Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Desire & Such
ThailandTom
Veteran
I have been doing a fair bit of reading lately (Buddhist related), and I clearly see the connections between how phenomena arise from causes, these causes give rise to attachment via us attaching desires to them in some way, it could be wanting a sensual pleasure, to become something status or to not want to be something.
Now this is my question, the book by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu I am reading claims that once a person has totally lost desire to anything, be it a new motorbike, a nice cake, he even speaks of children being a burden and a responsibility, becoming something we want them to become, thus attachment, but he claims that only when one has lost total desire for anything only then can somebody go about life without ignorance. So how does one find a middle way and still want to have food, a new bike and kids, but yet have no desire and attachment related to these things? Can you members of NewBuddhist who have children claim that you have no attachment to your children?
Now this is my question, the book by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu I am reading claims that once a person has totally lost desire to anything, be it a new motorbike, a nice cake, he even speaks of children being a burden and a responsibility, becoming something we want them to become, thus attachment, but he claims that only when one has lost total desire for anything only then can somebody go about life without ignorance. So how does one find a middle way and still want to have food, a new bike and kids, but yet have no desire and attachment related to these things? Can you members of NewBuddhist who have children claim that you have no attachment to your children?
0
Comments
Give this article a read, it answered that question for me.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/pushinglimits.html
Anyways, I think attachment is when we cease to accept change in the things around us - refusing to accept that our bike is broken beyond repair, that our food isn't as good as we want it to be, that our loved one isn't acting the way they are "supposed to be." If we can live with the bike, kids, nice food, but accept when they are different than we expect, I think that's a good "middle path" for a layperson.
When you read this, please know that I don't mean that you should just let your children run amuck. But caring for children is a not a one-way endeavor. Both the caregiver and the child are teachers. Know when to enforce something (like a safety rule) and know when to allow the child to make his/her own rules. Provide guidance, but let the guidance be based on what the child is telling you he/she needs from you. The Middle Way.
But, at the same time, they are adults, they think for themselves, I can give my opinions (when asked for them) I can listen when they need me to listen, but they are at the oars of their own boat, so to speak.
When they were young children and adolescents, I was a fairly liberal, but not an overly permissive parent. I grew up with a pretty hot-tempered, rigid and stingy father; who resented his children for the financial burdens and messy, needy humans they were. I didn't want to be the same to my kids...
However, I made a very conscious decision not to be one of those mothers who literally devoted their every waking minute of every single day to their children's wants and comforts. When I see the so-called "helicopter parent" that is becoming more and more common in the last decade or so... I cringe.
I find that kind of mother (or father) somewhat sad, actually. Imagine their suffering when it's 'empty nest time'... if that ever happens! And think of those wholly dependent and needy kids as adults- oy!
Added: So, I believe there is skillful attachment (when it comes to children and even spouses and other family relationships) and unskillful attachment. Up to the individual (parent) to be aware enough to examine and adjust accordingly.
Like Ajahn Chah said if you want liberation you really should not strive or want it at all.
When you find your happiness within yourself and bring that to the table, the results are much better. We aren't here as parents to form our children into mini-mes, making them what we think is an acceptable human being. We are only there to guide them to recognizing their potential, their ability to create their own happiness. You can do this without controlling them, without attachment to who or what they will become. But much of the parents attachment to a preferable outcome comes from fear of judgement of others, fear of looking like a bad parent.
If you are open to your children being as much your teacher as you are theirs, things go much more smoothly. Sometimes, i think having kids is the only way to learn some lessons. My kids are all very stubborn and would not allow me to control them even if I wanted to, lol. They are who they are, and as their parent it has been up to me to help them figure that out and guide them to make decisions that are right for them. Sometimes, those decisions are not the ones I would have made for myself, or would make for them. But almost all the time, it is the right decision for them. I trust them to make decisions for themselves (that are age appropriate of course and that will not bring true harm to them or others) and they do quite well. Because of their guidance and trust in my and themselves, they rarely make really bad decisions. They make mistakes of course, we all do. But they have a good compass that they have developed themselves because it is inherent in us all as long as it isn't shut down by someone who holds the same compass a different way.
I do think it's also important to consider the fact that all children are individuals and you can't always apply a blanket pedagogy across the board. But a skillful attachment allows for variations and changes as the child matures. Parenting /child care is definitely not a stagnant occupation.
Creating energy, prana, chi, ki
Making you permanently dualistic in your thinking processes.
Somewhere over that rainbow is....enlightenment (?)
The second is that people tend to conflate desire (chanda) and craving (tahna), and this is partially the fault of translators, but desire and craving are actually two different but closely related aspects of our psychology. Desire is a neutral term, and one generally has to have the desire to achieve a goal in order to achieve it, even nibbana (SN 51.15); whereas the Pali word for craving, tahna (literally 'thirst'), is something that's directly tied to suffering.
The second noble truth states that the origination of suffering is "the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming" (SN 56.11). As Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains in Wings to Awakening: Desire, on the other hand, can be skillful (kusala) or unskillful (akusala) depending on the context. The desire for happiness, especially long-term welfare and happiness, is actually an important part of the Buddhist path. Moreover, desire is listed as one of the four bases of power (iddhipada), which themselves are included in the seven sets of qualities that lead to the end of suffering (MN 103). The four qualities listed in the bases of power are desire, persistence, intent, and discrimination. In Wings to Awakening, Thanissaro Bhikkhu points to this passage: He goes on to explain that, "This passage shows that the problem lies not in the desire, effort, intent or discrimination, but in the fact that these qualities can be unskillfully applied or improperly tuned to their task."
If we take a look at the exchange between Ananda and the brahmin Unnabha in SN 51.15, for example, we can see that the attainment of the goal is indeed achieved through desire, even though paradoxically, the goal is said to be the abandoning of desire. That's because at the end of the path desire, as well as the other three bases of power, subside on their own. As Ananda explains at the end of SN 51.15: So, essentially, desire can be beneficial in certain contexts, and you shouldn't worry too much about the desire to do skillful things. The real trick is learning to discern which desires are actually skillful (MN 61). And when it comes to the enlightened mind, I'm sure that having no clinging/attachment (upadana) doesn't mean also having no loving-kindness or compassion for those around us.
If anybody else knows anything about this guy or has n opinion, please put it forward.
Also, thank you for the help and posts so far, it is helping me somewhat
If someone has totally lost desire, then its time for ordination, which means leaving everything behind including family, possessions etc.
As is often said in Chinese Mahayana since the very beginning, the six roots ( of desire) must be extinguished, before one becomes a Bhikku, otherwise problems will for sure crop up.
In between, progress would mean lessening our desires and hence attachments.
Emotional attachments, wanting the new gadget, car, desire for the gorgeous opp sex, the hurt of losing something... All these desires and the hurt caused by not getting the object of desire would be very much lessened if there is progress along the path.
Until the day arrives... but not before.
How do you want help someone in need though, I guess you can want do that without desire, but you have the desire of wanting them to get well. Ah but you should know the importance of impermanence. Sorry I kind of asked questions that I answered as I went along
Great, at last someone who understands what Im on about, haha.
If someone came to you for help, and you abandon them, then if remorse/regret comes up, then you have developed compassion. One of the treasures of the Dharma.