorite of Ramana Maharshi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shivarahasya_Purana It seems, that there was a Tamil translation of this book the library of one of the older Ashrams in Tiruvannamalai - the Eshanya Math - http://wikimapia.org/20376193/ESANYA-MADAM and he read it there for the first time - and recognized that he finally found a text which exactly described his experience. It is still being read every day as part of the ceremonies at the Ramana Ashram, but in Tamil. There is another Sadhu near Tiru, who's main teaching is the Ribhu Gita, his name is Thuli Baba. http://www.gurusfeet.com/guru/thuli-baba I came across it, when Poonjaji (Guru of Gangaji, disciple of Ramana) read it every day in the lecture hall in Lucknow. http://books.google.de/books?id=8XL-bc7TzRwCdq More directly giving the quote http://books.google.de/books?id=8XL-bc7TzRwClpg=PA295vq=brahmanpg=PA155#v=snippetq=155f=false I don't think we really have to let go of anything. That which is, is always letting go and holding on, That doesn't need any help from us. But I just walked to the library and the air was so fresh and the sun huge and orange on the western horizon. The branches of trees are still bare against the light blue sky, some birds are singing. At such a time Truth is a sweet companion. From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 6:17 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: A professor at MUM once explained that as one progresses, especially from CC to GC, what happens can be described as the depth coming up to the surface of life. So we might not feel deep, even during TM. And we shouldn't TRY to feel deep. Deep is only a word. A concept. Deep also is used in deep sleep. I sometimes say, that I am very high up. But you are right. In a similar way it seems, with the TMSP, we more and more experience a mix of silence and liveliness together. So I extrapolate from that that it's counter productive to try and experience PURE silence. You can't try anyway. One has to remember that all these descriptions are concepts, and unless we let go of the concepts, we can't really get there. Here from the Ribhu Gita: All is a built-up structure of words and meanings. The apprehension of all worlds does not exist. All holy waters are, indeed, unreal. All temples of gods, too, are unreal. All being only Consciousness, the name all never is. Renouncing all forms, be of the certitude that all is Brahman. All is Brahman; that is the Truth. The phenomenal world and prakriti (manifestation), verily do not exist. Renounce the remembrance of prakriti and resort to the remembrance of Brahman. Then, renouncing even that, be firm in your own nature. Renouncing further this established nature, remain only as the Self. Renouncing the renunciation
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
Hmmm, I think pure awareness is thrilled with thoughts or no thoughts or even semi thoughts because all it EVER experiences is itself, but from all these different angles, so never bored. I'm thinking that the unmanifest cannot be concentrated upon because there it is, even in what is not being concentrated upon! The proverbial fish looking for the water (-: From: sound of stillness soundofstilln...@ymail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 8:59 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object? Can we put our attention on the experiencer? I'm not so sure. Isn't Guru Dev reported to have said it isn't possible to concentrate on the unmanifest? Or is that something else he was talking about. My experience and understanding from Edwin Bryant's YS commentary is that with greater purity pure awareness is reflected back to itself. It doesn't matter whether there are thoughts or no thoughts. My experience in meditation is if I want to think any piece of the mantra, it thrills the experiencer, pure awareness. If I don't want to, pure awareness is thrilled with whatever else the attention is on. Great dialogue. With tradition as a guide, experiencing all things anew . . . --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@... wrote: First of all Lawson, I really appreciate the dialogue we are having. Don't think that I want to dump TM. I think it is a very good technique to start meditation, and I think that at a later stage it is up to everybody to either continue to advance with TM or with something else. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: I suspect you are both misreading what Lawson had in mind. He isn't stupid, and he knows the TM research better than anyone here. I'm not sure what he means either, but I'd suggest you wait to draw any conclusions until he can clarify. It's very highly unlikely that either of you would be able to come up with something he had missed or hadn't accounted for. The pattern during TM is one of increased alpha EEG coherence, and that starts to level off (but never completely stops changing) after a few months of TM , but the longer one has been practicing the more the EEG outside of TM practice starts to resemble the EEG during TM practice. Now, the EEG found during pure consciousness is the most coherent found in a given TMer and if you look just at the EEG during PC, there's obviously some room for refinement during practice, but the average outside of practice starts to resemble the average during, and that was my point... because, in contrast, the average EEG during mantra-based meditation What do you mean by mantra based meditation? TM IS mantra based. Well, technically, a mantra is used in TM practice, but mantra-based practices are considered focused attention practices, and those tend to show more and more gamma EEG the longer you have been doing them. Okay. shifts from relaxed alpha to concentrative gamma as one becomes more experienced, and the average EEG outside of such practices also shifts towards less alpha and more gamma. And that is bad or worse? How do you know? Well, insomuch as these techniques all tend to fragment the brain as a side-effect of the long-term practice, while PC is a period where the brain is idling in a vary coherent way, showing the EEG associated with relaxation and rest, rather than concentration and effort, I have no way of knowing... In my experience, with higher states there comes a spontaneous concentration, really concentrated awareness, completely focused and without effort. Maharishi might say point value. Well with TM, if you REALLY are in samadhi (pure consciousness), you can't note it until such time as some degree of waking state consciousness reassumes, and by then, you are no longer in the pure state. And this is something that raises question marks for me. How could you say that you experience pure consciousness, when you 'notice' it only afterwards? Does it mean you are not conscious during the experience, or does it mean you are unable to press a button while you are in? What kind of 'purity' is this, when it is *lost* so easily? So whole model of having pure consciousness, as an overlay over normal activity, and also the normally active mind, rests on the assertion, that the purity of PC doesn't get lost, right? I think that the whole contradiction comes about, because of the definitions, how you
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: I have heard of the Shiva Puranas from a friend who loves to browse in used bookstores and find long lost copies of Vedic literature. She has metioned the Shiva Puranas a few times. I've been told that Shiva is my ishta devata and that feels right to me. When Poonjaji read the Ribhu Gita at Lucknow did he read it in English or Tamil? In English, from the book I linked to, it just was newly published. His audience were mainly westerners. On a later trip I listened to Thuli Baba, who read the book in Tamil. That was at an Ashram in Tiru. There were many people from Lucknow there now, Poonjaji had just died, so we met up there again. It is interesting that I later became friends with an old Swami, whose grand grand grand father had translated the original Sanskrit into Tamil, he was the head of the mutt I mentioned. Ramana Ashram also published a much smaller condensed version of the Ribhu Gita in English. What did you experience? It's a long time ago. I don't think I had any extraordinary experience from the reading, but I definitely liked it, and bought it later on that trip. I remember having read the Avadhut Gita before, with which I had great experiences. It amazes me to think that Ramana found a book that describes his experience. In another thread you wrote: Sahaja Yoga or Shri Mataji is not a very good example, because the lady is really weird and it's really a Hindu cult, BUT, it's free, and it works *very well* - at least for me. I took it, it's a kundalini raising initiation, and what shall I say, it really did it. I dislike the lady, but the initiation gave me a strong kundalini experience that lasted for two weeks. What do you mean when you say that your kundalini experience lasted for two weeks? I had a clear perception of the Kundalini rising, and felt the effect of the experience for about a week, until it slowly faded. I didn't per-sue her technique, since meditation was more or less automatic. Also this is a long time ago. From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 6:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Very beautiful, navashok, thank you.àI love that part about renouncing the renunciation even.àI've never before heard of the Ribhu Gita.àIs it part of the Vedic literature? You could say so. It's part of the Shivarahasya Purana, and is to it, what the Gita is to the Mahabharatam. It's a very fundamental Vedantic scripture, and a favorite of Ramana Maharshi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shivarahasya_Purana It seems, that there was a Tamil translation of this book the library of one of the older Ashrams in Tiruvannamalai - the Eshanya Math - http://wikimapia.org/20376193/ESANYA-MADAM and he read it there for the first time - and recognized that he finally found a text which exactly described his experience. It is still being read every day as part of the ceremonies at the Ramana Ashram, but in Tamil. There is another Sadhu near Tiru, who's main teaching is the Ribhu Gita, his name is Thuli Baba. http://www.gurusfeet.com/guru/thuli-baba I came across it, when Poonjaji (Guru of Gangaji, disciple of Ramana) read it every day in the lecture hall in Lucknow. http://books.google.de/books?id=8XL-bc7TzRwCdq More directly giving the quote http://books.google.de/books?id=8XL-bc7TzRwClpg=PA295vq=brahmanpg=PA155#v=snippetq=155f=false I don't think we really have to let go of anything.àThat which is, is always letting go and holding on, That doesn't need any help from us.àBut I just walked to the library and the air was so fresh and the sun huge and orange on the western horizon.àThe branches of trees are still bare against the light blue sky, some birds are singing.àAt such a time Truth is a sweet companion. From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 6:17 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object? à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: A professor at MUM once explained that as one progresses, especially from CC to GC, what happens can be described as the depth coming up to the surface of life.ÃâàSo we might not feel deep, even during TM.ÃâàAnd we
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
Very beautiful, navashok, thank you. I love that part about renouncing the renunciation even. I've never before heard of the Ribhu Gita. Is it part of the Vedic literature? I don't think we really have to let go of anything. That which is, is always letting go and holding on, That doesn't need any help from us. But I just walked to the library and the air was so fresh and the sun huge and orange on the western horizon. The branches of trees are still bare against the light blue sky, some birds are singing. At such a time Truth is a sweet companion. From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 6:17 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: A professor at MUM once explained that as one progresses, especially from CC to GC, what happens can be described as the depth coming up to the surface of life. So we might not feel deep, even during TM. And we shouldn't TRY to feel deep. Deep is only a word. A concept. Deep also is used in deep sleep. I sometimes say, that I am very high up. But you are right. In a similar way it seems, with the TMSP, we more and more experience a mix of silence and liveliness together. So I extrapolate from that that it's counter productive to try and experience PURE silence. You can't try anyway. One has to remember that all these descriptions are concepts, and unless we let go of the concepts, we can't really get there. Here from the Ribhu Gita: All is a built-up structure of words and meanings. The apprehension of all worlds does not exist. All holy waters are, indeed, unreal. All temples of gods, too, are unreal. All being only Consciousness, the name all never is. Renouncing all forms, be of the certitude that all is Brahman. All is Brahman; that is the Truth. The phenomenal world and prakriti (manifestation), verily do not exist. Renounce the remembrance of prakriti and resort to the remembrance of Brahman. Then, renouncing even that, be firm in your own nature. Renouncing further this established nature, remain only as the Self. Renouncing the renunciation even, ever leave off the idea of any difference. Surrounding yourself yourself, abide in yourself yourself. What the finger points out as this is a deceased thought; this is only of words and speech. All is supposition. There is no doubt of this. All is unreal. There is no uncertainty of this. All is insignificant. There is no doubt of this. All is delusion. There is no doubt of this. (Rib.G 18, 24-30) From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 6:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: It turns out that the EEG pattern of long-term TMers during TM remains the same as the EEG pattern found in short-term TMers: it's simple relaxation, no matter how long you have been doing it. Pure Consciousness is just the same pattern in its most extreme form. In every other meditation technique with published research, you see a shift away from simple relaxation towards something different, as you become more experienced. In other words, I wouldn't trust the words of a non-TM teacher with regards to your TM practice. They literally don't understand where you are at and can only attempt to transform your practice into their practice. Ahem. Isn't another way of interpreting your first two paragraphs that there is no *progress* in TM? *You* are the one interpreting simple relaxation (which never gets deeper or more profound) with Pure Consciousness. I doubt that scientists would. No progress in the technique... It is easy to start and easy to do and that doesn't change. What DOES change is how closely the state outside of TM comes to resemble the state during TM. But that's not all that is supposed to change. The quality of experience is supposed to change as well *during* meditation - as stress is released. Think of the snowplough analogy - as resistances (stresses) are being removed, the way gets more clear, and the experience of transcendence will be clearer and more prolonged. And for advanced techniques - you will go into transcendence more slowly, so that you are more conscious of the process. The diving angle changes, how is that reflected in your theory? That, being more conscious of the 'transcending' (I still put it in bracelets as it is really a concept - transcendence is all
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
Beautiful here today also. Went for a drive with my wife, and a stroll. Ended up in Los Gatos, which is tucked right into the hills, and close by. Slight chill in the air with clear skies. Ended up at a coffee place where we joked around, and then came home. A good friend and angel decided to stop by soon after, which was great because we haven't seen her in forever. My wife and I refer to her as 'Miss America' - all 'round super woman. The weather continues to be great, and not hot enough to warm up the mexican beer in the garage on the cement floor. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Very beautiful, navashok, thank you. I love that part about renouncing the renunciation even. I've never before heard of the Ribhu Gita. Is it part of the Vedic literature? I don't think we really have to let go of anything. That which is, is always letting go and holding on, That doesn't need any help from us. But I just walked to the library and the air was so fresh and the sun huge and orange on the western horizon. The branches of trees are still bare against the light blue sky, some birds are singing. At such a time Truth is a sweet companion. From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 6:17 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: A professor at MUM once explained that as one progresses, especially from CC to GC, what happens can be described as the depth coming up to the surface of life.àSo we might not feel deep, even during TM.àAnd we shouldn't TRY to feel deep. Deep is only a word. A concept. Deep also is used in deep sleep. I sometimes say, that I am very high up. But you are right. In a similar way it seems, with the TMSP, we more and more experience a mix of silence and liveliness together.àSo I extrapolate from that that it's counter productive to try and experience PURE silence. You can't try anyway. One has to remember that all these descriptions are concepts, and unless we let go of the concepts, we can't really get there. Here from the Ribhu Gita: All is a built-up structure of words and meanings. The apprehension of all worlds does not exist. All holy waters are, indeed, unreal. All temples of gods, too, are unreal. All being only Consciousness, the name all never is. Renouncing all forms, be of the certitude that all is Brahman. All is Brahman; that is the Truth. The phenomenal world and prakriti (manifestation), verily do not exist. Renounce the remembrance of prakriti and resort to the remembrance of Brahman. Then, renouncing even that, be firm in your own nature. Renouncing further this established nature, remain only as the Self. Renouncing the renunciation even, ever leave off the idea of any difference. Surrounding yourself yourself, abide in yourself yourself. What the finger points out as this is a deceased thought; this is only of words and speech. All is supposition. There is no doubt of this. All is unreal. There is no uncertainty of this. All is insignificant. There is no doubt of this. All is delusion. There is no doubt of this. (Rib.G 18, 24-30) From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 6:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object? à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: It turns out that the EEG pattern of long-term TMers during TM remains the same as the EEG pattern found in short-term TMers: it's simple relaxation, no matter how long you have been doing it. Pure Consciousness is just the same pattern in its most extreme form. In every other meditation technique with published research, you see a shift away from simple relaxation towards something different, as you become more experienced. In other words, I wouldn't trust the words of a non-TM teacher with regards to your TM practice. They literally don't understand where you are at and can only attempt to transform your practice into their practice. Ahem. Isn't another way of interpreting your first two paragraphs that there is no *progress* in TM? *You* are the one interpreting simple relaxation (which never gets deeper or more profound) with Pure Consciousness. I doubt that scientists would. No progress in the technique... It is easy to start and easy to do and that doesn't
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
Can we put our attention on the experiencer? I'm not so sure. Isn't Guru Dev reported to have said it isn't possible to concentrate on the unmanifest? Or is that something else he was talking about. My experience and understanding from Edwin Bryant's YS commentary is that with greater purity pure awareness is reflected back to itself. It doesn't matter whether there are thoughts or no thoughts. My experience in meditation is if I want to think any piece of the mantra, it thrills the experiencer, pure awareness. If I don't want to, pure awareness is thrilled with whatever else the attention is on. Great dialogue. With tradition as a guide, experiencing all things anew . . . --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@... wrote: First of all Lawson, I really appreciate the dialogue we are having. Don't think that I want to dump TM. I think it is a very good technique to start meditation, and I think that at a later stage it is up to everybody to either continue to advance with TM or with something else. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: I suspect you are both misreading what Lawson had in mind. He isn't stupid, and he knows the TM research better than anyone here. I'm not sure what he means either, but I'd suggest you wait to draw any conclusions until he can clarify. It's very highly unlikely that either of you would be able to come up with something he had missed or hadn't accounted for. The pattern during TM is one of increased alpha EEG coherence, and that starts to level off (but never completely stops changing) after a few months of TM , but the longer one has been practicing the more the EEG outside of TM practice starts to resemble the EEG during TM practice. Now, the EEG found during pure consciousness is the most coherent found in a given TMer and if you look just at the EEG during PC, there's obviously some room for refinement during practice, but the average outside of practice starts to resemble the average during, and that was my point... because, in contrast, the average EEG during mantra-based meditation What do you mean by mantra based meditation? TM IS mantra based. Well, technically, a mantra is used in TM practice, but mantra-based practices are considered focused attention practices, and those tend to show more and more gamma EEG the longer you have been doing them. Okay. shifts from relaxed alpha to concentrative gamma as one becomes more experienced, and the average EEG outside of such practices also shifts towards less alpha and more gamma. And that is bad or worse? How do you know? Well, insomuch as these techniques all tend to fragment the brain as a side-effect of the long-term practice, while PC is a period where the brain is idling in a vary coherent way, showing the EEG associated with relaxation and rest, rather than concentration and effort, I have no way of knowing... In my experience, with higher states there comes a spontaneous concentration, really concentrated awareness, completely focused and without effort. Maharishi might say point value. Well with TM, if you REALLY are in samadhi (pure consciousness), you can't note it until such time as some degree of waking state consciousness reassumes, and by then, you are no longer in the pure state. And this is something that raises question marks for me. How could you say that you experience pure consciousness, when you 'notice' it only afterwards? Does it mean you are not conscious during the experience, or does it mean you are unable to press a button while you are in? What kind of 'purity' is this, when it is *lost* so easily? So whole model of having pure consciousness, as an overlay over normal activity, and also the normally active mind, rests on the assertion, that the purity of PC doesn't get lost, right? I think that the whole contradiction comes about, because of the definitions, how you define PC in TM, and then attribute a certain physiological signature to it. In this way, you already limit how it can be expressed in activity. Really speaking you should start from the other end, find somebody who lives in CC / GC /UC, and then measure his brainwaves, and then compare it to the experiences that are called 'transcending' in TM. How does a person in TM know he has transcended? It is clear that he is being told so. The technical definition in TM of TC is: No mantra, no thought. But that could be some kind of nap too! Maybe it#s yoga nidra. I have very practical
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: I think that the whole contradiction comes about, because of the definitions, how you define PC in TM, and then attribute a certain physiological signature to it. In this way, you already limit how it can be expressed in activity. Really speaking you should start from the other end, find somebody who lives in CC / GC /UC, and then measure his brainwaves, and then compare it to the experiences that are called 'transcending' in TM. Great idea! I'd really be curious about the comparisons - Puts the cart back behind the horse. Experience proves consciousness, not somebody sitting in a lab doing TM. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sound of stillness soundofstillness@... wrote: First of all Lawson, I really appreciate the dialogue we are having. Don't think that I want to dump TM. I think it is a very good technique to start meditation, and I think that at a later stage it is up to everybody to either continue to advance with TM or with something else. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: I suspect you are both misreading what Lawson had in mind. He isn't stupid, and he knows the TM research better than anyone here. I'm not sure what he means either, but I'd suggest you wait to draw any conclusions until he can clarify. It's very highly unlikely that either of you would be able to come up with something he had missed or hadn't accounted for. The pattern during TM is one of increased alpha EEG coherence, and that starts to level off (but never completely stops changing) after a few months of TM , but the longer one has been practicing the more the EEG outside of TM practice starts to resemble the EEG during TM practice. Now, the EEG found during pure consciousness is the most coherent found in a given TMer and if you look just at the EEG during PC, there's obviously some room for refinement during practice, but the average outside of practice starts to resemble the average during, and that was my point... because, in contrast, the average EEG during mantra-based meditation What do you mean by mantra based meditation? TM IS mantra based. Well, technically, a mantra is used in TM practice, but mantra-based practices are considered focused attention practices, and those tend to show more and more gamma EEG the longer you have been doing them. Okay. shifts from relaxed alpha to concentrative gamma as one becomes more experienced, and the average EEG outside of such practices also shifts towards less alpha and more gamma. And that is bad or worse? How do you know? Well, insomuch as these techniques all tend to fragment the brain as a side-effect of the long-term practice, while PC is a period where the brain is idling in a vary coherent way, showing the EEG associated with relaxation and rest, rather than concentration and effort, I have no way of knowing... In my experience, with higher states there comes a spontaneous concentration, really concentrated awareness, completely focused and without effort. Maharishi might say point value. Well with TM, if you REALLY are in samadhi (pure consciousness), you can't note it until such time as some degree of waking state consciousness reassumes, and by then, you are no longer in the pure state. And this is something that raises question marks for me. How could you say that you experience pure consciousness, when you 'notice' it only afterwards? Does it mean you are not conscious during the experience, or does it mean you are unable to press a button while you are in? What kind of 'purity' is this, when it is *lost* so easily? So whole model of having pure consciousness, as an overlay over normal activity, and also the normally active mind, rests on the assertion, that the purity of PC doesn't get lost, right? I think that the whole contradiction comes about, because of the definitions, how you define PC in TM, and then attribute a certain physiological signature to it. In this way, you already limit how it can be expressed in activity. Really speaking you should start from the other end, find somebody who lives in CC / GC /UC, and then measure his brainwaves, and then compare it to the experiences that are called 'transcending' in TM. How does a person in TM know he has transcended? It is clear that he is being told so. The technical definition in TM of TC is: No mantra, no
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
First of all Lawson, I really appreciate the dialogue we are having. Don't think that I want to dump TM. I think it is a very good technique to start meditation, and I think that at a later stage it is up to everybody to either continue to advance with TM or with something else. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: I suspect you are both misreading what Lawson had in mind. He isn't stupid, and he knows the TM research better than anyone here. I'm not sure what he means either, but I'd suggest you wait to draw any conclusions until he can clarify. It's very highly unlikely that either of you would be able to come up with something he had missed or hadn't accounted for. The pattern during TM is one of increased alpha EEG coherence, and that starts to level off (but never completely stops changing) after a few months of TM , but the longer one has been practicing the more the EEG outside of TM practice starts to resemble the EEG during TM practice. Now, the EEG found during pure consciousness is the most coherent found in a given TMer and if you look just at the EEG during PC, there's obviously some room for refinement during practice, but the average outside of practice starts to resemble the average during, and that was my point... because, in contrast, the average EEG during mantra-based meditation What do you mean by mantra based meditation? TM IS mantra based. Well, technically, a mantra is used in TM practice, but mantra-based practices are considered focused attention practices, and those tend to show more and more gamma EEG the longer you have been doing them. Okay. shifts from relaxed alpha to concentrative gamma as one becomes more experienced, and the average EEG outside of such practices also shifts towards less alpha and more gamma. And that is bad or worse? How do you know? Well, insomuch as these techniques all tend to fragment the brain as a side-effect of the long-term practice, while PC is a period where the brain is idling in a vary coherent way, showing the EEG associated with relaxation and rest, rather than concentration and effort, I have no way of knowing... In my experience, with higher states there comes a spontaneous concentration, really concentrated awareness, completely focused and without effort. Maharishi might say point value. Well with TM, if you REALLY are in samadhi (pure consciousness), you can't note it until such time as some degree of waking state consciousness reassumes, and by then, you are no longer in the pure state. And this is something that raises question marks for me. How could you say that you experience pure consciousness, when you 'notice' it only afterwards? Does it mean you are not conscious during the experience, or does it mean you are unable to press a button while you are in? What kind of 'purity' is this, when it is *lost* so easily? So whole model of having pure consciousness, as an overlay over normal activity, and also the normally active mind, rests on the assertion, that the purity of PC doesn't get lost, right? I think that the whole contradiction comes about, because of the definitions, how you define PC in TM, and then attribute a certain physiological signature to it. In this way, you already limit how it can be expressed in activity. Really speaking you should start from the other end, find somebody who lives in CC / GC /UC, and then measure his brainwaves, and then compare it to the experiences that are called 'transcending' in TM. How does a person in TM know he has transcended? It is clear that he is being told so. The technical definition in TM of TC is: No mantra, no thought. But that could be some kind of nap too! Maybe it#s yoga nidra. I have very practical reasons for saying all this: when at a certain point, I was still in the movement, actually meditating in Purusha, I had an opening in the higher chakras, I was in a state of transcendence that was totally different than anything that I had ever known in TM. It wasn't just a more of what I had experienced before. It was so totally different, that it had no connection, with what is defined as transcendence in TM. No relation. Yet it is noticed, known. So, Lawson, I have a problem with the TM definitions, of extrapolating one experience, which according to you is there right from the beginning of TM in it's full blast, (and in the beginning obviously also in other techniques, according to your reporting -. which is a surprise in and of itself), of extrapolating this PC experience with other states, like CC or GC or UC. I think these are
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@... wrote: First of all Lawson, I really appreciate the dialogue we are having. Don't think that I want to dump TM. I think it is a very good technique to start meditation, and I think that at a later stage it is up to everybody to either continue to advance with TM or with something else. Navashok, That is entirely what meditating Fairfield has become all about. It's a very exciting and special place spiritually that way now. -Buck --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: I suspect you are both misreading what Lawson had in mind. He isn't stupid, and he knows the TM research better than anyone here. I'm not sure what he means either, but I'd suggest you wait to draw any conclusions until he can clarify. It's very highly unlikely that either of you would be able to come up with something he had missed or hadn't accounted for. The pattern during TM is one of increased alpha EEG coherence, and that starts to level off (but never completely stops changing) after a few months of TM , but the longer one has been practicing the more the EEG outside of TM practice starts to resemble the EEG during TM practice. Now, the EEG found during pure consciousness is the most coherent found in a given TMer and if you look just at the EEG during PC, there's obviously some room for refinement during practice, but the average outside of practice starts to resemble the average during, and that was my point... because, in contrast, the average EEG during mantra-based meditation What do you mean by mantra based meditation? TM IS mantra based. Well, technically, a mantra is used in TM practice, but mantra-based practices are considered focused attention practices, and those tend to show more and more gamma EEG the longer you have been doing them. Okay. shifts from relaxed alpha to concentrative gamma as one becomes more experienced, and the average EEG outside of such practices also shifts towards less alpha and more gamma. And that is bad or worse? How do you know? Well, insomuch as these techniques all tend to fragment the brain as a side-effect of the long-term practice, while PC is a period where the brain is idling in a vary coherent way, showing the EEG associated with relaxation and rest, rather than concentration and effort, I have no way of knowing... In my experience, with higher states there comes a spontaneous concentration, really concentrated awareness, completely focused and without effort. Maharishi might say point value. Well with TM, if you REALLY are in samadhi (pure consciousness), you can't note it until such time as some degree of waking state consciousness reassumes, and by then, you are no longer in the pure state. And this is something that raises question marks for me. How could you say that you experience pure consciousness, when you 'notice' it only afterwards? Does it mean you are not conscious during the experience, or does it mean you are unable to press a button while you are in? What kind of 'purity' is this, when it is *lost* so easily? So whole model of having pure consciousness, as an overlay over normal activity, and also the normally active mind, rests on the assertion, that the purity of PC doesn't get lost, right? I think that the whole contradiction comes about, because of the definitions, how you define PC in TM, and then attribute a certain physiological signature to it. In this way, you already limit how it can be expressed in activity. Really speaking you should start from the other end, find somebody who lives in CC / GC /UC, and then measure his brainwaves, and then compare it to the experiences that are called 'transcending' in TM. How does a person in TM know he has transcended? It is clear that he is being told so. The technical definition in TM of TC is: No mantra, no thought. But that could be some kind of nap too! Maybe it#s yoga nidra. I have very practical reasons for saying all this: when at a certain point, I was still in the movement, actually meditating in Purusha, I had an opening in the higher chakras, I was in a state of transcendence that was totally different than anything that I had ever known in TM. It wasn't just a more of what I had experienced before. It was so totally different, that it had no connection, with what is defined as transcendence in TM. No relation. Yet it is noticed, known. So, Lawson, I have a problem with the TM definitions, of extrapolating one
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: First of all Lawson, I really appreciate the dialogue we are having. Don't think that I want to dump TM. I think it is a very good technique to start meditation, and I think that at a later stage it is up to everybody to either continue to advance with TM or with something else. Navashok, That is entirely what meditating Fairfield has become all about. It's a very exciting and special place spiritually that way now. -Buck I'm sure its a great place, and I even know a few very nice Fairfielders personally, no nobody who posts here, but I guess for me I'm prejudiced, too many Americans and too many TMers. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: I suspect you are both misreading what Lawson had in mind. He isn't stupid, and he knows the TM research better than anyone here. I'm not sure what he means either, but I'd suggest you wait to draw any conclusions until he can clarify. It's very highly unlikely that either of you would be able to come up with something he had missed or hadn't accounted for. The pattern during TM is one of increased alpha EEG coherence, and that starts to level off (but never completely stops changing) after a few months of TM , but the longer one has been practicing the more the EEG outside of TM practice starts to resemble the EEG during TM practice. Now, the EEG found during pure consciousness is the most coherent found in a given TMer and if you look just at the EEG during PC, there's obviously some room for refinement during practice, but the average outside of practice starts to resemble the average during, and that was my point... because, in contrast, the average EEG during mantra-based meditation What do you mean by mantra based meditation? TM IS mantra based. Well, technically, a mantra is used in TM practice, but mantra-based practices are considered focused attention practices, and those tend to show more and more gamma EEG the longer you have been doing them. Okay. shifts from relaxed alpha to concentrative gamma as one becomes more experienced, and the average EEG outside of such practices also shifts towards less alpha and more gamma. And that is bad or worse? How do you know? Well, insomuch as these techniques all tend to fragment the brain as a side-effect of the long-term practice, while PC is a period where the brain is idling in a vary coherent way, showing the EEG associated with relaxation and rest, rather than concentration and effort, I have no way of knowing... In my experience, with higher states there comes a spontaneous concentration, really concentrated awareness, completely focused and without effort. Maharishi might say point value. Well with TM, if you REALLY are in samadhi (pure consciousness), you can't note it until such time as some degree of waking state consciousness reassumes, and by then, you are no longer in the pure state. And this is something that raises question marks for me. How could you say that you experience pure consciousness, when you 'notice' it only afterwards? Does it mean you are not conscious during the experience, or does it mean you are unable to press a button while you are in? What kind of 'purity' is this, when it is *lost* so easily? So whole model of having pure consciousness, as an overlay over normal activity, and also the normally active mind, rests on the assertion, that the purity of PC doesn't get lost, right? I think that the whole contradiction comes about, because of the definitions, how you define PC in TM, and then attribute a certain physiological signature to it. In this way, you already limit how it can be expressed in activity. Really speaking you should start from the other end, find somebody who lives in CC / GC /UC, and then measure his brainwaves, and then compare it to the experiences that are called 'transcending' in TM. How does a person in TM know he has transcended? It is clear that he is being told so. The technical definition in TM of TC is: No mantra, no thought. But that could be some kind of nap too! Maybe it#s yoga nidra. I have very practical reasons for saying all this: when at a certain point, I was still in the movement, actually meditating in Purusha, I had an opening in the higher chakras, I was in a state of
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@... wrote: First of all Lawson, I really appreciate the dialogue we are having. Don't think that I want to dump TM. I think it is a very good technique to start meditation, and I think that at a later stage it is up to everybody to either continue to advance with TM or with something else. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: [...] [...] Well with TM, if you REALLY are in samadhi (pure consciousness), you can't note it until such time as some degree of waking state consciousness reassumes, and by then, you are no longer in the pure state. And this is something that raises question marks for me. How could you say that you experience pure consciousness, when you 'notice' it only afterwards? Does it mean you are not conscious during the experience, or does it mean you are unable to press a button while you are in? Sigh... MMY and just about everyone else describes pure consciousness as the situation where the ripples in the lake have completely faded away, leaving the water of the lake perfectly still, etc. Using that analogy, where does your confusion come from? Noting the lake [the mind] is still requires a ripple associated with noting the lake in the first place. Deciding to a button requires a ripple associated with decision-making. Pressing the button requires a ripple associated with voluntary motion. Etc. By the time you press the button, a little of ripples have arisen to support the activity of that button-press. What kind of 'purity' is this, when it is *lost* so easily? So whole model of having pure consciousness, as an overlay over normal activity, and also the normally active mind, rests on the assertion, that the purity of PC doesn't get lost, right? What kind of purity is it that it is lost so easily? Gee, using any and all physical analogies that I can think of.. Adding 1 percent non-salt makes the salt less than pure. Having a few overtones in a sound makes the sound more complicated. Within the model of how regular practice of TM alternated with activity, which I guess is what you are really asking about, the fact is, ANY kind of mental activity is less pure than pure consciousness but theory AND research suggests that repeatedly practicing TM, so that the nervous system starts to at least approach the pattern found during pure consciousness, alternated with regular activity, starts to create a situation where the EEG pattern found during pure consciousness shows up more and more outside of TM practice. This isn't some special thing. It is called Hebbian Learning and in its simplest form, has been used as an explanation for how the brain works since the 1940's. when a nerve cell fires close to another nerve cell, the second nerve cell starts to become associated with the first nerve cell so that it becomes more likely to fire when the first one fires. When a pattern of firing is established throughout the brain, and is repeated often enough during meditation, that pattern of firing starts to show up more and more outside of meditation. Non-TM techniques tend to show a pattern of behavior associated with paying attention to things, concepts, emotions, perceptions, etc. TM shows a pattern associated with simple relaxation. It turns out that in the very earliest days of EEG study, where the only brain wave pattern known was alpha (the types of brain wave patterns were named in order of discovery, by the way), it was found that simply closing the eyes, even in a dark room, would raise the alpha EEG associated with resting. Flashforward to the early 2000's, and scientists started to realize that simple rest wasn't all that simple. They noted that certain parts of the brain became MORE active during rest and the term, default mode network was coined. In time, the DMN was taken to be how the brain operates while in self-referral mode. It turns out that any and all meditation techniques tend to activate the DMN. However, the WAY in which they activate it varies from technique to technique. Concentrative, mindful, and such techniques lead to less alpha over time, both during and outside of meditation, while often increasing gamma power and coherence (gamma is associated with paying attention to objects). TM, more than any other studied technique, tends to enhance the natural alpha that spontaneously shows up as one starts to rest. Regardless of the type of meditation, the basic pattern that is enhanced during meditation starts to show up more and more outside meditation. TM enhances the natural functioning of the DMN while most other techniques actually start to reverse it. The brain learns to stay restful as a result of TM practice and the brain learns to stay extremely vigilant as a result of mindfulness and concentrative practices. I think that the whole contradiction comes about, because of the
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: First of all Lawson, I really appreciate the dialogue we are having. Don't think that I want to dump TM. I think it is a very good technique to start meditation, and I think that at a later stage it is up to everybody to either continue to advance with TM or with something else. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: [...] [...] Well with TM, if you REALLY are in samadhi (pure consciousness), you can't note it until such time as some degree of waking state consciousness reassumes, and by then, you are no longer in the pure state. And this is something that raises question marks for me. How could you say that you experience pure consciousness, when you 'notice' it only afterwards? Does it mean you are not conscious during the experience, or does it mean you are unable to press a button while you are in? Sigh... MMY and just about everyone else describes pure consciousness as the situation where the ripples in the lake have completely faded away, leaving the water of the lake perfectly still, etc. Using that analogy, where does your confusion come from? Noting the lake [the mind] is still requires a ripple associated with noting the lake in the first place. Deciding to a button requires a ripple associated with decision-making. Pressing the button requires a ripple associated with voluntary motion. Etc. Sigh .. You misrepresent what I am saying. I presented an alternative between deciding to press a button and doing it (as an activity), and simply being AWARE of PC - not as thought: I am in PC - but nevertheless being fully aware, and not only knowing it, when it is past.. Not being aware would be antithetical to PC.. more akin to sleep, or a nap. By the time you press the button, a little of ripples have arisen to support the activity of that button-press. What kind of 'purity' is this, when it is *lost* so easily? So whole model of having pure consciousness, as an overlay over normal activity, and also the normally active mind, rests on the assertion, that the purity of PC doesn't get lost, right? What kind of purity is it that it is lost so easily? Gee, using any and all physical analogies that I can think of.. Adding 1 percent non-salt makes the salt less than pure. The mistake IMHO is that you define PC as a state. In another definition, equally given by TM, it is defined as a state of being underlying all states. To say it with the example Share gave: the colorless sap is still colorless even in the thorn. You are starting with a definition of PC that is too limited, and could equally apply to a nap, no Mantra, no thought. Having a few overtones in a sound makes the sound more complicated. Within the model of how regular practice of TM alternated with activity, which I guess is what you are really asking about, the fact is, ANY kind of mental activity is less pure than pure consciousness but theory AND research suggests that repeatedly practicing TM, so that the nervous system starts to at least approach the pattern found during pure consciousness, alternated with regular activity, starts to create a situation where the EEG pattern found during pure consciousness shows up more and more outside of TM practice. This isn't some special thing. It is called Hebbian Learning and in its simplest form, has been used as an explanation for how the brain works since the 1940's. when a nerve cell fires close to another nerve cell, the second nerve cell starts to become associated with the first nerve cell so that it becomes more likely to fire when the first one fires. When a pattern of firing is established throughout the brain, and is repeated often enough during meditation, that pattern of firing starts to show up more and more outside of meditation. Non-TM techniques tend to show a pattern of behavior associated with paying attention to things, concepts, emotions, perceptions, etc. TM shows a pattern associated with simple relaxation. But simple relaxation is not PC. It has nothing to do with it. It turns out that in the very earliest days of EEG study, where the only brain wave pattern known was alpha (the types of brain wave patterns were named in order of discovery, by the way), it was found that simply closing the eyes, even in a dark room, would raise the alpha EEG associated with resting. Flashforward to the early 2000's, and scientists started to realize that simple rest wasn't all that simple. They noted that certain parts of the brain became MORE active during rest and the term, default mode network was coined. In time, the DMN was taken to be how the brain operates while in self-referral mode. It turns out that any and all meditation techniques tend
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
Not this, not this. No neti, neti is Shankaras method of discerning Brahman, it has nothing to do with defining Samadhi. Not this, not that is finding Brahman by exclusion, and really says that there is no method. Shankara explicitly says, that no mantra can bring you to Brahman. So you are confusing terms. Neti, Neti is in fact an intellectual method of negating everything, and reaching Brahman by exclusion. Wiki: AST: tattvamasyaadivaakyena svaatmaa hi pratipaaditaH / neti neti shrutirbruuyaadanRtaM paañcabhautikam //25// [Attempt at sandhi-vigraha by card: tat tvam asi; aadi-vaakyena svaatmaa hi pratipaaditaH / neti neti shrutiH; bruuyaat; anRtam*; paañca-bhautikam //25//] By such sentences as That thou art, our own Self is affirmed. Of that which is untrue and composed of the five elements - the Sruti (scripture) says, Not this, not this. * please don't confuse these: an-Rtam = not-true (R = *vocalic*[1] r-sound; that's why 'an-', not 'a-') a-mRtam = immortal 1. Can form a syllable by itself: R-Si (rishi), R-gve-da (rigveda)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: A professor at MUM once explained that as one progresses, especially from CC to GC, what happens can be described as the depth coming up to the surface of life. So we might not feel deep, even during TM. And we shouldn't TRY to feel deep. Deep is only a word. A concept. Deep also is used in deep sleep. I sometimes say, that I am very high up. But you are right. In a similar way it seems, with the TMSP, we more and more experience a mix of silence and liveliness together. So I extrapolate from that that it's counter productive to try and experience PURE silence. You can't try anyway. One has to remember that all these descriptions are concepts, and unless we let go of the concepts, we can't really get there. Here from the Ribhu Gita: All is a built-up structure of words and meanings. The apprehension of all worlds does not exist. All holy waters are, indeed, unreal. All temples of gods, too, are unreal. All being only Consciousness, the name all never is. Renouncing all forms, be of the certitude that all is Brahman. All is Brahman; that is the Truth. The phenomenal world and prakriti (manifestation), verily do not exist. Renounce the remembrance of prakriti and resort to the remembrance of Brahman. Then, renouncing even that, be firm in your own nature. Renouncing further this established nature, remain only as the Self. Renouncing the renunciation even, ever leave off the idea of any difference. Surrounding yourself yourself, abide in yourself yourself. What the finger points out as this is a deceased thought; this is only of words and speech. All is supposition. There is no doubt of this. All is unreal. There is no uncertainty of this. All is insignificant. There is no doubt of this. All is delusion. There is no doubt of this. (Rib.G 18, 24-30) From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 6:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: It turns out that the EEG pattern of long-term TMers during TM remains the same as the EEG pattern found in short-term TMers: it's simple relaxation, no matter how long you have been doing it. Pure Consciousness is just the same pattern in its most extreme form. In every other meditation technique with published research, you see a shift away from simple relaxation towards something different, as you become more experienced. In other words, I wouldn't trust the words of a non-TM teacher with regards to your TM practice. They literally don't understand where you are at and can only attempt to transform your practice into their practice. Ahem. Isn't another way of interpreting your first two paragraphs that there is no *progress* in TM? *You* are the one interpreting simple relaxation (which never gets deeper or more profound) with Pure Consciousness. I doubt that scientists would. No progress in the technique... It is easy to start and easy to do and that doesn't change. What DOES change is how closely the state outside of TM comes to resemble the state during TM. But that's not all that is supposed to change. The quality of experience is supposed to change as well *during* meditation - as stress is released. Think of the snowplough analogy - as resistances (stresses) are being removed, the way gets more clear, and the experience of transcendence will be clearer and more prolonged. And for advanced techniques - you will go into transcendence more slowly, so that you are more conscious of the process. The diving angle changes, how is that reflected in your theory? That, being more conscious of the 'transcending' (I still put it in bracelets as it is really a concept - transcendence is all pervading and cannot be isolated, especially if you want to experience it consciously.) So this process of being more conscious in the transcending process, whatever it is, has to be reflected in EEG, for all what it's worth. Initial transcendence is not clear transcendence, it is just a hazy slipping into it and out of it. We know it, as teachers, but it's not what you say to people. As for not trusing non-TM teachers, I can say that TM teachers don't know diddleysquat except the stuff they were given to memorize and parrot. That's fine, as far as it goes, but it really doesn't go very deep, or have any relevance to the larger field of meditation. They know a little about one tiny technique, and nothing about any of the others. They are actually
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
The thing about TM isn't that it is described as effortless, but that it was tught in a way that facilitted effortlessness. A lot of samatha meditation practices are described pretty much the way TM is, but the teachers explain how they were in terms of focused attention, impart the instructions willy-nilly without regard for the fact that too much information all at once will tend to make the practice effortful just because of how it was taught, etc. In fact, recent research on samatha practices shows that, over time, alpha power goes down during the practice, while gamma power goes up, just as you would expect from concentration, effortless, or not. Since these are seen as concentrative techniques in the first place, regardless of whether or not they are effortful, no-one reporting this factoid in the research literature notices the contradiction. TM, on the other hand, is taught with an eyedropper full of info at first, then with a teaspoon, and then with a tablespoon, and this careful rationing of intellectual understanding is reflected by the fact that 50 year meditators show higher alpha and lower gamma both during and outside of meditation, just as beginners do -it is rest, plain and simple. Here's MMY explaining TM instruction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRSvW9Ml9DQ --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: It turns out that the EEG pattern of long-term TMers during TM remains the same as the EEG pattern found in short-term TMers: it's simple relaxation, no matter how long you have been doing it. Pure Consciousness is just the same pattern in its most extreme form. In every other meditation technique with published research, you see a shift away from simple relaxation towards something different, as you become more experienced. In other words, I wouldn't trust the words of a non-TM teacher with regards to your TM practice. They literally don't understand where you are at and can only attempt to transform your practice into their practice. L And conversely, a TM teacher may not have any understanding of what happens with other forms of meditation. Now the ones I have been familiar with all had basically the same kind of minimal effortless kind of instruction as TM; none were overtly of the concentration type. But awareness does shift in a different way with these other meditations. The misunderstanding goes both ways.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: The thing about TM isn't that it is described as effortless, but that it was tught in a way that facilitted effortlessness. taught Assume all other typos and misspellings are also corrected here. L
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: I suspect you are both misreading what Lawson had in mind. Ooopsie, can you say mindreading? This is hilarious, well a priceless jewel of Judean logic. So we shouldn't both respond to what Lawson actually wrote here, but to what he had in mind? Well, right! He isn't stupid, and he knows the TM research better than anyone here. I am sure he knows the TM research better than anyone here, and nobody said he is stupid. I think he is just being honest here, and that the data he gives is open to different interpretations. That's what we did. Three people responded, all very much alike. I had in mind what Barry answered, and then then saw that he had already given the comment. Xeno's approach was slightly different, but he understood it in very much the same way as we did. I'm not sure what he means either, Now that's even more funny. First you say that he doesn't mean what he says, and ask us to read his mind, and then you go on to say that you actually don't know what he means yourself, but it couldn't be what he wrote. Can you say brezel mind? but I'd suggest you wait to draw any conclusions until he can clarify. And you are suggesting he should? Wait he gave us some information about the research and his interpretation already. It's very highly unlikely that either of you would be able to come up with something he had missed or hadn't accounted for. Of course not, by law. So, I'm now holding my breath. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: It turns out that the EEG pattern of long-term TMers during TM remains the same as the EEG pattern found in short-term TMers: it's simple relaxation, no matter how long you have been doing it. Pure Consciousness is just the same pattern in its most extreme form. In every other meditation technique with published research, you see a shift away from simple relaxation towards something different, as you become more experienced. In other words, I wouldn't trust the words of a non-TM teacher with regards to your TM practice. They literally don't understand where you are at and can only attempt to transform your practice into their practice. Ahem. Isn't another way of interpreting your first two paragraphs that there is no *progress* in TM? *You* are the one interpreting simple relaxation (which never gets deeper or more profound) with Pure Consciousness. I doubt that scientists would. Wow, same thought I had. If the pattern is the same, and doesn't change with longer TM practice, what happened to the idea that with regular practice you release more and more stress, which in turn leads to more clear transcendence? If the meditation is the same and doesn't change, (or those periods of supposed transcendence / relaxation), why the need to be regular at all? Why learn expensive advanced techniques, who are supposed to deepen or widen the transcendence experience, to have it along with subtle activity? With your argument, Lawson, you also wouldn't trust advanced techniques, because they would alter the original experience, or in case they don't, they are completely worthless.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
dear navashok, if you hold breath for a week, you will probably die. Please don't. Thank you (-: From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 11:31 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: I suspect you are both misreading what Lawson had in mind. Ooopsie, can you say mindreading? This is hilarious, well a priceless jewel of Judean logic. So we shouldn't both respond to what Lawson actually wrote here, but to what he had in mind? Well, right! He isn't stupid, and he knows the TM research better than anyone here. I am sure he knows the TM research better than anyone here, and nobody said he is stupid. I think he is just being honest here, and that the data he gives is open to different interpretations. That's what we did. Three people responded, all very much alike. I had in mind what Barry answered, and then then saw that he had already given the comment. Xeno's approach was slightly different, but he understood it in very much the same way as we did. I'm not sure what he means either, Now that's even more funny. First you say that he doesn't mean what he says, and ask us to read his mind, and then you go on to say that you actually don't know what he means yourself, but it couldn't be what he wrote. Can you say brezel mind? but I'd suggest you wait to draw any conclusions until he can clarify. And you are suggesting he should? Wait he gave us some information about the research and his interpretation already. It's very highly unlikely that either of you would be able to come up with something he had missed or hadn't accounted for. Of course not, by law. So, I'm now holding my breath. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: It turns out that the EEG pattern of long-term TMers during TM remains the same as the EEG pattern found in short-term TMers: it's simple relaxation, no matter how long you have been doing it. Pure Consciousness is just the same pattern in its most extreme form. In every other meditation technique with published research, you see a shift away from simple relaxation towards something different, as you become more experienced. In other words, I wouldn't trust the words of a non-TM teacher with regards to your TM practice. They literally don't understand where you are at and can only attempt to transform your practice into their practice. Ahem. Isn't another way of interpreting your first two paragraphs that there is no *progress* in TM? *You* are the one interpreting simple relaxation (which never gets deeper or more profound) with Pure Consciousness. I doubt that scientists would. Wow, same thought I had. If the pattern is the same, and doesn't change with longer TM practice, what happened to the idea that with regular practice you release more and more stress, which in turn leads to more clear transcendence? If the meditation is the same and doesn't change, (or those periods of supposed transcendence / relaxation), why the need to be regular at all? Why learn expensive advanced techniques, who are supposed to deepen or widen the transcendence experience, to have it along with subtle activity? With your argument, Lawson, you also wouldn't trust advanced techniques, because they would alter the original experience, or in case they don't, they are completely worthless.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: dear navashok, if you hold breath for a week, you will probably die. Please don't. Thank you (-: Don't worry Share, Lawson still has retained his posting rights. It is him that Judy wants to clarify. From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 11:31 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: I suspect you are both misreading what Lawson had in mind. Ooopsie, can you say mindreading? This is hilarious, well a priceless jewel of Judean logic. So we shouldn't both respond to what Lawson actually wrote here, but to what he had in mind? Well, right! He isn't stupid, and he knows the TM research better than anyone here. I am sure he knows the TM research better than anyone here, and nobody said he is stupid. I think he is just being honest here, and that the data he gives is open to different interpretations. That's what we did. Three people responded, all very much alike. I had in mind what Barry answered, and then then saw that he had already given the comment. Xeno's approach was slightly different, but he understood it in very much the same way as we did. I'm not sure what he means either, Now that's even more funny. First you say that he doesn't mean what he says, and ask us to read his mind, and then you go on to say that you actually don't know what he means yourself, but it couldn't be what he wrote. Can you say brezel mind? but I'd suggest you wait to draw any conclusions until he can clarify. And you are suggesting he should? Wait he gave us some information about the research and his interpretation already. It's very highly unlikely that either of you would be able to come up with something he had missed or hadn't accounted for. Of course not, by law. So, I'm now holding my breath. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: It turns out that the EEG pattern of long-term TMers during TM remains the same as the EEG pattern found in short-term TMers: it's simple relaxation, no matter how long you have been doing it. Pure Consciousness is just the same pattern in its most extreme form. In every other meditation technique with published research, you see a shift away from simple relaxation towards something different, as you become more experienced. In other words, I wouldn't trust the words of a non-TM teacher with regards to your TM practice. They literally don't understand where you are at and can only attempt to transform your practice into their practice. Ahem. Isn't another way of interpreting your first two paragraphs that there is no *progress* in TM? *You* are the one interpreting simple relaxation (which never gets deeper or more profound) with Pure Consciousness. I doubt that scientists would. Wow, same thought I had. If the pattern is the same, and doesn't change with longer TM practice, what happened to the idea that with regular practice you release more and more stress, which in turn leads to more clear transcendence? If the meditation is the same and doesn't change, (or those periods of supposed transcendence / relaxation), why the need to be regular at all? Why learn expensive advanced techniques, who are supposed to deepen or widen the transcendence experience, to have it along with subtle activity? With your argument, Lawson, you also wouldn't trust advanced techniques, because they would alter the original experience, or in case they don't, they are completely worthless.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: It turns out that the EEG pattern of long-term TMers during TM remains the same as the EEG pattern found in short-term TMers: it's simple relaxation, no matter how long you have been doing it. Pure Consciousness is just the same pattern in its most extreme form. In every other meditation technique with published research, you see a shift away from simple relaxation towards something different, as you become more experienced. In other words, I wouldn't trust the words of a non-TM teacher with regards to your TM practice. They literally don't understand where you are at and can only attempt to transform your practice into their practice. Ahem. Isn't another way of interpreting your first two paragraphs that there is no *progress* in TM? *You* are the one interpreting simple relaxation (which never gets deeper or more profound) with Pure Consciousness. I doubt that scientists would. No progress in the technique... It is easy to start and easy to do and that doesn't change. What DOES change is how closely the state outside of TM comes to resemble the state during TM. As for not trusing non-TM teachers, I can say that TM teachers don't know diddleysquat except the stuff they were given to memorize and parrot. That's fine, as far as it goes, but it really doesn't go very deep, or have any relevance to the larger field of meditation. They know a little about one tiny technique, and nothing about any of the others. They are actually *prevented* from learning about any of the others, under pain of banishment. Well, ok bu... Just sayin'... If you dispute this, cite things that were taught to you on your TM Teacher Training course. Oh, that's right, you can't. Again, just sayin'... Where have I attempted to dispute anything about what is taught to TM teachers? My impression has always been that TM teachers are technicians who have been trained to handle things in a specific situation that has been set up via the 7 steps. Go too far outside that narrow field of expertise, and they're really no better than anyone else, any more than an x-rray tech is competent to be a lorry driver. L
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: I suspect you are both misreading what Lawson had in mind. He isn't stupid, and he knows the TM research better than anyone here. I'm not sure what he means either, but I'd suggest you wait to draw any conclusions until he can clarify. It's very highly unlikely that either of you would be able to come up with something he had missed or hadn't accounted for. The pattern during TM is one of increased alpha EEG coherence, and that starts to level off (but never completely stops changing) after a few months of TM , but the longer one has been practicing the more the EEG outside of TM practice starts to resemble the EEG during TM practice. Now, the EEG found during pure consciousness is the most coherent found in a given TMer and if you look just at the EEG during PC, there's obviously some room for refinement during practice, but the average outside of practice starts to resemble the average during, and that was my point... because, in contrast, the average EEG during mantra-based meditation shifts from relaxed alpha to concentrative gamma as one becomes more experienced, and the average EEG outside of such practices also shifts towards less alpha and more gamma. L
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: It turns out that the EEG pattern of long-term TMers during TM remains the same as the EEG pattern found in short-term TMers: it's simple relaxation, no matter how long you have been doing it. Pure Consciousness is just the same pattern in its most extreme form. In every other meditation technique with published research, you see a shift away from simple relaxation towards something different, as you become more experienced. In other words, I wouldn't trust the words of a non-TM teacher with regards to your TM practice. They literally don't understand where you are at and can only attempt to transform your practice into their practice. Ahem. Isn't another way of interpreting your first two paragraphs that there is no *progress* in TM? *You* are the one interpreting simple relaxation (which never gets deeper or more profound) with Pure Consciousness. I doubt that scientists would. No progress in the technique... It is easy to start and easy to do and that doesn't change. What DOES change is how closely the state outside of TM comes to resemble the state during TM. But that's not all that is supposed to change. The quality of experience is supposed to change as well *during* meditation - as stress is released. Think of the snowplough analogy - as resistances (stresses) are being removed, the way gets more clear, and the experience of transcendence will be clearer and more prolonged. And for advanced techniques - you will go into transcendence more slowly, so that you are more conscious of the process. The diving angle changes, how is that reflected in your theory? That, being more conscious of the 'transcending' (I still put it in bracelets as it is really a concept - transcendence is all pervading and cannot be isolated, especially if you want to experience it consciously.) So this process of being more conscious in the transcending process, whatever it is, has to be reflected in EEG, for all what it's worth. Initial transcendence is not clear transcendence, it is just a hazy slipping into it and out of it. We know it, as teachers, but it's not what you say to people. As for not trusing non-TM teachers, I can say that TM teachers don't know diddleysquat except the stuff they were given to memorize and parrot. That's fine, as far as it goes, but it really doesn't go very deep, or have any relevance to the larger field of meditation. They know a little about one tiny technique, and nothing about any of the others. They are actually *prevented* from learning about any of the others, under pain of banishment. Well, ok bu... Just sayin'... If you dispute this, cite things that were taught to you on your TM Teacher Training course. Oh, that's right, you can't. Again, just sayin'... Where have I attempted to dispute anything about what is taught to TM teachers? My impression has always been that TM teachers are technicians who have been trained to handle things in a specific situation that has been set up via the 7 steps. Apart from TM teachers just being 'loud-speakers' who parrot the teachings, they have the additional advantage that they saw a lot more tapes of Maharishi during all those courses. There he accidentally let's out sometimes some of his secrets, or he contradicts himself. With that you get a sort of different background on many things. And yes, TM teachers usually have a lot of experience on rounding courses, or later siddhi courses where you meditate a lot more. That *might* be a difference to some plain vanilla sidhas or meditators - it doesn't have to be. Go too far outside that narrow field of expertise, and they're really no better than anyone else, any more than an x-rray tech is competent to be a lorry driver. L
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: I suspect you are both misreading what Lawson had in mind. He isn't stupid, and he knows the TM research better than anyone here. I'm not sure what he means either, but I'd suggest you wait to draw any conclusions until he can clarify. It's very highly unlikely that either of you would be able to come up with something he had missed or hadn't accounted for. The pattern during TM is one of increased alpha EEG coherence, and that starts to level off (but never completely stops changing) after a few months of TM , but the longer one has been practicing the more the EEG outside of TM practice starts to resemble the EEG during TM practice. Now, the EEG found during pure consciousness is the most coherent found in a given TMer and if you look just at the EEG during PC, there's obviously some room for refinement during practice, but the average outside of practice starts to resemble the average during, and that was my point... because, in contrast, the average EEG during mantra-based meditation What do you mean by mantra based meditation? TM IS mantra based. shifts from relaxed alpha to concentrative gamma as one becomes more experienced, and the average EEG outside of such practices also shifts towards less alpha and more gamma. And that is bad or worse? How do you know? In my experience, with higher states there comes a spontaneous concentration, really concentrated awareness, completely focused and without effort. Maharishi might say point value.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
A professor at MUM once explained that as one progresses, especially from CC to GC, what happens can be described as the depth coming up to the surface of life. So we might not feel deep, even during TM. And we shouldn't TRY to feel deep. In a similar way it seems, with the TMSP, we more and more experience a mix of silence and liveliness together. So I extrapolate from that that it's counter productive to try and experience PURE silence. From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 6:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: It turns out that the EEG pattern of long-term TMers during TM remains the same as the EEG pattern found in short-term TMers: it's simple relaxation, no matter how long you have been doing it. Pure Consciousness is just the same pattern in its most extreme form. In every other meditation technique with published research, you see a shift away from simple relaxation towards something different, as you become more experienced. In other words, I wouldn't trust the words of a non-TM teacher with regards to your TM practice. They literally don't understand where you are at and can only attempt to transform your practice into their practice. Ahem. Isn't another way of interpreting your first two paragraphs that there is no *progress* in TM? *You* are the one interpreting simple relaxation (which never gets deeper or more profound) with Pure Consciousness. I doubt that scientists would. No progress in the technique... It is easy to start and easy to do and that doesn't change. What DOES change is how closely the state outside of TM comes to resemble the state during TM. But that's not all that is supposed to change. The quality of experience is supposed to change as well *during* meditation - as stress is released. Think of the snowplough analogy - as resistances (stresses) are being removed, the way gets more clear, and the experience of transcendence will be clearer and more prolonged. And for advanced techniques - you will go into transcendence more slowly, so that you are more conscious of the process. The diving angle changes, how is that reflected in your theory? That, being more conscious of the 'transcending' (I still put it in bracelets as it is really a concept - transcendence is all pervading and cannot be isolated, especially if you want to experience it consciously.) So this process of being more conscious in the transcending process, whatever it is, has to be reflected in EEG, for all what it's worth. Initial transcendence is not clear transcendence, it is just a hazy slipping into it and out of it. We know it, as teachers, but it's not what you say to people. As for not trusing non-TM teachers, I can say that TM teachers don't know diddleysquat except the stuff they were given to memorize and parrot. That's fine, as far as it goes, but it really doesn't go very deep, or have any relevance to the larger field of meditation. They know a little about one tiny technique, and nothing about any of the others. They are actually *prevented* from learning about any of the others, under pain of banishment. Well, ok bu... Just sayin'... If you dispute this, cite things that were taught to you on your TM Teacher Training course. Oh, that's right, you can't. Again, just sayin'... Where have I attempted to dispute anything about what is taught to TM teachers? My impression has always been that TM teachers are technicians who have been trained to handle things in a specific situation that has been set up via the 7 steps. Apart from TM teachers just being 'loud-speakers' who parrot the teachings, they have the additional advantage that they saw a lot more tapes of Maharishi during all those courses. There he accidentally let's out sometimes some of his secrets, or he contradicts himself. With that you get a sort of different background on many things. And yes, TM teachers usually have a lot of experience on rounding courses, or later siddhi courses where you meditate a lot more. That *might* be a difference to some plain vanilla sidhas or meditators - it doesn't have to be. Go too far outside that narrow field of expertise, and they're really no better than anyone else, any more than an x-rray tech is competent to be a lorry driver. L
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: It turns out that the EEG pattern of long-term TMers during TM remains the same as the EEG pattern found in short-term TMers: it's simple relaxation, no matter how long you have been doing it. Pure Consciousness is just the same pattern in its most extreme form. In every other meditation technique with published research, you see a shift away from simple relaxation towards something different, as you become more experienced. In other words, I wouldn't trust the words of a non-TM teacher with regards to your TM practice. They literally don't understand where you are at and can only attempt to transform your practice into their practice. Ahem. Isn't another way of interpreting your first two paragraphs that there is no *progress* in TM? *You* are the one interpreting simple relaxation (which never gets deeper or more profound) with Pure Consciousness. I doubt that scientists would. No progress in the technique... It is easy to start and easy to do and that doesn't change. What DOES change is how closely the state outside of TM comes to resemble the state during TM. But that's not all that is supposed to change. The quality of experience is supposed to change as well *during* meditation - as stress is released. Think of the snowplough analogy - as resistances (stresses) are being removed, the way gets more clear, and the experience of transcendence will be clearer and more prolonged. But countering this is the fact that deeper experiences might stir up more unstressing, which would tend to make the *average* during the technique stay the same, at least until that last stress is dissolved meditation. And for advanced techniques - you will go into transcendence more slowly, so that you are more conscious of the process. The diving angle changes, how is that reflected in your theory? That, being more conscious of the 'transcending' (I still put it in bracelets as it is really a concept - transcendence is all pervading and cannot be isolated, especially if you want to experience it consciously.) So this process of being more conscious in the transcending process, whatever it is, has to be reflected in EEG, for all what it's worth. Initial transcendence is not clear transcendence, it is just a hazy slipping into it and out of it. We know it, as teachers, but it's not what you say to people. One can easily bounce between periods of clear transcending during meditation to periods of unclear transcending and back, depending on life circumstances. I found that while I was sitting next to my mother who was dying extremely rapidly (3-4 weeks after diagnosis she was dead), my meditations tended to be a little less clear than normal. When my estranged son attempted suicide and I was forbidden from visiting or even speaking to him, ever, the same thing. I take it your life is so even that you never have had the opportunity to observe your practice during such extreme events? L
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: I suspect you are both misreading what Lawson had in mind. He isn't stupid, and he knows the TM research better than anyone here. I'm not sure what he means either, but I'd suggest you wait to draw any conclusions until he can clarify. It's very highly unlikely that either of you would be able to come up with something he had missed or hadn't accounted for. The pattern during TM is one of increased alpha EEG coherence, and that starts to level off (but never completely stops changing) after a few months of TM , but the longer one has been practicing the more the EEG outside of TM practice starts to resemble the EEG during TM practice. Now, the EEG found during pure consciousness is the most coherent found in a given TMer and if you look just at the EEG during PC, there's obviously some room for refinement during practice, but the average outside of practice starts to resemble the average during, and that was my point... because, in contrast, the average EEG during mantra-based meditation What do you mean by mantra based meditation? TM IS mantra based. Well, technically, a mantra is used in TM practice, but mantra-based practices are considered focused attention practices, and those tend to show more and more gamma EEG the longer you have been doing them. shifts from relaxed alpha to concentrative gamma as one becomes more experienced, and the average EEG outside of such practices also shifts towards less alpha and more gamma. And that is bad or worse? How do you know? Well, insomuch as these techniques all tend to fragment the brain as a side-effect of the long-term practice, while PC is a period where the brain is idling in a vary coherent way, showing the EEG associated with relaxation and rest, rather than concentration and effort, I have no way of knowing... In my experience, with higher states there comes a spontaneous concentration, really concentrated awareness, completely focused and without effort. Maharishi might say point value. Well with TM, if you REALLY are in samadhi (pure consciousness), you can't note it until such time as some degree of waking state consciousness reassumes, and by then, you are no longer in the pure state. While the PC signature becomes more and more obvious outside of PC, PC + waking, even during meditation, is still not the real deal. The way that can be spoken about is not the real way. The literal translation, btw, is: the way that can be way-ed, is not a way. In other words, if it is concrete enough to be something you can point to or even attempt to describe, its not the real deal. Calling in total concentration or pure consciousness or whatever is just a philosophical fiction based on your waking state + PC experience. L
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: dear navashok, if you hold breath for a week, you will probably die. Please don't. Thank you (-: Don't worry Share, Lawson still has retained his posting rights. It is him that Judy wants to clarify. She butta From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 11:31 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: I suspect you are both misreading what Lawson had in mind. Ooopsie, can you say mindreading? This is hilarious, well a priceless jewel of Judean logic. So we shouldn't both respond to what Lawson actually wrote here, but to what he had in mind? Well, right! He isn't stupid, and he knows the TM research better than anyone here. I am sure he knows the TM research better than anyone here, and nobody said he is stupid. I think he is just being honest here, and that the data he gives is open to different interpretations. That's what we did. Three people responded, all very much alike. I had in mind what Barry answered, and then then saw that he had already given the comment. Xeno's approach was slightly different, but he understood it in very much the same way as we did. I'm not sure what he means either, Now that's even more funny. First you say that he doesn't mean what he says, and ask us to read his mind, and then you go on to say that you actually don't know what he means yourself, but it couldn't be what he wrote. Can you say brezel mind? but I'd suggest you wait to draw any conclusions until he can clarify. And you are suggesting he should? Wait he gave us some information about the research and his interpretation already. It's very highly unlikely that either of you would be able to come up with something he had missed or hadn't accounted for. Of course not, by law. So, I'm now holding my breath. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: It turns out that the EEG pattern of long-term TMers during TM remains the same as the EEG pattern found in short-term TMers: it's simple relaxation, no matter how long you have been doing it. Pure Consciousness is just the same pattern in its most extreme form. In every other meditation technique with published research, you see a shift away from simple relaxation towards something different, as you become more experienced. In other words, I wouldn't trust the words of a non-TM teacher with regards to your TM practice. They literally don't understand where you are at and can only attempt to transform your practice into their practice. Ahem. Isn't another way of interpreting your first two paragraphs that there is no *progress* in TM? *You* are the one interpreting simple relaxation (which never gets deeper or more profound) with Pure Consciousness. I doubt that scientists would. Wow, same thought I had. If the pattern is the same, and doesn't change with longer TM practice, what happened to the idea that with regular practice you release more and more stress, which in turn leads to more clear transcendence? If the meditation is the same and doesn't change, (or those periods of supposed transcendence / relaxation), why the need to be regular at all? Why learn expensive advanced techniques, who are supposed to deepen or widen the transcendence experience, to have it along with subtle activity? With your argument, Lawson, you also wouldn't trust advanced techniques, because they would alter the original experience, or in case they don't, they are completely worthless.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: It turns out that the EEG pattern of long-term TMers during TM remains the same as the EEG pattern found in short-term TMers: it's simple relaxation, no matter how long you have been doing it. Pure Consciousness is just the same pattern in its most extreme form. In every other meditation technique with published research, you see a shift away from simple relaxation towards something different, as you become more experienced. In other words, I wouldn't trust the words of a non-TM teacher with regards to your TM practice. They literally don't understand where you are at and can only attempt to transform your practice into their practice. Ahem. Isn't another way of interpreting your first two paragraphs that there is no *progress* in TM? *You* are the one interpreting simple relaxation (which never gets deeper or more profound) with Pure Consciousness. I doubt that scientists would. Wow, same thought I had. If the pattern is the same, and doesn't change with longer TM practice, what happened to the idea that with regular practice you release more and more stress, which in turn leads to more clear transcendence? If the meditation is the same and doesn't change, (or those periods of supposed transcendence / relaxation), why the need to be regular at all? Why learn expensive advanced techniques, who are supposed to deepen or widen the transcendence experience, to have it along with subtle activity? With your argument, Lawson, you also wouldn't trust advanced techniques, because they would alter the original experience, or in case they don't, they are completely worthless. As for not trusing non-TM teachers, I can say that TM teachers don't know diddleysquat except the stuff they were given to memorize and parrot. That's fine, as far as it goes, but it really doesn't go very deep, or have any relevance to the larger field of meditation. They know a little about one tiny technique, and nothing about any of the others. They are actually *prevented* from learning about any of the others, under pain of banishment. Just sayin'... If you dispute this, cite things that were taught to you on your TM Teacher Training course. Oh, that's right, you can't. Again, just sayin'... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: I would suggest forgetting whatever you learned with TM and just become aware of the one having the thought - of course its possible - it who you really are From: sound of stillness soundofstillness@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:03 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object? Â I was listening to a meditation teacher (not a TM teacher) who when asked about thoughts, gave the instruction . . . Become aware of the one who is having the thoughts. Is it possible to become 'aware' of the one who is having a thought? Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object? If not, if 'aware-ness' is always the 'subject', then what is the distinction between the instruction the meditation teacher gave and 'awareness becoming aware of itself', a.k.a. 'self-referral awareness'. Was the meditation teacher asking the student to 'do' something that isn't possible? Michael
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
I suspect you are both misreading what Lawson had in mind. He isn't stupid, and he knows the TM research better than anyone here. I'm not sure what he means either, but I'd suggest you wait to draw any conclusions until he can clarify. It's very highly unlikely that either of you would be able to come up with something he had missed or hadn't accounted for. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: It turns out that the EEG pattern of long-term TMers during TM remains the same as the EEG pattern found in short-term TMers: it's simple relaxation, no matter how long you have been doing it. Pure Consciousness is just the same pattern in its most extreme form. In every other meditation technique with published research, you see a shift away from simple relaxation towards something different, as you become more experienced. In other words, I wouldn't trust the words of a non-TM teacher with regards to your TM practice. They literally don't understand where you are at and can only attempt to transform your practice into their practice. Ahem. Isn't another way of interpreting your first two paragraphs that there is no *progress* in TM? *You* are the one interpreting simple relaxation (which never gets deeper or more profound) with Pure Consciousness. I doubt that scientists would. Wow, same thought I had. If the pattern is the same, and doesn't change with longer TM practice, what happened to the idea that with regular practice you release more and more stress, which in turn leads to more clear transcendence? If the meditation is the same and doesn't change, (or those periods of supposed transcendence / relaxation), why the need to be regular at all? Why learn expensive advanced techniques, who are supposed to deepen or widen the transcendence experience, to have it along with subtle activity? With your argument, Lawson, you also wouldn't trust advanced techniques, because they would alter the original experience, or in case they don't, they are completely worthless.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
It turns out that the EEG pattern of long-term TMers during TM remains the same as the EEG pattern found in short-term TMers: it's simple relaxation, no matter how long you have been doing it. Pure Consciousness is just the same pattern in its most extreme form. In every other meditation technique with published research, you see a shift away from simple relaxation towards something different, as you become more experienced. In other words, I wouldn't trust the words of a non-TM teacher with regards to your TM practice. They literally don't understand where you are at and can only attempt to transform your practice into their practice. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: I would suggest forgetting whatever you learned with TM and just become aware of the one having the thought - of course its possible - it who you really are From: sound of stillness soundofstillness@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:03 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object? Â I was listening to a meditation teacher (not a TM teacher) who when asked about thoughts, gave the instruction . . . Become aware of the one who is having the thoughts. Is it possible to become 'aware' of the one who is having a thought? Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object? If not, if 'aware-ness' is always the 'subject', then what is the distinction between the instruction the meditation teacher gave and 'awareness becoming aware of itself', a.k.a. 'self-referral awareness'. Was the meditation teacher asking the student to 'do' something that isn't possible? Michael
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: It turns out that the EEG pattern of long-term TMers during TM remains the same as the EEG pattern found in short-term TMers: it's simple relaxation, no matter how long you have been doing it. Pure Consciousness is just the same pattern in its most extreme form. In every other meditation technique with published research, you see a shift away from simple relaxation towards something different, as you become more experienced. In other words, I wouldn't trust the words of a non-TM teacher with regards to your TM practice. They literally don't understand where you are at and can only attempt to transform your practice into their practice. Ahem. Isn't another way of interpreting your first two paragraphs that there is no *progress* in TM? *You* are the one interpreting simple relaxation (which never gets deeper or more profound) with Pure Consciousness. I doubt that scientists would. As for not trusing non-TM teachers, I can say that TM teachers don't know diddleysquat except the stuff they were given to memorize and parrot. That's fine, as far as it goes, but it really doesn't go very deep, or have any relevance to the larger field of meditation. They know a little about one tiny technique, and nothing about any of the others. They are actually *prevented* from learning about any of the others, under pain of banishment. Just sayin'... If you dispute this, cite things that were taught to you on your TM Teacher Training course. Oh, that's right, you can't. Again, just sayin'... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: I would suggest forgetting whatever you learned with TM and just become aware of the one having the thought - of course its possible - it who you really are From: sound of stillness soundofstillness@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:03 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object? Â I was listening to a meditation teacher (not a TM teacher) who when asked about thoughts, gave the instruction . . . Become aware of the one who is having the thoughts. Is it possible to become 'aware' of the one who is having a thought? Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object? If not, if 'aware-ness' is always the 'subject', then what is the distinction between the instruction the meditation teacher gave and 'awareness becoming aware of itself', a.k.a. 'self-referral awareness'. Was the meditation teacher asking the student to 'do' something that isn't possible? Michael
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: It turns out that the EEG pattern of long-term TMers during TM remains the same as the EEG pattern found in short-term TMers: it's simple relaxation, no matter how long you have been doing it. Pure Consciousness is just the same pattern in its most extreme form. In every other meditation technique with published research, you see a shift away from simple relaxation towards something different, as you become more experienced. In other words, I wouldn't trust the words of a non-TM teacher with regards to your TM practice. They literally don't understand where you are at and can only attempt to transform your practice into their practice. L And conversely, a TM teacher may not have any understanding of what happens with other forms of meditation. Now the ones I have been familiar with all had basically the same kind of minimal effortless kind of instruction as TM; none were overtly of the concentration type. But awareness does shift in a different way with these other meditations. The misunderstanding goes both ways.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
On 03/19/2013 11:20 AM, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: It turns out that the EEG pattern of long-term TMers during TM remains the same as the EEG pattern found in short-term TMers: it's simple relaxation, no matter how long you have been doing it. Pure Consciousness is just the same pattern in its most extreme form. In every other meditation technique with published research, you see a shift away from simple relaxation towards something different, as you become more experienced. In other words, I wouldn't trust the words of a non-TM teacher with regards to your TM practice. They literally don't understand where you are at and can only attempt to transform your practice into their practice. Ahem. Isn't another way of interpreting your first two paragraphs that there is no *progress* in TM? *You* are the one interpreting simple relaxation (which never gets deeper or more profound) with Pure Consciousness. I doubt that scientists would. As for not trusing non-TM teachers, I can say that TM teachers don't know diddleysquat except the stuff they were given to memorize and parrot. That's fine, as far as it goes, but it really doesn't go very deep, or have any relevance to the larger field of meditation. They know a little about one tiny technique, and nothing about any of the others. They are actually *prevented* from learning about any of the others, under pain of banishment. Just sayin'... If you dispute this, cite things that were taught to you on your TM Teacher Training course. Oh, that's right, you can't. Again, just sayin'... Some might think of Graham Hancock as being new age woo-woo but one should listen to his rap that Michael Ruppert presented on his March 10th Lifeboat Hour show on the Progressive Radio Network. Hancock presents a pretty good argument about what's wrong with modern day consciousness research. You can download or listen to the show here. http://prn.fm/category/archives/the-lifeboat-hour/
