[FairfieldLife] Re: The "I did it, therefore it must be the dharma" phenomenon
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. > Turquoise, Please re-visit your original post, Message #143279, The "I did it, therefore it must be the dharma" phenomenon, and insert examples, with citations, of the writings of others that led to your observation. Turq, you wrote: "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." I ask the following questions: What makes your observation without citation credible? Because you "see" it, it's "true"? -mainstream20016
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The "I did it, therefore it must be the dharma" phenomenon
On Jul 10, 2007, at 1:34 PM, billy jim wrote: Vaj, What's wrong? Are you feeling OK? I'm getting worried that you might actually be infected with TB syndrome. Your post was so unnuanced and doctrinal. Next you'll be saying that TM'ers don't transcend at all but just go to sleep in the alaya-vijnana. Then, of course, you'd be in good company with all the Tibetans who have been hurling that insult at each other for the past 1100 years. Wouldn't be one of them would you? Surely your master Alan taught you better than that! Hi BJ: I'm fine, thanks for asking.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The "I did it, therefore it must be the dharma" phenomenon
Vaj, What's wrong? Are you feeling OK? I'm getting worried that you might actually be infected with TB syndrome. Your post was so unnuanced and doctrinal. Next you'll be saying that TM'ers don't transcend at all but just go to sleep in the alaya-vijnana. Then, of course, you'd be in good company with all the Tibetans who have been hurling that insult at each other for the past 1100 years. Wouldn't be one of them would you? Surely your master Alan taught you better than that! empty Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jul 10, 2007, at 8:22 AM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > He does speak in a rather universal > way, as (as I've mentioned here before from the Patanjali > tradition, the very same thing applies): you can't skip the > prerequisites of samadhi and then hope to bear ripe fruit. > The 'all the angas is satisfied by going to the blank > nepa state' is BS, plain and simple: another false TM view. > > This isn't a bomb, it's a basic relative truth, experientially and > theoretically in both the Patanjali trads and the Nine-fold > Nyingmapa paths. The only way it becomes a "bomb" is if you did not > test the assumptions you were given and just accepted views your > were told. Such as the views you were told the Patanjali trads and the Nine-fold Nyingmapa paths espouse, for example? As far as the teachings go, don't rely on the words alone my dear editor, but about the experiential meaning that underlies them. Regarding the meaning, it's not about the provisional meaning alone, but instead about the definitive meaning. And regarding the definitive meaning, it's not about relying on ordinary consciousness, but about relying upon Wisdom Awareness. - Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The "I did it, therefore it must be the dharma" phenomenon
On Jul 10, 2007, at 8:22 AM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > He does speak in a rather universal > way, as (as I've mentioned here before from the Patanjali > tradition, the very same thing applies): you can't skip the > prerequisites of samadhi and then hope to bear ripe fruit. > The 'all the angas is satisfied by going to the blank > nepa state' is BS, plain and simple: another false TM view. > > This isn't a bomb, it's a basic relative truth, experientially and > theoretically in both the Patanjali trads and the Nine-fold > Nyingmapa paths. The only way it becomes a "bomb" is if you did not > test the assumptions you were given and just accepted views your > were told. Such as the views you were told the Patanjali trads and the Nine-fold Nyingmapa paths espouse, for example? As far as the teachings go, don't rely on the words alone my dear editor, but about the experiential meaning that underlies them. Regarding the meaning, it's not about the provisional meaning alone, but instead about the definitive meaning. And regarding the definitive meaning, it's not about relying on ordinary consciousness, but about relying upon Wisdom Awareness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The "I did it, therefore it must be the dharma" phenomenon
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > He does speak in a rather universal > way, as (as I've mentioned here before from the Patanjali > tradition, the very same thing applies): you can't skip the > prerequisites of samadhi and then hope to bear ripe fruit. > The 'all the angas is satisfied by going to the blank > nepa state' is BS, plain and simple: another false TM view. > > This isn't a bomb, it's a basic relative truth, experientially and > theoretically in both the Patanjali trads and the Nine-fold > Nyingmapa paths. The only way it becomes a "bomb" is if you did not > test the assumptions you were given and just accepted views your > were told. Such as the views you were told the Patanjali trads and the Nine-fold Nyingmapa paths espouse, for example?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The "I did it, therefore it must be the dharma" phenomenon
> 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. > Some of the more balanced thinkers? TurquoiseB wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/143228 It's just levitating, or flying through the air.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The "I did it, therefore it must be the dharma" phenomenon
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Quick comment below: > > ** > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB 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 questio
[FairfieldLife] Re: The "I did it, therefore it must be the dharma" phenomenon
Quick comment below: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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). 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). If mindfulness is part of what feels right for them then mindfulness is part of the package for them; if not, then not. 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. 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. 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. 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 oth
[FairfieldLife] Re: The "I did it, therefore it must be the dharma" phenomenon
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Gimbel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB 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. > > > > Sure, all of that is true..but how long are you willing to wait.? Why > > not just 'chip in' and speed the process along. God helps those who > > help themselves, help God help you by using self discipline and free > > will to command results.NOW! > > > > >snipped for brevity. > > > > > All of this spontaneous stuff can get quite confusing, if you attempt > to analyze 'it', in terms of time, or sequence. > The whole process of transcending requires one to take a break from time. > Taking a break from time is like taking a break from the ego, and just > being with the self. > The self, when devoid of ego, acts in a way which is quite different > than how the ego thinks and acts: > Many passages in 'A Course In Miracles' , attempts to shed light on > the difference between the ego, and the Self, the soul. > Therefore, whether one meditates with TM or not is not relevant to how > one transcends the ego. > The ego can be transcended in many ways. > Any attempt to quantify 'spontaneous right action' will fail to gather > the whole picture. > It's like the more you 'wake up', the more aware you become of all the > choices, so, for the first time, you really have 'free will'. > True 'free will', means getting out of the robotic pavlov dog > responses to stimuli from people, places and things, and living > completely in the moment. > The more 'light' one gathers in the cells of the body, the more > magnetic, electric energy one has, the more prana one is living... > This is how one becomes in tune with the cosmos, which is pure energy, > pure prana... Can't argue with that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The "I did it, therefore it must be the dharma" phenomenon
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB 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. > > Sure, all of that is true..but how long are you willing to wait.? Why > not just 'chip in' and speed the process along. God helps those who > help themselves, help God help you by using self discipline and free > will to command results.NOW! > > >snipped for brevity. > All of this spontaneous stuff can get quite confusing, if you attempt to analyze 'it', in terms of time, or sequence. The whole process of transcending requires one to take a break from time. Taking a break from time is like taking a break from the ego, and just being with the self. The self, when devoid of ego, acts in a way which is quite different than how the ego thinks and acts: Many passages in 'A Course In Miracles' , attempts to shed light on the difference between the ego, and the Self, the soul. Therefore, whether one meditates with TM or not is not relevant to how one transcends the ego. The ego can be transcended in many ways. Any attempt to quantify 'spontaneous right action' will fail to gather the whole picture. It's like the more you 'wake up', the more aware you become of all the choices, so, for the first time, you really have 'free will'. True 'free will', means getting out of the robotic pavlov dog responses to stimuli from people, places and things, and living completely in the moment. The more 'light' one gathers in the cells of the body, the more magnetic, electric energy one has, the more prana one is living... This is how one becomes in tune with the cosmos, which is pure energy, pure prana...
[FairfieldLife] Re: The "I did it, therefore it must be the dharma" phenomenon
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. Sure, all of that is true..but how long are you willing to wait.? Why not just 'chip in' and speed the process along. God helps those who help themselves, help God help you by using self discipline and free will to command results.NOW! >snipped for brevity.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The "I did it, therefore it must be the dharma" phenomenon
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. You're significantly oversimplifying this teaching. As you note, the capacity for spontaneous right action develops over time; it isn't complete and perfected the instant one learns and begins to practice TM. As you will recall from your TM teacher days, MMY spends quite a bit of time in "Science of Bein and Art of Living" explaining how one is to determine the right course of action prior to enlightenment: you look to the laws of the land, the prescriptions of the scriptures of your heritage, and the wisdom of your elders. He has also said many times, "Don't do anything you think might be wrong." He has even provided a list of what he calls "behavioral rasayanas," general guidelines about behavior, that one is to refer to occasionally to "keep them lively in the mind." Obviously all of this requires reflection; and even with reflection, you aren't necessarily going to get it "right" (in terms of what you call "the dharma") every time. To my knowledge, MMY has never said one shouldn't engage in monitoring one's thoughts, emotions, and actions, only that one shouldn't *obsess* over it or *strain* to get every last thing just right. > 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")? This is already part of the TM program, as noted.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The "I did it, therefore it must be the dharma" phenomenon
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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. Were you monitoring yourself when you wrote this to avoid the possible pitfalls of ego and obsession, such as, for example, grossly misrepresenting something someone has said in order to demonize them? I never said I wasn't criticizing Gibson. That's just a flat-out lie, and you knew it was a lie when you wrote it. And when I said I wasn't criticizing the film, I made it very clear I meant I was not criticizing it *with regard to its artistry*. I was criticizing its *content* on the basis of what *many* other people, scholars of Maya history and culture who had seen the film, said were factual misrepresentations of that history and culture. You knew that as well when you wrote the above. If the brand of mindfulness that you're touting doesn't keep you from telling blatant lies with the intent of demonizing someone you consider your enemy, exactly how do you imagine that if TMers practiced it, they wouldn't suffer from "ethical and intellectual blindness"?
