Paradox?

[Daldianus]

Buddhists desire to be detached from desire, right?

Isn't that a paradox?

[Atropos]

No, because "desire" can have multiple meanings.

"Desire" can mean "want," "wish", "will," "intend" or it can mean "craving for/attachment to" a given thing.

Desire leads to suffering because we can never have all our desires satisfied and eventually everything will be taken away from us, anyway.

So, Buddhists "seek" or "try" or "intend to" or "will to" free themselves from desire.

[jacknky]

It might be more of a rhetorical or intellectual paradox but I find the more I meditate the less this question seems to be a paradox.

[jacknky]

And thanks for posting here. The Buddhist board seems to be neglected lately.

[Daldianus]

And thanks for posting here. The Buddhist board seems to be neglected lately.

Christian boards are more controversial hence more fun

[metis]

Buddhists desire to be detached from desire, right?

Isn't that a paradox?

Maybe a paraducks can be a new koan. 

Anyhow, there are teachings whereas one is warned not to get too attached to outcomes.  BTW, some Buddhists also refuse to call themselves "Buddhists" because what's in a label anyways?  Not all what might appear to be "attachments" necessarily are viewed as such.  For example, if I love my wife, is that an attachment that's negative?  No-- not intrinsically.  On the other hand if I get divorce papers and fly off the handle, then it may be viewed as a negative attachment.

The main issue here can be summed up in one word: "suffering".  That which causes us or others to suffer tend to be viewed as the attachments Old Sid was referring to that we need to eliminate. 

Gotta go for now.     

[bunsinspace]

BS"D

OK, I'd like to liven it up a bit here.  I am beginning to see a pattern of fundamentalism that seems to be infecting many slef-proclaimed Buddhists and I'd like to discuss this as the ultimate paradox regarding "detachment."  The fundamentalist lives "detachment" as if it were a religious discipline and all of the energy of the individual appears to be focussed on avoiding detachment.

To me as an outsider, that appears 100% contrary to the teachings of the Buddha which instructs that detachment is a path to extricating one from the wheel of Dharma, NOT to result in another sad religious ritual.  I am using the Dalai Lama as an example of the correct way of applying the teaching of detachment.  The Dalia lama cannot be said not to be "detached" as per the teachings of the Buddha IMHO, but he is VERY involved in DOING things in this world.  So it would appear that this "religious" detachment that I am observing is somehow a corruption of the Buddhas actual teaching.  The detachment of one of the current paragons of Buddhism appears to be properly directed towards doing good works and alleviating the tension in this world as opposed to the abstract idealism of the fundamentalist Buddhist who seeks detachment as if it were a ritual or a drug to numb the senses while somehow heightening awareness IMHO.

So I am eliciting opinions on precisely what this "detachment" teaching means to Buddhists who participate on this forum.  What is the proper practice of detachment and what dangers are there, if any, in practicing it incorrectly?  Is the Caste system a proper or an improper implementation of detachment?  Is religious devotion a proper or an improper implementation of this detachment?  And finally, what is the difference between a hypothetical tyrant who practices detachment and a hypothetical Buddha who practices detachment?

Inquiring minds might or might not want to know.   

[metis]

I am beginning to see a pattern of fundamentalism that seems to be infecting many slef-proclaimed Buddhists and I'd like to discuss this as the ultimate paradox regarding "detachment."  The fundamentalist lives "detachment" as if it were a religious discipline and all of the energy of the individual appears to be focussed on avoiding detachment.  To me as an outsider, that appears 100% contrary to the teachings of the Buddha which instructs that detachment is a path to extricating one from the wheel of Dharma, NOT to result in another sad religious ritual.  I am using the Dalai Lama as an example of the correct way of applying the teaching of detachment.  The Dalia lama cannot be said not to be "detached" as per the teachings of the Buddha IMHO, but he is VERY involved in DOING things in this world.  So it would appear that this "religious" detachment that I am observing is somehow a corruption of the Buddhas actual teaching.  The detachment of one of the current paragons of Buddhism appears to be properly directed towards doing good works and alleviating the tension in this world as opposed to the abstract idealism of the fundamentalist Buddhist who seeks detachment as if it were a ritual or a drug to numb the senses while somehow heightening awareness IMHO.

I'm not certain which "fundamentalists" you may be referring to, but let me just mention that in all religions and philosophies there are those that can be very narrow-minded and caustic.  Over on the BNet Buddhism Debate boards, I especially ran across a couple of them. 

We have to carefully deal with what "attachments" are and what's actually involved with what dharma says about "detachment".  Because of a time limitation I have, I'm going to have to be very brief. 

Dharma does not teach that all that we are concerned with is an attachment that must be avoided.  Quite the contrary.  Instead, as you correctly mentioned about what HHDL teaches, we are to engage in compassion towards all sentient beings and attempt to help them ameliorate their suffering.  IOW, the love of our fellow humans is not considered to be any kind of attachment that somehow needs to be avoided.  Nor is the love of honesty or fairness negative in and of itself.  Now what we do with these positive attachments does have the potential of becoming negative and, thus, this could cause suffering in ourselves and/or others.

Complete "detachment" is not Buddhist but actually was taught in some Hindu schools, and it is written that the Buddha realized that and taught against it.
 

What is the proper practice of detachment and what dangers are there, if any, in practicing it incorrectly? 

That's very difficult to answer without some specifics being cited.  As mentioned above, "detachment" has to be viewed in at least somewhat relative terms.

Is the Caste system a proper or an improper implementation of detachment? 

Buddhism has always been anti-caste because it tends to create suffering in the lower castes and the Untouchables.  Since, as HHDL has stated many times, the primary purpose of dharma is to help create compassion and understanding with all sentient beings, the caste system very much tends to do the opposite.

Is religious devotion a proper or an improper implementation of this detachment? 

There are many "Buddhists" who will not call themselves as such because they believe one could use it as a label to bolster their ego and image.  "Religious devotion", even though it could be harmless and even desireable at times, could also create problems.  There's a Buddhist expression that goes when you point your finger at the moon, remember that the end of your finger is not the moon.  IOW, it's important that we don't place the process ahead of the desired effect.  Or, another expression is the the raft is not the shore.  IOW, Buddhism is really much more of a process than a standardized religion.

 

And finally, what is the difference between a hypothetical tyrant who practices detachment and a hypothetical Buddha who practices detachment?

Big.  Let's say you have a child, and I see your child drowning.  Can I be so detached that I just say "too bad" and just keep walking by?  Is that what Old Sid taught?  No.  For me to do as such implies that it's OK for the child to suffer and possibly die so that in this way I cannot be bothered.  As I mentioned above, is that "compassion"? 

Good questions.   

[jacknky]

What metis said...

To me, "detached" means to "see" as clearly as possible, including seeing where I'm indeed attached to outcomes. To me, learning to do that better is one purpose of meditation and contemplation.

[Acumen]

Buddhism has always been anti-caste because it tends to create suffering in the lower castes and the Untouchables.  Since, as HHDL has stated many times, the primary purpose of dharma is to help create compassion and understanding with all sentient beings, the caste system very much tends to do the opposite.

Aren't compassion and detachment fundamentally contradictory terms?  Compassion involves an intensity of attachment, does it not?

[metis]

Aren't compassion and detachment fundamentally contradictory terms?  Compassion involves an intensity of attachment, does it not?

Not necessarily, but they could be.  In Buddhism, the use of the term "attachment" is used in the negative.  Therefore, positive "attachments" aren't in the same category.  Remember that the main issue with the Four Noble Truths is dealing with the elimination/amelioration of suffering in all sentient beings including ourselves.  If I love my wife, children, and grandchildren, is that something that causes suffering?  No, but it could under some circumstances, and that's what we have to be careful about.  For example, if my wife dies and I sink into a deep depression, now this "positive" love could become "negative". 

Therefore, when we consider "compassion" towards others, even though it's mostly thought as being positive, it could become negative if we're not careful.       

[metis]

To me, "detached" means to "see" as clearly as possible, including seeing where I'm indeed attached to outcomes. To me, learning to do that better is one purpose of meditation and contemplation.

Yes, I agree.  And I also see it going beyond just learning but also becoming part and parcel with our very being-- and that's the toughest part.     

[Acumen]

Aren't compassion and detachment fundamentally contradictory terms?  Compassion involves an intensity of attachment, does it not?

Not necessarily, but they could be.  In Buddhism, the use of the term "attachment" is used in the negative.  Therefore, positive "attachments" aren't in the same category.  Remember that the main issue with the Four Noble Truths is dealing with the elimination/amelioration of suffering in all sentient beings including ourselves.  If I love my wife, children, and grandchildren, is that something that causes suffering?  No, but it could under some circumstances, and that's what we have to be careful about.  For example, if my wife dies and I sink into a deep depression, now this "positive" love could become "negative". 

Therefore, when we consider "compassion" towards others, even though it's mostly thought as being positive, it could become negative if we're not careful.       

Hmmm . . . that sounds pretty subjective, Vern.  It sounds like you're saying that attachments are okay as long as they don't cause suffering.  However, when someone loves their wife, they cannot help when their positive attachment becomes negative.

[metis]

Hmmm . . . that sounds pretty subjective, Vern.  It sounds like you're saying that attachments are okay as long as they don't cause suffering.  However, when someone loves their wife, they cannot help when their positive attachment becomes negative.

To a large extent, it is subjective in that it must relate to how the human mind works which, by its nature, becomes subjective.  Two people may have the same experience but react quite differently to it.

Even when we deal with the issue of "suffering", it's not altogether black and white either.  If my wife suddenly dies, of course this will bring some suffering to me.  It's very difficult for me to imagine a reaction whereas I could totally shrug it off as if nothing happened.  So, I do believe that short term suffering may not be always prevented with the vast majority of us, but we can deal with longer term suffering quite possibly more successfully.

One has to remember that Buddhism is more a process than a set of religious beliefs and, therefore, it's this process that hopefully we will work on.  Doesn't much the same happen with Christianity?  Isn't that also a process of an attempt to better ones self and society as well?  Do we expect perfection to happen in our lifetime? 

Again, Buddhists tend to use the word "attachment" in the negative sense of the word rather than the positive, but we have to be careful because even the positive could become negative under certain circumstances.  There is not a single Buddhist source that I have ever read that states or implies the love of another is to be avoided.  Matter of fact, the opposite is a constant mantra.       

[Acumen]

I don't know, Vern.  If Buddhism says we should have attachments, but specifies that it means only negative attachments, but then doesn't really define what negative attachments are or how to avoid them, then what is the point of telling us that attachments ought to be avoided?

[metis]

I don't know, Vern.  If Buddhism says we should have attachments, but specifies that it means only negative attachments, but then doesn't really define what negative attachments are or how to avoid them, then what is the point of telling us that attachments ought to be avoided?

As in all religions, certain terms often have to be defined.  If I say "trinitarian", a non-Christian may well ask what that means and does it mean there are three deities.  The same holds true with the concept of "attachment", and one can sort of logically deduce that it does not mean total detachment from everything if one looks at the Eightfold Path.  With the EP, a process is laid out in regards to what is "right" ("appropriate" is considered a better word).  The minute one says X is "right", that essentially forms an attachment of sorts, but it doesn't determine in and of itself whether that attachment will be positive or negative if you practice it. 

Any attachment of any type has the potential of being or becoming a cause of suffering, but not all attachments automatically cause suffering by any means.  If that were to be the case, we could not love or even like anything, which then would become an attachment in and of itself!  Remember the story of Siddhartha (the Buddha) and how he attempted complete detachment only to discover that this was not the proper approach.   

[jacknky]

Here's my take on the wife example. If I become so attached to my wife, if I cling to her so hard, that I try to live my life as though I'll never lose her then that is not skillful loving or attachment. If I allow fear of losing my wife to dominate my life then that isn't skillful. But if I love my wife in such a way that acknowledges I'll have to let her go some day then I will tend to cherish my time with her in full awareness that our relationship, like everything else, is transient and fleeting.

I think one challenge believers have in understanding Buddhism is that they expect a religion to provide relatively hard and fast answers pretty much written in stone. Buddhism is a guideline for a patth, not a set of beliefs.

[Acumen]

Here's my take on the wife example. If I become so attached to my wife, if I cling to her so hard, that I try to live my life as though I'll never lose her then that is not skillful loving or attachment. If I allow fear of losing my wife to dominate my life then that isn't skillful. But if I love my wife in such a way that acknowledges I'll have to let her go some day then I will tend to cherish my time with her in full awareness that our relationship, like everything else, is transient and fleeting.

I think one challenge believers have in understanding Buddhism is that they expect a religion to provide relatively hard and fast answers pretty much written in stone. Buddhism is a guideline for a patth, not a set of beliefs.

Even a skillful love will cause suffering if one loses his wife.  I still cannot see how Buddhism can promote love and un-attachment at the same time without walking into a contradiction.

[metis]

Buddhism is a guideline for a patth, not a set of beliefs.

Bingo! 

Since you hit the jackpot, you win having a great weekend!

Shalom.

[metis]

Even a skillful love will cause suffering if one loses his wife.  I still cannot see how Buddhism can promote love and un-attachment at the same time without walking into a contradiction.

Again, "love" is not intrinsically considered to be a negative attachment according to dharma, although it could become as such if we respond to it in ways that might cause suffering in ourselves or others.  But then, even negative attachments can be dealt with in the long run.  Life is not perfect.  We are not perfect.  We attempt to deal with negative attachments in ways whereas we can ameliorate the damage they may cause.  Dharma simply does not ask us to be cold fish that have no love or compassion but, instead, we are to be warm fuzzies. 

OK, so I'm a bit melodramatic.