Concerning Attachments and Engaged Buddhism
Hiya guys.
This is the first on a series of "bloggy" things that I plan to do in this and the Philosophy part of the forums. Let me introduce myself, I'm probably one of the guys of usual age here in the forums, no older than sixteen years at the moment, although I will turn seventeen within two weeks.
In any case, let's get to the point. Generally, I follow the Vajrayana school of Buddhism.
As I guess is normal for people, unless your shacked up in some monastery in the middle of nowhere, I have friends. And to add to that, I know virtually no people of my age who are Buddhist, or have taken an interest in Buddhism. To add to that, most of my friends are either Christian or Atheist (we have one Satanist girl, but I won't go into that now, she's just crazy [/Walken accent]).
So anyway, one of the things that has come up many times in conversations concerning Buddhism (as I have explained my view on it, which might differ from other views) and the attachment to emotions and possessions. One of my best friend's boyfriend has committed suicide about a year ago, which was, of course, a major shock on her (even though they only knew eachother for about two months). So, of course, apart from being a girl (who always have their bloody monthly party) she has suffered from a great deal of stress, which I guess is normal after someone "close" to you has committed suicide.
Her father and brother are both atheists, and have also asked me several concerning the Buddhist ideas of detachment from earthly desires, which I sometimes, had a quite hard time explaining. So generally, I've been thinking about this subject for the last few weeks.
In Buddhism, it is generally believed that the way to Nirvana is by severing ourselves from earthly desires. But wait a moment, if it's the desire and not the possession itself that defines the problem, what would the problem be with feeling attachment to certain things.
Of course, attachment can be found in virtually anything. If my pc decides to shut down now, I'll probably get (mildly) annoyed and perhaps throw a few cursewords unto the thing. So you could state that I am, of the moment, attached to my computer.
If we follow this logic, we had better shut ourselves out from the world, because we will get attached and we will suffer once we lose it, we are actually losing what I see as one of the most valuable lessons the Buddha thought: "Do not take my words for granted; go out and experience the world, and accept or deny my words based on your experience of the world." (It's not literally that, but the essence of what he said).
So in any case, how can a Buddhist be a Buddhist and still help others, feeling emotional attachment to them. To be honest, I think the answer lies in your relationship with that person. Once you have accepted that your relationship with this person is not eternal and that someday, this relationship will no longer exist, you will have come a long way.
The essence of Buddhist teaching was traditionally, becoming a Buddha. In Mahayana Buddhism, that goal is actually put aside for the moment and the main objective is to become a Bodhisattva, a person bound to this world solely by his or her compassion for others. So shutting yourself out from the world and experiencing the feeling of compassion doesn't exactly go hand-in-hand, now does it?
So the ultimate Bodhisattva, in my opinion, would be bound to people, not by a selfish emotion of "to have", but by the altruistic thought of "to share". And this, in essence, is what altruism is all about. There are the rationalists who say that pure altruism is factually non-existent, and we only perform altruistic acts to satisfy moral or emotional needs, which is indeed, egocentrical.
But would it really matter? If a Christian helps a person in need with the underlying thought being "If I do this, I'll secure my spot in Heaven", does it matter to the person which is helped? I don't really think so. Even if he finds out, what's he gonna do? Make the man suffer who helped him? I don't think so.
But true altruism is an act performed without even having the notion that you are performing an altruistic act. And this act is an act performed by the Bodhisattva. The Bodhisattva doesn't need to perform this act for him/herself, as that person is already close to enlightenment. The only reason (if there's any reason involved) is the Bodhisattvas pure compassion for other people.
Even if we cannot do this, I think that Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike can try and achieve at least feeling the same form of compassion the Boddhisattva feels.
If we could try and do just this; not to reason for ourselves, but for others, then perhaps we can achieve something really good.
And this is where the notion of attachment comes back. Attachment itself isn't bad, it's the acceptance that this attachment is in fact useless and impermanent. Realization is the first step, acceptance the second. But y'know, as the Buddha said, don't take my words for granted. But do try and look at the world in another way. Don't stay stuck in your point of views, but rather, try and live every day as a new day.
- Elphir
For those people interested, the sect I follow is called Shingon and is a derivative of the Chinese Zhen Yan, which is extinct. The founder of Shingon was a man called Kukai, who was taught by a Gandharan.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by hellas1
