--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@> wrote:
> >
> > I have had some experiences where what I was thinking or 
> > expecting actually happened in a woo woo ish way.  And 
> > times when it felt scarily as if I could control situations 
> > with my quiet thoughts (not mentally ill). But what I think 
> > was going on was that my own thoughts had aligned with what 
> > was to be, with Nature. It was not that Nature aligned with 
> > my intentions and wishes. The experience was that the only 
> > thoughts that arose were those that on some very quiet level 
> > were really just a reflection of the flow of events already 
> > set in motion. I had tuned in to That.   
> I can appreciate your careful phrasing here, Susan,
> and the thought you've given to this. I identify more 
> with the idea of "supporting nature" (both in small 
> case letters) than I do the "support of Nature." I do not
> conceive of (and have never conceived of) "Nature" as a 
> sentient entity, capable of having its own intent or 
> "plan" for anything, or even deserving the capital letter. 
> Thus I don't easily think of nature controlling anything 
> in any way, or having the ability to do so, or even having 
> the consciousness to do so. nature just is. It is literally
> What Is, whatever is.
> What I can identify with is feeling from time to time "in 
> tune" with What Is, with nature just doing its thing. But 
> even as a TB TMer I never believed in "Support of Nature," 
> as Maharishi used the phrase. If I felt myself "in the 
> flow," and that things seemed to be going more smoothly 
> today than other days, in my view (both then and now), 
> nature had nothing to do with that. 

Yes, I felt uncomfortable with that phrase too - most likely because I saw how 
the whole idea was being misused - at least in my opinion.  I grouped it the 
whole mood making thing.  And I do think it is agood thing to feel and act as 
if were are responsible for our actions.
> If anything, I had just succeeded in quieting my mind to 
> the point where it didn't throw up any internal roadblocks 
> to things going smoothly, and as a result it seemed that 
> things *were* going more smoothly.
> In reality, as I saw it then and now, *I* was going 
> more smoothly. Nature hadn't done a damned thing, and
> wasn't paying any attention. It couldn't; it didn't
> *have the ability* to pay attention, not being sentient
> and all.
Exactly my thoughts and experience.

> I always managed to get by in the TMO while carrying
> around this somewhat heretical belief. :-) I carefully 
> avoided giving any advanced lectures that ever mentioned 
> the concept of "support of nature" as Maharishi gave 
> voice to it, and was spared anyone ever asking a question 
> about it, because if they had I would have told them what 
> MMY had said on the subject, but then would have had to 
> explain that I disagreed with it completely. 
> > It kind of felt as if I was moving things, but I seriously 
> > doubt it, since there were not many thoughts and they did 
> > not have the usual feel that I was controlling them. The 
> > thoughts just were there.
> Did you notice how effortlessly they came? Something
> good is happening.  :-)
Hey - You mean, that's how I should think the mantra?
> > I think when most fo the time things happen that we feel 
> > are good luck or suport of Nature, it is just a nice 
> > intersection of events that would happen anyway coinciding 
> > with our own patterns.
> That sounds like a great way to think of things, but
> I'm not even convinced of the "that would happen 
> anyway" part of it. I don't believe that anything 
> is "supposed to happen" or inevitably "will happen."
> I think that the universe is eternally in flux, with
> no fixed plan or future, and that the direction or 
> outcome or future path of this constant flow-flux 
> can be changed at any moment. 

Maybe not supposed to happen in a preplanned sort of way, but just inevitable 
given the prior events and everything is based on prior events.  I do know your 
point of view about flux.. And, well, there is slight flavor of the free will 
issue entering into this part of the discussion, and we have been down that 
road.  I honestly don't have any answer to it, just a different emphasis than 
you do.  I have in the past felt things had an inevitable flow given the "first 
or primary events" i guess you could call it. One thing responds to the prior 
event and so on and on and on.  I just don't know how much flexibility there is 
in that eternal sequence of unfolding responses.  If there is not flexibility, 
then free will as a real element is out the door, despite what it feels like.  
If there is interactivity and options along that path of unfolding, then there 
still might not be free will for humans (but maybe) but maybe loads of optional 
outcomes.  I know some physicists think that is what happens, every option 
occurs and we have oodles of universes happening.

> We *DO* influence the world around us, and occasionally
> can keep things from happening that would otherwise
> most likely happened. The day I happened to be sitting
> there when a neighborhood cat decided to take a flying
> fuck at a floating swan and found himself in a canal
> he couldn't climb out of strikes me as one of those
> occasions. There was no one else around. If I had done
> nothing, the cat would most likely have drowned, as
> so many do every year when they fall into the canals.
> But I was there, and I pulled the cat out. 
> Now, is it more Occam's Razor likely that I just happened
> to be there, and the cat just happened to benefit from
> that, or that there was some Grand Plan somewhere that
> shaped all of the events of my life (and the cat's) such
> that I was somehow "led" there at that time and place to 
> earn my cat-saving merit badge?
> Personally, even if there is sentience behind the What 
> Is of nature, I pretty seriously don't believe that I 
> am important enough in the general scheme of things
> for it to feel the need to micromanage my life to that 
> extent. I have similar doubts about whether it was 
> necessary to micromanage the cat's life to that extent. 
> I randomly found myself to that bench, watched a random
> cat try to bag a swan ten times larger than it was, 
> laughed (I admit it), but then realized that the cat
> was in trouble, so I fished him out. Cat was lucky I 
> was there, and I was lucky to be there, because even
> though the cat scratched the hell out of my arm to
> thank me, I felt good about the whole thing anyway. 
> If nature is really Nature, and sentient, and went to 
> all that trouble to give me that good feeling, I think 
> that's just swell of it. 

Probably just the value of having compassion is a genetic advantage, at least 
in groups.  Got built in to your brain.  Lucky for the cat.
> But I don't need to believe that's true to make the 
> good feeling any gooder.  :-)

Nice! Lucky cat.   I grew up being taught there was a God who cared, and it is 
my default position no matter that I think I have moved on. If someone's 
thinking that Nature is sentient makes them feel better (and causes no harm to 
you or others), then fine with me.  You seem comfortable with a bigger freer 
approach.  I am in between since your appraoch (and the Buddhist one) make me a 
bit uneasy so far. The whole thing is awesome either way you look at it.


Reply via email to