On Feb 8, 2009, at 6:33 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradh...@...> wrote:
<snip>
I don't know that it should be looked at as superior. The ordinary
state of affairs is that our consciousness identifies with our body,
I'm not so sure about that. My identity is biased towards my mind and
emotions. My body is getting older but my mind and capacity to feel
is getting better. I think only very superficial people identify with
their bodies.
It's not that type of identity I'm talking about. It's not vanity or
preoccupation with the body. Identification occurs with human
development. Identification isn't an overt craving of the body, but a
seamless identification that identifies your body as separate from
all other bodies.
unless we're knocked out or have a mental illness or something like
that. Yogis make the decision to unravel and play with that
identification. Chances are that's not going to appeal to a lot of
people, who are quite happy with skin-encapsulated egos and
maintaining "ordinary" references.
I don't view people that way. Most people seem to be more similar
than different to me. They share the same cares and desires for their
loved one's lives.
Exactly, they share the same references you do. They attach to others
and they probably enjoy attachments games like romance as part of
those attachments. But from the yogic point of view--not necessarily
the Hindu POV, these are just objects. And by being caught up
unconsciously in and seamlessly in maintaining identification with
these reference point, we allow awareness--we train awareness--to
unconsciously run in a non-mindful rut.
The Vedantic and Samkhya slant on things has some appeal to me, but
being trapped in identification with external objects only has a
limited appeal to me, but it is really just the wording I don't like.
I can see for example how there is a certain ring of truth to it--the
only thing is western, (esp. American) consensus reality really
brainwashes us that it's ok, it's a good thing. For example I can see
and I know many people who are attached to objects and acquirements
and I can also see and sense how they use acquisition of objects of
temporary pleasure to maintain certain reference points that surround
their awareness and attention like an ever-changing security blanket.
But it's a moving security blanket that never gives any lasting
security or satisfaction. The mind feels satisfied by thinking over
the various reference items it likes and has "acquired", the new
boat,
the new TV, the new CD, the new scenery we need to visit in some
foreign locale. Then we run them through our mind till we get
tired of
the new items we acquired and start searching for new ones to possess
and reference and "roll over in our minds". Commercials and
advertisements constantly barrage us with objects we should like and
attach to and show us the "cool" and happy people who have them. They
seem very happy. But these are really, ultimately lies.
Most people I meet are most attached to their loved ones. There are
superficial people who are "things" oriented but most people seem
pretty clear on the value of relationships in their lives. Then you
have plenty of people engrossed in skill acquisitions of various
kinds.
What I'm referring to is not primarily people who are drooling over
their latest acquisitions or that new Beamer. Instead I'm referring
to a seamless, ingrained and unconscious habit. Unless you've decided
to mindfully look for such patterns, chances are you don't even
realize they're there.
So some people have decided that this pattern ultimately doesn't make
you happy. They devised techniques to unravel the pattern. One way is
common sensical: observe something already automatic (like your
breath) and then you slowly learn to be more aware by seeing others
things you're just doing habitually, automatically. Instead of being
caught in this push-pull, you begin to see things simply "as they
are".
This was really well said. I can relate to this. Meditation has this
value for me as well.
We can understand how that's helpful and the habitual keeping of >
"reference points" (identification with objects in that manner) isn't
necessarily a desirable thing.
I'm not sure I relate to it this way. I didn't notice that
materialistic people in the movement got less so. The people with
money seemed to run the same routines people in Northern Virginia do.
But most of them still value family over objects unless they are
complete tools!
I don't actually think that TM necessarily increases knowledge,
mindful awareness or wisdom of patterns of suffering and patterns of
identification. At least that was my experience and all TMers I've
spoken to in this regard. TM is largely involved with creating a non-
conventional experience of transcendental apperception. But I don't
buy that transcendental apperception of a transcendental-ego-Self or
atman is helpful or even a correct way to understand the
momentariness of experience and the idea that this is a "unified
field" responsible for the unity of ultimate experience. In my own
experience and neurologically speaking, I find that notion to be false.
