Is life all that great?

[CaptBell800]

Your attachment to your life causes your fear of death fear is a form of suffering. It is like a mathematic law the cause of suffering is attachment.

If you are alive, you will have attachments. You’re right; the mere fact that we continue to feed ourselves to stay alive shows that we are attached to ourselves. So unless you’re dead, you will have attachments.

 

[rossum]

You can’t live without attachments. If you’re alive at all, you will have attachments.

But you can work to reduce the attachments you do have and also not to gain any new attachments.

rossum

 

[CaptBell800]

But you can work to reduce the attachments you do have and also not to gain any new attachments.

rossum

Yes, but they will not be gone entirely. I wouldn’t encourage someone to be entirely detached from both themselves and the world, anyway. It would encourage suicide.

 

[jimmy]

But you can work to reduce the attachments you do have and also not to gain any new attachments.

rossum

Lets be clear. Do you think all attachments are bad? Is it bad to be attached to life, your family, health etc? I understand, and agree to a large extent that attachments aren’t good. You become attached to food, alcohol, sex, drugs, habits, and etc. and they drive your life. You can’t quit eating even though you know it is killing you. In the end everything becomes unenjoyable, partly because of your attachment, and partly because of the failed expectation that is the result of that attachment. But you should be attached to some things, and to deny that attachment is almost inhuman. You should be attached to certain people to a certain extent. You should be attached to certain virtues or ways of behavior.

 

[Tommm]

Yes, but they will not be gone entirely. I wouldn’t encourage someone to be entirely detached from both themselves and the world, anyway. It would encourage suicide.

Ok i think you agree that attachment is the cause of suffering But do you think some suffering or attachments are good?

 

[rossum]

Lets be clear. Do you think all attachments are bad?

All selfish attachments are bad. Non-selfish attachments are also bad, but it is far less easy to see.

[The Buddha said:] “Now this, monks, is the Noble Truth of dukkha: Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha.”

— Samyutta Nikaya 56.11

“Dukkha” is often translated as “suffering”, though it covers a lot more than that, anything from the general unsatisfactoriness of life to physical pain. “The five clinging-aggregates” are the five constituents that make up a human being. If you are human then you are subject to dukkha.

Is it bad to be attached to life

Yes, because then the thought of your own inevitable death will cause you dukkha.

your family, health etc?

Yes because the thought of the loss of any of them, or the actuality of the loss, will cause dukkha.

I understand, and agree to a large extent that attachments aren’t good. You become attached to food, alcohol, sex, drugs, habits, and etc. and they drive your life. You can’t quit eating even though you know it is killing you. In the end everything becomes unenjoyable, partly because of your attachment, and partly because of the failed expectation that is the result of that attachment.

That last part is important. Failed expectations are for most of us a great part of the cause of suffering. Part of the work in reducing attachment is in reducing our attachment to unrealistic expectations. We are all going to die, so it is unrealistic to expect to live forever. It is unrealistic to expect permanence from things that are impermanent.

Buddhism requires both a rigorous analysis of reality and that we work to align our expectations with reality.

But you should be attached to some things, and to deny that attachment is almost inhuman. You should be attached to certain people to a certain extent. You should be attached to certain virtues or ways of behavior.

For most of us yes. At very advanced stages there is no more attachment to virtues; following virtuous actions becomes automatic. So automatic that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. You don’t even need to think about it – you just do it.

rossum

 

[meltzerboy]

All selfish attachments are bad. Non-selfish attachments are also bad, but it is far less easy to see.

[The Buddha said:] “Now this, monks, is the Noble Truth of dukkha: Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha.”

— Samyutta Nikaya 56.11

“Dukkha” is often translated as “suffering”, though it covers a lot more than that, anything from the general unsatisfactoriness of life to physical pain. “The five clinging-aggregates” are the five constituents that make up a human being. If you are human then you are subject to dukkha.

Yes, because then the thought of your own inevitable death will cause you dukkha.

Yes because the thought of the loss of any of them, or the actuality of the loss, will cause dukkha.

That last part is important. Failed expectations are for most of us a great part of the cause of suffering. Part of the work in reducing attachment is in reducing our attachment to unrealistic expectations. We are all going to die, so it is unrealistic to expect to live forever. It is unrealistic to expect permanence from things that are impermanent.

Buddhism requires both a rigorous analysis of reality and that we work to align our expectations with reality.

For most of us yes. At very advanced stages there is no more attachment to virtues; following virtuous actions becomes automatic. So automatic that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. You don’t even need to think about it – you just do it.

rossum

With regard to your last paragraph, I think this is how the concept of mindfulness (as opposed to mindlessness) differs between Buddhism and the principles found in positive psychology. In Buddhism, mindfulness is flow without cognition, whereas in positive psychology it involves a conscious effort to pay attention to what one is doing and thinking, and how one is feeling.

Concerning the negativity of attachments to the self and others, this concept of detachment is rejected by Judaism since it implies a denial of the gifts of life and consciousness that G-d afforded us, as well as the possibility of preventing us from interacting with the world and the suffering of others for the purpose of working with G-d to “repair the holes in creation.”

 

[miguel]

All selfish attachments are bad. Non-selfish attachments are also bad, but it is far less easy to see.
[The Buddha said:] “Now this, monks, is the Noble Truth of dukkha: Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha.”

— Samyutta Nikaya 56.11
“Dukkha” is often translated as “suffering”, though it covers a lot more than that, anything from the general unsatisfactoriness of life to physical pain. “The five clinging-aggregates” are the five constituents that make up a human being. If you are human then you are subject to dukkha.

Interesting. It sounds like the goal of Budhism is to avoid suffering which is seen as bad? by avoiding all attachments. And all attachments are seen as bad. Christianity sees suffering as good (after Our Lord’s example), and spiritual detachment from worldly things (idols) as good, and loving attachments to God and neighbor as good, but above all to God…it’s a big family thing…and life is great if we have the right attitude, as Ebeneezer discovered…suffering is good because it softens our heart toward others and others hearts toward us.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Interesting. It sounds like the goal of Budhism is to avoid suffering which is seen as bad? by avoiding all attachments. And all attachments are seen as bad. Christianity sees suffering as good (after Our Lord’s example), and spiritual detachment from worldly things (idols) as good, and loving attachments to God and neighbor as good, but above all to God…it’s a big family thing…and life is great if we have the right attitude, as Ebeneezer discovered…suffering is good because it softens our heart toward others and others hearts toward us.

This may be hard to follow, but suffering can cause us to ‘forget’ the conditioned reflexes that torment us throughout our life. You really need to be a behavioral psychologist who specializes in classical conditioning to truly understand it.

 

[miguel]

This may be hard to follow, but suffering can cause us to ‘forget’ the conditioned reflexes that torment us throughout our life. You really need to be a behavioral psychologist who specializes in classical conditioning to truly understand it.

I’m not a trained psychologist. But I think suffering helps us to trust God. It gets us out of our comfort zone. When it starts, it’s scary. But over time, as we walk thru the valley of the shadow of death, trust builds…and we slowly but surely grow in the understanding that God loves us. When it starts, we pray and pray that he end our trial immediately. But he doesn’t. If he ended our trial immediately, we’d be back in the old comfort zone. That’s not where he wants us. He wants us to have peace. I think the forgetting you mention involves letting go of fear.

 

[rossum]

With regard to your last paragraph, I think this is how the concept of mindfulness (as opposed to mindlessness) differs between Buddhism and the principles found in positive psychology. In Buddhism, mindfulness is flow without cognition, whereas in positive psychology it involves a conscious effort to pay attention to what one is doing and thinking, and how one is feeling.

Buddhist mindfulness starts out much the same, “a conscious effort to pay attention to what one is doing and thinking, and how one is feeling.” After many years of practice less thought is needed because new habits have arisen to replace the old habits.

Concerning the negativity of attachments to the self and others, this concept of detachment is rejected by Judaism since it implies a denial of the gifts of life and consciousness that G-d afforded us, as well as the possibility of preventing us from interacting with the world and the suffering of others for the purpose of working with G-d to “repair the holes in creation.”

The Buddhist path starts with the easy part – detachment from things that are obviously not good for you. During the later stages the other attachments are worked on. Detaching from people means that all people are treated equally, whoever they are. It does not mean leading a solitary life. A solitary life may be part of the training, but it is not the final goal. After his enlightenment the Buddha was usually surrounded by people as he wandered round North India preaching for 45 years.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Interesting. It sounds like the goal of Budhism is to avoid suffering which is seen as bad? by avoiding all attachments.

Correct. Suffering is a curable disease; the Four Noble Truths are presented as a doctor’s diagnosis of a disease: 1) The disease is suffering. 2) The cause of the disease is attachment/desire. 3) The disease is curable (this is important, not all diseases have a cure) 4) The cure is the eightfold path of Buddhism.

And all attachments are seen as bad.

In the long run, yes. Sometimes temporary attachments can be useful. The Buddha tells the parable of the raft. A man has to cross a river, so he builds himself a raft and ferries himself across. His attachment to the raft has been useful to him. However, if his attachment leads him to carry the raft on his back once he is on the other bank, then the attachment has ceased to be useful and has become a hindrance. His correct action is to leave the raft at the river bank and to walk on without it.

Christianity sees suffering as good (after Our Lord’s example), and spiritual detachment from worldly things (idols) as good, and loving attachments to God and neighbor as good, but above all to God…it’s a big family thing…and life is great if we have the right attitude, as Ebeneezer discovered…suffering is good because it softens our heart toward others and others hearts toward us.

The more neighbours you are attached to the more funerals and sickbeds you will have to attend. You can always attend funerals and sickbeds, but if you do so with detachment then they will cause you less sorrow. Attachment to God may get you to heaven, but in Buddhism all heavens (and all hells) are temporary. Eventually all those in heaven (gods included) will die and be reborn. The heavens are only a temporary escape from suffering.

rossum

 

[miguel]

Correct. Suffering is a curable disease; the Four Noble Truths are presented as a doctor’s diagnosis of a disease: 1) The disease is suffering. 2) The cause of the disease is attachment/desire. 3) The disease is curable (this is important, not all diseases have a cure) 4) The cure is the eightfold path of Buddhism.

Thanks rossum for explaining this. I can certainly understand why Buddhism has an appeal. No one likes suffering. In Christianity, suffering is the cure, or can be if we let it. I heard a priest explain that “it can either make us bitter or better.” And better means more loving.

In the long run, yes. Sometimes temporary attachments can be useful. The Buddha tells the parable of the raft. A man has to cross a river, so he builds himself a raft and ferries himself across. His attachment to the raft has been useful to him. However, if his attachment leads him to carry the raft on his back once he is on the other bank, then the attachment has ceased to be useful and has become a hindrance. His correct action is to leave the raft at the river bank and to walk on without it.

A christian would not disagree with any of this. He would give the raft to a brother or sister who needs it instead of piling it up in the garage on top of everything else he no longer needs…trusting God to provide.

The more neighbours you are attached to the more funerals and sickbeds you will have to attend. You can always attend funerals and sickbeds, but if you do so with detachment then they will cause you less sorrow. Attachment to God may get you to heaven, but in Buddhism all heavens (and all hells) are temporary. Eventually all those in heaven (gods included) will die and be reborn. The heavens are only a temporary escape from suffering.

rossum

Heaven and hell are seen as permanent places in christianity. Heaven is the hope for loving union with God fulfilled and where suffering is no longer necessary because love has been made perfect in this life (this is the work of God on the cooperative patient). Hell is permanent suffering.

 

[jimmy]

The more neighbours you are attached to the more funerals and sickbeds you will have to attend. You can always attend funerals and sickbeds, but if you do so with detachment then they will cause you less sorrow. Attachment to God may get you to heaven, but in Buddhism all heavens (and all hells) are temporary. Eventually all those in heaven (gods included) will die and be reborn. The heavens are only a temporary escape from suffering.

rossum

This is what I don’t get. Yes, if you love someone it will be difficult if they die or suffer. The loss of them will be painful, but that is part of caring about someone. That is part of living. How can you go through life apathetic toward everyone as if their life and their death mean nothing to you?

 

[jimmy]

Buddhist mindfulness starts out much the same, “a conscious effort to pay attention to what one is doing and thinking, and how one is feeling.” After many years of practice less thought is needed because new habits have arisen to replace the old habits.

The Buddhist path starts with the easy part – detachment from things that are obviously not good for you. During the later stages the other attachments are worked on. Detaching from people means that all people are treated equally, whoever they are. It does not mean leading a solitary life. A solitary life may be part of the training, but it is not the final goal. After his enlightenment the Buddha was usually surrounded by people as he wandered round North India preaching for 45 years.

rossum

How can you love anyone if you treat everyone equally? It seems that the end result is that you are apathetic toward everyone. How could I claim to love my wife and kids if I treat them the same as a stranger? I might try to treat a stranger well, but at the same time there are things I won’t do for them that I would do for family. And I have an obligation toward certain people. If there is a trauma, you comfort your family first over strangers. If you have money it should go to family first.

I agree with treating everyone the same if what you mean is that you give everyone the best you can. A surgeon gives everyone equal service because he gives them the best he can. Part of doing it is doing it well.

 

[rossum]

Hell is permanent suffering.

This is a big problem for Buddhists. Both Jesus and the Buddha said, “Love your neighbour as you love yourself.” One of the causes of suffering is seeing those you love suffer. For a Buddhist, the Christian heaven would be an eternity of suffering because those you love are suffering in hell. The Buddha said, “separation from the loved is dukkha.” Those in hell are separated from those in heaven, yet those in heaven love those in hell. We should love all out neighbours, not just the nice ones.

Buddhism is not Christianity. A number of ideas that are true in Christianity do not carry over to Buddhism, and vice versa.

rossum

 

[rossum]

This is what I don’t get. Yes, if you love someone it will be difficult if they die or suffer. The loss of them will be painful, but that is part of caring about someone. That is part of living. How can you go through life apathetic toward everyone as if their life and their death mean nothing to you?

Their life and death do not mean nothing, but neither do they mean everything. A level of detachment is useful to avoid excesses of suffering. If the enlightened Buddha stubbed his toe, he still felt pain. It was his attitude to that pain that was different: “It will pass.”

That is one of the things that you learn when meditating, all mental states are impermanent and they all pass. Getting attached to something as fleeting as a mental state is not useful. Once it is gone you can never get it back. Appreciate it while it is there but do not mourn its passing.

A quote from Thomas Merton might be useful:

[At Polonnaruwa] I am able to approach the Buddhas barefoot and undisturbed, my feet in wet grass, wet sand. Then the silence of the extraordinary faces. The great smiles. Huge and yet subtle. Filled with every possibility, questioning nothing, knowing everything, rejecting nothing, the peace not of emotional resignation but of sunyata, that has seen through every question without trying to discredit anyone or anything - without refutation – without establishing some argument. For the doctrinaire, the mind that needs well established positions, such peace, such silence, can be frightening.

I was knocked over with a rush of relief and thankfulness at the obvious clarity of the figures, the clarity and fluidity of shape and line, the design of the monumental bodies composed into the rock shape and landscape, figure rock and tree. And the sweep of bare rock slopping away on the other side of the hollow, where you can go back and see different aspects of the figures. Looking at these figures I was suddenly, almost forcibly, jerked clean out of the habitual, half-tied vision of things, and an inner clearness, clarity, as if exploding from the rocks themselves, became evident and obvious. The queer evidence of the reclining figure, the smile, the sad smile of Ananda standing with arms folded (much more “imperative” than Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa because completely simple and straightforward).

The thing about all this is that there is no puzzle, no problem and really no “mystery.” All problems are resolved and everything is clear, simply because what matters is clear. The rock, all matter, all life is charged with dharmakaya… everything is emptiness and everything is compassion. I don’t know when in my life I have ever had such a sense of beauty and spiritual validity running together in one aesthetic illumination. … I mean, I know and have seen what I was obscurely looking for. I don’t know what else remains, but I have now seen and have pierced through the surface and have got beyond the shadow and the disguise. …

It says everything, it needs nothing. And because it needs nothing it can afford to be silent, unnoticed, undiscovered. It does not need to be discovered. It is we who need to discover it.

From: The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton

rossum

 

[miguel]

This is a big problem for Buddhists.

It’s a big problem for Christians too. The question for all of us…are we working on the real problem? If not, we’re spinning our wheels.

One of the causes of suffering is seeing those you love suffer. For a Buddhist, the Christian heaven would be an eternity of suffering because those you love are suffering in hell. The Buddha said, “separation from the loved is dukkha.” Those in hell are separated from those in heaven, yet those in heaven love those in hell.

I guess I don’t see why this would be an eternity of suffering for the Buddhist, especially…since the focus is on not being attached. As a Christian, I don’t like the idea that I could be in hell either, or any of my friends and family. God doesn’t either, BTW. I also know that denial won’t make that prospect go away. It is real accountability for how I live my life. I have no other choice but to trust the judgement of a good God. People in hell really deserve to be there. Real justice is a scary thing. It’s also a good thing. The only way it would be possible for me to accept a separation like that from a loved one is spiritual detachment…this should be right up the Buddhist’s alley.

Both Jesus and the Buddha said, “Love your neighbour as you love yourself.”…We should love all out neighbours, not just the nice ones.

Buddhism is not Christianity. A number of ideas that are true in Christianity do not carry over to Buddhism, and vice versa.

rossum

Jesus also said “Love your enemy.”

 

[tonyrey]

Their life and death do not mean nothing, but neither do they mean everything. A level of detachment is useful to avoid excesses of suffering. If the enlightened Buddha stubbed his toe, he still felt pain. It was his attitude to that pain that was different: “It will pass.”

That is one of the things that you learn when meditating, all mental states are impermanent and they all pass. Getting attached to something as fleeting as a mental state is not useful. Once it is gone you can never get it back. Appreciate it while it is there but do not mourn its passing.

A quote from Thomas Merton might be useful:

[At Polonnaruwa] I am able to approach the Buddhas barefoot and undisturbed, my feet in wet grass, wet sand. Then the silence of the extraordinary faces. The great smiles. Huge and yet subtle. Filled with every possibility, questioning nothing, knowing everything, rejecting nothing, the peace not of emotional resignation but of sunyata, that has seen through every question without trying to discredit anyone or anything - without refutation – without establishing some argument. For the doctrinaire, the mind that needs well established positions, such peace, such silence, can be frightening.

I was knocked over with a rush of relief and thankfulness at the obvious clarity of the figures, the clarity and fluidity of shape and line, the design of the monumental bodies composed into the rock shape and landscape, figure rock and tree. And the sweep of bare rock slopping away on the other side of the hollow, where you can go back and see different aspects of the figures. Looking at these figures I was suddenly, almost forcibly, jerked clean out of the habitual, half-tied vision of things, and an inner clearness, clarity, as if exploding from the rocks themselves, became evident and obvious. The queer evidence of the reclining figure, the smile, the sad smile of Ananda standing with arms folded (much more “imperative” than Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa because completely simple and straightforward).

The thing about all this is that there is no puzzle, no problem and really no “mystery.” All problems are resolved and everything is clear, simply because what matters is clear. The rock, all matter, all life is charged with dharmakaya… everything is emptiness and everything is compassion. I don’t know when in my life I have ever had such a sense of beauty and spiritual validity running together in one aesthetic illumination. … I mean, I know and have seen what I was obscurely looking for. I don’t know what else remains, but I have now seen and have pierced through the surface and have got beyond the shadow and the disguise. …

It says everything, it needs nothing. And because it needs nothing it can afford to be silent, unnoticed, undiscovered. It does not need to be discovered. It is we who need to discover it.

From: The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton

rossum

Thanks for those words from one of the outstanding spiritual writers in modern times. His insight and wisdom transcended religious disputes…

 

[meltzerboy]

Their life and death do not mean nothing, but neither do they mean everything. A level of detachment is useful to avoid excesses of suffering. If the enlightened Buddha stubbed his toe, he still felt pain. It was his attitude to that pain that was different: “It will pass.”

That is one of the things that you learn when meditating, all mental states are impermanent and they all pass. Getting attached to something as fleeting as a mental state is not useful. Once it is gone you can never get it back. Appreciate it while it is there but do not mourn its passing.

A quote from Thomas Merton might be useful:

[At Polonnaruwa] I am able to approach the Buddhas barefoot and undisturbed, my feet in wet grass, wet sand. Then the silence of the extraordinary faces. The great smiles. Huge and yet subtle. Filled with every possibility, questioning nothing, knowing everything, rejecting nothing, the peace not of emotional resignation but of sunyata, that has seen through every question without trying to discredit anyone or anything - without refutation – without establishing some argument. For the doctrinaire, the mind that needs well established positions, such peace, such silence, can be frightening.

I was knocked over with a rush of relief and thankfulness at the obvious clarity of the figures, the clarity and fluidity of shape and line, the design of the monumental bodies composed into the rock shape and landscape, figure rock and tree. And the sweep of bare rock slopping away on the other side of the hollow, where you can go back and see different aspects of the figures. Looking at these figures I was suddenly, almost forcibly, jerked clean out of the habitual, half-tied vision of things, and an inner clearness, clarity, as if exploding from the rocks themselves, became evident and obvious. The queer evidence of the reclining figure, the smile, the sad smile of Ananda standing with arms folded (much more “imperative” than Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa because completely simple and straightforward).

The thing about all this is that there is no puzzle, no problem and really no “mystery.” All problems are resolved and everything is clear, simply because what matters is clear. The rock, all matter, all life is charged with dharmakaya… everything is emptiness and everything is compassion. I don’t know when in my life I have ever had such a sense of beauty and spiritual validity running together in one aesthetic illumination. … I mean, I know and have seen what I was obscurely looking for. I don’t know what else remains, but I have now seen and have pierced through the surface and have got beyond the shadow and the disguise. …

It says everything, it needs nothing. And because it needs nothing it can afford to be silent, unnoticed, undiscovered. It does not need to be discovered. It is we who need to discover it.

From: The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton

rossum

“A level of detachment is useful to avoid excesses of suffering.” This same thought was also expressed by the great French Renaissance writer and philosopher, Michel de Montaigne, in his “Essais.” I wonder if Montaigne had any Buddhist connections.