Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
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 )
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 )
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 )
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 )
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 )
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
Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
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 )
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.
Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
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 )
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.
Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
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 )
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.
Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
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.
Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
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 )
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 )
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?
Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
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.
Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
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.
Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
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.
Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
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 )
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 )
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.
Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
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.
Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
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.* *
Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
On Feb 8, 2009, at 6:33 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: snip I don't know that it should be looked at as superior. The ordinary state of affairs is that our consciousness identifies with our body, I'm not so sure about that. My identity is biased towards my mind and emotions. My body is getting older but my mind and capacity to feel is getting better. I think only very superficial people identify with their bodies. It's not that type of identity I'm talking about. It's not vanity or preoccupation with the body. Identification occurs with human development. Identification isn't an overt craving of the body, but a seamless identification that identifies your body as separate from all other bodies. unless we're knocked out or have a mental illness or something like that. Yogis make the decision to unravel and play with that identification. Chances are that's not going to appeal to a lot of people, who are quite happy with skin-encapsulated egos and maintaining ordinary references. I don't view people that way. Most people seem to be more similar than different to me. They share the same cares and desires for their loved one's lives. Exactly, they share the same references you do. They attach to others and they probably enjoy attachments games like romance as part of those attachments. But from the yogic point of view--not necessarily the Hindu POV, these are just objects. And by being caught up unconsciously in and seamlessly in maintaining identification with these reference point, we allow awareness--we train awareness--to unconsciously run in a non-mindful rut. The Vedantic and Samkhya slant on things has some appeal to me, but being trapped in identification with external objects only has a limited appeal to me, but it is really just the wording I don't like. I can see for example how there is a certain ring of truth to it--the only thing is western, (esp. American) consensus reality really brainwashes us that it's ok, it's a good thing. For example I can see and I know many people who are attached to objects and acquirements and I can also see and sense how they use acquisition of objects of temporary pleasure to maintain certain reference points that surround their awareness and attention like an ever-changing security blanket. But it's a moving security blanket that never gives any lasting security or satisfaction. The mind feels satisfied by thinking over the various reference items it likes and has acquired, the new boat, the new TV, the new CD, the new scenery we need to visit in some foreign locale. Then we run them through our mind till we get tired of the new items we acquired and start searching for new ones to possess and reference and roll over in our minds. Commercials and advertisements constantly barrage us with objects we should like and attach to and show us the cool and happy people who have them. They seem very happy. But these are really, ultimately lies. Most people I meet are most attached to their loved ones. There are superficial people who are things oriented but most people seem pretty clear on the value of relationships in their lives. Then you have plenty of people engrossed in skill acquisitions of various kinds. What I'm referring to is not primarily people who are drooling over their latest acquisitions or that new Beamer. Instead I'm referring to a seamless, ingrained and unconscious habit. Unless you've decided to mindfully look for such patterns, chances are you don't even realize they're there. So some people have decided that this pattern ultimately doesn't make you happy. They devised techniques to unravel the pattern. One way is common sensical: observe something already automatic (like your breath) and then you slowly learn to be more aware by seeing others things you're just doing habitually, automatically. Instead of being caught in this push-pull, you begin to see things simply as they are. This was really well said. I can relate to this. Meditation has this value for me as well. We can understand how that's helpful and the habitual keeping of reference points (identification with objects in that manner) isn't necessarily a desirable thing. I'm not sure I relate to it this way. I didn't notice that materialistic people in the movement got less so. The people with money seemed to run the same routines people in Northern Virginia do. But most of them still value family over objects unless they are complete tools! I don't actually think that TM necessarily increases knowledge, mindful awareness or wisdom of patterns of suffering and patterns of identification. At least that was my experience and all TMers I've spoken to in this regard. TM is largely involved with creating a non- conventional experience of transcendental apperception. But I don't buy that transcendental apperception of a
Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
Let me jump into this attachment discussion. I'd like to argue that you don't know what attachment is until you experience pure consciousness while the mind functions. Any attempt to become unattached through the mind is pure mood-making/manipulation which is worthless. Most people disengage/unattach from aspects of their relative existence out of neurotic fear, not out of a desire for realization. They want to free themselves from the discomfort of the mind's attachment so they disengage. But this is a mistake. Even in enlightenment the mind is still fully engaged when dealing with relative existence. What is unattached in enlightenment is pure conscious which has ALWAYS been unattached. But prior to realization pure consciousness identifies with something other than itself (primarily the mind, secondarily the body) and an ego is created. So pure awareness experiences itself as limited. This is a delusion. This is why advaitins will say you already are enlightened. That might be true, but its not necessarily very helpful for popping you out of a delusion. It'd be like a character in a dream telling you that all of this is not real. It might get you out of the dream or you might just look at him and say, what? --- On Mon, 2/9/09, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote: From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment?(Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs ) To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, February 9, 2009, 11:42 AM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: snip It's not that type of identity I'm talking about. It's not vanity or preoccupation with the body. Identification occurs with human development. Identification isn't an overt craving of the body, but a seamless identification that identifies your body as separate from all other bodies. Curtis, this description of the nature of identification, as the term is used in enlightenment teaching, is an exceedingly rare instance of near-total agreement between Vaj and me. That alone should lead you to sit up and take notice! (I'm referring here just to the definition, not the meaning, which is a whole 'nother question.) It sounds like a positive aspect of our natural development and not anything that needs fixing to me. snip I don't view people that way. Most people seem to be more similar than different to me. They share the same cares and desires for their loved one's lives. Exactly, they share the same references you do. They attach to others and they probably enjoy attachments games like romance as part of those attachments. But from the yogic point of view--not necessarily the Hindu POV, these are just objects. Crucial point. I think Curtis has been misled by the term objects. In this context it means something much more general than in the standard usage, i.e., things as opposed to people or one's own body and thoughts. Referring to romance as an attachment game sounds like a product of dissociation to me. In fact this whole world view sounds like a result of cultivating dissociation. Here's where Vaj and I don't agree: And by being caught up unconsciously in and seamlessly in maintaining identification with these reference point, we allow awareness--we train awareness--to unconsciously run in a non-mindful rut. I don't think it has much of anything to do with mindfulness per se. Or at least that may be one way to diminish identification, but it's not the only way. I am down with the concept of mindfulness but I don't view it as having anything to do with attachment. Being able to completely immerse yourself in an experience without any part of you witnessing the experience is a fantastic option for experience like sex. In NLP the idea is that dissociated states of awareness are useful in specific contexts but it is a mistake to think it is useful in all experiences. I prefer the model that allows me to utilize different states of mind for different experiences. This is where I disagree with the yoga traditions and I am aware that you would not use the term dissociation to describe what meditation cultivates. Here we probably disagree. snip snip Or unless you have the experience of their absence, however that experience is achieved... chances are you don't even realize they're there. Exactly. It's the old fish-in-water analogy. The fish doesn't know it's in water until it has the experience of being *out* of the water. (I suspect the analogy is also germane in that no amount of mindful analysis by the fish will raise its awareness that it's in water without the out-of- water experience.) You have to buy into the interpretation of the higher states model for this to be meaningful
Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
On Feb 9, 2009, at 3:59 PM, geezerfreak wrote: It doesn't need fixing. You're buying into Barry's bilious propaganda. In any case, all I want to do is get you to understand what spiritual teachers mean by identification. I think I've made a start if I've gotten you to switch from thinking it's severe mental deficiency to a positive aspect of our natural development! If the idea of not being identified doesn't grab you, fine with me, but at least you'll know what it is you don't want to be without. Check out Peter's post; he makes some great additional points to clear up the confusion. megasnip Is this idea of attachments useful to you personally? The *idea* isn't. The *experience* of being without attachment, as I said, is for me blissful and tremendously liberating and empowering. That's right Curtis! Don't be buying into Barry's bilious propaganda! Let all-seeing, all-knowing Judy straighten you out boy! By her own account, she's liberated and blissfully without attachment. (Funny though, her Barry fixation sure sounds like attachment.) I also love that anybody that doesn't agree with her is confused, just doesn't understand and is buying into propaganda, and bilious propaganda at that. How insidious is that? :) Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
On Feb 7, 2009, at 3:34 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I think this yogic identification theory is totally bogus. It is a made-up problem. I am not identified with any object of perception. I can be passionate about some things, but trying to paint that as some kind nonspiritual way to live seems so contrived. Look at it this way: if you were no longer identifying with your body, you'd either be constantly dissociating or, you'd be dead. Identification is required to live a normal life. What's not required to learn how to disassemble our identification, i.e. yoga. Do you really believe that you don't identify with he body you inhabit or the instrument you pick up every day and play or the sounds that come out of it? Sorry for the delay, it takes me a while to catch up on emails. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
On Feb 8, 2009, at 4:19 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I'm glad you weighed in Vaj. I guess the word identify doesn't have much meaning for me in this context. I feel my body and flow my feelings through my instruments when I play them. But saying that this is an identification doesn't register. I am closer to my body than my guitar and it is certainly more a part of my sense of my complete self. Although I understand the conceptual usefulness of the body mind distinction, that is not usually how I experience the package deal of being human. My point was that the idea that someone else have a superior way of organizing their internal sense of self, has lost its appeal. I don't know that it should be looked at as superior. The ordinary state of affairs is that our consciousness identifies with our body, unless we're knocked out or have a mental illness or something like that. Yogis make the decision to unravel and play with that identification. Chances are that's not going to appeal to a lot of people, who are quite happy with skin-encapsulated egos and maintaining ordinary references. I don't see any evidence for this claim. Well you know what they say about extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In such a case you need an extraordinary person who meets those criteria and you'd have to be impressed enough by them to think that what they have, is in fact extraordinary (and worthwhile). Then and maybe then you consider trying out their goods. I believe that some people have more or less intelligence, or have a better ability to express and even feel their emotional capacity. But the whole idea that somehow we are identifying with the objects of perception, which lies at the core or Maharishi's assumptions about ignorance, doesn't ring true to me. I think he is describing a severe mental deficiency. The Vedantic and Samkhya slant on things has some appeal to me, but being trapped in identification with external objects only has a limited appeal to me, but it is really just the wording I don't like. I can see for example how there is a certain ring of truth to it--the only thing is western, (esp. American) consensus reality really brainwashes us that it's ok, it's a good thing. For example I can see and I know many people who are attached to objects and acquirements and I can also see and sense how they use acquisition of objects of temporary pleasure to maintain certain reference points that surround their awareness and attention like an ever-changing security blanket. But it's a moving security blanket that never gives any lasting security or satisfaction. The mind feels satisfied by thinking over the various reference items it likes and has acquired, the new boat, the new TV, the new CD, the new scenery we need to visit in some foreign locale. Then we run them through our mind till we get tired of the new items we acquired and start searching for new ones to possess and reference and roll over in our minds. Commercials and advertisements constantly barrage us with objects we should like and attach to and show us the cool and happy people who have them. They seem very happy. But these are really, ultimately lies. So some people have decided that this pattern ultimately doesn't make you happy. They devised techniques to unravel the pattern. One way is common sensical: observe something already automatic (like your breath) and then you slowly learn to be more aware by seeing others things you're just doing habitually, automatically. Instead of being caught in this push-pull, you begin to see things simply as they are. We can understand how that's helpful and the habitual keeping of reference points (identification with objects in that manner) isn't necessarily a desirable thing. But for me the better way to parse it is maintaining reference points or referentiality, as I know in my own experience that that temporary pattern isn't one that makes me happy or a better person, despite what consensus reality might insinuate.
Re: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
On Feb 7, 2009, at 1:46 PM, Duveyoung wrote: You guys have book-ended an issue. My favorite theory about meat-robot-programming is that 27 repetitions are required to get something to sink in. So here's about the 20th time that I'm going to bounce this ball called Identification. Hee hee. As usual, I'll repeat, repeat, repeat, but it's for yer own good! Honest! An object or pattern we identify with and keep in our neural circuitry--or our consciousness--depending on whether you adhere to a materialist or a consciousness-based view seems, to me, to simply be tied to two things. One is that we perform an action or observe an object an we feel a sense of satisfaction in having performed the action or engaged the object with our senses. Part of this might be called the 'sense of play'. When we throughly enjoy something, we not only get so absorbed in it time seems to fly, but we also seem to be able to retain it in memory much more easily. This is because there are endorphins released that encourage our nervous systems to want to have that experience, to remember it and to attach to it. Conversely we now know that traumatic experiences--aversive experiences--are locked into our memories due to the release of adrenalin at the time of the imprint occurring. Because of this reality we now also know that a common blood pressure med can help some people escape these adrenalin imprinted memories by breaking that neurochemical circuit. Since we now know from research in meditation that the mind can and does change the brain. It's also simple to extend this to other patterns of habitual cognition. What you think habitually, your brain becomes. You're locked in. But thanks to neuroplasticity, we can use the mind and effective meditation techniques to change the brain and release patterns we do not find useful, helpful or ones that allow destructive emotions. In many ways we are essentially virtual selves (to use the term of Buddhist biologist and neuroscientist Francisco Varela) not that much different than the millions of people enslaved by the Matrix in the movie of the same name. Varela believed, and I'm sure many meditators of different traditions might agree, that the neurological accomplishment of lived human virtue (where it becomes a part of who and what we are, hard-wired in), what he called ethical know-how is related to progressive, firthand acquaintance with the virtuality of self. To him, and to many like myself, transformation goes hand in hand with lived ethical expertise. If ethical know-how is not increasing, then real transformation is not occurring.
