By existing you are
It seems to me a confused statement -- given that it's full of assertions like "you are", "I die", "I won't be" and so on.
How can I possibly be attached to reality if I am dead?
I suppose it's "attachment" -- attachment to the aggregates, specifically -- that gives rise to this view, i.e. the OP is saying:
- I am this body (or these aggregates)
- I die when the aggregates dissolve
- Then I will be no longer attached
How was the Buddha free from attachment if he wrote a book and made a religion?
That's different meanings of the word "attachment", possibly -- I think that, in Buddhist terms, attachment is used in two ways:
- Attachment to the aggregates as a self-view
- Attachment to objects of desire
I guess the OP is arguing that the Buddha was attached to (not free of attachment to):
- The Dhamma (or, views)?
- The world?
Anyway, to answer the question, we're given to understand that the Buddha was free of sensual cravings, for example -- even free of tendencies towards sensual desire, let along actual attachment. And pride too, perhaps evidenced e.g. by being able to respond to insult with SN 7.2.
You might perhaps (rightly) describe him as "attached" to the Buddha-Dhamma, attached to a view (right view) -- to the view (or doctrine) of "suffering and cessation", or something like that.
Alternativey you might want to call that "wisdom" rather than "attachment" -- also, "compassion" (towards those who benefit from his teaching the Dharma he discovered) -- and I'm not sure even that is a fixed view (or an "attachment" to a view) given e.g. the "Dhamma as a raft" simile.
You can only be not attached to reality if you don't exist.
To be honest I don't see "not being attached to reality" as a virtue -- I think people may suffer and cause suffering when they're not attached to reality.