--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Mr. Magoo" <wgm4u@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > There are at least three. :-) > > > > Descrimination is a function of intuition, however, whatever > > works for you, the proof is in the puddin'. :-) > > You may be right. However, in the traditions in which > I studied the technique I describe below, they make > a distinction between intuition (which they consider > a mechanism based mainly on emotion) and this technique > (which they consider a mechanism based upon discrim- > ination). But your last phrase is right on -- what- > ever works for you, on an ongoing basis. > > The problem with the technique I mentioned (other than > the obvious fact that it's not taught in very many > places or by very many teachers, and that it needs to > be taught over a period of *years* to have any real > value) is that it involves DOING. It's a technique and > an approach that appeals to those of us who believe in > free will and using that free will to determine the > "right" course of action. Plus, it only works if you > actually practice it; if you get lazy and forget > mindfulness and forget to notice your fluctuating > states of attention, then you gain no benefit from > the technique. > > Such a technique is NOT going to appeal to those who > believe that they *have* no free will and that all > their actions are controlled by some deity or by some > set of "laws of nature," and that thus they have no > control over those actions.
Whether it appeals to people who hold such a belief wouldn't have anything to do with the belief *unless* they misunderstood what the belief implies. One could hold such a belief and still find this technique appealing. > Theoretically, a "better" approach to discerning > "right" action would be to "become in tune with the > laws of nature," as Maharishi describes, and act > spontaneously "rightly" all of the time. Unfortunately, > I think that most of us, having been around strong > TMers and the TM movement and Maharishi himself for > decades, can see that this theory doesn't seem to > work out in practice. I don't know about you, but > I see NO DIFFERENCE in the actions of long-term TMers > and in non-meditators. None. Nada. Rien. Bupkus. But you wouldn't see any difference, that's the thing. The theory doesn't have any implications for what actions look like in practice.
