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.
Trying to understand being free from attachment and compassion
Hi, I've been trying to understand something and I hope you guys can help clarify for me.
If I understand right, we are constantly dissatisfied in this world because we are attached to the impermanent things in this world. So by freeing yourself from this attachment is how you can understand the reality of the universe. Is that right?
In an account of Siddharta's death that I read, his disciples were crying and Siddharta asked them why? Since he was finally going to ascend to parinirvana, they shouldn't be crying. So the disciples crying seems to me shows that they still have attachment and they are still working to be free from that attachment.
It also seems to me that Buddhist monks feel more compassion for others. Compassion seems to be the word that is often used.
This is where I need some clarification. It seems more reasonable that I have to be attached to someone to feel compassion for them. But obviously Buddhist monks who have let go of attachment, or at least in the process, and yet they feel more compassion toward others than other people. Can someone explain how this is?
If I understand right, we are constantly dissatisfied in this world because we are attached to the impermanent things in this world. So by freeing yourself from this attachment is how you can understand the reality of the universe. Is that right?
In an account of Siddharta's death that I read, his disciples were crying and Siddharta asked them why? Since he was finally going to ascend to parinirvana, they shouldn't be crying. So the disciples crying seems to me shows that they still have attachment and they are still working to be free from that attachment.
It also seems to me that Buddhist monks feel more compassion for others. Compassion seems to be the word that is often used.
This is where I need some clarification. It seems more reasonable that I have to be attached to someone to feel compassion for them. But obviously Buddhist monks who have let go of attachment, or at least in the process, and yet they feel more compassion toward others than other people. Can someone explain how this is?
0
Comments
.
No, not so.
Why, "It seems more reasonable"....?
It may have escaped your notice, but Monks are also human beings, and they haven't always been monks....
True Compassion needs an understanding of what Compassion actually is.
It's an empathy with another human being, no matter who they are, what they've done or whether they have asked for it or not.
You need to develop the same compassion for a rapist/killer as you would your altruistic and charitable neighbour.
That is not to say that you are obligated to like the person, or agree with their actions.
This is Wise evaluation of the situation.
But remember that we create an opinion of others through our own perception, and this is occasionally biased and flawed......
While a criminal should be subject to the full weight of the Law, they still merit as much Compassion as the next person.
A person's actions are not WHO they are.
A person's actions are as a result of their choices.
Choices are dictated by circumstances.
not all circumstances are favourable, not all choices are commendable.
you have to overlook this aspect, in the development and cultivation of Compassion.
When you're free of attachment and yet still alive what's left? Only caring and concern for all sentient beings.
Imagine for a moment that were having a lucid dream. It is the best dream ever, but you know it is still a dream. You have infinite control over this dream. You could make anything happen. So you give yourself the fastest car. But eventually you get bored. You need "a bigger kick". You create yourself a flying car. But still, eventually, you get bored. So you keep creating bigger and better things to keep yourself happy...
On the other hand, craving for material things, for association with attractive persons, for praise, for fame, etc.. is about WANTING and CLINGING and this is where attachment really comes in. As we practice, we can reduce this craving and clinging quite significantly.
These are just my personal views ....
For some people that seems to be true. They don't give a damn about anyone but themselves (self-attachment) or maybe those closest to them. But others feel a lot of compassion for people and animals they've never even met, and who may not even live on the same continent they do. Otherwise, we wouldn't have charitable organizations.
I don't think Martin Luther King or Ghandi or even the Buddha himself were attached to everyone they had compassion for.
One can have compassion without attachment.
Actually attachment gives rise to "love and hate" as well as suffering. It is ignorance and delusion that separates the awakened from those still asleep. The realisation that only ignorance of the 4NT separates "saints" from "sinners" is an eye opener. Everyone is struggling against the pervasive sense of pain and dissatisfaction(dukkha). In this sense there is little difference between Hitler and a monk seeking enlightenment although the consequence of their actions are poles apart.
All sentient beings have this struggle to be free from dukkha. When there is no longer any sense of separation, metta, karuna, mudita and upekka [boundless love, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity] arises naturally.
The Zen master’s brother had died. He sat crying at the funeral.
A student tugged at his sleeve and asked, “Master, is the duality of life and death not illusion?”<O:p</O:p
The Zen master replied, “Yes, that is correct thinking.”<O:p</O:p
The student then asked, “Do the Sutras not say that emotions are stained with desire, and that suffering ceases when desire ceases?” <O:p</O:p
“Yes,” the master replied through his tears. “You have been listening closely to my teaching.”<O:p</O:p
The student finally asked, “Then why are you crying?”<O:p</O:p
The Zen master quietly replied, “My brother died. I’m sad, so I’m crying.”
<O:p</O:p
Some schools of Buddhism try to teach their students that all emotions are bad, and that is a great hindrance to the student’s understanding of the Dharma. Emotions are not inherently bad, any more than thoughts are bad, or memories are bad, or any of the skandhas that make up the human mind. A mind has emotions. A mind without emotions would be as crippled as a mind incapable of thoughts or remembering what happened a moment ago.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
A mind incapable of feeling grief is incapable of feeling joy. Don’t become attached to particular emotional states, that’s all. Don’t become attached to your joy or grief. And yes, people do become attached to grief when they focus on their own loss instead of the pain that other people are feeling.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
Don’t become attached to some ideal of what Enlightenment is all about, either. Do you really think being Enlightened means becoming an unemotional machine, untouched by the world? There is plenty of time before you were born and after you die not to feel joy and grief. Today, right now, feel and think and be what is correct for this moment.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
Hope this helps. <O:p</O:p
"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.