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.
Is desire for social change an unhealthy attachment?
There are so many problems in the world today. However, suffering is inevitable, because even if all of these issues are solved, people still face death.
If you want to make the world a better place, is this an attachment that contributes to more suffering?
Or do you think that as long as you act out of compassion then it is ok?
If you want to make the world a better place, is this an attachment that contributes to more suffering?
Or do you think that as long as you act out of compassion then it is ok?
0
Comments
If you don't have expectations, your intentions are good and you know what you're talking about then there's no reason why you shouldn't continue. If your desire for social change is going to to unsatisfied, and that will probably be the case, would you get frustrated or just double your efforts? It's a matter of how you go about it, I think.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make things better, and to be perfectly honest, I'm surprised anybody with even an once of compassion in their heart would need to ask this question.
My take on this is after the old vacuum cleaner Buddhist joke, which I can't recall right now.
An attachment is an add-on, something that is not an essential component. If you have love in your heart, that is already within you and a part of you, and therefore it would not be clear thinking to call that desire an attachment.
Just be careful not to let anything you are drawn towards infatuate you or otherwise suck you in, if you seek no attachments at all. But I'm not saying not to cave a little, no not at all. All I'm saying is be clear what it is that you want —and then go after that.
Haha, please FORGIVE ME almighty jason-but this is quite an accusation. I was merely wondering if the desire for social betterment could be considered an attachment that in turn causes suffering for an individual.
clearly you have got life figured out, but perhaps you should give some more thought before passing judgement.
This issue is something I have struggled with for a long time. Please refer to the following quote:
"The greatest illusion of the abstract ego is that it can do anything to bring about radical improvement either in itself or the world. And so we should stop crusading, or acting for such abstract causes as the good, righteousness, peace, universal love, freedom, and social justice. And we should also stop fighting against such equally abstract concepts like communism, socialism, racism, and the imaginary powers of darkness and evil,because most of the hell now being raised in the world is well intentioned.We justify our wars and revolutions as unfortunate means for good ends" ~ Alan Watts
This makes me wonder, is it wise for activists to go to the grave as unsatisfied protesters who struggled their entire lives to pursue an unattainable abstraction such as 'peace'? Maybe instead of this, it is more beneficial for citizens/leaders around the world to wake up, become more aware, and stop trying to control everything with an anxious grip.
A very nice thought, Tim! I'm not sure we can really take a paragraph out of a book and create a context understood by everyone, though. But again, I like the sincere sentiment you have added to Watts' words
Nonetheless a radical improvement (literally radical) is a quantum leap that only one in perhaps twelve billion can make in a life. The real challenge is to keep a brave spirit and an appropriate mood amid some surrounding gloom and try to be a blessing just to the wind rather than a curse to even one of our brethren. We are born to bring joy and not affliction. That is hard to do, regarding the fact that our biological nature ofttimes calls us elsewhere.
When we would put ourselves on a righteous bandwagon for social change, the road becomes sodden with all sorts of crazy schemes that will in the end only bring all crashing down. It is only the gentle path of humble and patient service that can profitably progress us upon our paths forward. Abstract causes just simply will not do, for there is really no true gem to focus on and to be mindful of.
Desiring the furthering of the good of the lot of others cannot be in any way suspect on any account. It is a form of love, without which things are nothing worth, as the words go... Better to have love and lost then never to have loved at all.
Love is the wealth that is found
and is the soul of the lovely photograph
of the poor people in the cave looking up
at the flash's light source. Remember stumbling upon them
in their lovely poverty on your sojourns in Bangladesh?
More pure than the elegant waterfall a ways off,
It is beauty itself, and definitely worth the journey
out to save the world from too much ambition,
the kind of which you speak here. Peace.
My apologies, tim45174. I wasn't trying to pass judgment, just stating what I think; but I apologize for stating it in such an unskillful way. When I try to be brief I usual come of sounding like a total asshole. What I meant was that non-attachment doesn't mean giving up everything, including skillful motivations such as compassion, and just because people face death doesn't mean we can't make that journey a little less painful.
Buddhism is more about making distinctions between desires than rejecting them altogether. The Buddha himself made distinctions between skillful and unskillful desires. The desire for happiness, especially 'long-term welfare and happiness,' is actually an important part of the Buddhist path, and I think it should be obvious that helping people is a skillful desire.
As Buddhists, or at least people who take the Buddha's teachings seriously, we're taught to cultivate compassion for all living beings, to desire to ease their suffering. This isn't simply a mental exercise, however. We're also supposed to act on those feelings. Nevertheless, we can't always succeed in that task, which is why we must also learn to cultivate equanimity — the even-mindedness that remains neutral in the face of experiences that we simply can't change — in order to keep a balanced mental state.
Alan Watts was not a Buddhist master but simply a philosopher. Better to take advice from a Buddhist master like Thich Nhat Hanh, rather than a philosopher that has what could be called "wrong view".
"Compassion is a verb"
~Thich Nhat Hanh
Word.
Buddhism is more about making distinctions between desires than rejecting them altogether. The Buddha himself made distinctions between skillful and unskillful desires. The desire for happiness, especially 'long-term welfare and happiness,' is actually an important part of the Buddhist path, and I think it should be obvious that helping people is a skillful desire.
As I see it, skillfulness is key. If you try to take on an abstract cause, you'll be frustrated. Better to focus on specific projects. Instead of taking on a monolithic cause like "World Peace", for example, you could work with youth-at-risk in your own neighborhood. (Bite off something you can chew, rather than trying to swallow several mouthfuls at once.) And choose projects in a realm where you have experience or expertise, so you can bring your unique gifts to bear on the problem, rather than joining whatever march or organization willy-nilly. Where would the African-American community be without M.L. King and those brave students who occupied lunch counters? We can't all be a King or a Ghandi, but in our own way, we can make a contribution. If we give up, and tell ourselves "I can't have an impact" or "Maybe this is just another attachment trap", aren't we turning our backs on injustice and suffering?
Of course we should strive to eliminate suffering--isn't that what Buddhism is about? The challenge is: how to do it skillfully. The Dalai Lama has said that instead of feeling frustrated by the problems in the world, we should channel that frustration into addressing the issues that concern us. That pretty much answers the question. I think compassion is an activity, not just a feeling or virtue one strives to cultivate or expand upon through meditation. One of the fundamental dualities in Buddhism is meditation(or wisdom) and action. Turn that compassion into skillful actionl
Re-arrange all you want but if you want to make real lasting changes you have to first start in the mind
What positive changes we do make are like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic...
if the ship is sinking.
They may refer to your destination as your "final destination," on the airlines, trying to address people of every tongue in this world where English has become the lingua franca. —However, I hope they are not trying to imply that you will be stuck at your current destination forever.
This thought seems very different from what Buddha taught, to me. It also would have kept Buddha from spreading the Dharma, in my opinion.
In the mind alone is not enough. Let's not leave the Heart out of this. The desire for good is paramount. Intentions need direction from a loving heart. If rearranging a few pieces of furniture on the Titanic brought comfort or eventual survival to anyone, it was well worth the effort.
Even charitable organizations can be dicey.
So I think the best thing to do is to be pro-active about compassion in your own activities, and with the people and animals you encounter in your life and in your surroundings.
I still donate to charities, and I still vote, but ultimately I think the world has to improve with the actions of each of us as individuals.
This way instead of getting frustrated that Politicians don't "get it", I have to hold myself up to that standard instead. For one thing, if I fail to live up to it, I can actually do something tangible about it.
Well Samsara is a sinking ship Nirvana, Of course I dont disagree with you providing comfort to others is paramount, But in the long run When death takes you if you havent practised training the mind all our rearranging of the deck chairs wont have prepared us for the icy water other then having kept our bodies relatively warm, Be better to have the life jacket.
I don't understand the points people are making that because death is inevitable, we should just work to improve ourselves...? Isn't the fact that death is inevitable irrelevant? The question is: what do we do with this precious lifetime? And, what is the purpose of this lifetime? I think the purpose is two-fold; to mature spiritually, and to help others, whether that is by working skilfully to bring about positive change in society/the world, or by reaching out to individuals/groups less fortunate than ourselves. How can a compassionate Buddhist resist giving a helping hand to struggling, suffering people? It's part of our basic nature to help, or to right wrongs. Small, everyday kindnesses toward friends and strangers is also part of the package. The key is to do this without becoming attached to the outcome, without expecting a reward or recognition for the ego.
Desire for social change is an unhealthy attachment only if you're attached to your image of yourself as a crusader for social change, or if you get attached to the outcome, and "Leader of the movement that achieved 'X' "is allowed to become your identity. If the impulse to do good works springs from a pure motivation (compassion), rather than ego, it's ok.
Good. Does that settle the question then?