--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mar 5, 2007, at 12:33 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], hermandan0 <no_reply@> wrote: > >> > >> The whole question is elementary and not really worth > >> arguing about. > > > > I think the whole point is that some TMers have turned > > it *into* an argument, and do so again every time this > > subject comes up here. As some have suggested, it kinda > > looks as if they have done so because they are more > > attached to the dogma they were taught being "right" > > than they are to common sense. > > It does take courage to deviate from the memorized scripts we all > tend to keep and re-run like little tape loops.
So do you and Barry have the guts to deviate from your "TMers are just mindlessly repeating the dogma they've been taught" tape loop and incorporate the possibility that they're telling you what their personal experience is? One of Barry's maxims is "Trust your own experience." But somehow that's never extended to "Trust someone else when they tell you what their experience is" if that someone else happens to be a TMer. In fact, I think > commercial forms of meditation with their repeated maxims tend to > reinforce this type of conditioned "in the box" thinking. It seems > important for progress to accept that our evolution might not run > as it was scripted. It's probably also important for progress to accept that in some cases the "scripts" may be accurate. In other words, one shouldn't make a script of the notion that just because one can construct a box around a script, that guarantees what's inside the box is invalid. Such a notion may itself be conditioned "in the box" thinking. > In fact it might not be anything like what we "image-ined". In > that case it's best to just run over our own dogma, and then > back up over it just to be sure. But be open to the possibility that the run-over dogma may not end up crushed and bleeding like you "image-ined" it would.
