You have broadened my thinking on this issue, but I'm not convinced that being "attached" to the result of an intervention is necessarily harmful (let alone something that makes me a dictator!). There are many ways to positively accommodate our natural emotional responses to things being other then we would passionately want them to be, into our continued efforts to make those things so. I agree with your comments on leadership (although I can think of some contrary examples), but leadership is just one area informed by expectation.
I think I am guilty of further polarizing what was presented as a false dichotomy in the first place. It is not the case that either we live a life full of expectations that poison us when they are not met; or that we must be devoid of expectation and experience all outcomes with equanimity. Shades of grey predominate.
That was really my beef with the article: its absolutism. Life requires a repertoire of attitudes and responses. It is futile and naive to say we must always adopt a principle of throwing all our expectations away. It is not so different from saying that the culture and technology we treasure could have been more painlessly attained in a world of wandering sadhus.
Really, it depends on what your goal is. The point of enlightenment is to stop suffering, so if you're trying to do that then our emotional responses must be transcended. If you're not, then what you say makes more sense. I think that the target audience of this website is people who have the goal of transcendence.
The interesting thing is that detachment does not remove the shades of grey, it's not about removing anything and more about accepting it. It's the difference between having a favorite colour and having every colour as your favorite. In the latter case, you don't care what the weather is, you're still smiling.
In a world of wandering sadhus there wouldn't any development of culture and technology since they would all be dedicated to reaching enlightenment, which means that none of them would have attained it. It would be a world of people with the same goal which nobody has actually achieved.
I think that after enlightenment has been attained, people do the same things as we do now, just with infinitely less friction. The saying goes - "Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water." Some minds are inclined towards science or cultural development or computer programming and the same would apply to them.
I think I am guilty of further polarizing what was presented as a false dichotomy in the first place. It is not the case that either we live a life full of expectations that poison us when they are not met; or that we must be devoid of expectation and experience all outcomes with equanimity. Shades of grey predominate.
That was really my beef with the article: its absolutism. Life requires a repertoire of attitudes and responses. It is futile and naive to say we must always adopt a principle of throwing all our expectations away. It is not so different from saying that the culture and technology we treasure could have been more painlessly attained in a world of wandering sadhus.