--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > This seems like it might turn into an interesting discussion > of values.
Not sure "values" is the appropriate term. > Personally I don't buy the Buddha line at all. Or rather, you don't buy what you understand the "Buddha line" to be. > It goes on that even when we have pleasure it doesn't last > forever so it becomes suffering later. I find this a > juvenile approach to life's ups and downs. And some might find the above a juvenile approach to Buddha's teaching. > It isn't that life IS suffering. It can be, but the mix > often helps direct us. (not always) I was moved by a > show about a little girl who literally felt no pain so > she was constantly destroying her body. It was very sad > but shows how much value we get out of some of our pains. <facepalm> > I also want to throw in Maharishi's premise that we are > all ignorant members of the "peaceless and suffering > humanity." I find it both condescending and lacking in > merit. It is a filter, and for me, a bad one. I see > plenty of joy in the people I meet. Sometimes, > considering their circumstances, amazingly so. If you had told MMY this, do you think he would have responded, "No, no, no, you're wrong, they're all suffering and peaceless"? > It is a basic premise of spiritual systems that our lives > are a problem that needs fixing. It is the ultimate > self-help book rack assumptive premise that we all need > more of something and less of something else. And you're sure that the books on the self-help rack accurately reflect the premises of all spiritual systems? How about "200 percent of life"? Is that about more of this and less of that? > And although I do try to improve my life every day, I am > not starting with an assumption that my relationship > with the objects of perception is all wrong. Did somebody say they were? > I think this is the kind of rap that works for people > who are unhappy or young people that lack self confidence. > (me at age 16) And for nobody else, right? > It also smacks of a glorification of dissociation which > is a psychological disorder Not according to DSM-IV. >, not some higher state. > > It also lacks some of the wisdom I have stumbled across > in my own life. After how many years of meditating? > The most relevant thing for me is the revelation that > focusing outward on skill acquisition has done more for > my sense of self value than looking inward. Lawson made the excellent point the other day that TM, at least, has value only for what it brings to looking outward. <snip the rest out of boredom>
