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

I see attachment as something that lies underneath desire, that causes desire. Desire is more specific, or narrowly focused on specific things (money, sex, objects, etc.), whereas attachment is more abstract (life, pleasure, etc.). So we desire whatever it is we desire because it fulfills/sustains (temporarily, of course) an attachment. Starting with the most general, our attachment to life causes our attachment to pleasure, which causes our desire for things that give us pleasure. Pleasure acts as a sort of rule-of-thumb for whatever is beneficial for life, but due to the slow speed of evolution, it isn’t perfect. It operates under the premise that our ancestral environment hasn’t changed.

Regarding the second part of your quote, it could suggest many things; that the Buddha didn’t literally mean what he said, that he was imperfect, that he lied, etc.

Desire is more specific, or narrowly focused on specific things (money, sex, objects, etc.), whereas attachment is more abstract (life, pleasure, etc.). So we desire whatever it is we desire because it fulfills/sustains (temporarily, of course) an attachment. — Pinprick

I don't see it that way at all. The way you defined it I don't see a hard line between what counts as a "desire" and what counts as an "attachment", they both just seem to be talking abou the same thing to me. "Why are you participating in the tournament?" "Because I want to win" is that attachment or desire? How about "Because I want to be happy?" The way I use the term "attachment" is radically different from what you just outlined.

it could suggest many things; that the Buddha didn’t literally mean what he said, that he was imperfect, that he lied, etc. — Pinprick

Sure but we're gonna have to assume that the guy coining the term "Attachment" knew what he was talking about and was not a scam artist if we are going to discuss the term in any meaningful way. It is either that you or I don't understand what he meant by attachment OR we do understand what he meant by attachment, and the Buddha was lying. I find the first much more likely considering how many people seem to find sense in what he says.

What remains to motivate belief in the perfection of some humans is desire to believe in that or groundless faith. — Janus

I think the Buddhist answer is that it’s our faith in the security and permanency of our day to day lives which is groundless.

The way you defined it I don't see a hard line between what counts as a "desire" and what counts as an "attachment", they both just seem to be talking abou the same thing to me. — khaled

It’s as hard as the line between cause and effect. Attachment causes desires.

"Why are you participating in the tournament?" "Because I want to win" is that attachment or desire? — khaled

Well, it depends on two things; whether or not wanting to win caused you to participate in the tournament, and how general/specific an answer the questioner accepts. If the questioner is looking for a sort of “first cause” the questioning would continue with “why do you want to win?” But this issue arises when determining cause and effect as well. If someone shoots me, what is my cause of death? The bullet entering my brain? The person who pulled the trigger? Me for pissing off the person that pulled the trigger? It can go on and on, but an effect is always preceded by a cause.

The way I use the term "attachment" is radically different from what you just outlined. — khaled

So how do you define it?

I find the first much more likely considering how many people seem to find sense in what he says. — khaled

This is just an aside for me, but there are still plenty of other options. Translation issues, the meaning of the term could have changed in 2000 years, perhaps he didn’t fully understand what he meant. Perhaps people find sense in what he said because it is vague enough to allow people to project or insert their own concepts into it? I don’t know, and I don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other, but your conviction looks a bit more like faith than fact to me. Almost as if you consider ancient secondhand accounts of the Buddha’s teachings to be infallible or divinely inspired.

I think the Buddhist answer is that it’s our faith in the security and permanency of our day to day lives which is groundless. — Wayfarer

Wouldn’t permanency be a part of human perfection? If someone is only perfect for a moment, are they truly perfect?

Don’t understand the question.

However, I was going to say that I agree with this:

I see attachment as something that lies underneath desire, that causes desire. Desire is more specific, or narrowly focused on specific things (money, sex, objects, etc.), whereas attachment is more abstract (life, pleasure, etc.). So we desire whatever it is we desire because it fulfills/sustains (temporarily, of course) an attachment. — Pinprick

Don’t understand the question. — Wayfarer

If believing our day to day lives are permanent is a groundless belief, then how can a sage be said to be perfect unless he is able to continuously (permanently) demonstrate his perfection? IOW’s believing someone’s state of perfection is permanent would be just as groundless a belief as the previously mentioned one. And if you try claiming that their state of perfection isn’t permanent, then I would argue they aren’t actually perfect.

It’s as hard as the line between cause and effect. Attachment causes desires. — Pinprick

Then it's a very blurry line. When ball A hits ball B did ball A cause ball B to move or did ball B cause ball A to move? Which was the cause and which was the effect? My point is that you can keep asking someone "Why do you want X" and they can keep giving answers. Are you saying the last answer in that sequence is the "attachment" and the others are the "desire"? What happens when the sequence is circular? etc. I don't see the point in making such a vague distinction. Like how does this definition help me do anything?

Well, it depends on two things; whether or not wanting to win caused you to participate in the tournament, and how general/specific an answer the questioner accepts. If the questioner is looking for a sort of “first cause” the questioning would continue with “why do you want to win?” But this issue arises when determining cause and effect as well. If someone shoots me, what is my cause of death? The bullet entering my brain? The person who pulled the trigger? Me for pissing off the person that pulled the trigger? It can go on and on, but an effect is always preceded by a cause. — Pinprick

No disagreement there. Causes are iffy.

So how do you define it? — Pinprick

How big of a problem it is not to have the thing. Which I find to often be different from how much you want the thing. Sometimes you want things that you would not be distressed at not having, such as a new car or a particular christmas present (Desire without Attachment). Other times, it seems like a huge problem to not have something even though you don't really want that thing, like with smoking and gambling (Attachment without Desire).

This is just an aside for me, but there are still plenty of other options. Translation issues, the meaning of the term could have changed in 2000 years, perhaps he didn’t fully understand what he meant. Perhaps people find sense in what he said because it is vague enough to allow people to project or insert their own concepts into it? — Pinprick

Possible. But I'm not really concerned with what the Buddha said, I'm more concerned with interpreting it in a useful manner. I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater by declaring "Buddha was just a scam artist and all these people are dealing in mumbo jumbo". Though it is possible that that is the case, I find it unlikely.

I don’t know, and I don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other, but your conviction looks a bit more like faith than fact to me. — Pinprick

I think it's reasonable to assume that there is some genuine wisdom in a tradition as old as Buddhism. If you don't that's fine, but that seems highly unlikely to me. If you don't have a strong opinion either way that's fine, neither do I. I thought you were saying that the Buddha was a scam artist, as a matter of fact, and I was challenging that idea.

Almost as if you consider ancient secondhand accounts of the Buddha’s teachings to be infallible or divinely inspired. — Pinprick

I assure you I don't. Heck, most second hand accounts (that I read) stress NOT taking what the guy says too seriously and to instead try to figure things out yourself.

"If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him" -Famous saying

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. — BitconnectCarlos

From a Buddhist point of view my understanding of attachment is in the sense that “ in our everyday life our thinking is ninety-nine percent self-centred. ‘Why do I have suffering? Why do I have trouble?” Shunryu Suzuki

No matter what you believe in, if you become become attached to it, “your belief will be based more or less on a self-centred idea.”

So the attachment is to the egotistical idea of the self. You won’t lose anything by non-attachment, you won’t be unable to love, to have a family or friends. It’s more than likely you’ll have more because you are open to more.

Then they misunderstand. — khaled

Misunderstand what?

Who has faith "in the security and permanency of our day to day lives"? No one with half a brain I'll warrant!

Misunderstand what? — Janus

What the Buddha was saying. You're not supposed to become attached to the eight fold path, or the community.

You won’t lose anything by non-attachment, you won’t be unable to love, to have a family or friends. It’s more than likely you’ll have more because you are open to more. — Brett

:ok:

Not suffering when losing things doesn't mean you don't care about the things (or people).

I stand by what I said. I no longer believe as I did before that there are two parts to our personality viz. the emotional and the rational - this is quite an old idea, I suspect going back to ancient Greek philosophers - Plato's Chariot Allegory.

Emotions, ergo, suffering, has (a) reason(s) as I outlined in my previous post. This squares quite well, in my opinion, with the fact that emotions are essentialy reactions to what I'll term as stimuli (people/events/places/time even/etc.). However, between the stimuli and the reaction, there's some processing (of the stimulus) involved and this is nothing other than rational analysis of the stimuli.

Say, for example, that you call me a liar. The word "liar" is the stimulus. The next stage of what's going to be an unpleasant experience is me taking this as an insult - you're casting aspersions on my integrity - and only after this does the emotion of sadness well up inside me and I suffer. A similar story holds for all emotions. The form of the logical argument apt for the occasion is:

1. X thinks/says/acts in a certain way about/towards me
2. If X thinks/says/acts in a certain way about/towards me then I feel sad, I suffer
Ergo,
3. I feel sad, I suffer

It must be clear to you by now that rationality is the main protagonist in this tale of human suffering but as you'll find out below this particular brand of reasoning is imperfectly rational.

However, if we're to be perfectly rational i.e. go after truths, and having acquired them, live by them then, according to the Buddha, suffering is pointless because it (suffering) has as its foundation a pernicious lie - that change doesn't occur, that what we cherish the most is immune to damage, death and decay.

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. — deletedusercb

I am slowly catching up in this thread post-Christmas, but I wanted to quickly comment here...

I don’t think that Buddhism advocates dampening certain things inside of you - it’s more about recognising that, as much as a parent would want their kid to live, what they want isn’t a factor in how their kid responds to treatment for childhood leukaemia. We all want our child to live, but at some point that living stops, regardless of what we want. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t want, but that we shouldn’t have expectations about getting what we want, as if the world owes us something for existing. Life is a negotiated collaboration with the world, not a well-worn path through a shopping aisle. Loss, lack, pain and humility are all part of the process, and we have more capacity to adjust than we think.

Life is a negotiated collaboration with the world, not a well-worn path through a shopping aisle. Loss, lack, pain and humility are all part of the process, and we have more capacity to adjust than we think. — Possibility

:up:

I would add that in Buddhist doctrine, it's not so much that we "adjust" to suffering it's more like we get rid of maladjustments. Our expectations that the world will go as we predict are tools that allow us to act but that come with a risk. For example, I expect my interenet to work flawlessly at all times, this allows me to take it as a "given", which then removes any barriers to me say, streaming a movie or playing a videogame. If I thought there was a 50% chance my internet would disconnect randomly within the next hour I would not start either of those things.

This expectation allows me to do things I otherwise wouldn't, but it comes with the cost that I suffer when the reality doesn't match the prediction. Expectations simplify tasks to allow us to act more easily, most are a maladjustment to reality. How badly they are maladjustments depends on how accurate they are and how attached we are to them. Paranoia is attachment to predictions that are completely out of whack for example.

I would add that in Buddhist doctrine, it's not so much that we "adjust" to suffering it's more like we get rid of maladjustments. Our expectations that the world will go as we predict are tools that allow us to act but that come with a risk. For example, I expect my interenet to work flawlessly at all times, this allows me to take it as a "given", which then removes any barriers to me say, streaming a movie or playing a videogame. If I thought there was a 50% chance my internet would disconnect randomly within the next hour I would not start either of those things.

This expectation allows me to do things I otherwise wouldn't, but it comes with the cost that I suffer when the reality doesn't match the prediction. Expectations simplify tasks to allow us to act more easily, most are a maladjustment to reality. How badly they are maladjustments depends on how accurate they are and how attached we are to them. Paranoia is attachment to predictions that are completely out of whack for example. — khaled

Interesting. I can’t say that I expect my internet to work flawlessly at ALL times - I think the probability is sufficiently high, such that I would act as if I relied on it, but I’m also prepared for it to possibly NOT work on the rare occasion, for reasons beyond my understanding or capacity to prevent.

How you determine a ‘maladjustment’ is based on subjective/culturally influenced perception of value/potentiality. Complaining to the service provider when you live in a region where everyone suffers from patchy internet service could be considered a maladjustment.

but I’m also prepared for it to possibly NOT work — Possibility

Then you're not attached. That's the difference. For me I NEED it to work, it is a PROBLEM if it doesn't work. I act as if it is guaranteed to work despite rationally knowing that it is not. Ironically, I just threw a hissy fit because of internet lag right after writing that reply.

How you determine a ‘maladjustment’ is based on subjective/culturally influenced perception of value/potentiality. — Possibility

Well, technically ALL expectations are maladjustments. My expectation that the internet will always work is a maladjustment (because I know, rationally, that there is a chance it doesn't, yet I become emotionally attached to it always working), but not the worst one in the world because my internet usually works. If I had a prepetual expectation that I am going to win in the next blackjack table however, that's a much worse maladjustment.

From what I read, Buddhism doesn't instruct you to get rid of all maladjustments/expectations. I have the expectation that my family is not going to die tomorrow. If they were to, I would be devastated (to put it lightly). Furthermore, it is possible for me to get rid of this maladjustment while still caring for them (because the two are unrelated, supposedly, I'm not 100% convinced of that but I can't put my finger on why).

And that's all they wrote. There is suffering, it is caused by maladjustments/expectations, there is a way to get rid of the suffering, and it is to get rid of the maladjustments expectations (eight fold path, among many other ways). Interestingly, there is no actual instruction to go out and get rid of your maladjustments. Maybe that's not worth it for you. I don't think I need to get rid of my expectation that my family will be alive tomorrow, not worth it where I live. Had I been in a war torn country however, maybe I should consider it. It is difficult to get rid of attachments and (supposedly) there is no downside to doing so, but maybe the difficulty is not worth it, if the expectation isn't likely to be broken, or isn't very strong.

I should probably get rid of my maladjustment in expecting my internet to work all the time though :confused:

I'm more interested in whether or not getting rid of these expectations has a downside though. The Buddhist claim is that there isn't (from what I read) or that it is always worth it or heck, that it is better to get rid of them, I'm not so sure about that. What do you think? Can someone who is prepared at any moment to see their child die love them as much as someone who would be devastated by the loss? Can an athlete who wouldn't be affected by a loss compete with the same desire to win as one who would be completely devastated if he loses a game? Etc. I think so, but it's weird to me why we would ever form these attachments in the first place then. What's the point of them? They seem to be all negatives, so I'm not so sure, sounds too good to be true.

Even if we follow the path of self realisation and self-analysis, I think that attachments are still likely to play a large part. I do believe that we can work on particular areas which we can work on, but not all the areas at once. Meditation has an a central role but do not necessarily have to aim to become sages. Of course, if becoming one occurs in the process it may be the best possibility, but if we were to seek that goal it might become a hollow attachment ideal in itself.

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. — Jack Cummins

The Bible speaks of the beast and we can turn to Roman history and US history to understand that beast as reliance on military might to acquire essential economic resources and markets. The economy depends on the military and the military consumes more and more of the economy, forcing everyone to labor for the beast.

Rather than think in terms of this or that, we might want to think of terms of this and that. We are not logic and emotion but logic and emotion are two parts of the same thing. Life consumes and that is the reality of the beast. The beast is just much large when it is the size of Rome or the US or China. When we kill an animal it is natural to feel bad about killing, so primitive man gave thanks to the animal for giving its life so the hunter and the village may live. It is all yin and yang, a give and take, it is life.

Even if we follow the path of self realisation and self-analysis, I think that attachments are still likely to play a large part. I do believe that we can work on particular areas which we can work on, but not all the areas at once. Meditation has an a central role but do not necessarily have to aim to become sages. Of course, if becoming one occurs in the process it may be the best possibility, but if we were to seek that goal it might become a hollow attachment ideal in itself. — Jack Cummins

Suppose we lived in space capsule where all our needs to sustain our body were met. How long would a person want to live in that situation knowing it would never change? Do we really want life without attachments?

That is a good question, although it is as if we are living in space capsules during this year of social isolation, with need or unmet needs. My imagined fantasy of a space capsule with all my needs met would be the chance for freedom to pursue the writing and artistic life. But I would probably still want to meet others. Nevertheless, I would prefer the space bubble to a really stressful social situation.

That is a good question, although it is as if we are living in space capsules during this year of social isolation, with need or unmet needs. My imagined fantasy of a space capsule with all my needs met would be the chance for freedom to pursue the writing and artistic life. But I would probably still want to meet others. Nevertheless, I would prefer the space bubble to a really stressful social situation.
2 minutes ago
Reply
Options — Jack Cummins

I would have no desire to live with no chance of experiencing life on this planet and the humanity that goes with it and you are making me ponder this as I have not done before. As I think on it, I want to run without caution into life and experience life as it is as totally and completely as I can. But also before this moment and my contrary thinking, I would chose isolation to think and write. Relating the space capsule to how we are living now, makes me so aware of how much I desire to mingle with people. I love my isolation to think and write, but it has no meaning without other people and life itself. I just have no motivation without life and people stimulating me to think and do.

Even if we follow the path of self realisation and self-analysis, I think that attachments are still likely to play a large part. — Jack Cummins

Not attachments, just connections. Attachments are limitations while connections are channels for expression of our life-energies. We can connect without being attached.

The conflict between time spent alone and with others is as 'a paradox' as the Madfool would say.I grew up as an only child and often spent a lot of time by myself and was often longing to meet others. But, I have never lived alone and often crave just a bit of private space and time and have even struggled to find this even in this time of social distancing.

Probably our experiences affect our cravings. I am fed up that I cannot meet with friends or go to social events, but at the same time, as I live in overcrowded, shared accommodation I am constantly negotiating private space, even just to read and write on this site, free from intrusions from others. But, of course communication on this site is connection anyway.

The difference between attachments and connections is that in attachments, the objects and subjects we are attached to are given greater priority than (or as much as) our selves. However, in connections, we are the priority, followed by the expression we are communicating. The objects and subjects involved in the expression are just tools to facilitate the process.

*Thought I should explain myself a little.

I would say that we have to connect with others before the attachments occur. Attachments don't arise out of nowhere. They have to have some basis from which to form in the first place. It is not possible to be attached to someone without a meaningful connection.

Why go from meaningful connection to attachment? Why not maintain at meaningful connection?

Meaningful connections are fine, but sometimes they become more than this, or we would probably not have friendships or relationships at all, including sexual ones. Also, sometimes we want connections with others and this is not reciprocated and this leads to the negative side of attachments.

What can be particularly painful is rejection, but I am not saying that we cannot rise above the surface of the suffering However, in doing so, we might form attachments which are built on the original source of pain, making the glue of these new attachments more fixed, and less flexible. Of course, in some cases the rejection may make some fearful of connections and even solitude is a form of attachment, as well as a detachment, in a strange way.

Meaningful connections are fine, but sometimes they become more than this, or we would probably not have friendships or relationships at all, including sexual ones. Also, sometimes we want connections with others and this is not reciprocated and this leads to the negative side of attachments. — Jack Cummins

What I get from that is a failure in communication. When the appropriate meaning is not expressed then we cannot receive the proper response. This is usually the cause of the imbalance/confusion in our connections (communications/relations). Friendships, romances, family ties, etc, etc, are not more or less meaningful than other connections - they just have different meanings. There is no need for a hierarchy of meaning. Can you imagine words in the dictionary having a hierarchy of meaning? Ridiculous, right?
Each connection has its own value/significance. There is no need for comparisons and competitions.
A friendship allows us certain expressions, a romance - other expressions, family - other kinds of expressions, even acquaintances allow their respective modes and degrees of expressions. None of which need to infringe on others even when there are similarities.

The amount of time and energy we apply to any connection is dependent upon our choices and predispositions. And, instead of instigating conflicts they should reveal to us our situations (which can be altered if need be).

At the same time, I also understand that this is a complicated discussion because we've already developed systems that are biased/polarised in one way or another and galvanised them with values and significance which we are compelled to uphold (fight for). It's why we must consider the positives of attachments even when, in essence, by definition, it is the antithesis to the meaning of freedom.