> > 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."
The term ignorance says it all. Your pickiness about these terms seems unreasonable to me. > > 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. Are you saying that you don't share Maharishi's opinion that these are higher states? Again your objection doesn't seem reasonable given the context of growing from "ignorance" to "enlightenment. Do you reject those terms? > > 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." I do not agree with the technical nature of the emotionally charged word "ignorance." According to Maharishi the nervous system is full of stress so it isn't functioning "normally." Through normalizing the nervous system it it restored to its natural functioning from its previous impingement. You objection is not reasonable in the context of his teaching. > > > > 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." Vaj was speaking about the term in a completely different context. I agreed with his use in that context. In the context of the term like attachment to the objects of perception I was speculating that someone who couldn't maintain an awareness of their self in perception seemed like an imparted person. I know I was not using it the the special "awareness of big Self" way Maharishi does. I don't share his view that the silence experienced in meditation is our true nature or our real self. > > 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*. I was using it in the ordinary sense which is incorrect in the yoga POV. I understand that. I am deciding that it is this term that I have a problem with. It seems like the wrong term because of its other connotations that I was spelling out. I am not even saying that there isn't a reference experience. I believe there is. But referring to it as "attachment" as the translation seems bogus to me. > > That you've changed your perspective as to its > desirability and importance is irrelevant to > how the term is used. Not to me. I think the term itself is a poor choice. > > <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. I agree. I was using the term literally in some cases. > > 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 may be objecting to the term more than the theory. This has been an exercise in finding out how I think of it. Thanks for playing along. > > I'm through here. Ouch. >
