--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jeff.evans60" <jeff.evans60@> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Debunking_New_Age.htm
> >
> > List of questions for those who believe that "thoughts create
> > reality", which they seem to avoid for some reason.
>
> Great find and great rant, Jeff.
>
> I wouldn't expect any answers from those on
> this forum who believe this. But I'll provide
> an answer from a more Buddhist perspective
> before having fun with "dreaming one's reality"
> in my own rant. :-)
>
> What the New Agers don't understand is that
> reality is a consensus phenomenon. Yeah, you
> might be trying to "dream your reality," but
> reality is also trying to "dream you." That is,
> every sentient being in the universe may be
> trying to dream its *own* reality into existence,
> but what appears and "wins" is the consensus,
> the Grand Total of all of the disparate dreams.
>
> New Agers seem to have mistaken a useful truism
> ("What you focus on you become") for an ego-
> stoking and non-useful illusion ("What I believe
> will happen happens"). Every sentient being has
> the ability to *focus* on what he or she wants
> to, and therein lies some usefulness and power.
> If this ability did not exist, meditation could
> not exist; if the constant flow of thoughts was
> *all* of reality, one could never still them.
>
> Similarly, in the practice of mindfulness one
> learns to focus on that which is useful in terms
> of emotions and the ups and downs of consensus
> reality. But some take this ability and use it
> stupidly, choosing instead to focus on really
> dumb shit. For example, one *could* go to see a
> movie and, rather than enjoy it as the uplifting
> fable it is, choose to focus on and go all deja
> vu on some trauma from one's own early life in
> which one was told over and over again to go
> comb their unruly hair.
>
> A sane person would enjoy the movie. A less sane
> person might get so caught up in their own drama
> as to turn the uplifting film into a story about
> how unruly hair is "really" a form of subconscious
> bigotry, being used to degrade and vilify the very
> people the movie is...uh...about and whose lifestyle
> it celebrates. In such a case, one could say that
> the insane movie viewer had *indeed* "created their
> own reality" by ignoring the Big Picture and
> focusing on a nit and picking at it.
>
> A more sane person can enjoy and find beauty
> even in a film (or a reality) that is less beau-
> tiful or enjoyable. That's the magic of "What
> you focus on you become," or mindfulness. One
> does *not* have to fall prey to one's samskaras
> and re-run the same petty ego-dramas over and
> over in one's head forever; at any point one can
> choose to focus on something else.
>
> If one were to buy into the logic that allowing
> an actress to use her own judgment and wear her
> hair the way she thinks best suits her character
> is "in reality" an attempt to denigrate and cast
> aspersions on "lesser" Native Americans by an
> unfeeling director, what are Maharishi's "Raja
> costumes?"
>
> I mean, the man forced his followers to dress up
> in silly costumes *that cannot be found in Indian
> history*. He decreed that all of these no-caste
> untouchables (in the Indian caste system he believed
> in as a reflection of the Laws Of Nature or God's
> will) had to not only wear such silly costumes but
> prance around in them pretending to be "kings" of
> an imaginary country. What act in history has *ever*
> been more degrading to the people forced to act it
> out than that? It could be viewed as a form of "Look
> what a smart Indian like myself can make these
> stupid, no-caste Westerners do, *while paying me
> a million dollars* for the privilege of doing it
> to them?"
>
> In a very real sense, if Mary McDonnell's hairstyle
> in "Dances With Wolves" can be seen as an attempt
> to denigrate Native Americans, I don't see how
> Maharishi playing "dress-up" with his "Rajas" can
> be seen as anything *but* an attempt to denigrate
> them, and Westerners in general. The whole scene
> just *screams* "Look at what a smart Indian like
> myself can make these retarded no-caste Westerners
> do!"
>
> Just having fun with the concept, Jeff. I doubt that
> Maharishi ever *consciously* set out to make his
> followers look like idiots. It was more subconscious
> and insidious, like Kevin Costner's "real" moti-
> vation for making Mary McDonnell look like a
> slattern in "Dances With Wolves" was subconscious. :-)
>
> My point is that whatever case one might make for
> Maharishi being a Class A Vedic Supremacy Bigot,
> one does not have to place one's focus there. One
> *could* focus instead on all the millions of people
> he helped by using the TMO's millions to teach
> TM cheaply or for free everywhere. Instead of, say,
> pissing his last years away extorting even more
> money from them and playing dress-up with a bunch
> of Ken and Barbie dolls.
>
> Oh. Never mind. :-)
>
Not sure I follow your logical sequence but hey its all about creating your own
reality isnt it.
BTW When I went to see Dances with Wolves it was a first date with a pretty
cute girl called Rosie ( long straight black hair not tied back , definite
slattern ) . She confessed to me afterwards that she had really needed to pee
most of the film but was too embarassed to get up and visit the ladies room,
and was actually in quite a bit of pain for most of it ! Just wanted to share
with you.
