When you add to this the new finding that TM practice tends to reduce
the activity of the thalamus, thereby reducing the activity of the
thalamo-cortical feedback loops that actually give rise to the
high-level processing of sensory input (and possibly "thought itself"),
there's the possibility that TM leaves the various parts of the brain to
engage in activity based only on their own local connectivity without
any kind of outside input. It is conceivable that the mantra serves as
the last "external" stimulus to these local circuits and that that will
help determine what these self-interacting processes actually do as they
are increasingly left "on their own."
In other words, the effect of a specific mantra may become quite
important in this situation, as opposed to during normal waking-state
thought processes. TM mantras apparently are selected according to the
age a person learns and/or gender, and this may actually help determine
what effect the use of the mantra may have in the long-term changes of
connectivity due to the experience of "transcendental consciousness,"
which is associated with the reduction in thalamic activity during TM.
Certainly age and gender are known to have effects on neural processes
in general, so basing mantra selection on age and gender doesn't require
some radical shift in our understanding of the brain to explain the
potential relevance of this traditional selection-process.
Just some rambling thoughts.
> In other words, the effect of a specific mantra may become quite
> important in this situation, as opposed to during normal waking-state
> thought processes. TM mantras apparently are selected according to the
> age a person learns and/or gender, and this may actually help determine
> what effect the use of the mantra may have in the long-term changes of
> connectivity due to the experience of "transcendental consciousness,"
> which is associated with the reduction in thalamic activity during TM.
> Certainly age and gender are known to have effects on neural processes
> in general, so basing mantra selection on age and gender doesn't
> require some radical shift in our understanding of the brain to explain
> the potential relevance of this traditional selection-process.
>
> Just some rambling thoughts.
Would that mean as a person ages they should be getting different mantras?
--
~Stu
The TM tradition is that you only learn TM once, so your basic mantra
would remain unchanged. What I was thinking was that perhaps there's
some initial effect of the mantra that is self-modifying in some sense
as the person gets older, but that the choice of the original mantra
guides all future changes that take place. The changes that the mantra
brings about mature along with the meditator.
Seems contradictory to me. Age specific mantras have age specific
effects. But this whole mantra thing seems superstitious like
astrology. I tend to think that the mantra is not as important as the
process. The process does change with time. As one's practice
continues certain neural pathways are exercised and strengthened - this
in turn would modify the actions brought on by the meditation practice.
Just as one can sharpen their abilities with practice, as in playing
an instrument or learning a sport. I certainly sense that the
experience I have while meditating today is very different than the
experience 30 years ago. The type of mantra I use doesn't apparently
have any effect on my perceived experience. I would think after 30
years I have cultured some sort of discernment in this practice.
Do you get a different effect from meditation if you change the mantra?
Has there been any studies that indicate a real difference in brain
states determined by specific mantra? With time, doesn't the mantra
become more and more subtle until it just becomes Aum?
Candice Pert, a TMer, discusses this in part in her book "Molecules of
Emotion". She sees the brain as a "bag of hormones" with the
prefrontal cortex's primary task as executive running the movement of
neurotransmitters. Meditation works to strengthen and align this
executive function.
These new neural pathways could lead to reduced the activity of the
thalamus. If this is a good thing, the brains executive functions
naturally recognizes the improvement and continues the implementation.
You should read:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684846349/sr=8-2/qid=1155355146/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-5918870-4320837?ie=UTF8
Not
sure if you are familiar with her. She discovered the "morphine
receptors" in early studies that gave rise to the discovery of
endorphins. Came close to getting a Nobel for that. She spent a good
part of her life studying neurotransmitters at the NIMH. In the early
80's she was initiated into TM invited by Dr. Chopra. More recently
she has become a spiritual lecturer. She was one of the talking heads
in "What the (Bleep)...?"
--
~Stu
In TM there are additions to the mantras given in advanced techniques,
but the originally given mantra remains the same.
Quite possible. Patricia Carrington did some research on using different
mantras, but she never published it that I can find.
I tend to think that the mantra is not as important as the
> process. The process does change with time. As one's practice
> continues certain neural pathways are exercised and strengthened - this
> in turn would modify the actions brought on by the meditation practice.
> Just as one can sharpen their abilities with practice, as in playing an
> instrument or learning a sport. I certainly sense that the experience I
> have while meditating today is very different than the experience 30
> years ago. The type of mantra I use doesn't apparently have any effect
> on my perceived experience. I would think after 30 years I have
> cultured some sort of discernment in this practice.
Perhaps. I've been doing TM for 33 years now, and don't feel all that
perceptive, but YMMV.
>
> Do you get a different effect from meditation if you change the mantra?
> Has there been any studies that indicate a real difference in brain
> states determined by specific mantra?
Don't know about "states," but Dr. Carrington claimed she found
different affects on EEG patterns from using different mantras. She
mentioned it in her book, but I checked medline and there's no listing
of such a study.
With time, doesn't the mantra
> become more and more subtle until it just becomes Aum?
Again, perhaps.
>
> Candice Pert, a TMer, discusses this in part in her book "Molecules of
> Emotion". She sees the brain as a "bag of hormones" with the prefrontal
> cortex's primary task as executive running the movement of
> neurotransmitters. Meditation works to strengthen and align this
> executive function.
One theory I've seen lately is that the connectivity of the brain is
SOOO complex that the current connectionist theories don't do it
justice. The researcher, who is working on modeling 10,000 neurons and
their behavior, suggests that the activity of the brain serves to modify
the connections of the brain, but the connections themselves are the
most important part of neural processing, by far.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2874207418572601262&q=visual+cortex
>
> These new neural pathways could lead to reduced the activity of the
> thalamus. If this is a good thing, the brains executive functions
> naturally recognizes the improvement and continues the implementation.
It's not a matter of recognition of good or bad at this level.
>
> You should read:
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684846349/sr=8-2/qid=1155355146/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-5918870-4320837?ie=UTF8
>
>
> Not
> sure if you are familiar with her. She discovered the "morphine
> receptors" in early studies that gave rise to the discovery of
> endorphins. Came close to getting a Nobel for that. She spent a good
> part of her life studying neurotransmitters at the NIMH. In the early
> 80's she was initiated into TM invited by Dr. Chopra. More recently she
> has become a spiritual lecturer. She was one of the talking heads in
> "What the (Bleep)...?"
>
What the Bleep is kinda a silly movie, by all neutral accounts. It's
very sad that John Hagelin felt a need to associate himself wth it.
There are [were?] eight advanced TM techniques that I knew of - not
counting the TM Siddhi Program techniques. None of them make use of the
mantra 'OM'. I don't know if they are still being taught. I heard that
the TM 'night technique' was discontinued as it was too abstract for some.
***** Incorrect John -
If your original TM mantra was 'aing' it remains the same,but if your
original mantra was a two syllable mantra like 'shiring' pronounced
'shear-ing' it is actually converted to a one syllable mantra 'shring'
- ie 'shree shring namah'
Regards,
Billy
Thanks for the reply. I just got a subscription to Scientific American
Mind. Its been pretty good so far. Some of the articles are over my
head. Seems like we are on the verge of some terrific neurological
mapping that may lay to rest some of our speculations. Maybe 10 years
away.
I didn't know different mantras were related to different EEG patterns.
Seems like more research in that direction could be very valuable.
Could lead to actual prescriptions for specific situations like
bi-polar disorder or depression.
>
> What the Bleep is kinda a silly movie, by all neutral accounts. It's
> very sad that John Hagelin felt a need to associate himself wth it.
I agree that "What the Bleep..." was silly. I don't agree with the
basic ontology of the film. Many of the talking heads in there were
interesting people though. I had a chance to listen to lectures by
physicist Dr. Quantum or Fred Wolf. He is a great optimistic
passionate speaker. Could have done without Ramtha.
Candice Pert on the other hand is the real deal. I highly suggest her
book. She is a well regarded pharmacologist with a specialization in
receptor cells. Much of the current cancer and AIDs research owes a
great debt to her pioneering studies. Plus she is into TM.
--
~Stu
I have not heard why, but John Haglan is not included in What The Bleep II.
================================================
"Stu" <Nos...@towel.com> wrote in message
news:2006081217013416807-Nospam@towelcom...
>> Not
>> sure if you are familiar with her. She discovered the "morphine
>> receptors" in early studies that gave rise to the discovery of
>> endorphins. Came close to getting a Nobel for that. She spent a good
>> part of her life studying neurotransmitters at the NIMH. In the early
>> 80's she was initiated into TM invited by Dr. Chopra. More recently
>> she has become a spiritual lecturer. She was one of the talking heads
>> in "What the (Bleep)...?"
>>
>
> What the Bleep is kinda a silly movie, by all neutral accounts. It's
> very sad that John Hagelin felt a need to associate himself wth it.
Strange, but my wife got that DVD from the rental shop yesterday. I
thought it had some good, profound concepts but they didn't appear to me
to be put together cohesively for any really practical application. And
I agree that the way it was done was 'kinda silly'. I didn't like it
much. It reminded me of when Maharishi went 'scientific' with TM - [SCI,
etc]. That left me cold.
My wife thought it had some very good introductory concepts that would
appeal to the Western scientific mind that they would otherwise discard
had it been presented in only spiritual terms.
She was right. This morning we lent it to a very good friend in our
building. He's an atheistic urologist whose received governmental honors
for his selfless work in performing vasectomies for the poor. He seemed
genuinely impressed and amazed. Part of his positive response was
[roughly translated from Portuguese], "Wow!, I've never even thought of
some of those ideas!"
If you've never been exposed to an idea before, even the most
superficial and error-laden presentation can sound profound.