Sometimes when I mention this "nonattachment"
idea I'm immediately jumped on. Let me just say that I fully understand
about attachment to "the land" that one is living on and interacting with;
as well as attachment to the people one is similarly living with or
interacting with. This kind of "attachment" I fully concur is natural,
unavoidable and fully to be expected. It is beautiful and an expression of
love.
The kind of "nonattachment" that I am
speaking of is more like something probably talked about in Zen or Buddhism.
This "nonattachment" that I am speaking about is about loving where one is
and who one is there with. However, what it is not, is a desperate clinging
to place and people which would be characterized by fear and, or a need to
control and it might be added, a certain degree of laziness which would lead
one to believe one could do anything one wanted to and still remain in
harmony with the land around one, and the people there.
Another reason I emphasize the need for
"nonattachment" is that (it is theorized) for communal living to be
successful it has to be very clear that it is not some sort of lucky break
that is enabling the community to exist (i.e. how the land was obtained).
No. What it is that is enabling the community to exist are the ethics and
goals that it shares together.
A community has got to be open to others.
Which means it can't be prejudiced or judgmental about people and it cannot
be bound simply by the boundaries of a particular plot of ground.
Which means it has to grow, or rather the idea has to grow. It cannot be
closed and simply dependent upon a lucky break. It cannot be satisfied in
meeting the needs of a few, when the needs of the many are not being met.
It's members also need to realize (everyone,
founders included) that the privilege or opportunity to exist in the
community is not something that is based on position. It is based on
everyone sharing certain fundamental ethics and goals and following a few
basic rules; and should someone deviate drastically from those ethics and
goals that someone(leader or not) would obviously have to leave the
community. That is what the true community is in this writers opinion.
It is not a piece of land and it is
not merely a sentimental attachment to people.
