--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradh...@...> wrote: > > > On Feb 9, 2009, at 10:34 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <drpetersutphen@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Let me jump into this attachment discussion. > > > > > > I'd like to argue that you don't know what attachment is until > > you experience pure consciousness while the mind functions. Any > > attempt to become unattached through the mind is pure mood-making/ > > manipulation which is worthless. > > > > I don't know that I agree. I think that detachment can occur > > through maturity and experience, through living in accordance with > > your values. Even if this had nothing to do with pure > > consciousness, I disagree that it is irrelevant mood making or is > > worthless. It is functioning in a self actualized way, with > > empathy and at your best. This is worthwhile, whatever the label. > > It's funny, because while some followers of TM path claim to be > established in pure consciousness, none have yet been able to > demonstrate the actual outcome of that identification: control of > waking, dreaming and sleeping. If you're in turiyatita, or CC, you're > quite literally "beyond waking, sleeping and dreaming". It's a > perfect example of the parrot only learning to repeat what the > parrot's heard. Since meditators are given a diluted description, > they learn to identify with the definition they were given, to the > letter--but never, ever (without exception IME) any of the full > criteria. When someone only achieves what they were told, what does > that tell you? >
Its funny, the assumption made in TM theory is that CC is a *natural& state that can't be "turned on or off," so the fact that people showing signs of CC aren't in "control" of their states of consciousness the way you describe isn't seen as a big deal by TM researchers. Of course, since you've decided that "spontaneous" doesn't mean "spontaneous" then naturally people who are spontaneous can't be enlightened. L.
