Bridging world's.
 

When is non attachment the same as physical dissociation?

The practice of non attachment has come quite naturally to me but the line between non attachment and dissociation and 'no attachment' at all seems like a fine line.

Granted... I have learned how to enjoy the physical pleasure of a given experience without seeking to hold onto it indeffinately. .. I am able to appreciate the moment for what it is.

It just seems that there is a lot of language missing to bridge the gap between the eastern and western experience and it can kind of means that experience can become rather polarised... Rather then balanced. .. And connected.

I feel like there is language missing in the dialogue bridging eastern and western philosophy...

For example... Non attachment in my perspective used to mean... No attachment rather then experiencing things in the moment but not becoming dependant on them.

The language bridge was missing and so I could not assimilate the teaching relevant to my western understanding.

Non attachhment to me translated to No attachment at all...
Not very healthy...

For the lay person such as I, it seems like there is a lot to gain from Buddhism for the westerner but much of if gets lost in translation and language which bridges the gaps could be very useful...

Just some pondering.

' When is non attachment the same as physical dissociation? '


I don't see any similarities.

It's like riding a bike, and someone hasn't ridden before. So they read and ponder and hear words like 'turn' 'brake' 'rotate' or whatever. At first, it's a little hard to grok - you know, you kind of get it but not quite. But when you ride, after a few falls, it's generally easier to understand the concept behind the words. That's how I see Buddhist practice, and the reason that words are even spoken in the first place - mere encouragement and explanation of potentiality, for those so inclined.

JL

Hi JL.
Very true analogy, thanks.... This is something which seemed to be at play in my consciousness yesterday as well.

IT was funny because after I posted this I went to sleep and had a dream which ended up waking me in the end.
Strangely enough the whole concept was present in the pit of my awareness as a sense and inner knowing.

So I have inner 'knowing' now and inner sensing of the concept.

I think the difference for me and my experience has been that detachment has been my default mode so I never really had a strong sense that I could even be attached to experiences good or bad to begin with. So I found that the language was very often geared for people who already had a strong sense of identity and experience to attach to.
I was always encouraged to not attach to anything in my church growing up so I really did struggle to bridge that divide.

Now I have realised that I can actually fully appreciate and become absorbed in experiences in the moment... I took detachment to an unhealthy extreme and it meant that I was not present to experience things at all.

I seem to do things a little backwards to most.

Buddhism is not a great philosophy if your starting point is trauma based detachment but it is working well for me now that I have healed past trauma and come to a place where I actually now have a sense of 'self or essence or infinite self' or what have you...' to not need to attach to changable traits of ego identity. I do value personal values though but they are ever changeable too.


Thanks... :smile:

I apologise if my writing is not well structured, I have some difficulties communicating concise thoughts on this forum sometimes. I appreciate the opportunity to communicate though.

Hello Ariaecheflame

Actually I have visited your MySpace section before, and always found your posts interesting and eloquent.

Also, it is a genuine pleasure and honor to converse with you here, and hear your thoughts and experiences. They are greatly valued.


So I have inner 'knowing' now and inner sensing of the concept.

As far as I can see, all genuine spiritual paths are only edging towards the inner knowing - that unspeakable sense right in the belly..

JL

Bridging worlds
 

Hi Ariaecheflame,

It may help to consider Who is it that "assimilates teachings", who "attaches or translates meaning", who "speaks languages", who "gains from Buddhism", who "becomes dependent"?, who "experiences a 'gap' between the eastern and western experience" etc. ??

The designation of an "experiencer, experiencing" the above, hides the definition implicit in the descriptions encoded in the language used to communicate it.

We are taught to uncritically accept the encoded meaning of "separation" from the moment we are told that "things" are not-us: Mommy, Daddy, doggy, toesies, kitty, food, clock, girl, boy, baby brother, Grandma, sister, school, God, music, paper, fire, water, blue, time, space, clock, miles, mine, theirs, yours....

....when, in truth, "All things are the same one thing vibrating at different rates" (per the 1st reference below).

Don't believe me? What is the difference between "inside" and "outside", without your "definition(s) of them??

Answer: .....the same as the difference between the language a "Westerner" or an "Easterner" uses "inside" to communicate about things thought (taught) to be "outside" themselves....

....which is to say only the "ideas" used to communicate experiences, from which there is no separation at all....

....not even with the self-imposed "fine line" of meaning you've been habitually taught to accept as existing between perspectives YOU'VE chosen to designate as separate.

To crystallize your question: Whether one designates themselves as an Easterner, or a Westerner, or a Southerner, or a Northerner (or no particular direction of the compass, at all); :smile: doesn't it make perfect sense that "all things are the same one thing vibrating at different rates"

....precisely as all directions are the same things seen from different "perspectives" ??

Inside, Outside, Up, Down, Here, There, Left, Right are the same reality experienced from perspectives that imply each "other"

It makes no difference to Infinite Consciousness what It is called...because Infinite Consciousness is All There is to BE IT!!

"When Consciousness pretends that there’s a separation between what It says It is (the I), and what It says It isn’t (the not-I), then the world mysteriously reappears." as indicated in the 2nd reference.

Hope this, and the references, below, provide some "direction" for you to consider bridging worlds. :smile:

Enjoy!

Reference: https://iasos.com/metaphys/bashar/ (see 3rd line under Topics)

Reference: http://www.chuckhillig.com/FAQ.html Chuck Hillig Living as the Source of Who You Are

Hi Guthrio :smile:

I found your reply quite refreshing and entertaining and a wonderful reminder! You have a wonderful way of writing which I have really enjoyed reading.

I'm excited to take a look at the link today as well.

---------------------------------------------------

I have learned quite a bit since posting here and about much more then what I was expecting to learn as well!

Hi Ariaecheflame,

I must confess a secret: The answers you read from me, help me too!

Because by formulating the thoughts which you read....I read them too, and learn. Thank SF for allowing us to have an "edit" capability. :smile:

....and thank you for your response, but most especially, for the stimulation in your posts which quicken mine!