Buddhism and attachments

thesadclown

Playing off of the direction my enlightenment and nirvana thread has taken, I thought I would start a new thread

I guess part of it is that I would rather live a life that causes suffering than to live in a way that avoided suffering. An easy example is my attachment to my wife. I love her a lot, probably more than I know, and losing her, either to death or else abandonment, would hurt a lot. I know it would cause me suffering, and yet I wouldn't have it any other way. In fact, I want it this way. I don't want to be unattached or indifferent to her or her presence in my life. I know that there is the real possibility that I will lose her (death being the most likely scenario), but I think that the significance of this attachment and the emotional benefit I get from it are worth this risk, even worth it if it was guaranteed that I would lose her. I want her to be important to me.

What does Buddhism have to say about this?

mugzy

I don't think that unattached equals indifferent. I think it's more about accepting that people are impermanent. We can appreciate our loved ones while maintaining the idea that our time is limited.

username_5

the sad clown wrote: »

I love her a lot, probably more than I know, and losing her, either to death or else abandonment, would hurt a lot. I know it would cause me suffering, and yet I wouldn't have it any other way.

You won't have it any other way You are going to lose her at some point. You know this, of course.

In fact, I want it this way. I don't want to be unattached or indifferent to her or her presence in my life. I know that there is the real possibility that I will lose her (death being the most likely scenario), but I think that the significance of this attachment and the emotional benefit I get from it are worth this risk, even worth it if it was guaranteed that I would lose her. I want her to be important to me.

I REALLY hope you will get a beginner dhamma book on Buddhism as your belief that Buddhism leads to being indifferent about things couldn't be more incorrect. It is a VERY COMMON misperception.

The truth is exactly the opposite. You will love her in a much more genuine way. Less selfish clinging and more unselfish giving. Imagine that your wife was outside the home and you got a phone call from informing you that your wife was killed in a car accident. You went to see her body and then realized the dead person wasn't your wife. About then your cell phone rings and it is your wife asking you where you are. How joyful would you be at that moment that you still have your wife?

That's what Buddhism can lead to. By being mindful of the impermanence of everything including those/that which we hold most dear it leads to a greater appreciation of what we have, while we have it.

There is a story about the Buddha being informed that 2 of his closest students had died. He said something along the lines of 'It is as if the world has just lost the sun and the moon.' In other words, the Buddha didn't become a numb, indifferent emotional retard and neither would you.

fivebells

You might get a lot out of The Feeling Buddha. (Its interpretation of the Dharma is quite heterodox, but it makes a lot of sense to me, on this point.)

thesadclown

username_5 wrote: »

That's what Buddhism can lead to. By being mindful of the impermanence of everything including those/that which we hold most dear it leads to a greater appreciation of what we have, while we have it.

Thanks for the response. That makes a lot of sense. I do get the sense that people seem to associate being unattached when talking about enlightenment though. Could you explain that to me?

thesadclown

mugzy wrote: »

I don't think that unattached equals indifferent. I think it's more about accepting that people are impermanent. We can appreciate our loved ones while maintaining the idea that our time is limited.

My question then is what have become unattached to? I know I am unattached to a flower. I can appreciate its beauty. It might even be enhanced by the knowledge of its fleeting nature, but because of that there is little feeling when it does pass. I certainly don't want something like this with regard to my wife, so my question is how is it different than my description of being unattached to the flower?

This is what I meant and probably shouldn't have said indifferent, since I am not indifferent to the flower, I enjoy it, want it, find it appealing, etc. But I am not attached to it, precisely because I know how brief my time with it will be. I accept its passing without qualms.

fivebells

"Attachment" is a poor translation. It's used in two contexts. The first is clinging, in the sense of "Don't go! I couldn't stand for this to end!" Such an attitude is undesirable because it leads to unbalanced perception and behavior. The second thing which translated as "attachment" is the mind collapsing down on some aspect of experience, and excluding other phenomena from awareness. Buddhist practice brings an end to both of these kinds of attachment. It sounds like they are different from the kind of attachment you have to your wife, because losing her will cause you pain, and you will work to maintain your relationship to her, but you have accepted that one way or another, the relationship will end one day, and life will go on in spite of that.

thesadclown

Thanks for the description fivebells. Maybe now would be a good time to do some reading, since it seems like I'm not understanding the terminology being used.

fivebells

Unfortunately, there is great philological uncertainty about the scriptures, and their provenance is quite dubious. Ultimately, you're going to have to make up your own mind. The practices as they have been handed down to today are useful in my experience, though.

username_5

the sad clown wrote: »

Thanks for the description fivebells. Maybe now would be a good time to do some reading, since it seems like I'm not understanding the terminology being used.

Well, pause just for a second so I can potentially spare you some additional confusion. I recommend that you get one dhamma (teaching) book aimed to be easy to understand and one practice oriented book aimed at covering things like 'how to meditate', again written to be easy to understand and address the common problems encountered.

I recommend the two books be from the same author. Why? Because of how confusing the terminology can be. I used to use the words 'bare attention' to describe mindfulness during meditation because that is the terminology one teacher used. A day or two ago I was reading another teacher and he used the same terminology 'bare attention', but it was clear he was assigning it a different meaning.


Even something as 'basic' as the 4 noble truths see different people using different means to describe dukkha which is commonly translated as suffering.

Once *you* understand the concepts, it doesn't matter what words the teacher uses, but until you do understand the concepts the difference in terminology can be unnecessarily confusing.

My recommendation for 2 suitable books are Mindfulness in Plain English (the practice oriented book) and Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness (the teaching book). Both are written by Bhante Henepola Gunaratana. My recommendation is based on having read both and having profited from both. There are, of course, many other well respected teachers/books, but I can only speak of that which I have read myself.

fivebells

Gunaratana would be a good choice, too.

Thus

It doesn't sound like you are attached to me. Attachment would be being unable to come to terms with this inevitable fact and causing a lot of friction in the process of your resistance.