--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > 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. >
[Dryly] Works very well in your case, Unc.
