--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> 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.
Yes, and the idea of "broken" and "needs to be fixed." I forgot you had introduced that notion. > 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. Not being able to play the piano gets "fixed" by piano lessons and practice. But you have to want to play the piano. It's not something "broken" that "needs" to be "fixed." You are > expressing a hierarchy of human awareness with one > state as "higher" than another. I'm saying that for me, it's a better state. Don't put words in my mouth, please. 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. "Ignorance" is a technical term. The issue is whether 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. Oh, please. There's no context in which "severe mental deficiency" is the same as "a positive aspect of our natural development." I understand > what spiritual teachers claim about identification. Sorry, Curtis, but if you think "identification with the body" means an excessive preoccupation with one's physical state, and think family members and loved ones aren't "objects" in this context, then you *don't understand what spiritual teachers mean by it*. That you've changed your perspective as to its desirability and importance is irrelevant to how the term is used. <snip> > 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. No, what I'm saying is that the way you're characterizing identification *now* is not what spiritual teachers mean by it. 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. Your original comment was: "I think this yogic identification theory is totally bogus. It is a made-up problem." You've gone on to say *why* you think the theory is bogus, but you've been arguing a straw man because you haven't been using the term in the sense that yogic identification theory uses it. You aren't arguing against that theory, you're arguing against an entirely different theory that has very little in common with the yogic one. You've done a great job knocking down the straw man, but you haven't accomplished much of anything with regard to showing yogic identification theory to be bogus. I'm through here.
