Should we seek to overcome attachment and to what extent can it be achieved? Whether or not one adopts these worldviews, we can ask whether attachment is a problem and, should we seek to overcome our attachments at all? — Jack Cummins

Emotional attachment to things is obviously normal and, I think, desirable. As the English writer Orage (one of Gurdjieff's students) said, referring to being in love: "Hold on tightly and let go lightly". Would you want to live a life where you lacked love for particular things, places, people and animals, and felt only indifference or a generalized Buddhistic compassion?

I do agree that emotional attachment seems a natural aspect of life as a human being, and perhaps without it would be more like machines. However, I was dwelling on it this morning, and do see it as a philosophical problem.

However, I do believe that enjoyment is important and hope that all the members of the forum have a good Christmas, without too much worry and philosophical angst.

Happy Christmas and let us hope that 2021 is a positive year for us all,
Jack x

I agree the issue is not without its philosophical subtleties. Merry Christmas!

With literally no attachment to anything, I doubt you would live very long. Our attachment to pleasure is what spurs us to eat when we’re hungry, or drink when we’re thirsty, etc. If I’m indifferent to life itself, what could ever cause me to act in any way whatsoever? Why would I do anything? But of course, as Geddy Lee would say, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.” So my inaction would ultimately lead to my demise sooner or later. I think the issue with attachment is it’s propensity to cause things like addiction, confuse our priorities, and let the end (whatever it is we’re attached to) justify the means. So the trick is to only be attached to things that are good.

The flip side is that while suffering comes from unfulfilled desires, enjoyment comes from fulfilled desires – not merely the absence of unfulfilled desires, for fulfilling a desire one has and having none to go unfulfilled are different states – and so in giving up on desiring things, one does not only avoid all suffering, but also all enjoyment; just like dying would not only end all suffering but also all enjoyment. So there is some practical wisdom to be found in such philosophies, but it must be taken in moderation.

Emotionally giving up on the pursuit of good things and just living through life indifferently until it at some point it stops of its own accord is effectively the psychological condition of depression, which is widely regarded as a bad thing by those who suffer through it.

Well what is the purpose of attachment? You agree that it is harmful, but you haven't given any use for it.

Also while in traditional Buddhism attachment is seen as something to overcome, in its offshoots (Zen, etc) it is not. You have no "obligation" to overcome attachment in those systems in the same way that you have to be good in christianity. The point of them is to see the uselessness of attachments. Whether or not you sever them later is up to you (though I don't see why you wouldn't)

You guys seem to be equating attachment with desire. They are very different things. As you say, if the Buddha hadn't desired anything, he wouldn't have got out of bed to eat. But he did. So that suggests that they're not the same thing.

I would agree that one of the problems arising attachment is addiction. You say that that the best solution is to be 'only attached to things that are good,' If only it was that simple.

I am sure that when the person who goes on to develop an alcoholic first experiments with alcohol it appears so good, and only years later after 1000s of drinks and many years later sees that what began as a good turned into an evil. I have met people in this predicament. I think that this applies to most addictive forms of pleasure, including those which are more obviously not so good, such as drugs, to the more simple pleasures which can turn into excesses.

So, the question is how do we prioritise? Even if we steer clear of attachments to material possessions and focus on people, we can still stumble and fall. Relationships can become toxic and the people we love may reject us and die, leading us into potential misery and despair. When we form attachments how can we know the direction these will take us?

I do agree that part of the issue is about the whole
disparity between fulfilled desires. Sometimes it is not just that we are trying to overcome desires but
meet obstacles in trying to fulfill them and, as you say, this can lead to depression, including the extremes of clinical depression.

Personally, I find that I am functioning at my best when I am able to fulfill my desires rather than when I cannot. I would say that I am a better person to be around than when I am miserable, and that is why I would challenge any philosophy which is world rejecting.

But, I would say that life comes with so many ups and downs that it is sometimes inevitable that we have the suffering of unfulfilled desires. Some might say that the underlying problem is the desires themselves, but I would feel that to give up trying would be contrary to the life drives and instincts.

I think that attachment is linked to desire, and the whole issue of Buddha getting out of bed is a critical example. Here, he went to both extremes and this is illustrated by the contrast between the thin and fat Buddha illustrates this.

I would say that it is extremely difficult not to form attachments. Even in the case of people who fail on the autistic spectrum, they may fail to form the early childhood attachments to others, including their primary caregivers. However, that does not mean that they do not interact with the objects within the physical world.

The relationship between attachments to objects and other human beings is complex, as illustrated by the child development theory of Winnicott. He spoke of the role of transitional objects, giving the example of the teddy bear, as a way in which objects enable connections between the child and adults. Of course, there are many other factors going on, including some which are detrimental to the formation of initial and later relationships.

However, I would argue that it is supremely difficult, for better or worse, to live without attachments and desires. I am not sure that, as living human beings, we are able to achieve it. If we simply stayed in bed most of the time rather than pursue grander desires, it would still involve an attachment to the comfort of being in bed.

I think that attachment is linked to desire — Jack Cummins

It is. But the key distinction is that they are qualitatively different. Not quantitatively. You can want something really really badly and still not be attatched to it. How attatched you are to something is answered by asking yourself "How big of a problem would it be if I didn't have this/this didn't happen?" The answer to that is usually different from what we desire. There is supposedly a sort of mental "Sweet spot" where you want things but at the same time are not distraught at failing to get them. However usually, attachment follows desire. You start by wanting something, then that want turns into a need. That thing becomes a necessity.

However, I would argue that it is supremely difficult, for better or worse, to live without attachments and desires. — Jack Cummins

Probably.

If we simply stayed in bed most of the time rather than pursue grander desires, it would still involve an attachment to the comfort of being in bed. — Jack Cummins

I don't think so. Not necessarily at least.

Should we seek to overcome attachment, to what extent, and can it be achieved ? Whether or not one adopts these worldviews, we can ask whether attachment is a problem and, should we seek to overcome our attachments at all? — Jack Cummins

Lets assume you reach some sort of Nirvana state if you manage to sever all forms of attachment - is that something most of us would even want? It would mean abandoning family, love, friendships. It would just be you, and, I guess, the universe.

Here's the thing: We're situated whether we like it or not (i.e. we have a family, a community, sexual/romantic bonds or desires, etc.). However, we can't let that situated-ness dominate our every action. As humans we're split between a universalism and this "situated-ness" and its up to us to make a healthy balance. It's not easy, I get it. Go too far in any one direction and it's not good. The human mind naturally drifts towards certainty or extremes and we need to be careful with that. We like things black and white - good and bad, it makes the world more intuitive.

As far as I'm concerned a life without love or music isn't one with living, nirvana or not. In life you're naturally intimately connected with a network of people or a community and we should be extremely careful about throwing that all away to pursue absolute perfection. I don't believe in perfection in this world.

However, I would argue that it is supremely difficult, for better or worse, to live without attachments and desires. I am not sure that, as living human beings, we are able to achieve it. If we simply stayed in bed most of the time rather than pursue grander desires, it would still involve an attachment to the comfort of being in bed. — Jack Cummins

No I think that is quite right, because what separates living for non-living things, is that living things have purposes. Purpose meaning here to desire or want certain things to happen, which is another way of saying that living things have (emotion) attachments to certain things or outcomes. So in a very literal sense, the only way to entirely overcome attachments is to become a non-living thing... to die.

So I think the interesting question here is not whether we can overcome all attachments, but rather what should we be attached to and what not, and to what degree etc?

In the world of poker, or other sports too for that matter, you will often hear something like, results-oriented thinking should be avoided at all cost, or you shouldn't care about any particular outcome of a game because that makes you preform worse. The reasoning behind this is that, as it is in part a game of chance, you only have limited control over the results... and so you will be disappointed a lot if you care about the results, and that hampers your ability to make good decisions.

Of course this poses a bit of a conundrum in that what motivates you to play in the first place is probably winning games. And if you do away with that motivation, why bother at all right? The way around this particular motivation-conundrum is being invested in the process instead of the results. You focus on playing every game as good as you can, and try to care only insofar you played well or not.

I think Buddhism and a lot of other wisdom or virtue-traditions point in this same general direction of trying to shift your attachment from concrete results or things to caring about certain processes, i.e. right speech, right action... the eightfold path. And yes I think psychologically this kind of mindset would give you a more even, persistent and resilient motivation throughout your life, because you have more agency and control over it and also because these are goals that don't expire.

Purpose meaning here to desire or want certain things to happen, which is another way of saying that living things have (emotion) attachments to certain things or outcomes — ChatteringMonkey

I don't think those two things are the same at all. Attachment is different from desire.

You focus on playing every game as good as you can, and try to care only insofar you played well or not. — ChatteringMonkey

This would mean that you would be put down by a bad performance. But athletes are pushed to to not care even about that. Take volleyball for example, it often happens that a player single handedly loses a game or a set for his team because of the nature of the game making it very clear who messed up (fast paced, highly structured and a single mistake by a player puts down the whole team). But top players shrug off mistakes without losing performance, worse players are put down by bad performances leading to even worse performances. Does that mean that top players have a weaker desire to win? I think they want it just as badly, but they're not attached.

I don't think those two things are the same at all. Attachment is different from desire. — khaled

Meh, I don't think they are things at all... just two symbols pointing at different degrees of what is essential one psychological process. It seems a matter of degree rather than discrete things. If I don't get what I want, I'm disappointed. If I don't get what I'm attached to, I'm very disappointed…

This would mean that you would be put down by a bad performance. But athletes are pushed to to not care even about that. Take volleyball for example, it often happens that a player single handedly loses a game or a set for his team because of the nature of the game making it very clear who messed up (fast paced, highly structured and a single mistake by a player puts down the whole team). But top players shrug off mistakes, worse players are put down by bad performances leading to even worse performances. Does that mean that top players have a weaker desire to win? I think they want it just as badly, but they're not attached. — khaled

No I don't think this is correct, almost every top player cares very much about their performance ... Maybe they can shrug it off more easily, I could buy that. Also note that giving a bad pass for instance, isn't necessarily 'a mistake' from the perspective of the process of trying to play as good as you can. It's the intention and training that counts, not necessarily a particular execution.

at different degrees of what is essential one psychological process. It seems a matter of degree rather than discrete things — ChatteringMonkey

That is exactly what I'm saying does not seem like the case for me. They seem qualitatively different.

Maybe they can shrug it off more easily, I could buy that. — ChatteringMonkey

If desiring to win and failing to do so is disappointing, then those who desire to win the most should be devastated the most. We can agree that top athletes probably do desire to win the most. However they are not devastated the most (ideally, they are not affected by a bad performance at all). Suggesting that maybe there is something extra that is the actual cause of disappointment, something other than desire to win.

If I don't get what I want, I'm disappointed. If I don't get what I'm attached to, I'm very disappointed… — ChatteringMonkey

I can think of many instances when I didn't get what I wanted but wasn't disappointed. You could probably do so too.

Also I find there is a world of difference between getting the thing I'm attached to vs the thing I want. When I get something I want I'm happy, when I get something I am attached to I don't feel anything. And sometimes I'm attached to things I don't even want (bad habits).

Also I find there is a world of difference between getting the thing I'm attached to vs the thing I want. When I get something I want I'm happy, when I get something I am attached to I don't feel anything. And sometimes I'm attached to things I don't even want (bad habits). — khaled

If you are talking about addictions I would agree, but do you think that is what is meant with attachments here? Maybe, I'd need to think about it some more.

If desiring to win and failing to do so is disappointing, then those who desire to win the most should be devastated the most. We can agree that top athletes probably do desire to win the most. However they are not devastated the most (ideally, they are not affected by a bad performance at all). Suggesting that maybe there is something extra that is the actual cause of disappointment, something other than desire to win. — khaled

Yes but my first guess wouldn't be that that something extra is attachments. It's sort of a psychological downward spiral that compounds the mistakes that other non-top players get stuck in. How do you see the relation to attachments here? I'd say this is more a question of a lack of confidence.

There was a time when I thought it good to have no attachments and to let go of my ego, and I like what Chattering Monkey said "almost every top player cares very much about their performance".

I will stick with Greek philosophy and the good of being the very best we can be. I think it is wrong to not enjoy the game of life for as long as we can. Sure it hurts when we loose something we value but so what, we can grieve and move on. Perhaps if we live in a very poor country it makes sense be happy with nothing but in a country with plenty it doesn't make as much sense. If we learn to enjoy life, there is a good chance we will enjoy the next one, if our attachments do cause us to reincarnate, and really what is so bad with that?

I live as though reincarnation is a possibility and like the idea that this might pay off in the future. But having life and not using it? Really isn't that a bit pointless?

I do agree that there is a difference between attachments and desires, but I am not sure that it can be divided simply into a quantitative or qualitative one, but a mixture of the two.

This is because some aspects of life we wish for are easier to achieve than others and this varies so much between individuals. For example, some people find that they can get a job as soon as they begin looking, and you can ask how important this is? The reason it would not be simply about how important it is because the matter itself could be divided into smaller goals, such as the need for money and the need for purpose and social identity. The person would likely need some means of financial support and whether they could cope would be according to sources of money for basic needs. Also, the questions about purpose and identity would also be dependent on other social aspects of life and meaning.

One critical factor, I believe, is the way in which frustrated desire fuels and drives the desires. For example, supposing that a person is desperately wishing for a romantic relationship, the very absence of it over a period of time is likely to make the desire increase. It might also involve how that desire has been satisfied in the past. For example, the person who has not had a relationship at all may have a more intense desire than one who has done in the past.

Perhaps a certain level of satisfaction of desires also leads to some indifference. Perhaps this is what happens in relationships which go wrong. Maybe the satisfied desire results in boredom, and we might, in a similar way, become bored by certain taken for granted aspects of our life, because we do not have to stop and revision the cravings on a regular basis. It could be that we do not realise the depths of our attachments until we face losses which hit upon us.

As far as lying in bed goes, I know that if I am going through a rough patch in life I love to crawl into bed, to lie there wallowing, play music and escape into sleep. I am also aware that there are many people in the world who do not have a soft bed, and have no choice but to sleep on the hard earth. So, I am always grateful for having a bed. And, when I am happy, as well as low and downcast, I still adore, and hold onto my attachment to my bed.

If you are talking about addictions I would agree, but do you think that is what is meant with attachments here? Maybe, I'd need to think about it some more. — ChatteringMonkey

I don't have any major addictions but sometimes I notice that I feel the need to get something I don't even really want. If you've been on a losing streak in a videogame you'd know what I mean. You just keep playing in a rage, you're not even having fun, and you're hardly trying to win, but for some reason you feel you need to.

I'd say this is more a question of a lack of confidence. — ChatteringMonkey

It's also a common trait of mediocre athletes to be OVERconfident, not lacking confidence.

It's sort of a psychological downward spiral that compounds the mistakes that other non-top players get stuck in. How do you see the relation to attachments here? — ChatteringMonkey

Attachments are "How big of an issue is it if I don't get X?" I find this has surprisingly little to do with how much you want to get X. And sometimes not having X is a huge issue even though you don't even really want X.

There is supposedly a sort of mental "Sweet spot" where you want things but at the same time are not distraught at failing to get them. — khaled

I don't have any major addictions but sometimes I notice that I feel the need to get something I don't even really want. If you've been on a losing streak in a videogame you'd know what I mean. — khaled

I know what you mean, but I not sure if that's a qualitative difference, or just two conflicting desires with differing intensities... i.e. a shortterm desire to really want to win, and a more general desire to just stop playing the game and do something else constructive.

It's also a common trait of mediocre athletes to be OVERconfident, not lacking confidence. — khaled

I think they are two sides of the same coin. When you are overconfident, a little thing can tilt you to loose all your confidence precisely because it was inflated and it's hard to maintain the illusion in the face of evidence to the contrary.

But yes I think I sort of get what you're trying to get at with linking it to attachment. The downward spiral then is presumably the result of an attachment to an overinflated idea of yourself.

I do believe in the importance of enjoying ourselves and being one's best. I don't believe that life is meant to be miserable.

Hope you are have a good Christmas. I am busy reading and writing but having an enjoyable time. I am also being DJ with my mum, giving her an assortment of music.

Let's hope that 2021 brings more enjoyable times for everyone!

I do agree that a life without music or love is indeed questionable, but I won't go as far as saying not worth living because I am aware of some people being deaf, but hopefully the majority of these will not live a loveless life as well.

In terms of these basics, I think that it great suffering to live without these pleasures, although I think being blind is my worst imaginable fear, although I would probably be in a better position than those who have never known sight. But, of course, I am attached to visual perceptions whereas a blind person has not formed this attachment.

I don't really believe that the supreme state of Nirvana would, from my point of view, the utmost. What would be the point of attaining such bliss without sharing it? Even in Hindu philosophy there is some debate as to whether nirvana is an ultimate end state of development of the soul, or whether, at some point the soul would be reborn once again.

As you say, as long as we are alive it is hard to be free of all attachments. This is likely to involve a mixture of aspects of fulfilled and unfulfilled yearnings. A central part is the attachment to life itself, which most people hold onto. Even many who make suicide attempts and survive are often glad that they did not die afterwards.

You are right to say that many traditions, such as Buddhism, shift the focus from attachment to the Buddhism Path, and the importance of right action. This probably brings balance and stops us being trapped in the cycle of personal gratification, with all its highs and lows.

I do believe in the importance of enjoying ourselves and being one's best. I don't believe that life is meant to be miserable.

Hope you are have a good Christmas. I am busy reading and writing but having an enjoyable time. I am also being DJ with my mum, giving her an assortment of music.

Let's hope that 2021 brings more enjoyable times for everyone! — Jack Cummins

I would be happier at the moment if we were celebrating the winter solstice that pagans everywhere once celebrated. Calling the winter solstice "Christmas" is like pouring lemon juice into a wound, as it screams a terrible history of extermination that continues to plague us as a terrible prejudice against "those people" and denies the value of other human beings or that they even existed.

Hard times? In the past people starved to death, especially in the winter and a God didn't send birds to feed them. I live in a country where few children starve to death because of what science has done for us. whoops, I am ranting aren't I. What a topic "Is attachment a problem and should it be seen as one"? lf I knew how to use social media I would use it to call a demonstration at our public broadcasting station demanding they use a warning when broadcasting a biased religious program, announcing it is prejudice and may be offensive. The God of Abraham religions are an attachment I wish we would give up. I celebrate with the pagan tree and the pagan understanding of the solstice and so thankful our children are not starving and dying in winter as they once did when the church was the only source of knowledge.

Yes, what kind of thread have I created? Your post is very interesting. Perhaps it is my 'monster,' and it arose from my subconscious on Christmas eve, and was unleashed on the forum for everyone to consider. I think it probably stems from the conflicts which I have going around in my subconscious, encompassing Catholic guilt and disillusionment.

I am really interested in paganism and I would imagine that that it is certainly about celebrating of pleasure rather than repression. I have read a bit but not much but know that the early albums by The Waterboys, who are one of my favourite artists embrace it in their music.

But I would imagine that the pagan solstice celebrations are extremely different from the ones in Christian based consumer culture. When I was at school and in my original church background I always found a clash between the supposed Christian basis of it in the birth of Christ and the commercial celebration. I do believe Chistmas was originally a pagan custom, which the Christians redesigned to fit into their perspective and system of rituals.

It will be interesting to see if others respond to your thinking and I would ask simply do you think that attachment should not be seen as a problem? But, of course, remember that in my questioning I am not simply asking whether we should avoid attachment as a spiritual goal, but also as a problem of frustrated goals and desires in an unequal, upside down world.

You will see that I have edited and added 'A Monster Question' to the title of the thread based on reflecting upon the post I have created after your comment. I have done so, because I think in doing so, I will encourage readers to think outside of the box of traditions, but I am unsure how this will see what impact this will have on the debate, but I am in favour of experimental thinking, and looking at arguments in the rawest, forms.

How attatched you are to something is answered by asking yourself "How big of a problem would it be if I didn't have this/this didn't happen?" The answer to that is usually different from what we desire. There is supposedly a sort of mental "Sweet spot" where you want things but at the same time are not distraught at failing to get them. — khaled

OK, your kid's getting treatment for childhood leukemia. You want your kid to live.
Where's the sweet spot?
This may seem snotty picking such an extreme example, but at the same time it really highlights, to me, that there is, at root, a division in Buddhism. Accept what it outside you, but try to dampen certain things inside you.

You guys seem to be equating attachment with desire. They are very different things. As you say, if the Buddha hadn't desired anything, he wouldn't have got out of bed to eat. But he did. So that suggests that they're not the same thing. — khaled

Seeing something as desirable and desiring something are not necessarily the same. So, I might see discipline as desirable because it is the path to an end that I have come to think of as the highest, for example.

According to Buddhist thinking it is fine to be attached ("find refuge") in the Sangha (the community of the faithful), the Four Noble Truths and the Dharma ("Way") because they are believed to lead away from attachment to transient, earthly things and lead towards the changeless.

In Hinduism and Buddhism the Sages are portrayed as having the same unwavering compassion for all. Does this mean a Sage will not feel love towards "special" friends or family that he or she does not feel towards everyone? Not being a Sage myself, I can't answer that. Or maybe it depends on the Sage? What does seem to be the case is that the Sage should not manifest favouritism to any individual unless to do so would serve the Dharma.

Many of us 'old people' (past 70, at least) find that it is difficult to get rid of stuff--not just really good stuff, but junk too. It seems like anything that has been on the table or counter for more than a day has gained some sort of entitlement. So millions of us are fighting with accumulating paper that we don't desire, actually do not want, but can't get rid of.

That might look like "attachment" but it is really a problem of perspective.

Quite a few people became addicted quickly after their first encounter with alcohol, meth, cocaine, weed, heroin, or something else. They didn't so much desire these substances as their brains were so constituted to be a trap ready to close once the substance came along. Some people are biochemically prone to addiction. For some more complicated psychological reason, some people are prone to become overly attached to other people.

Granted, people can get addicted by patient effort; I liked the idea of smoking enough to keep at it until I was addicted. Stupid, but advertising and peer influence works. I haven't smoked for 25 years, but I still have the urge sometimes.

Then there is GREED--one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Some people desire more (gold; bitcoins; real estate; pounds or dollars or Euros or whatever measure o wealth is handy). Let's call greed an attachment to things of recognized value. That's a problem with real moral consequences which is (presumably) NOT a problem of brain chemistry (alcoholism), inability to decide what to throw out (old age), psychological dependency disorders or OCD, etc. People who collect bits of string and add it to their big ball are not sinning, even if they are greedy for more bits of string. They are just weird.

Many attachments are normal, desirable, necessary, and good, as long as they doesn't become a neurosis (like parents who are attached to the desire for a child to be a violin prodigy who isn't). We should be attached to our homeland, family, faith, alma mater (send a donation), local community, and so on--in reasonable proportion. People who are overly attached to the Green Bay Packers or Miami Dolphins are just tedious, not a moral problem.

Oh, and Merry Christmas.

Buddhism views attachment as something to be overcome. — Jack Cummins

Buddhism was originally a renunciate spiritual movement, so attachment is precisely what was to be overcome. The rationale for renunciation is that ultimately all of the things to which you’re attached, and the body itself, is subject to decay. ‘Not getting what you want, getting what you don’t want, old age, sickness and death’ is fate of all beings. The eightfold path is said to yield a kind of happiness which is greater and more secure than that obtainable by any worldly means.

However, among the Buddhist texts are admonitions and advice to householders for living a prosperous and happy life (e.g. here.) The Buddha is presented as being fully cognisant of the importance of married life, ethical investments and sound business decisions.

In early Buddhism there was a distinct duality of renunciation and worldly life, but as Buddhism developed the duality between the two became less pronounced. Renunciation came to be seen more as a interior state rather than an external act. There is a Mahāyāna Buddhist scripture called the Vimalakirti Nirdesa, the central character and namesake of which is a married silk merchant whose grasp of the Mahāyāna principle of śūnyatā is such that the Buddha’s direct disciplines are scared to debate him.

Perhaps the deeper meaning of attachment is craving, habituation and dependency. Detachment in that sense is inner liberation from these factors - not identifying with them, letting them go. Easier said than done, in my experience.