Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

Volition vs Complacency

NotMeNotMe
edited December 2005 in Buddhism Basics
This is my first post. I've been reading about buddhism for some time now. I find the truth of it all very compelling. One thing that seems to confuse me though is the idea that we should try not to be averse or to desire things, ie. non-attachment. Isn't all action a choice, an effort to move toward a goal or away from a negative outcome. I eat to avoid being hungry, I go to my job to get a paycheck, etc. If followed to the logical conclusion we may end up sitting or lying still until we expire.

On the other hand though are our responsibilities. These compel us to action in many ways if we are to sustain them. For example, children. I have three. I must bathe them, feed them, clothe them. It all takes money. I have to work. These are choices, choices seem to imply desire. Non-attachment says to not desire.

Interested in the forum's insight.

Thanks.

Comments

  • zenmonk_genryuzenmonk_genryu
    edited December 2005
    Non attachment doesn't mean having no desires, or not being averse to things. It also doesn't mean that we don't make necessary choices, or that we avoid responsibility. In fact non attachment gives us the freedom to make better choices and to be more responsible. Non attachment simply means that we are not driven by selfishness and unhealthy desires.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited December 2005
    This is a very common point of misunderstanding in Buddhism, even to those who have been practising for a while. It is not only the concept of non-attachment which confuses some, but also the practise of non-attachment... funnily enough, Reverend Genryu and I have discussed this 'together' before.

    Non-attachment is simply (Hah!! Simply!) accepting the Truth that all that we are 'attached' to is of an Impermanent Nature, and that while the there is nothing wrong with doing all the things you describe, it has to be understood that the desire for permanency, and 'clinging' to all that we have, is unhealthy and non-productive.
    Rest in the serene knowledge that while you exist, and while they exist, you can co-exist in perfect harmony, finding the inner joy of this co-existence in the Present Moment.
    There is after all, no other....
    Simple. Take it no further than there, and everything makes sense.....

    (Note: 'Simple' does not necessarily mean 'Easy'.....)

    By the way, NotMe, allow me to extend a very warm welcome to you, and thank you for joining our on-line community. :)
  • DhammasaavakaDhammasaavaka
    edited December 2005
    The above statements are true. Look at it this way. Say your house burns down and you lose your belongings. From there you have two paths, each depends on attachment and clinging. If you let the thought, "I have lost everyting, it's all gone, what will I do?", and so on, and because of those thoughts feel anger, sadness, despair, cheated. You will be fettered and unable to move forward in a swift manner with good judgement.

    On the other hand, if you realize it is only material things, things that can be replaced, things that in the grand scheme of things do not matter. Then you can move on swiftly, unfettered, and with a clear mind.

    I hope this helped :)
  • NotMeNotMe
    edited December 2005
    Thank you each for your thoughtful and helpful replies. After reading books and posts here its a pleasure to interact with this community. The empathy here is evident.

    It seems to me that Buddhism is something that one comes to understand layer upon layer. Everytime I read another post/essay/book I seem to gather a new level of understanding of one or another concept. Its funny how certain words will ring true with you while others ring empty.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited December 2005
    And sometimes we read/hear something and we know we've heard it a dozen times or more, but it only just hits the spot, either because it's phrased in a way that immediately connects with our 'brain-waves' or we just weren't receptive to it before....
    Isn't it fun - ?!?
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited December 2005
    Notme,

    There is a difference between skillful and unskillful desires.


    Try these links and see if they might help:

    My understanding of Upadana

    Am I allowed to be successful in Buddhism?


    Desire as a part of the Path:

    The Bhumija Sutta (Note: wish = desire)

    The Brahmana Sutta

    Things as They Are


    Desire as defilements:

    The Sanyojana Sutta

    The Gandhabhaka (Bhadraka) Sutta

    The Iccha Sutta

    Various Suttas from the Samyutta Nikaya


    I hope that you find this helpful.

    Best wishes.

    :)

    Jason
Sign In or Register to comment.