01-02-2013, 11:00 AM
I like your interpretation of this, Shin'Ar, but I would once again provide you some food for thought regards to "not being attached.".
When one says not being attached, lusts, dangers of flesh, etc (the group what I call "usual suspects", for a reason that usually, with the inexperienced adept, they only bring fear, self-loathing, self-hate and the sense of original sin, but nothing else, and certainly not something positive), I always remember that the "other side" of this equation is when we approach this from the OTHER angle.
The other angle being the zen buddhist, or simply the way of Buddha. Where, after strong self-reflection in meditation, one could determine that each and every single problem, pain and issue in life comes from attachment to this world, to this body, to one's parents, to one's habits, to one's joy (to one's sexuality, to one's power, and so on and so on). Then, after deciding that it is NOT the experience that we want to have, one could simply let these attachments fall off, and a natural mini-evolution will take place. One not centered around the physical experience and the emotions related to this experience.
If your angle is the same than this, then I might have greatly misunderstood you. But I do perceive a great difference. The zen buddhist does not rush it. Does not say "beware of the dangers". But when a young student complains about its tasks, its body pains or discomforts, he smiles. He might have the same pains for decades, but it is okay. Because the "master" understands that really, when the time comes for the student, then he, without outside poking, advices and lectures, will naturally start walking on the way of less attachments, less physical experience.
When one says not being attached, lusts, dangers of flesh, etc (the group what I call "usual suspects", for a reason that usually, with the inexperienced adept, they only bring fear, self-loathing, self-hate and the sense of original sin, but nothing else, and certainly not something positive), I always remember that the "other side" of this equation is when we approach this from the OTHER angle.
The other angle being the zen buddhist, or simply the way of Buddha. Where, after strong self-reflection in meditation, one could determine that each and every single problem, pain and issue in life comes from attachment to this world, to this body, to one's parents, to one's habits, to one's joy (to one's sexuality, to one's power, and so on and so on). Then, after deciding that it is NOT the experience that we want to have, one could simply let these attachments fall off, and a natural mini-evolution will take place. One not centered around the physical experience and the emotions related to this experience.
If your angle is the same than this, then I might have greatly misunderstood you. But I do perceive a great difference. The zen buddhist does not rush it. Does not say "beware of the dangers". But when a young student complains about its tasks, its body pains or discomforts, he smiles. He might have the same pains for decades, but it is okay. Because the "master" understands that really, when the time comes for the student, then he, without outside poking, advices and lectures, will naturally start walking on the way of less attachments, less physical experience.