[Lesson 5] Wary of attachement

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: