buddhist colorbar

[Devadatta]

I guess it's fair to say that attachment/non-attachment, like non-self/self, is one of the creaky hinges of Buddhism (roughly parallel, if you permit me, to the eros/agape, in the world/not of the world hinges of Christianity). In both cases, I think it's about the hinges, not about the door, or even about whether the door is open or closed.

And no, Awaiting the Fifth, I wasn't playing semantics, but only alerting you to the contextual nature of these issues. Some ascetic traditions may follow simple equations like purity=liberation, but I don't think that Buddhism, in its fullest expression, is one of them.

In one context, one stage of practice, you may want to adhere to the battle cry: we must overcome all attachments! In another context, you may come to different understandings of every word in that phrase. Attachments? Overcome? Must? We?

There are innumerable ways to look at what attachment and its overcoming means, and you know best what it means to you now, today. So I wasn't trying to covert you to some other understanding, but only alerting you to the provisional nature of all dhamma statements, and the danger of converting dhamma into a creed, and thus falling into wrong view.

(Here I want to mention that we are all practicing without a license, and for my part I hope I've been more helpful than harmful.)

with metta

[toujour_333]

hello all,

i hope that no one here thinks that i am angry about anything said on here. i welcome discussion and though i dont agree with some things said, i am happy that we are able to discuss things on here in an open enviroment. i apologize if i took things out of context or if i let my emotions on certian subjects get the best of me b/c that was wrong. this forum is here for the purpose of sharing ideas and discussing topics that are dear to all of our hearts and nothing that is discussed on here should be met with any inclination of anger, disapproval, or anything other than love, compassion, joy, and equinimity. i think that i took 'Awaiting_the_fifth's comments the wrong way, despite the beginning statement asking that i not take offense to it, and i personally want to apologize to you, 'awaiting' b/c that wasnt the right thing for me to do. i want to thank you for your imput on this subject b/c it has taught me a lot. thank you all and i hope that you all are happy and blessed.

be well in peace

[rdwillia]

Hello again,

Just throwing out what I intend to be some clarity.

Originally Posted by Devadatta

I guess it's fair to say that attachment/non-attachment, like non-self/self, is one of the creaky hinges of Buddhism (roughly parallel, if you permit me, to the eros/agape, in the world/not of the world hinges of Christianity). In both cases, I think it's about the hinges, not about the door, or even about whether the door is open or closed.

I don't believe there is a creaky hinge with Buddhism, generally speaking. I find that to be true the more I practice and the clearer my understanding becomes. I've gotten to the point now that when I perceive a problem with Buddhism, I know it's in my own mind. However, in reference to the above; the idea in Buddhism is to break all attachment and understand emptiness but we skillfully, choose the objects we "believe" in and must attach ourselves to. We should know that through our practice our objects of refuge are also attachments we must one day break. But they're necessary stepping stones to reach the top.

Just my understanding.

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by rdwillia

Just throwing out what I intend to be some clarity.

I don't believe there is a creaky hinge with Buddhism, generally speaking. I find that to be true the more I practice and the clearer my understanding becomes. I've gotten to the point now that when I perceive a problem with Buddhism, I know it's in my own mind. However, in reference to the above; the idea in Buddhism is to break all attachment and understand emptiness but we skillfully, choose the objects we "believe" in and must attach ourselves to. We should know that through our practice our objects of refuge are also attachments we must one day break. But they're necessary stepping stones to reach the top.

Just my understanding.

Hi RD. I appreciate your understanding, and wouldn't take issue with its expression.

But it may be that you're reading something into my "creaky hinge" metaphor that I didn't intend. The metaphor may strike you as a little cheeky, but in no way is it pointing to a "problem" in the dhamma. It's saying the opposite: creaky hinges are why dhamma works.

Like explaining a joke, explanations in such cases are probably pointless, but if we think of a creaky hinge as an either/or expression that we work over & work over until it's oiled & working smoothly, two implications are plain: all verbal expressions are provisional, and the goal is not to be in this place or that place, but to attain free movement & the removal of all obstruction.

with metta

[rdwillia]

Hello Devadatta,

Gotcha'. I did misunderstand... Thank you for the clarification. See? Whenever I perceive some sort of confusion or problem, I can be certain it is the mud of my own my mind.

"Better keep yourself clean and bright; you are the window through which you must see the world."
-George Bernard Shaw

Metta