[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[John]

What about the statement by Maharishi that: 'Evolution never ends, it 
goes on for ever and ever'.

Brahman consciousness itself is said to just be the pinnacle of 
individual evolution, there is nothing more he can do for himself.

For the man in Brahman to evolve he then must become the tool for 
society to evolve, the teacher, then he can continue to grow.

Now when you get a few people in Brahman together then things must 
get really interesting!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 
no_re...@... wrote:

 i am still trying to figure out why on earth i would want a rainbow 
 body...color me clueless about that- lol. 
 
 seriously, to say there are states of evolution beyond 
enlightenment 
 again presupposes enlightenment as something finite. it isn't. even 
 the rainbow body phenomenon if it exists could be said to be a 
 progression of continuing enlightenment, the final attainment of 
 which doesn't exist, because enlightenment in its fully ripened 
form 
 encompasses -everything-, relative and absolute.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifuxero@ 
 wrote:
 
  ---great!...and there are stages of evolution beyond 
 Enlightenment; 
  to begin with, some form of physical perfection then evolving 
 toward 
  the attainment of a Glorified body.  Of course, such evolutionary 
  developments are relative, but nevertheless possibly where 
 humanity 
  is headed.
   Neo-Advaitins typically downplay such progressions.  Vaj called 
 the 
  attainment of a Glorified Rainbow Light Body an epiphenomenon.
  Of course, all of this is speculative anyway; but the notion that 
  Enlightenment is some type of pinnacle seems counterintuitive. 
A 
  phase-transition would probably be a more appropriate phrase.
  But even then, everything has to be placed into the context of 
 what 
  people want, what makes them happy, and where they believe lies 
 the 
  source of happiness.
  
  
   In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ 
  wrote:
  
   in order to attempt an understanding of enlightenment, the 
 waking 
   state mind conceptualizes enlightenment as an object, with 
   conventional attributes and boundaries. but enlightenment is 
   unbounded by its very definition, without attributes and 
  boundaries. 
   
   so when the identification of the mind itself changes from 
bound 
 to 
   an entity that constantly grows and expands, and continues to 
   expand, that is the change of the mind that occurs with 
   enlightenment. anything the waking state mind attempts to latch 
   onto, and think, yes, THAT is enlightenment will necessarily 
 be 
   incorrect. 
   
   enlightenment is a process, beginning with a fundamental change 
 in 
   identification, from self to Self. that is why there are three 
   distinct stages of enlightenment in the TM lexiccn, and many 
 many 
   more stages beyond that. to think incorrectly of waking state 
   morphing into another bound atate, the state of enlightenment, 
 is a 
   mental trick with no value.
   
   the first establishment of enlightenment, CC, is just the 
  beginning, 
   and neither that, nor any other state of enlightenment that 
 ripens 
   subsequently, can be conceptualized by the waking state mind.
   
   conceptualization needs at least two values, both fixed. so if 
a 
   person from waking state, a fixed value, attempts to 
 conceptualize 
  a 
   second, elightened state, which is not fixed but ever 
expanding, 
   there is no way to compare the two, no way to bridge the 
 apparent 
   distance between the fixed and the not fixed, by thinking. it 
is 
   like trying to mathematically compute all of the numbers 
between 
  one 
   and infinity. impossible. 
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ 
   wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Larry inmadison@ 
 wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan 
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. 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, 

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[Marek Reavis]

Great thread.  I'm posting some comments following up on Richard's in 
a very loose fashion. 

Like Richard's experience, my sense of self is a presence that is 
unengaged and without attributes.  In my funky example of the bagel's 
hole, it (self) is defined by what surrounds it but is in itself 
without attributes.  The configuration of this body which was born 
some 57 years ago and the mind and personality that accompany it just 
draw the attention of that; they overlay that without (apparently) 
affecting it.

Curtis, you use the terms disassociation and depersonalization as 
necessary and negative corollaries to the experience of such an 
unengaged awareness of self, but that doesn't tally with my 
experience.  My mental and physical engagement with the world of work 
and play and study appears to be robust (and alternately pleasurable 
or not as circumstances dictate) but the sense of that which underlies  
it all provides a real sense of flow, which as it is reflected in mind 
and body, itself provides a great feeling of pleasure and peace.

It doesn't feel like a round robin of the aggregate of my mind 
parceling out one portion and contemplating it, and then reassembling 
and parceling out another portion of my mind and thinking about that.  
It does feel as though the body and mind draw the attention of that 
and, voila, there is positive experience through the body and through 
the mind that wasn't there before, even though I was precedent.  The 
analogy of radio or television transmissions that exist independently 
of any receivers, but when a receiver is constructed, turned on, and 
tuned it, suddenly there is the experience of the underlying 
transmission, seems to more or less describe my understanding and my 
experience.

As to how a single whole self can underly all the different 
personalities that are doesn't seem all that perplexing to me.  I've 
got lots of parts of my body that I don't pay attention to, but if I 
want, I can put my attention on a finger or a toe or any other 
discernible portion and it doesn't mean that I've just found them.  If 
I lose an eye or a limb or a finger, there is a loss to the body (or 
the mind in the case of dementia, for instance) but I'd be hard 
pressed to define that as a loss of my self.  And again, the 
transmission/receiver analogy similarly demonstrates that the same 
transmission is received by as many receivers that are compatible with 
the transmission.  The addition or loss of any or all receivers 
doesn't affect the transmission at all.

Anyway, just some quick riffing on a subject that is at the heart of 
what I'm still dealing with, and I really appreciate both your 
participation in this thread.  I agree, this is a work in progress for 
me and one of the great things about FFL is that I've come to the 
understanding and appreciation of just that.

Marek

**
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ 
  
   I don't think I *am* anything - I prefer to think that I am the
   possibility of being/experiencing something (anything?). In some 
odd
   way my self is the negative pole to the *positive* of the 
objective
   world (objective here meaning all objects of consciousness,
  whether they be the sun, moon  stars, or beefburgers, or my
  feelings, sensations  dreams). 
  
  That sounds a little depersonalized to me.  How was your lunch?  
The
  guy who can answer that is the the guy I mean.  
 
 Ha! That guy's gone. Was that me?
 
 But I agree. It IS a little depersonalized. The problem with my 
feel
 for how things are is in explaining how there is more than one 
*self*,
 more than one identity.
 
   The BIG problem with my way of looking at things is - why am I
   different from you? Why do I wake up as the same self every 
morning
   (and not, by chance, someone else? Or perhaps I do? The *hard*
  problem is, after all, really, really, well...hard!
  
  I think we have some pretty compelling evidence that our separate
  bodies and brains have something to do with this.  I believe our
  consciousness is an emergent quality of our brains activity.  
 
 OK. But I think this is pure faith on your part. I put it to you
 that we have no understanding whatsoever about what consciousness 
is,
 least of all how it emerges. What we have is hubris over Science. 
And
 in this, I don't think you are with me in how I feel about objects 
of
 consciousness. My objects are your subjective states. 
 
  ( I
  experiment with bourbon to check occasionally.  There is a 
definite
  connection!)  
 
 Yes bourbon definitely affects the objects of consciousness!
 
  Assuming that you might wake up as someone else without
  swapping brains seems fanciful. (But a great movie premise!) 
 
 Where did you get your brain ideas? Do you consider that they be 
wrong?
 
 In what sense is the brain 

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote:

ME
  
  I do and it isn't ED. My identity is not the silent quality of my mind
  that exists in my activity.  That is not a self evident experience. 
  It takes a belief system to support it.  Just because I have a silent
  quality of my mind doesn't mean that is the part I identify as my
  self.  For me it is the least interesting quality of my mind.  Not
  that is has no uses. But my identity lie with the parts of me that I
  value most.
 
 Interesting post. If I may ask, if you are agreeable to share, what
is the part of you that you most value? (of course there is a quick,
 obvious answer - but beyond that.) 

Sorry for the delay in response.  The question of our self identity
really interests me, and I appreciate your weighing in on it.  I also
appreciate that in your joke your referred the the most obvious answer
for my most valued part as the quick answer rather than the
shortest answer! (The rumors that past girlfriends have used the
phrase hung like a field mouse in their descriptions caused me a lot
of bad press that I would like to avoid.)

The approach of cutting a person's inner qualities into parts doesn't
work too well for me in discussing what I value about my inner state
of identity.  And by saying that the silent quality of my mind is not
the most interesting part I don't mean that I don't value it.  But it
is the parts of my inner being that are associated with my personality
and interests that give my life meaning.  To use an analogy, I need my
spinal chord, but it is kind of a given that I don't pay much
attention to.  It is the more self reflective cortex that gets my
attention and gives me the most conscious neuronal bang for my buck. 

 
 And silent quality of the mind is kind a snoozer for me. Who would
 identify with that -- as described as such. 
 
 I find a natural affinity for what I internally hazily refer to as 
 Sun. Its a silent quality of the mind, I suppose, but thats not the
 salient thing about it. If there is a bright light of warmth within
 you (these are poetic descriptions qualities, not literal, but it
 feels in the radiant class of things) then, at least for me, identity
 seems to be with that rather than social identity or achievements.
 Though the whole concept of identity is perhaps not even a good
 descriptor. Its not anything like my social identity. And this may not
 be the silent quality of the mind ED is referring to. And it may not
 correspond to anything ancients felt. Given that -- we cannot
 experience what another does, for sure, and no one can adequately
 describe inner states completely.

This was a thoughtful attempt to describe your inner experience
without jargon which I appreciate.  It seems if I understand you that
you are identifying with a spiritual concept framework with a healthy
dose of honesty about what you know and what you don't.  I think I am
still on the social identity side of the fence for where I place my
inner value.  
 
 
  I know it is appealing to believe that your perspective is a universal
  truth.  
 
 Have you seen the show Weeds. There is a great shot of The Church of
 Absolute Truth -- a bit of a flim flam church. Which to me is a
 perfect image. How would one determine if something was universally
 true. There are lots of different people -- and the universe is quite
 large. We would only know if The Church of Absolute Truth (pick your
 own denomination, TMO, Republicanism, fundamentalists ..) tells us its
 true.  And we are one of the ones born every second.

Here here!  I have seen some Weeds episodes, funny show.
 
 
 But we all interpret our internal experience our own way.  I
  spent time with a lot of monks who did TM and they never indentifed
  the silence of their minds in activity as their true self.
 
 What did they identify with? Some aspect of Christ? 

If I could presume to speak for them I think they identified with the
part of themselves that chose to be one with Christ through the
instrumentality of silence.  They were big on the idea that
experiencing the absolute didn't make your spiritual life a done
deal, that a lot of conscious choice was still involved. Relating to 
the experience of the mystics without including this aspect is a
common fallacy of Westerners involved with Eastern Spirituality. There
are similar descriptions, but the differences include some real deal
breakers for the Christians.  It is in the differences that you find
the most interesting components of the beliefs. The ecumenical buzz
can obscure them if you only look for similar mystical experience
descriptions. It is what you do in those states that make a Christian
different. (I don't self identify with either group.) 
 
   They
  considered this a critical theological difference between Maharishi
  and their POV.  
 
 A comment from a priest I know who started TM -- and while taking
the SCI course said diplomatically I am used to a bit more rigo

SCI was an 

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavisma...@...
wrote:

 Curtis, your POV on this subject has been of great value for me.  For 
 myself, the cultural value placed on the silent witness by Maharishi 
 and other vedanta teachers, is something I'm still willing to affirm, 
 based on my own experience, that has some more universal human 
 value.  It does seem noumenal as opposed to phenomenal, but there's 
 no way to confirm that it is actually universal and transcendent to 
 all things.  Nevertheless, I can understand how this experience would 
 give rise to the basic philosophy of vedanta that Maharishi 
 originally spoke about and taught.
 
 And in my own life experiences, I haven't run across people who speak 
 of anything like witnessing or seem to be able to relate to it.  No 
 one I know, at least.  I'm happy enough with this personality but it 
 seems to be more like a torus, or a bagel, and the hole of the bagel 
 is where I am (or something like that -- I've tried to reply to 
 this thread and the one that preceeded it several times now and I 
 can't seem to be able to express what it is that I feel about the 
 subject, but this is my best try so far).
 
 Anyway, thanks, and a great discussion.
 
 Marek


Sorry for the delay in response Marek.  I also wrote a long answer to
your other thoughtful post on this topic a while back and when I lost
it I couldn't get myself to reconstruct it again.  But you have really
gotten my intent in this thread, a fresh look at what the term
witnessing means and where we place our self identity.  I don't
believe that the assumptions in the yoga systems are the best we can
do.  They seem to start with assumptions rather than conclude them
from the experiences.  I believe we are in the infancy of
understanding what these experiences mean and believe that the best
understanding is ahead of us.  I'm glad non believers like Sam Harris
are continuing an interest in meditation in a secular context combined
with neuro-biology study.  

Assuming that most people are functioning in a fundamentally different
way from  experienced meditators doesn't seem right to me since
meditators (myself included) don't seem to exhibit enough difference
in behavior to warrant that assumption.  It seems to be a matter of
emphasis of attention for parts of ourselves that we all share.  But
if a person finds value in skewing their attention to one aspect of
themselves and finds personal value and meaning in that, who am I to
personally question that choice?

OTOH I'm not inclined to assume that they have gained any deeper
insight into the meaning of life than the Ethiopian immigrant who
served me lunch yesterday and who spent 8 years on prison for
political crimes.  He seemed to have a pretty profound grasp on
reality and was freely dispensing some very useful perspectives on the
value and meaning of life that had no relationship to the Vedic one.

I guess we all choosing our own values and meaning as we go along. 
And like the existentialists, I am adverse to pre-packaged assumptions
that claim to represent complete knowledge. 








 Comment below:
 
 **
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
  
Do you feel that it is your true nature or real self?  Why?
   
   If silence is more consistent than non-silence, how could you NOT
  identify it as being more real than non-silence?
  
  Perhaps that kind of consistency is not the only measure. 
  
  My sense of my self includes the silent part of my mind, but it is 
 not
  the only consistent part of my internal world.  I have other 
 personal
  tendencies that have been a part of me as long as I have known 
 myself.
   Just because a part of my mind can be awake during sleep doesn't 
 mean
  that is my identity.  In fact it retains nothing of what I value 
 about
  myself so it is definitely not the best aspect of who I am.
  
  Most meditators have adapted Maharishi's interpretation of what
  constitutes the self.  I am not arguing that you should stop if you
  enjoy that POV.  But I don't share it.  I interpret my experiences
  differently.  This identification is not a set thing, it is shaped 
 by
  pre-suppositional beliefs.  
  
  
  
  
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5
dhamiltony2k5@ wrote:

 Curtis writes in this, I don't share his (Maharishi's) view
 that the silence experienced in meditation is our true nature 
 or our
 real self.
 
 Ouch, is that right? True?

Without the belief system mindset experiencing the silence of
meditation is not obviously my true nature or real self.  
 It is
just a state of mind I can experience. I don't know what it 
 means but
I would not on my own assume it was a part of me that survives 
 death
for example, 

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[Richard M]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltabl...@... wrote:

[snip]

 The approach of cutting a person's inner qualities into parts doesn't
 work too well for me in discussing what I value about my inner state
 of identity.  And by saying that the silent quality of my mind is not
 the most interesting part I don't mean that I don't value it.  But it
 is the parts of my inner being that are associated with my personality
 and interests that give my life meaning.  

that give my life meaning - to *whom*? Which parts of your inner
being get meaned to? (Sorry. I know, I'm being facetious. But I
can't help it!)

 To use an analogy, I need my
 spinal chord, but it is kind of a given that I don't pay much
 attention to.  It is the more self reflective cortex that gets my
 attention and gives me the most conscious neuronal bang for my buck. 
 
  
[grate.swan} 
  And silent quality of the mind is kind a snoozer for me. Who would
  identify with that -- as described as such. 

*Who* would be doing the identifying? (Sorry, there I go again!)

[lots snipped]

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
 [snip]
 
  The approach of cutting a person's inner qualities into parts doesn't
  work too well for me in discussing what I value about my inner state
  of identity.  And by saying that the silent quality of my mind is not
  the most interesting part I don't mean that I don't value it.  But it
  is the parts of my inner being that are associated with my personality
  and interests that give my life meaning.  
 
 that give my life meaning - to *whom*? Which parts of your inner
 being get meaned to? (Sorry. I know, I'm being facetious. But I
 can't help it!)

Thanks for continuing the thought.  Following Decart's first
principles that I think therefor I am, self awareness is a primary
aspect of our humanity.  We are aware of our own meanings.  The
linguistic convention that we use the phrase I am aware Does not
imply that there is some hidden element of I beyond our awareness
itself.  The whole concept of 'meaning in one's life only have
validity within the framework of our own chosen standards.  To ask
what meaning life has in a more general universal way is a
linguistic error.  The words don't go together with a valid meaning
just because we can construct the sentence.  Everything we have words
for doesn't have to exist.

So I am aware of my standards and how well my life activities conform
to them.  I don't have a need for anything else to oversee the process
outside the process of being aware of it. 

 
  To use an analogy, I need my
  spinal chord, but it is kind of a given that I don't pay much
  attention to.  It is the more self reflective cortex that gets my
  attention and gives me the most conscious neuronal bang for my buck. 
  
   
 [grate.swan} 
   And silent quality of the mind is kind a snoozer for me. Who would
   identify with that -- as described as such. 
 
 *Who* would be doing the identifying? (Sorry, there I go again!)

This was Grate.swan's phrase.  But for me, you are using the word
who out of context here.  Although we can construct separate
linguistic terms for our self, that doesn't mean these parts
actually exist.

I am rejecting that the Vedic/Hindu assertion that the silent part of
our mind experienced in meditation is somehow our true self.  The
I in this sentence refers to the conglomerate of awareness that can
pay attention to the quiet aspect of my mind if I choose, but is more
likely to attend to the part of me that is figuring out my next guitar
piece. It is not my experience that just because the silent part can
witness activity of my mind, it is somehow the container of my
awareness.  That may be more of a function of memory. (reference the
great movie Momento) 



 
 [lots snipped]

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[Richard M]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltabl...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
  [snip]
  
   The approach of cutting a person's inner qualities into parts
doesn't
   work too well for me in discussing what I value about my inner state
   of identity.  And by saying that the silent quality of my mind
is not
   the most interesting part I don't mean that I don't value it. 
But it
   is the parts of my inner being that are associated with my
personality
   and interests that give my life meaning.  
  
  that give my life meaning - to *whom*? Which parts of your inner
  being get meaned to? (Sorry. I know, I'm being facetious. But I
  can't help it!)
 
 Thanks for continuing the thought.  Following Decart's first
 principles that I think therefor I am, self awareness is a primary
 aspect of our humanity.  

Yes, that's reasonable (following Descartes)

 We are aware of our own meanings.  

Er.. that's gone somewhere else! (following Descartes)

 The
 linguistic convention that we use the phrase I am aware Does not
 imply that there is some hidden element of I beyond our awareness
 itself.  

It doesn't rule it out either.

The in itself quite distinct form the for itself (following
Sartre, in turn following Descartes) is the BIG mystery of
self-identity IMO (and is also related to the the hard problem of
consciousness).

I don't think I *am* anything - I prefer to think that I am the
possibility of being/experiencing something (anything?). In some odd
way my self is the negative pole to the *positive* of the objective
world (objective here meaning all objects of consciousness, whether
they be the sun, moon  stars, or beefburgers, or my feelings,
sensations  dreams). 

The BIG problem with my way of looking at things is - why am I
different from you? Why do I wake up as the same self every morning
(and not, by chance, someone else? Or perhaps I do? The *hard* problem
is, after all, really, really, well...hard!

 The whole concept of 'meaning in one's life only have
 validity within the framework of our own chosen standards.  To ask
 what meaning life has in a more general universal way is a
 linguistic error.  The words don't go together with a valid meaning
 just because we can construct the sentence.  Everything we have words
 for doesn't have to exist.
 
 So I am aware of my standards and how well my life activities conform
 to them.  I don't have a need for anything else to oversee the process
 outside the process of being aware of it. 
 
  
   To use an analogy, I need my
   spinal chord, but it is kind of a given that I don't pay much
   attention to.  It is the more self reflective cortex that gets my
   attention and gives me the most conscious neuronal bang for my
buck. 
   

  [grate.swan} 
And silent quality of the mind is kind a snoozer for me. Who
would
identify with that -- as described as such. 
  
  *Who* would be doing the identifying? (Sorry, there I go again!)
 
 This was Grate.swan's phrase.  But for me, you are using the word
 who out of context here.  Although we can construct separate
 linguistic terms for our self, that doesn't mean these parts
 actually exist.
 
 I am rejecting that the Vedic/Hindu assertion that the silent part of
 our mind experienced in meditation is somehow our true self.  The
 I in this sentence refers to the conglomerate of awareness that can
 pay attention to the quiet aspect of my mind if I choose, but is more
 likely to attend to the part of me that is figuring out my next guitar
 piece. It is not my experience that just because the silent part can
 witness activity of my mind, it is somehow the container of my
 awareness.  That may be more of a function of memory. (reference the
 great movie Momento) 
 
 
 
  
  [lots snipped]
 

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... 

 I don't think I *am* anything - I prefer to think that I am the
 possibility of being/experiencing something (anything?). In some odd
 way my self is the negative pole to the *positive* of the objective
 world (objective here meaning all objects of consciousness,
whether they be the sun, moon  stars, or beefburgers, or my
feelings, sensations  dreams). 

That sounds a little depersonalized to me.  How was your lunch?  The
guy who can answer that is the the guy I mean.  

 
 The BIG problem with my way of looking at things is - why am I
 different from you? Why do I wake up as the same self every morning
 (and not, by chance, someone else? Or perhaps I do? The *hard*
problem is, after all, really, really, well...hard!

I think we have some pretty compelling evidence that our separate
bodies and brains have something to do with this.  I believe our
consciousness is an emergent quality of our brains activity.  ( I
experiment with bourbon to check occasionally.  There is a definite
connection!)  Assuming that you might wake up as someone else without
swapping brains seems fanciful. (But a great movie premise!) 



wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
   curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
   
   [snip]
   
The approach of cutting a person's inner qualities into parts
 doesn't
work too well for me in discussing what I value about my inner
state
of identity.  And by saying that the silent quality of my mind
 is not
the most interesting part I don't mean that I don't value it. 
 But it
is the parts of my inner being that are associated with my
 personality
and interests that give my life meaning.  
   
   that give my life meaning - to *whom*? Which parts of your inner
   being get meaned to? (Sorry. I know, I'm being facetious. But I
   can't help it!)
  
  Thanks for continuing the thought.  Following Decart's first
  principles that I think therefor I am, self awareness is a primary
  aspect of our humanity.  
 
 Yes, that's reasonable (following Descartes)
 
  We are aware of our own meanings.  
 
 Er.. that's gone somewhere else! (following Descartes)
 
  The
  linguistic convention that we use the phrase I am aware Does not
  imply that there is some hidden element of I beyond our awareness
  itself.  
 
 It doesn't rule it out either.
 
 The in itself quite distinct form the for itself (following
 Sartre, in turn following Descartes) is the BIG mystery of
 self-identity IMO (and is also related to the the hard problem of
 consciousness).
 
 I don't think I *am* anything - I prefer to think that I am the
 possibility of being/experiencing something (anything?). In some odd
 way my self is the negative pole to the *positive* of the objective
 world (objective here meaning all objects of consciousness, whether
 they be the sun, moon  stars, or beefburgers, or my feelings,
 sensations  dreams). 
 
 The BIG problem with my way of looking at things is - why am I
 different from you? Why do I wake up as the same self every morning
 (and not, by chance, someone else? Or perhaps I do? The *hard* problem
 is, after all, really, really, well...hard!
 
  The whole concept of 'meaning in one's life only have
  validity within the framework of our own chosen standards.  To ask
  what meaning life has in a more general universal way is a
  linguistic error.  The words don't go together with a valid meaning
  just because we can construct the sentence.  Everything we have words
  for doesn't have to exist.
  
  So I am aware of my standards and how well my life activities conform
  to them.  I don't have a need for anything else to oversee the process
  outside the process of being aware of it. 
  
   
To use an analogy, I need my
spinal chord, but it is kind of a given that I don't pay much
attention to.  It is the more self reflective cortex that gets my
attention and gives me the most conscious neuronal bang for my
 buck. 

 
   [grate.swan} 
 And silent quality of the mind is kind a snoozer for me. Who
 would
 identify with that -- as described as such. 
   
   *Who* would be doing the identifying? (Sorry, there I go again!)
  
  This was Grate.swan's phrase.  But for me, you are using the word
  who out of context here.  Although we can construct separate
  linguistic terms for our self, that doesn't mean these parts
  actually exist.
  
  I am rejecting that the Vedic/Hindu assertion that the silent part of
  our mind experienced in meditation is somehow our true self.  The
  I in this sentence refers to the conglomerate of awareness that can
  pay attention to the quiet aspect of my mind if I choose, but is more
  likely to attend to the part of me that is figuring out my next guitar
  piece. It is not my experience that 

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[Richard M]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltabl...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ 
 
  I don't think I *am* anything - I prefer to think that I am the
  possibility of being/experiencing something (anything?). In some odd
  way my self is the negative pole to the *positive* of the objective
  world (objective here meaning all objects of consciousness,
 whether they be the sun, moon  stars, or beefburgers, or my
 feelings, sensations  dreams). 
 
 That sounds a little depersonalized to me.  How was your lunch?  The
 guy who can answer that is the the guy I mean.  

Ha! That guy's gone. Was that me?

But I agree. It IS a little depersonalized. The problem with my feel
for how things are is in explaining how there is more than one *self*,
more than one identity.

  The BIG problem with my way of looking at things is - why am I
  different from you? Why do I wake up as the same self every morning
  (and not, by chance, someone else? Or perhaps I do? The *hard*
 problem is, after all, really, really, well...hard!
 
 I think we have some pretty compelling evidence that our separate
 bodies and brains have something to do with this.  I believe our
 consciousness is an emergent quality of our brains activity.  

OK. But I think this is pure faith on your part. I put it to you
that we have no understanding whatsoever about what consciousness is,
least of all how it emerges. What we have is hubris over Science. And
in this, I don't think you are with me in how I feel about objects of
consciousness. My objects are your subjective states. 

 ( I
 experiment with bourbon to check occasionally.  There is a definite
 connection!)  

Yes bourbon definitely affects the objects of consciousness!

 Assuming that you might wake up as someone else without
 swapping brains seems fanciful. (But a great movie premise!) 

Where did you get your brain ideas? Do you consider that they be wrong?

In what sense is the brain you have the *same* as the brain you had
thirty years ago? All the molecules have changed. The patterns have
changed. Are you not the same person as thirty years ago? (Just trying
to rumble your assumption of materialism!)

 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@
wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:

[snip]

 The approach of cutting a person's inner qualities into parts
  doesn't
 work too well for me in discussing what I value about my inner
 state
 of identity.  And by saying that the silent quality of my mind
  is not
 the most interesting part I don't mean that I don't value it. 
  But it
 is the parts of my inner being that are associated with my
  personality
 and interests that give my life meaning.  

that give my life meaning - to *whom*? Which parts of your inner
being get meaned to? (Sorry. I know, I'm being facetious. But I
can't help it!)
   
   Thanks for continuing the thought.  Following Decart's first
   principles that I think therefor I am, self awareness is a primary
   aspect of our humanity.  
  
  Yes, that's reasonable (following Descartes)
  
   We are aware of our own meanings.  
  
  Er.. that's gone somewhere else! (following Descartes)
  
   The
   linguistic convention that we use the phrase I am aware Does not
   imply that there is some hidden element of I beyond our awareness
   itself.  
  
  It doesn't rule it out either.
  
  The in itself quite distinct form the for itself (following
  Sartre, in turn following Descartes) is the BIG mystery of
  self-identity IMO (and is also related to the the hard problem of
  consciousness).
  
  I don't think I *am* anything - I prefer to think that I am the
  possibility of being/experiencing something (anything?). In some odd
  way my self is the negative pole to the *positive* of the objective
  world (objective here meaning all objects of consciousness, whether
  they be the sun, moon  stars, or beefburgers, or my feelings,
  sensations  dreams). 
  
  The BIG problem with my way of looking at things is - why am I
  different from you? Why do I wake up as the same self every morning
  (and not, by chance, someone else? Or perhaps I do? The *hard* problem
  is, after all, really, really, well...hard!
  
   The whole concept of 'meaning in one's life only have
   validity within the framework of our own chosen standards.  To ask
   what meaning life has in a more general universal way is a
   linguistic error.  The words don't go together with a valid meaning
   just because we can construct the sentence.  Everything we have
words
   for doesn't have to exist.
   
   So I am aware of my standards and how well my life activities
conform
   to them.  I don't have a need for anything else to oversee the
process
   outside the process of being aware 

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[grate . swan]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltabl...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote:
 
 ME
   
   I do and it isn't ED. My identity is not the silent quality of
my mind
   that exists in my activity.  That is not a self evident experience. 
   It takes a belief system to support it.  Just because I have a
silent
   quality of my mind doesn't mean that is the part I identify as my
   self.  For me it is the least interesting quality of my mind.  Not
   that is has no uses. But my identity lie with the parts of me that I
   value most.
  
  Interesting post. If I may ask, if you are agreeable to share, what
 is the part of you that you most value? (of course there is a quick,
  obvious answer - but beyond that.) 
 
 Sorry for the delay in response.  The question of our self identity
 really interests me, and I appreciate your weighing in on it.  I also
 appreciate that in your joke your referred the the most obvious answer
 for my most valued part as the quick answer rather than the
 shortest answer! (The rumors that past girlfriends have used the
 phrase hung like a field mouse in their descriptions caused me a lot
 of bad press that I would like to avoid.)


 
 The approach of cutting a person's inner qualities into parts doesn't
 work too well for me in discussing what I value about my inner state
 of identity. 

Yes, parts was  part of what I was exploring. (There is a good joke
there, but I cannot craft it well, so I will just chuckle like Beavis
and move on). 

And as with parts I have trouble with identity and wonder if this
concept is in itself a bogus and grand detour if not imaginary.
Identify requires a subject and object. Perhaps there should be a
warning label on the word, beware, you  are ending a huge trap from
which the best have become ensnarled). Beyond breaking life into
three (artificial) parts, why even the need for identity?   

Why settle for a part and why settle for identity? Why even settle for
I. 

How can a part have any meaning outside of the whole? 

DNA, evolution, the big bang, curved time-space, vibrating strings and
100 billion neural connections are.  Enough said (if not too much
already). 

Why do we try to sniff out meaning everywhere (the image of dogs comes
to mind). While not a huge figure in my life, having recently reread
some Camus -- isn't being happy as we push the rock up the hill
enough? And happy to see it rumble to the valley floor?

While this may be indulgent and abstract -- where are we left if we
let go of even the concept of identity, parts and meaning?



 And by saying that the silent quality of my mind is not
 the most interesting part I don't mean that I don't value it.  But it
 is the parts of my inner being that are associated with my personality
 and interests that give my life meaning.  To use an analogy, I need my
 spinal chord, but it is kind of a given that I don't pay much
 attention to.  It is the more self reflective cortex that gets my
 attention and gives me the most conscious neuronal bang for my buck. 
 
  
  And silent quality of the mind is kind a snoozer for me. Who would
  identify with that -- as described as such. 
  
  I find a natural affinity for what I internally hazily refer to as 
  Sun. Its a silent quality of the mind, I suppose, but thats not the
  salient thing about it. If there is a bright light of warmth within
  you (these are poetic descriptions qualities, not literal, but it
  feels in the radiant class of things) then, at least for me, identity
  seems to be with that rather than social identity or achievements.
  Though the whole concept of identity is perhaps not even a good
  descriptor. Its not anything like my social identity. And this may not
  be the silent quality of the mind ED is referring to. And it may not
  correspond to anything ancients felt. Given that -- we cannot
  experience what another does, for sure, and no one can adequately
  describe inner states completely.
 
 This was a thoughtful attempt to describe your inner experience
 without jargon which I appreciate.  It seems if I understand you that
 you are identifying with a spiritual concept framework with a healthy
 dose of honesty about what you know and what you don't.  I think I am
 still on the social identity side of the fence for where I place my
 inner value.  
  
  
   I know it is appealing to believe that your perspective is a
universal
   truth.  
  
  Have you seen the show Weeds. There is a great shot of The Church of
  Absolute Truth -- a bit of a flim flam church. Which to me is a
  perfect image. How would one determine if something was universally
  true. There are lots of different people -- and the universe is quite
  large. We would only know if The Church of Absolute Truth (pick your
  own denomination, TMO, Republicanism, fundamentalists ..) tells us its
  true.  And we are one of the ones born every second.
 
 Here here!  I have seen some Weeds episodes, 

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[grate . swan]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltabl...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote:
 
  And silent quality of the mind is kind a snoozer for me. Who would
  identify with that -- as described as such. 
  
  I find a natural affinity for what I internally hazily refer to as 
  Sun. Its a silent quality of the mind, I suppose, but thats not the
  salient thing about it. If there is a bright light of warmth within
  you (these are poetic descriptions qualities, not literal, but it
  feels in the radiant class of things) then, at least for me, identity
  seems to be with that rather than social identity or achievements.
  Though the whole concept of identity is perhaps not even a good
  descriptor. Its not anything like my social identity. And this may not
  be the silent quality of the mind ED is referring to. And it may not
  correspond to anything ancients felt. Given that -- we cannot
  experience what another does, for sure, and no one can adequately
  describe inner states completely.
 
 This was a thoughtful attempt to describe your inner experience
 without jargon which I appreciate.  It seems if I understand you that
 you are identifying with a spiritual concept framework 

Actually, I am working to get out of any concept -- spiritual or
otherwise -- or framework. And simply describe identity as I
experience it. But having shattered identity and meaning as
un-useful concepts in my adjacent post, I am not sure what I am
describing and and why (if it has no meaning).

 with a healthy
 dose of honesty about what you know and what you don't. 

The wonderful thing about reading and learning (mostly on one's own --
institutional learning can be something else) is that with each new
insight or nexus factoid -- the amount of unkowingness expands
exponentially. And not like from a base of 1.1 or something -- which
still grows huge with a few iterations. But a base of 10 or so. Learn
one thing and 10 new questions arise. Trace each of those down and 10
new unknowns on each branch. It takes a well-(often self)educated
person to realize how dismissively unknowing we are. So any healthy
doses of honesty just fuel the flames of unknowing. So why even bother
discussing it if the chasm gets deeper and wider with each sentence?
(Stupidity and compulsion come to mind -- but the
meaningfulness-searching little ghost in me will try to craft a far
more compelling description I am sure. And for not, I am also sure.)

 I think I am
 still on the social identity side of the fence for where I place my
 inner value.  

I ask inqusitively (and ask myself more), and without snidness, do you
care what social identity you project? And why? Franklin or someone
said that if the human race were blind, he would give far less
attention to clothing, grooming, home and furnishings. Perhaps since
the world is pretty blind, why should one care what ones social
identity is? (Other than appealing to embodiments of lustful
fantasies -- which is what Franklin was probably silently referring
too -- so if one can momentarily suspend the warped and hazardous
search for such) -- what does social identity bring to the game? Other
than the practicality of responding when someone says 'you' have won
the lottery

  
   I know it is appealing to believe that your perspective is a
universal
   truth.  
  
  Have you seen the show Weeds. There is a great shot of The Church of
  Absolute Truth -- a bit of a flim flam church. Which to me is a
  perfect image. How would one determine if something was universally
  true. There are lots of different people -- and the universe is quite
  large. We would only know if The Church of Absolute Truth (pick your
  own denomination, TMO, Republicanism, fundamentalists ..) tells us its
  true.  And we are one of the ones born every second.
 
 Here here!  I have seen some Weeds episodes, funny show.

(And I can see the desire and even compulsion to buff up the social
self to appeal to Mary-Louise Parker.)

  But we all interpret our internal experience our own way.  I
   spent time with a lot of monks who did TM and they never indentifed
   the silence of their minds in activity as their true self.
  
  What did they identify with? Some aspect of Christ? 
 
 If I could presume to speak for them I think they identified with the
 part of themselves that chose to be one with Christ through the
 instrumentality of silence.  They were big on the idea that
 experiencing the absolute didn't make your spiritual life a done
 deal, that a lot of conscious choice was still involved. Relating to 
 the experience of the mystics without including this aspect is a
 common fallacy of Westerners involved with Eastern Spirituality. 


That's an interesting point.

There
 are similar descriptions, but the differences include some real deal
 breakers for the Christians.  It is in the differences that you find
 the most interesting components of the beliefs. The ecumenical 

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[grate . swan]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
 In what sense is the brain you have the *same* as the brain you had
 thirty years ago? All the molecules have changed. The patterns have
 changed. Are you not the same person as thirty years ago? (Just trying
 to rumble your assumption of materialism!)

Beyond the stuff of new-age platitudes and gee-whiz charlatan
motivational speakers -- social identity lacks a firm or continuous
sense of self. I relate to my self 30 years ago as much as I relate to
my dog 30 years (and identifying with the dog is far more
complimentary). Even yesterday -- who was that guy? And what the
%*(^*^ was he thinking! 

Something that keeps the flame of the social self alive are others
casting your present social self into the past. Nada -- that's not the
guy here now.   

And per your points, the body is not the same -- the cell replacement
rate changes every year or two I believe. i suppose that my DNA
structure remains constant through my life -- (unless those early drug
studies were right) -- even if the cells do not. The Form of my DNA --
to mix Plato and Watson.  But my DNA is a small part of family gene
pool -- and a far smaller fraction of the human gene pool.  
And my small part of that was granted in a pretty random way -- lets
shake the DNA dice honey and see what we get this time (can't be any
worse than the last one -- younger brother humor. So a life-long Form
of some random DNA coupling -- subject to mutation through the ages.
How impressive! The ego certainly (tries) to hang its hat in odd places.

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@...
wrote:

 a gangbang on Vaj? that's rich. howabout people here are just
 fed up with his arrogance and pinning all of his woes on the
 Maharishi? how about people calling it like it is.

OK, Dawn. How *about* people calling it like it is.

You started this. Now live with it.

You talk about what you perceive as arrogance
in Vaj? Well, here is one of YOUR recent quotes,
in which you are possibly...uh...arrogant enough
to claim to be enlightened:

 in my own practice, for example, i have found that real guru/God
 (dess) devotion has furthered my progress in a way that the basic
 knowledge i first gained from the TMO never could.

 this devotional learning and experience though, instead of being a
 contradiction of my earlier learning, has instead revealed a
 fullness and liveliness to the basic teaching that the Maharishi
 brought out, and completed an experiential understanding of
 enlightenment, that continues to grow, and grow and grow. and
 given the limitless experience of enlightenment, i don't see or
 concieve of any end in sight.

Now let's follow this quote up with a few other
quotes of yours. These quotes IMO indicate more
about what the nature of your brand of enlight-
enment is LIKE, and how an enlightened being
such as yourself ACTS in daily life. The first
quote is from only one day earlier than the one
above:

 who said anything about me being enlightened? i haven't. obviously
 your years of meditation have not improved your ability to read

Notice a slight contradiction there? And now a few other
quotes to show what an enlightened_being such as
enlightened_dawn11 considers enlightened_action,
and how such an enlightened_one as yourself *treats*
other presumably not_quite_as_enlightened human
beings on this forum:

 you know your overly intellectualized approach is garbage, just like
 your over intellectualized understanding of the Self. HA HA-- that
 was very funny, and something that shut you up good!
. . .
 the reason you attack what i write is that it is just experience,
 incomprehensible experience which you cannot contain, explain or
 understand with your weak and small mind, dumbo.
. . .
 i thought it [Dzogchen] was a dog turd, but whatever, different
 strokes, right?:)
. . .
 keep guessing, and if you do it often enough, it may even
 fill that great big empty hole you call a life
. . .
 i refer to you as a monkey king because monkeys chatter, chatter,
 chatter about subjects they know nothing about ... and for that,
 you and others in your troupe are chattering away, flinging poo,
 and hopping from branch to branch.
. . .
 what is wrong with you people? are you so injured and traumatized by
 your time in the tmo and your association with Maharishi that you
 run like frightened children, hiding behind the furniture, screaming
 epithets to ward off anything TM or the Maharishi, lest you shit
 your pants in fear? i think i have a pretty balanced view of my years
 of practicing TM. I don't look down upon those who don't do TM ...
. . .
 what a bunch of fuckin' second graders - grow up, you're embarassing
 the rest of us.
. . .
 maybe it has been so long that your cemented and entrenched and
 arrogant ego has blinded you to the basic knowledge of life. 3 more
 words for you: get a clue, and stop spreading your dis-ease.
. . .
 vaj is not here to change anyone's mind-- he is just here defending
 his petrified dinosaur shit.
. . .
 i think its kind of cool that it bugs you so much ... just shows
 us what an officious little dork you can be.

And let us not forget your *first words* on this group,
which if not true mean that Ms. I have completed an
experiential understanding of enlightenment ED11
*started her FFL presence with a lie*, and then went
downhill from there:

 I am new on this group...

And finally, may I present for your entertainment the
ultimate enlightened enlightened_dawn11 pronouncement
about enlightenment itself, contradicting the teachings
of Maharishi himself:

 who needs a teacher once the state of CC is permanent?

Who, indeed?

Do you have anything to say about any of this, Dawn?

Surely if the above quotes are an example of what a
person who has attained the state of CC (I have com-
pleted an experiential understanding of enlightenment),
is LIKE, and what such a person turns into *without* a
teacher, why would anyone want or need one?

As you say of your own experience, i don't see or concieve
of any end in sight.

Nor do I. I see jiveass bullshit as far as the eye can
see. Can you explain to me what I'm missing in this
picture of the experiential understanding of enlight-
enment?

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[enlightened_dawn11]

 Do you have anything to say about any of this, Dawn?

you quoted me accurately...what would you like me to say? you have 
plenty of your own conclusions. if you are ok with 'em, me too.
 
 Surely if the ... quotes are an example of what a
 person who has attained the state of CC (I have com-
 pleted an experiential understanding of enlightenment),
 is LIKE, and what such a person turns into *without* a
 teacher, why would anyone want or need one?

a good question-- do you have an answer for yourself yet?  

you left out a quote which i have made three or four times here-- i 
am not out to change your mind, nor do i care what you think of me, 
or not of me, nor whether you even read my stuff.

 
 As you say of your own experience, i don't see or concieve
 of any end in sight.
 
 Nor do I. I see jiveass bullshit as far as the eye can
 see. 

ok...and please let us know when you are done calling the kettle 
black...

Can you explain to me what I'm missing in this
 picture of the experiential understanding of enlight-
 enment?

explain to you? no one is ever able to explain anything to you that 
you haven't already reached a conclusion on, including me.

in other newsHappy Valentine's Day!

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[enlightened_dawn11]

i am enjoying the de facto title of this post; what is the nature of 
attachment? especially in light of Barry's latest post to me, in 
which he attempts to pin down my perspective and identity, to 
verify...what? what if there is really nothing there?

and that is what my post is about- how dynamics on a forum are 
different than what we look for in other printed material. none of 
us here is much more than a composite of what we say we are, how we 
express ourselves, and what others think of it and us as a result. i 
may claim all sorts of things about myself, and others, that trigger 
thoughts in others about what i have said. or not. and that's it.

no one has a past or future here, or is any more valid than anyone 
else here. like ruth was asking, why are we here? me, i enjoy 
swapping energy here. that is what this place is for me; swapping 
energy. 

it is all about the energy of the moment, that last post. or someone 
may look for patterns in what we post, and decide to reach a 
conclusion about it, and call us out on that conclusion, which we 
then may respond to, or not, and if we do, we may be further 
challenged, or believed, or ignored altogether.

it is a far different dynamic than reading the news, or a book. no 
one, or very few anyway, actually reads this forum sequentially like 
a book, and learns from it in that way. it is more like a scrolling 
effect, moving through time, with the present center exposed and the 
past endlessly rolled up and forgotten, the future anticipated, 
expected, and unknown.

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:
snip
 It's funny, whenever someone brings up a 
 topic and I comment honestly--not based on 
 image or a publicity--this truth seems to  
 rankle some who hold onto the image.

Or, some of us don't think (a) you're 
commenting honestly or (b) that what you say
is truth (or both).

 I think we should try to see our teachers 
 and practices as they really are and that 
 may vary from how they are hyped or 
 advertised.
 
 You see the same thing whenever Paul Mason 
 or John Knapp post here. Because their 
 descriptions vary from the airbrushed image 
 and the sales brochure people just fly off 
 the handle. It's as if painting a true and 
 honest picture must be resisted at all 
 costs. We must keep the illusion going.

Most of us here are objective enough to have
recognized long since that our teachers and/or 
practices haven't always matched up to the 
hype.

What some of us object to is the constant
propaganda from the other end of the spectrum,
in which Photoshop has been employed to insert
horns and a tail on top of the airbrushed 
image, where *every* positive or even neutral 
comment from one of us evokes a knee-jerk 
negative response (often a profoundly 
dishonest one; often an ignorant one).

Both ends of the spectrum, of course, are
illusionary; the true and honest picture is
somewhere in between. The pro-TMers here, as
noted, have come a good part of the way toward
that picture in the middle, while the TM critics
seem permanently and volubly stuck to the dark
end.

[FairfieldLife] [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[Sal Sunshine]

--- InFairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@...> wrote:snip>It's funny, whenever someone brings up atopic and I comment honestly--not based onimage or a publicity--this truth seems to rankle some who hold onto the image.Or, some of us don't think (a) you'recommenting honestly or (b) that what you sayis "truth" (or both).I think we should try to see our teachersand practices as they really are and thatmay vary from how they are hyped oradvertised.You see the same thing whenever Paul Masonor John Knapp post here. Because theirdescriptions vary from the airbrushed imageand the sales brochure people just fly offthe handle. It's as if painting a true andhonest picture must be resisted at allcosts. We must keep the illusion going.Most of us here are objective enough to haverecognized long since that our teachers and/orpractices haven't always matched up to thehype.What some of us object to is the constantpropaganda from the other end of the spectrum,in which Photoshop has been employed to inserthorns and a tail on top of the airbrushedimageI can't imagine what Judy could possibly have inmind with such an appalling charge.  I mean,nobody here would *ever* think of doing sucha thing. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[Kirk]

  Clearly, Vaj is trying to compensate for the mediocre results of
 his Garab Dorje/Norbu program by making false and twisted claims
 about the programs which really do work.


--I just outright object on the principle of guru bashing as a bad 
practice altogether. Please stop it now. I can offer no threat to make my 
words sink in but I accept these words above as proof that ignorance itself 
is its own pay back. To read the absurdities in the whole stinking topic and 
the offended outcries is like taking barf for oatmeal. So few people here 
have any real appreciateion of anything. I mean, there are some here who can 
appreciate things. But then so many also seem like Christian Puritans. What 
the hell is all this blather proving exactly. Leave Namkhai Norbu's name 
entirely out of this  discussion please. You offend others than just Vaj. 
Insult Garab Dorge, insult your own very essence. How low idiotic is that?

There is no conceivable difference between Advaita and Dzogchen since 
neither deals with a conceptual state. All we have are footprints, and some 
notes from some few interested practitioners. No other's opinions have any 
bearing on anything. The intellectual trappings of each system in each 
system try to be overcome from within and they are not always successful. 
While some people here have excellent grasp of many systems I have yet to 
see anyone who has synthesized and become intregral.  Able to understand ALL 
the teachings. Without bullshit and name calling and negative insinuation, 
as if someone who does one path or another is a whore or something.  Frankly 
I have known some nicer whores that some of you here, but that's just 
neither here nor there really. Some men and women learn compassion faster 
and give more on their backs then some give on their meditation cushions. 
And subsequent actions.

Of course I'm nobody to talk as I was a stupid TM freak myself for quite a 
long time and yet it was that fact that showed me that TMO was going the way 
of fertilizer. I am sure it won't surprise anyone here that I stand up for 
Vaj's intellectual rigor as I know that he knows more than most of you, 
since he has been around for a long very long time and known many gurus. You 
all really have no idea who he is at all.

As for many of you others, I don't know you, I only know your words, and 
when you insult my guru you are inviting me to leave this place. Again. 
Cause I won't abide it.

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[enlightened_dawn11]

hey Kirk, all the poster said was that the guru's programs produced 
mediocre results, as evidenced by the behavior of one of his 
followers. hardly guru bashing. and you have let this same 
follower shit all over the Maharishi on a regular basis. quit being 
a hypocrite and whiner.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernha...@... 
wrote:

 
   Clearly, Vaj is trying to compensate for the mediocre results of
  his Garab Dorje/Norbu program by making false and twisted claims
  about the programs which really do work.
 
 
 --I just outright object on the principle of guru bashing as a 
bad 
 practice altogether. Please stop it now. I can offer no threat to 
make my 
 words sink in but I accept these words above as proof that 
ignorance itself 
 is its own pay back. To read the absurdities in the whole stinking 
topic and 
 the offended outcries is like taking barf for oatmeal. So few 
people here 
 have any real appreciateion of anything. I mean, there are some 
here who can 
 appreciate things. But then so many also seem like Christian 
Puritans. What 
 the hell is all this blather proving exactly. Leave Namkhai 
Norbu's name 
 entirely out of this  discussion please. You offend others than 
just Vaj. 
 Insult Garab Dorge, insult your own very essence. How low idiotic 
is that?
 
 There is no conceivable difference between Advaita and Dzogchen 
since 
 neither deals with a conceptual state. All we have are footprints, 
and some 
 notes from some few interested practitioners. No other's opinions 
have any 
 bearing on anything. The intellectual trappings of each system in 
each 
 system try to be overcome from within and they are not always 
successful. 
 While some people here have excellent grasp of many systems I have 
yet to 
 see anyone who has synthesized and become intregral.  Able to 
understand ALL 
 the teachings. Without bullshit and name calling and negative 
insinuation, 
 as if someone who does one path or another is a whore or 
something.  Frankly 
 I have known some nicer whores that some of you here, but that's 
just 
 neither here nor there really. Some men and women learn compassion 
faster 
 and give more on their backs then some give on their meditation 
cushions. 
 And subsequent actions.
 
 Of course I'm nobody to talk as I was a stupid TM freak myself for 
quite a 
 long time and yet it was that fact that showed me that TMO was 
going the way 
 of fertilizer. I am sure it won't surprise anyone here that I 
stand up for 
 Vaj's intellectual rigor as I know that he knows more than most of 
you, 
 since he has been around for a long very long time and known many 
gurus. You 
 all really have no idea who he is at all.
 
 As for many of you others, I don't know you, I only know your 
words, and 
 when you insult my guru you are inviting me to leave this place. 
Again. 
 Cause I won't abide it.

Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[Kirk]

 a good friend of mine just began TM and already he has transcended
 all of this surface-y stuff that Vaj talks about.

 i ask Vaj again- what are you doing here on FFL?



I invited Vaj here about two years ago as I became interested in dzogchen 
and I wanted someone here who could support me. I didn't care for the 
gangland jumping in ceremony that goes on here amongst all the separate 
cults. Of course I needed someone on my side, so that's where he came from. 
As to why he remained, he obviously likes you guys and likes it here and he 
feels that he is educating you people. For instance, two years ago not a 
single person here had even heard of Dzogchen, and now people talk about 
rainbow bodies like it's a done deal. See, Vaj has had a profound effect. 
Certainly probably more profound to most than Share Intl or Scientology, or 
triple distilled preboiled virgin water from Mars. Anyone who speaks at all 
to the essence of the bodhisattva intention for liberating all beings is 
only doing good, whether others are able to perceive that or not.

I personally am more sorry for what he puts up with here than what he puts 
out. But that is his choice to remain.  You know, every ceremony I have ever 
been at has screaming babies somewhere in the audience. No, I am not talking 
about Vaj. I am talking about those of you who have no capacity to control 
your mind and who always act according to habit and emotional turmoil. You 
guys might TM yourselves to Brahmaloka but, well, but, actually, good luck 
to you all.  Good luck. Maharishi always spoke of 'merit' and deserving 
power being the real cause of liberation or not. None of this interflensing 
is going to be helping anyone very much. Now or ever. 

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[enlightened_dawn11]

you think your buddy Vaj is pure as the driven snow, eh? look a 
little closer. that's yellow snow, bub.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernha...@... 
wrote:

 
  a good friend of mine just began TM and already he has 
transcended
  all of this surface-y stuff that Vaj talks about.
 
  i ask Vaj again- what are you doing here on FFL?
 
 
 
 I invited Vaj here about two years ago as I became interested in 
dzogchen 
 and I wanted someone here who could support me. I didn't care for 
the 
 gangland jumping in ceremony that goes on here amongst all the 
separate 
 cults. Of course I needed someone on my side, so that's where he 
came from. 
 As to why he remained, he obviously likes you guys and likes it 
here and he 
 feels that he is educating you people. For instance, two years ago 
not a 
 single person here had even heard of Dzogchen, and now people talk 
about 
 rainbow bodies like it's a done deal. See, Vaj has had a profound 
effect. 
 Certainly probably more profound to most than Share Intl or 
Scientology, or 
 triple distilled preboiled virgin water from Mars. Anyone who 
speaks at all 
 to the essence of the bodhisattva intention for liberating all 
beings is 
 only doing good, whether others are able to perceive that or not.
 
 I personally am more sorry for what he puts up with here than what 
he puts 
 out. But that is his choice to remain.  You know, every ceremony I 
have ever 
 been at has screaming babies somewhere in the audience. No, I am 
not talking 
 about Vaj. I am talking about those of you who have no capacity to 
control 
 your mind and who always act according to habit and emotional 
turmoil. You 
 guys might TM yourselves to Brahmaloka but, well, but, actually, 
good luck 
 to you all.  Good luck. Maharishi always spoke of 'merit' and 
deserving 
 power being the real cause of liberation or not. None of this 
interflensing 
 is going to be helping anyone very much. Now or ever.

Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[Peter]

Dzogchen? Isn't that a breath mint?


--- On Fri, 2/13/09, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:

 From: enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of  
 Patanjali's 8 limbs )
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Friday, February 13, 2009, 9:41 AM
 you think your buddy Vaj is pure as the driven snow, eh?
 look a 
 little closer. that's yellow snow, bub.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk
 kirk_bernha...@... 
 wrote:
 
  
   a good friend of mine just began TM and already
 he has 
 transcended
   all of this surface-y stuff that Vaj talks about.
  
   i ask Vaj again- what are you doing here on FFL?
  
  
  
  I invited Vaj here about two years ago as I became
 interested in 
 dzogchen 
  and I wanted someone here who could support me. I
 didn't care for 
 the 
  gangland jumping in ceremony that goes on here amongst
 all the 
 separate 
  cults. Of course I needed someone on my side, so
 that's where he 
 came from. 
  As to why he remained, he obviously likes you guys and
 likes it 
 here and he 
  feels that he is educating you people. For instance,
 two years ago 
 not a 
  single person here had even heard of Dzogchen, and now
 people talk 
 about 
  rainbow bodies like it's a done deal. See, Vaj has
 had a profound 
 effect. 
  Certainly probably more profound to most than Share
 Intl or 
 Scientology, or 
  triple distilled preboiled virgin water from Mars.
 Anyone who 
 speaks at all 
  to the essence of the bodhisattva intention for
 liberating all 
 beings is 
  only doing good, whether others are able to perceive
 that or not.
  
  I personally am more sorry for what he puts up with
 here than what 
 he puts 
  out. But that is his choice to remain.  You know,
 every ceremony I 
 have ever 
  been at has screaming babies somewhere in the
 audience. No, I am 
 not talking 
  about Vaj. I am talking about those of you who have no
 capacity to 
 control 
  your mind and who always act according to habit and
 emotional 
 turmoil. You 
  guys might TM yourselves to Brahmaloka but, well, but,
 actually, 
 good luck 
  to you all.  Good luck. Maharishi always spoke of
 'merit' and 
 deserving 
  power being the real cause of liberation or not. None
 of this 
 interflensing 
  is going to be helping anyone very much. Now or ever.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 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
 
 
 

  

Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[Kirk]

No actually there was clearly a gangbang on Vaj this morning and I find it 
somehow shallow. It's especially shallow to utilize any supposed guru or 
master to make some tawdry and inconsequential point. The poster cannot know 
the results of Norbu or of Garab Dorge as his words show that he felt they 
didn't work. That's a personal decision and one I hope he unlearns. Dzogchen 
is not a thing. It will never be explained to anyone. You pick it up by 
grace of the Dakini or your pass it by.

There are some other systems which have been very much like Dzogchen in the 
distant past, but Sri Devi cults are perhaps the closest Hindu thing. Having 
a flowing and expanded Brahman awareness is what one is trying to also 
accomplish in Dzogchen, but it has ethical and epistimological variations 
from other systems as it will by nature. TM is somehow loosely related to 
Dzogchen at the outset by virtue of taking an angle of effortlessness. From 
where is the charm to make anything effortless? This is what one should be 
asking, and hopefully finding. I feel fortunate that I knew enough to 
research and find Shakti within, shakti without, clear mental aspect of 
dakini as guru all complete in Dzogchen. Enough. I am full.

I also am a hypocrit. I feel like whining right now. I just am tired of 
guru/system bashing since I really am essentially rootless and I have to 
include all different peoples as my friends. I want to like all of you. 
Over about six years I have been coming here such has not been the case 
however as some remain permanently in the dumpster, and some people I have 
learned to actually really dislike and now I would never want to meet them. 
That's really not the way it should be in this mystical paradise of life, 
amongst the spiritual, or at least, spirited.

My words are not false, and there's no reason for people of some Age of 
Enlightenment doing alot of bashing - unless it's the kind of bashing that 
we do really well down here NOLA. Of course in some ways the whole of 
TMO/Golden Domes etc is a sort of such bashing, a silent bash, if you will, 
with a small bite of white cake at the end. That's okay.

This was enough fun at FFLife for me for one day.  And I don't even have a 
life.

- Original Message - 
From: enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 8:26 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of 
Patanjali's 8 limbs )


 hey Kirk, all the poster said was that the guru's programs produced
 mediocre results, as evidenced by the behavior of one of his
 followers. hardly guru bashing. and you have let this same
 follower shit all over the Maharishi on a regular basis. quit being
 a hypocrite and whiner.

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernha...@...
 wrote:


   Clearly, Vaj is trying to compensate for the mediocre results of
  his Garab Dorje/Norbu program by making false and twisted claims
  about the programs which really do work.


 --I just outright object on the principle of guru bashing as a
 bad
 practice altogether. Please stop it now. I can offer no threat to
 make my
 words sink in but I accept these words above as proof that
 ignorance itself
 is its own pay back. To read the absurdities in the whole stinking
 topic and
 the offended outcries is like taking barf for oatmeal. So few
 people here
 have any real appreciateion of anything. I mean, there are some
 here who can
 appreciate things. But then so many also seem like Christian
 Puritans. What
 the hell is all this blather proving exactly. Leave Namkhai
 Norbu's name
 entirely out of this  discussion please. You offend others than
 just Vaj.
 Insult Garab Dorge, insult your own very essence. How low idiotic
 is that?

 There is no conceivable difference between Advaita and Dzogchen
 since
 neither deals with a conceptual state. All we have are footprints,
 and some
 notes from some few interested practitioners. No other's opinions
 have any
 bearing on anything. The intellectual trappings of each system in
 each
 system try to be overcome from within and they are not always
 successful.
 While some people here have excellent grasp of many systems I have
 yet to
 see anyone who has synthesized and become intregral.  Able to
 understand ALL
 the teachings. Without bullshit and name calling and negative
 insinuation,
 as if someone who does one path or another is a whore or
 something.  Frankly
 I have known some nicer whores that some of you here, but that's
 just
 neither here nor there really. Some men and women learn compassion
 faster
 and give more on their backs then some give on their meditation
 cushions.
 And subsequent actions.

 Of course I'm nobody to talk as I was a stupid TM freak myself for
 quite a
 long time and yet it was that fact that showed me that TMO was
 going the way
 of fertilizer. I am sure it won't surprise anyone here that I
 stand up for
 Vaj's intellectual rigor as I 

Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[Vaj]

No, a dessert topping.

On Feb 13, 2009, at 9:46 AM, Peter wrote:


Dzogchen? Isn't that a breath mint?

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[enlightened_dawn11]

a gangbang on Vaj? that's rich. howabout people here are just fed up 
with his arrogance and pinning all of his woes on the Maharishi? how 
about people calling it like it is. 

as for knowledge of the various schools of Buddhism, there are 
several here who know and have experienced far more than the fellow 
with the Vaj name. he is no teacher, believe me. he is a guy with 
issues and a funny name who quotes a lot of stuff in order to 
continue to hide in his tower of fundamentalist thought.

wake up Kirk. you are a heartful guy, but you have conveniently 
closed your eyes to believe in a dream that is just that. yes, you 
are whining and a hypocrite. 

Vaj goes on and on and on, every single week, nearly daily, here for 
the two years you say he has been here; mishy mashy mahesh varma 
this and mishy mashy mahesh varma that, and at least six of us here 
start calling him on his bullshit, and all of of sudden you are 
whining and wringing your hands. as Barry would say, grow the fuck 
up. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernha...@... 
wrote:

 No actually there was clearly a gangbang on Vaj this morning and I 
find it 
 somehow shallow. It's especially shallow to utilize any supposed 
guru or 
 master to make some tawdry and inconsequential point. The poster 
cannot know 
 the results of Norbu or of Garab Dorge as his words show that he 
felt they 
 didn't work. That's a personal decision and one I hope he 
unlearns. Dzogchen 
 is not a thing. It will never be explained to anyone. You pick it 
up by 
 grace of the Dakini or your pass it by.
 
 There are some other systems which have been very much like 
Dzogchen in the 
 distant past, but Sri Devi cults are perhaps the closest Hindu 
thing. Having 
 a flowing and expanded Brahman awareness is what one is trying to 
also 
 accomplish in Dzogchen, but it has ethical and epistimological 
variations 
 from other systems as it will by nature. TM is somehow loosely 
related to 
 Dzogchen at the outset by virtue of taking an angle of 
effortlessness. From 
 where is the charm to make anything effortless? This is what one 
should be 
 asking, and hopefully finding. I feel fortunate that I knew enough 
to 
 research and find Shakti within, shakti without, clear mental 
aspect of 
 dakini as guru all complete in Dzogchen. Enough. I am full.
 
 I also am a hypocrit. I feel like whining right now. I just am 
tired of 
 guru/system bashing since I really am essentially rootless and I 
have to 
 include all different peoples as my friends. I want to like all of 
you. 
 Over about six years I have been coming here such has not been the 
case 
 however as some remain permanently in the dumpster, and some 
people I have 
 learned to actually really dislike and now I would never want to 
meet them. 
 That's really not the way it should be in this mystical paradise 
of life, 
 amongst the spiritual, or at least, spirited.
 
 My words are not false, and there's no reason for people of 
some Age of 
 Enlightenment doing alot of bashing - unless it's the kind of 
bashing that 
 we do really well down here NOLA. Of course in some ways the whole 
of 
 TMO/Golden Domes etc is a sort of such bashing, a silent bash, if 
you will, 
 with a small bite of white cake at the end. That's okay.
 
 This was enough fun at FFLife for me for one day.  And I don't 
even have a 
 life.
 
 - Original Message - 
 From: enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 8:26 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: 
All of 
 Patanjali's 8 limbs )
 
 
  hey Kirk, all the poster said was that the guru's programs 
produced
  mediocre results, as evidenced by the behavior of one of his
  followers. hardly guru bashing. and you have let this same
  follower shit all over the Maharishi on a regular basis. quit 
being
  a hypocrite and whiner.
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernhardt@
  wrote:
 
 
Clearly, Vaj is trying to compensate for the mediocre 
results of
   his Garab Dorje/Norbu program by making false and twisted 
claims
   about the programs which really do work.
 
 
  --I just outright object on the principle of guru bashing 
as a
  bad
  practice altogether. Please stop it now. I can offer no threat 
to
  make my
  words sink in but I accept these words above as proof that
  ignorance itself
  is its own pay back. To read the absurdities in the whole 
stinking
  topic and
  the offended outcries is like taking barf for oatmeal. So few
  people here
  have any real appreciateion of anything. I mean, there are some
  here who can
  appreciate things. But then so many also seem like Christian
  Puritans. What
  the hell is all this blather proving exactly. Leave Namkhai
  Norbu's name
  entirely out of this  discussion please. You offend others than
  just Vaj.
  Insult Garab Dorge, insult your own very essence. How low 
idiotic
  is that?
 
  There is 

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[enlightened_dawn11]

i thought it was a dog turd, but whatever, different strokes, right?:)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:

 No, a dessert topping.
 
 On Feb 13, 2009, at 9:46 AM, Peter wrote:
 
  Dzogchen? Isn't that a breath mint?

Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[Vaj]

On Feb 13, 2009, at 9:27 AM, Kirk wrote:




a good friend of mine just began TM and already he has transcended
all of this surface-y stuff that Vaj talks about.

i ask Vaj again- what are you doing here on FFL?




I invited Vaj here about two years ago as I became interested in  
dzogchen

and I wanted someone here who could support me. I didn't care for the
gangland jumping in ceremony that goes on here amongst all the  
separate
cults. Of course I needed someone on my side, so that's where he  
came from.
As to why he remained, he obviously likes you guys and likes it  
here and he
feels that he is educating you people. For instance, two years ago  
not a
single person here had even heard of Dzogchen, and now people talk  
about
rainbow bodies like it's a done deal. See, Vaj has had a profound  
effect.
Certainly probably more profound to most than Share Intl or  
Scientology, or
triple distilled preboiled virgin water from Mars. Anyone who  
speaks at all
to the essence of the bodhisattva intention for liberating all  
beings is

only doing good, whether others are able to perceive that or not.

I personally am more sorry for what he puts up with here than what  
he puts
out. But that is his choice to remain.  You know, every ceremony I  
have ever
been at has screaming babies somewhere in the audience. No, I am  
not talking
about Vaj. I am talking about those of you who have no capacity to  
control
your mind and who always act according to habit and emotional  
turmoil. You
guys might TM yourselves to Brahmaloka but, well, but, actually,  
good luck
to you all.  Good luck. Maharishi always spoke of 'merit' and  
deserving
power being the real cause of liberation or not. None of this  
interflensing

is going to be helping anyone very much. Now or ever.



Thanks Kirk.

It's funny, whenever someone brings up a topic and I comment  
honestly--not based on image or a publicity--this truth seems to  
rankle some who hold onto the image. I think we should try to see our  
teachers and practices as they really are and that may vary from how  
they are hyped or advertised.


You see the same thing whenever Paul Mason or John Knapp post here.  
Because their descriptions vary from the airbrushed image and the  
sales brochure people just fly off the handle. It's as if painting a  
true and honest picture must be resisted at all costs. We must keep  
the illusion going.


I just can't buy into that. I find the idea of actually having a  
honest historical picture of various spiritual orgs, whether it be  
the Catholic church, Shambhala International, Inc. or the TM Org  
fascinating because the truth is stranger than the fiction. At least  
that's been my experience.


When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. -Hunter S. Thompson

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifux...@... wrote:

 ---Yes, Vaj seems to be suffering from some type of mental 
 aberration, at least in the sense of some engrams from the 
 past forcing him into this bizarre behavior.  I can see people 
 dissing MMY, TM, etc; a few times, but I can't fathom why one would 
 continue with this behavior day after day, for years.
  Though I favor TM, I've long ago grown to accept the fact that 
 people have different preferences for various techniques, or no 
 technique at all. 
  Take the people I work with: attorneys, quite intelligent in the 
 brains department but not a single one of them is in the least bit 
 interested in nondualist Dharma. And I have no desire to tell any of 
 them about TM, mindfulness, etc.
  Basically, I don't give a crap whether people practice TM, 
 mindfulness, or stand on their heads.
  The fact that Vaj is so obsessive about dissing MMY and TM is indeed 
 a case-study in a class for abnormal psychology. Bizarre!


Why are people so insistent on diagnosing those they tend to agree
with on this forum?  Mindreading is a favorite occupation.   Several
times I have disclosed my motivations for hanging around here.  Curtis
has disclosed his motivations.  Beyond that, who knows why any one of
us participates?  If you are curious, ask.  

Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[Vaj]

Well, actually it's a dessert topping and a floor polish.

So you're partially correct.

On Feb 13, 2009, at 10:24 AM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote:


i thought it was a dog turd, but whatever, different strokes, right?:)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:


No, a dessert topping.

On Feb 13, 2009, at 9:46 AM, Peter wrote:


Dzogchen? Isn't that a breath mint?

Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[Kirk]

I just can't buy into that. I find the idea of actually having a honest 
historical picture of various spiritual orgs, whether it be the Catholic 
church, Shambhala International, Inc. or the TM Org fascinating because the 
truth is stranger than the fiction. At least that's been my experience.

When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. -Hunter S. Thompson


Uh, having had this sort of roundtable discussion for a long time many 
of us are of the mind that since religions and their followings, including 
ourselves, are inhabited by beings who are somehow needy, that they all 
therefore are basically whack (neurotic) at the outset, so all religious groups 
will be even more trying and tiresome than ones own family. 

I mean, I don't really have any agenda at FFLife so much but to emote and hear 
some familiar voices of spiritual people so we are maybe here for same reasons, 
maybe different. At any rate Vaj, you have done much to increase the spiritual 
vocabulary here. I personally at this late date try not to dunk Maharishi since 
that would be tantamount to declaring myself a total idiot, since I spent so 
much time involved in it and liking it. 

I said all I ever needed to when I freaked out about TMO and posted my diatribe 
on AMT. I was also such a vocal opponent of Maharishi in his last years.  
Though I don't do TM anymore I still was born out of it anew. I later forgave 
what I felt of Maharishi's shortcomings instead marvelling that at least one 
human was loudly making some noise for some sort of positive -through mystical- 
change. In my mind I remember talking to George Harrison about Maharishi and 
the set lights outside looked like the foam spray off of a waterfall as it 
shown down through a slice in the the paper darkened movie set behind him and 
he was holding his long sandalwood mala and so now I am flashing on Maharishi, 
a waterfall, a sandalwood mala, a beatle, a pure and powerful mystical time on 
Earth. that's what Maharishi meant. A beam of Jaya Guru Deva off into deep 
space thanks to NASA. Even Jesus didn't get that. What M means to me now. He 
was something like the LSD trials

But lately though I am just thankful for any spiritual people of mystical 
pursuasions anywhere to talk to. They being very rare in this world. The early 
Eastern gurus burning up alot of freely given  Western good will as they have 
done.

So I am wasting time helplessly unable to get my day started. But here goes. 

Personally though I see no hope for the blending of science and spirituality 
and in fact it can only lead to disaster through bigotry. This was my main 
problem with Hindutva in general, the fascism. Thus my joining Vajra clan. 
Buddhists cannot be fascist. It is not allowed. It is not a possibility. Of 
course they can be bigoted and opinionated, but not fascist. 

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[Duveyoung]

Kirk wrote: when you insult my guru you are inviting me to leave
this place. Again.  Cause I won't abide it.

Kirk,

Dude, you know better than most that the trolls are always with us.

Every time you've returned here, my spirit notched into a higher gear.

Cognitively, you've scattered your identity across many spectrums,
and, so, often I'm not there for you, but energy-wise, you've
presented something that all we FFL stuffy-heads need -- you have
passions. Ya perks up da denizens here.  Don't leave the good 'uns
here just to turn your back on the nutzoids.

The trolls always are taking pot shots at anyone who's as vulnerable
as you are, but that's the deal here -- you come to test your ability
to be vulnerable and to find that this sort of practice deepens it.

Some of my best moments of personal evolution here are when I don't
reply to someone.  To simply drop the angst from my side can be such a
relief from that well-known Internet dynamic of Someone's wrong
online and I must correct the bastard.

And, you've got some chops, ya know?  You can sling the lingo, and
that's a rare treat here.  You're not parroting in an empty fashion; I
get the history behind your usage -- you know a lot about the roots of
these mystical concepts.  Like Vaj's stuff, your stuff doesn't always
ring my chimes, but I'm always interested in your clockworks even if
the fine print thereof starts my eyes a'blurrin' and I get tizzied
with the flurry of memes you're juggling. 

'Course, the opposite of all the above is true too, cuz you're an
artist who uses his full palette. 

Edg 

Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[Peter]

Ah! No mind, no mind.

--- On Fri, 2/13/09, Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net wrote:
From: Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of  
Patanjali's 8 limbs )
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, February 13, 2009, 10:20 AM










 

No, a dessert topping.
On Feb 13, 2009, at 9:46 AM, Peter wrote:
Dzogchen? Isn't that a breath mint? 




















  

Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[Kirk]

 And, you've got some chops, ya know?  You can sling the lingo, and
 that's a rare treat here.  You're not parroting in an empty fashion; I
 get the history behind your usage -- you know a lot about the roots of
 these mystical concepts.  Like Vaj's stuff, your stuff doesn't always
 ring my chimes, but I'm always interested in your clockworks even if
 the fine print thereof starts my eyes a'blurrin' and I get tizzied
 with the flurry of memes you're juggling.

 'Course, the opposite of all the above is true too, cuz you're an
 artist who uses his full palette.

 Edg


Ah gosh! Break out the whiskey. This is a glass clinking moment, Edge.

I have three parrots. That saying about parroting something is pretty fake 
since they aren't really as great copycats as the Alex Greys would have you 
believe. No, for being perfect copycats there's nobody like a pundit 
(pandita). Real parroting (parrots in action) is about sex and alpha 
dominance. So I guess I am saying that people who parrot are really about 
sex and dominance.

Being less dominator and more masochist I suppose I open up a bit more to 
others. I'm just kidding about leaving, over people's comments anyway. I 
usually leave when I can't keep up, get it up for FFLife any longer. 

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... 
wrote:

 you think your buddy Vaj is pure as the driven snow, eh? look a 
 little closer. that's yellow snow, bub.

HeHe :-)

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernha...@... wrote:


 
 This was enough fun at FFLife for me for one day.  

And I don't even have a 
 life.

Obviously, we know that already. Otherwise, why would you invite your 
religious, fanatic, obsessed and professional brother Vaj to FFL; 
because you had nothing better to do ;-)

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernha...@... wrote:

 
   Clearly, Vaj is trying to compensate for the mediocre results of
  his Garab Dorje/Norbu program by making false and twisted claims
  about the programs which really do work.
 
 
 --I just outright object on the principle of guru bashing as a bad 
 practice altogether. Please stop it now. I can offer no threat to make my 
 words sink in but I accept these words above as proof that ignorance itself 
 is its own pay back. To read the absurdities in the whole stinking topic and 
 the offended outcries is like taking barf for oatmeal. So few people here 
 have any real appreciateion of anything. I mean, there are some here who can 
 appreciate things. But then so many also seem like Christian Puritans. What 
 the hell is all this blather proving exactly. Leave Namkhai Norbu's name 
 entirely out of this  discussion please. You offend others than just Vaj. 
 Insult Garab Dorge, insult your own very essence. How low idiotic is that?
 
 There is no conceivable difference between Advaita and Dzogchen since 
 neither deals with a conceptual state. All we have are footprints, and some 
 notes from some few interested practitioners. No other's opinions have any 
 bearing on anything. The intellectual trappings of each system in each 
 system try to be overcome from within and they are not always successful. 
 While some people here have excellent grasp of many systems I have yet to 
 see anyone who has synthesized and become intregral.  Able to understand ALL 
 the teachings. Without bullshit and name calling and negative insinuation, 
 as if someone who does one path or another is a whore or something.  Frankly 
 I have known some nicer whores that some of you here, but that's just 
 neither here nor there really. Some men and women learn compassion faster 
 and give more on their backs then some give on their meditation cushions. 
 And subsequent actions.
 
 Of course I'm nobody to talk as I was a stupid TM freak myself for quite a 
 long time and yet it was that fact that showed me that TMO was going the way 
 of fertilizer. I am sure it won't surprise anyone here that I stand up for 
 Vaj's intellectual rigor as I know that he knows more than most of you, 
 since he has been around for a long very long time and known many gurus. You 
 all really have no idea who he is at all.
 
 As for many of you others, I don't know you, I only know your words, and 
 when you insult my guru you are inviting me to leave this place. Again. 
 Cause I won't abide it.


Lil Mahesh isn't offensive to you, however...


L

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:
 
 When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. -Hunter S. Thompson


Agreed, and Vaj is a pro Maharishi basher. 

Why I do not know. Perhaps it is the success of the TMO from within 
the Buddhist monestaries in Thailand that got him going, perhaps he 
receives a salary, or perhaps the general rise of the Age of 
Enlightenment simply makes him feel uncomfortable, not being able to 
adjust to the new incoming energies. 

I suppose the reality that Maharishi predicted Heaven will walk on 
earth in this generation and that Maitreya is about to start His 
open mission is enough to drive any Buddhist crazy as they claim He 
will not be reborn in another 50.000 years.

When the going gets weird, Vaj turns weirder.

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernhardt@ wrote:


 As for many of you others, I don't know you, I only know your words, 
and 
  when you insult my guru you are inviting me to leave this place. 
Again. 
  Cause I won't abide it.
 
 
 Lil Mahesh isn't offensive to you, however...
 
 
 L

;-) 

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
  
  When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. -Hunter S. Thompson
 
 
 Agreed, and Vaj is a pro Maharishi basher. 
 
 Why I do not know. Perhaps it is the success of the TMO from within 
 the Buddhist monestaries in Thailand that got him going, perhaps he 
 receives a salary, or perhaps the general rise of the Age of 
 Enlightenment simply makes him feel uncomfortable, not being able to 
 adjust to the new incoming energies. 
 
 I suppose the reality that Maharishi predicted Heaven will walk on 
 earth in this generation and that Maitreya is about to start His 
 open mission is enough to drive any Buddhist crazy as they claim He 
 will not be reborn in another 50.000 years.
 
 When the going gets weird, Vaj turns weirder.


/me blinks slowly and moves on...


L.

Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[Kirk]

 

 Lil Mahesh isn't offensive to you, however...


 L

 ;-)



--Not really anymore. I just never had the real connection to Maharishi 
that others feel. I mean, I just liked the technique. Maharishi made my mind 
chase its own tail a bit too much. I don't suppose such things like 
Aparushaya Bhasya means so much to my daily circumstances. I don't hate 
Maharishi though. I even love him. But it's not visceral.  Like once the 
Dalai Lama got sick and I worried he was gonna die and I was really worried. 
At other times I sort of wished Maharishi would finish his job here.  At 
some point a human being what they are they are going to be seen in all 
their fiery hypocracy and mental bias.  I didn't care for Maharishi trying 
to finesse tyrants and dictators. I don't care for the man on the moon 
mission statement of the local millionaire chakravartins. I think I take 
personal affront when people deride teachers who really have not had a 
sordid history. There are some, and it's because of Maharishi and other jet 
set gurus that people now are scared. They may ultimately have not served 
history well, in spite of how some gurus have opened our minds personally.

Namkhai Norbu isn't my teacher either.  Just so far as I have ever heard he 
has been integral and not making his followers all emotional. I remember 
reading lots of Nasruddin the Sufi stories when I was young and he was adept 
at keeping his devotees mentally and emotionally even tempered. For all the 
no mood making bullshit the TMO espoused they were the worst sort of sky 
pilot mood makers one could ever wish for.  But as I said in another post 
such persons comfort me. I remember a teaching I attended where one man 
hopped around from foot to foot shooting imaginary arrows and at the time I 
thought he was a kook.  But one day I was meditating and he entered my mind 
and I started laughing for like ten minutes and I thought, hey I am glad we 
had him there.

Just so that you understand my position.  I tend to hang with thugs and 
drunks and other underworld types.  I like them as they tend to be known 
quantities.  Gurus in general now make me weary, as weary as politicians and 
cops. You know, you never heard a negative Schlomo Karlebach story ever.  A 
roller skating ukulele playing hasid rabbi is not someone who is out to 
create skateparks with his logo on them. His was a simple message which 
caused little controversy and crossed all lines.  We didn't need another 
hero.  I would just rather have some simple honesty. Lots of not simple 
honesty in TMO, perhaps really worse than Hari Krishna movement, just played 
smarter by teams of Purusha MBAs.

Best just not to get me started. My TMO experience is like a bad divorce and 
yet there's still some sexual tension when we're together. Allegorically 
speaking.  Besides Maharishi's dead and nothing can touch him now. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[Vaj]

On Feb 11, 2009, at 10:23 PM, geezerfreak wrote:

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_re...@...  
wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
transcend

in all of the various Vedantic bodies, only the mental one, they
never really achieve true silence in the yogic sense, just a blank
thoughtless space and some karmic kundalini. Jnanic shakti seems

sadly

absent.



Rather; what is sadly absent is Vaj's insight.

Blank thoughtless space ? That's Buddhism.
Dedicated Sidhas transcended this blank Nirvana years ago. Most  
started

experiencing the lively field back in the early '80s

This fellow, this beginner on any path, except for the intellectual,
this intense hater of all Maharishi ever said or did, along with the
Turq, has no clue whatsoever of what Sidhas experience in the TMSP
today.

But somehow they are alarmed that the fire put on by the TMO will
spread.

With good reason.

Gee Nabby, could you be any more condescending? You sound  
positively attached to
your invested identity as a TM TB. Ever really practiced Buddhism?  
No, I thought not.

(Neither have I but that's beside the point.)

Your history is a little off here. The Sidha program was started in  
1975. I know since I was
there. It took another few months for the foam pads to come.  
Initially, we just sat there in
chairs, at least thats; what we did in the Sonnenberg and over at a  
hotel whose name I've

forgotten across the lake from Seelisberg.

I practiced the Siddhis for several years on multiple courses in  
Switzerland after that.
Nabby you say that people like me have no clue what the Sidhas  
experience today.
Putting aside all of the assumptions you're making with a statement  
like that, is anyone
actually flying, meaning doing something other than bouncing around  
on foam pads as we

did back in the 70s?

About this fire being put on by the TMOcan you steer me  
towards evidence that this

sweeping move towards TM by the human race is actually taking place?



Thought free awareness is probably a better phrase. Nabby is  
confusing a blank thought-free state with emptiness, but the two  
are not the same thing. Thought-free awareness is experienced during  
transcending and is common to many beginning stages of meditation  
but, as Dr. Austin points out, should not be confused with samadhi.

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:

 
 On Feb 11, 2009, at 2:25 PM, sparaig wrote:
 
  Interesting book, but he misquotes teh TM research on TC and claims  
  that
  they only show TC for 15 seconds max, when in fact, the reserach says
  15 to 60 seconds max. His discussion then becomes bogus since 60  
  seconds,
  occurring  for more than 50% of a meditation period, is not a  
  fleeting instant.
 
 
 Unfortunately I'm afraid Dr. Austin was probably under the false  
 impression that he was in fact seeing good meditation research, when  
 in fact he was not. It is unfortunate that even reputable scientists  
 are fooled by TM research claims. Hopefully, as time goes on that will  
 become more widely known.
 
 Of course we now know that TC has never been demonstrated in TM folks,  
 only redefined and presented as such. An interesting metaphysical  
 speculation is all it really is.


ANd your rationale for assuming that the research was NOT done in good
faith is...?


L.

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
 transcend  
  in all of the various Vedantic bodies, only the mental one, they  
  never really achieve true silence in the yogic sense, just a blank  
  thoughtless space and some karmic kundalini. Jnanic shakti seems 
 sadly  
  absent.
 
 
 Rather; what is sadly absent is Vaj's insight. 
 
 Blank thoughtless space ? That's Buddhism. 

Could the blank thoughtless space be any of the (possible:
provided Taimni's got it right...)
asaMprajñaatas between the different stages of samprajñaata-
samaadhi?

http://www.gypsii.com/place.cgi?op=viewid=385216

(Tried rotate the picture, but it doesn't seem to work...)

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote:

 so do you honestly think that the majority of people practicing TM 
 have been duped into practicing a watered down half baked sort of 
 meditation technique that really doesn't deliver as promised, and 
 that all of us would be better off shrugging off our brainwashing 
 and going with the Buddhist mindfulness techniques you espouse?
 
 this seems to be your only message here, over and over and over and 
 over and over and over again Vaj.

Its not like he (or the rest of us) are obsessed in some way about TM
or something... I mean, its normal for folks who have nothing to do
with an organization to post about it dozens of times a week, right?


L.

Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[Vaj]

On Feb 12, 2009, at 9:38 AM, sparaig wrote:


Unfortunately I'm afraid Dr. Austin was probably under the false
impression that he was in fact seeing good meditation research, when
in fact he was not. It is unfortunate that even reputable scientists
are fooled by TM research claims. Hopefully, as time goes on that  
will

become more widely known.

Of course we now know that TC has never been demonstrated in TM  
folks,

only redefined and presented as such. An interesting metaphysical
speculation is all it really is.



ANd your rationale for assuming that the research was NOT done in good
faith is...?


 Consistent use of: bias, conflicts of interest, undisclosed  
funding, bad methodology, exaggeration of insignificant data, poor  
controls, heavily publicizing mere pilot studies, etc., etc., etc. 


If you had to ask, that may be part of the problem.

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... 
wrote:

 so do you honestly think that the majority of people practicing TM 
 have been duped into practicing a watered down half baked sort of 
 meditation technique that really doesn't deliver as promised, and 
 that all of us would be better off shrugging off our brainwashing 
 and going with the Buddhist mindfulness techniques you espouse?
 
 this seems to be your only message here, over and over and over and 
 over and over and over again Vaj.

It seems to be his fulltime occupation.

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11
no_re...@... wrote:

 in my own practice, for example, i have found that real guru/God
 (dess) devotion has furthered my progress in a way that the basic 
 knowledge i first gained from the TMO never could. 
 
 this devotional learning and experience though, instead of being a 
 contradiction of my earlier learning, has instead revealed a 
 fullness and liveliness to the basic teaching that the Maharishi 
 brought out, and completed an experiential understanding of 
 enlightenment, that continues to grow, and grow and grow. and 
 given the limitless experience of enlightenment, i don't see or 
 concieve of any end in sight.

Ah. I've been waiting for this. The first
overt claim of enlightenment: furthered my
progress...and completed an experiential
understanding of enlightenment...

Y'know, Dawn...even though he was before
your time here on FFL, you should really
spend some time looking into the history
of another poster here named Jim Flanegin.

He, too felt that he had gained an exper-
iental understanding of enlightenment. The
problem was in how he *demonstrated* that
enlightenment, or understanding of it. He 
chose to do it by adopting a completely 
experiential definition of enlightenment 
(basically, I say that I am enlightened, 
therefore anything I do is enlightenment), 
an anti-intellectual, my-experience-is-the-
definition approach to all things related to 
enlightenment and meditation, and a tendency 
to demonstrate higher powers such as being 
able to reincarnate as different beings, 
without having to die first to do it. 

At the same time, he demonstrated an inability
to either (pick one) count to 50, or control
his outbursts to stay within the posting limit.
He demonstrated a fast-and-loose relationship
with facts of any kind, attributing quotes to
historical figures that they not only never
said, but which were antithetical to their
philosophies and actual teachings. He also 
tended to display the opposite of the compassion
that many traditions present as one of the attri-
butes of enlightenment, consistently insulting
other posters here and calling them names. After
demonstrating his awesome powers of reincarn-
ation and being busted on having faked it, he 
refused to ever admit that he had done it, even 
while occasionally posting things under the fake 
new incarnation ID that still carried his real 
name, or otherwise demonstrating that the new 
person wasn't quite as new as presented.

In other words, he was a lot like you, Dawn. I
know that you're just a gal speaking your mind,
but what can you offer us that would help us to
*believe* your claim of having attained an 
experiential understanding of enlightenment?

Can you do better than Jim did?

And if not, how does that support your contention
that the experience of enlightenment is limitless,
that it continues to grow and grow and grow, and
that there is no end in sight.

In all honesty, all I've seen in your posts so far
is a rehash of the same stuff that Jim Flanegin 
used to spout here. Same old same old. And frankly,
a lot of us have been there, done that with that
approach, and we're hoping for a new spin on things,
or maybe a new approach to being enlightened in
cyberspace. Now that you've come out as someone
who could possibly do that, what can you show us
that is *different* than what has been shown us
before on this forum by supposedly enlightened
beings like Jim or Rory?

I think a lot of people here saw their present-
ations of enlightenment as fairly deluded and 
ego-based, although, to be honest, they might not 
have been. You are a newcomer, and now that you've 
outed yourself as having attained an experiential 
understanding of enlightenment, we're looking 
forward to how YOU demo it. 

The ball's in your court. Swing away.

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:

 
 On Feb 11, 2009, at 10:23 PM, geezerfreak wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@  
  wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
  transcend
  in all of the various Vedantic bodies, only the mental one, 
they
  never really achieve true silence in the yogic sense, just a 
blank
  thoughtless space and some karmic kundalini. Jnanic shakti seems
  sadly
  absent.
 
 
  Rather; what is sadly absent is Vaj's insight.
 
  Blank thoughtless space ? That's Buddhism.
  Dedicated Sidhas transcended this blank Nirvana years ago. Most  
  started
  experiencing the lively field back in the early '80s
 
  This fellow, this beginner on any path, except for the 
intellectual,
  this intense hater of all Maharishi ever said or did, along with 
the
  Turq, has no clue whatsoever of what Sidhas experience in the 
TMSP
  today.
 
  But somehow they are alarmed that the fire put on by the TMO will
  spread.
 
  With good reason.
 
  Gee Nabby, could you be any more condescending? You sound  
  positively attached to
  your invested identity as a TM TB. Ever really practiced 
Buddhism?  
  No, I thought not.
  (Neither have I but that's beside the point.)
 
  Your history is a little off here. The Sidha program was started 
in  
  1975. I know since I was
  there. It took another few months for the foam pads to come.  
  Initially, we just sat there in
  chairs, at least thats; what we did in the Sonnenberg and over at 
a  
  hotel whose name I've
  forgotten across the lake from Seelisberg.
 
  I practiced the Siddhis for several years on multiple courses 
in  
  Switzerland after that.
  Nabby you say that people like me have no clue what the Sidhas  
  experience today.
  Putting aside all of the assumptions you're making with a 
statement  
  like that, is anyone
  actually flying, meaning doing something other than bouncing 
around  
  on foam pads as we
  did back in the 70s?
 
  About this fire being put on by the TMOcan you steer me  
  towards evidence that this
  sweeping move towards TM by the human race is actually taking 
place?
 
 
 Thought free awareness is probably a better phrase. Nabby is  
 confusing a blank thought-free state with emptiness, but the two  
 are not the same thing. Thought-free awareness is experienced 
during  
 transcending and is common to many beginning stages of meditation  
 but, as Dr. Austin points out, should not be confused with samadhi.

As usual, for someone without extended experience with TM Vaj 
projects his ignorance. He claims are baseless and written to confuse 
readers.

Just for the record; only shortime TM-meditators experience thought-
free state, usually during Puja or the first few meditations. Vaj 
has attached himself to these beginning states probably because that 
is all his Buddhist meditations has given him.

For longtimers in TM also what Vaj calls emtiness is transcended. 
Anyone with longtime experience with TM and a Sattvic lifestyle 
experience the lively field of unbounded awareness. 

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[yifuxero]

---Very true Nab!  Another reason is that in the Dzogzen teachings of 
Vaj's Guru, Norbu Rinpoche, (as well as in Mahayana Buddhism as a 
whole); there's no ideological distinction between the Void and 
relative existence in the same way as in the Brahman concept (i.e. 
two aspects of Brahman, relative and Absolute).  
  This pov carries over into the techniques of Buddhism and the 
outlook.  In Mindfulness, (you can see this in what Vaj is saying); 
there's supposedly no blank TC or emptiness separate from relative 
experience; but rather - from the very beginning! - a perfect fusion 
of sensory experience and the Void.
 Also, Vaj fancies himself in the Garab Dorje lineage, in which 
there's a direct transmission of teachings but no intermediate type 
of Shakti used as a carrier for the immediate Realization.
 Such Vajian ideologies are fine in theory but break down in practice.
The mindfulness Buddhists may wind up have no experience at all - 
just a blank mind.
 Then, Vaj (in referring to the initial separateness of TC - that's 
experienced in early experience) claims that the dualistic type of 
transcendence is disassociation.
  Clearly, Vaj is trying to compensate for the mediocre results of 
his Garab Dorje/Norbu program by making false and twisted claims 
about the programs which really do work. 
 



 In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
 
  
  On Feb 11, 2009, at 10:23 PM, geezerfreak wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 
no_reply@  
   wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
   transcend
   in all of the various Vedantic bodies, only the mental one, 
 they
   never really achieve true silence in the yogic sense, just a 
 blank
   thoughtless space and some karmic kundalini. Jnanic shakti 
seems
   sadly
   absent.
  
  
   Rather; what is sadly absent is Vaj's insight.
  
   Blank thoughtless space ? That's Buddhism.
   Dedicated Sidhas transcended this blank Nirvana years ago. 
Most  
   started
   experiencing the lively field back in the early '80s
  
   This fellow, this beginner on any path, except for the 
 intellectual,
   this intense hater of all Maharishi ever said or did, along 
with 
 the
   Turq, has no clue whatsoever of what Sidhas experience in the 
 TMSP
   today.
  
   But somehow they are alarmed that the fire put on by the TMO 
will
   spread.
  
   With good reason.
  
   Gee Nabby, could you be any more condescending? You sound  
   positively attached to
   your invested identity as a TM TB. Ever really practiced 
 Buddhism?  
   No, I thought not.
   (Neither have I but that's beside the point.)
  
   Your history is a little off here. The Sidha program was 
started 
 in  
   1975. I know since I was
   there. It took another few months for the foam pads to come.  
   Initially, we just sat there in
   chairs, at least thats; what we did in the Sonnenberg and over 
at 
 a  
   hotel whose name I've
   forgotten across the lake from Seelisberg.
  
   I practiced the Siddhis for several years on multiple courses 
 in  
   Switzerland after that.
   Nabby you say that people like me have no clue what the 
Sidhas  
   experience today.
   Putting aside all of the assumptions you're making with a 
 statement  
   like that, is anyone
   actually flying, meaning doing something other than bouncing 
 around  
   on foam pads as we
   did back in the 70s?
  
   About this fire being put on by the TMOcan you steer me  
   towards evidence that this
   sweeping move towards TM by the human race is actually taking 
 place?
  
  
  Thought free awareness is probably a better phrase. Nabby is  
  confusing a blank thought-free state with emptiness, but the 
two  
  are not the same thing. Thought-free awareness is experienced 
 during  
  transcending and is common to many beginning stages of 
meditation  
  but, as Dr. Austin points out, should not be confused with 
samadhi.
 
 As usual, for someone without extended experience with TM Vaj 
 projects his ignorance. He claims are baseless and written to 
confuse 
 readers.
 
 Just for the record; only shortime TM-meditators 
experience thought-
 free state, usually during Puja or the first few meditations. Vaj 
 has attached himself to these beginning states probably because 
that 
 is all his Buddhist meditations has given him.
 
 For longtimers in TM also what Vaj calls emtiness is transcended. 
 Anyone with longtime experience with TM and a Sattvic lifestyle 
 experience the lively field of unbounded awareness.

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifux...@... wrote:

 ---Very true Nab!  Another reason is that in the Dzogzen teachings 
of 
 Vaj's Guru, Norbu Rinpoche, (as well as in Mahayana Buddhism as a 
 whole); there's no ideological distinction between the Void and 
 relative existence in the same way as in the Brahman concept 
(i.e. 
 two aspects of Brahman, relative and Absolute).  
   This pov carries over into the techniques of Buddhism and the 
 outlook.  In Mindfulness, (you can see this in what Vaj is saying); 
 there's supposedly no blank TC or emptiness separate from 
relative 
 experience; but rather - from the very beginning! - a perfect 
fusion 
 of sensory experience and the Void.
  Also, Vaj fancies himself in the Garab Dorje lineage, in which 
 there's a direct transmission of teachings but no intermediate 
type 
 of Shakti used as a carrier for the immediate Realization.
  Such Vajian ideologies are fine in theory but break down in 
practice.
 The mindfulness Buddhists may wind up have no experience at all - 
 just a blank mind.
  Then, Vaj (in referring to the initial separateness of TC - that's 
 experienced in early experience) claims that the dualistic type of 
 transcendence is disassociation.


   Clearly, Vaj is trying to compensate for the mediocre results of 
 his Garab Dorje/Norbu program by making false and twisted claims 
 about the programs which really do work. 

Very true.
Vaj is just a fanatic Buddhist fundamentalist.

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[enlightened_dawn11]

like emptybill put so well, Vaj is just distracting himself here. 
his message is the same one, over and over and over and over and 
over again. anyone with a year's or less worth of TM under his or 
her belt knows the experiential falsehood of this guy.

a good friend of mine just began TM and already he has transcended 
all of this surface-y stuff that Vaj talks about. 

i ask Vaj again- what are you doing here on FFL?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_re...@... 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifuxero@ wrote:
 
  ---Very true Nab!  Another reason is that in the Dzogzen 
teachings 
 of 
  Vaj's Guru, Norbu Rinpoche, (as well as in Mahayana Buddhism as 
a 
  whole); there's no ideological distinction between the Void and 
  relative existence in the same way as in the Brahman concept 
 (i.e. 
  two aspects of Brahman, relative and Absolute).  
This pov carries over into the techniques of Buddhism and the 
  outlook.  In Mindfulness, (you can see this in what Vaj is 
saying); 
  there's supposedly no blank TC or emptiness separate from 
 relative 
  experience; but rather - from the very beginning! - a perfect 
 fusion 
  of sensory experience and the Void.
   Also, Vaj fancies himself in the Garab Dorje lineage, in which 
  there's a direct transmission of teachings but no intermediate 
 type 
  of Shakti used as a carrier for the immediate Realization.
   Such Vajian ideologies are fine in theory but break down in 
 practice.
  The mindfulness Buddhists may wind up have no experience at 
all - 
  just a blank mind.
   Then, Vaj (in referring to the initial separateness of TC - 
that's 
  experienced in early experience) claims that the dualistic type 
of 
  transcendence is disassociation.
 
 
Clearly, Vaj is trying to compensate for the mediocre results 
of 
  his Garab Dorje/Norbu program by making false and twisted claims 
  about the programs which really do work. 
 
 Very true.
 Vaj is just a fanatic Buddhist fundamentalist.

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:

 
 On Feb 12, 2009, at 9:38 AM, sparaig wrote:
 
  Unfortunately I'm afraid Dr. Austin was probably under the false
  impression that he was in fact seeing good meditation research, when
  in fact he was not. It is unfortunate that even reputable scientists
  are fooled by TM research claims. Hopefully, as time goes on that  
  will
  become more widely known.
 
  Of course we now know that TC has never been demonstrated in TM  
  folks,
  only redefined and presented as such. An interesting metaphysical
  speculation is all it really is.
 
 
  ANd your rationale for assuming that the research was NOT done in good
  faith is...?
 
   Consistent use of: bias, conflicts of interest, undisclosed  
 funding, bad methodology, exaggeration of insignificant data, poor  
 controls, heavily publicizing mere pilot studies, etc., etc., etc. 
 
 If you had to ask, that may be part of the problem.



Unlike those stunning recent buddhist meditation studies you report?

LOL again.


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:


 
 IBiological Psychology
 Volume 61, Issue 3, November 2002, Pages 293-319
  
 Patterns of EEG coherence, power, and contingent negative variation
characterize the 
 integration of transcendental and waking states
 
 
 Travis, F. Eyes open and TM EEG patterns after one and after eight
years of TM practice. 
 Psychophysiology 28 (3a): S58, 1991.
 
 
 Don't have any more info then that, sorry.
 
 L


Thank you.  

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@
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.
   
   
   People who report witnessing sleep for at least a year have a
  distinct EEG
   pattern outside of TM: you can't tell whether they are meditating or
  not by
   glancing at their EEG.
   
   Is this moodmaking?
   
   L
  
  Who knows if it means anything of significance regarding
  enlightenment.  I don't use the word moodmaking at all.  I do know
  that there can be positive and negative states of mind.  You can
  dissociate to escape your world.  You can dissociate to function well
  in an emergency.  Same thing but very different. You can train
  yourself to witness sleep (lucid dreaming). Does it mean anything? 
  Probably not a negative, but why would it be a positive? If you had
  nightmares, lucid dreaming can get you out of that problem.  But as a
  stepping stone to enlightenment?  I doubt.
  
  
  Cite for study?  What was the control?
 
 
 IBiological Psychology
 Volume 61, Issue 3, November 2002, Pages 293-319
  
 Patterns of EEG coherence, power, and contingent negative variation
characterize the 
 integration of transcendental and waking states
 
 
 Travis, F. Eyes open and TM EEG patterns after one and after eight
years of TM practice. 
 Psychophysiology 28 (3a): S58, 1991.
 
 
 Don't have any more info then that, sorry.
 
 L

Thanks!

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[enlightened_dawn11]

mentally and emotionally it is-- he reminds me of a phase i went 
through after doing TM for my first 5 or 6 years, where i was 
convinced that the world could only be saved by this superior 
technique, and everyone who didn't do it was inferior to me. 

Despite the incredible strength of this delusion, this was eventually 
outgrown when i began to open my eyes and saw how unhappy i 
really was, despite clinging to this mountain of rationalization.

the thing about it was that the stronger i bought into my delusion, as 
Vaj has, the less i was able to even think about letting go of it, or 
seeing it for what it was. it became all consuming, and created a 
vacuum within me where no other way of seeing myself in relation to 
the world, and the non-believers in it, could exist. 

see how often Vaj says the same things repeatedly. and how he is 
literally unable to address, or even think of addressing, this 
question of his arrogant obsessiveness posed by others (six posters 
on FFL so far...). 

Vaj's inner response to any challenges to his obsessively repeated 
message here is that we are inferior to him in knowledge, and that the 
more we resist him as the great teacher that he sees himself as, the 
harder he must try to compassionately deliver his message to us.

and what is sad and weird at the same time is that he is so 
emotionally deluded about the state he is in, that we can freely 
communicate about this condition of his, as if he is not even here. 

i was nearly exactly the same way he is; i was a Vaj-like person once. 
his state is instantly recognizable once you have walked in his shoes. 

everything said here in appraisal of his mental/emotional condition 
goes through a filter for him and is rationalized in terms of his 
delusion. there is no way to get through to him, because the strength 
of his delusion is impervious; he knows the truth and the rest of us 
do not. how can you argue with that?

unfortunately, he is a lot older than i was when i experienced this 
delusion of spiritual superiority, so i am not sure he will ever grow 
out of it.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_re...@... 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  so do you honestly think that the majority of people practicing TM 
  have been duped into practicing a watered down half baked sort of 
  meditation technique that really doesn't deliver as promised, and 
  that all of us would be better off shrugging off our brainwashing 
  and going with the Buddhist mindfulness techniques you espouse?
  
  this seems to be your only message here, over and over and over 
and 
  over and over and over again Vaj.
 
 It seems to be his fulltime occupation.

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[yifuxero]

---Yes, Vaj seems to be suffering from some type of mental 
aberration, at least in the sense of some engrams from the 
past forcing him into this bizarre behavior.  I can see people 
dissing MMY, TM, etc; a few times, but I can't fathom why one would 
continue with this behavior day after day, for years.
 Though I favor TM, I've long ago grown to accept the fact that 
people have different preferences for various techniques, or no 
technique at all. 
 Take the people I work with: attorneys, quite intelligent in the 
brains department but not a single one of them is in the least bit 
interested in nondualist Dharma. And I have no desire to tell any of 
them about TM, mindfulness, etc.
 Basically, I don't give a crap whether people practice TM, 
mindfulness, or stand on their heads.
 The fact that Vaj is so obsessive about dissing MMY and TM is indeed 
a case-study in a class for abnormal psychology. Bizarre!

 In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... 
wrote:

 mentally and emotionally it is-- he reminds me of a phase i went 
 through after doing TM for my first 5 or 6 years, where i was 
 convinced that the world could only be saved by this superior 
 technique, and everyone who didn't do it was inferior to me. 
 
 Despite the incredible strength of this delusion, this was 
eventually 
 outgrown when i began to open my eyes and saw how unhappy i 
 really was, despite clinging to this mountain of rationalization.
 
 the thing about it was that the stronger i bought into my delusion, 
as 
 Vaj has, the less i was able to even think about letting go of it, 
or 
 seeing it for what it was. it became all consuming, and created a 
 vacuum within me where no other way of seeing myself in relation to 
 the world, and the non-believers in it, could exist. 
 
 see how often Vaj says the same things repeatedly. and how he is 
 literally unable to address, or even think of addressing, this 
 question of his arrogant obsessiveness posed by others (six posters 
 on FFL so far...). 
 
 Vaj's inner response to any challenges to his obsessively repeated 
 message here is that we are inferior to him in knowledge, and that 
the 
 more we resist him as the great teacher that he sees himself as, 
the 
 harder he must try to compassionately deliver his message to us.
 
 and what is sad and weird at the same time is that he is so 
 emotionally deluded about the state he is in, that we can freely 
 communicate about this condition of his, as if he is not even here. 
 
 i was nearly exactly the same way he is; i was a Vaj-like person 
once. 
 his state is instantly recognizable once you have walked in his 
shoes. 
 
 everything said here in appraisal of his mental/emotional condition 
 goes through a filter for him and is rationalized in terms of his 
 delusion. there is no way to get through to him, because the 
strength 
 of his delusion is impervious; he knows the truth and the rest of 
us 
 do not. how can you argue with that?
 
 unfortunately, he is a lot older than i was when i experienced this 
 delusion of spiritual superiority, so i am not sure he will ever 
grow 
 out of it.
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 
no_reply@ 
  wrote:
  
   so do you honestly think that the majority of people practicing 
TM 
   have been duped into practicing a watered down half baked sort 
of 
   meditation technique that really doesn't deliver as promised, 
and 
   that all of us would be better off shrugging off our 
brainwashing 
   and going with the Buddhist mindfulness techniques you espouse?
   
   this seems to be your only message here, over and over and over 
 and 
   over and over and over again Vaj.
  
  It seems to be his fulltime occupation.
 

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[enlightened_dawn11]

well, as i said i had a pretty fanatical mindset about TM at one 
time in my life, although i never made it public and i didn't obsess 
about it every day for years on end. Vaj could possibly benefit from 
some anti depressants at this point- not that i am a shrink...

i agree with your other point that i would not bring up meditation 
in the workplace, unless i sensed a clear affinity for it in someone.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifux...@... 
wrote:

 ---Yes, Vaj seems to be suffering from some type of mental 
 aberration, at least in the sense of some engrams from the 
 past forcing him into this bizarre behavior.  I can see people 
 dissing MMY, TM, etc; a few times, but I can't fathom why one 
would 
 continue with this behavior day after day, for years.
  Though I favor TM, I've long ago grown to accept the fact that 
 people have different preferences for various techniques, or no 
 technique at all. 
  Take the people I work with: attorneys, quite intelligent in the 
 brains department but not a single one of them is in the least bit 
 interested in nondualist Dharma. And I have no desire to tell any 
of 
 them about TM, mindfulness, etc.
  Basically, I don't give a crap whether people practice TM, 
 mindfulness, or stand on their heads.
  The fact that Vaj is so obsessive about dissing MMY and TM is 
indeed 
 a case-study in a class for abnormal psychology. Bizarre!
 
  In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  mentally and emotionally it is-- he reminds me of a phase i went 
  through after doing TM for my first 5 or 6 years, where i was 
  convinced that the world could only be saved by this superior 
  technique, and everyone who didn't do it was inferior to me. 
  
  Despite the incredible strength of this delusion, this was 
 eventually 
  outgrown when i began to open my eyes and saw how unhappy i 
  really was, despite clinging to this mountain of rationalization.
  
  the thing about it was that the stronger i bought into my 
delusion, 
 as 
  Vaj has, the less i was able to even think about letting go of 
it, 
 or 
  seeing it for what it was. it became all consuming, and created 
a 
  vacuum within me where no other way of seeing myself in relation 
to 
  the world, and the non-believers in it, could exist. 
  
  see how often Vaj says the same things repeatedly. and how he is 
  literally unable to address, or even think of addressing, this 
  question of his arrogant obsessiveness posed by others (six 
posters 
  on FFL so far...). 
  
  Vaj's inner response to any challenges to his obsessively 
repeated 
  message here is that we are inferior to him in knowledge, and 
that 
 the 
  more we resist him as the great teacher that he sees himself as, 
 the 
  harder he must try to compassionately deliver his message to 
us.
  
  and what is sad and weird at the same time is that he is so 
  emotionally deluded about the state he is in, that we can freely 
  communicate about this condition of his, as if he is not even 
here. 
  
  i was nearly exactly the same way he is; i was a Vaj-like person 
 once. 
  his state is instantly recognizable once you have walked in his 
 shoes. 
  
  everything said here in appraisal of his mental/emotional 
condition 
  goes through a filter for him and is rationalized in terms of 
his 
  delusion. there is no way to get through to him, because the 
 strength 
  of his delusion is impervious; he knows the truth and the rest 
of 
 us 
  do not. how can you argue with that?
  
  unfortunately, he is a lot older than i was when i experienced 
this 
  delusion of spiritual superiority, so i am not sure he will ever 
 grow 
  out of it.
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ 
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 
 no_reply@ 
   wrote:
   
so do you honestly think that the majority of people 
practicing 
 TM 
have been duped into practicing a watered down half baked 
sort 
 of 
meditation technique that really doesn't deliver as 
promised, 
 and 
that all of us would be better off shrugging off our 
 brainwashing 
and going with the Buddhist mindfulness techniques you 
espouse?

this seems to be your only message here, over and over and 
over 
  and 
over and over and over again Vaj.
   
   It seems to be his fulltime occupation.
  
 

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfr...@...
wrote:

 Obsessive? You're the one who posted out (63 in 3 days!) little 
 lady. 

No, the good sister was a victim of the Post
Count mechanism chopping wood and carrying 
water for her. It wasn't her fault. You know,
like what explains her behavior -- the three
gunas defence. :-)

 As I've mentioned before, I do have a life outside of FFL. The 
 last thing I want to do is waste what little free time I have 
 engaging in endless tangled word games with you. 

Her definition of losing an argument is 
refusing to get sucked into an everlasting
argument with her. You should know that by
now. By exhibiting common sense and limiting
yourself to the occasional drive-by remark,
you lose. 

 Doing THAT would upset mewasted time I could never get back. 
 So no, you don't upset me. You amuse me, albeit in a sick kind 
 of way. 

That is the distinction that neither she nor
her partner in obsession seem to get. If you
have noticed, almost all of her fantasies
revolve around how strongly she has affected
those she dumps on. They hate her. They are
afraid of the things she posts. They are
embarrassed when she devastates them by
pointing out the flaws in their drive-bys. 
They are afraid to interact with her and 
get involved in her everlasting arguments.

As far as I can tell, these *are* fantasies.
From my point of view, most of the posters here
on FFL give her the same amount of attention 
and credence that they give Shemp and Willytex.
As you suggest, they are *amused* by her and
tolerant of her, not afraid of her. That she 
cannot see this makes her more amusing, and
gives us more to tolerate.  :-)

I know I've been harping on this Sister Aloysius
thang, but it really *would* behoove her to see
the film Doubt. There is something about sitting
in a movie theater and seeing someone onscreen
doing *your* own act that puts that act into some 
kind of perspective, such that even a person who is
completely unable to see themselves as others see
her is finally able to do so, because in the movie
theater she is the other and her likeness up on
the screen is what the other is looking at. I
think it would be really *good* for her to get 
this kinda distance on her everyday behavior, and
be able to see it *as* her everyday behavior. Maybe
seeing it in someone else would help her realize
how others see it when she behaves like that.

Then again, there is some possibility that she is
going to believe that Sister Aloysius is the hero
of the movie. Really. That in itself would be
highly amusing. :-)

 I can leave FFL for months on end and know that all I have 
 to do is pop back in to find you running your same Mother 
 Superior trip on whoever disagrees with you. It's comical 
 but I fully admit to having a twisted sense of humor.

I can provide third-party verification of this. Geez
is nothing if not twisted. That is why we got along
so well.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
 
 Curtis, what say you to Fred Travis' finding that long-term and short-term
  TMers show the same overall physiological changes DURING TM but that
 there
  are distinct differences between long-term and short-term meditators
  outside of TM?
  
  L.
 
 If the changes are good and the research is good research and can be
 replicated then that sounds like it might be a good thing.  I don't
 know what they are measuring or how to evaluate it.  I would be open
 to the idea that meditation changes you in some way.  I don't know if
 it is a valuable difference or not.  But I dig your interest in
 presenting the research here.  It is a piece of the puzzle for
 understanding.   


You know its an interesting thing. Fred made it very clear that he did NOT 
want to accept his own findings and kept on trying to find ways to invalidate
his own research, but couldn't. 

I contrast that with certain meditation studies that have been recently 
published
that everyone appears to accept without question because they weren't done
by TM researchers


L.

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5
 dhamiltony2k5@ wrote:
 
  Curtis writes in this, I don't share his (Maharishi's) view
  that the silence experienced in meditation is our true nature or our
  real self.
  
  Ouch, is that right? True?
 
 Without the belief system mindset experiencing the silence of
 meditation is not obviously my true nature or real self.  It is
 just a state of mind I can experience. I don't know what it means but
 I would not on my own assume it was a part of me that survives death
 for example, or any of the other magical properties Maharishi ascribes
 to it.
 
 Do you feel that it is your true nature or real self?  Why?

If silence is more consistent than non-silence, how could you NOT identify it
as being more real than non-silence?


L.

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[enlightened_dawn11]

i am still trying to figure out why on earth i would want a rainbow 
body...color me clueless about that- lol. 

seriously, to say there are states of evolution beyond enlightenment 
again presupposes enlightenment as something finite. it isn't. even 
the rainbow body phenomenon if it exists could be said to be a 
progression of continuing enlightenment, the final attainment of 
which doesn't exist, because enlightenment in its fully ripened form 
encompasses -everything-, relative and absolute.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifux...@... 
wrote:

 ---great!...and there are stages of evolution beyond 
Enlightenment; 
 to begin with, some form of physical perfection then evolving 
toward 
 the attainment of a Glorified body.  Of course, such evolutionary 
 developments are relative, but nevertheless possibly where 
humanity 
 is headed.
  Neo-Advaitins typically downplay such progressions.  Vaj called 
the 
 attainment of a Glorified Rainbow Light Body an epiphenomenon.
 Of course, all of this is speculative anyway; but the notion that 
 Enlightenment is some type of pinnacle seems counterintuitive. A 
 phase-transition would probably be a more appropriate phrase.
 But even then, everything has to be placed into the context of 
what 
 people want, what makes them happy, and where they believe lies 
the 
 source of happiness.
 
 
  In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  in order to attempt an understanding of enlightenment, the 
waking 
  state mind conceptualizes enlightenment as an object, with 
  conventional attributes and boundaries. but enlightenment is 
  unbounded by its very definition, without attributes and 
 boundaries. 
  
  so when the identification of the mind itself changes from bound 
to 
  an entity that constantly grows and expands, and continues to 
  expand, that is the change of the mind that occurs with 
  enlightenment. anything the waking state mind attempts to latch 
  onto, and think, yes, THAT is enlightenment will necessarily 
be 
  incorrect. 
  
  enlightenment is a process, beginning with a fundamental change 
in 
  identification, from self to Self. that is why there are three 
  distinct stages of enlightenment in the TM lexiccn, and many 
many 
  more stages beyond that. to think incorrectly of waking state 
  morphing into another bound atate, the state of enlightenment, 
is a 
  mental trick with no value.
  
  the first establishment of enlightenment, CC, is just the 
 beginning, 
  and neither that, nor any other state of enlightenment that 
ripens 
  subsequently, can be conceptualized by the waking state mind.
  
  conceptualization needs at least two values, both fixed. so if a 
  person from waking state, a fixed value, attempts to 
conceptualize 
 a 
  second, elightened state, which is not fixed but ever expanding, 
  there is no way to compare the two, no way to bridge the 
apparent 
  distance between the fixed and the not fixed, by thinking. it is 
  like trying to mathematically compute all of the numbers between 
 one 
  and infinity. impossible. 
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ 
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Larry inmadison@ 
wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan 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. 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. 
 
 
 So why would PC, which is eternally free and unbounded, 
the 
  substratum
 of the gods, the Being of the universe, experience itself 
as 
  limited?
 Exactly when did this delusion of Pure Consciousness begin?

Ultimately, this is a question for the philosophers of the 
  group - but
experientially, this is what Maharishi referred to as the
'naturalness' of waking state, or the 'naturalness' of CC or 
the
'naturalness' of any state of consciousness - - it is 
  accompanied by a
sense of This is how I have always 

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... 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.


THe physiological correlates associated with TM-style detachment seem
to be different than that associated with certain other forms, even though
the self-reported descriptions seem to be identical.

Does this make them better or worse, or the same?

L

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[enlightened_dawn11]

the key is in Curtis's statement about the silence -experienced in 
meditation-. by saying this, he indicates that the silence 
experienced in meditation does not also pervade activity before and 
after meditation, and so the -silence experienced in meditation- 
becomes just another relative phenomenon, experienced as transient. 

only when silence is experienced continuously, waking, dreaming and 
sleeping does it convey its true nature as something we can identify 
with. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5
  dhamiltony2k5@ wrote:
  
   Curtis writes in this, I don't share his (Maharishi's) view
   that the silence experienced in meditation is our true nature 
or our
   real self.
   
   Ouch, is that right? True?
  
  Without the belief system mindset experiencing the silence of
  meditation is not obviously my true nature or real self.  It 
is
  just a state of mind I can experience. I don't know what it 
means but
  I would not on my own assume it was a part of me that survives 
death
  for example, or any of the other magical properties Maharishi 
ascribes
  to it.
  
  Do you feel that it is your true nature or real self?  Why?
 
 If silence is more consistent than non-silence, how could you NOT 
identify it
 as being more real than non-silence?
 
 
 L.

Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[Vaj]

On Feb 10, 2009, at 11:40 PM, yifuxero wrote:


Neo-Advaitins typically downplay such progressions.  Vaj called the
attainment of a Glorified Rainbow Light Body an epiphenomenon.


No, you misunderstood what I  was saying. The remainder, the non- 
DNA containing bodily remains, are the epiphenomenon to the 'ja lus.

Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[Vaj]

On Feb 11, 2009, at 5:22 AM, sparaig wrote:

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues  
curtisdeltabl...@... wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5
dhamiltony2k5@ wrote:


Curtis writes in this, I don't share his (Maharishi's) view
that the silence experienced in meditation is our true nature or our
real self.

Ouch, is that right? True?


Without the belief system mindset experiencing the silence of
meditation is not obviously my true nature or real self.  It is
just a state of mind I can experience. I don't know what it means but
I would not on my own assume it was a part of me that survives death
for example, or any of the other magical properties Maharishi  
ascribes

to it.

Do you feel that it is your true nature or real self?  Why?


If silence is more consistent than non-silence, how could you NOT  
identify it

as being more real than non-silence?



IME, meditators get addicted to silent states and calm, thought- 
free states, just makes them flat. I suspect this is why many  
outsiders experience TM folks as having a flat affect. They don't  
integrate thought, they're too busy trying to escape it.

Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[Vaj]

On Feb 9, 2009, at 10:34 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutp...@...  
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.


It's funny, because while some followers of TM path claim to be  
established in pure consciousness, none have yet been able to  
demonstrate the actual outcome of that identification: control of  
waking, dreaming and sleeping. If you're in turiyatita, or CC, you're  
quite literally beyond waking, sleeping and dreaming. It's a  
perfect example of the parrot only learning to repeat what the  
parrot's heard. Since meditators are given a diluted description,  
they learn to identify with the definition they were given, to the  
letter--but never, ever (without exception IME) any of the full  
criteria. When someone only achieves what they were told, what does  
that tell you?

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:

 When someone only achieves what they were told, what does  
 that tell you?

That you are a hobby-Buddhist and a fool ?

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11
no_re...@... wrote:

 the key is in Curtis's statement about the silence -experienced in 
 meditation-. by saying this, he indicates that the silence 
 experienced in meditation does not also pervade activity before and 
 after meditation, and so the -silence experienced in meditation- 
 becomes just another relative phenomenon, experienced as transient. 
 
 only when silence is experienced continuously, waking, dreaming and 
 sleeping does it convey its true nature as something we can identify 
 with. 

I do and it isn't ED. My identity is not the silent quality of my mind
that exists in my activity.  That is not a self evident experience. 
It takes a belief system to support it.  Just because I have a silent
quality of my mind doesn't mean that is the part I identify as my
self.  For me it is the least interesting quality of my mind.  Not
that is has no uses. But my identity lie with the parts of me that I
value most.

I know it is appealing to believe that your perspective is a universal
truth.  But we all interpret our internal experience our own way.  I
spent time with a lot of monks who did TM and they never indentifed
the silence of their minds in activity as their true self.  They
considered this a critical theological difference between Maharishi
and their POV.  So it is not a given that anyone who experiences
witnessing or any of the other altered states from meditation will
come to the same conclusions you have about what they mean.  



 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5
   dhamiltony2k5@ wrote:
   
Curtis writes in this, I don't share his (Maharishi's) view
that the silence experienced in meditation is our true nature 
 or our
real self.

Ouch, is that right? True?
   
   Without the belief system mindset experiencing the silence of
   meditation is not obviously my true nature or real self.  It 
 is
   just a state of mind I can experience. I don't know what it 
 means but
   I would not on my own assume it was a part of me that survives 
 death
   for example, or any of the other magical properties Maharishi 
 ascribes
   to it.
   
   Do you feel that it is your true nature or real self?  Why?
  
  If silence is more consistent than non-silence, how could you NOT 
 identify it
  as being more real than non-silence?
  
  
  L.
 

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@
 wrote:
 
  Obsessive? You're the one who posted out (63 in 3 days!) little 
  lady. 
 
 No, the good sister was a victim of the Post
 Count mechanism chopping wood and carrying 
 water for her. It wasn't her fault. You know,
 like what explains her behavior -- the three
 gunas defence. :-)

And one more example of Barry creating his own
reality.

I have never, *ever* cited the three gunas
defence [sic] to explain my behavior or claim
that something wasn't my fault.

As many times as it's explained to him, Barry
still doesn't get that the Gita's I do not act
at all premise *cannot* be used to excuse
behavior. A person's behavior can be judged only
on its own terms *even if* it's determined by
the gunas, and *even if* the person manifesting
it experiences it as such. If I chop somebody's
foot instead of a piece of wood, I'm fully
responsible for his pain and suffering and
medical bills, both legally and ethically, 
*whether or not* it is my experience that his
foot got chopped rather than that I chopped it.

snip
 Her definition of losing an argument is 
 refusing to get sucked into an everlasting
 argument with her.

It wouldn't have to be everlasting if the
person were able to make a better argument, or
to acknowledge that the opposing argument was
better. The person who disses an argument
*without engaging it* doesn't get to claim the
benefit of the doubt that he could win it if he
wanted to bother--especially when all he ever
does is diss without engaging.

snip
 That is the distinction that neither she nor
 her partner in obsession seem to get. If you
 have noticed, almost all of her fantasies
 revolve around how strongly she has affected
 those she dumps on. They hate her. They are
 afraid of the things she posts. They are
 embarrassed when she devastates them by
 pointing out the flaws in their drive-bys. 
 They are afraid to interact with her and 
 get involved in her everlasting arguments.
 
 As far as I can tell, these *are* fantasies.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! wheeze

Barry Wright, Master of Inadvertent Irony.

I could fill *pages and pages* with quotes from
Barry's posts fantasizing about how I was stung
by his comments, how they made me so angry I was
out of control, how I was criticizing him
for something because he'd nailed me in a post 
the previous day (or even week).

 From my point of view, most of the posters here
 on FFL give her the same amount of attention 
 and credence that they give Shemp and Willytex.

Like Curtis, for example?

Maybe it's because most of the posters here think
hierarchically rather than relationally?

guffaw

snip
 I know I've been harping on this Sister Aloysius
 thang, but it really *would* behoove her to see
 the film Doubt.

And Barry is quite *certain* of this, you see.

horselaugh

From another post of Barry's:

 But I'd like to thank you for reinforcing my
 contention in that post, that some TMers have
 a kind of conditioned hierarchical thinking
 that they can't shake loose from. In your
 response to Curtis, you play word games to
 say that you don't think the state you was
 higher, but then say that *for you*, the
 state is better. Clearly hierarchical, just
 as I suggested.

Not, of course, just as [Barry] suggested. 
What he suggested was that I was telling Curtis
it was higher *for everybody*.

But yes, I did say it was better for me, and that
is hierarchical in terms of my own experience,
just as was Curtis's assertion that his ordinary
state is better for him than the nonattached state.

Basically, Barry isn't making much of a point.
Almost everybody thinks hierarchically in one way
or another; it isn't a fault particular to the
TMO or even to spiritual organizations generally.

Barry's own posts, of course, are *crammed* with
hierarchical thinking; it's rare to find a post
of his that doesn't suggest some way of thinking
or behavior (i.e., his) is better than another.

Even his previous post establishes a hierarchy:
Relational databases yield increased performance
compared to hierarchical ones; and he suggests
that hierarchical thinking has so poisoned the
minds of TMers that their thinking is severely
limited.

(He's always getting caught in this kind of
infinite regress. Maybe if he became aware of
his own tendency to think hierarchically, he'd
be able to see it coming.)

 I would also like to thank you, before you
 post out for the week, for agreeing with 
 everything else that I said in that post. 
 After all, haven't you said in the past when
 I point out that you've snipped a lot of stuff
 that if you don't reply to something specific
 in one of my posts that you are responding to 
 it's because you agree with it or have nothing 
 to say about it?

Generally speaking, yes. In many cases, though,
given your penchant for repetition, I've
responded to the same point elsewhere and don't
need to do so again. In other 

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:

  Do you feel that it is your true nature or real self?  Why?
 
 If silence is more consistent than non-silence, how could you NOT
identify it as being more real than non-silence?

Perhaps that kind of consistency is not the only measure. 

My sense of my self includes the silent part of my mind, but it is not
the only consistent part of my internal world.  I have other personal
tendencies that have been a part of me as long as I have known myself.
 Just because a part of my mind can be awake during sleep doesn't mean
that is my identity.  In fact it retains nothing of what I value about
myself so it is definitely not the best aspect of who I am.

Most meditators have adapted Maharishi's interpretation of what
constitutes the self.  I am not arguing that you should stop if you
enjoy that POV.  But I don't share it.  I interpret my experiences
differently.  This identification is not a set thing, it is shaped by
pre-suppositional beliefs.  





 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5
  dhamiltony2k5@ wrote:
  
   Curtis writes in this, I don't share his (Maharishi's) view
   that the silence experienced in meditation is our true nature or our
   real self.
   
   Ouch, is that right? True?
  
  Without the belief system mindset experiencing the silence of
  meditation is not obviously my true nature or real self.  It is
  just a state of mind I can experience. I don't know what it means but
  I would not on my own assume it was a part of me that survives death
  for example, or any of the other magical properties Maharishi ascribes
  to it.
  
  Do you feel that it is your true nature or real self?  Why?
 
 If silence is more consistent than non-silence, how could you NOT
identify it
 as being more real than non-silence?
 
 
 L.

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[enlightened_dawn11]

it is disingenuous to say that the identification with pure 
awareness during activity necessitates a belief system. the 
explanation of what is going on is necessary to understand it. but i 
wouldn't constitute an explanation as a belief system. the awareness 
is there whether the explanation is there or not. the explanation is 
there to dispel confusion.

and let's be clear about the distinction between the pregnant 
pauses everyone experiences during activity, and the established 
permanent experience of pure consciousness. the former is something 
that is a natural process of the thinking mind, and common. the 
latter is something so all encompassing that it is an unmistakable 
common denominator even during the most dynamic activity. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
curtisdeltabl...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11
 no_reply@ wrote:
 
  the key is in Curtis's statement about the silence -experienced 
in 
  meditation-. by saying this, he indicates that the silence 
  experienced in meditation does not also pervade activity before 
and 
  after meditation, and so the -silence experienced in meditation- 
  becomes just another relative phenomenon, experienced as 
transient. 
  
  only when silence is experienced continuously, waking, dreaming 
and 
  sleeping does it convey its true nature as something we can 
identify 
  with. 
 
 I do and it isn't ED. My identity is not the silent quality of my 
mind
 that exists in my activity.  That is not a self evident 
experience. 
 It takes a belief system to support it.  Just because I have a 
silent
 quality of my mind doesn't mean that is the part I identify as my
 self.  For me it is the least interesting quality of my mind.  Not
 that is has no uses. But my identity lie with the parts of me that 
I
 value most.
 
 I know it is appealing to believe that your perspective is a 
universal
 truth.  But we all interpret our internal experience our own way.  
I
 spent time with a lot of monks who did TM and they never indentifed
 the silence of their minds in activity as their true self.  They
 considered this a critical theological difference between Maharishi
 and their POV.  So it is not a given that anyone who experiences
 witnessing or any of the other altered states from meditation will
 come to the same conclusions you have about what they mean.  
 
 
 
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ 
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5
dhamiltony2k5@ wrote:

 Curtis writes in this, I don't share his (Maharishi's) 
view
 that the silence experienced in meditation is our true 
nature 
  or our
 real self.
 
 Ouch, is that right? True?

Without the belief system mindset experiencing the silence of
meditation is not obviously my true nature or real 
self.  It 
  is
just a state of mind I can experience. I don't know what it 
  means but
I would not on my own assume it was a part of me that 
survives 
  death
for example, or any of the other magical properties 
Maharishi 
  ascribes
to it.

Do you feel that it is your true nature or real self?  Why?
   
   If silence is more consistent than non-silence, how could you 
NOT 
  identify it
   as being more real than non-silence?
   
   
   L.
  
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[Vaj]

On Feb 11, 2009, at 10:55 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11
no_re...@... wrote:


the key is in Curtis's statement about the silence -experienced in
meditation-. by saying this, he indicates that the silence
experienced in meditation does not also pervade activity before and
after meditation, and so the -silence experienced in meditation-
becomes just another relative phenomenon, experienced as transient.

only when silence is experienced continuously, waking, dreaming and
sleeping does it convey its true nature as something we can identify
with.


I do and it isn't ED. My identity is not the silent quality of my mind
that exists in my activity.  That is not a self evident experience.
It takes a belief system to support it.  Just because I have a silent
quality of my mind doesn't mean that is the part I identify as my
self.  For me it is the least interesting quality of my mind.  Not
that is has no uses. But my identity lie with the parts of me that I
value most.

I know it is appealing to believe that your perspective is a universal
truth.  But we all interpret our internal experience our own way.  I
spent time with a lot of monks who did TM and they never indentifed
the silence of their minds in activity as their true self.  They
considered this a critical theological difference between Maharishi
and their POV.  So it is not a given that anyone who experiences
witnessing or any of the other altered states from meditation will
come to the same conclusions you have about what they mean.



Interesting comments, as it is clear that ED has really bought into  
the TM belief spiel without a lot of critical thought or any sort of  
broad experience. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that adheres  
precisely the SCI spiel and little else. I would guess that after so  
many years and with so much investment, the ego has little choice, if  
one wants to have some sense of specialness one must start being  
hypervigiliant about our states until the two, what Marshy sez and  
our own, matches. Then the first thing you do is sign up for an email  
list and start blabbing about how enlightened you are.

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[enlightened_dawn11]

who said anything about me being enlightened? i haven't. obviously 
your years of meditation have not improved your ability to read Vaj.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:

 
 On Feb 11, 2009, at 10:55 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11
  no_reply@ wrote:
 
  the key is in Curtis's statement about the silence -experienced 
in
  meditation-. by saying this, he indicates that the silence
  experienced in meditation does not also pervade activity before 
and
  after meditation, and so the -silence experienced in meditation-
  becomes just another relative phenomenon, experienced as 
transient.
 
  only when silence is experienced continuously, waking, dreaming 
and
  sleeping does it convey its true nature as something we can 
identify
  with.
 
  I do and it isn't ED. My identity is not the silent quality of 
my mind
  that exists in my activity.  That is not a self evident 
experience.
  It takes a belief system to support it.  Just because I have a 
silent
  quality of my mind doesn't mean that is the part I identify as my
  self.  For me it is the least interesting quality of my mind.  
Not
  that is has no uses. But my identity lie with the parts of me 
that I
  value most.
 
  I know it is appealing to believe that your perspective is a 
universal
  truth.  But we all interpret our internal experience our own 
way.  I
  spent time with a lot of monks who did TM and they never 
indentifed
  the silence of their minds in activity as their true self.  They
  considered this a critical theological difference between 
Maharishi
  and their POV.  So it is not a given that anyone who experiences
  witnessing or any of the other altered states from meditation 
will
  come to the same conclusions you have about what they mean.
 
 
 Interesting comments, as it is clear that ED has really bought 
into  
 the TM belief spiel without a lot of critical thought or any sort 
of  
 broad experience. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that adheres  
 precisely the SCI spiel and little else. I would guess that after 
so  
 many years and with so much investment, the ego has little choice, 
if  
 one wants to have some sense of specialness one must start being  
 hypervigiliant about our states until the two, what Marshy sez 
and  
 our own, matches. Then the first thing you do is sign up for an 
email  
 list and start blabbing about how enlightened you are.

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11
no_re...@... wrote:

 it is disingenuous to say that the identification with pure 
 awareness during activity necessitates a belief system.

I'm pretty sure you aren't clear about the meaning of disingenuous. I
am being as sincere as you are in asserting that I believe it is
influenced by beliefs.

 the 
 explanation of what is going on is necessary to understand it. but i
 wouldn't constitute an explanation as a belief system.

Then you are using the term belief in a non standard way.  You'll
have to define it for me so I can follow. 

the awareness  is there whether the explanation is there or not.

It is the interpretation of that awareness as the self that I am
questioning.  The silent aspect of our awareness is beneath our
beliefs.  But identifying that aspect as our self depends on our
beliefs about it.  Maharishi himself makes this point in his Mahavakya
tapes. The experiences of his higher states rely on a supporting
belief structure for it to all click.  It is not self evident. He
makes this point about the last Mahavakya but there are more including
one for CC.  I am that is a belief.

 the explanation is  there to dispel confusion.

Who's confused?  Most discussions of Maharishi's higher state end in
an appeal to what is considered special mystical knowledge in
philosophy.  It takes the form If you experienced what I do you would
believe as I do.  But for people who spent time in Maharishi's system
we do share many common experiences and can discuss it in more detail,
how we choose to interpret them.  

My point is not that you shouldn't interpret your experiences as you
do.  If it works well for you, good for you.  My point is that this is
not the only way to view them.  There is no one right way, no highest
teaching that is too right to question.  I don't believe we as humans
know what these experiences mean yet.

And here is the part that I want to make without giving offense:  I
don't believe Maharishi or you do either.



 
 and let's be clear about the distinction between the pregnant 
 pauses everyone experiences during activity, and the established 
 permanent experience of pure consciousness. the former is something 
 that is a natural process of the thinking mind, and common. the 
 latter is something so all encompassing that it is an unmistakable 
 common denominator even during the most dynamic activity. 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11
  no_reply@ wrote:
  
   the key is in Curtis's statement about the silence -experienced 
 in 
   meditation-. by saying this, he indicates that the silence 
   experienced in meditation does not also pervade activity before 
 and 
   after meditation, and so the -silence experienced in meditation- 
   becomes just another relative phenomenon, experienced as 
 transient. 
   
   only when silence is experienced continuously, waking, dreaming 
 and 
   sleeping does it convey its true nature as something we can 
 identify 
   with. 
  
  I do and it isn't ED. My identity is not the silent quality of my 
 mind
  that exists in my activity.  That is not a self evident 
 experience. 
  It takes a belief system to support it.  Just because I have a 
 silent
  quality of my mind doesn't mean that is the part I identify as my
  self.  For me it is the least interesting quality of my mind.  Not
  that is has no uses. But my identity lie with the parts of me that 
 I
  value most.
  
  I know it is appealing to believe that your perspective is a 
 universal
  truth.  But we all interpret our internal experience our own way.  
 I
  spent time with a lot of monks who did TM and they never indentifed
  the silence of their minds in activity as their true self.  They
  considered this a critical theological difference between Maharishi
  and their POV.  So it is not a given that anyone who experiences
  witnessing or any of the other altered states from meditation will
  come to the same conclusions you have about what they mean.  
  
  
  
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ 
   wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
   curtisdeltablues@ wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5
 dhamiltony2k5@ wrote:
 
  Curtis writes in this, I don't share his (Maharishi's) 
 view
  that the silence experienced in meditation is our true 
 nature 
   or our
  real self.
  
  Ouch, is that right? True?
 
 Without the belief system mindset experiencing the silence of
 meditation is not obviously my true nature or real 
 self.  It 
   is
 just a state of mind I can experience. I don't know what it 
   means but
 I would not on my own assume it was a part of me that 
 survives 
   death
 for example, or any of the other magical properties 
 Maharishi 
   ascribes
 to it.
   

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@
  wrote:
  
   Obsessive? You're the one who posted out (63 in 3 days!) little 
   lady. 
  
  No, the good sister was a victim of the Post
  Count mechanism chopping wood and carrying 
  water for her. It wasn't her fault. You know,
  like what explains her behavior -- the three
  gunas defence. :-)
 
 And one more example of Barry creating his own
 reality.
 
 I have never, *ever* cited the three gunas
 defence [sic] to explain my behavior or claim
 that something wasn't my fault.

Because I'm having so much fun taunting
Judy on her way to posting out, I will
reply to the above by pointing out that
*she* is the one creating her own reality.
I neither said nor suggested that *she* had
said the stuff in the paragraph she's having
a hissy fit about. Those were clearly *my*
thoughts about her, expressed from my point
of view.

Doesn't it make you wonder how good of an
editor she is if she can't tell the difference?

 As many times as it's explained to him, Barry
 still doesn't get that the Gita's I do not act
 at all premise *cannot* be used to excuse
 behavior. A person's behavior can be judged only
 on its own terms *even if* it's determined by
 the gunas, and *even if* the person manifesting
 it experiences it as such. If I chop somebody's
 foot instead of a piece of wood, I'm fully
 responsible for his pain and suffering and
 medical bills, both legally and ethically, 
 *whether or not* it is my experience that his
 foot got chopped rather than that I chopped it.

My point, which you have never gotten, is
that you can *say* this, but you rarely
seem to act upon it. You consistently fail
to take responsibility for your own actions,
such as calling the director of a film you
have never seen a Christian bigot. You've
*still* never taken responsibility for that.
To the contrary, you have justified it via
an appeal to authority in the form of the
person's article you chose to believe with-
out ever having seen the movie, and then
subsequently have never even had the balls
to see the film yourself, to see if the
person you are relying on as an authority
was correct. 

Does this sound like a person who is taking
responsibility for her actions to you?

Now the *reason* you fail to take respons-
ibility for your actions may *not* be a belief
that you don't really do them and that the
three gunas did it, but if that's not the
reason, what is? Why do you remain so adamantly
certain to this day about something you have
no first-hand knowledge of? Why can't you
admit to even the *possibility* that you slan-
dared Mel Gibson by calling him a Christian
bigot? I mean, wouldn't a person who took
responsibility for their actions be able to
admit the *possibility* of being wrong? 

 snip
  Her definition of losing an argument is 
  refusing to get sucked into an everlasting
  argument with her.
 
 It wouldn't have to be everlasting if the
 person were able to make a better argument, or
 to acknowledge that the opposing argument was
 better. 

In other words, if they agreed with you.

I do not think that I am alone here in 
having noticed that that's the only thing 
that seems to satisfy you in one of your
arguments. There is no such thing as agree-
ing to disagree. You seem to have this need
to win. Your definition above of a better
argument -- while *again* being clearly 
hierarchical in its insistence on better 
and worse -- is of an argument in which 
the other party agrees to keep arguing with
you, or in the end agrees with you. 

 The person who disses an argument
 *without engaging it* doesn't get to claim the
 benefit of the doubt that he could win it if he
 wanted to bother--especially when all he ever
 does is diss without engaging.

Where have I suggested that I won any
argument recently, Judy? Where has anyone
*else* made such a suggestion? Doncha think
that maybe you're proposing a bit of a straw
man argument here? Insisting that you've won
is what YOU do here. You do it several times
in this very post, although not using the
word won. 

As for dissing arguments they aren't par-
ticipating in, I don't see anything wrong
with that. Are you suggesting that if one
sees a couple of five-year-olds squabbling
on the playground and making asses of them-
selves in an argument, that the only way one
can respond to it is by joining the argument?
I know that's what you'd probably do, but I'm
just not drawn that way. I'd laugh at the
two kids and make fun of them until they 
realized how stupid they were acting, and 
lightened up. I kinda suspect that's what 
Geez has had in mind with his drive bys. 
I know that's what I've had in mind. 

 snip
  That is the distinction that neither she nor
  her partner in obsession seem to get. If you
  have noticed, almost all of her fantasies
  revolve around how strongly she has 

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley
j_alexander_stan...@... 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. 

 

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[yifuxero]

-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.

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:

 
 On Feb 11, 2009, at 5:22 AM, sparaig wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues  
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5
  dhamiltony2k5@ wrote:
 
  Curtis writes in this, I don't share his (Maharishi's) view
  that the silence experienced in meditation is our true nature or our
  real self.
 
  Ouch, is that right? True?
 
  Without the belief system mindset experiencing the silence of
  meditation is not obviously my true nature or real self.  It is
  just a state of mind I can experience. I don't know what it means but
  I would not on my own assume it was a part of me that survives death
  for example, or any of the other magical properties Maharishi  
  ascribes
  to it.
 
  Do you feel that it is your true nature or real self?  Why?
 
  If silence is more consistent than non-silence, how could you NOT  
  identify it
  as being more real than non-silence?
 
 
 IME, meditators get addicted to silent states and calm, thought- 
 free states, just makes them flat. I suspect this is why many  
 outsiders experience TM folks as having a flat affect. They don't  
 integrate thought, they're too busy trying to escape it.


Certainly  mood-making would make folks off and no-doubt there's lots
of mood-making going on at MUM. On the other hand, Fred Travis has been
at MUM for nearly 30 years and doesn't come off that way.


L.

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:

 
 On Feb 9, 2009, at 10:34 PM, ruthsimplicity 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.
 
 It's funny, because while some followers of TM path claim to be  
 established in pure consciousness, none have yet been able to  
 demonstrate the actual outcome of that identification: control of  
 waking, dreaming and sleeping. If you're in turiyatita, or CC, you're  
 quite literally beyond waking, sleeping and dreaming. It's a  
 perfect example of the parrot only learning to repeat what the  
 parrot's heard. Since meditators are given a diluted description,  
 they learn to identify with the definition they were given, to the  
 letter--but never, ever (without exception IME) any of the full  
 criteria. When someone only achieves what they were told, what does  
 that tell you?


Its funny, the assumption made in TM theory is that CC is a *natural state
that can't be turned on or off, so the fact that people showing signs of
CC aren't in control of their states of consciousness the way you describe
isn't seen as a big deal by TM researchers. Of course, since you've decided
that spontaneous doesn't mean spontaneous then naturally people
who are spontaneous can't be enlightened.


L.

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
 
  
  On Feb 11, 2009, at 5:22 AM, sparaig wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues  
   curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5
   dhamiltony2k5@ wrote:
  
   Curtis writes in this, I don't share his (Maharishi's) view
   that the silence experienced in meditation is our true nature
or our
   real self.
  
   Ouch, is that right? True?
  
   Without the belief system mindset experiencing the silence of
   meditation is not obviously my true nature or real self.  It is
   just a state of mind I can experience. I don't know what it
means but
   I would not on my own assume it was a part of me that survives
death
   for example, or any of the other magical properties Maharishi  
   ascribes
   to it.
  
   Do you feel that it is your true nature or real self?  Why?
  
   If silence is more consistent than non-silence, how could you NOT  
   identify it
   as being more real than non-silence?
  
  
  IME, meditators get addicted to silent states and calm, thought- 
  free states, just makes them flat. I suspect this is why many  
  outsiders experience TM folks as having a flat affect. They don't  
  integrate thought, they're too busy trying to escape it.
 
 
 Certainly  mood-making would make folks off and no-doubt there's lots
 of mood-making going on at MUM. On the other hand, Fred Travis has been
 at MUM for nearly 30 years and doesn't come off that way.
 
 
 L.

Maybe Fred Travis doesn't meditate too much.  

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
 
   Do you feel that it is your true nature or real self?  Why?
  
  If silence is more consistent than non-silence, how could you NOT
 identify it as being more real than non-silence?
 
 Perhaps that kind of consistency is not the only measure. 
 
 My sense of my self includes the silent part of my mind, but it is not
 the only consistent part of my internal world.  I have other personal
 tendencies that have been a part of me as long as I have known myself.
  Just because a part of my mind can be awake during sleep doesn't mean
 that is my identity.  In fact it retains nothing of what I value about
 myself so it is definitely not the best aspect of who I am.
 
 Most meditators have adapted Maharishi's interpretation of what
 constitutes the self.  I am not arguing that you should stop if you
 enjoy that POV.  But I don't share it.  I interpret my experiences
 differently.  This identification is not a set thing, it is shaped by
 pre-suppositional beliefs.  
 

There's something you're missing here: physiological correlates of the whole 
thing.

While its true that interpretation plays a part in how you describe something,
fact is that champion athletes are more likely to show physiological signs of
enlightenment AND describe their inner self in CC-like terms than non-champion
athletes.

L.

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[sparaig]

--- 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.


People who report witnessing sleep for at least a year have a distinct EEG
pattern outside of TM: you can't tell whether they are meditating or not by
glancing at their EEG.

Is this moodmaking?

L

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
  
   
   On Feb 11, 2009, at 5:22 AM, sparaig wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues  
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5
dhamiltony2k5@ wrote:
   
Curtis writes in this, I don't share his (Maharishi's) view
that the silence experienced in meditation is our true nature
 or our
real self.
   
Ouch, is that right? True?
   
Without the belief system mindset experiencing the silence of
meditation is not obviously my true nature or real self.  It is
just a state of mind I can experience. I don't know what it
 means but
I would not on my own assume it was a part of me that survives
 death
for example, or any of the other magical properties Maharishi  
ascribes
to it.
   
Do you feel that it is your true nature or real self?  Why?
   
If silence is more consistent than non-silence, how could you NOT  
identify it
as being more real than non-silence?
   
   
   IME, meditators get addicted to silent states and calm, thought- 
   free states, just makes them flat. I suspect this is why many  
   outsiders experience TM folks as having a flat affect. They don't  
   integrate thought, they're too busy trying to escape it.
  
  
  Certainly  mood-making would make folks off and no-doubt there's lots
  of mood-making going on at MUM. On the other hand, Fred Travis has been
  at MUM for nearly 30 years and doesn't come off that way.
  
  
  L.
 
 Maybe Fred Travis doesn't meditate too much.


Maybe not. OR maybe he is just a busy researcher who meditates regularly.


L.

Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[Vaj]

On Feb 11, 2009, at 1:07 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:


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.



From _Zen and the Brain_ by James Austin, MD
(from, Chapter 29 Inkblots, Blind Spots, and High Spots)

High Spots

We take up again the kind of episode that many persons enter for a  
fleeting instant:
an experience which confers at least the surface layer of such a  
major insight
into reality. After this, relatively few go on to fully actualize  
this moment of
insight-wisdom. Actualizing means putting one’s insight-wisdom  
consistently into
practice in everyday life. Maslow interviewed several dozen well- 
known “self-actualizing”
people, conducting what he called a “Pre-scientific, freewheeling  
reconnaissance.”

22 He wondered: were those actualizers who did have peak and/or
plateau experiences any different from the others?

They were. He called them “transcenders.” How did transcenders view  
their
earlier peak experiences? As the precious “high spots” of life. As  
the moments
which had transformed the way they subsequently looked at the world  
and themselves.

Only on occasion did some transcenders later go on to manifest their
brand-new perspective. But the others did so in an ongoing manner “as  
a usual
thing.” In either instance, the subjects appeared to be living at  
what Maslow
would call the “level of Being.” This phrase meant that they were  
directing their

life toward intrinsic values, toward ends, not means.

His nontranscending self-actualizers were different. They inhabited a  
hardnosed,
competitive world. It was the all-too-familiar one in which each of  
us asks,
of other people and of things: do they have what I need? Existence at  
this level

means quickly using up the useful, discarding the useless.

In sharp contrast, the real transcenders appreciated the sacred in  
the secular.
Nevertheless, they still kept their firm practical grip on reality.  
Maslow believed
this latter pragmatic quality was like a traditional Zen attitude. It  
was the perspective
that fully accepted all things as “nothing special.” Transcenders  
also used the
language of “Being” in a natural way. They would quickly recognize  
one another,
communicating readily on first meeting. They responded more to  
beauty; to holistic,

cosmic viewpoints; moved more readily beyond self; were more innovative.
The more they knew, the more awed and humbled they were by the  
increasing
mystery of the universe. Being more objective about their own  
talents, they regarded

themselves as instruments. Still aware of evil, they remained objective
about it, striking out swiftly to stop it, and with less ambivalence.  
These transcenders

tended to regard everyone as fellow members of the same sacred human
family. It was an attitude that helped them interact more effectively  
with other
people who did not perform well. It enabled them to punish  
transgressors for the

sake of the greater good, yet still treat fools kindly.

But Maslow’s transcenders had their downside as well. They were not as
happy as his other, healthy self-actualizers. They seemed prone to a  
kind of “cosmic-
sadness.” This arose out of “the stupidity of people, their self- 
defeat, their
blindness, their cruelty to each other, their short sightedness.” So  
his transcenders
had not yet become 100 percent emancipated. They were still troubled  
by that
large gap between the ideal and the actual—by that gulf between what  
“should”
be or “ought” to be possible and the sad conditions which do in fact  
exist in the
real world. Long ago, Siddhartha had started out on his own quest,  
having been
greatly troubled by that same gap, and he would not become fully  
emancipated

from it until he was thirty-five years old.

Soon we will examine where such “shoulds” and “oughts” come from. In
the process, we will observe how Zen training keeps addressing this  
very gap,
itself the source of so many of our downside attitudes. Then we will  
discover why
such strongly prejudiced opinions take us so many decades to  
reconcile. And to

go beyond.

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ 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.
 
 
 People who report witnessing sleep for at least a year have a
distinct EEG
 pattern outside of TM: you can't tell whether they are meditating or
not by
 glancing at their EEG.
 
 Is this moodmaking?
 
 L

Who knows if it means anything of significance regarding
enlightenment.  I don't use the word moodmaking at all.  I do know
that there can be positive and negative states of mind.  You can
dissociate to escape your world.  You can dissociate to function well
in an emergency.  Same thing but very different. You can train
yourself to witness sleep (lucid dreaming). Does it mean anything? 
Probably not a negative, but why would it be a positive? If you had
nightmares, lucid dreaming can get you out of that problem.  But as a
stepping stone to enlightenment?  I doubt.


Cite for study?  What was the control?

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
   

On Feb 11, 2009, at 5:22 AM, sparaig wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues  
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5
 dhamiltony2k5@ wrote:

 Curtis writes in this, I don't share his (Maharishi's) view
 that the silence experienced in meditation is our true nature
  or our
 real self.

 Ouch, is that right? True?

 Without the belief system mindset experiencing the silence of
 meditation is not obviously my true nature or real
self.  It is
 just a state of mind I can experience. I don't know what it
  means but
 I would not on my own assume it was a part of me that survives
  death
 for example, or any of the other magical properties Maharishi  
 ascribes
 to it.

 Do you feel that it is your true nature or real self?  Why?

 If silence is more consistent than non-silence, how could
you NOT  
 identify it
 as being more real than non-silence?


IME, meditators get addicted to silent states and calm,
thought- 
free states, just makes them flat. I suspect this is why many  
outsiders experience TM folks as having a flat affect. They
don't  
integrate thought, they're too busy trying to escape it.
   
   
   Certainly  mood-making would make folks off and no-doubt
there's lots
   of mood-making going on at MUM. On the other hand, Fred Travis
has been
   at MUM for nearly 30 years and doesn't come off that way.
   
   
   L.
  
  Maybe Fred Travis doesn't meditate too much.
 
 
 Maybe not. OR maybe he is just a busy researcher who meditates
regularly.
 
 
 L.
  I am sure his activity helps a lot. 

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[sparaig]

Interesting book, but he misquotes teh TM research on TC and claims that
they only show TC for 15 seconds max, when in fact, the reserach says 
15 to 60 seconds max. His discussion then becomes bogus since 60 seconds,
occurring  for more than 50% of a meditation period, is not a fleeting 
instant.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:

 
 On Feb 11, 2009, at 1:07 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
 
  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.
 
 
  From _Zen and the Brain_ by James Austin, MD
 (from, Chapter 29 Inkblots, Blind Spots, and High Spots)
 
 High Spots
 
 We take up again the kind of episode that many persons enter for a  
 fleeting instant:
 an experience which confers at least the surface layer of such a  
 major insight
 into reality. After this, relatively few go on to fully actualize  
 this moment of
 insight-wisdom. Actualizing means putting one�s insight-wisdom  
 consistently into
 practice in everyday life. Maslow interviewed several dozen well- 
 known �self-actualizing�
 people, conducting what he called a �Pre-scientific, freewheeling  
 reconnaissance.�
 22 He wondered: were those actualizers who did have peak and/or
 plateau experiences any different from the others?
 
 They were. He called them �transcenders.� How did transcenders view  
 their
 earlier peak experiences? As the precious �high spots� of life. As  
 the moments
 which had transformed the way they subsequently looked at the world  
 and themselves.
 Only on occasion did some transcenders later go on to manifest their
 brand-new perspective. But the others did so in an ongoing manner �as  
 a usual
 thing.� In either instance, the subjects appeared to be living at  
 what Maslow
 would call the �level of Being.� This phrase meant that they were  
 directing their
 life toward intrinsic values, toward ends, not means.
 
 His nontranscending self-actualizers were different. They inhabited a  
 hardnosed,
 competitive world. It was the all-too-familiar one in which each of  
 us asks,
 of other people and of things: do they have what I need? Existence at  
 this level
 means quickly using up the useful, discarding the useless.
 
 In sharp contrast, the real transcenders appreciated the sacred in  
 the secular.
 Nevertheless, they still kept their firm practical grip on reality.  
 Maslow believed
 this latter pragmatic quality was like a traditional Zen attitude. It  
 was the perspective
 that fully accepted all things as �nothing special.� Transcenders  
 also used the
 language of �Being� in a natural way. They would quickly recognize  
 one another,
 communicating readily on first meeting. They responded more to  
 beauty; to holistic,
 cosmic viewpoints; moved more readily beyond self; were more innovative.
 The more they knew, the more awed and humbled they were by the  
 increasing
 mystery of the universe. Being more objective about their own  
 talents, they regarded
 themselves as instruments. Still aware of evil, they remained objective
 about it, striking out swiftly to stop it, and with less ambivalence.  
 These transcenders
 tended to regard everyone as fellow members of the same sacred human
 family. It was an attitude that helped them interact more effectively  
 with other
 people who did not perform well. It enabled them to punish  
 transgressors for the
 sake of the greater good, yet still treat fools kindly.
 
 But Maslow�s transcenders had their downside as well. They were not as
 happy as his other, healthy self-actualizers. They seemed prone to a  
 kind of �cosmic-
 sadness.� This arose out of �the stupidity of people, their self- 
 defeat, their
 blindness, their cruelty to each other, their short sightedness.� So  
 his transcenders
 had not yet become 100 percent emancipated. They were still troubled  
 by that
 large gap between the ideal and the actual�by that gulf between what  
 �should�
 be or �ought� to be possible and the sad conditions which do in fact  
 exist in the
 real world. Long ago, Siddhartha had started out on his own quest,  
 having been
 greatly troubled by that same gap, and he would not become fully  
 emancipated
 from it until he was thirty-five years old.
 
 Soon we will examine where such �shoulds� and �oughts� come from. In
 the process, we will observe how Zen training keeps addressing this  
 very gap,
 itself the source of so many of our downside attitudes. Then we will  
 discover why
 such strongly prejudiced opinions take us so many decades to  
 reconcile. And to
 go beyond.

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[enlightened_dawn11]

i have not heard any other explanation for the experience of silence 
aka pure consciousness along with activity, from the Maharishi or 
anyone else. every time it is addressed, this is the explanation 
given. the words used may be different, but regardless of the 
spiritual tradition or religion, this is always the explanation. so 
perhaps you are OK coming up with alternatives, whereas i will just 
take the lazy way out.:) 

as for this being the best or the highest blah blah blah, that is a 
personal choice each of us makes. i've been consistent since i began 
posting here that i have my opinions and my experiences, but not 
trying to get others to adopt them or agree with them. otherwise i 
would have become a spiritual teacher of some sort, and i did not. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
curtisdeltabl...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11
 no_reply@ wrote:
 
  it is disingenuous to say that the identification with pure 
  awareness during activity necessitates a belief system.
 
 I'm pretty sure you aren't clear about the meaning of 
disingenuous. I
 am being as sincere as you are in asserting that I believe it is
 influenced by beliefs.
 
  the 
  explanation of what is going on is necessary to understand it. 
but i
  wouldn't constitute an explanation as a belief system.
 
 Then you are using the term belief in a non standard way.  You'll
 have to define it for me so I can follow. 
 
 the awareness  is there whether the explanation is there or not.
 
 It is the interpretation of that awareness as the self that I am
 questioning.  The silent aspect of our awareness is beneath our
 beliefs.  But identifying that aspect as our self depends on our
 beliefs about it.  Maharishi himself makes this point in his 
Mahavakya
 tapes. The experiences of his higher states rely on a supporting
 belief structure for it to all click.  It is not self evident. He
 makes this point about the last Mahavakya but there are more 
including
 one for CC.  I am that is a belief.
 
  the explanation is  there to dispel confusion.
 
 Who's confused?  Most discussions of Maharishi's higher state end 
in
 an appeal to what is considered special mystical knowledge in
 philosophy.  It takes the form If you experienced what I do you 
would
 believe as I do.  But for people who spent time in Maharishi's 
system
 we do share many common experiences and can discuss it in more 
detail,
 how we choose to interpret them.  
 
 My point is not that you shouldn't interpret your experiences as 
you
 do.  If it works well for you, good for you.  My point is that 
this is
 not the only way to view them.  There is no one right way, no 
highest
 teaching that is too right to question.  I don't believe we as 
humans
 know what these experiences mean yet.
 
 And here is the part that I want to make without giving 
offense:  I
 don't believe Maharishi or you do either.
 
 
 
  
  and let's be clear about the distinction between the pregnant 
  pauses everyone experiences during activity, and the 
established 
  permanent experience of pure consciousness. the former is 
something 
  that is a natural process of the thinking mind, and common. the 
  latter is something so all encompassing that it is an 
unmistakable 
  common denominator even during the most dynamic activity. 
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11
   no_reply@ wrote:
   
the key is in Curtis's statement about the silence -
experienced 
  in 
meditation-. by saying this, he indicates that the silence 
experienced in meditation does not also pervade activity 
before 
  and 
after meditation, and so the -silence experienced in 
meditation- 
becomes just another relative phenomenon, experienced as 
  transient. 

only when silence is experienced continuously, waking, 
dreaming 
  and 
sleeping does it convey its true nature as something we can 
  identify 
with. 
   
   I do and it isn't ED. My identity is not the silent quality of 
my 
  mind
   that exists in my activity.  That is not a self evident 
  experience. 
   It takes a belief system to support it.  Just because I have a 
  silent
   quality of my mind doesn't mean that is the part I identify as 
my
   self.  For me it is the least interesting quality of my mind.  
Not
   that is has no uses. But my identity lie with the parts of me 
that 
  I
   value most.
   
   I know it is appealing to believe that your perspective is a 
  universal
   truth.  But we all interpret our internal experience our own 
way.  
  I
   spent time with a lot of monks who did TM and they never 
indentifed
   the silence of their minds in activity as their true self.  
They
   considered this a critical theological difference between 
Maharishi
   and their POV.  So it is not a given that anyone who 
experiences
   witnessing or any of the 

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[Marek Reavis]

Comment below:

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
curtisdeltabl...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
 
   Do you feel that it is your true nature or real self?  Why?
  
  If silence is more consistent than non-silence, how could you NOT
 identify it as being more real than non-silence?
 
 Perhaps that kind of consistency is not the only measure. 
 
 My sense of my self includes the silent part of my mind, but it is 
not
 the only consistent part of my internal world.  I have other 
personal
 tendencies that have been a part of me as long as I have known 
myself.
  Just because a part of my mind can be awake during sleep doesn't 
mean
 that is my identity.  In fact it retains nothing of what I value 
about
 myself so it is definitely not the best aspect of who I am.
 
 Most meditators have adapted Maharishi's interpretation of what
 constitutes the self.  I am not arguing that you should stop if you
 enjoy that POV.  But I don't share it.  I interpret my experiences
 differently.  This identification is not a set thing, it is shaped 
by
 pre-suppositional beliefs.  
 
 
 
 
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5
   dhamiltony2k5@ wrote:
   
Curtis writes in this, I don't share his (Maharishi's) view
that the silence experienced in meditation is our true nature 
or our
real self.

Ouch, is that right? True?
   
   Without the belief system mindset experiencing the silence of
   meditation is not obviously my true nature or real self.  
It is
   just a state of mind I can experience. I don't know what it 
means but
   I would not on my own assume it was a part of me that survives 
death
   for example, or any of the other magical properties Maharishi 
ascribes
   to it.
   
   Do you feel that it is your true nature or real self?  Why?
  
  If silence is more consistent than non-silence, how could you NOT
 identify it
  as being more real than non-silence?
  
  
  L.
 

**end

Curtis, your POV on this subject has been of great value for me.  For 
myself, the cultural value placed on the silent witness by Maharishi 
and other vedanta teachers, is something I'm still willing to affirm, 
based on my own experience, that has some more universal human 
value.  It does seem noumenal as opposed to phenomenal, but there's 
no way to confirm that it is actually universal and transcendent to 
all things.  Nevertheless, I can understand how this experience would 
give rise to the basic philosophy of vedanta that Maharishi 
originally spoke about and taught.

And in my own life experiences, I haven't run across people who speak 
of anything like witnessing or seem to be able to relate to it.  No 
one I know, at least.  I'm happy enough with this personality but it 
seems to be more like a torus, or a bagel, and the hole of the bagel 
is where I am (or something like that -- I've tried to reply to 
this thread and the one that preceeded it several times now and I 
can't seem to be able to express what it is that I feel about the 
subject, but this is my best try so far).

Anyway, thanks, and a great discussion.

Marek

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ 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.
  
  
  People who report witnessing sleep for at least a year have a
 distinct EEG
  pattern outside of TM: you can't tell whether they are meditating or
 not by
  glancing at their EEG.
  
  Is this moodmaking?
  
  L
 
 Who knows if it means anything of significance regarding
 enlightenment.  I don't use the word moodmaking at all.  I do know
 that there can be positive and negative states of mind.  You can
 dissociate to escape your world.  You can dissociate to function well
 in an emergency.  Same thing but very different. You can train
 yourself to witness sleep (lucid dreaming). Does it mean anything? 
 Probably not a negative, but why would it be a positive? If you had
 nightmares, lucid dreaming can get you out of that problem.  But as a
 stepping stone to enlightenment?  I doubt.
 
 
 Cite for study?  What was the control?


IBiological Psychology
Volume 61, Issue 3, November 2002, Pages 293-319
 
Patterns of EEG coherence, power, and contingent negative variation 
characterize the 
integration of transcendental and waking states


Travis, F. Eyes open and TM EEG patterns after one and after eight years of TM 
practice. 
Psychophysiology 28 (3a): S58, 1991.


Don't have any more info then that, sorry.

L

Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[I am the eternal]

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 6:15 AM, Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net wrote:
 IME, meditators get addicted to silent states and calm, thought-free
 states, just makes them flat. I suspect this is why many outsiders
 experience TM folks as having a flat affect. They don't integrate thought,
 they're too busy trying to escape it.

The thing is that the silence comes and goes, comes and goes, comes
and goes and eventually stays for longer periods.  These people didn't
get Maharishi's teaching to take it as it comes.  So sort of like a
rat  that's learned superstitious behavior in a Skinner box or some
South Sea islanders who've developed a cargo cult, the meditator is
doing whatever appears is needed to get back to and keep the silence.
 It appears to them that if they keep real still, don't engage in much
action and don't experience the full range of emotions the silence
comes and stays around longer.  Not following Maharishi's teaching on
the matter, they actually prevent the silence from growing in them.
Rather than dipping the cloth then pulling out and exposing to the
sun, they're trying to keep the cloth immersed in the dye.

A similar mistake is made in the Mother Divine cult, where the THMDs
and wannabes stop after every few breaths, every few words, every few
movements to examine what they've just said, breathed or done,
thinking that this is the witnessing Maharishi talked about.

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[enlightened_dawn11]

good comment, and insightful conclusion regarding the motivation for 
such activity, or lack thereof. putting the dyed cloth in the sun so 
to speak is what its all about!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal 
l.shad...@... wrote:

 On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 6:15 AM, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:
  IME, meditators get addicted to silent states and calm, 
thought-free
  states, just makes them flat. I suspect this is why many 
outsiders
  experience TM folks as having a flat affect. They don't 
integrate thought,
  they're too busy trying to escape it.
 
 The thing is that the silence comes and goes, comes and goes, comes
 and goes and eventually stays for longer periods.  These people 
didn't
 get Maharishi's teaching to take it as it comes.  So sort of 
like a
 rat  that's learned superstitious behavior in a Skinner box or some
 South Sea islanders who've developed a cargo cult, the meditator is
 doing whatever appears is needed to get back to and keep the 
silence.
  It appears to them that if they keep real still, don't engage in 
much
 action and don't experience the full range of emotions the silence
 comes and stays around longer.  Not following Maharishi's teaching 
on
 the matter, they actually prevent the silence from growing in them.
 Rather than dipping the cloth then pulling out and exposing to the
 sun, they're trying to keep the cloth immersed in the dye.
 
 A similar mistake is made in the Mother Divine cult, where the 
THMDs
 and wannabes stop after every few breaths, every few words, every 
few
 movements to examine what they've just said, breathed or done,
 thinking that this is the witnessing Maharishi talked about.

Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[Vaj]

On Feb 11, 2009, at 2:25 PM, sparaig wrote:

 Interesting book, but he misquotes teh TM research on TC and claims  
 that
 they only show TC for 15 seconds max, when in fact, the reserach says
 15 to 60 seconds max. His discussion then becomes bogus since 60  
 seconds,
 occurring  for more than 50% of a meditation period, is not a  
 fleeting instant.


Unfortunately I'm afraid Dr. Austin was probably under the false  
impression that he was in fact seeing good meditation research, when  
in fact he was not. It is unfortunate that even reputable scientists  
are fooled by TM research claims. Hopefully, as time goes on that will  
become more widely known.

Of course we now know that TC has never been demonstrated in TM folks,  
only redefined and presented as such. An interesting metaphysical  
speculation is all it really is.

Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[Vaj]

On Feb 11, 2009, at 4:08 PM, I am the eternal wrote:


On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 6:15 AM, Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net wrote:
IME, meditators get addicted to silent states and calm, thought- 
free

states, just makes them flat. I suspect this is why many outsiders
experience TM folks as having a flat affect. They don't integrate  
thought,

they're too busy trying to escape it.


The thing is that the silence comes and goes, comes and goes, comes
and goes and eventually stays for longer periods.  These people didn't
get Maharishi's teaching to take it as it comes.  So sort of like a
rat  that's learned superstitious behavior in a Skinner box or some
South Sea islanders who've developed a cargo cult, the meditator is
doing whatever appears is needed to get back to and keep the silence.
It appears to them that if they keep real still, don't engage in much
action and don't experience the full range of emotions the silence
comes and stays around longer.  Not following Maharishi's teaching on
the matter, they actually prevent the silence from growing in them.
Rather than dipping the cloth then pulling out and exposing to the
sun, they're trying to keep the cloth immersed in the dye.

A similar mistake is made in the Mother Divine cult, where the THMDs
and wannabes stop after every few breaths, every few words, every few
movements to examine what they've just said, breathed or done,
thinking that this is the witnessing Maharishi talked about.



My observation would be, since TM folks aren't taught how to transcend  
in all of the various Vedantic bodies, only the mental one, they  
never really achieve true silence in the yogic sense, just a blank  
thoughtless space and some karmic kundalini. Jnanic shakti seems sadly  
absent.


Of course everyone's different, so you can't rule out that some people  
may have certain predisposing factors, but such a thing would be  
extremely rare.

Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[I am the eternal]

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net wrote:


 On Feb 11, 2009, at 4:08 PM, I am the eternal wrote:

 My observation would be, since TM folks aren't taught how to transcend in
 all of the various Vedantic bodies, only the mental one, they never
 really achieve true silence in the yogic sense, just a blank thoughtless
 space and some karmic kundalini. Jnanic shakti seems sadly absent.

 Of course everyone's different, so you can't rule out that some people may
 have certain predisposing factors, but such a thing would be extremely rare.


Indeed, I was experiencing this as a kid, a teen, young adult and during my
puja I transcended hard.  So hard that the initiator had to wait about 30
minutes for me to come back.  He just stood there and waited for me.  He
later told me later that he had no instruction about what to do in a case
like that.  I was lead by both hands to the classroom to meditate.  It did
no good.  I couldn't meditate. I just completely dropped out of sight for
another 30 minutes.  It was a couple weeks before I actually got to the
point of thinking my mantra.

My mum told me that she realized during the puja that TM was just like a
high mass.  I knew exactly what she meant because I used to spend hours at a
time as a little shaver dropping out for hours at a time at novenas.

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[geezerfreak]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 I could fill *pages and pages* with quotes from
 Barry's posts fantasizing about how I was stung
 by his comments, how they made me so angry I was
 out of control, how I was criticizing him
 for something because he'd nailed me in a post 
 the previous day (or even week).
 
 horselaugh

Yeow..Judy having a horselaugh. There's a mental picture I could have 
done without.

Back to the subject at hand though. I don't believe you can really fill pages 
and pages' of 
quotes from Barry detailing how you were stung by his comments. Now that you 
have an 
enforced time out you'll surely have plenty of time to put this all together 
over the next few 
days.

Remember now, I don't want to see a few quotes.I'm challenging you to come 
up with 
pages and pages of them.

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[enlightened_dawn11]

so do you honestly think that the majority of people practicing TM 
have been duped into practicing a watered down half baked sort of 
meditation technique that really doesn't deliver as promised, and 
that all of us would be better off shrugging off our brainwashing 
and going with the Buddhist mindfulness techniques you espouse?

this seems to be your only message here, over and over and over and 
over and over and over again Vaj.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:

 
 On Feb 11, 2009, at 2:25 PM, sparaig wrote:
 
  Interesting book, but he misquotes teh TM research on TC and 
claims  
  that
  they only show TC for 15 seconds max, when in fact, the reserach 
says
  15 to 60 seconds max. His discussion then becomes bogus since 
60  
  seconds,
  occurring  for more than 50% of a meditation period, is not a  
  fleeting instant.
 
 
 Unfortunately I'm afraid Dr. Austin was probably under the false  
 impression that he was in fact seeing good meditation research, 
when  
 in fact he was not. It is unfortunate that even reputable 
scientists  
 are fooled by TM research claims. Hopefully, as time goes on that 
will  
 become more widely known.
 
 Of course we now know that TC has never been demonstrated in TM 
folks,  
 only redefined and presented as such. An interesting metaphysical  
 speculation is all it really is.

Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[Vaj]

On Feb 11, 2009, at 5:04 PM, I am the eternal wrote:


On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net wrote:

On Feb 11, 2009, at 4:08 PM, I am the eternal wrote:

My observation would be, since TM folks aren't taught how to  
transcend in all of the various Vedantic bodies, only the mental  
one, they never really achieve true silence in the yogic sense, just  
a blank thoughtless space and some karmic kundalini. Jnanic shakti  
seems sadly absent.


Of course everyone's different, so you can't rule out that some  
people may have certain predisposing factors, but such a thing would  
be extremely rare.


Indeed, I was experiencing this as a kid, a teen, young adult and  
during my puja I transcended hard.  So hard that the initiator had  
to wait about 30 minutes for me to come back.  He just stood there  
and waited for me.  He later told me later that he had no  
instruction about what to do in a case like that.  I was lead by  
both hands to the classroom to meditate.  It did no good.  I  
couldn't meditate. I just completely dropped out of sight for  
another 30 minutes.  It was a couple weeks before I actually got to  
the point of thinking my mantra.


My mum told me that she realized during the puja that TM was just  
like a high mass.  I knew exactly what she meant because I used to  
spend hours at a time as a little shaver dropping out for hours at a  
time at novenas.


That was precisely what I meant.

They claim if your kundalini was awoken in a previous existence, you  
carry that across existences. IME this is true. There's usually a re- 
familiarization that takes place in childhood, which can sometimes be  
traumatic, at least socially. Some kids will spontaneously meditate.

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:
transcend  
 in all of the various Vedantic bodies, only the mental one, they  
 never really achieve true silence in the yogic sense, just a blank  
 thoughtless space and some karmic kundalini. Jnanic shakti seems 
sadly  
 absent.


Rather; what is sadly absent is Vaj's insight. 

Blank thoughtless space ? That's Buddhism. 
Dedicated Sidhas transcended this blank Nirvana years ago. Most started 
experiencing the lively field back in the early '80s

This fellow, this beginner on any path, except for the intellectual, 
this intense hater of all Maharishi ever said or did, along with the 
Turq, has no clue whatsoever of what Sidhas experience in the TMSP 
today.

But somehow they are alarmed that the fire put on by the TMO will 
spread. 

With good reason.

Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[I am the eternal]

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 5:10 PM, nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:
 transcend
  in all of the various Vedantic bodies, only the mental one, they
  never really achieve true silence in the yogic sense, just a blank
  thoughtless space and some karmic kundalini. Jnanic shakti seems
 sadly
  absent.


 Rather; what is sadly absent is Vaj's insight.

 Blank thoughtless space ? That's Buddhism.
 Dedicated Sidhas transcended this blank Nirvana years ago. Most started
 experiencing the lively field back in the early '80s


Well, this dedicated sidha did and didn't.  I experience two kinds of
transcendent.  One I slowly take the escalator ride down to.  That's the
home of all the laws of Nature.  That's where the party line that I've
spoken of is.  Or perhaps that's the gap.  Sometimes I see that what seems
to be the transcendent has a fabric to it.  The fabric is full of seeds.
Seeds of the manifest. Definitely the Vedas describe it and well.

OTOH there's still this other transcendence.  It's not flat.  It is blank.
It's thoughtless. It's nothingness.  I am just completely gone.  Not asleep,
not blacked out, just gone.  I can be and have been gone for hours at a
time.  When I pop back up there's this Where am I?  Who am I?  Where was
I? questioning.   I find that doing the sutras beyond 4 repetitions has
always tended to make me drop into this noplace.

To answer Vaj about having the kundalini awake, well I was really shocked
when I read  Paramahansa Yogananda's book *Autobiography of a Yogi *.  I
thought that I was the only one to be awake in the womb, awake at birth and
awake afterwards.  I was awake during sleep up until the age of 10.  I
thought it was the natural state of affairs but speaking with playmates I
discovered it wasn't.  Yet of course I am labeled as someone suffering
from a kundalini disturbance because I feel the bliss flowing through me and
around me.*
*