Non-attachment and Letting Go

"Bless me Father, for I have sinned.  It's been many years since my last blog post!"  :)

Let's talk a little about the Buddhist idea of detachment, or "non-attachment to things of this world".  Let's first remember that the earliest Buddhist teachings are not religious at all, but for more of a manual for how to live life such that one has the greatest level of enjoyment.  At some point later, Buddhism picked up the idea of reincarnation (most likely from Hinduism, which already existed at the time), such that all sorts of teachings arose related to how to guide one's self into reincarnation as a better creature/person and eventually reach nirvana, etc.  Originally, it looks as if Buddhism was teaching how to reach a good state of living (nirvana) in this life, not the next.  Buddhism seems to have started as something closer to "Secular Humanism" along with guidelines as to how to avoid unhappiness in one's daily life.  Practices such as meditation were primarily to teach the ability to focus on what's important and avoid getting sidetracked by things which don't matter in the end.

As part of this focus on important matters and avoiding sinking into sadness and depression, the teaching of "non-attachment" arose.  Some people interpret "non-attachment" as something more like, "don't get attached to things of this world because that leds to unhappiness ultimately".  This is absolutely wrong.  Yes, not being attached to anything in their world would avoid unhappiness related to that thing/person/animal ulitmately going away/dying, however such a practice would also lead to not experiencing what happiness this world has to offer!  Sure, you can live outside of the world, but there is much happiness to be had in this world as well!

How do we solve this problem of experiencing the happiness of this world while lessening the unhappiness which will ultimately happen?  Well...  Let's use my own situation as an example.  My wife has quite a few auto-immune diseases, including adult onset diabetes and allergies to various foods.  She seems to be slowly getting worse and ultimately it could put her into the hospital and kill her.  If I wanted to avoid the ultimately unhappiness of not having her around, I could leave now, try to forget her, try to find someone else, etc., but that would leave me without all of the happiness which I currently have by having her around!  What to do?

What to do, is to enjoy the happiness of the present while living in the present, and then learn to "let go" when it's time to do so!  As a simple example, we can all enjoying a great meal while it's happening but we don't say,"I have to keep eating it!  I don't want to stop, ever!"  (Ok, some of us may, but that's a different issue!)  You enjoy the happiness which life brings while it's happening.  You enjoy it as fully as possible, by making use of the focusing skills you learned through meditation, paying attention to things which are in the moment and which matter.  Then, when the moment is gone, you celebrate the memory of the events, because remembering is also a way to enjoy and and gain a different type of happiness, from the memory.  However, once it's done, once the person is gone, and once you have celebrated and appreciated their memory, it's time to move on.

"Non-attachment" is not about avoiding attachment to things of this world.  It's about learning how to let events, people, pets, etc., pass out of your life and not continuing attachment to things/people who are not there.  Avoiding life is not the lessson of "non-attachment.  Learning to "let go" is the lesson of "non-attachment".  As the famous song says, "Let it go!", and look forward to the next thing in an ever-changing life!

You don't really believe that so why are you saying it?

This is going to be short.  I saw the latest PBS News Hour broadcast tonight, where they were lamenting the way all Muslims are implicitly held responsible for the Orlando Idiot, because he happened to be Muslim.  Well, that's true, people do tend to generalize in that way.  I will mention, however, that when a Christian extremist has been responsible for killing a large number of people (yes, it has happened, look up "Heavens Gate"), I do not believe that any large number of people held all Christians responsible.  Why not?  It's the same situation, isn't it?  Well, not exactly.  Just keep count of the number of people killed each week by so called Muslims in the name of their religion, and keep count of the number of people killed by people professing to be of other religions.  You'll quickly see what I mean.  People don't hold all Christians responsible for the actions of one idiot, because it's not the norm.  It definitely is the norm in Islam in many parts of the world.  There's a difference there which can't be denied.  For all of the talk about Islam being a religion of peace, it's kind of like those saying that a gun is not a violent thing.  Well, it can be a non-violent thing, but that's not the norm, is it?  Just keep a tally.  You'll see.  No, this doesn't give us the right to treat Muslims differently.  We should still treat all people the same until they point out why we should treat them differently.  I'm simply stating the reason why we see the mistreatment, not justifying it.

But what really struck me as odd was the video of a Muslim woman's prepared speech about how her community sees the Orlando killings as a bad and unfortunate thing for all involved.  She wanted to express remorse over the incident, which is fine, but I guess she wanted to end saying something which would be on an upbeat note.  What she ended with, however, didn't make sense, for the person saying it.  She said that those killed are in a better place!  What place would that be?  According to her beliefs, they're either in heaven or in hell.  Since they were gay, and since gay people are considered "sinful", in Islam, then she would have to admit that she believes those killed are in hell!  I realize that gay life can be harsh, in our world, but how is hell a "better place"?  As I stated in the title, "You don't really believe that, so why are you saying it?"  Doesn't this type of dishonesty simply lead to more distrust? Anyone who is listening, and who thinks about what they're hearing just a little bit, knows that this young lady, while trying to be nice, is being dishonest.  In the immortal words of Thumper's Rule, "If you can't say somethin' nice ... (And, in this case, your religious views do not allow you to do so) ... then don't say nothin' at all."  By all means, don't be dishonest about your own views in front of the world!

Doesn't it all come back to the same point in both parts of this posting?  What we hear and see isn't agreeing with what we know to be true.  That leads to distrust.