Posted by
glen ropella on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/DEBATE-about-Religion-and-Atheism-tp7580664p7580817.html
The only way I can imagine detachment being a form of attachment would
be that both attachment and detachment are limited to _partial_
[de|at]tachment. I.e. non-attachment must be some sort of singularity
approachable from either direction.
http://www.wuala.com/gepr/public/singularity.svg/?mode=listBut if that's the case, then we're guilty of equivocating on the word
"attachment". Perhaps replacing "detachment" with "anti-attachment"
might prevent the equivocation.
Prof David West wrote at 10/01/2012 04:21 PM:
> "duty has almost nothing to do with the philosophical lesson of the
> story. Arjuna's dilemma is not between kill and not kill, or deciding
> between two contradictory laws - but between attached and non-attached
> action. Only the latter avoids the accrual of Karma (western spelling).
> Non-attachment is definitively not detachment (detachment is an instance
> of attachment). Non-attachment is acting with "perfect knowledge" that
> the action is the "right" action in that context, with context being the
> totality of the world. (A kind of omniscience, the possibility of which
> is for another time and place.)
--
glen
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org