Let me jump into this attachment discussion.
I'd like to argue that you don't know what attachment is until you experience
pure consciousness while the mind functions. Any attempt to become unattached
through the mind is pure mood-making/manipulation which is worthless. Most
people disengage/unattach from aspects of their relative existence out of
neurotic fear, not out of a desire for realization. They want to free
themselves from the discomfort of the mind's attachment so they disengage. But
this is a mistake. Even in enlightenment the mind is still fully engaged when
dealing with relative existence. What is unattached in enlightenment is pure
conscious which has ALWAYS been unattached. But prior to realization pure
consciousness identifies with something other than itself (primarily the mind,
secondarily the body) and an ego is created. So pure awareness experiences
itself as limited. This is a delusion. This is why advaitins will say you
already are enlightened. That might be true, but its not
necessarily very helpful for popping you out of a delusion. It'd be like a
character in a dream telling you that all of this is not real. It might get you
out of the dream or you might just look at him and say, what?
--- On Mon, 2/9/09, curtisdeltablues <curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: curtisdeltablues <curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of "attachment?" (Re: All of
> Patanjali's 8 limbs )
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, February 9, 2009, 11:42 AM
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
> <jst...@...> wrote:
> >snip
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Curtis, this description of the nature of
> > identification, as the term is used in
> > enlightenment teaching, is an exceedingly rare
> > instance of near-total agreement between Vaj
> > and me. That alone should lead you to sit up
> > and take notice! (I'm referring here just to
> > the definition, not the "meaning," which is
> > a whole 'nother question.)
>
> It sounds like a positive aspect of our natural development
> and not
> anything that needs fixing to me.
>
> >
> > <snip>
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Crucial point. I think Curtis has been misled by the
> > term "objects." In this context it means
> something
> > much more general than in the standard usage, i.e.,
> > "things" as opposed to people or one's
> own body and
> > thoughts.
>
> Referring to romance as an " attachment game"
> sounds like a product of
> dissociation to me. In fact this whole world view sounds
> like a
> result of cultivating dissociation.
>
> >
> > Here's where Vaj and I don't agree:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > I don't think it has much of anything to do with
> > "mindfulness" per se. Or at least that may
> be one
> > way to diminish identification, but it's not the
> > only way.
>
> I am down with the concept of mindfulness but I don't
> view it as
> having anything to do with attachment. Being able to
> completely
> immerse yourself in an experience without any part of you
> witnessing
> the experience is a fantastic option for experience like
> sex. In NLP
> the idea is that dissociated states of awareness are useful
> in
> specific contexts but it is a mistake to think it is useful
> in all
> experiences. I prefer the model that allows me to utilize
> different
> states of mind for different experiences. This is where I
> disagree
> with the yoga traditions and I am aware that you would not
> use the
> term dissociation to describe what meditation cultivates.
> Here we
> probably disagree.
>
> >
> > <snip>
> snip
> > Or unless you have the experience of their absence,
> > however that experience is achieved...
> >
> > > chances are you don't even realize
> they're there.
> >
> > Exactly. It's the old fish-in-water analogy. The
> > fish doesn't know it's in water until it has
> the
> > experience of being *out* of the water. (I suspect
> > the analogy is also germane in that no amount of
> > mindful "analysis" by the fish will raise
> its
> > awareness that it's in water without the out-of-
> > water experience.)
>
> You have to buy into the interpretation of the higher
> states model for
> this to be meaningful.
>
> >
> > <snip>
> > > > > 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 you can't necessarily tell by behavior. The
> > subjective experience of these people may be that
> > the routines are running themselves and that they
> > aren't identifying with them, just watching
> what's
> > happening ("I do not act at all").
>
> Agreed. You can't always tell if someone is
> witnessing. Sometimes
> you can. Dissociation does have some behavior
> consequences. (Again I
> know you don't equate these states.) In my case
> witnessing does effect
> my behavior. I become more self contained and that is not
> always a
> good thing for me. A little of this goes a long way for me.
>
> >
> > > > But most of them still value family over
> objects
> > > > unless they are complete tools!
> >
> > Again, doesn't matter in this context.
> "Family"
> > are objects as well.
> >
> > > I don't actually think that TM necessarily
> > > increases knowledge, mindful awareness or wisdom
> > > of patterns of suffering and patterns of
> > > identification.
> >
> > The question is whether that's even important, as
> > long as one is having the experience of diminished
> > identification.
>
> I am still not seeing "identification" as a
> problem in human
> awareness. It is a concept that you have to buy into with
> a whole set
> of other beliefs for it to make sense including some huge
> assumptive
> ontological jumps about the nature of "reality."
>
> I am attempting to approach these concepts in an original
> way for me
> outside the assumptions of the yoga system. I am really
> enjoying this
> rap and appreciate both your and Vaj's contributions.
> Is this idea of
> "attachments" useful to you personally?
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> To subscribe, send a message to:
> fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
>
> Or go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
