I went on a Buddhist retreat many years ago, and at one of the Q&A's I put my hand up, and asked a question, along the lines, 'modern life is very complex. You have relationships, financial and work obligations, bad habits develop.' And so on. The monk replied, with a broad grin, 'I know! Why do you think we're monks!'

I went on a Buddhist retreat many years ago, and at one of the Q&A's I put my hand up, and asked a question, along the lines, 'modern life is very complex. You have relationships, financial and work obligations, bad habits develop.' And so on. The monk replied, with a broad grin, 'I know! Why do you think we're monks!' — Wayfarer

But then you left!

I just don't see why I should do it if I don't think its going to benefit me at all.

I just don't aee why I should do it if I don't think its going to benefit me at all. — Apustimelogist

@Wayfarer, what if someone asked that to one of the monks?

The paths to heaven and the paths to hell all lead beyond both.

You don't think monks do what they do because they want to do it and think it is beneficial to them? Differences that most people don't need convincing about things they are already inclined to like doing or at least want to do. Its obviously very clear that you think withdrawal is the right thing to do. I don't see anything in your post that is convincing from my perspective. Sure, some people may want to do that or like doing that or find it benefits them and thats fair and fine but my issue is with the prescription here. I just don't see any fantastically backed up or convincing grounds for saying this is some general thing people ought to do.


Don't know what this means.

In Buddhist cultures, unlike Christian cultures, Buddhist don't feel generally obliged to impose their religion on others. So if someone said, 'I don't see any rationale for it', they would probably say 'suit yourself!' rather than try to evangalise you.

And, I wasn't going to stay on retreat forever. I'm not a monk and at this stage of life, it's not a feasible option, although I'm very aware of the need for a kind of 'lay monasticism' of practice, recitation and renunciation of the hindrances and obstacles to spiritual growth.

In Buddhist cultures, unlike Christian cultures, Buddhist don't feel generally obliged to impose their religion on others. So if someone said, 'I don't see any rationale for it', they would probably say 'suit yourself!' rather than try to evangalise you. — Wayfarer

My point in asking what the monk would say, wasn't that I thought he would evangelize the greatness of the monk lifestyle.

I think withdrawal being counterintuitive is similar to other counterintuitive things. You might not see on the surface that withdrawing leads to greater happiness.. You become content with yourself and you will see the tremendous amounts of strife in interactions. As with withdrawing from a drug, at first it seems to be quite the opposite, until one becomes simply content.

Humans are so addicted to human interactions we are debating stuff as:

A -> Not -A

We love the drama, the strife. We learn through dialectic, but we are also crushed by the "getting the last word", or "showing them what", or "getting my point across", or "making that clever turn of phrase". And on and on.. the interactions are just dross jabs.

We don't need much from others. You pick up groceries you get into a fender bender. You find love, but you get into a fight, etc. And all the human drama. How about just cut out the source of the drama? Can we bear it? We can, we just like the junk, like heroin. Drama.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/945186

I went on a Buddhist retreat many years ago, and at one of the Q&A's I put my hand up, and asked a question, along the lines, 'modern life is very complex. You have relationships, financial and work obligations, bad habits develop.' And so on. The monk replied, with a broad grin, 'I know! Why do you think we're monks!' — Wayfarer

Nice anecdote. I think a lot of folk are trying to scale back their involvement in the world. Not necessarily from a higher consciousness perspective. Minimalism can be one such path. It's like being a monk, without the ritual. I know a lot of folk who are not having kids, not pursuing careers, not buying consumer goods, not playing all the games of ambition and competition and staying out of the rat race as far as they can. It's not a solution but it's a beginning.

I've gotten a very profound Buddhist text book by a scholarly Bhikkhu, recommended by our friend @boundless. I am going to take refuge in this book, now that these dreadful events have happened in America, to take my mind off what is going on over there.

:up:

They say life is short, but it can actually be pretty long. We are all paying for it. Novelty and certainly more human entanglements seem to make it more than it is but rather, it creates more pain and strife. It’s because we can’t be quiet in a room, or something like that, as Pascal said.

You might not see on the surface that withdrawing leads to greater happiness.. You become content with yourself and you will see the tremendous amounts of strife in interactions — schopenhauer1

But why should I believe this dogmatism that withdrawal would be any better? What is this based on? Why should it be so general to every person on the planet. Just seems like your intuition that oversimplifies human experience. You don't think many people would absolutely struggle with this kind of existence? Who's to say that this struggle is any less than the alternative for those people? I don't tend to believe there is some natural idyllic state of human existence and I am hesitant to say people naturally can just block out the kind of desires people have and then withdraw anymore than you can pretend you don't feel pain. Sure, some people may naturally like that kind of existence. I am not convinced it is the same for everyone. Like in virtually every single dimensoon of human existence you can get a whole bunch of people to try something but probably a large amount will also be simply unable to do it or not like doing it. Are monks not a selected group of people? You seem to be railing against one kind of dogmatic, perhaps unsubstantiated prescription of how people shpuld live and simply offering another one.

Not a bad reply.

This isn’t about a rigid rule for how every single person should live; it’s about recognizing that most of our daily struggles come from entanglements with others- the stress, drama, and inevitable disappointments of dealing with people, along with all the attachment and validation-seeking that comes along with it.

I’m not saying everyone can just turn their backs on this and be perfectly content. But look at those who do- monks, ascetics, anyone who’s chosen to walk away from the usual cycle of social and material pursuits. They weren’t born immune to desire or perfectly serene; they actively choose to confront and deny those attachments, and in doing so, they find a quieter, more enduring form of satisfaction. Sure, it’s a path that involves struggle, but it’s a different kind of struggle- one that cuts through the noise instead of adding to it.

It’s understandable that, with longer lives, the idea of spending decades in isolated repose might seem daunting or even unbearable. But maybe that very dread hints at how conditioned we are to constant social stimulation, mistaking it for fulfillment. The silence and simplicity of withdrawal might seem intimidating in theory, but in practice, it could offer a kind of clarity and peace that our social habits continually obscure. This isn’t about forcing isolation on everyone; it’s about rethinking what kind of life actually brings us to a place of genuine peace.

Asceticism and isolation are tried and tested spiritual methods which we see all over the world and throughout the ages, so I think there is merit to them.

Most (all?) spiritual beliefs that prescribe these practices seem to agree that they are not ends in themselves, but serve to balance the mind against the whims of our passions and desires.

Once the ascetic believes they have attained a certain level of insight, they may feel they can return to normal (or perhaps monastic) life and be better able to act in accordance to just principles.

In some ways I view the problems you describe similarly as for example addictive substances. One can avoid them like the plague, in fear of the damage they might do. Or one may, treading cautiously, confront the danger and rise above it. The latter approach bears a certain risk - this is true.

In some ways I view the problems you describe similarly as for example addictive substances. One can avoid them like the plague, in fear of the damage they might do. Or one may, treading cautiously, confront the danger and rise above it. The latter approach bears a certain risk - this is true. — Tzeentch

:up:

Human social interaction, for all its surface appeal and fleeting “highs,” often pulls us into cycles of drama, pain, and struggle that leave lasting marks. Entangling ourselves in the lives and expectations of others can feel exhilarating initially, like a quick fix of validation or belonging, but it frequently devolves into complex webs of obligation, conflict, and disappointment. Much like a drug, social interaction can create a dependency- where we crave that next connection or approval, only to find it comes with an equal measure of stress, misunderstandings, and sometimes even betrayal. In the end, the temporary buzz fades, often leaving us more entangled and drained than before.

From Catch-22.

What a lousy earth! He wondered how many people were destitute that same night even in his own prosperous country, how many homes were shanties, how many husbands were drunk and wives socked, and how many children were bullied, abused, or abandoned. How many families hungered for food they could not afford to buy? How many hearts were broken? How many suicides would take place that same night, how many people would go insane? How many cockroaches and landlords would triumph? How many winners were losers, successes failures, and rich men poor men? How many wise guys were stupid? How many happy endings were unhappy endings? How many honest men were liars, brave men cowards, loyal men traitors, how many sainted men were corrupt, how many people in positions of trust had sold their souls to bodyguards, how many had never had souls? How many straight-and-narrow paths were crooked paths? How many best families were worst families and how many good people were bad people? When you added them all up and then subtracted, you might be left with only the children, and perhaps with Albert Einstein and an old violinist or sculptor somewhere.

Human social interaction, for all its surface appeal and fleeting “highs,” often pulls us into cycles of drama, pain, and struggle that leave lasting marks. Entangling ourselves in the lives and expectations of others can feel exhilarating initially, like a quick fix of validation or belonging, but it frequently devolves into complex webs of obligation, conflict, and disappointment. Much like a drug, social interaction can create a dependency- where we crave that next connection or approval, only to find it comes with an equal measure of stress, misunderstandings, and sometimes even betrayal. In the end, the temporary buzz fades, often leaving us more entangled and drained than before. — schopenhauer1

Genuinely, I think much of the negative influence we experience from social interactions are a product of the aforementioned whims of passion and desire.

Asceticism and isolation can be a way to regain control over these influences.

Fasting can be productive, but don't starve yourself. Even Buddha seemed to have felt this wasn't necessary. But what's stopping you from practicising asceticism?

Fun quote.

Genuinely, I think much of the negative influence we experience from social interactions are a product of the aforementioned whims of passion and desire.

Asceticism and isolation can be a way to regain control over these influences. — Tzeentch

:up:

Fasting can be productive, but don't starve yourself. Even Buddha seemed to have felt this wasn't necessary. But what's stopping you? — Tzeentch

What's stopping me, is me.

But as for the starvation, I wonder how far Schopenhauer intended the ascetic. Sometimes I think he thought the ascetic man needed to go beyond Buddhist monks. Starvation without really starving, because one is no longer attached. This happens not through striving though, because that itself would be "motivated" and this "will-driven". It's sort of a paradox.

The reason we avoid something is usually because we fear its influence. For example, one avoids doing drugs because drugs may ruin one's life.

In the case of life itself however it becomes a bit less clear what it is we're trying to avoid (or gain control over). Death perhaps?

Fun quote. — schopenhauer1

I thought you might like it.

In the case of life itself however it becomes a bit less clear what it is we're trying to avoid (or gain control over). Death perhaps? — Tzeentch

With other people, its more pain. With life, it's more pain. And thus, one gives up perhaps eros or philia for agape. Loneliness becomes aloneness becomes solitude becomes stillness becomes non-being. Or something like that.

Sure, it’s a path that involves struggle, but it’s a different kind of struggle- one that cuts through the noise instead of adding to it. — schopenhauer1

Why would that struggle be anymore preferable? If you are not an insular person and are also adept at social situations and dealing with stress then this may be the lesser option.

and in doing so, they find a quieter, more enduring form of satisfaction. — schopenhauer1

Yes, and its likely there is something in that life that attracted and continues to pull them in because they are compatible with it. I'm sure some people find it is not for them or change their minds.

At the same time, are all of these institutions really living up to the ideals they purport? Are they engaging in a different kind of withdrawal?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-63792923

The key is to ensure that any contact is purely transactional- just enough to meet the basic requirements of existence, without letting it spiral into further emotional entanglements. — schopenhauer1

So what do I owe you?

Withdrawal is preventative, but also a statement about not allowing oneself to inflict harms upon others — schopenhauer1

But if everyone withdrew from the world, then would they not be harming each other even more? All the jobs to be done for others wouldn't be done, and the world will degenerate into chaos e.g. rubbish bins won't be collected, no running water and no electricity due to everyone withdrew from the world and their duties in the works, and the shops, schools, and hospitals shut.

But if everyone withdrew from the world, then would they not be harming each other even more? All the jobs to be done for others wouldn't be done, and the world will degenerate into chaos e.g. rubbish bins won't be collected, no running water and no electricity due to everyone withdrew from the world and their duties in the works, and the shops, schools, and hospitals shut. — Corvus

Best preventative option is not producing more workers. For us laborers already here, I did say this:

The key is to ensure that any contact is purely transactional- just enough to meet the basic requirements of existence, without letting it spiral into further emotional entanglements. — schopenhauer1

You can withdraw from the world, but you cannot withdraw from yourself and your own existence.