Difference between revisions of "Attachment, Relationships, and Misconceived Buddhism"
(Created page with "thumb|250px| By shenpa warrior A common misconception about Buddhism is that it teaches its adherents to rid themselves of all attachments—includi...") |
m (1 revision: links) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
By shenpa warrior | By shenpa warrior | ||
| − | A common misconception about Buddhism is that it teaches its adherents to rid themselves of all attachments—including relationships. Attachments, according to Buddhism, ultimately cause suffering. This is something that, despite my interest in Buddhism, has kept me from really appreciating it until recently. Even psychologist Jonathan Haidt made this mistake in his book, The Happiness Hypothesis: “Yes, attachments bring pain, but they also bring our greatest joys…” Haidt proposes that the Buddhist teaching of non-attachment may be extreme. | + | A common misconception about [[Buddhism]] is that it teaches its adherents to rid themselves of all attachments—including relationships. Attachments, according to [[Buddhism]], ultimately [[cause]] [[suffering]]. This is something that, despite my [[interest]] in [[Buddhism]], has kept me from really appreciating it until recently. Even {{Wiki|psychologist}} Jonathan Haidt made this mistake in his [[book]], The [[Happiness]] Hypothesis: “Yes, attachments bring [[pain]], but they also bring our greatest joys…” Haidt proposes that the [[Buddhist teaching]] of [[non-attachment]] may be extreme. |
| − | The misconception occurs in how one defines attachment. Buddhism does not denounce possessions, hobbies, interests, food, or most importantly, relationships. It teaches that clinging to these things causes suffering. Clinging to a partner in a relationship would better be defined in the Western view as insecure attachment, not attachment. People with an insecure attachment (either avoidant or ambivalent/anxious) resort to the behaviors that Buddhism warns against in the face of loss: a craving or thirst for something. Craving occurs when one’s desire is excessive. Buddhism teaches that suffering ends when craving disappears. | + | The misconception occurs in how one defines [[attachment]]. [[Buddhism]] does not denounce possessions, hobbies, interests, [[food]], or most importantly, relationships. It teaches that [[clinging]] to these things [[causes]] [[suffering]]. [[Clinging]] to a partner in a relationship would better be defined in the Western [[view]] as insecure [[attachment]], not [[attachment]]. [[People]] with an insecure [[attachment]] (either avoidant or ambivalent/anxious) resort to the behaviors that [[Buddhism]] warns against in the face of loss: a [[craving]] or [[thirst]] for something. [[Craving]] occurs when one’s [[desire]] is excessive. [[Buddhism]] teaches that [[suffering]] ends when [[craving]] disappears. |
| − | Attachment theory posits that the more securely attached we are in our relationships, the more separate and independent we can be. Attachment to key others is a universal need that we never outgrow. Buddhism teaches against insecure attachment. Another point of confluence is that if we are insecure in our attachment style, we need important others in order to become secure. Sometimes we need professional help as well. We can’t do it alone, just like in Buddhism. We need others. | + | Attachment {{Wiki|theory}} posits that the more securely attached we are in our relationships, the more separate and independent we can be. [[Attachment]] to key others is a [[universal]] need that we never outgrow. [[Buddhism]] teaches against insecure [[attachment]]. Another point of confluence is that if we are insecure in our [[attachment]] style, we need important others in [[order]] to become secure. Sometimes we need professional help as well. We can’t do it alone, just like in [[Buddhism]]. We need others. |
| − | There is nothing wrong with desires and relationships as long as one does not cling. I can truly enjoy a movie or a restaurant as long as I do not cling to them. I can have a meaningful and happy relationship with my wife as long as I work with her to mediate the tendency to either pursue (i.e. criticizing, complaining, endless questioning, etc.) or withdraw (getting defensive, checking out, shutting down, avoiding, etc.) during conflict. Both pursuing and withdrawing are clinging. Both are suffering. | + | There is [[nothing]] wrong with [[desires]] and relationships as long as one does not [[cling]]. I can truly enjoy a movie or a restaurant as long as I do not [[cling]] to them. I can have a meaningful and [[happy]] relationship with my wife as long as I work with her to mediate the tendency to either pursue (i.e. criticizing, complaining, [[endless]] questioning, etc.) or withdraw (getting defensive, checking out, shutting down, avoiding, etc.) during conflict. Both pursuing and withdrawing are [[clinging]]. Both are suffering. |
{{R}} | {{R}} | ||
[http://shenpawarrior.wordpress.com/2009/12/21/attachment-relationships-and-buddhism/ shenpawarrior.wordpress.com] | [http://shenpawarrior.wordpress.com/2009/12/21/attachment-relationships-and-buddhism/ shenpawarrior.wordpress.com] | ||
[[Category:Attachment]] | [[Category:Attachment]] | ||
Latest revision as of 11:13, 7 September 2013
By shenpa warrior
A common misconception about Buddhism is that it teaches its adherents to rid themselves of all attachments—including relationships. Attachments, according to Buddhism, ultimately cause suffering. This is something that, despite my interest in Buddhism, has kept me from really appreciating it until recently. Even psychologist Jonathan Haidt made this mistake in his book, The Happiness Hypothesis: “Yes, attachments bring pain, but they also bring our greatest joys…” Haidt proposes that the Buddhist teaching of non-attachment may be extreme.
The misconception occurs in how one defines attachment. Buddhism does not denounce possessions, hobbies, interests, food, or most importantly, relationships. It teaches that clinging to these things causes suffering. Clinging to a partner in a relationship would better be defined in the Western view as insecure attachment, not attachment. People with an insecure attachment (either avoidant or ambivalent/anxious) resort to the behaviors that Buddhism warns against in the face of loss: a craving or thirst for something. Craving occurs when one’s desire is excessive. Buddhism teaches that suffering ends when craving disappears.
Attachment theory posits that the more securely attached we are in our relationships, the more separate and independent we can be. Attachment to key others is a universal need that we never outgrow. Buddhism teaches against insecure attachment. Another point of confluence is that if we are insecure in our attachment style, we need important others in order to become secure. Sometimes we need professional help as well. We can’t do it alone, just like in Buddhism. We need others.
There is nothing wrong with desires and relationships as long as one does not cling. I can truly enjoy a movie or a restaurant as long as I do not cling to them. I can have a meaningful and happy relationship with my wife as long as I work with her to mediate the tendency to either pursue (i.e. criticizing, complaining, endless questioning, etc.) or withdraw (getting defensive, checking out, shutting down, avoiding, etc.) during conflict. Both pursuing and withdrawing are clinging. Both are suffering.
