Woof Puppy writes: I define > attachments as psychological crutches. Yes -- crutches for healthy legs :)
This reminds me of my questions about how much is "too much". As though, there is a valid worry that if one doesn't have a little attachment to food, one would starve to death. I'll have to add that to a list of "stupid things to worry about" :) > However, once someone has reached that point of > control, there really is no reason for them to deny > themselves a good hot tub soak now and again if > circumstances permit. You probably are speaking loosely, but someone might mis-hear you and think one is developing "self-control" or will power. This is hope-less. Better to give up the control and if you really enjoy hot-tubbing see what comes of it. Rod Scholl > -----Original Message----- > From: woof puppy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 6:21 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Zen] Digest Number 987 > > > > What's wrong with attachments? I suppose that would > depend upon your defintion of attachment. I define > attachments as psychological crutches. > > For example, I see no problem with enjoying samsaric > pleasures, so long as they are kept in perspective. I > like a soak in a hot tub as much the next guy, and > Lord knows my stiff shoulders could really use one > sometimes, but the absence of a jacuzzi in my life > does not affect my overall happiness, nor do I feel > that the presence of a jacuzzi would complete me as a > human being. > > I view the strict discipline and concentration in many > traditional Buddhist monastaries as a means of ridding > oneself of all dependency on samsaric whatnots. > However, once someone has reached that point of > control, there really is no reason for them to deny > themselves a good hot tub soak now and again if > circumstances permit. > > Personally, I lead a lay practice. I am seeking to > eliminate as many attachments as possible, but I'm not > willing to take my moderation to the extreme so that I > can purge myself of them all. At least not at this > point in time. > > > SPROCKET > > _____________________________________________________ > Alex said: > > >Hey Guy, > > I'm in a bit of a rush now, as my course is about to > start in 20 minutes. I'll see what I can squeeze for > now, and then maybe give you something more cogent > tomorrow. How's that? Deal? > > I always like to put Zen in the context. Forgive me if > this is old news to you, but I'd like to reiterate > that 'Zen' is a Japanese word which is a translation > of the Chinese word 'Chan' which is a translation of > the Sanskrit word 'Dhyana'. Now the buck stops here! > What does Dhyana mean? Dhyana means concentration. > > Concentration on what? On examining phenomena. > > Most Buddhist practitioners I know, if asked what is > the most important thing one needs to do in order to > realize enlightenment, would say that it's to get rid > of attachments. > > But when we examine attachments carefully (i.e. when > we concentrate on them utilizing dhyana), we don't > find anything particularly objectionable and bad about > them. So, why should we abandon them? Why would > attachments be any worse than non-attachments? > > Actually, to be perfectly honest here, pretty much > nobody ever examines these things. Let's face it, we > all take them for granted, simply because we read > about them in some book, or someone told us to do so. > > But you see, this is the worst part, the fact that no > one examines anything. Everyone is looking only for > instant gratification. So: > > abandon attachments == attain enlightenment > > Simple as that. And we're done! > > Most people need pithy slogans, simplistic formulas > (like the one above), and such. No one wants to > perform the real work that is absolutely necessary in > order for them to wake up. > > Zen is being sold nowadays as this quick and easy high > road to satori. You don't have to know anything about > the Buddha's teaching, just come and sit with us, and > bingo! you'll get enlightened. What's more, expending > any effort to learn about the Buddha's teaching will > only make things worse for you. So, kill the Buddha! > > What I'd like to ask all of you here is to try and > explain why do you think that attachment should be > regarded as bad? In other words, what could possibly > be wrong with attachment? Or, conversely, why do you > think it's not bad? > > Then I'll return tomorrow and explain myself. But for > now, I'd have to excuse myself. > > Thanks. > > Alex > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. > http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > --------------------~--> > Would you Help a Child in need? > It�s easier than you think. > Click Here to meet a Child you can help. > http://us.click.yahoo.com/kx_54C/I_qJAA/i1hLAA/S27xlB/TM > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------~-> > > Noble Eightfold Path: Right View, Right Intention, Right > Speech, Right Action, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right > Concentration, Right Livelihood > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Would you Help a Child in need? It�s easier than you think. Click Here to meet a Child you can help. http://us.click.yahoo.com/kx_54C/I_qJAA/i1hLAA/S27xlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Noble Eightfold Path: Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration, Right Livelihood Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZenForum/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
