However, thinking about attachment and life, including essentials like having a place to live, good health, sight and hearing, food, need for others and private space, I am left wondering how much can be seen as basic need and how much is about our attachment? — Jack Cummins

There's a sense in which modern Western culture sets out to make the world 'a safe space for ignorance'. It's a harsh saying, but I suspect it's true. We're an individualist culture - liberalism is based on the atomic individual who is the ultimate arbiter of what is 'right for me'. There are good things about that - I mean, I think I'm far better off living in Australia, than in a theocratic autocracy like Tehran. But modern culture tends to loose sight of anything beyond material goods, political freedom, and ever-increasing rates of consumption. 'What's right for me' is no longer moored to any larger purpose or cosmic sense, it's anchored mainly by screen-time.

There's actually a strong politico-economic rationale for advocating a less consumer-oriented way of life. Planet Earth is living well beyond its means. Every year, the date on which we have consumed 'one earth-year's' worth of resources moves forward (see Earth Overshoot Day). Plus all the developed economies are building up massive amounts of debt. We're facing huge environmental problems, and borrowing from future generations. But meanwhile the emerging middle-classes of India, China, and Africa are all demanding entrance into Western consumer culture.

The upshot is, the Earth simply cannot afford to maintain consumer-based liberal individualism. There's far too many people and not enough resources. I think the realisation of the meaning of that is going to forced upon us real soon now. (I recall John Michael Greer published a book on this topic called Collapse Now and Avoid the Rush.)

So - if renunciation is learning to let go of attachments, I think we're all going to be obliged to do a lot of it in the very near future. Meaning that understanding a philosophy or way of life within which this a virtue, and not mere privation, may become very important.

I think that we have a lot of work to do. The whole social questions, including problems like homelessness should not be about trying to enable the homeless person to think about being attached to basic needs. Ultimately, we are interconnected and the needs of everyone need to be addressed collectively. Perhaps it will need a shift in consciousness, and the underlying wisdom of impermanence could be a basis for this in order to address the problem of consumer based materialism.

'What's right for me' is no longer moored to any larger purpose or cosmic sense, it's anchored mainly by screen-time. — Wayfarer

The problem with this is that there is no "larger purpose or cosmic sense". Even if there were, it would not be obvious to everyone, and hence could not be something everyone would ever agree on.

As to people cooperating in the face of climate change and diminishing resources and social problems like poverty and homelessness etc., etc., people first would need to understand the issues, and then be prepared to cooperate with others and make the necessary sacrifices for the pragmatic purpose (nothing to do with "higher cosmic purposes) of bettering the general human condition.

Even this more modest pragmatic goal is not easy to achieve given the general skepticism of science and the spinelessness of authorities when it comes to making the hard truths known to the populace.

Edit: I didn't mean that science is skeptical, I meant that many people are skeptical of science.

The problem with this is that there is no "larger purpose or cosmic sense". — Janus

Says the Secular Thought Police. :razz:

Even this more modest pragmatic goal is not easy to achieve given the general skepticism of science and the spinelessness of authorities when it comes to making the hard truths known to the populace. — Janus

‘Beasts are driven to the pasture by blows’ ~ Heraclitus. Harsh, but true.

I think that we have a lot of work to do. — Jack Cummins

The problem is developing a coherent alternative to capitalism, which is not communism. I’ve been fleetingly involved in green left politics in the past but I thought it was entirely hopeless; went to a Greens Party branch meeting once, the kinds of things there were arguing about were completely unreal in my view. Nevertheless I think we’re going to be obliged to adopt a kind of ‘small is beautiful’ approach to the economy, where we all consume a lot less power and meat, and we learn cultural forms that are sustaining and sustainable. Yes, a lot of work, none of which I myself am doing at this time. :sad:

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

I think attachments are simply a part of life. We're attached to our families and loved ones, we're attached to our jobs (somewhat), we're attached to the things which give us comfort etc etc...Even ascetic monks are attached to their beliefs.

I don't think attachment itself is "bad," it's when the attachment turns into disruptive obsession that it negatively affects our health and well-being as well as the well-being of those around us.

I actually don't consider even Siddhartha Gautama to be 100% perfect. I mean, he did become obsessed enough in his belief that he completely abandoned his family and responsibilities. And in his journey, he tried to be nearly 100% ascetic, having just a grain of rice per day or some other ridiculous thing and he ultimately ended up with the "middle way" which allowed him to have at least some comforts.

Says the Secular Thought Police. :razz: — Wayfarer

That's a silly comment. As I said even if there were a "cosmic purpose' it could never be demonstrable. People cannot universally agree even on what is demonstrable, so a "cosmic purpose" is effectively irrelevant to the problem.

‘Beasts are driven to the pasture by blows’ ~ Heraclitus. Harsh, but true. — Wayfarer

If you are advocating any kind of authoritarian or theocratic regime, then you've lost my support.

Or do you think I could desire to drink, even if I’m not attached to being hydrated, etc.? — Pinprick

Exactly. I think the two are unrelated. How much you want something and how big of a problem it is not to have are different things.

The point is that Buddhism is as much a form of attachment as any other pursuit. — Janus

No. It becomes so for most people. That is not to say it is inherently supposed to be so or that you cannot do it properly.

I don't see any reason to think that caring about anything would not involve some degree of attachment. — Janus

Have you never wanted something yet at the same time had it not be an issue not to have that thing? I have.

it does not follow that Buddhism advocates violence. — Janus

I didn’t say it did.

From the fact that some people, who lived in a country where Buddhism (along with Shinto) was a predominant religion, practiced violence — Janus

It was a bit more than that. Some of the most famous samurai were buddhists and Taoists. And what about the whole “warrior monk” thing?

In Buddhist and Hindu religious texts the opposite concept is expressed as upādāna, translated as "attachment". — Janus

Note how it’s not translated as “desire”. Again, assuming the Buddha wasn’t failing to do the thing he was asking everyone else to do, how come he got out of bed to eat without any desire? Makes me think that maybe desire and attachment aren’t the same thing. Moreover that they’re qualitatively, not quantitatively different.

Nowhere in your quote or in the Wikipedia article is attachment and desire used interchangeably. And for good reason.

If you desire something it must matter to you to some degree. Some people are better at letting things go than others, if they don't get what they want, or if they lose something or someone they are attached to. The point is that I don't believe there is a person on the planet who is totally free of desire or attachment; and I don't think that to be totally free of desire and attachment is even a desirable ideal. You can think what you like; it doesn't matter to me. No point to further discussion it seems to me.

Judaka
All it takes to become attached to something is to care,
and caring is worth more than the pitfalls of attachment by itself.
— Judaka

Is it not possible to care about something without being attached to it (without it being a problem to lose it)? — khaled

Brett
The word “care” is a bit of a problem for me. I’m not sure what exactly it means.
— Brett

Does "Want" work better? I'm basically asking: "Is it not possible to want something without it being a problem not to have it?" — khaled

I wanted to revisit the word “care”. To “want” something is different than to “care” about something. So I’m going back to the idea of “caring” for something.

We seem to form attachments without much thought. We all do it in different ways, we find different things to be important or valuable. So attachments seem to be part of human nature, even though different cultures might have different attachments, though there are consistent attachments across all cultures, like the care for children or family.

Attachments are behind our caring, as in concerns. We develop an attachment to someone and find their care to be important to us. We buy a house for our family and care about its condition, we have children and then care about their well-being in education or developmental interests. So these attachments contribute towards a healthy strong community. Without these attachments why would we care? We might care about a famine in Africa but it’s at a very abstract level. Our level of caring seems to get weaker as it spreads out from us, because the further the subject is from us the less attachment we feel. That also seems perfectly natural. One can cope with only so much attachment otherwise each attachment would get watered down in an effort to manage all you take on.

It's not crazy, it's just a way (an attempt) to preserve certain kinds of value. If we had perfect recall (memory of thoughts, emotions, things, situations, everything about any moment) we may not feel compelled to hold on to 'things' as much as we often do. That would be because we could recreate the life-energies we value and re-experience them whenever we choose to. We would have special moments with our loved ones that never fade and always inspire. We would relive experiences, reread books, revisit places, etc, etc. However, how much forward progress would we make?

Just a thought:

If someone only read books their whole life, what have they made of that life? If they only travelled, conducted business, interacted with people, everywhere on earth, how much of life would they have made? How much value would they be to themselves? And how much value would they be to others if they have not realised the value of their selves?

There's an analogy which can be used to show the difference between real value and illusory value. Ever thought of those guys who work at financial institutions, at which, one of their job descriptions entails counting loads of money? Perhaps this was so mostly in the past, I'm not sure now with electronic banking and such. Anyway the premise still holds. So, think of someone (long retired now) who must have handled millions maybe billions of money in such kinds of employments. In the end, that money does not appreciate his/her value financially. In that same period, it is possible for millionaires and billionaires using the services of such enterprises to never have had such money in their literal grasp. They own the money but don't need to see it to use. Others see it and handle it, but can never use it.
So, that's the fundamental difference between the ideal of a monk/yogi and that of a normal guy. One interacts with people in their everyday occupations - they think/are thought about, follow/are followed, develop feelings and opinions, etc, etc, and at the end of all that, they have done nothing to raise the value of a human (even themselves) beyond its mediocrity. Then comes a yogi who teaches that the power of the self is such that we can achieve self-control over our thoughts, emotions, bodies, actions, interactions, perceptions, imaginations, etc, etc. They teach that we can refuse to do bad to others even if they do bad to us. They teach about how materiality is not a dimension that we ought to exemplify. And so many other teachings which, if we were to learn only by experience, then a new generation of apes and monkeys would evolve to humans before we achieve anything significant.
It's like the average guy is dealing with so much thoughts, emotions, things, etc, while the monk/yogi is dealing solely with the value. And not just casually or carelessly, but as their value. Value they understand, develop, put to action.


My point is, we can philosophically delineate how attachments are important or necessary to our values but, bottom line is, we have no such values. They are values we think about, have developed emotions/feelings for, talk about, etc, etc, but we don't have them. We are the guys counting money while they're the millionaires and billionaires who own them.
If they who know the true value of a life, TEACH (not just say) that it's not worth the attachments, why argue with that?

The point is that I don't believe there is a person on the planet who is totally free of desire or attachment; and I don't think that to be totally free of desire and attachment is even a desirable ideal. — Janus

Sure. But the question isn’t whether or not it’s possible or whether or not it’s desirable (at least that’s not what I’m interested in). The question is: does it have downsides? Is it theoretically possible to want things just as much without being affected at losing them. Buddhists would say yes, I’m not so sure.

I wanted to revisit the word “care”. To “want” something is different than to “care” about something. So I’m going back to the idea of “caring” for something. — Brett

Yea I think it's a source of a lot of confusion. People are using words that I define sharply differently interchangeably so I keep getting confused.

"Caring" seems to encompass both attachment and wanting. If I want something I "care about it" and if I see it as a problem that I don't have the thing that's also "caring about it". For example, we sometimes think of people who don't mourn the death of someone close to them as "not caring" but I don't think that's fair.

We seem to form attachments without much thought. We all do it in different ways, we find different things to be important or valuable. So attachments seem to be part of human nature, even though different cultures might have different attachments, though there are consistent attachments across all cultures, — Brett

Agreed.

like the care for children or family. — Brett

Until here. Sure we often form attachments to our children and family but I don't think those are necessary for us to love them. If someone's dad passes away at 80 years old peacefully in his bed and the person in question is at peace with the fact (doesn't mourn or cry) does that mean he didn't care about his dad? I don't think that's fair.

So these attachments contribute towards a healthy strong community. — Brett

Yes, and also towards all our suffeirng. The question that I'm interested in that I keep asking everyone: Can you still keep the advantages (strong healthy community, interpersonal relationships, etc) without attachments?

Some Buddhists would say yes. Some would say no, but it's always worth it to sever the attachment anyway. I'm not so sure. I think I agree most with "yes".

Can you still keep the advantages (strong healthy community, interpersonal relationships, etc) without attachments? — khaled

Well from my point of view the attachments are behind the caring, i.e. the concern for others or community.

When Notre-Dame in Paris caught fire there was an outpouring of grief from Christians. Their attachment was probably more than just the material structure of the cathedral. But those sort of attachments to community structures or institutions are what hold a community together. In the past they took responsibility for them and maintained them. As opposed to contemporary communities that have less attachment to their community institutions and in which we see an atomising of communities.

So I don’t think we can expect healthy communities and interpersonal relationships without attachments.

Sure we often form attachments to our children and family but I don't think those are necessary for us to love them. If someone's dad passes away at 80 years old peacefully in his bed and the person in question is at peace with the fact (doesn't mourn or cry) does that mean he didn't care about his dad? I don't think that's fair. — khaled

From my understanding when a child is born that connection between the mother and newborn, the meeting of the eyes, is the beginning of bonding. Those woman who can’t bond for some reason find it difficult to experience the attachment that leads to care under all conditions. So, to me, attachment is the beginning of caring and one cannot happen without the other.

I’m not sure what your point is about the dying man. But attachments will probably end in some grief. Some attachments are superficial and in terms of this OP largely irrelevant. The loss of something can go from irritation to inconsolable grief.

The whole Buddhist thing, and my interest is in Zen more than anything, makes sense theoretically. One can be philosophical about losing someone, if you chose. Otherwise it’s heartbreaking. Remember the message of the Queen of England about the deaths on 9/11: “Grief is the price we pay for love.” I may be paraphrasing there.

So I don’t think we can expect healthy communities and interpersonal relationships without attachments. — Brett

I think you can.

I’m not sure what your point is about the dying man. — Brett

“Grief is the price we pay for love.” — Brett

So therefore if someone doesn't grieve does that mean they didn't love the person who just died? I don't think so. That's why I don't think attachments are necessary. Same with the Notre-Dame. If you are not devastated by the news of it burning down are you "less of a christian" than someone who is?

I have just read what you have written about grief, and that is a very interesting about what grief says about the attachments one has? Is it the case that those who grieve, or appear to grieve for someone who has died means that they loved them more than someone who does not?

One interesting exploration of this is the protagonist in Albert Camus in The Outsider, who goes out and has sex following the death of his mother.

I think that grief is an extremely complex subject, as it is experienced differently and expressed differently from one person to person, and in various cultures. Some people have complicated grief reactions. Grief is a big topic, but it does offer an interesting view for thinking about attachments to other human beings.

if someone doesn't grieve does that mean they didn't love the person who just died? I don't think so. — khaled

I would agree with you there. But I don’t think that means there was no attachment.

A person who has lost something may think about what they had, or what they were given, and know that nothing’s forever. They could have had an intense attachment to a person on a day to day basis and understood that what you’re given can be taken away. In that sense I go along with the idea that you should “be here now”. From my singular experience which I mentioned in a post I can see that one might be accepting of, let’s say, the grace of reality. Depending on what you think you might feel that person has gone to a better place, or is out of pain, or even that they may be standing behind you.

And no, if you are not devastated by the burning of Notre-Dame then you are not a lesser Christian, because, of course, it’s God’s work.

Edit: I don’t think attachments are necessary, I think they come with being human.

I have read 'Small is Beautiful' by Schumacher and was very impressed by it. I would love to see it put into practice but it is hard to know how this would be done in practice, but consumer materialist society is crumbling. This was happening prior to the pandemic and it is escalating and it is hard to know what will happen next, because a year ago we would have never expected the situation we are in now.

The possible harsh lessons which many of us will face is painful to think about, but let us just hope that it will bring some positive balance as well as the more grim ones. It just seems hard to predict at the moment.

I do not think attachments are the source of the problem, I think instead it's interpretation. You can be attached to something worth your emotional investment and that may or may not cause you suffering based on how you react to, essentially, change or things not going your way. If we think of a professional athlete who is accustomed to giving a good performance, gets frustrated after poor play, it's more about how to handle that frustration. If being frustrated means throwing a tempter tantrum, behaving disgracefully and lashing out at people then that's clearly going to be damaging for that person. If instead that frustration is converted into motivation and determination to give a better performance next time, then I'd say that might be even better than having an attitude of acceptance. We need to evaluate the intricacies of the emotions being evoked.

As for "what makes us human", we could change that to "what makes you, you" if it's easier. I just mean that we're not in total control of what kind of person we are and we're forced to live with what we have no ability to change. Just like it'd be easy to get over PTSD if a person could just decide to forget about that trauma but the whole issue is that they can't. Our ability to manipulate our psychology is limited and sometimes it can be exhausting to even try. That's why I believe in only trying to fix problems rather than trying to practice total non-attachment.

It is interesting that you raise the question whether the Buddha was perfect, and this raises the inevitable underlying one which is what would be the perfect human being? Would it be the ascetic way, or would it be more about caring for others? Would it involve attachments, or be free of them?

I am inclined to think that there is no perfect human being. The teachers like the Buddha and Christ are the closest possible examples. There is so much mystery around the life of Christ, including the question of whether Mary Magdalene was his partner. When you speak of the Buddha leaving his family you are suggesting that this could be seen as a fault and I am not certain of this, because I am not sure that we are obliged morally to remain with the family into which we are born.

I realise that you come from a different background from me, and the society you come from is very family orientated. I come from one in which it is common to leave the family home in early adulthood. Also, I come from a very small family. Of course, I do see it as problematic if people are abandoned in old age, but some do not have any family, especially if they had no children.

On the subject of perfection, I would point to the way in which Jung suggested that Christianity emphasised the idea of perfection and he thought that the principle of wholeness was a better ideal. He was indicating that the ascetic life could give rise to lack of balance. An integrated personality was the goal.

Sure. But the question isn’t whether or not it’s possible or whether or not it’s desirable (at least that’s not what I’m interested in). The question is: does it have downsides? Is it theoretically possible to want things just as much without being affected at losing them. Buddhists would say yes, I’m not so sure. — khaled

If it isn't possible then it wouldn't seem to matter whether it has "downsides". If it isn't desirable that would be because it has downsides. Of course it's theoretically (as in logically) possible to want things without being affected by losing, or not getting them. But I, for one, don't believe it is a real possibility. If Buddhists say yes, that is because it is an article of their faith.

It's quite common to leave your primary family (parents and siblings) here too.

What's less common is when a husband/father leaves his wife and child. I'm sure this happens as well but it isn't normal and usually we don't consider this a good thing.

what would be the perfect human being? Would it be the ascetic way, or would it be more about caring for others? Would it involve attachments, or be free of them? — Jack Cummins

I don't think it's possible to attain a perfect state since nothing is static. The environment changes and we must constantly adapt to those changes.

Kind of like how bears gorge themselves, get fat, then hibernate over the winter and emerge at an emaciated state.

Because the environment changes, being attached to any single state of being might not be a good thing.

Asceticism though might be more practical since you're getting yourself used to the bare minimum but again, if you've locked yourself into this state, you would inevitably forgo all the things that life has to offer - including relationships which are vital to us humans. You could do it of course, stay in some far off cabin/cave/street corner and watch life pass by as you stay still - like a cactus, I guess.

So, there must be a balance between our real needs (biological, social, intellectual, creative etc...), our capabilities as well as what the environment can sustain.

We must be adaptable in the face of the ever changing environment. We can't do this if we were attached to static/unsustainable states and ideals.

If Buddhists say yes, that is because it is an article of their faith. — Janus

But on the other hand you have evidence to show it isn’t possible? Even though we know it can be approached. What is that evidence?

If it isn't desirable that would be because it has downsides. — Janus

And you say it isn’t desirable. So what are the downsides?

But on the other hand you have evidence to show it isn’t possible? Even though we know it can be approached. What is that evidence? — khaled

The evidence for me is that I have never met anyone I could say was free of attachment. The accounts of the lives of so-called gurus I have read attest to the same conclusion. So, I think freedom from all attachment is more likely a fantasized ideal; particularly when you consider how psychology is underpinned bu neurological processes which no one can be aware of as they happen. Sure we can learn to, within limits, let things go, become less attached to things which obviously don't matter anyway, and so on.

And you say it isn’t desirable. So what are the downsides? — khaled

The downside is that nothing would be more important to a person without any attachment than anything else. She would not care more about her own children than she would about any stranger, or even serial killer or pedophile. For me that would not be a desirable state; would not be something worth aspiring to.

The downside is that nothing would be more important to a person without any attachment than anything else. — Janus

I though we were past the point of using desire and attachment interchangeably. The way you use “care” makes it sound like if you are not saddened by the loss of the thing you don’t care about it. I don’t think that’s fair. Things are made important by how much we want them AND how much we see it as a problem not to have them or to lose them. Either works for making one thing more important than another.

The evidence for me is that I have never met anyone I could say was free of attachment. The accounts of the lives of so-called gurus I have read attest to the same conclusion. So, I think freedom from all attachment is more likely a fantasized ideal; — Janus

Reasonable.

I though we were past the point of using desire and attachment interchangeably. — khaled

I don't say they are interchangeable, just that they are interdependent; you can't have one without the other.

you can't have one without the other. — Janus

Of course it's theoretically (as in logically) possible to want things without being affected by losing, or not getting them — Janus

Which is it? And I’m sure you can think of examples where you wanted things without not having them being a problem and vice versa.

you can't have one without the other. — Janus


Of course it's theoretically (as in logically) possible to want things without being affected by losing, or not getting them — Janus


Which is it? And I’m sure you can think of examples where you wanted things without not having them being a proven and vice versa. — khaled

It's not a matter of "which is it". Logically they could be independent, but I believe that psychologically they are interdependent. I can't prove that obviously just as no empirical theory can be proved; but that is what seems to be the case to me based on my experience.