Can the embrace of yogic principles of non-attachment and rejection of identity with mind/ego have a negative affect on a person, and is this a natural outcome? It seems like there are some yogic mindsets that people enter (by choice) that strip away the human side of life. Absolute rejection of the human illusion (ego, craving, etc) can lead to a subsequent rejection of the lighter side of life (humor, irony, joyfulness). I embrace the story of the mountain seen three times when I enter this place of self nullness. The Reader's Digest of the story goes like this. The first time the mountain is perceived as being solid and fixed. The second time the mountain is perceived as the illusion that it is. The third time the mountain is just seen even as the knowledge of the illusion persists. In this place we can be in the profane humor of life, but not of that same humor.
IMO the mind has a place in the world of interpersonal dynamics. As such, the mind is a tool and not the outcome of our existence. I'll draw some analogies here. The map is not to be confused with the journey. The tools are not to be confused with the constructed outcome. To say that life can exist without maps and tools is a truth. Kudos to those who can. It is just darn handy to have those maps and tools.
The critical observation of the mind reminds me of the saying, "God helps those who help themselves". Those who don't choose to help themselves with the intellect and logic given to them by God, and find themselves in a pickle of life, only have themselves to credit.
Another LJ friend said "I really can't see how so many spiritual teachers completely devalue the mind" in responding to the quotation, "Your intellectual understanding, in which you have a tremendous investment, has not done one damn thing for you so far." I responded that this was a really good observation. I believe the simple answer is that people TOO identify with the mind. This is the sin the spiritual teachers are mostly talking to. Clinging to anything can turn it from an affirmative presence to one of detriment.
Consider motherhood. It is beneficial to be a mother and to be mothered. The shadow side of this is the person who only identifies with being a mother or the grown ‘child’ that only sees themselves as a satellite to the mother. The former mother can be devastated when the child grows up, leaving the mother barren in her formally cherished identity. The latter child can be devastated when the mother passes away. The adult child's world collapses without the unneeded and unhealthy support of the overarching mother.
I believe that 'devaluing' statements are not meant to be so. They are instructive in a certain context. Their strong declarative nature is necessary to open the awareness of those making use of the statements. The declarations are not meant to be dogmatic, covering all possibilities in the world. Ironically, if this were so, the statements would devalue themselves. (smile)