--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: <snip> > > > > 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.
What I wrote has nothing to do with what Barry has written. I was the one who started this angle on the yoga system and its value. If you believe that you are somehow attached to the objects of perception and this is not the best relationship to have with them then it is a problem that gets "fixed" by yoga practice. You are expressing a hierarchy of human awareness with one state as "higher" than another. The term for being attached to the objects of perception is life in "ignorance." So it is not the result of anything bilious to say it needs fixing. > > 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"! I don't think you are understanding my point and are using the phrase "severe mental deficiency" out of my original context. I understand what spiritual teachers claim about identification. I am looking at it differently now. I am not trying to step into that POV, I am stepping out of it. To you it seems as though I don't understand it because I am changing the concept to fit my own experience now. I don't think you are aware of the many beliefs necessary to interpret your experience the way you are. > > 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. It cracks me up that you assume I wasn't at least into this POV as much as you are at one point in my life. Your default is that somehow I never understood what Maharishi meant by these terms. What I am doing now is to look at these terms freshly and try to see how I relate to them now, not to express how a spiritual teacher phrases it or thinks of them. I want to see if they have a value for me in my own terms. > > <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. Super. I'm having a great day too. We are interpreting our experience through different filters. >
