"curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no > > longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. > > > You know this sounds like a made-up problem to solve. I never met anyone who was lost in or identified with the objects of perception. Someone would have an unimaginable pathological lack of self awareness for this to be a problem. > > I mean this seriously because it is one of the fundamental > presuppositions of Maharishi's teaching. Can anyone here remember > when this was a problem in your life before TM? I honestly can't.
Curtis, This is the crux issue: what is the nature of Identity? I think your suspicions are well founded only if you ignore that the mind itself is an object of consciousness. Every thought-feeling (the mind) is a tar baby that allures Identity to become its soul. Moment by moment WE INVEST in objects. We enter them. We identify with them. We affirm their existence like dying folks in the desert crawling towards a mirage of an oasis. Each thought impossibly grabs us effortlessly -- we rubberneck them like roadside accidents . . . unable to avert our gazing. When I buy a new car, woe unto anyone who comes up to it and bangs it with a fist -- I will feel pain I tells ya! That's my Identity you're pounding on there bub! Just so, being a narcissist, I'm happy to report that each of my thoughts is like a new Ferrari being delivered to my driveway. Curtis, I keep banging on your door about Identity -- am I merely droning at this stage, or do you see enough wiggle room such that you are examining this assertion of mine that "Identity is non-physical" with the intent to reach a deeper clarity about it? Or do you think I'm just slinging Advaita shit that can safely be dismissed? Does ya got twelve in the juryroom still? Edg
