--- In [email protected], t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > > I guess one way to make the distinction I'm trying > > to get at would be to ask whether one might have > > arrived at the same conclusion based on one's own > > experience and observation, without ever having > > been taught it. > > There are many ideas in TM, you simply wouldn't have arrived at > yourself. Let's say, that a group of 10.000 people will save the > world.
Sure. (But I'm not convinced about that one. It's a working assumption only.) But there are other ideas that one might well arrive at purely from one's own experience. > That thought in meditation is always a sign of stress release. Why this thought in particular? > > If that's the case, then it's not > > clear conditioning is involved, even if you were > > taught it. You have to look further to see what > > mental processes were involved after you were > > taught. > > Well, you know all the theory. the three day checking, stress- > release, 7 states of consciousness, enlightenment, that you have to > meditate in order to get there. These are all beliefs. You were > taught these beliefs. They were told to you. If somebody just gave > you the mantra, you would be right. But you were being told a lot > of stuff from day 1. And each time you were told it, you were also > told that everything being told is all validated by the experience > of TM. You were told this again and again. Well, yes, but for me these are all just working assumptions, yet to be validated by experience. They aren't beliefs per se. In any case, what I'm trying to get across is that *some* of TM's ideas are *in principle* ones you could arrive at if you'd just been given a mantra and told how to use it, without any of the theory behind it. <snip> > > Conditioning, to me, implies a belief or response > > that is imposed by someone else that you accept > > without question. > > Why accept without question? Why would that be a condition to > conditioning. Accept without question would be quick, immediate > conditioning. There can be slower conditioning, in a process of > mutual reinforcement, but with an element of belief. I didn't specify a time frame. I mean *come to accept* without question at some point, but simply because you've been told it over and over, heard it explained many different ways, had all your questions answered, etc. But still the input was external, not based on your own experience and observation. <snip> > > My point is that just because something has > > been taught to you doesn't necessarily mean > > the only basis for your conviction that it's > > correct is conditioning. > > No, but conditioning goes along with it. Its one package. I don't agree that it has to be. I think the conviction can become independent of the "conditioning." To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
