My point was pragmatic, not semantic.devilyoudont wrote:Er... no? Depends on which definition you're looking at. I believe you're talking about "emotional detachment" in psychology, whereas I was thinking of "philosophical detachment", which requires anything but "unawareness".Acchantika wrote:"Non-attachment" does not mean "detachment". One implies awareness, the other a lack thereof.
Non-attachment, or "philosophical detachment", as you call it, in the context of Buddhist practice is allowing concepts to self-liberate into their own condition, i.e., neither accepting nor rejecting them as they arise. Right or wrong, that is my understanding of the term.
Therefore, it is not "detaching the intellect from conceptual constructions" as you stated, which is rejecting, and equivalent to trying to "use concepts to think oneself out of concepts" and thus a subtle form of the problematic thinking your opening post was concerning. It further implies that conceptual constructions and the intellect are seperate phenomena.
I am not talking about a view of emptiness. I am talking about avoiding a view of emptiness without taking its negation as a view.Or not. Here we go again. This is a view diametrically opposed to Emptiness, as all views are, so: No, liberation is Only attainable by using concepts to think oneself out of concepts. Just like you're doing this very moment. ( )Acchantika wrote:Thus my original point: one cannot use concepts to think oneself out of concepts.