[FairfieldLife] RE: "Non-attachment" vs. "Noggin-attachment"
Satyam! Yes, this explanation of Maharishi's is beautifully complete. The Buddhists are egomaniacs. Thank you for re-posting this clip. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: You state this very clear Dr.D, wonderful ! But how can those who do not develop Being understand what you are talking about when all the religions are there with all their authority and power and what not, keep muddeling the minds of men telling them more or less the exact opposite ? People WANT to hear that you don't need to spend time on any Sadhana because they are lazy. One fellow on FFL even claimed he already was enlightenmened, so no need for Sadhana - some Lama guy with a funny hat had told him. It's much easier to listen to such a fellow who speaks with authority, even claiming to represent thousands of years of wisdom, than some Californian dude :-) "The first step demands Satyam (the truth) - that which never changes, Samadi. Being in the beginning and Being in the end. This is the state of union, the beginning and end of Yoga." - Maharishi https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYKsNCyj_sE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYKsNCyj_sE
[FairfieldLife] Re: "Non-attachment" vs. "Noggin-attachment"
All you have done is prove my point further. One observation of mine, on non-attachment, vs. "noggin-attachment", is that, those who practice "noggin-attachment" create a lot of strain within themselves. Simply because, as I said, the ego cannot think, or plan, its non-existence. A stupid and wasteful idea that has gone on far too long -- as you said, over 2,500 years! Unbelievable. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: And you should believe what *I* have to say about non-attachment, because *I* have established such a track record of not being attached here on Fairfield Life. *I* mean, all those times I lost it and lashed out, insulting people and calling them names because they didn't buy my enlightened act...that WASN'T attachment. It only looked that way because you people are so damned unevolved. *Mine* is the only view that matters on this subject of non-attachment. And if any of you challenge this, *I* will argue with you to establish *my* dominance and how ignorant you are. And that's not attachment. That's just *me* being compassionate towards all of you low-lives who just aren't as evolved and as enlightened as *I* am. Why don't you people just learn to pay attention to what *I* say like the more evolved people over on BATGAP. *They* understand how special *I* am, and they believe the things I say Just Because *I* Say Them. Why don't you? What is WRONG with you? :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: > > Funny thing how one of the members of this forum recently claimed that the > state of non-attachment, could be learned, consciously. This means that the > individual, the ego, takes the responsibility for dissolving itself. Can > anyone say, "fox guarding the hen house"?? lol > > Such a misguided idea, this "noggin-attachment", and a huge waste of time. > This idea of *developing* "non-attachment", began with the misinterpretation > of what are known as the limbs of enlightenment. Instead of the teachers > recognizing, that the limbs grow simultaneously, vs. sequentially, they > fucked the whole thing up. > > These teachers, of incorrect knowledge, teach the limbs as a path, or a > series of stages, tied to conscious development, by the ego, of its supposed > non-attachment. > It is possibly a fun game, to pretend to be distanced from experience, and > supposedly non-attached, but it is in the end a huge sacrifice of human life, > towards mood-making, and false hope. > > Non-attachment cannot be learned, or faked, or thought into. It is a natural > conditioning of the nervous system that accompanies, rather than leads, > Enlightenment. There is no possibility of being just 90% or 75% or 32% > attached to experience, the play of the three gunas, and its resulting karma. > It is all or nothing. Any other attempt shows up as strained behavior, with > an implicit idea, of how this non-attachment is supposed to *feel*; life on > Fantasy Island, and nothing more. >
[FairfieldLife] RE: "Non-attachment" vs. "Noggin-attachment"
You state this very clear Dr.D, wonderful ! But how can those who do not develop Being understand what you are talking about when all the religions are there with all their authority and power and what not, keep muddeling the minds of men telling them more or less the exact opposite ? People WANT to hear that you don't need to spend time on any Sadhana because they are lazy. One fellow on FFL even claimed he already was enlightenmened, so no need for Sadhana - some Lama guy with a funny hat had told him. It's much easier to listen to such a fellow who speaks with authority, even claiming to represent thousands of years of wisdom, than some Californian dude :-) "The first step demands Satyam (the truth) - that which never changes, Samadi. Being in the beginning and Being in the end. This is the state of union, the beginning and end of Yoga." - Maharishi https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYKsNCyj_sE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYKsNCyj_sE
[FairfieldLife] Re: "Non-attachment" vs. "Noggin-attachment"
And you should believe what *I* have to say about non-attachment, because *I* have established such a track record of not being attached here on Fairfield Life. *I* mean, all those times I lost it and lashed out, insulting people and calling them names because they didn't buy my enlightened act...that WASN'T attachment. It only looked that way because you people are so damned unevolved. *Mine* is the only view that matters on this subject of non-attachment. And if any of you challenge this, *I* will argue with you to establish *my* dominance and how ignorant you are. And that's not attachment. That's just *me* being compassionate towards all of you low-lives who just aren't as evolved and as enlightened as *I* am. Why don't you people just learn to pay attention to what *I* say like the more evolved people over on BATGAP. *They* understand how special *I* am, and they believe the things I say Just Because *I* Say Them. Why don't you? What is WRONG with you? :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: > > Funny thing how one of the members of this forum recently claimed that the state of non-attachment, could be learned, consciously. This means that the individual, the ego, takes the responsibility for dissolving itself. Can anyone say, "fox guarding the hen house"?? lol > > Such a misguided idea, this "noggin-attachment", and a huge waste of time. This idea of *developing* "non-attachment", began with the misinterpretation of what are known as the limbs of enlightenment. Instead of the teachers recognizing, that the limbs grow simultaneously, vs. sequentially, they fucked the whole thing up. > > These teachers, of incorrect knowledge, teach the limbs as a path, or a series of stages, tied to conscious development, by the ego, of its supposed non-attachment. > It is possibly a fun game, to pretend to be distanced from experience, and supposedly non-attached, but it is in the end a huge sacrifice of human life, towards mood-making, and false hope. > > Non-attachment cannot be learned, or faked, or thought into. It is a natural conditioning of the nervous system that accompanies, rather than leads, Enlightenment. There is no possibility of being just 90% or 75% or 32% attached to experience, the play of the three gunas, and its resulting karma. It is all or nothing. Any other attempt shows up as strained behavior, with an implicit idea, of how this non-attachment is supposed to *feel*; life on Fantasy Island, and nothing more. >
