with you as far as the distraction, numbness and avoidance of terror.
I find fear even terror to be rather physical. Not fond of Buddhism’s implicit judgments of emotional expression and the proposed disidentification with body and emotions adn desire. That’s me. Others want to be an empty compassionate space.
There is a difference between detachment and de attachment. That's where the regression ad absurdum comes in. Some willingly go there and see what they can find. If not, the terrors will haunt one. That's the sig. For me anyway. The ghosts will haunt those trying to get away from there. Once realised, they are benigned spirits.
“Disidentification” with say, body, results in relating to your body more fully I’d say. At least with respect to the Buddhist meaning of understanding ego as fluid, composite, impermanent, etc. Which isn’t to say that there aren’t prudish styles of Buddhism, as there certainly are. And on the other hand, more fully relating to your body often results in understanding the difference between need, want, desire, fixation, habit, etc. and which kinds of bodily actions cause harm, which are wholesome, etc.
And… between what’s just entertainment or distraction (not a sin!) and what’s healthy and builds positive relationships that are good for YOU, as much as for others.
Sin is just a convention to prevent a fall into the unseen, where angels fear to thread, eye.
But no matter, It is only resistance and not ressentiment.
And Dan, am qualifying this, on account of not seeming grateful, for the above, and the further qualifications, of coming more proximately toward the I, rather than distancing from it.
There never is the possibility to fall dawn completely, as in a dream, awakening comes just before it.
It's just that, at nearly the very limit, if one is trying to keep eyes wide open, then, it seems like another thing, altogether. (The edge)
In my limited opinion Nietszche was at the edge of a better form of atheism, better than the atheism of the moderns, but he was not meant for metaphysical spirit. He probably didn’t believe in the afterlife for example. Meanwhile, what I think is the best edge to be at, it contains both physical and spiritual energy in infinite supply. It is for all.
Human isolation exists on a spiritual level because we are composed of something like rubber which blocks out universal currents of free energy and consciousness. Isolation, non-knowing, etc. These are the result of our blockage. The rubbery quality is the first barrier which I call numbness in my earlier post. I assure you the will is not futile, but it can become ill. Usually the first barrier is so complete that no-body will get over it in this life time. If humanity augmented itself heavily and got over its moral confusion, things would look very different in the near future, but as of now we are robots of democratic capitalism and crap.
Was the buddha right, or wrong?
I think he was really good at self-denial training. He was friends with these guys that suppressed and blocked their desires and barely ate anything. I forgot the name for it, but i thought the word sounded like aesthetic, but then different letters. Hopefully you know what I mean. Anyways, buddha got so much self control that he could turn off his thoughts and desires. While his body and mind was clear of content, compounds of thought, etc., he then had a perception of the unconditioned original element. His body also gained some better energy. It was an existence changing experience. He built a bunch of teachings around it. The teachings were very counter intuitive. So simple yet almost impossible to all.
Have you ever seen a magnet? Probably. The reason why it sticks to metal is because electricity is constantly flowing through and within everything on earth. There is an almost infinite supply of free electricity in the air and on our skin, but we don’t feel it or use it. And this electricity is nothing compared to the metaphysical infinities which we exist at the edge of. But even without that, even without a soul, the amount of free electricity in the universe is mind-blowing.
One of the main jobs of the ego is creation. It can be like a healthy cell, or a cancerous cell. When cancerous, it creates heavy bulk as much as it can. I consider your stress as un-needed bulk. I agree that people try to complexify. It’s mostly an unconscious habbit, and it is also a scam, maybe an unknowing scam.
In a nuclear bomb, a small amount of mass is converted into energy. The great power of the explosion is vast. Imagine if you could tap into the dormant energy of mass, and use it to build things. The power of a nuclear bomb every moment creating life. There’s not much making that impossible. It’s just that we have never conceived of it. When people talk about “God”, they also think it is impossible to equal God’s power. They talk as if we are doomed to be sinful human mortals forever. That is a unreal limitation. I’m talking about nuclear energy and electricity just as a stepping stone. I believe there is much better energies as well. Easier, faster, etc.
I can only say my experience with both Eastern and Western Buddhisms and Buddists doesn’t fit with this. And then even more so with emotions and desire. But I would say there is almost a taste issue here, and for those who want to go in that direction, I can only wish them well on their journey.
Moreno: in my reply I used 2 concepts : detachment and detachment , disidentification is a 0 sum of these concepts. Identification when gotten directly, as well as disidentification, is based on the cutting edge philosophy that most people can't practice in Buddhism. Most people start with Hathayaga postures, breathing etc.
A detachment and a de-attachment can be acquired slowly over a course of time, setting up an eventual disidentification.
A detached attitude sets the tone where attachments can be shed. I find solitude, under one tree in an anonymous park most suitable, and it brings me great peace. I have been going there a long time. I am not anywhere in being able to say to myself that I have shed all of my attachments, but I am working on it. Got to the point where I don't need to go to that tree anymore, I have de-attached that detachment itself. But still need a lot of work, with mantras.
As far as de-identifying with the body, that I believe is still a very far road ahead,and for me, at least, it might take as long as my earthly body is still alive. Buddha could do it immediately, and didn't have to wait until he got to Nirvana.
This is what Anon may have meant in this respect.
Okra is Okra but, you and I will see it and taste it differently. You may like it, I find it disgusting. etc, etc. We can only agree on its name that humans gave it. And there is no way we can occupy the same exact space. While there are numerous similarities, there are the same amount or more differences physically and mentally. Dan~'s OP gives a direction that may work or be true for he and others but it certainly cannot be true or work for all.
We are all alone–each unto the other–because we cannot completely share our minds. That was the first thing I learned in philosophy. So?
Can’t we be ‘complete’ by ourselves?–within our self? What’s so scary?
We need entertainment, yes–but isn’t entertainment meant to give us respite from our own sense of our own realities and how we respond to those realities?
I guess I can only say that generally speaking,none of what you say goes against my impressions of Buddhism in general,and while you word it in your own idiosyncratic way, at least in part, if fits perfectly with what I was saying about Buddhism. If ‘it’ is accomplishing what you want, great.