--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > This seems like it might turn into an interesting discussion of > values.
That's how I saw it. What, after all, are the *techniques* espoused by a person who considers *all* experiences painful likely to *result in* -- someone who enjoys life and its joys, or someone who rejects them? > Personally I don't buy the Buddha line at all. 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. I find it a *recluse* perspective on life. > It isn't that life IS suffering. It can be, but the mix > often helps direct us. (not always) Exactly. What you focus on you become. Patanjali focuses *on the negative*, and thus sees *all* experience as some- thing to be considered painful. Seems like a waste of a lifetime to me. > 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. > > 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. But mainly condescending, as was the Patanjali line. The people who are enjoying their lives are "acting from the fruits of IGNORANCE." > 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. I knew you'd get this Curtis. I also knew that some others would react purely to the fact that I was dismissing something they consider "scripture." Scripture schmipture...if it doesn't make any sense to me, I dismiss it. :-) > 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. *Exactly* why I have rejected all such paths these days. If they believe that I need to be "fixed," I'm just not interested. Let them go "fix" their dogs. :-) > 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. 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) Exactly. What is sad is that so many buy into spiritual traditions *during* this period, but are then never allowed to outgrow such assumptions as they gain more experience in the world. They are expected by the spiritual tradition to *stay* unhappy and to *stay* lacking in self confidence forever, and thus to *stay* in need of the tradition's "services." > It also smacks of a glorification of dissociation which > is a psychological disorder, not some higher state. Bingo. Do you think Patanjali would have been much fun to hang with? I don't. > It also lacks some of the wisdom I have stumbled across > in my own life. 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. Absolutely. One gets external feedback when acquiring skills. One does not when lost in a subjective haze. > Rather than teach people that they need to shut their > eyes I would say open them and focus on attaining > proficiency in some skill you admire. When you get > pooped with your efforts you can close you eyes to > recharge if you feel like it, but don't think that > closing your eyes is going to bring you fulfillment. Sounds right to me. > Our inner "awareness" is so over rated in spiritual > systems IMO. Some of the most boring people I have ever > met are the most into their inner lives. Also some of the most pompous and condescending. How, after all, can other people ever live up to their fantasies about themselves. :-) > Frankly I was the most boring I have ever been when I > was most into my "inner life". My interactions with > people are richer now, not because I meditate, it is > because I focus on learning more about other people > and other cultures and other ways to see the world. In my case, my best friend has known me for 20 years now. She knew me when I was into my "inner phase," and she knows me now. She definitely prefers the latter. > This is just a ramble but it is leading in the direction > of how I feel about spirituality. I don't need to stand > in line for hours waiting for a stranger to hug me. Or to beam some shakti at me. :-) > I have people I love in my life for that. Bingo. On both counts. :-) > I don't need to spend hours making my awareness itself grow. > I need hours focusing my awareness on things that make my > mind grow. And on people who make my heart grow. And on > exercises that make my muscles grow. And on hotties who > make my... My kinda philosophy. > you get the picture. I am the guy that spiritual books warn > against. I have more in common with this girl than any yogi: > > http://www.maniacworld.com/young-girl-turns-to-the-dark-side.html Party on, Darth. :-) Thanks for "catching the wave" and taking this thread in the spirit in which it was started, Curtis. I think people who have listened to spiritual propaganda for many decades tend to *lose track* of exactly what it is they are buying in to. In the case of the quote that started this thread, if they revere Patanjali as "wise," they are buying into a philosophy that teaches that all experiences are painful. How open to life and to other sentient beings are people who actually *believe* this going to be?
