-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- 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.
So what is a better one? > > > Personally I don't buy the Buddha line at all. > > Or rather, you don't buy what you understand the > "Buddha line" to be. That is assumed in all our writing. To bring it up is to introduce the idea that he is somehow deeper than he appears or that I am somehow not able to understand the statement. I reject both, I understand him just fine, the statement isn't that deep. I do think it is a weird spin that has little value for my life. > > > 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. If that person would like to demonstrate how specifically I could evaluate the claim. Here it is just a generic put-down. > > > 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> So perhaps you missed my point. But again, generic put-down don't score any points in this discussion. You need to back it up with actual points that can be discussed. > > > 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"? If we got into a discussion of percentages that would be likely to reveal he was on a higher percent than I would once we take out the hungry people. > > > 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? I was using self help rack figuratively to get my point across. Your literal interpretive based question does not apply to my point. > > How about "200 percent of life"? Is that about more > of this and less of that? It was bad math and marketing hype. That is not how it works out for the people most into his system. They hardly have time for the mythical other 100% > > > 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? And you can't figure out what I was referring to there? > > > 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? No only those specific people and no others. WTF Judy you are running a formula here. > > > It also smacks of a glorification of dissociation which > > is a psychological disorder > > Not according to DSM-IV. I know enough therapists who treat people for this problem to feel confident that it is a problem for some people. I'm not familiar with how the DSM treats it. > > >, 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? After how many years of stopping meditation might be the more relevant question. > > > 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. Then he is not familiar with some of Maharishi's inner circle teachings I guess which considering his exposure doesn't surprise me. > > <snip the rest out of boredom> Wow really got your condescend'n on today didn't you Judy. Sorry you didn't rise to the challenge of making points of your own instead of the formulaic "did I SAY it wasn't boring?" style that is not your best contribution here IMO. >
