Question on getting attached to outcomes

[francstoic]

I came across one of Steve's posts in which he suggests that being free from the attachment to outcomes is a healther/more positive way. He doesn't quite elaborate on that, so I'd like to have his (and anybody else's) opinion on that.

More generally, I want to ask whether it is "fair" to be attached to circumstances when they provide joy/happiness, but as soon as they produce suffering/sorrow, one abandons the attachment. I mean, I have known some Eastern philosophies talk about abandoning attachment to the world completely. Why would anyone want to do that?

Steve's Subjective Reality outlook is really very similar to some Eastern philosophies, and this is especially why I'm raising this question here. Steve hasn't, so far at least, talked about losing attachment to the world completely, at least not explicitly.

Is not giving up attachment to the world a giving up of both happiness and sorrow? I think it is. But if it is so, it renders the purpose of life incomplete on one of the aspects of Steve's Great Triangle (i.e., it lessens the importance of the joy that alignment with Love can bring). Is the pursuit of happiness wrong or at least less-than-ultimate? If not, then why should we give up attachment to outcomes? (Giving up attachment to outcomes means that you don't emotionally think of what the outcome will be, i.e. you don't expect it to give you happiness or sorrow, you're just neutral in passion and intellectual/logical when you look at events).

I'd be happy to know what you think.

[francstoic]

Steve also said (Overcoming Negative Emotions and Boosting Motivation) that, at least at the time he wrote that article, he listened to motivational audio everyday to stay aloof of negative mental patterns.

Now, was not that an attachment to something external? Is that not a good thing because if you keep relying on the motivational tapes to keep you going, if one day suddenly you lose the ability to use them (say you become deaf, etc.), where will you draw your motivation from? I mean, external (i.e., non-intrinsic) motivation is not really good, is it?

Steve, would you still recommend to tuning into some kind of audio or literature everyday to make oneself inspired? Or should one avoid that, because that's kind of fake motivation... I mean, if you really want to do a certain thing you'll do it without requiring fancy motivational tapes, and so these external motivational sources are actually fake?

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by francstoic

More generally, I want to ask whether it is "fair" to be attached to circumstances when they provide joy/happiness, but as soon as they produce suffering/sorrow, one abandons the attachment. I mean, I have known some Eastern philosophies talk about abandoning attachment to the world completely. Why would anyone want to do that?

In Buddhism one of the basic principles is that Life is suffering. Everything leads to suffering, even doing something enjoyable. If you do something that makes you happy, it won't last forever. If you pursue a relationship, the person will eventually die. It doesn't say that you should do nothing pleasurable: it promotes the middle way. But you should distance yourself from earthly pursuits.

Being caught up in life causes you to desire, and desiring leads to suffering. The very desire to BE is something that must be overcome to attain Buddhahood. So one is encouraged to distance oneself from desiring (and life) by meditation and insightful practises. There is more to achieving enlightenment, but once you achieve enlightenment and you die, then you escape the eternal cyclic passage of time and reincarnation and you obtain Nirvana.

So basically, they teach detachment because life is pain and there is something better than it.

[francstoic]

Elrond,

What you shared is interesting. But I don't quite understand how Life itself is full of suffering. Even Steve in fact did say in one of his blog entries that his belief system (when he wrote it) resembled Buddhism in significant features.

Buddhism virtually nihilifies the field of personal development. There's nothing to do to gain happiness now except meditate and attain to Nirvana. I mean, all worries like health, managing finances, relationships, developing the intellect etc. would just vanish if you are a true seeker of happiness, is it not so? But then we find that if we live a healthy life, we will be happy most of the time.

And, honestly speaking, to complain about the one gram of pain that comes with 3 grams of happiness (from a healthy lifestyle) is not really being mature, is it?

Also, many people will favor the 1-unit-pain-with-3-units-happiness scheme instead of the no-happiness-no-pain scheme (because Buddhism advocates shunyata or "zeroness"). If Buddhism advocates getting rid of attachment to the world, what is it trying to communicate when it says that by attaining nirvana one gets freed from all suffering. I mean, if you were really detached, you wouldn't even bother if the suffering was there or not.

[cylon]

Khempo Yurmed Tinly, the buddhist teacher featured in the extended version of What the Bleep. He was explaining Buddhism from a perspective that I hadn't heard before. You can youtube it.

He said that the suffering Buddha talked about was not-being aware of your unity with the universe. Everything is an illusion (we all know that part) and the suffering comes from the feeling that there is something that is not you. Not that you shouldn't seek happiness, not that you should run away from life, not that you should give up possessions, or act above it all... but simply that the reason we are attached to things is that we think they are THINGS separate from us, but in reality all is one, we can't LOSE anything that we already are.

Like closing your eyes and wondering where your hands went. (that's me).

He said the Buddha reached enlightenment when he realized that there was no separation. No mention of letting life happen around you while deciding not to play the game.

So maybe it's not the "world" that is the problem that makes attachment to it so troublesome, maybe attachment itself is like a scarcity mentality that stops the real abundance coming to us.

[wolverine]

My understanding of not being attached is that you can aim for things and work towards them and enjoy them, but not to let your outcome, be it happiness or wealth or health or love or whatever, become attached (ie, dependant on) to that certain thing/event happening. This means that if you want happiness, you aim for happiness in lots of things and don't make, say, getting a new job, the 'must' which has to happen so you can be happy.

It doesn't follow any major religion or spiritual practise, but it makes sense to me. Don't let your goals be dependant on only one or two things to make them come true, let the goals/outcomes/desires come from any possible source or direction, and be open to this.


Wolverine

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by francstoic

Elrond,

What you shared is interesting. But I don't quite understand how Life itself is full of suffering.

"Now this ... is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering."

The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra in 12 Volumes

Originally Posted by francstoic

Even Steve in fact did say in one of his blog entries that his belief system (when he wrote it) resembled Buddhism in significant features.

I would like Steve Pavlina's thoughts on this if he would be so kind.

Originally Posted by francstoic

Buddhism virtually nihilifies the field of personal development. There's nothing to do to gain happiness now except meditate and attain to Nirvana.

No. You obtain Nirvana by following the Buddha's Noble Eightfold Path. The Noble Eightfold Path constitutes more than meditation, for example being moral and having respect for all other life.
And The Noble Eightfold Path isn't about instant gratification; you don't sit down to meditate and than feel perfectly happy with that. Sometimes the practices and guidelines are tough and painful to follow. The Buddha endorsed neither self-mortification nor self-indulgence.

Originally Posted by francstoic

I mean, all worries like health, managing finances, relationships, developing the intellect etc. would just vanish if you are a true seeker of happiness, is it not so?

Many buddhists become monks, and thereby remove themselves from the worries and desires of leading a normal life (wether that means being a peasant or a corporate executive). But practicing mindfulness and meditation would most probably lead to less worry and more peace of mind.

Originally Posted by francstoic

But then we find that if we live a healthy life, we will be happy most of the time.

In Buddhism, everything can be thought of as suffering, because everything is impermanent. Even a happy life. See what I first wrote/qouted in this post.

Originally Posted by francstoic

And, honestly speaking, to complain about the one gram of pain that comes with 3 grams of happiness (from a healthy lifestyle) is not really being mature, is it?

So to pursue a path of enlightenment and eventually transcend the cycle of life itself is "not really being mature"???
You could similarily say to the spiritualy-minded folks in the spirituality forum that by trying to obtain enlightenment and/or perfection they are "complaining" and "not really being mature, are you?"
Or you could say it to everyone that seeks to attain happiness and minimise suffering: this whole forum.


The Four Noble Truths are presented like a doctor:
1. Diagnose an illness (life is suffering)
2. Explain why you are sick (the origin of suffering)
3. That you can eventually be healed (suffering’s cessation)
4. How to be healed (the way to suffering’s cessation)

If you had a disease, you would have it diaognesed and cured, right? If someone had a bad hip which gave them alot of pain and the inconvinience of having to use a cane to walk around, it would be best to get that hip cured, right? Well, Buddhism says that pain (the hip) can be transcended (cured), and it shows how.

And, honestly speaking, were does this 1/4 pain + 3/4 happiness ratio come from? It could have something to do with Buddhism, or maybe something Steve Pavlina wrote, but it seems that you are just taking a concept out of thin air and juxtaposing it with Buddhism without even explaining it.

Would you explain to the people in the internment camps in Auschwitz that they can lead a ”healthy lifestyle” and obtain this elusive ratio? Or to the victims of a tsunami? Please understand that I am not questioning your morality, but rather the universal nature of leading a ”healthy lifestyle”. Sure, following Buddhist guidelines would not necessarily be instant salvation for someone in a difficult position in life (though it would lessen ones karma). But following The Noble Eightfold Path would eventually lead to Nirvana; which means to never again experience Auschwitch or pain of any kind.

Originally Posted by francstoic

Also, many people will favor the 1-unit-pain-with-3-units-happiness scheme instead of the no-happiness-no-pain scheme (because Buddhism advocates shunyata or "zeroness").

Sunyata/Shunyata more commonly means ”emptiness”, though this must not be confused to also mean ”nothingness” (or ”zeroness”, whatever one choose to mean by that). This concept illustrates the fact that, because of the impermant nature of everything, nothing possesses enduring identity. This is tied to anatta, which refers to the notion of ”non-self” or ”absence of seperate self”, or the fact that there is nothing such as an eternal and immortal soul. Shunyata illustrates the illusion of percieving something as a separate entity, of something that is ”out there”. This can be interpreted as the concept of Oneness, though I’ll be careful to jump to conclusions.

I really don’t think Buddhism advocates a no-happiness/no-pain scheme. As I’ve said, Buddhism advocates the middle way. It doesn’t condemn happiness, but sometimes pain is something you have to endure.

Originally Posted by francstoic

If Buddhism advocates getting rid of attachment to the world, what is it trying to communicate when it says that by attaining nirvana one gets freed from all suffering. I mean, if you were really detached, you wouldn't even bother if the suffering was there or not.

In moments of happiness, the suffering of the world is not a part of your awareness. But that’s excactly what it is: moments. Everything is impermanent. As long as you live in this reality, suffering will be a part of your reality. By obtaining Nirvana, you free yourself from the cyclic time-space reality that we exist in. And it is within this eternal reality that pain exists.




DISCLAIMER 1: I feel confident in what I’ve been presenting, but I stand open to be corrected. And I acknowledge that I don’t have much knowledge on this complex/difficult to understand school of thought.

DISCLAIMER 2: This is not an argument against your beliefs, because I don’t hold any Buddhist beliefs myself. I am simply trying (though I could be failing) to explain the need for detachment in Buddhism, one of the biggest (and thereby influential) eastern religions.

[Mr.Mustache]

Originally Posted by francstoic

Buddhism virtually nihilifies the field of personal development. There's nothing to do to gain happiness now except meditate and attain to Nirvana. I mean, all worries like health, managing finances, relationships, developing the intellect etc. would just vanish if you are a true seeker of happiness, is it not so? But then we find that if we live a healthy life, we will be happy most of the time.

The problem here is the assumption of doer-ship. There is no one who manages your finances, relationships or has an intellect. The various mental tendencies of the ego interact in such a way giving the sense of an individual "I am" which is in fact phantom-like, because when it is finally investigated the illusion evaporates.

Why burden yourself with the effort it takes to maintain the life of the body when you are not the body? The reason why a healthy life-style can give a degree of happiness and peace is because conscious growth is the act of controlling and focusing the mind. Think of the happiness that exists when the mind is eliminated completely.

Originally Posted by francstoic

Also, many people will favor the 1-unit-pain-with-3-units-happiness scheme instead of the no-happiness-no-pain scheme (because Buddhism advocates shunyata or "zeroness"). If Buddhism advocates getting rid of attachment to the world, what is it trying to communicate when it says that by attaining nirvana one gets freed from all suffering. I mean, if you were really detached, you wouldn't even bother if the suffering was there or not.

Buddhism is not a no happiness-no pain scheme. The "zeroness" is the elimination of the mind, the end result being unshakable peace. Also the concern with suffering is only there until nirvana is "attained", if you were fully detached you would have no concerns whatsoever. My question to you is why burden yourself with concerns?

[Dannyboy1]

You are not living now. You are a zombie ignoring the life that is right in front of you now, this moment. Now is the only thing that is real. Everything else is an illusion. Why would you waste the moments you have right now thinking about things that may or may not happen?

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by cylon

Khempo Yurmed Tinly, the buddhist teacher featured in the extended version of What the Bleep. He was explaining Buddhism from a perspective that I hadn't heard before. You can youtube it.

He said that the suffering Buddha talked about was not-being aware of your unity with the universe. Everything is an illusion (we all know that part) and the suffering comes from the feeling that there is something that is not you. Not that you shouldn't seek happiness, not that you should run away from life, not that you should give up possessions, or act above it all... but simply that the reason we are attached to things is that we think they are THINGS separate from us, but in reality all is one, we can't LOSE anything that we already are.

Like closing your eyes and wondering where your hands went. (that's me).

He said the Buddha reached enlightenment when he realized that there was no separation. No mention of letting life happen around you while deciding not to play the game.

So maybe it's not the "world" that is the problem that makes attachment to it so troublesome, maybe attachment itself is like a scarcity mentality that stops the real abundance coming to us.

The Buddha reached enlightenment while sitting under a ”bodhi tree”. He woved to sit under the tree and meditate until he had realised the Truth. It took him 49 days (and all that lead up to it).

He gained insight into the cause of human suffering, which is ignorance, along with steps necessary to eliminate it. So even if this is the only cause of suffering, it would still be necessary to follow the Noble Eightfold Path to obtain the awakening – intellectualism won’t cut it.

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by Elrond

The Buddha reached enlightenment while sitting under a ”bodhi tree”. He woved to sit under the tree and meditate until he had realised the Truth. It took him 49 days (and all that lead up to it).

He gained insight into the cause of human suffering, which is ignorance, along with steps necessary to eliminate it. So even if this is the only cause of suffering, it would still be necessary to follow the Noble Eightfold Path to obtain the awakening – intellectualism won’t cut it.

Right? I believe he meant the cause of suffering was thinking about past, future, ego, etc., instead of experiencing the now.

[cylon]

Well the point was that he perceived that there was no separation. How he or anyone else gets there is how they get there. You have to experience/perceive it firsthand. Sometimes lots of people get glimpses of this, even without any sort of rigorous training. It just kind of happens when the mind is relaxed and not resisting. But it can be lost just as fast, which is where the practice of meditation, mindfulness, things like that come into play.

In any case, what was interesting to me about the buddhist teacher I mentioned was how he suggested it wasn't actually living life and doing stuff that was the cause of suffering, it was how we perceived our relationship to those things. I think many folks figure, to be enlightened means literally giving up their participation in society to avoid the attachments to "things" that cause suffering.

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by cylon

I think many folks figure, to be enlightened means literally giving up their participation in society to avoid the attachments to "things" that cause suffering.

It's about giving up your "attachment" to everything, because someday it will all be gone.

My mantra - What is... IS.

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by cylon

Well the point was that he perceived that there was no separation. How he or anyone else gets there is how they get there.

Well my point is that part of the path that he outlines to achieve the same thing he did, is to not get attached to life and all the desiring and the thereby pain it causes. So the detachment from the world is essential in Buddhism (notice how he sat under a tree for 49 days).

[Elrond]

"Not really the ignorance of knowledge..."

Originally Posted by Dannyboy1

Right? I believe he meant the cause of suffering was thinking about past, future, ego, etc., instead of experiencing the now.

What? You mean if the Buddha was an anti-rationalist or something? No, he didn't condemn knowledge, it was what he attained in the Awakening - the Truth.

Do you think that was what the Buddha meant? Maby, but I think it's unlikely. Maby not everything can be fit into an Eckhart Tolle mindframe (before you ask, no I haven't read "The Power of Now"...)

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Elrond

Well my point is that part of the path that he outlines to achieve the same thing he did, is to not get attached to life and all the desiring and the thereby pain it causes. So the detachment from the world is essential in Buddhism (notice how he sat under a tree for 49 days).

I think you're getting attached to this.

Actually Eckhart Tolle is a good teacher for this sort of thing. There are plenty of exercises he gives to learn to be more present and detach.

[Mr.Mustache]

Originally Posted by Elrond

Well my point is that part of the path that he outlines to achieve the same thing he did, is to not get attached to life and all the desiring and the thereby pain it causes. So the detachment from the world is essential in Buddhism (notice how he sat under a tree for 49 days).

Detachment from the world does not necessarily mean withdrawal from the world. Buddha taught the middle path, basically to be in the world but not of it.

[cylon]

Tolle sat on a park bench for over a year, trying to deal with the overwhelming joy and unity he felt from detaching from his ego. It's an experience anyone can have.

I took a nice drive down the coast today and even that was a detachment... my surroundings seem different now.

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by cylon

I think you're getting attached to this.

I don't believe in Buddhism so I don't care

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

Detachment from the world does not necessarily mean withdrawal from the world. Buddha taught the middle path, basically to be in the world but not of it.

I've been talking about the "middle way" in my posts... I don't know if this phrase rings any bells for you? And "withdrawal" from the world would be the ascetics that shut themselves in pitch black caves for decades and never coming out, relying on supplies coming into the cave from a small hole.

[Mr.Mustache]

Originally Posted by Elrond

I don't believe in Buddhism so I don't care

What is it that you believe in?

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

What is it that you believe in?

Abe-ism (gosh, did I just invent a new word?). I believe in a lot of the Abraham-Hicks material, so if I would identify myself with a single school of thought right now, I would choose that.

It's a little weird, because the teachings of Abraham is in some respects the total opposite of Buddhism.

[Mr.Mustache]

I was into that stuff for a while but now I feel that intention manifestation externalizes happiness, which doesn't bring any lasting peace

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

I was into that stuff for a while but now I feel that intention manifestation externalizes happiness, which doesn't bring any lasting peace

Maby many of the LoA-teachers externalize happiness (change circumstances in order to be happy), but that is not what Abraham is about at all. Abraham is about being happy no matter what the circumstances, or unconditional love (the feeling). They're more about being happy first, and when you're happy circumstances can't help but change for the better.

And they aren't about "lasting peace" either, unless life has given you a beating and you need some rest.

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by Elrond

"Not really the ignorance of knowledge..."
What? You mean if the Buddha was an anti-rationalist or something? No, he didn't condemn knowledge, it was what he attained in the Awakening - the Truth.

Do you think that was what the Buddha meant? Maby, but I think it's unlikely. Maby not everything can be fit into an Eckhart Tolle mindframe (before you ask, no I haven't read "The Power of Now"...)

I NEVER said he was an anti rationalist. I never said he condemned knowledge. I'm not sure where you got that. I was saying suffering is caused, not by knowledge, but the loss of focus on the now.

I have read The Power of Now and, yes, you should read it. It's amazing.

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by Dannyboy1

I NEVER said he was an anti rationalist. I never said he condemned knowledge. I'm not sure where you got that. I was saying suffering is caused, not by knowledge, but the loss of focus on the now.

I have read The Power of Now and, yes, you should read it. It's amazing.

Weeell, I ASKED if you said it. I DIDN'T say that you said it. See?

If one had to summarize the cause of suffering in one word, I'm pretty sure "ignorance" is what one would choose. Ignorance of how the world really works.

That's according to Buddhism

And I really don't think that the Buddha put any specific weight on experiencing the now, it was not one of the most important things to train oneself in. Unless he was really bad at formulating himself. So if you're guessing that focusing on the now was what he really meant, I would say that you're wrong.

And I like to be deliberate and focus on the now. But if I'm going to buy a book on the subject, the first one on my list is The Presence Process. Maby there is many different ways to a happy life, and not just one. I hope so

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by Elrond

If one had to summarize the cause of suffering in one word, I'm pretty sure "ignorance" is what one would choose. Ignorance of how the world really works.

That's according to Buddhism

And I really don't think that the Buddha put any specific weight on experiencing the now, it was not one of the most important things to train oneself in. Unless he was really bad at formulating himself. So if you're guessing that focusing on the now was what he really meant, I would say that you're wrong.

Have you read Buddha's teachings? I think focusing on the now is a huge part of his teachings.

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by Dannyboy1

Have you read Buddha's teachings? I think focusing on the now is a huge part of his teachings.

See my disclaimer in post 7#

I don't know terribly much about it, but I feel I have read reasonably deeply into the basics of Buddhism, from more than one source (two sources ).

So if it was such a big part of his teachings, I should have been able to get that from it even by just reading a summarised version of it in five pages. But I haven't, in spite of reading more than that.

[Mr.Mustache]

The focus of Buddhas teachings is the elimination of attachments (to past experiences of pleasure) and aversions (anticipation of future pains). What is left when one eliminates all thoughts about the past and the future? Nirvana, the eternal now.

[Andrew Brunelle]

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

The focus of Buddhas teachings is the elimination of attachments (to past experiences of pleasure) and aversions (anticipation of future pains). What is left when one eliminates all thoughts about the past and the future? Nirvana, the eternal now.

But what does one do after he attains Nirvana? Sure, now is now and now is the only time that ever exists, but what does an eternal now look like?