Doesn't The Buddha have a message for everybody?

It makes sense. But sometimes when someone’s perception of reality is disappointing, it hinders their ability to seek an alternative because they find it crippling. So no, unfortunately, it’s not universal – even though it would be a really good thing for everyone if it was.

Oh yeah, life goes on long after the thrill of living is gone. Rock on.

Rock on, Buddha, truth be telt right there. The ideas of gods and religion and all, universal indeed. But doesn’t Buddhism have Nirvana? I really don’t see the difference between that and any other spiritual belief that includes an afterlife or other eternal rewards.

But Buddah does say the coolest shit.

Considering the Buddha was basically a deadbeat dad, and his solution to life’s problems is to not give a shit, I don’t exactly hold his philosophy in very high regard.

Sounds good to me.

It’s important to note that he wasn’t saying that reality is disappointing, and so the thing to do is to seek an alternative to reality. His message was that the disappointment comes from a fundamental misperception of reality. The disappointment drives us to look for some other, more satisfying reality, but that urge is a symptom of the problem, not its solution.

I like an example given by Ajan Chah ( a Thai monk). He pointed to a glass that was his go-to glass for water. He said that he enjoyed its shape and feel, and the way it rang when tapped. But for him, he said, the glass was already broken, since every thing is impermanent and carries the seed of its own end. When, at some future time, an errant sleeve knocks the glass from a shelf and it shatters, his reaction wouldn’t be one of disappointment; instead he would think, “Of course, of course”.

The Buddha’s teaching was that we indulge in expectations about ourselves, other people and things that aren’t rooted in reality. We want them to be other than what they are. The remedy isn’t to find a reality that satisfies those expectations, but to make one’s peace with impermanence.

Confucius say cool shit too.

@thorninmud I thought it was a teacup not a drinking glass. haha
The teacup is already broken, yes.
Can’t add any more since @thorninmud is our resident guru, only that his sharing is a fundamental “truth”, everything is of an impermanent nature, sooo, to parrot another classic rock song to go with @kevbo ‘s contribution….hold on loosely.

@gorillapaws

If you take the story at face value he didn’t exactly leave his wife and son in the poorhouse. He was a prince, thus his wife and son were left with great wealth and luxury. That is if you take the story at face value. I don’t. The narrative of the Buddha’s life is almost certainly folklore. I personally have my doubts that he ever existed at all. Regardless, the philosophy of Buddhism does not depend on the Buddha personally. And there’s been centuries of many other teachers adding to it. Nonetheless, to dismiss an entire philosophy because of one aspect of one figure is a bit like tossing the baby out with the bathwater.

@Darth_Algar If you take the story at face value, he still abandoned his family and his responsibility to be there for them (regardless of how well they lived after he left). And it’s not the case of disliking the philosophy because of the actions of the man who created it, it’s because Buddhism really is about encouraging all of us to be deadbeat dads in all aspects of our life. Mass apathy.

I mean the non-attachment thing has some merit, especially in our hyper-consumerist culture, driving by the need to accumulate stuff. I think there’s merit in not clinging to objects, but detaching from relationships, pets, etc. is cold and inhuman. I’m not sold on that shit at all.

Well, if you take the story at face value, his leaving of wife and child occurred at the onset of his spiritual quest and was a manifestation of exactly the kind of misperception we’re talking about here. What prompted him to leave was his profound dissatisfaction with his life as it was, and a search for an alternative reality. But that’s not what he got.

After his awakening he didn’t urge his lay disciples to abandon wives and kids. He specifically instructed them to take their family responsibilities seriously. He gave that advice now knowing that the “householder’s” reality is already perfect, just as it is. This clearly hadn’t been apparent to him at the beginning of his search.

I know a whole lot of Buddhists, but none who think the Buddha advocated abandoning relationships. To the contrary, Buddhism is focused on seeing the relationships that we have previously ignored. Interdependence not independence.

Where relationships get problematic from a Buddhist point of view is when ego gets involved, i.e. when the relationship is about what I get out of it. That kind of relationship invariably disappoints. It’s a lousy basis for a relationship.

I happen to have a dog whom I love very much. It’s a strong relationship, full of joy. But not a day goes by—and I mean that quite literally—that I don’t consider that at some point this dog will do as all my other dear pets have done: he will die. This isn’t some spiritual exercise that I impose on myself; it’s just a little insight that keeps popping up.

Does that insight make me love my dog less, or not care? To the contrary. I knew when I adopted him that it would have this very painful end, and every day I clearly see that this is where it’s all heading, so that each day is infused with the poignancy of that realization. This makes me want him to have the best life possible.

One of the best known Buddhist scriptures, the Metta Sutta, has the Buddha describing this feeling: “Even as a mother protects with her life her child, her only child, so with a boundless heart should one cherish all living beings.”

Yes he does, “Confucius spread margarine on toasted scones”
“I can’t believe it’s not Buddha”

@gorillapaws and @thorninmud – It’s fascinating to me that a description of a path that to me leads directly to more engagement with reality and people – and an expansion of empathy and compassion – is interpreted by some as being “cold and inhuman”.

@gorillapaws

Wow. If that’s what you read out of Buddhism then I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood it by a light year.

So how do you have relationships if you’re not allowed to have attachment, love, etc.? They’re going to get sick and die and that will suck so save yourself the pain and don’t bother to connect to others? Your dog will die one day, so don’t bother getting one? Everything is impermanent, quit you job, your life, get rid of your stuff, shave your head, join a monastery, beg for your food. What am I missing?

@gorillapaws It does not mean to not engage in life, love, meaningful work, only that one must not be shocked and surprised and emotionally destroyed when the temporary nature of all things comes to pass. It is all temporary, the “this too shall pass” as all things pass, the good, the bad and the ugly. To quote another teachers work, even the sun will die.

@Coloma You have a daughter, right? Wouldn’t you be destroyed emotionally if she died or would it just be like: “oh it was inevitable, nothing lasts?” I thought the whole point was to avoid attachment in the first place.

I’m not trying to troll or anything, honestly I’m trying to wrap my head around this. I thought I had a pretty good understanding, but apparently not?

This is going to be good!

@gorillapaws I think it is more along the lines of don’t let the knowledge that there is this impermanence, this inevitability, keep you from enjoying the here and now by dwelling on the fact that it is going to happen to all of us at some point.

Love isn’t the same as the “attachment” that the Buddha warned against. It’s a common enough error to conflate the two. If I truly love someone, I don’t love them for what they’ll do for me. I don’t love them for what I think I they have the potential to become, or for what they used to be. Neither would my love be premised on their always staying as they are now. All of that is self-serving fantasy, and love isn’t self-serving. “Attachment”, in the Buddhist sense, is grasping at people and things because they serve your self-interest.

While “love” has acquired many different connotations (some being very self-involved), I prefer to see it as a commitment to the well-being of another. But that has to be based on a clear and unvarnished view of that whole person, as they are, and with the recognition that they will change. If my “love” can’t hold up to those realities, then I’m likely driven by the way I want things to be, not by a realistic view of how people and things really are.

If the goal were to spare yourself as much pain as possible, then the kind of avoidance of relationships you describe might make a weird, calculated kind of sense. But avoiding pain isn’t the point at all. Pain is an integral feature of life. Obsessing about avoiding pain is just another way of being self-serving., another attachment. Better to live and love with the full and realistic acceptance that this is really going to hurt sometimes, and that’s OK.

@thorninmud It seems like you’re using a straw man argument. I don’t think most people would define love as being based on what the other person would do for you, or that you only love someone for what they were or are.

Why are Buddhist monks celebrate? I thought the whole point was to detach.

Are all buddhist monks required to be celibate? I did not think that was so.

@gorillapaws Of course I would be very sad, but..I would accept that reality and not be destroyed forever.
Acceptance doesn’t mean apathy, it means you accept, on a deep, intrinsic level, that no-thing lasts forever. I accept mortality as inevitable, my own and others, this does not mean that you do not love deeply but you realize that change and death happen and you do not fight reality. It is the fighting against reality that causes suffering. Instead of acceptance it becomes arguing within as to all the reasons why something should or should not have happened.

It did happen and one must accept whatever the “it” is or suffer needlessly “forever.”

@gorillapaws – (disclaimer: not a Buddhist perspective, but may help) I could be wrong, but part of the problem here could be in the word attachment. This is a translation of the Pali (“upadana” ?), which is translated as attachment or clinging or grasping. Using clinging instead of attachment should be an easier way to view how clinging/attachment – even in romantic love – is not helpful. Often, we view our partner as a fixed entity, and we cling to this concept of the person. When this person changes, we experience resentment. We also see clinging in a relationship as stifling and unhealthy. When we cling, it results in pain for both parties. When we allow space for our partner, it can often bring a couple closer together. That space can mean not clinging, and can mean that we see our partner for who s/he is – not who we want them to be or who they were 2 minutes ago. It allows us to love without the anxiety and resentment involved in the futile task of putting our partner in our pocket.

I’m not sure if that helps with some of the confusion here, or if it just adds to it. But from my perspective, letting go of things that do not exist (a fixed self, a partner with permanent identity, etc) doesn’t mean that I am disengaged and cold. Quite the opposite. The love for my wife (and my kids) increases as my delusion and clinging decreases.

@gorillapaws Oh, this isn’t how people would consciously define love, of course. We are very adept at covering over our self-serving tendencies, even (especially?) to ourselves. But there are plenty of relationships that are entered into with the unspoken (and probably unconscious) expectation that a person will change their behaviors “for me”. There are plenty of people who would say they’re in love with someone, when who they really love is the charming creature from a couple of years ago. And there are plenty who have a hard time seeing this sagging, graying person as being who they signed up for. There are plenty of parents whose relationship with their kids has a lot to do with how they reflect on the parents. These would all be very unsavory views to own up to, though, so we don’t.

No one does a perfect job of keeping love free from self-interest. The first step, though, is seeing and admitting to the often subtle ways we mess this up.

@rojo Rules vary, but “monk” usually designates someone who is celibate. Being a monk, though, has never been a requirement in order to be Buddhist. Celibacy has, in some branches, been seen as an ideal, but that has nothing to do with avoiding relationships. It’s a recognition that sex easily becomes self-serving.

Thanks for the clarification @thorninmud

Celibacy is practiced by the priests in some Buddhists sects, but not all. Many Buddhist priests marry and have children.

Yeah, in the sects that allow ordaineds to marry, there is often a distinction made between “monks” (who are celibate) and “priests” (who aren’t required to be celibate).

I think @hominid makes a fair point in that “clinging” may be a better English word to use than “attachment”. “Attachment/detachment” have connotations that may obscure the point.