Yes, I think that attachments are complicated and each person's own set of them are unique. We probably have to negotiate the right balance in all areas of life.

Attachments aren't a problem until they become a problem, I don't see the point in pre-emptively removing all attachments, that's an overreaction. All it takes to become attached to something is to care,
and caring is worth more than the pitfalls of attachment by itself. It's worthwhile to manage the intricacies of attachment instead, most important is to make sure what you're being attached to is worth your emotional investment. Next is to overcome any attachments which control you, basically, be confident in yourself and prioritise things intelligently. Best to work backwards, rather than fearing and assuming an attachment is a problem, be comfortable to see attachments as a cause of an existing problem. That's more pragmatic and efficient.

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

You are supposed to attach yourself to the eightfold path and the community, and given the fact that people mostly always become emotionally attached to what matters to them, the attachment is obviously going to be more than merely one of physical proximity, even if that is not the ideal (an ideal which is rarely, if ever, achieved).

So, the upshot is that Buddhism becomes, in practice of not in theory, just another of the myriad forms of attachment that people attempt to find solace and security in.

Anyway, the OP question is whether attachment is desirable or not, and my answer to that would be that people cannot live happily without caring about, that is becoming attached to, one thing, person, activity or institution or set of things, people, activities or institutions.

Is the far distant ideal state of non-attachment (vanishingly rarely if ever actually achieved) even desirable? Is it really a life of bliss, and even if it is, what value would such a live have to the human community if the blissed out sage is not politically active, but is living the life of a (wider, at least) world-renouncing guru, which most of them apparently do?

If the value is only measured in terms of the life or lives to come (after death) and if one does not accept the idea of any form of afterlife, or even if they accept the possibility, do not count it as important as the present life, what then?

I would agree that there is a problem in viewing this life from the standpoint of future lives. Even if a person believes in future ones, surely this one should be the focus, because it is the life being lived rather than imaginary ones.

Yes, that is a good point that we should not work upon attachments unless they are a problem. Personally, I have felt guilty about attachments and I have found it hard to hold onto the things to which I would like to. But, yes, if there is not a problem, why create one?

:up: Right, and the value of the present life is assuredly not the focus of Buddhism, which explicitly works to increase good karma in order to attain more favorable future births and advance on what is believed to be the long path of enlightenment.

So, the focus in Buddhism and in the very idea behind non-attachment is the greater importance given to future lives where one can be further along the path if one does the right things in this life.

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"? — khaled

Yes, but the answers in between could overlap, just like some effects are also causes. I think it would be unlikely, or inaccurate, to say that someone is attached to their new car, or really any physical object or person. Attachment has more to do with the feelings that objects/people give you (joy, power, pleasure, etc.). So that might be a better way of distinguishing between them. The issue is that people often confuse the two, and will equate object X with feeling Y, when in reality there are many X’s that correspond with feeling Y. Whereas if the attachment to feeling Y were somehow eliminated, the value of all the X’s that corresponded to that feeling would greatly diminish. So the value of the various means through which one can achieve orgasm is very different for a 20 year old and an 80 year old, because one’s attachment to sex decreases, or so I’m told.

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). — khaled

Doesn’t seem any less vague than my definition. How big enough of a problem does it take to qualify as attachment? Or what about how big a problem it is when you get something you don’t want? I was disappointed my burger had onions on it, does that mean I’m attached to onion-free burgers? On the other hand, I’m never disappointed if I get Coke, even though I prefer Pepsi; but if I’m dying of thirst, not having either is a very big problem. Does that mean I’m only attached to Coke/Pepsi sometimes, but not others?

Do you think that suffering is a 'pernicious lie' and that 'which we cherish the most is immune to damage, death and decay', because surely this contradicts the idea of impermanence.

However, I do like the idea of reason personified as 'a protagonist', although some might object to me saying 'like' because I am not sure if we are meant to be swayed by our likes, and I am perhaps following the path of attachments here, in the realm of ideas, and ignoring Reason's governing power.

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. — TheMadFool

I'd be wary of slipping easily between Platonic and Buddhist. Interestingly, they both have chariot analogies, but they're totally different. They also have different conceptions of the nature of reason. In Plato, 'reason' is the 'higher' faculty that it bridles the drives and the appetites - hence reason as 'the charioteer' or the highest faculty.

In the Buddhist texts, the reason given for suffering in all its forms is the reality of dependent origination, which ultimately originates with tṛṣṇā, 'craving' or 'thirst'. This is stated in practically every text. But in Buddhism, 'craving' has a cosmic dimension, as it's the factor driving all of existence. So the faculty which is key in Buddhism is prajna or Jñāna, which is insight into the fact of dependent origination as it conditions each moment of existence. The goal of 'mindfulness' or meditation is to become directly aware of those processes which normally run on automatic pilot, as it were. So instead of acting out your automic and conditioned drives, you're acting from jñāna, from wisdom, unshackled from craving.

You are supposed to attach yourself to the eightfold path and the community — Janus

Then how do you explain this?

Buddha says that Buddhism itself is like a raft, used for 'crossing over' the river of suffering, but to be let go of once it's served its purpose. 'Dhammas should be abandoned, to say nothing of adhammas'. That is specifically about not becoming attached to Buddhism. — Wayfarer

Where do you get the idea that you're supposed to become attached to the eightfold path and the community? You keep asserting it.

So, the upshot is that Buddhism becomes, in practice of not in theory, just another of the myriad forms of attachment that people attempt to find solace and security in — Janus

Agreed. But I thought we were talking about the theory.

Anyway, the OP question is whether attachment is desirable or not, and my answer to that would be that people cannot live happily without caring about, that is becoming attached to, one thing, person, activity or institution or set of things, people, activities or institutions. — Janus

I think that's wrong. Is it not possible to care about things without becoming attached? I think how much of a problem it is not to have something (attachment) is a separate thing from how much you want the thing. They just happen to coincide often.

what value would such a live have to the human community if the blissed out sage is not politically active — Janus

Considering Buddhism became popularized in Japan at the same time as the samurai, I don't think the ideal of Buddhism is passivity (it depends on the school). From what I read, that's a baseless Western cliche. It comes from conflating attachment with desire, but I think they're separate things. It is possible to become attached to something you don't desire and vice versa. Detachment =/= No desire (passivity).

If the value is only measured in terms of the life or lives to come (after death) and if one does not accept the idea of any form of afterlife, or even if they accept the possibility, do not count it as important as the present life, what then? — Janus

Many schools of Buddhism don't admit to reincarnation literally but metaphorically.

How big enough of a problem does it take to qualify as attachment? — Pinprick

Any size at all. It's not a binary thing like "You're attached" or "You're not" it's a spectrum. I'm way more attached to my family (would be troubled at their loss) than my laptop for example.

I was disappointed my burger had onions on it, does that mean I’m attached to onion-free burgers? — Pinprick

More like you're attached to getting your order as expected.

On the other hand, I’m never disappointed if I get Coke, even though I prefer Pepsi; but if I’m dying of thirst, not having either is a very big problem. Does that mean I’m only attached to Coke/Pepsi sometimes, but not others? — Pinprick

No it means you're attached to having enough liquids to live. A reasonable expectation in the moden age.

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)?

Otherwise agreed.

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

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?"

Want is easier if that’s what you mean? I think it is possible to want something without it being a problem not to have it. But there’s also a difference between having something then losing it and wanting something but never getting it.

I'd be wary of slipping easily between Platonic and Buddhist. Interestingly, they both have chariot analogies, but they're totally different. They also have different conceptions of the nature of reason. In Plato, 'reason' is the 'higher' faculty that it bridles the drives and the appetites - hence reason as 'the charioteer' or the highest faculty. — Wayfarer

According to Plato, the human predicament, our greatest challenge, stems from our split personality so to speak - one one side we have the rational & positive passions (the noble horse) and on the other we have the irrational & negative passions (the savage horse). Plato then compares us to the charioteer of the chariot driven by these two horses; quite naturally the chariot will behave erratically because of the savage horse. This difficulty we face, our susceptibility to irrationality & negative passions, defines what I referred to as the human predicament.

The Buddha, although he makes no such analogy, epitomizes people who pay heed to the noble horse [in Plato's chariot allegory] - the rational half of Plato's dualistic take on the human psyche. The Buddha's modus operandi is to find a solid foundation for his view on life in the form of undeniable truths and then see what their logical implications are. This tactic - to build a worldview based on truths and sound reasoning - is the hallmark of rationality; it's the noble horse at peak performance.

To tell you the truth, Plato's chariot allegory can be thought of as incipient Buddhism because of how negative passions were bundled together with irrationality. All that the Buddha does is reiterate what's presupposed by Plato viz. that poor reasoning is to be blamed for negative passions. If one reasons well and reasons from truths, negative passions become something of an impossibility (to experience) for they're, as Plato thinks and the Buddha concurs, irrational (the logic is flawed or the premises are false or both).

Furthermore, our irrational & negative passions have the unwanted effect of sometimes hindering and other times overwhelming our rational & positive passions - the savage horse, sometimes for a few and all the time for most, gains the upper hand over the noble horse.

What all this boils down to is the noble horse (the rational & positive passions) lodge two complaints against the savage horse (the irrational & negative passions) viz. 1) the savage horse is an encumbrance and 2) the savage horse doesn't make sense

In the Buddhist texts, the reason given for suffering in all its forms is the reality of dependent origination, which ultimately originates with tṛṣṇā, 'craving' or 'thirst'. This is stated in practically every text. But in Buddhism, 'craving' has a cosmic dimension, as it's the factor driving all of existence. So the faculty which is key in Buddhism is prajna or Jñāna, which is insight into the fact of dependent origination as it conditions each moment of existence. The goal of 'mindfulness' or meditation is to become directly aware of those processes which normally run on automatic pilot, as it were. So instead of acting out your automic and conditioned drives, you're acting from jñāna, from wisdom, unshackled from craving. — Wayfarer

:up: What you say here is relevant to what I said above in the post preceding this quote. I'll restate them here verbatim for clarity.

[1. What all this boils down to is the noble horse (the rational & positive passions) lodge two complaints against the savage horse (the irrational & negative passions) viz. 1) the savage horse is an encumbrance and 2) the savage horse doesn't make sense]

[2. All that the Buddha does is reiterate what's presupposed by Plato viz. that poor reasoning is to be blamed for negative passions. If one reasons well and reasons from truths, negative passions become something of an impossibility (to experience) for they're, as Plato thinks and the Buddha concurs, irrational (the logic is flawed or the premises are false or both).]

Please read my reply to JackCummins below.

Do you think that suffering is a 'pernicious lie' and that 'which we cherish the most is immune to damage, death and decay', because surely this contradicts the idea of impermanence. — Jack Cummins

Suffering is real but the Buddha's point is that we suffer when what we love is damaged, dies, and decays but that means those who suffer either didn't expect or don't want such things from happening. If we didn't expect damage, death, and decay then it means we're ignorant of a fundamental truth about the universe, impermanence; if we don't want damage, death, and decay, we're asking/demanding the impossible. In both cases, we're being irrational. This state of not wanting what we cherish to be subjected to damage, death, and decay, this entreaty for the impossible, is what's known as attachment or, as Wayfarer likes to put it, tṛṣṇā, 'craving' or 'thirst'

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

I think It's possible but only in certain contexts, the more you care, the more impossible this is.

I think It's possible but only in certain contexts, the more you care, the more impossible this is. — Judaka

I would say that the main point of Zen, Buddhism and gang is that it is very possible and that how much you want something doesn't have much to do with attachment. I agree with them. I can think of extremes such as smoking, where not doing it is a problem and doing it isn't even rewarding (attachment without desire). And vice versa.

I think it's really hard to evaluate to what extent it's possible. I only disagree that it's achievable in just any context, I don't think an extreme example like smoking is fair, PTSD seems more appropriate.

I really have no confidence that someone practising non-attachment even for decades really exhibits the desired trait. Not only is it hard to prove but it's not like success in these areas is required to call yourself a Buddhist. My main concern is that much like with PTSD, our control over how we think can be really quite limited in certain cases. Claiming to be able to overcome that sounds a lot like wishful thinking to me. Truly being able to overcome attachment in any context would mean overcoming a lot of what makes us human. Just being able to be okay with small things not going your way would be commendable.

I think that the biggest problem is when any group of people think that they are in a position to dictate how we should live our lives.

For better or worse, we have certain attachments and who has the right to stand as judge? Perhaps we need more people with compassionate understanding of attachments rather than philosophies which simply proclaim detachment as an end.

I think it's really hard to evaluate to what extent it's possible. — Judaka

Agreed. I'm nowhere close to a point where I could start to consider severing all attachments so I'll answer if that's possible when I get there. If I get there. The real question (and the one in the OP) is does approaching that point have downsides? Whether or not it's possible is another matter.

Truly being able to overcome attachment in any context would mean overcoming a lot of what makes us human. — Judaka

If you want to consider mourning and grief "part of what makes us human" then sure. I don't think it's significant. I don't think people who are at peace with their parents passing away are any "less human" than people who are devastated by it for example.

philosophies which simply proclaim detached as a hollow goal. — Jack Cummins

Buddhism doesn't proclaim detachment as a goal. The four noble truths: There is suffering, there is a cause of the suffering (attachment), there is a way to get rid of the suffering, and it is the eightfold path (roughly). Nowhere is there the instruction to follow it. If you wanna keep your attachments and your suffering go right ahead.

I am sure that Buddhism does not actually suggest detachment. I think that the problem is people interpreting in a shallow way. I think that it is unfortunate that the shallow interpretations are upheld by many, and I would intend that in my post that such misconceptions can be explored and clarified, because they are complex.

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. — BrianW

Your comment makes me think of things someone I love gave me versus something I bought for myself. If it came from someone I love, and it is damaged, broken, or stolen that is far more disturbing to me than if I bought that thing for myself. The value of the thing is the value of my relationship, and if it came from my dead mother or father, it has greater value because she will be giving me any more things.

Then there are the old books I continually refer to. Loosing some of them would a tragedy to me, but loosing books that can be replaced is just an annoyance. My life is really built around those old books and spreading that past, they are part of identity unlike the books that can be replaced. I think there is a bit of crazy in there?

Jack Cummins
696 — Jack Cummins

About the paradox of wanting to be alone and wanting to be with others. I think it would be much harder for me to be in a situation like yours, than getting through this pandemic alone because I must, absolutely must, have that alone time to be on the forum. If I do live with others, it is tolerable if I am the head of the house, and intolerable if I am not. I have slept in places for the homeless and 3 days is my limit. By the 3rd day, I have to get away because the feeling to get away is so strong! But if it is my home, I can share it with many people as long as I have private space. I can cook and clean for everyone if it is my home that I am sharing. :roll: Now that is crazy. There is something about the position I am in, concerning the relationship to others, that is going on here?


.

I am sorry that you have been homeless. In terms of attachments, having somewhere to live is about the most basic. Homeless and blindness are my worst fears.

But I would say that cooking and cleaning are skills. On a funny side, I will admit how bad I am at them and how when I try to mop I seem to make the floor dirtier than it was in the first place. Somebody told me that I use too much water. Also, I tried to run a couple of cooking groups at work and got in a terrible mess. I got cake mix on the door and the group I was leading ending up making chocolate brownies which looked more like brownie lumps, and I don't know if they were ever eaten at all.

But on a serious level, I think that the need for others, and to be alone, are both important and are real basic needs, and not just attachments. I think there is a danger of certain basic needs just being seen as attachments rather than as essential needs.

No it means you're attached to having enough liquids to live. A reasonable expectation in the moden age. — khaled

Ok, and this is a clear example of why eliminating all attachment would lead to death, right? Or do you think I could desire to drink, even if I’m not attached to being hydrated, etc.?

I think there is a danger of certain basic needs just being seen as attachments rather than as essential needs. — Jack Cummins

But all basic needs are also attachments, right? Supposing it’s possible to discard attachment altogether, these basic needs would still remain, but without any attachment you would never act on trying to fill those needs. Why would you? By eliminating attachment, you’ve also eliminated your will. You’ll get hungry for sure, but you have no reason to eat other than being attached to sustaining your life.

I have been reflecting on what you have said about suffering and impermanence and how it bears upon the whole question of attachment. What I have been thinking is that we should all realise that, in some senses, what we love will decay and die. Some of the people we love will die, as we will at some point and we will age and face inevitable loss. However, it does seem that some people have more than their fair share of loss and suffering, and I am wondering if this level of suffering goes beyond the matter of attachments.

What I am left wondering is about the extent of suffering and how far can people be pushed in the plight against attachment. Of course this is not simply a matter for philosophy as the reality is one faced in real life rather than just in writing philosophy discussions.

Personally, I think that the most ultimate forms of suffering I could be confronted with would be blindness or homelessness, as I said to Athena in response to her post.Of course, having pointed to my worst fears, I realise that it is hard to consider losses without them really happening. For all I know, I might cope with homeless and blindness, but hopefully not together, and fall apart on account of some lesser loss which I had never thought about at all.

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?

Being stripped back to deprivation of basic needs, such as fluids, does seem questionable indeed, but, all human beings, including those on the precipice of death, and are clinging to the basic attachment to life itself.

Agreed. But I thought we were talking about the theory. — khaled

I have been talking about the practice, which is all that matters from a pragmatic perspective. The point is that Buddhism is as much a form of attachment as any other pursuit.

I think that's wrong. Is it not possible to care about things without becoming attached? I think how much of a problem it is not to have something (attachment) is a separate thing from how much you want the thing. They just happen to coincide often. — khaled

Obviously the degree of attachment is a major variable in human life. I don't see any reason to think that caring about anything would not involve some degree of attachment. Some people can let go of things easier than others. As I pointed out earlier with the quote from Orage:

Emotional attachment to things is obviously normal and, I think, desirable. As the English writer Orage (one of Gurdjieff's students) said, referring to being in love: "Hold on tightly and let go lightly". Would you want to live a life where you lacked love for particular things, places, people and animals, and felt only indifference or a generalized Buddhistic compassion? — Janus

Considering Buddhism became popularized in Japan at the same time as the samurai, I don't think the ideal of Buddhism is passivity (it depends on the school). From what I read, that's a baseless Western cliche. It comes from conflating attachment with desire, but I think they're separate things. It is possible to become attached to something you don't desire and vice versa. Detachment =/= No desire (passivity). — khaled

Buddhism is, in principle, an entirely pacifistic religion. From the fact that some people, who lived in a country where Buddhism (along with Shinto) was a predominant religion, practiced violence, it does not follow that Buddhism advocates violence. Buddhism sees all desire as craving (Taṇhā), and craving is understood to lead to attachment (Upādāna). The ideal in Buddhism and many other religions is to free oneself from desire entirely:

Detachment as release from desire and consequently from suffering is an important principle, or even ideal, in the Baháʼí Faith, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Stoicism, and Taoism.

In Buddhist and Hindu religious texts the opposite concept is expressed as upādāna, translated as "attachment". Attachment, that is the inability to practice or embrace detachment, is viewed as the main obstacle towards a serene and fulfilled life. Many other spiritual traditions identify the lack of detachment with the continuous worries and restlessness produced by desire and personal ambitions. *

* from here

On the other hand this paints a far more attractive picture of detachment. However the ideal here is that I should care for all beings no more and no less than I do for my mother, father, spouse, sibling, child or friend. For me that is not a possible, or even a desirable, ideal.