Quote:
Originally Posted by John Freestone  Thanks for sharing your view that non-attachment is an important part of LoA. So it works better for freer, more loving people. I also understand that Buddha meant attachment, or that that is one of the common translations. However, that kind of leads back to my discomfort with some of what I see in the name of LoA: you might easily 'correct' (as you see it) my terminology and avoid mentioning how similar desire and attachment are in practice. You - or rather, a hypothetical IMer - might easily use whatever vague distinction they can't be bothered to analyse between 'desire' and 'attachment' as a reason to conclude that they are free, loving and on the spiritual path, despite taking endless notes of their financial gains and pretending, like so many before them, that there will probably come a time when they'll get bored making money. Tell me, how would you describe the difference between desire and attachment as it pertains to your own financial gains? |
First we have to take two steps back and establish our starting point in this discussion. You had suggested that:
(1) the wisest way to live life is along the lines of what Buddha taught (that is, we should pursue a truly spiritual path and seek to have no attachment / desire); and
(2) the potentially dangerous way to live life is constantly use, or try to use, the LOA to manifest our desires (because attachment / desire, we are told, inevitably lead to suffering).
What you have presented is, IMO, somewhat misleading. It suggests that we belong either to Category 1 or Category 2 - when in fact, the large majority of human beings on this planet probably fall into Category 3:
(3) they are not seeking spiritual growth; they are constantly filled with material desires; they have no clue about the mind/reality connection and regularly fail to fulfill their desires; and yes, they constantly suffer as a result of attachment.
Now, between Category (2) and Category (1), it may well be that Category (1) is the superior choice. However, between Category (3) and Category (2), I think that Category (2) is clearly the superior choice.
For Category (3) people who no longer wish to be in Category 3, I would also say that entering Category (2) is much easier than entering Category (1). I would further add that Category (2) may well serve as a transition phase to Category (3).
Not completely relevant, but it's also interesting to reflect on the life of Gautama Buddha. Before Gautama Buddha was Gautama Buddha, he was Prince Siddharta, and already enjoyed vast wealth, luxury and power, as well as the deep love of his royal parents.
Have you ever considered that this stage of his life could have been essential to his subsequent spiritual growth? Perhaps it was the fact that every earthly desire he could have conceived of was already satisfied, that he could turn fully to his spiritual quest.
As for myself personally - since you have asked - I
am interested in the spiritual side of life, but if I do come fully to it, I think the path by which I come to it will most likely be the one described in this old blog post of mine (see especially the last paragraph):
Mr Wang Says So: How To Touch The Face of God