Or a little stupid. — Janus

That was unnecessary harsh, and you still haven’t adequately explained non-attachment. You’ve described how people get stuck on something and then let it go. This is pretty much what we all normally do, in some cases effortlessly. Non-attachment indicates no further attachment and therefore nothing to let go of once one is non-attached.

Right, so it's only a matter of degree. — Janus

Yes, like being a little pregnant.

You wrote: "So if all the spectators can shut the hell up, those of us actually involved, trained and formally educated for this stuff, can get to work and do our job."

So I assumed you were a specialist in the field of infectious diseases such as an epidemiologist. I am impressed by your work in the ER and critical patient transport though. Mom must be proud.

So not being attached is not non-attachment? — Janus

In order to let go of something you need to first be holding it. As you say, we all know that we can let go of attachment to things when we need to. Even our strongest attachments will eventually fade in time. Non-attachment is like a teflon pan that nothing gets stuck to, not even yesterday's reheated four cheese spaghetti sauce. Ya feel me?

Ah, so not an epidemiologist.

You should read more closely and try not to think in black and white. I said I don't know if complete non-attachment is possible. We all know that we can let go of attachment to things when we need to. — Janus

Inconceivable!

Since when does letting go of attachments mean non-attachment? Never.

I don't see how you can say that it's odd, you're not even sure that non-attachment is possible, or so you've said in this topic.

Everyone has an opinion, but very few play in actual field. So if all the spectators can shut the hell up, those of us actually involved, trained and formally educated for this stuff, can get to work and do our job. — Book273

We're all involved, and we each have education and training in stuff. You might want to be specific enough for this to have some meaning.

Let me guess, your job is to advise the public not to waste their time with vaccinations.

Clear as mud, as I suppose it must be.

Not that religious talk needs to make sense, and in fact it's better if it doesn't, but it sounded like you just said that attachment is part of non-attachment.

Not just fear. It reflects the human craving for uniformity: "Everyone should do the same thing, be the same, even if in the process of becoming so, they die." — baker

There seems to be evidence for this kind of tribalism.



The weird thing is that Trump is always boasting about how he made the vaccine available, and he advises people to get it, though he also respects his follower's freedom (without responsibility). There's too much politicized anti-vax momentum, and it's litterally killing them.

Wait, I didn't think you got to use that argument? Everything causes death and injury.
— James Riley

Yeah, so why bother about non-vaxing? — Cartuna

Yeah, why bother, just get vaccinated.

I don't wanna deny you everything. I just say cars are the cause of many accidents, Mortal ones included. So all cars should be banned, including the roads they travel on. Like all no vaxing should be banned in your eyes. — Cartuna

I don't think it would do much good to ban anti-vaxers from public life, even if that were somehow possible, if that's what you're suggesting. Vaccination is not generally mandatory. If employers want to make it mandatory that's their prerogative. It's a free country, after all.

Also, Riley has repeatedly pointed out that driving is heavily regulated. People with DUI's are banned, for example.

Why does that matter, you travel on roads,
— praxis

But not in a car. — Cartuna

My tax dollars help to pay for the roads you use, traffic law enforcement, etc., but you would deny me an ICU bed because you’ve gotten too many DUI convictions?

Don't worry, I will not use your hospital bed when I get ill, nor that of your loved ones. But if you or your loved one get injured in a car incident, she should not occupy my bed or that of my loved one, as we don't drive cars. — Cartuna

Why does that matter, you travel on roads, don’t you? If you never go anywhere, the things that you and your loved ones consume depend on automotive transportation. In any case, I probably won’t need the ICU bed because I’ve been vaccinated.

The point I made about bowing - and I really didn't want to start an argument about that - is simply that it's an acknowledgement of the idea of there being a higher truth, which is, generally speaking, something which has been practically obliterated in Western culture. — Wayfarer

Actually, traditional minded folk still bow before Royalty, as a show of respect and deference to their authority. It helps to reify the hierarchical social order, which is essential to all religious institutions and tribes with ‘traditional’ values. Many of Trump’s base would probably love to bow before him if it were somehow made customary.

Where I live, an inspection for $50 would be a great deal, actually.

why does anyone that has been vaccinated give two shits about Covid? — Book273

Because many human beings care about other human beings and are not utterly self-centered.

The nature of attachment is connection or binding, and there’s no escaping the fact that we’re all connected and bound, so reason demands that we accept this enslavement. :flower:

To be concerned with virtue and well-being is to be attached.

It looks like zen and stoicism taught you a lot. — NOS4A2

Zen taught me to let go and stoicism taught me to hang on, so I'm basically back to where I started. :roll:

Though it's more applicable to his time, in some sense it pertains to the old sage, too. — NOS4A2

Oh? People tend to use their own understanding these days? A lotta folks seem to use the understanding of Fox & Breitbart News. People like yourself.

Self for Nietzsche isnt an entity but a vector of change.
— Josh’s

Sure, we can find a similar conception of self in Buddhism as well, by some Buddhist teachers, although this isn't mainstream.
For example, Thanissaro Bhikkhu: Selves & Not-self
He talks about the self as a strategy, as something one does (identifies with some things, disidentifies with others). — baker

I recall a Buddha quote something to the effect that the self, or rather what constitutes the self, shouldn’t be construed as an entity but a description of suffering.

I like unenlightened’s but I can’t decide if it’s a horse or a stormtrooper.

Years ago at a newcomer meeting at the Los Angeles Zen Center, the meeting started with newcomers asked to say something about themselves and why they were there. One of the newbies said some things about himself that completely escapes me, but I distinctly remember him finishing confidently with “… until I reach enlightenment”. The roshi and head monks all laughed at this. It wasn’t a mean spirited laugh but more like an ‘isn’t that adorable’ laugh. Kind of like a child who proclaims their ambition to be an astronaut when they grow up. I’m sure that being an astronaut has its rewards, but the child’s vision of being an astronaut and the adult vision may be somewhat different.

Awkward language notwithstanding - Sadhuru is getting at something people haven't raised so far on this thread. The merits of enlightenment and the concomitant experience of everything becoming 'wonderful'. I wonder (sorry) what this means. It seems antithetical to self-annihilation however. Who exactly is the self experiencing the extinguished wonderfulness? Or is this what happens when mere words are used to describe the numinous? — Tom Storm

The merits are pleasure, because who doesn't love 'wonderfulness', and reduced anxiety, perhaps particularly existential anxiety.

Neurologically speaking, selfhood is embedded throughout the mind, I understand, though a particular network, namely the default mode network, is believed to be the problematic portion. The deactivation of this area reduces "monkey mind" and a sense of self, though there are other parts of the brain that are still aware of the environment, body, etc.

I think also for some people, and I'm not thinking of anyone particular here, there's an emotional, almost visceral reaction to certain words. Before the person even considers the idea, the response is there already, dismissive and pugnacious - almost like a 'lizard brain', flight or fight response. You say Christianity, they immediately blurt out 'deception and pedophilia..'. That kind of thing. Maybe attachment can be added to the list of provocative trigger words. — Tom Storm

An initial fight or flight response is entirely appropriate to all things religious, imo, because of its power to attach.

Perhaps it is noble that Trumpists are willing to die for their beliefs?

Nishitani's diagnosis is even more radical than Nietzsche's, for he claims that the real problem with Western nihilism is that it is halfhearted: it does not consistently follow through its own inner logic and motivation and so stops short of transforming its partial realization of groundlessness into the philosophical and experiential possiblities of sunyata. — Joshs

It’s always amusing when someone speaking from the firm ground of a system of meaning, Zen Buddhism in this case, talks of groundlessness.

I know very little about enlightenment but I wonder if being any kind of teacher is already a sign of significant attachments. — Tom Storm

Religious attachment is next level, and dubiously justified by the notion that it’s not materialistic in nature, as though that matters when it comes to attachment.

And what of old Eckhardt‘s apparent attachment to his views?

Probably and branding/marketing tactic, truth be told.

Meister Eckhardt, the only medieval theologian ever tried for heresy. Not exactly a shining star of dispassion and detachment, if you see it rightly. Not his fault though, once God gets her hooks into a person they will fight tooth and nail for their beliefs.

Honestly, Eckhart Tolle is a better champion of dispassion and detachment.

Different strokes for different folks, I say. That one is good though. :up:

On the other hand all animals are said to have the Buddha Nature, so... — Janus

So mu.

Yours is appropriate for what Harry asked, I see. Nevermind! :blush:

Say you are in the process of brutally raping my wife, choking her (I am divorced by the way, but that's beside the point, it is not a real scenario, but a hypothetical you see) and I come to her rescue wielding a lead pipe. You out of fear for your life stab me in the eye with the long hair pin conveniently located on my wive's night stand. The pin penetrates my eyeball, enters the brain which sibsequently causes my legs to quake and I collapse to the floor.... dead! — Tobias

A more accurate scenario would be if you and the X went to a BLM protest, saw Harry, a weird teenage kid wielding an assault rifle, and chased after him in a threatening manner with the intent of disarming him, and perhaps beating him up a bit for good measure.

A weird teenage kid once pulled out a rifle on me when I was a teen. I got the hell out of there because I knew he was stupid enough to use it, regardless of the consequences.

Are you in the East or the West? — Harry Hindu

West, so report in pounds.