[Lesson 5] Wary of attachement

Ah, my apologies. I had believed this to be an open discussion.

Atticus wrote: Ah, my apologies. I had believed this to be an open discussion.

No apologies needed , i just find it confusing for myself when others enterprit or talk for others , i would rather wait on what she has to say * big smilieface* :laugh:

Huh, just realised I can't spell "Attachment" in the thread title... thanks guys for answering despite! Any sympathetic mod reading this do feel free to edit, as it may make future forum searching easier.

Am I making comparisons? *thinks* I'm pretty sure there are no comparisons being made anywhere in my writing up to this point - but then I wasn't even sure if Serenity was suggesting that I am making comparisons. The "community" comment that I made, which may have lead to some confusion, stems from my personal nature; I believe the personal action is political; that when I make a choice I make a public statement about how I would like the world to be. Being given the huge freedom and pleasure of a life to live entails a responsibility in making that possible for others. "I am an ecologist"... it makes every choice quite radical; even this one, to sit with a tea and discuss attachment amongst friends.

Both Atticus and Serenity use the term "Expectation": "You cannot expect to...."; and the not-necessary-to-explain-because-I-will-need-to-think-about-it-too switch-out between wariness and expectation. I like this nugget of an idea - expectation - and will toss it about a bit in my mental ball park. Thank you both.

That said, if we WERE to discuss comparisons, then yes, I would say having cultivated and constantly maintained attachments would be vital to me in being able to make a "right comparison" - I'm not sure I could make comparisons with attachments with which I relate to only via the medium of "wariness"... and we come now back to the idea of "expectation" - to become even an Initiate here requires a certain commitment, and it would, in my mind, be wrong to place that one over that I have made to Partner - it's been discussed together. "Right" attachment to partner meant I broke off from writing this response to say hello (blah blah) until he was off for Kendo o'clock (I'm still grounded due to an inability to crouch ) But if partner, or a government, was to remove my ability to participate in the life of this community at all, that would be to deny human rights... A pretty basic "expectation" Human Rights; but I find them a very good "ruler" on the whole.

Serenity's note on trust is useful, as I believe it speaks to the self-trust you require to weather tough times, the toxic damaging behaviours that are not the person themselves, but something that the person does. Expecting them to weather my black days and for me not to weather theirs would be a sign of prejudice, no?

Oh, and some other writings occurred in the meantime - I only got 2 hands; so do please feel free to discuss between yourselves openly while I am offline - I will come back and clear up any misunderstandings - as an IP study hall I believe this space should be open for all to leap in and say whatever they have on their mind in response to the original post or ensuing discussion

Serenity's note on trust is useful, as I believe it speaks to the self-trust you require to weather tough times, the toxic damaging behaviours that are not the person themselves, but something that the person does. Expecting them to weather my black days and for me not to weather theirs would be a sign of prejudice, no?

I understand i think , lol , trust is a very valuable thing , if you trust yourself , you dont need to trust others , i get that , but if untrustworthy behaviour occurs from your partner , or the relationships you are in , and your partner keeps lying , and the community you are in is untrustworthy than you can be as sturdy as steel , one day it will affect you ... you can be there for people in their darkest days even if they are not there for you , you can stand up for people even if they will never stand up for you , you can forgive , but its ever so nice to be forgiven for once

Serenity wrote: its ever so nice to be forgiven for once

Well, there's always self forgiveness - there is a beautiful thread full of it on this site. I can only say I'd rather get my hands dirty with genuine empathy than I would want to give up hope on anyone, or on any community. I just hope I never meet my match. But "one crisis at a time"...

Twigga wrote:

Serenity wrote: its ever so nice to be forgiven for once

Well, there's always self forgiveness - there is a beautiful thread full of it on this site. I can only say I'd rather get my hands dirty with genuine empathy than I would want to give up hope on anyone, or on any community. I just hope I never meet my match. But "one crisis at a time"...

Of course you would , but we are not all you are we , i am sensing a strange vibe from you as if you look down on people that give up on things that damage them ....ans i really hope from the bottom of my heart that they never pester you away from a place you love , because i can tell you from experience its heartbreaking.....

I am sorry you feel that way Serentiy. I hope I can clarify - my example of an interpersonal relationship was 100% hypothetical. My comment on community is entirely due to a personal belief that when we act even in the most private ways, we can have profound wider political impacts - Ghandi - "Peace between countries must rest on the solid foundation of Love between individuals". My statements have, I think, been clear that theh are based on my own choice of action, not judgement of anyone else's.

All I can do is express my gratitude that life has never pushed me to breaking point, which for me would be failing to hope. It is something I would never wish on anyone.

Still open for any views on the issue of "right" attachment... But then maybe I'm poking this too much. Maybe after IP folks still wrangle with this stuff?

Yes i already figured out i misundertood and i did not take the bigger picture in consideration , so i apologize for my rash judgement.

On the right attachement issue i think you have made a good case for how the weakest link can make the whole community suffer but an equally small link can have an enourmous impact on how it can change , i also believe positive change has to come from within,

Thank you for sharing your wisdom with me

*bows*

Truly, I am deeply touched... And I love the facepalming kitteh!

I thought of a way I can re-phrase the question that might help. It sounds a bit stupid but:

We're going to have attachments; they're not "bad" things - but I personally can't see how a "right" attachment is possible if you're busy being wary. Can you describe why/how you are able to do "being wary" as well as "doing" loving.

I send you my answer in PM dear its very personal

In summary of the PM; Serenity feels that "Love free from attachment is the right attachment".

My thoughts have just taken me a different way on this - via the "flip it and see what you think" path:

Antonyms for wary
careless; certain; inattentive; incautious; inconsiderate; indiscreet; negligent; foolish; heedless; rash; reckless.

I've been focused on that second antonym - "certain"; I had a sense, from the way doctrine was phrased, that it was encouraging "uncertainty"; but when you look at the other antonyms; well yes, I'd want to relate to my "right attachments" with consideration, care, and attentiveness. These are the things that I believe are "right expectations" from our most personal and intimate relations.

It's wonderful just how much nuance there is in the language of the doctrine if you go looking

Twigga wrote: In summary of the PM; Serenity feels that "Love free from attachment is the right attachment".

My thoughts have just taken me a different way on this - via the "flip it and see what you think" path:

Antonyms for wary
careless; certain; inattentive; incautious; inconsiderate; indiscreet; negligent; foolish; heedless; rash; reckless.

I've been focused on that second antonym - "certain"; I had a sense, from the way doctrine was phrased, that it was encouraging "uncertainty"; but when you look at the other antonyms; well yes, I'd want to relate to my "right attachments" with consideration, care, and attentiveness. These are the things that I believe are "right expectations" from our most personal and intimate relations.

It's wonderful just how much nuance there is in the language of the doctrine if you go looking

On the subject of love :
Our definitions can be our attachments at times.
Love - like a jedist practice- can be as difrent as each individual. Our attachment to love can be helpful or harmful or a blind mix of both. Love - like our path , can be defined and re defined - learned and un learned.
Have you ever come to a place in your path where an example of some ones "love" left you speechless? Our attachment to our own definitions of love can keep us from noticing others practice or practices of new definitions as well as new ways to love our own very selfs and - significant other - others.
This is where that character seeking comes in...
example : I met a man - Eddie - he got up every day before his wife. He wiped his wife's car made her coffe and ( of the abrahamic faith ) prayed every morning for her and even waited till she got up so he could - as he put it - shine his light tword her so she could shine hers at him. What an example of dedication and his commitment to his loved one . I saw this at a time when my definition was ... let's say ... more greedy than said example.
The questions began to fill my mind -" how can , can- why would anynome feel that way about some one ?" Way difrent than what I was brought up to believe love was - the example I had at that time was / selfish - period and always attempting to controll. I find attachments helpful and some difrent type of attachments can be set on pause so I can see ... other definitions. If I were to have been turned off to a Christian type of anything ide have never met eddies example ... now i use it and now I even pass it . Atachments like that- can keep us from seeing what we really wanna see. As I mature in my path the attachments of names and labels seem to blur out even more the longer I practice not seeing it. Aka ... I don't see ... labels any more or try not to but people ... no longer male female but hearts - souls - humans . When we remember what we believe in the inherit worth of all - those atachments in that light can fall off . Isn't that cool.
So now - I see more example than I do labels thanks to a difrent way of being weary of attachment . Ask any Jedi and you may find a diffrent interpitations all togeather . But that's Kina the point right!? My hope is one small example can help. This is just one of the countless example I've gained the countless influences I've learned from simply being weary of attachment - my own silly attachment of why I can't ... be like you ... but I can and you can be like me and we can be like each other - with our own mix and match choices ... Jedi - the color of the world ! Isn't it lovely ?

Here is a thought, if everything is connected doesn't that make "attachement" an illusion? We tell ourselves to be wary of something that is already something we can't avoid and is actually necessary. This concept makes it impossible to have unhealthy or healthy attachment. Instead we just have connectedness.

The way we experience that connectedness and deal with that through our perception of attachment, whether positive or negative, both serve a valid function that allows us to grow in ourselves. So revel in those things, don't be wary of them. Allow yourself that experience of unbounded selfless love for something and even hate for something. It's not the feeling that matters, it's how we deal with it and in that, what we gain and learn from it!

And now i am confused again , is attachment as in commitment a feeling?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Here is a thought, if everything is connected doesn't that make "attachement" an illusion? We tell ourselves to be wary of something that is already something we can't avoid and is actually necessary. This concept makes it impossible to have unhealthy or healthy attachment. Instead we just have connectedness.

Oooh I LOVE this Kyrin! It totally feeds into something I've been reading on Heidigger! I need to do some more thinking, but Thank you! I'm really enjoying all these different perspectives!

Attachment isn't inherently bad. Attachment to attachment, however, can be.

I gotta remind myself that the most common use of attachment is not meant as the process of attaching, but rather the state of being attached!! So I like to instead contrast attachments to anchors, for this context.... and I'm not sure why really. I guess it seems more a temporary state perhaps, anchor over attachment, and doesn't conflict with the other definition of the process of attaching..... I mean, there 'is' some existential ground to say all perception is creation of illusion, and therefore being attached is actually re-attaching haha - but that sort of approach I find a bit retrograde in working with it as a concept. So I go with anchors for things I allow.

Such that anchors serve as functional attachments, defined by their performance to some frame of reference, and the things I consider as attachments are a higher order classification of anchors and restraints. So, attachments don't really serve me from this point of view, and instead prefer to remove restraints by either removing them, or engaging them in some specifc construct frame of reference so I can relate in practical terms, and therefore they become anchors instead.
:S :side:

Adder wrote: I gotta remind myself that the most common use of attachment is not meant as the process of attaching, but rather the state of being attached!! So I like to instead contrast attachments to anchors, for this context.... and I'm not sure why really. I guess it seems more a temporary state perhaps, anchor over attachment, and doesn't conflict with the other definition of the process of attaching..... I mean, there 'is' some existential ground to say all perception is creation of illusion, and therefore being attached is actually re-attaching haha - but that sort of approach I find a bit retrograde in working with it as a concept. So I go with anchors for things I allow.

Such that anchors serve as functional attachments, defined by their performance to some frame of reference, and the things I consider as attachments are a higher order classification of anchors and restraints. So, attachments don't really serve me from this point of view, and instead prefer to remove restraints by either removing them, or engaging them in some specifc construct frame of reference so I can relate in practical terms, and therefore they become anchors instead.
:S :side:

I am not sure i understand what you are saying here but it would seem to me that anchors would hold someone even back more than attachments , but then again , anchors are great for keeping one in 1 place to contemplate before moving forward to the next sand bank :laugh:

Serenity wrote: I am not sure i understand what you are saying here but it would seem to me that anchors would hold someone even back more than attachments , but then again , anchors are great for keeping one in 1 place to contemplate before moving forward to the next sand bank :laugh:

Well if thinking of a busy ship, an anchor spends most of its time out of water! So I reckon by their identification to function, they are more distinct and therefore can serve better at anchoring when anchoring (which is why its a strong association to strong attachment IMO), and sunbaking on deck when not anchored - they are efficient and capable by design. Especially since my base understanding of these for me seems prudent to be about my capacity to anchor, to better understand if I should continue based on its impact to my capacity to operate as effectively as I can. But yea, to me attachment seems too high an affinity between objects to retain the dynamism required for equals to best relate and grow. It''s opt in, rather then stuck on, sorta thing.