Why to cling to Buddhism?

SwissSis

If I read all the discussions here, I see, that almost nothing of the Buddha's teaching seems to be clear. Some people answer questions with pointing out, that one should concentrate on the practice. If we only should have to concentrate on our breath and doing good, then why did the Buddha teach so much and made it so complicated (if we still can know what he taught; it was written down 500years after his death!)? So if someone gives such an amount of teachings, I think this legitimates us to try to understand what that meant.
I know I usually ask unpleasant questions. Here there is one more:
To make you understand why I ask I will write down some text of Walpola Rahula's book "What the Buddha taught", regarding the second truth:
"[...]It is this 'thirst', desire, greed, craving, manifesting itself in various ways, that gives rise to all forms of suffering and the continuitiy of beings."
"[...]Here (in the original Pali texts) 'thrist' includes not only desire for, and attachment to, sense-plesures, wealth and power, but also desire for, and attachment to, ideas and ideals, views, opinions, theories, conceptions and beliefs."
So why then to cling to a philosophy like Buddhism? Why then to cling to happiness?
I still don't understand how this idea (see first sentence) should work in ordinary, daily life: How far has a Buddhist to go with it? Is detachment always healthy? I'll give you a simple example: Getting up in the morning. It needs my will. What lies under this will is my desire/wish/'thirst' to get up. If I would not have this desire, I would not get up. I would not do anything. You can take any example of daily life and ask like this. Also doing good for others needs my personal will. Every action needs will. How could will arise without wishes or desires?
Someone in this forum wrote to me, that it needs attachment and detachment, you have to detach when it is time for it. Is this what the Buddha taught? (see sentences above) And what does it mean? When is it time to detach? Would this not rely on a very subjective, personal sentiment? A buddhist nun answered to me, that there are two kinds of attachment, wanting something for myself or wanting something for others. She said, if you do something for others, then it would not be attachment. To me this means to give up oneself. There are many people who only do good for others and get sick of it, having burn-outs and having depressions, because they forgot also to take care of themselves.
I'm curious about your answers. Thank you.

genkaku

Does a carpenter cling to a hammer or saw in his tool box? No, he uses tools that are appropriate to the work at hand. It's just a useful tool, so he uses it. He doesn't walk around all day holding his hammer and praising its good capacities.

It's easy to get confused and imagine that somehow we have to walk around all day praising hammers or extolling Buddhism or twisting ourselves into emotional or intellectual pretzels on Buddhism's behalf. But this is just dead Buddhism, Buddhism as a lock-step religion or something similar. Buddhism is natural and alive. And what is alive? Basically it boils down to paying attention, which is what any of us do quite naturally as human beings. Buddhism encourages us to do what comes naturally -- pay attention.

Is it really possible to do nothing? Try it some time. No matter how still you sit or how far you run or how solitary the cave ... really, is it possible to do nothing? If detachment meant sitting around like a lump of pizza dough, how realistic could that be? How alive?

To dither around with bits and pieces of philosophy or religion may be encouraging for a while, but is that really Buddhism? Is that really you? Pay attention -- do what comes naturally -- and find out.

thickpaper

>>>>SwissSis>>>>So why then to cling to a philosophy like Buddhism?


It is but a raft.

>>>Why then to cling to happiness?

Don't cling to happiness, be happy.

aHappyNihilist

this is a common misconception of buddhists teachings, one that i had myself for a while, perhaps i can answer.

There is a difference between indifference and equanimity. You can desire things, desire some food to eat, desire some happiness, desire to read a book, desire to write a post. The problem comes when you attach yourself to the positive outcome. When you start craving a certain outcome you cause suffering to yourself through both the craving and the possibility of defeat.

Imagine a man standing 10 feet away from some water, he is thirsty but for some reason or another he can not walk to the water. Craving is that man reaching his arm out for the distant water. He knows that reaching will not achieve anything, but he does it anyway, it's a reactionary response.

You can prefer that you get happiness without attaching to it, without reaching your arm out for it. You can work towards it while having equanimity, and if you don't get it.. oh well no big deal

Aversion is essentially the opposite. You can prefer not to be feeling a pain, but if you can't, in the current moment, end your pain then don't create for yourself more suffering.

Imagine a man with a weight on top of him that is too heavy to lift, pushing at it does nothing to relieve his suffering (well in this case it does but bear with me, can't think up a better metaphor) but he still pushes and pushes hurting himself more just because of a reactivity toward the pain, his mind is not in control.

now what you prefer can be skillful or unskillful, preferring to help others is skillful, but you still can have equanimity toward the results of helping others.

you can try to help them but if you fail, as long as you aren't attached, aren't craving a certain outcome then oh well big deal, i'd rather have helped them but nothing i can do now.

It's all about the outcomes. prefer them, don't crave them. equanimity not indifference

newtech

Hello

This is clinging:

sense-pleasure clinging
wrong-view clinging
rites-and-rituals clinging
self-doctrine clinging


WRONG-VIEW ITS CLINGING.
RIGHT-VIEW ITS OK, ISNT CLINGING. U can make effort keeping this views, you can train yourself to stay on this views.

..happiness, u can enjoy it, WRONG-view its when u grasp to happiness and u are mad when its over.

aHappyNihilist

yes, but even in cases of right view, one should have equanimity toward the results.

TehGuezt

A bad thing to cling to would be like Alcohol. You desire to have a drink, but you like the feeling of being drunk and "carefree" but once that's over, you get attatched to it. You drink more and more, and when you don't have any alcohol, you get upset and depressed.

Helping someone and being loving and kind are good things to do, but we shouldn't become so attached to the feeling of helping someone where we lose track of ourselves. It's all a part of moderation I suppose.

Recently I hung out with a girl that I had feelings for, I wanted to be with her, but when the time came that she found someone else, I was already attatched to the feeling of being with her, and I caused suffering for myself because I couldn't have what I wanted.

I hope this answers your question.

buddhajunkie

If we only should have to concentrate on our breath and doing good, then why did the Buddha teach so much and made it so complicated

Buddha's teaching is actually quite simple. It is true that all you have to do is meditate, because if you do that deeply enough, and carry that mindfulness into your daily life, then all his other teachings will become self-evident (like the 8-fold path).

However, since many of us don't have the right circumstances to commit ourselves to deep meditation, we end up "cheating" by learning the stuff that we would have figured out if we had just meditated deeply. And learning this stuff helps us meditate more deeply. It's a virtuous cycle.

So why then to cling to a philosophy like Buddhism?

You don't have to cling to Buddhism. It's there in front of you if you just pay attention.

Besides, if you let go of "clinging" to Buddhism, would you not be practicing Buddhism??? Avoid these tautological traps.

Why then to cling to happiness?

You do not cling to happiness. Happiness is merely the absence of unhappiness. And unhappiness is produced by clinging.

Stop clinging, and you will have happiness.

Try to cling to happiness and it will disappear.

I still don't understand how this idea (see first sentence) should work in ordinary, daily life: How far has a Buddhist to go with it? Is detachment always healthy?

Go with it as far as you wish to go. It's that simple.

Chances are, most of us will never reach the point of detachment where we do not want to wake up and go to the fridge. (Assuming such a point would ever be reached. I'm not familiar with deep states of enlightenment.)


Also, beware of "near friends." If you try to force yourself to be detached of something, you may actually be exercising aversion or ill-will.

So don't force it. Merely train yourself to see that certain attachments lead to certain feelings of suffering. Once you do that, everything else will fall into place.

compassionate_warrior

I enjoy your questions, SwissSis. In order to fully understand, one needs to ask questions. This is what the Buddha said to do.

One reason to get out of bed in the morning is that others may benefit from your activities. You're right, it's about devotion to others,but also to our own Liberation (Nirvana). And in some schools of Buddhism, it is about "deconstructing the ego" (to quote Dzongsar Khentse Rinpoche) and redirecting oneself fully to others. This sounds a little extreme to me, I don't think it's necessary (or perhaps even healthy) to kill the ego. As for burn-outs (been there, done that), it's about balance, finding a Middle Way of self-care vs. working on behalf of others. If we don't take care of ourselves and we burn out, of what use will we be to the world? We need to take steps to maintain physical and mental health. Meditation is one thing that's helpful in this regard.

aHappyNihilist

as long as you maintain equanimity

Jason

Does a carpenter cling to a hammer or saw in his tool box? No, he uses tools that are appropriate to the work at hand. It's just a useful tool, so he uses it. He doesn't walk around all day holding his hammer and praising its good capacities.

It's easy to get confused and imagine that somehow we have to walk around all day praising hammers or extolling Buddhism or twisting ourselves into emotional or intellectual pretzels on Buddhism's behalf. But this is just dead Buddhism, Buddhism as a lock-step religion or something similar. Buddhism is natural and alive. And what is alive? Basically it boils down to paying attention, which is what any of us do quite naturally as human beings. Buddhism encourages us to do what comes naturally -- pay attention.

Is it really possible to do nothing? Try it some time. No matter how still you sit or how far you run or how solitary the cave ... really, is it possible to do nothing? If detachment meant sitting around like a lump of pizza dough, how realistic could that be? How alive?

To dither around with bits and pieces of philosophy or religion may be encouraging for a while, but is that really Buddhism? Is that really you? Pay attention -- do what comes naturally -- and find out.

Good answer.

Jeffrey

There are so many difficulties people have. And different types of people. Buddha didn't teach exactly the Gelugpa Tibetan style, but I will use that as an example. I cannot understand their teachings because they are too elaborate and philospical. Dense text. I need parables metaphors for example and simple teachings like an open ended question to get an idea of impermanence or suffering. For example. The elaborate discussions with multiple definitions are innacessible to me. Much of the Pali Canon except for the short discourses is hard for me. My lamas talks usually I stop after 15 minutes of a 2 hour talk. In three years I have thoroughly listened to only 3 of her talks. 2 hours each.

In other words its not as simple as 'do the right thing' and 'breath'. Does that bring liberation? I think not.