-right Ruth!: -Pure C. needed to appreciate the nature of attachment? I think not. MMY was attached to $$ all along. Sai Baba is supposedly attached to little boys. So I don't get this Neo-Advaitin "attachment" principle.
- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" > <j_alexander_stanley@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <drpetersutphen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > I don't know that I agree. I think that detachment can occur > > > through maturity and experience, through living in accordance > > > with your values. Even if this had nothing to do with pure > > > consciousness, I disagree that it is irrelevant mood making or > > > is worthless. It is functioning in a self actualized way, with > > > empathy and at your best. This is worthwhile, whatever the label. > > > > I suppose an affectation of non-attachment may have some relative > > value, but it reminds me of the people I saw on the Oprah message > > boards, trying to imitate Eckhart Tolle being present to what is and > > thinking that is what it is to be awakened. For all its relative > > value, it's still not freedom. > > > I am not talking about an affectation. I am not talking about > imitating. I am talking about who you are and who you can be. You can > cultivate detachment without meditating, it has value and it is not > mere moodmaking. It is you. It is about acting in accord with your > values. Self actualized. Mediation not necessarily required. > > So, you can have empathetic detachment without an experience of pure > consciousness. Peter maintains that you can't "know" attachment until > you experience pure consciousness and I am saying that I don't know > that I agree. I do agree that you can have what I term mystical > experiences that give you an "aha" experience of what may be described > as pure consciousness. However, we do not know that it is pure > consciousness or any less mood making than any other state or any more > worthwhile than any other state. >
