--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Here's a topic that some might want to chime in on.
> I suspect Curtis will, at least, and hopefully Marek
> and some of the more balanced thinkers here.
>
> I think we're all familiar with one of the basic
> tenets of Maharishi's philosophy, that as one meditates
> and evolves, one becomes capable of "spontaneous right
> action." In this philosophy, there is no need for mind-
> fulness or monitoring one's thoughts, emotions and
> actions, because it is *assumed* that they will, over
> time, become more "in tune with the laws of nature" and
> therefore "right," an innocent refection of the dharma.
>
> What I'm wondering is whether this teaching might have
> something to do with some fairly remarkable (from my
> point of view) posts made here recently, in which long-
> term TMers seem to merely *assume* that if they "see"
> it, it's "true." And that if they do it, it's "right."
>
> I don't know about the rest of you, but I have noticed
> a *strong* tendency in long-term TMers to *assume*
> these things, as opposed to a tendency in, say, long-
> term Buddhists to *not* assume them. Their philosophy
> and practice places as much emphasis on mindfulness
> and monitoring one's thoughts and emotions and actions
> to avoid the possible pitfalls of ego and obsession and
> projecting belief and expectation onto the world as one
> makes one's way through life as they do on meditation.
> I think it's fair to say that the TM philosophy not only
> does not emphasize such monitoring, it tends to dismiss
> such practices as moodmaking, the intellect trying to
> monitor and evaluate something that is better handled
> by just becoming more "in tune" with the "laws of nature."
>
> In other words, just meditate and everything will be
> OK -- your perceptions will almost by definition be
> accurate, and your actions will almost by definition
> be sattvic or dharmic.
>
> But is this true?
>
> We've seen folks here lately -- folks who claim to be
> enlightened -- say that there can *be* no other way to
> see a situation than the way that they see it. We've
> seen these folks (from my point of view) lash out at
> someone who has bruised their ego, and then claim that
> they had only the best intentions in mind. In other
> less recent posts, we've seen someone title a post
> "Mel Gibson, Christian Bigot," and then claim over
> and over and over and over that she wasn't criticizing
> him or the film that she'd never seen. We've seen (IMO)
> some of the most massive non-self-awareness and denial
> I've ever encountered anywhere on the planet.
>
> So I guess my questions for this topic are:
>
> "Is 'just meditate and everything will be OK' accurate,
> and a valuable teaching, or can it possibly lead to
> intellectual and ethical blindness about the real
> nature of one's thoughts, emotions and actions?"
>
> Could a little emphasis on mindfulness and monitoring
> one's thoughts and emotions and actions be a useful
> addition to 20/20 TM (now more like 120/120 to be con-
> sidered truly "on the program")?
>
> Who would you trust more in a situation in which your
> life depended on them -- someone who *assumed* that
> their every perception was accurate and that their
> every action was "right," or someone who was open to
> the possibility that they might be just as prone to
> errors of perception and behavior as anyone else?
>
> Just questions to think about. Or ignore. Your call.
>
Turquoise,
Please re-visit your original post, Message #143279, The "I did it,
therefore it must
be the dharma" phenomenon, and insert examples, with citations, of the
writings of
others that led to your observation.
Turq, you wrote:
"What I'm wondering is whether this teaching might have something to do
with some
fairly remarkable (from my point of view) posts made here recently, in which
long-term
TMers seem to merely *assume* that if they "see" it, it's "true."
I ask the following questions:
What makes your observation without citation credible? Because you "see" it,
it's "true"?
-mainstream20016
