-Right....Judy is talking about a structural property. If we examine the content of attachment rather than as a structure, it seems that Enlightened people are as attached as everybody else. (examine their sex lives). Thus, binding attachments seem to be ubiquitous.
A larger bundle of relationships would be internet-like Connectedness (one of the main tenents of Buddhism). In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <geezerfr...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > >snip > > > > > > > > > > It's not that type of identity I'm talking about. It's > > > > > not vanity or preoccupation with the body. > > > > > Identification occurs with human development. > > > > > Identification isn't an overt craving of the body, but > > > > > a seamless identification that identifies your body as > > > > > separate from all other bodies. > > > > > > > > Curtis, this description of the nature of > > > > identification, as the term is used in > > > > enlightenment teaching, is an exceedingly rare > > > > instance of near-total agreement between Vaj > > > > and me. That alone should lead you to sit up > > > > and take notice! (I'm referring here just to > > > > the definition, not the "meaning," which is > > > > a whole 'nother question.) > > > > > > It sounds like a positive aspect of our natural > > > development and not anything that needs fixing > > > to me. > > > > It doesn't "need fixing." You're buying into > > Barry's bilious propaganda. > > > > In any case, all I want to do is get you to > > understand what spiritual teachers mean by > > "identification." I think I've made a start > > if I've gotten you to switch from thinking > > it's "severe mental deficiency" to "a positive > > aspect of our natural development"! > > > > If the idea of not being identified doesn't > > grab you, fine with me, but at least you'll > > know what it is you don't want to be without. > > Check out Peter's post; he makes some great > > additional points to clear up the confusion. > > > > <megasnip> > > > Is this idea of "attachments" useful to you personally? > > > > The *idea* isn't. The *experience* of being > > without attachment, as I said, is for me > > blissful and tremendously liberating and > > empowering. > > > That's right Curtis! Don't be "buying into Barry's bilious propaganda"! > Let all-seeing, all-knowing Judy straighten you out boy! By her own account, she's > liberated and blissfully without attachment. > > (Funny though, her Barry fixation sure "sounds" like attachment.) >
