--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Quick comment below: > > ** > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Here's a topic that some might want to chime in on. > > I suspect Curtis will, at least, and hopefully Marek > > and some of the more balanced thinkers here. > > > > I think we're all familiar with one of the basic > > tenets of Maharishi's philosophy, that as one meditates > > and evolves, one becomes capable of "spontaneous right > > action." In this philosophy, there is no need for mind- > > fulness or monitoring one's thoughts, emotions and > > actions, because it is *assumed* that they will, over > > time, become more "in tune with the laws of nature" and > > therefore "right," an innocent refection of the dharma. > > > > What I'm wondering is whether this teaching might have > > something to do with some fairly remarkable (from my > > point of view) posts made here recently, in which long- > > term TMers seem to merely *assume* that if they "see" > > it, it's "true." And that if they do it, it's "right." > > > > I don't know about the rest of you, but I have noticed > > a *strong* tendency in long-term TMers to *assume* > > these things, as opposed to a tendency in, say, long- > > term Buddhists to *not* assume them. Their philosophy > > and practice places as much emphasis on mindfulness > > and monitoring one's thoughts and emotions and actions > > to avoid the possible pitfalls of ego and obsession and > > projecting belief and expectation onto the world as one > > makes one's way through life as they do on meditation. > > I think it's fair to say that the TM philosophy not only > > does not emphasize such monitoring, it tends to dismiss > > such practices as moodmaking, the intellect trying to > > monitor and evaluate something that is better handled > > by just becoming more "in tune" with the "laws of nature." > > > > In other words, just meditate and everything will be > > OK -- your perceptions will almost by definition be > > accurate, and your actions will almost by definition > > be sattvic or dharmic. > > > > But is this true? > > > > We've seen folks here lately -- folks who claim to be > > enlightened -- say that there can *be* no other way to > > see a situation than the way that they see it. We've > > seen these folks (from my point of view) lash out at > > someone who has bruised their ego, and then claim that > > they had only the best intentions in mind. In other > > less recent posts, we've seen someone title a post > > "Mel Gibson, Christian Bigot," and then claim over > > and over and over and over that she wasn't criticizing > > him or the film that she'd never seen. We've seen (IMO) > > some of the most massive non-self-awareness and denial > > I've ever encountered anywhere on the planet. > > > > So I guess my questions for this topic are: > > > > "Is 'just meditate and everything will be OK' accurate, > > and a valuable teaching, or can it possibly lead to > > intellectual and ethical blindness about the real > > nature of one's thoughts, emotions and actions?" > > > > Could a little emphasis on mindfulness and monitoring > > one's thoughts and emotions and actions be a useful > > addition to 20/20 TM (now more like 120/120 to be con- > > sidered truly "on the program")? > > > > Who would you trust more in a situation in which your > > life depended on them -- someone who *assumed* that > > their every perception was accurate and that their > > every action was "right," or someone who was open to > > the possibility that they might be just as prone to > > errors of perception and behavior as anyone else? > > > > Just questions to think about. Or ignore. Your call. > > **end** > > Turq, just a quick comment (not much time for more as I'm visiting > with my new [and first] granddaughter here in Seattle and watching > over this new incarnation is a total trip).
Congratulations. How exciting. > First of all, it's not a binary issue with a right side and a > wrong side of the fence; everyone does exactly what they feel > is right 100% of the time (IMO). On some level, you are correct. Even if they know that what they are doing is wrong, they think they are doing the "right thing." Then again, so did Son Of Sam. :-) > If mindfulness is part of what feels right for them then > mindfulness is part of the package for them; if not, then > not. Again, I can't disagree. On one level of reality, and from one high-level point of view. that is. :-) > It seems clear to me that Maharishi has always assumed that what > he felt like doing or saying was the correct thing to say or do. I sure can't disagree with that. I might disagree with what he considers the correct thing to do or say, but I agree with you that the thought that it's *not* correct has probably never entered his mind. It can't. He's just drawn that way. That's what my original questions were about. There is no question that such a "never question my actions or what I believe to be true" mindstate exists, and that some people are just drawn that way. My question has to do with whether the "artist" was painting enlightenment or megalomania. I guess that time is the final arbiter of such ques- tions. It'll be interesting to see what the world thinks of Maharishi twenty years from now, or whether it even does. I'd lay more money on him being totally forgotten than I would on him being remembered either as an enlightened saint or a megalomaniac, but I could be wrong. > Similarly, as my own life has played out, I've been increasingly > confident that what is supposed to happen is what will (and does) > happen. I've been happy with the outcomes so far. I can't argue with being happy with the outcome. That's probably more important than the outcome. > Were I not happy with the outcome, that would still be part of > the story of a life, in this case 'my' life. I have had (as we > all have) enough unhappiness and pain to realize that it, too, > is part of everyone's life story. The key is whether you identify > with the story or just appreciate it (or enjoy it) for what it is, > whatever it is. No problem here. Reminds me of my favorite Far Side cartoon, with the guy pushing the wheelbarrow in Hell whistling and smiling as he does it. Two devils are watching him and one is saying to the other, "We've got to watch this guy...he's got a bad attitude." > For the most part, living in this time and in this country, with > that background and this particular genetic legacy, allows me a > 'leg up' and a predeliction to appreciate all this stuff in a > way that a childhood in Sudan or Gaza or Iraq might not have. > > Regardless of how any of us may differ or disagree with others > here, it seems clear to me that everyone who posts here seems > very sincere in what they post; even if they post to stir the > pot or put someone down. That's an interesting way of looking at things, as are all the rest of the things you said. They're from an interesting perspective that I can apprec- iate, even if I don't agree with it at all times and from other points of view. Have fun playing with the new family member. May she have as fortunate a life as yours.
