Buddhism is not the only religion or philosophy which advocates eliminating attachment from one's life in order to minimise suffering. Many philosophies which developed in ancient times advised their followers to either attempt to love without attachment (a difficult accomplishment to be sure) or to restrict themselves entirely from developing emotional bonds with people, animals, or objects.
This type of thinking seems quite strange in the context of contemporary society, where attachment is not only commonplace, but often viewed as an admirable display of trust in another person (in interpersonal relationships, that is, not in person-to-object relationships). What has changed between then and now?
One of the most significant factors, I think, might be the difference in mortality rates. In many ancient societies, the mortality rate was comparatively high; death was commonplace, a part of life for effectively everyone. As such, loss was frequent, and eliminating attachment might indeed have been the best way to maintain a healthy psyche. In modern society, the mortality rate is much lower, so loss has become a relatively rare occurrence for most people. Thus, attachment is a much smaller risk, and so has become more popular and less dangerous.
Interesting correlation between attachment and mortality rates.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree, it is very commonplace for members of relationships to feel dependent on one another until they have, as Alex said, a craving for one another. All life needs balance, and one person, one hobby, (or anything for that matter) should take the spotlight. Accept all things and relationships equally, and understand that if you have them, be prepared to lose them. All life is change.
Back to your idea about mortality and attachment...
This idea Buddha shares about not having attachment would be beneficial advice for those struggling with the loss of a loved one. As you put it,
"...Eliminating attachment might indeed have been the best way to maintain a healthy psyche."
However, handling attachment and dealing with grief vary in many cultures. Mexico, for example, celebrates Dia de los Muertos, Day of the Dead. In the beginning of November, families and friends visit the graves of their loved ones and bring flowers. Alters are filled with photos and food offerings for the deceased. In this culture, I'm certain that families and friends formed strong bonds during their lives, but they have accepted that death is natural and unavoidable. I am not sure of the Mexican mortality rates over time, but I do know this tradition has been around for hundreds of years.
I just wanted to use this as an example to show how different cultures handle the loss of a loved one. The families were all very close, and I'm sure they miss their deceased, but they have found a balance of acceptance with their separation. Your theory about mortality and attachment is still interests me. Thank you for sharing.
---I have also posted this to my blog
I do think that our culture is certainly hyper-social and that we have drifted from being communally social like indigenous societies. We have taken upon ourselves strict individual qualities that many act on according to the person they would like to embody. Some of these individual qualities will be something we're expected to use as a way to contribute to societies functioning in some way. Our advances in technology have made us more dependent on them for basic needs as well as things only projected as necessary. The Buddhist though finds his way around these social boundaries and discards them as illusions. This is all very difficult to begin to attain in a quickly moving and highly populated earth, unless perhaps you learn to "follow the path less traveled".
ReplyDelete