--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> 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.
Thank god. Buh-bye now.
