--- In [email protected], "llundrub" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The reason I call it woolgathering is because what you wrote > and what pundits do was entirely one and the same.
Are you still back on "pundits," and what I wrote about them yesterday? Sorry, I hadn't realized. To me, that's so...so...yesterday. Are you saying that in your opinion the pundits of whom you speak (who, if I'm not mistaken, are from a Hindu tradition, not a Buddhist one) attempt to keep themselves in a higher state of attention by *monitoring* that state of attention, and adjusting their actions accordingly when it slips "lower?" I was more under the impression that they followed more of a scriptural path, doing the actions that were *prescribed* for them, and thus trusting those actions to *keep* them in higher states of attention. I'm NOT knocking the latter approach; many people follow it and are happy with it. I'm just suggesting that the two approaches -- the one I described earlier in which one uses one's changing state of attention to adjust one's everyday behavior, and the one in which one follows scriptural advice to keep one's state of attention high -- seem to be opposites. One can believe that one of these approaches is incorrect, and has put the cart before the horse, but I don't see how one can say that they are the same. Then again, perhaps I am wrong and you know of instances in which pundits DO use their fluctuating states of attention to adjust their daily behavior. If you do, do tell. I readily confess my ignorance about what Hindu pundits do on a daily basis. > In the sense that anyone can really say they apply some > valuable technique and say it's from some tradition, but > it's just...wishful thinking. I'm not sure what you're saying here, so I have no comment. But as a general comment, did you think I was trying to SELL you something in my first rap on this subject? If so, allow me to correct that -- I have nothing to sell and nowhere to send you if you wanted to buy. Both of the teachers with whom I studied this technique -- one Western, one Tibetan -- are now dead, and thus I don't think they're going to be teaching much of anything, unless they are doing so from a non-physical plane. I am NOT trying to convince you that I am "right" -- I'm probably NOT, since I have been "right" about so few things in my life (and I'm not even convinced that "I" exists). I am NOT trying to convince you that your way of seeing things -- about pundits or about how to choose one's actions -- is "wrong." For all I know, your way of seeing these things may be FAR more "correct" than mine, if such a thing as "correct" exists. I'm just expressing my OPINION, dude. You may do the same. > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of TurquoiseB > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 4:35 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining > enlightenment go together? > > --- In [email protected], "llundrub" <llundrub@> wrote: > > > > woolgathering > > Main Entry: > wool.gath.er.ing > Pronunciation: > \-ˌga-th(ə-)riŋ, -ˌge-th(ə-)riŋ\ > Function: > noun > Date: > 1553 > > : indulgence in idle daydreaming > > Possibly. But how do you feel now, after posting > that one word, as opposed to how you felt before > you pressed Send? > > I'm asking because you claim to be from a Buddhist > tradition, and what I wrote about is a traditional > Buddhist teaching, one that is still taught by > some teachers. I think it's a valuable teaching. > But you are free to think whatever you want, and > to react to it however you want. IMO what happens > to your own state of attention when you *do* react > either verifies or disproves the teaching. Watch > the rest of your day, and compare it to yesterday > or the day before, and get back to me, eh? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Behalf Of TurquoiseB > > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 2:42 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining > > enlightenment go together? > > > > > > > So, you had > > > > > better be sure you're doing the right thing or you will have > > > > > adverse karma as a result. > > > > > > > > ...so it's still a crapshoot. > > > > > > Not entirely, nature gives us two resources to 'check' > > > behavior, One is scripture and the other is intuition > > > or 'conscience', which is an expression of intuition. > > > > There are at least three. :-) Another taught in > > some Buddhist traditions involves assessing one's > > *own* state of attention as a measure of "right" > > and "wrong." > > > > That is, one is trained in discerning the minute > > variations in state of attention as it fluctuates > > day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute. Your > > state of attention changes all the time; it's just > > that most people haven't ever gained the discrim- > > ination to notice how *much* it changes from minute > > to minute. The training involves discerning which > > shifts in state of attention are "up" (meaning one > > has shifted to a higher state of attention) and which > > are "down" (shifted to a lower state of attention). > > > > Then, after having become somewhat practiced at > > this, you just watch your *own* state of attention > > as you act and make your way through the world. > > If you perform Action X, in Context Y, and your > > state of attention goes "down," you can pretty > > much be sure that your choice of action in that > > context was "wrong," or at least not as "right" > > as it could be. Similarly, if you perform Action X > > in Context Y and your state of attention goes "up," > > then you did the "right" thing. > > > > This -- for those who can practice it -- is actually > > looked upon as a more efficient method of determining > > "right" and "wrong" than either scripture or intuition. > > Scripture has the drawback of being "fixed" and unaware > > of *context*, so a "rule" that says "Never kill pigs" > > might be inappropriate in the case of a crazy pig > > about to kill a young toddler. And intuition is a hit- > > and-miss proposition for most seekers; sometimes it's > > right on, sometimes it's not. > > > > But watching one's own state of attention, once you've > > gotten the hang of it, never fails. The reason is that > > there is a long-term aspect of karma that says that if > > you do something wrong ALL of the negative energy your > > actions produce will return to you. That's "long-term" > > because it may take lifetimes for all that energy to > > return to you. But there is also an *instantaneous* > > aspect of karma -- do something "wrong* and your state > > of attention goes "down." Immediately. Do something > > "right" and your state of attention goes "up." Immed- > > iately. Thus you can use your own fluctuating states > > of attention as a guideline. > > > > The drawbacks of this approach are two. First, the > > discrimination necessary to practice it can only be > > taught via transmission -- by "broadcasting" states of > > attention to the students and then varying them some- > > what and asking them what they perceived when the > > shared state of attention changed. The second, of > > course, is that when you do "wrong" you only really > > find out about it *afterwards*, as you state of > > attention has started to slide "down." The latter > > becomes less and less of a problem as you become > > used to the discernment. You *start* to act a certain > > way, get an instantaneous "readout" that you're going > > the "wrong" way by realizing that your state of atten- > > tion is lowering, and thus you correct your path and > > go a different way. The whole process is that fast; > > you can make such decisions in microseconds. > > > > > 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 >
