OK, your kid's getting treatment for childhood leukemia. You want your kid to live.
Where's the sweet spot? — Coben

At not caring if your kid dies. Similar to some stoics. Then again, Buddhism is not about finding the sweet spot in everything, it is the observation that such a sweet spot exists. You are not instructed to go get it in the same way you are instructed to becomes a good Christian. Buddhists do not spread their religion actively for example. If you want to be attached go right ahead, just know what it will hurt and will have no practical advantages (at least none that I can think of)

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. — Janus

Really? When was this said. I don’t read much about Buddhism in particular but more about Zen and other offshoots. I doubt the words used were “attached” though.

He who binds to himself a joy
Does the winged life destroy
He who kisses the joy as it flies
Lives in eternity's sunrise

Eternity, by William Blake

It's a good point you are making and in other contexts I have tried to explain to critics of Buddhism (and in some cases supporters) that they are treating Buddhist precepts as deontological when they are pragmatic. I agree. But that wasn't what I was getting at there with that example. Some people, not all, might find themselves hard pressed to see a parent in that situation as making a pragmatically weaker choice if they were extremely upset by their child not being successfully treated for leukemia. (not getting upset was the criterion raised by at least one prior explainer of why attachment was a problem or how attachment distinguishes itself from desire. Others were close to that kind of evaluation). It wasn't a logical assault (my example) but an attempt to shock people with an extreme example towards their own (possible) revulsion with the idea of this sweet spot and the pragmatic error of attachment to outcomes being wrong but desire is ok, etc. Then I might come in with a logical extension of what I am saying: there is something anti-human (or you could say anti-limbic system in Buddhism). There is a judgment by some parts of the brain that the limbic system is a problem, period. That there are problems with being a social mammal, internally. In the context of what is often presented as a non-judgmental, pragmatic system, I think this in turn may turn out to be seen as problematic. The Buddhist solution includes a judgment of what some might consider a core portion of themselves, that it ends up being a kind of enacted self-hate. Others may be happy to consider the limbic system something that needs to be contained, reduced, inhibited. Fine for them. They may or may not find a bit of a conundrum in Buddhisms general heuristic to merely observe what is external, but some facets of what is internal must be removed (for certain outcomes, and if one notices that these outcomes while not quite being presented as moral ones are often presented very close to divine ones). That perhaps there is a lack of compassion for certain parts of the self in the name of the compassion for the whole. But if they are comfortable with that, fine. Others may be mystified by what is actually fairly complicated and not realize that what they might think of as resistance to Buddhism (and 'resistance' in a pejorative sense for them) is actually the fact that they do not share the same values as the Buddhist teachers and masters, who are willing to cut out a portion of themselves to reduce and even eliminate their pain.

attempt to shock people with an extreme example towards their own (possible) revulsion with the idea of this sweet spot and the pragmatic error of attachment to outcomes being wrong but desire is ok, etc. — Coben

You mean: Revulsion with the idea that the sweet spot should be sought after in every circumstance. That it exists was all I was trying to establish, not that it should be sought out. Though I think it should.

there is something anti-human (or you could say anti-limbic system in Buddhism). There is a judgment by some parts of the brain that the limbic system is a problem, period. That there are problems with being a social mammal, internally. In the context of what is often presented as a non-judgmental, pragmatic system, — Coben

I’m skeptical when people say “anti human”. Is it not a part of the brain that is judging this other apart as a problem? Whether or not you judge it as a problem or not then still seems pretty “human” to me. In other words, it's only anti-human because you decided it was, it could be easily argued to be natural to want to eliminate suffering.

Others may be mystified by what is actually fairly complicated and not realize that what they might think of as resistance to Buddhism (and 'resistance' in a pejorative sense for them) is actually the fact that they do not share the same values as the Buddhist teachers and masters, who are willing to cut out a portion of themselves to reduce and even eliminate their pain. — Coben

Fair. Again, I wasn’t saying that this sweet spot should be sought out, only that it exists. Though I think it should be sought out, but I can see the arguments against that (not that I agree with them)

Everything about Buddhism boils down to suffering and how to escape it, not in some haphazard, ill-considered manner, like routed soldiers fleeing from battle but after carefully scrutinizing the nature of suffering and coming to a reasonable conclusion about how we might deal with our predicament, like a mathematician systematically tackling a problem given faer.

The first order of business then is to understand the cause of suffering for if we can discover the cause, we have something to work on towards reducing/eliminating the unwanted effect, to wit, suffering. To get to that I'd like to first draw your attention to a point of view that has its origins in logic and perhaps even philosophy itself, the view that every person has an emotional and a rational side to them and this is germane to the question of attachment because first, attachment and suffering are both, at their core, emotions and second. the entire project of alleviating/eliminating suffering is a rational one.

While I'm not completely certain that all suffering is attachment-related, I concede that attachment does figure prominently in the list of causes for suffering. Well, if I had to justify that all suffering is attachment-based I would say something to the effect that suffering arises when that which we value is damaged/destroyed and that which we value is what we get attached to; attachment then is that intimate connection between us and the things we hold dear that's vulnerable to attack, injury and destruction, this then manifests as suffering.

So far so good.

Returning to the dual nature of all humans, the emotional and rational aspects of the human psyche, what transpires is this: our rational side, after studying the nature of the universe, arrives at the conclusion that, well, nothing lasts forever which, in Buddhist circles, is known as the doctrine of impermanence and ergo, our rational half concludes, there really is no point in getting attached to the point of being completely unable to, as @Wayfarer put it, "...let go..." Remember this is precisely what causes suffering - being unable to "...let go..." What's supposed to happen next is our rational side informing our emotional side that attachment doesn't make sense because impermanence is part of the very fabric of the universe and to have attachments, a facet of which is the inability to "...let go..." [suffering], would be asking for the impossible and expecting/waiting for an outcome whose probability of happening is zero is irrational. It's like expecting a 7 from a roll of a 6-sided die.

Perhaps, if the inherent duality of the human mind (emotion and reason) can't be reconciled, it would be best to give both free reign - let our emotional sides suffer, excruciatingly even, and let our rational sides maintain its equipoise through all that.

I do believe that addiction is extremely complex, and beyond the psychological dimensions, chemical dependence is central, so I see where you are coming from. I get really annoyed when people become judgemental about people with addictions. I did a 12 week placement in a drug addiction unit as part of a psychiatric nursing course and I would say it was one of the most interesting areas I have ever worked in. I would consider working in addiction services in the future.

I think that I do have an addictive personality, so I have to be careful to avoid excesses. Perhaps, the best way is to have several addictions rather than one to get balance: coffee, books, writing, music, art, wine and a few secret ones. etc. What I am saying is that it is better to have several options for enjoyment or coping rather than just one, because it stops any one getting out of control.

My own biggest addiction is probably caffeine because I have to begin everyday with 2 cups of coffee, and this goes back to having used Pro Plus caffeine tablets as a student. I used to take them so often for essay writing and as a form of 'speed', and sometimes in more than the recommended dose. They gave me bad insomnia and I used to feel awful the next day, worse than a hangover, and I used to sometimes reach for the packet to take a tablet to feel better.But I did stop, but people often remark that I drink a lot of coffee.

I can also relate to the problem of accumulating clutter. I had to move in the summer and had a really horrible time. I do not consider myself as materialist because I have never been drawn to conventional possessions, such as a buying a car. But books and music are my disease and what to keep, donate to charity shops, or throw away was a nightmare. I can understand why some people end up with hoarding problems, especially if they live in one place for a long time.

But, I do think that attachment to material possessions is not simply about how much one accumulates but to the nature of the attachment. Some people may have only a few possessions but be attached to them greatly.

So, yes I would agree that addiction are big issues and I would not dismiss them, but frame them in the context of the larger picture of human suffering.

I appreciate your contribution and I think that it captures some extremely important points, especially the Buddhist perspective. I would not consider myself as a Buddhist as such, but do think that suffering and impermanence are the central aspects of human experiences.

I used to have a big problem with impermanence, especially as teenager. Now, I think that the constant process of change is to be celebrated as well deplored because it does mean that all the bad aspects of life will pass, not just the pleasant ones.

I think that you are right to emphasise the two strands, emotion and rationality. The use of reason is useful for considering our attachment, rather than just being driven by it blindly.

I appreciate your contribution and do believe that the Buddhist perspective has a lot to contribute, as I have just said in my reply to the Madfool.In particular, this discussion focused upon the problem of suffering and impermanence. Emotionality and rationality are two competing aspects in life, and reason offers a way for us to consider our attachments rather than being overwhelmed by them.

However, I am struggling a bit with what you are saying about the ideas of detachment. I am not sure to what extent detachment is desirable. Is it different from indifference?

I am also not convinced that renunciation is a helpful idea. However, I will say that I am viewing the idea through the lens of my Christian upbringing. Here, I am speaking of the whole view that we should not seek pleasure. This led to all sorts of problems, such as the whole shadow side of the Catholic church. Sexuality was repressed on one hand, with gay men turning to the priesthood. The whole issue of priests abusing young boys has come to light, and throws into question the whole issue of renunciation as practiced within Catholicism.

Aside from this, perhaps pleasure is to be celebrated rather than eliminated. For this reason, Athena replied, querying the whole question of the post. She was objecting to the whole way in which many spiritual teachers have tried to encourage the suppression and repression of pleasure. She points to the the pagan tradition as an important one to the argument. Perhaps we can think of the way in which Dionysus points to the importance of pleasure and, this could lead us to consider the whole idea of renunciation as a problem in itself.

The "Attachment" that is a problem is not the natural connection to things and situations. It is the inordinate craving/compulsion/dependence (addictions in various modes and degrees) that corrupts that excellence which is forged by nature.
All attachments (including attraction and lust) fade away with time according to the natural order of things. Attachment to material things, even short-term, is almost non-existent - until we add psychological components (emotional, mental, etc) and then it extends for as long as we maintain those relations. (Natural attachment to material things is more along the order of curiosities and enjoyments and they have very clearly defined limits.)
Money, sex, social interactions, education, employment, etc, matter too much because we've created psychological relations which define them beyond their actual boundaries especially in our appreciations (significance/validation) of the connections to other people.

If the exercise of one's free will without the intentional harming of others causes disharmony in one's situations and relations, then it is proof of attachments that must be gotten rid off.

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. — Jack Cummins

:grin: From time to time your childhood brainwashing seems to come to your consciousness as unquestioned truth but in general you have done a heroic job of getting past that problem. :clap:

I would not give too much honor to pagans either. But I have a love for our mother earth. That of course is an emotional thing, not exactly a thinking thing, but it can include knowing we can destroy environments, and when we do that can damage our own survival, but we can also create healthy environments. A lack of technology is not the answer. Low tech people are very destructive and deforesting their area is a huge problem. So is polluting the available water a huge problem! Often people had to move because their way of life was not sustainable, so after consuming resources in one area they moved to the next. When only a few people do this, there is a chance of the environment recovering. When there is a large population, we have to make better decisions.

With technology, we have done amazing things! A huge area in China has been restored after it had been destroyed hundreds of years ago. Everyone had just assumed the destroyed area was always like that, but science discovered it was fertile and had once been abundant with life, and with that knowledge they restored this Garden of Eden. We have brought rivers and areas of the ocean back to life. We have good reason for being hopeful of making most of our planet a Garden of Eden, but to do this we need to get past the notion that a god controls things. We need to spread technology not religion!

Do you know of the Peace Core? It was created during past President Kenndy's administration and is about sending US volunteers around the world to teach better farming and better sanitation and better health. Better birth control must go with this because we must be real about living on a finite planet. Just feeding people without population control, makes the problems much worse, leading to the wars and refugees we have today. We need secular thinking for peace because it is wrong to feed people and give them religion and think a god will take care of them. God did not build Noah's ark nor does He save people from terrible things. A moral is a matter of cause and effect. What happens is a consequence of what we do and we need truth to do the right thing.

Back to your question, I love our mother earth, and I love our technology, and I love education for liberty and democracy and while Buddism has wisdom I could not be one because I want to be part of life and I want to be part of making life better for everyone in a very pragmatic way. The Peace Core is a pragmatic way to make life better.

In saying that attachments causing 'disharmony in one's situations and relations in one's situations and relations...is proof of attachments that must be gotten rid of' I am left wondering how do you think that they should be got rid of?

This is because the attachments have deep roots. Meditation is one possibility, but even meditation is not easy. Psychological interventions range from the behavioural to the cognitive, or a blending of the two.

Really, I am saying that eliminating attachments is a problem in itself, so I am wondering if we should we even seek to get rid of them at all.?Perhaps we would be better addressing the disharmony or conflict which we experienced rather than the actual attachment itself. This may be about acceptance of certain aspects of ourselves which we would wish to deny, and probably be about acknowledging our attachments and living with them, at least.

↪Janus

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. — Janus


Khaled....Really? When was this said. I don’t read much about Buddhism in particular but more about Zen and other offshoots. I doubt the words used were “attached” though — khaled

What Janus said makes perfect sense to me. It is also very Christian to be devoted to God and heaven and renounce this mortal world. If we cling to a heavenly fantasy we are saved and immortal. I am pagan. I love life in this three-dimensional reality. However, I have to admit this is easier now that I am adjusted to being divorced and my children are grown, and I don't need to work for a living. That is I am past many worldly concerns and live in peace in my own imagined reality of mother earth and what humans can do to make life better.

So, do you think that the idea of renunciation is not about following a set pathway, but more of a mindset, in which one feels free from the binding of the concerns of day to day existence?

So, do you think that the idea of renunciation is not about following a set pathway, but more of a mindset, in which one feels free from the binding of the concerns of day to day existence?
3 minutes ago
Reply
Options — Jack Cummins

I don't know what I think until I participate in one of your threads. This time I mentioned being happy now that I am past my years as wife and mother and having to work for a living. Had I never been a mother and never held a job, would my life have been more joyful? I think that is highly possible. My marriage was terrible and a lot of heartache has come out of that. I am not sure I would repeat it.

There are wonderful benefits to working, but I found low-income employment miserable because with autocratic industry the conditions of jobs can be intolerable! My life could have had been better had I been better prepared and made better decisions. That is not equal to renunciation. It is knowing what we want and how to get it. I knew what I wanted but not how to get it and made bad choices, the failures of my marriage are now impacting my great-grandchildren and I have deep regrets. To be happy I avoid thinking about my family and engaging with most of them. I guess I would do it all over again, but I would do it differently. Today women have more opportunities, and I hope we work through some human problems and that everyone will do better.

I appreciate your contribution and I think that it captures some extremely important points, especially the Buddhist perspective. I would not consider myself as a Buddhist as such, but do think that suffering and impermanence are the central aspects of human experiences.

I used to have a big problem with impermanence, especially as teenager. Now, I think that the constant process of change is to be celebrated as well deplored because it does mean that all the bad aspects of life will pass, not just the pleasant ones.

I think that you are right to emphasise the two strands, emotion and rationality. The use of reason is useful for considering our attachment, rather than just being driven by it blindly. — Jack Cummins

It just dawned on me that we're, as some have accused me of, self-delusional. As Agent Smith in The Matrix rightly pointed out, "there's no escaping reason". Notice an important detail that's missing from my analysis - the "reason" behind our emotions. We get emotional - we become attached, we suffer for it - for "reasons", right? I remember the many times I've felt sad, deeply so, and the sadness didn't just happen for no reason. If, perchance, this were true, we should be witnessing random laughter and tears but this, for better or for worse, isn't true. There's always a reason for suffering. It must be then that our rational side is shifting, or trying to shift, the blame - tilting at windmills as the English are fond of saying -creating an imaginary foe just so that it can let itself off the hook. So, at the end of the day, we're not two beings (emotional and rational) locked in a battle with each other but one being struggling under the burden of its own delusions.

The subject of whether we delude ourselves or not is a big one. Having worked in psychiatric care, the subject of delusions was always around.People were proclaim as delusional on a day to day basis and I think all of us probably adopt some delusions, but I am not sure that it is simply about the division between emotions and reason.

You say that there is always a reason why we suffer and I am not sure that it is that simple. It could be that we suffer because we don't understand our emotions enough and the real nature of our emotions, but even then, sometimes suffering comes out of nowhere. A day can be going well and then a sense of low mood comes from nowhere. It could be chemically related.

I am partly coming up with this idea because I thought that the post createdp earlier today was going to explore this when it contained testosterone in the title. But it lacked this and this was disappointing because I do think that our biology affects our emotions and reason, which you speak of as being in conflict.

So, getting back to the subject of attachment, I am asking whether an underlying source of our attachments is derived from biology. To what extent are we limited by the biology of our being?

I am glad if you are able to clarify your thoughts through discussions on threads because that should be the purpose of philosophy. It may involve hard questions. Attachment is a monster and I am sure that there are even some dragons to come yet.

Having read what I wrote a short while ago, I realise that I am also doing the shifting of blame, placing the blame on biology. It is just that it is hard to pin reason or emotions onto any exact peg. Maybe the whole problem lies, on some level, at the quantum level. Perhaps in the energy dynamics, reason and emotions can be divided , but that distinction is complex, as are attachments which have developed and are embedded within our systems.

"Finding refuge"; if you find refuge in something you rely on it and/or care about it, no? To rely on something or to care about it is to be attached as I see it.

However, I am struggling a bit with what you are saying about the ideas of detachment. I am not sure to what extent detachment is desirable. Is it different from indifference? — Jack Cummins

Assuredly. There was a comment made above that detachment means 'you don't care if your child dies'. Couldn't be further from the truth. I have long read the sermons of Meister Eckhardt. The way he puts it is that the birth of Christ in the soul brings a peace so great that even tremendous vicissitudes cannot shake it. Detachment is more about the abandonment of egotism than being callous or indifferent. That is why members of religious orders are often associated with care for the sick. I myself witnessed that when I was sent to work in the casuality ward of a Catholic teaching hospital in my youth.

For this reason, Athena replied, querying the whole question of the post. She was objecting to the whole way in which many spiritual teachers have tried to encourage the suppression and repression of pleasure — Jack Cummins

We live in a sensate, materialist culture, where only what can be seen and measured scientifically is considered to be real. Our hedonistic culture places huge emphasis on pleasure and acquisition. From this perspective renunciation of any kind doesn't make any sense at all.

The problem with the pursuit of pleasure is that it always comes with a cost, there's always a reaction. Pleasure and pain are inextricably connected, the pursuit of pleasure invites suffering. But repression is not the way, I think it's more a matter of seeing through it and going beyond it. Not that this is at all an easy balance to acheive, I certainly haven't made a lot of headway with it.

Freudianism, as you mentioned in another post, plays a huge role in modern culture, even if Freud has been mostly forgotten. It was Freud who introduced the idea that libido was the main driving force in life, and that repression of it was impossible, and lead to neuroses. Sexuality and sexual expression then become seen as a fundamental human right, and anything that suggests foregoing it or curtailing it is seen as repressive. Don't want to derail your thread, as these comments tend to do, but it's a major factor in my opinion.

"Finding refuge"; if you find refuge in something you rely on it and/or care about it, no? To rely on something or to care about it is to be attached as I see it. — Janus

In one of the other recent thread on Buddhism we were discussing the parable of the raft, where the Buddha says that Buddhism itself is like a raft, used for 'crossing over' the river of suffering, but to be let go of once it's served its purpose. 'Dhammas should be abandoned, to say nothing of adhammas'. That is specifically about not becoming attached to Buddhism. Of course, the way it plays in culture is such that it becomes a tremendous source of attachment, hope, longing. But at least in the original exposition, this reality was recognised and warned against.

I think it depends on the importance to which we assign the need/want of overcoming the attachments. In analogy, I would say it's like any other problem - if you really want to overcome it then you put up the fight. For me, the biggest obstacle which I see as preventing most people from overcoming attachments is the need to bargain - which is a sign, to me, that those people are not really committed. For example, I know people who realise that alcohol isn't good for them but they don't/can't stop because they've not yet decided to stop the party kind of lifestyle. So they end up looking for half-measures which don't really solve anything and the problem gets drawn out for a really long time.

Meditation/yoga works for those who integrate them into their lifestyle. Most people don't and it doesn't work, then they accuse meditation/yoga of being mumbo jumbo. Meditative/yoga sessions can only give moments (an hour or two) of harmony, a meditative lifestyle allows for harmony all the time. The same with therapy - one can see a therapist for a few moments or they can have a therapeutic lifestyle.

Anyway, there are so many types and degrees of attachments as well as the methods of overcoming them. But the bottom-line is the same - a person has to do it or go through it the whole nine yards.

I have steps which I follow when I want to rid or distance myself from something/someone/situations. In short:

[1] Proximity - define the space of your life activities and do not allow the problem to enter the space.
[2] Contact - do everything possible to limit contact with the problem including avoiding contact with people and situations in contact with the problem.
[3] New Language - this means developing a new system of life activities where the points of contact and access to the previous problem are substituted with others (better/simpler ones).
[4] Definition - define your new lifestyle. Add all the details necessary to make it stable, interactive and expansive.
[5] Put in the time - there are ideas like, it takes 10,000 hrs to master a skill or if you read scripture a thousand times then you master the teaching, etc, etc. The point is, live life the way you want long enough and you don't have to worry about what you don't want.

The list is just an outline of how I've tried to overcome some of my attachments.

Also, until one recognizes or realises their individuality (self or 'I'), life will remain a series of attachments. The only true path in life is self-realisation (study of oneself). Any appropriate method will do.

In one of the other recent thread on Buddhism we were discussing the parable of the raft, where the Buddha says that Buddhism itself is like a raft, used for 'crossing over' the river of suffering, but to be let go of once it's served its purpose. 'Dhammas should be abandoned, to say nothing of adhammas'. That is specifically about not becoming attached to Buddhism. Of course, the way it plays in culture is such that it becomes a tremendous source of attachment, hope, longing. But at least in the original exposition, this reality was recognised and warned against. — Wayfarer

I agree that is the ideal, but I think it is an ideal never realized. The sages are typically portrayed as being and feeling the same towards all. For me that is not a desirable state for a human; at least I would not want to live my life like that.

I have never met anyone I found to be "free of ego", and I find it hard to believe the sages are not emotionally attached to their roles as gurus. Humans, all humans, are imperfect creatures in my view.

Well, that's a cynical attitude to take. I agree that humans are imperfect by default, but the paradigmatic sage is an exemplar for human possibility. That's their point and I don't believe that all of them fail at it.

The only true path in life is self-realisation (study of oneself). — BrianW

To study the Buddha Way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be actualized by myriad things. When actualized by myriad things, your body and mind as well as the bodies and minds of others drop away. No trace of enlightenment remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly.

~ Dogen, founder of Sōtō school of Zen.

"Finding refuge"; if you find refuge in something you rely on it and/or care about it, no? — Janus

I was asking for a source on where it was said that you should “find refuge” in the eight fold path. I’m interested in the exact wording. I thought I had read the exact opposite of that and wayfarer pointed it out:

Buddha says that Buddhism itself is like a raft, used for 'crossing over' the river of suffering, but to be let go of once it's served its purpose. 'Dhammas should be abandoned, to say nothing of adhammas'. That is specifically about not becoming attached to Buddhism. — Wayfarer

To rely on something or to care about it is to be attached as I see it. — Janus

I think it’s a bit more nuanced than that. I rely on my keyboard but I wouldn’t be distraught if I lost it. I care about my grades but doing badly on a test doesn’t affect me nearly as much as it used to.

Detachment is more about the abandonment of egotism than being callous or indifferent. — Wayfarer

There is a difference between being indifferent about something or someone, and not caring if you lose it or them. I don’t buy the idea that desire is a “two way street”, where if you want something then you’re necessarily distraught at not having it. I think it could be two separate streets. Sometimes you really want things but are not too distraught at not having them (certain Christmas presents), other times you are really distraught at not having something you don’t really want (smoking, addictions)

I think it’s a bit more nuanced than that. I rely on my keyboard — khaled

You don't rely on it for your emotional, indeed existential, well-being as someone who relies on their religious faith does.

Well, that's a cynical attitude to take. I agree that humans are imperfect by default, but the paradigmatic sage is an exemplar for human possibility. That's their point and I don't believe that all of them fail at it. — Wayfarer

It's not a cynical, but a skeptical, attitude. Despite what the scriptures, or anyone, might say I don't see any reason to believe that any human has every achieved perfection, whether moral or otherwise. You have a right to believe that some people have achieved perfection, of course, but I can't see any either empirical or purely rational warrant for such a belief. What remains to motivate belief in the perfection of some humans is desire to believe in that or groundless faith. If there is an alternative perhaps you'd be able to explain it?

The only true path in life is self-realisation (study of oneself). — BrianW


To study the Buddha Way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be actualized by myriad things. When actualized by myriad things, your body and mind as well as the bodies and minds of others drop away. No trace of enlightenment remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly.


~ Dogen, founder of Sōtō school of Zen. — Wayfarer

Of course those attitudes expressed by Brian W and Dogen are possible attitudes to hold. However even if you felt absolutely convinced that you knew such things, that would still not be any guarantee that you could not be mistaken. I acknowledge that if I felt such certainty, I may not be skeptical about it; indeed I could not hold such certainty unless I was not skeptical.

The point is that no matter how much I might feel that I could not be wrong; there could still never be any real guarantee that I was not mistaken; neither my own conviction nor any institutional judgement based on tradition could ever suffice to give rational grounds for absolute certainty about anything.

If only it was that simple. — Jack Cummins

Lol, yes. Good luck!

So, the question is how do we prioritise? — Jack Cummins

To me, this is the basic question of morality. My answer is that our priorities should reflect our needs. I don’t think everyone can be happy living an ascetic lifestyle, obviously some can. So not everyone should prioritize the renunciation of material possessions, but others should. Discovering which type of person you are requires some self-awareness and self-reflection, but I’d posit that one’s general emotional state is a good indicator as to whether or not a change needs to be made. Mental illness is an obvious exception to this, however. We can’t know for sure how things will go in the end, and suffering is inevitable, but if something/someone causes you more suffering than happiness it’s usually best to move on. And yes, there is often suffering involved in fighting addiction or ending a relationship, but (hopefully) it is relatively short-term.

someone who relies on their religious faith does. — Janus

Then they misunderstand.

Buddha says that Buddhism itself is like a raft, used for 'crossing over' the river of suffering, but to be let go of once it's served its purpose. 'Dhammas should be abandoned, to say nothing of adhammas'. That is specifically about not becoming attached to Buddhism. — Wayfarer

I acknowledge that if I felt such certainty, I may not be skeptical about it; indeed I could not hold such certainty unless I was not skeptical.

The point is that no matter how much I might feel that I could not be wrong; there could still never be any real guarantee that I was not mistaken; neither my own conviction nor any institutional judgement based on tradition could ever suffice to give rational grounds for absolute certainty about anything. — Janus

"In Zen you don't find answers, you lose questions" -Saying

Zen isn't about finding "The One Mindset/Worldview to Rule Them All" as much as it is advertised that way. It's about getting rid of the need for such a thing and being able to live with the uncertainty you outlined.