Does not being attached really make for a better life?

[Voyager]

@Kimstu

“Weird”? The whole point of the OP’s linked article, ISTM, is to explain the difference between the ordinary-language meaning of “attachment” that most of us are familiar with, and the technical sense of “attachment” in Buddhist philosophy.

Yes, if you insist on interpreting “attachment” in the former sense and ignoring what the author has to say about “attachment” in the latter sense, then obviously attachment is a good thing for relationships and the article makes no sense. Discussion over. :rolleyes:

Here’s the headline:

You might be surprised to hear that non-attachment is an important quality for healthy love relationships. Don’t be. It’s actually the key to a happy romance and life. Here’s why.

And here is the definition of non-attachment:

Non-attachment, on the other hand, refers to the state of mind of being objective and not clinging, and it springs from a deep consideration of the conditions of human existence

There is a further definition in an article linked to “Non-attachment” which I didn’t notice on the first pass, but which doesn’t look any more enticing. It looks like it is supporting open relationships as the ideal, but I might be wrong.

Being clingy is not healthy, fine. But is being objective and only objective that good an idea? How about being both objective and emotional?
Perhaps this guy has never felt the irrational attachment I felt to both my daughters the first time I held them, a love I had never felt before. Which has lasted over 30 years for each of them. Clingy? No. We aren’t clingy. Purely objective? Hell no.

Yeah, all relationships end. But if mine ends when I die first, I’ll be going to the very last second of it attached in a way he seems to find wrong.

[Machinaforce]

@Voyager

Here’s the headline:

And here is the definition of non-attachment:
There is a further definition in an article linked to “Non-attachment” which I didn’t notice on the first pass, but which doesn’t look any more enticing. It looks like it is supporting open relationships as the ideal, but I might be wrong.

Being clingy is not healthy, fine. But is being objective and only objective that good an idea? How about being both objective and emotional?
Perhaps this guy has never felt the irrational attachment I felt to both my daughters the first time I held them, a love I had never felt before. Which has lasted over 30 years for each of them. Clingy? No. We aren’t clingy. Purely objective? Hell no.

Yeah, all relationships end. But if mine ends when I die first, I’ll be going to the very last second of it attached in a way he seems to find wrong.

That’s what I thought when I first read the “objective” part. As far as I know, humans can’t be objective (especially since being objective would mean not making any choices if you really thought about it, since being objective is inspired by emotions or the personal opinion that it is best).

[Machinaforce]

@Kimstu

For one thing, these are lifelong-celibate monks, right? Those folks are essentially the pro athletes of Buddhist doctrinal practice; their training for life as religious ascetics is not the same as what ordinary schmoes like us are attempting to achieve in the amateur leagues. For another, your track record in interpreting other people’s intended meaning does not inspire a lot of confidence that you accurately understood the monks’ perspective on life.
I’m aware that you have a tendency to claim that your personal opinions based on your own limited personal experience are simply objective reality, but that doesn’t make it true.
Sure, which is why, as a Buddhist would put it, people need to consciously practice this technical spiritual form of non-attachment. Namely, the practice of non-attachment is what makes people able to reconcile their awareness of the fundamental reality “that things will end” with their ability to be enthusiastically involved and happy with things while they haven’t ended.

Otherwise, people end up either making themselves mentally and emotionally blind to a fundamental reality of life until it mugs them with misery and despair, or else, as you note, losing the ability for enthusiastic happiness because they’re so busy bracing themselves for the eventual mugging by fundamental reality.

Personally, I can kind of see the Buddhists’ point that we’d be better off being able to combine awareness and acceptance of the reality of inevitable future loss with ability to retain joy and enthusiasm in the present appreciation of what we haven’t yet lost.
“Weird”? The whole point of the OP’s linked article, ISTM, is to explain the difference between the ordinary-language meaning of “attachment” that most of us are familiar with, and the technical sense of “attachment” in Buddhist philosophy.

Yes, if you insist on interpreting “attachment” in the former sense and ignoring what the author has to say about “attachment” in the latter sense, then obviously attachment is a good thing for relationships and the article makes no sense. Discussion over. :rolleyes:

From what I have read there were a few sex scandals among these so called “celibate” monks, some anyway. Celibacy doesn’t have a good track record when it comes to being a healthy human, unless you are asexual. Sexual abuse in Buddhism - RationalWiki

Yeah the article has a weird definition of attachment and it doesn’t explain it very well. Plus as you say if we all walked around with the knowledge that things will eventually end then we wouldn’t put the effort to make it last. Being in a relationship with someone like this would seem like someone just giving it 50% and not really bothered by which direction it goes. The thing about being happy in the moment is that you have to actually give a damn about the outcome. That’s kind of what makes contests, relationships, etc meaningful is the pain from losing. We get over it, and that’s part of life.

Ironically when I look around people are able to enjoy what they have because they don’t always have it in their minds that it will end. Doing that kind of gives you an arms length attitude to reality. Yes attachment leads to pain, but that pain makes life worthwhile. Like when my dog died, it hurt a lot and I never felt that kind of pain because I wasn’t really invested in another living creature like that. But it was great (not in a psychotic sense) because I thought such feelings were beyond me and they aren’t. I wouldn’t trade that for their style of “non-attachment”.

I was also skeptical of their claim of unconditional love (which doesn’t exist), since it seems to be a result of practice and therefor it isn’t unconditional.

[QuickSilver]

So now that that’s settled you’re going to move on, right? I mean: asked, answered and dismissed - on to other more pressing problems, yes?.. no need to obsess further over a bad hypothesis, etc.

[Machinaforce]

It’s just that I used to think these people were objective, but then I thought that that’s a bold claim to make. Also if happiness truly was unconditioned then you would necessarily need to follow them or listen to his words to be it right? Same with unconditional love (which I still think doesn’t exist).

[Machinaforce]

Detachment Doesn't Mean Indifference: Redefining Letting Go. | elephant journal

He does expand on it slightly here but it still just sounds like indifference and doesn’t imply taking action. If you don’t mind if it is present or absent then it doesn’t matter what happens to it.