TF: So we can be both attached and nonattached?
JW: Yes. Nonattachment is a teaching about our ultimate nature. Our buddha
nature is totally, intrinsically nonattached. Attachment in the Buddhist sense has
the negative meaning of clinging. Being free and open, our buddha nature has no
need to cling.
Yet to grow into a healthy human being, we need a base of secure attachment in the
positive, psychological sense, meaning: close emotional ties to other people that
promote connectedness, grounded embodiment, and well-being. As John Muir the
naturalist wrote: “When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find that it is bound
fast by a thousand invisible cords that cannot be broken, to everything in the universe.”
Similarly, the hand cannot function unless it is attached to the arm—that’s attachment
in the positive sense. We’re interconnected, interwoven, and interdependent with
everything in the universe. On the human level we can’t help feeling somewhat
attached to people we are close to.
Thus it’s natural to grieve deeply when we lose someone we’re close to. When
Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche attended the memorial service for his dear friend and
colleague Suzuki Roshi, he let out a piercing cry and wept openly. He was
acknowledging his close ties to Suzuki Roshi, and it was beautiful that he could let his
feeling show like that.
Since we cannot avoid some kind of attachment to others, the question becomes, “Are
we engaging in healthy or unhealthy attachment?” What is unhealthy in psychological
terms is insecure attachment, for it leads either to fear of close personal contact or else to
obsession with it. Interestingly, people growing up with secure attachment are more
trusting, which makes them much less likely to cling to others. Maybe we could call that
“nonattached attachment.”
I’m afraid that what many Western Buddhists are practicing in the relational area is not
nonattachment, but avoidance of attachment. Avoidance of attachment, however, is not
8
freedom from attachment. It’s still a form of clinging— clinging to the denial of your
human attachment needs, out of distrust that love can be reliable.
TF: So we can be both attached and nonattached?JW: Yes. Nonattachment is a teaching about our ultimate nature. Our buddhanature is totally, intrinsically nonattached. Attachment in the Buddhist sense hasthe negative meaning of clinging. Being free and open, our buddha nature has noneed to cling.Yet to grow into a healthy human being, we need a base of secure attachment in thepositive, psychological sense, meaning: close emotional ties to other people thatpromote connectedness, grounded embodiment, and well-being. As John Muir thenaturalist wrote: “When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find that it is boundfast by a thousand invisible cords that cannot be broken, to everything in the universe.”Similarly, the hand cannot function unless it is attached to the arm—that’s attachmentin the positive sense. We’re interconnected, interwoven, and interdependent witheverything in the universe. On the human level we can’t help feeling somewhatattached to people we are close to.Thus it’s natural to grieve deeply when we lose someone we’re close to. WhenChogyam Trungpa Rinpoche attended the memorial service for his dear friend andcolleague Suzuki Roshi, he let out a piercing cry and wept openly. He wasacknowledging his close ties to Suzuki Roshi, and it was beautiful that he could let hisfeeling show like that.Since we cannot avoid some kind of attachment to others, the question becomes, “Arewe engaging in healthy or unhealthy attachment?” What is unhealthy in psychologicalterms is insecure attachment, for it leads either to fear of close personal contact or else toobsession with it. Interestingly, people growing up with secure attachment are moretrusting, which makes them much less likely to cling to others. Maybe we could call that“nonattached attachment.”I’m afraid that what many Western Buddhists are practicing in the relational area is notnonattachment, but avoidance of attachment. Avoidance of attachment, however, is not 8freedom from attachment. It’s still a form of clinging— clinging to the denial of yourhuman attachment needs, out of distrust that love can be reliable.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..