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.
Attachment/Compassion
Whilst not actually Buddhist, I've long held Buddhist philosophy with respect and admiration.
But I honestly don't understand the dichotomy of Attachment and Compassion.
Surely to have one, is to have the other?
I'm obviously missing something here and I'd appreciate it if someone could explain what, to me, is one of the most baffling aspects of Buddhism and indeed, in my own life,
Surely compassion is attachment;
and attachment is more often than not compassion?
But I honestly don't understand the dichotomy of Attachment and Compassion.
Surely to have one, is to have the other?
I'm obviously missing something here and I'd appreciate it if someone could explain what, to me, is one of the most baffling aspects of Buddhism and indeed, in my own life,
Surely compassion is attachment;
and attachment is more often than not compassion?
0
Comments
Hi Dog Star - good question.
The answer lies in our very Western dualist thinking.
True compassion - that compassion that is expressed without attachment to the idea of 'isn't it wonderful how I'm helping all these unfortunate people' - but pure altruistic, comes with no attachment.
For us Westerners there is very much a subject/object about much charity work. Compassion is not charity. True compassion is giving up yourself for the benefit of others. If you can do that honestly without feeling the need of some 'positive feedback' then you are on the path.
Many thanks for your reply.
I think I see what you're saying.
Let me try to put it this way - I'm the sort of rat-bag who flips up-turned beetles back on their feet and picks up bees out of puddles (haven't been stung yet
I think I do this from compassion - that is, I figure that that's a lousy way to die and if I can prevent that by intervention, then I probably should.
But realistically - Why should I care?
I didn't up-turn the beetle in the first place-It's in that position due to causes in its own life. There is no rational reason for me to become involved unless I feel some form of attachment.
Why should I interfere unless I feel Attached?
I think that the meaning of compassion is the ability to put ones-self in someone elses shoes and feel what they feel.
That has to be attachment, surely?
I'll admit that I sort of get a buzz out of doing it. I don't feel that I've comitted a charitable act, but rather a meaningful act.
I'm probably really simple , but I'm having a bugger of a time trying to sort the difference between attachment and compassion and understanding why one should be avoided whilst it's desirable to cultivate the other?
Not looking for an arguement - I'm genuinely seeking illumination on this point because I really honestly don't understand it.
(Please show some compassion and attachment to a poor simple fool.
Hmmm ... let's see if I can do a bit better.
From the Buddhist perspective compassion is not an emotion. Empathy is an emotion I feel when I can understanding someone else's suffering - like flipping over beetles. This is putting myself in another's shoes. And when I help them I do feel good.
There is nothing wrong with empathy - but it is not compassion.
Compassion is close to equanimity. The compassion we generate, as Buddhists, is for all sentient beings - which includes those people whom we might see as our enemy and other living creatures which we don't happen to like. The whole concept of reaching enlightenment is so that we can release all suffers - including those in the hell realms. I don't particularly like the Taliban but I pray for them.
On that point a recent contribution to these boards by member who was imprisoned in Tibet was insightful. He made the comment that it was a test of his practice to have compassion for the Chinese who put him there. That is compassion.
Attachment and aversion are products of our dualist thinking. I like this but I don't like that. We grasp at one and avoid the other. Not to pray for our enemies is avoidance and falls into the same category as attachment.
How am I doing?
Could it be possible that you're confusing "non-attachment" with "detachment"? I think there's a difference. "Detachment" is having no connection while "non-attachment" is seeing the connection without clinging to it.
Let me use the example you gave of the beetle in the mud. If you were detached, then it wouldn't matter to you if the beetle died in the mud or not. If, however, you were compassionate without attachment, you would realize that, like yourself, the beetle doesn't want to die and doesn't want to suffer, so you free it. But you don't cling to the feeling of saving the beetle's life, or receiving anything in return. You may feel some satisfaction in saving a life, but you don't hold on to that feeling, you don't use it as a way of saying, "Hey, I'm compassionate! I saved a beetle from the mud 15 years ago!"
At least, that's my thinking on the subject.
Compassion does involve attachment but what the Buddha meant is that we vary the amount of attachment according to the situation. For example, when a child is born, the parents will have attachment to the child. This is a healthy and parents who are unattached will have problems. If the child is causing significant emotional suffering to the parents and the parents are struggling, then, they could lessen their attachments, so that suffer less and have time to revitalise themselves. Once, they feel better, they can increase the attachment and continue looking after the child. If the child dies, then it is time to let go and detach. Attachments will cause profound suffering. So, think of attachment as a sliding scale. We vary our attachment levels according to the situation.
But why create suffering for yourself to help someone else? Compassion is helping other people without suffering with them. If a friend of yours is very sad and you want to help him. It makes no sense to become sad yourself. Then we have two sad people. Thats exactly twice as sad
When you have compassion you will help you friend without being sad yourself. Give him shoulder or an arm around his/here neck. Be there for them and simply listen to there story without getting attached to the emotions of that story.
This is how I see attachment vs compassion. But he! Maybe I'm wrong I'm not a Buddha
Compassion that does not have attachment, does not expect a return, does not differentiate between enemies or friends, does not wish for good merits, does not try to be compassionate, does not wish for the blissful feeling of having helped others... true compassion like that is combined with a realisation of emptiness.
At our point, we work towards such a compassion. We practise it in our life and try to make aspirations to develop it further and further.
Attachment compassion has a huge difference, it is quite demanding and brings alot of emotional ups-and-downs for the person practising it and it has a very differentiating mind... like for eg. if you feed some fishes, and someone comes along and feeds, you feel unhappy... you want to be the one who is feeding... there is a notion of 'I' there and a clinging to that... so that is self-clinging which makes compassion into 'attachment compassion'... but at our early stages, to be completely real compassion is quite difficult, we must work step by step, gently changing...
hope this helps.:)
That is how "I" define compassion.
Each post has given me much food for thought and I'm continuing to ponder them all.
I can see that I may have confused compassion with empathy, but I also feel that compassion, attachment and empathy are very probably (to my way of thinking) three separate skeins of a tightly wound rope.
I think I understand compassion and I'm fairly confident that I understand empathy.
It's becoming clear to me that it's the nature of attachment (as used in the Buddhist sense) that I'm having difficulty with.
I love to contemplate a sun rise (or sun set), a bird in flight, a smiling infant, baby turtles, a dog sleeping in the sun, a Lunar eclipse or one of Jupiter's moons gradually emerging from behind.
All these examples are forms of attachment, surely?
Yet they do not produce suffering in me; in fact they induce feelings of joy and almost rapture in me and the knowledge of their impermanence only seems to add to their exquisite beauty, to my eyes.
I'm in love with the throb of the Universe.
Does this preclude me from becoming a Buddhist or is there a branch of Buddhism that might deal with this?
My thanks for your forbearance!
But when you enjoyed the sun rise in the morning and at night you are craving for the next morning to come. So you can see the sun rise again. Thats the attachment part. And that craving is the "suffering".
Nobody is precluded since buddhism does not have rules for lay people. Only recommendations.
Like Avuso said, the enjoyment in itself is not attachment, but can lead to attachment; if you constantly seek those things in order to find happiness, that would be attachment.
And "suffering" isn't necessarily overt sadness or despair. The fact that happiness and enjoyment wanes is part of suffering. You may be really happy when you play with your dog, but an hour later that happiness will fade. You may not be sad per se, but that cessation of happiness is part of "suffering."
No of course it doesn't preclude you from becoming a Buddhist! You don't have to be a "perfect person" to be a Buddhist... far from it.
And the concept of dukkha (suffering) is part of the Four Noble Truths, which is central to all schools of Buddhism.
Link? Not saying I don't believe you per se, but you gotta be careful about what you believe when it comes to random posts on an internet forum. You understand.
Dog Star, be real 100% selfish. Do only what is good for you and do not cheat your self! There are two ways, the way of pure compassion or the way of pure selfishness. Both will bring the other on its aim. But don't cheat your self and change on the way!
They are serious to my understanding of Buddhism and your replies have given me much to think about.
Again, many thanks!:)
Your reply was the most cryptic.
You either misunderstand me completely or understand me more than I do myself.
My deep thanks for your considered reply.