Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Interesting Perspective

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

*********

" Detachment " is not the understanding that the sages are talking

about. The difference between a balloon getting bigger and bigger

and the bursting of the balloon altogether.

 

***********

 

Sudden awakening: detaching from the nonsensical notion

that there is a balloon or ever was one.

 

Gradual awakening: Dragging a fantasy balloon around cultivating

notions about balloons and what should be done about them

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " Faithe Arden " <faithe@v...>

wrote:

>

> " Detachment " is not the understanding that the sages are talking

> about. The difference between a balloon getting bigger and bigger

> and the bursting of the balloon altogether.

>

> ***********

>

> Sudden awakening: detaching from the nonsensical notion

> that there is a balloon or ever was one.

>

> Gradual awakening: Dragging a fantasy balloon around cultivating

> notions about balloons and what should be done about them

>

> *********************

>

> Faithe: This message did not have the same impact on me, Joyce.

>

> What I understood is that there is a tendency to " gulp " up

everything expressed by the sages. The more that one gulps, the more

one " knows " and becomes " full of oneself " , with all this knowledge.

>

> The " attachment " is to that which has been learned and is now

labeled as understanding and knowledge. The more reading and

understanding of the words emitted by the sages infers that one

actually believes that " more knowledge " leads to detachment; the

message is hinting that the reverse is true.

>

> It is when the balloon (self) bursts and all this " knowledge "

dissipates, that detachment " is " . Can attachment and detachment

reside concurrently?

>

> The attachment, itself, is the hanging on to the words of the

sages, and calling it " knowledge " , and seeking more and more words to

understand, which ultimately increases the attachment.

>

> After reading the message, I was left with the question, does no

attachment infer detachment? Is " detachment " preferable

to " attachment " ? If so, why? In the end, does it boil down to having

an attachment to detachment?

>

> That is my take on this " interesting perspective " offered.

>

 

 

Hi Faithe~

 

Always interested to hear your take

 

here's another one for the mix...

 

there can be detachment with no attachment

as well as attachment to detachment,

(more like detach-ING, attach-ING)

and everything from A to Z in between,

as passing phenomenon,

but there are no 'qualities' such as

detachment or attachment that can be

possessed (had or owned). IOW,

there is constant flux (change) but nothing

that can have or possess qualities of permanence or

impermanence. To suggest a constant state of

attachment, detachment, permanence or

impermanence is to infer that there is

something that could be in possession of

these qualities. Minute changes (constant

flux) is continuous on the micro level,

and nothing is static.

 

 

~freyja

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...