You probably won't like this. (dumb stoner post)

[Sir Comrade Kenan]

Yeah...
I must say, I'm not terribly attached to much of anything, these days.

[P3nT4gR4m]

The reason a monk gives up his posessions is to remove himself from attactment. Since suffering is caused by clinging, by attachment, ridding yourself of material things  aids in ridding yourself of attactment. But really, the lack of want for material things has to come first. Leaving them behind is just following through.

I don't like that reasoning, its way too black and white.  In fact, thats pretty much why I don't like religion.

The buddhist 'way' is simply that a way or means to an end. When the monk enters the monastery he is enrolling in enlightenment university. Just like a traditional uni the monastery has a curriculum. This curriculum is what they call the way. Unlike normal university the monk does not go home at night. Enlightenment is a slightly more immersive degree than normal academic ones. Probably because it isn't merely academic but parallels can still be drawn.

Think about when you're in a lecture; it's implicitly recommended (and probably in a rule somewhere) that you don't do things like listen to personal stereos, play ps2 or read  the daily telegraph. Why? Because these things make it really difficult to take in what the lecturer is telling you. Behaving like this is likely to cause you to fail your degree so it's recommended you don't, for your own benefit, not because these people are nazi bastards and don't want you to enjoy yourself.

It's the same with buddhism, only the lecture/study time is 24/7. One of the key lessons in the tao curriculum is freedom from attachment. It's much easier to teach and learn this lesson if the student isn't surrounded by things they are attached to. The sweet sharp shock of losing all their possessions will initially trigger feelings of loss. Dealing with these feelings, understanding where they come from and eliminating them is the lesson. How you gonna teach that to someone who's addicted to super mario and won't stop playing it on their gameboy?

[Cain]

True, but there is no reason why you cannot do both.  I enjoy playing on my...actually, I don't have a console.  I enjoy listening to my music collection, however, it hardly takes up all my time.

If you really wanted to remove attatchment, I'd suggest people to try and acquire as much as possible, as fast as possible.  Talk about getting bored fast.

[Sir Comrade Kenan]

If you really wanted to remove attatchment, I'd suggest people to try and acquire as much as possible, as fast as possible.  Talk about getting bored fast.

Then how do you explain middle class America, huh?

Seriously though, the whole freedom from possession is exactly what silly said - freedom from distraction. Personally, I think it would be really cool to do the pulp fiction thing and walk the earth. Thats enlightenment. Or hobos.

I guess my whole point is that life is pretty terrible without some sort of faith in something, whatever it may be. God, a better tomorrow, the continued evolution of the human race, yada yada yada.

Who knows? Maybe I'll come up with something that makes sense and is meaningful.

CK,
Hopeless Romantic

[Cain]

Not trying hard enough.  They clearly don't have everything, or even close to everything that they want.  Of course, you always get some people for whom enough is really not enough.

Of course, my view may be skewed by the fact I rarely subject to advertising, not watching TV or listening to the radio.

[B_M_W]

Its just one way, Cain. Its not like Buddhists try to coherse, guilt, scare and force you into following it.

[P3nT4gR4m]

The attachment issue is prolly best summed up by the Happy Mondays line "The things that you own start to own you" It comes down to when you have something or someone that you really love to bits there's an inherent fear of losing it, largely subconscious in most cases but it's there nonetheless. The ultimate attachment is life itself. Some people tie themselves in all sorts of worry-knots fretting about the inevitable fact that they're going to die and this sorta casts a really gloomy shadow over their whole outlook on life. Part of satori is realising that, even if you happen to die right now, it's still been amazing. The Buddhist focusses on the amazingness of now and forgets all about the past the future, especially the slowly rotting bit at the end, whenever that might be.

I have lots of cool stuff and cool friends and I like to go to cool places. If I lose something or a friend or I can't go somewhere ever again, fuck it. It/they were still cool as fuck, regardless of the fact that they're gone. People have a tendency to come away with shit like "I'd be heart broken if you ever left me" or "I'd be lost without my house" What purpose could entertaining a notion like that possibly serve? Don't get me wrong, sometimes people close to me die or leave or I end up homeless and it pisses me off for a while (I aint a buddhist monk) but, ultimately, life goes on and it's still pretty amazing even without them.

[B_M_W]

The attachment issue is prolly best summed up by the Happy Mondays line "The things that you own start to own you" It comes down to when you have something or someone that you really love to bits there's an inherent fear of losing it, largely subconscious in most cases but it's there nonetheless. The ultimate attachment is life itself. Some people tie themselves in all sorts of worry-knots fretting about the inevitable fact that they're going to die and this sorta casts a really gloomy shadow over their whole outlook on life. Part of satori is realising that, even if you happen to die right now, it's still been amazing. The Buddhist focusses on the amazingness of now and forgets all about the past the future, especially the slowly rotting bit at the end, whenever that might be.

I have lots of cool stuff and cool friends and I like to go to cool places. If I lose something or a friend or I can't go somewhere ever again, fuck it. It/they were still cool as fuck, regardless of the fact that they're gone. People have a tendency to come away with shit like "I'd be heart broken if you ever left me" or "I'd be lost without my house" What purpose could entertaining a notion like that possibly serve? Don't get me wrong, sometimes people close to me die or leave or I end up homeless and it pisses me off for a while (I aint a buddhist monk) but, ultimately, life goes on and it's still pretty amazing even without them.

Actually, no, they don't forget about the rottingness at the end. One of the most powerful mindfulness meditation is upon images of the body in the 7 states of decay. The point is not to forget. Its the opposite, to be mindful of everything.

[P3nT4gR4m]

"Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe" - you an me both

[B_M_W]

"Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe" - you an me both

Well, I did pick that screenname for a reason. 

[hunter s.durden]

I thought attachment was given up because it causes pain.

"Want causes suffering" or some jazz.

As long as i'm happy, i'm holding onto the ps2.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Any honest buddhist will tell you - their way ain't the only way. I see monks (in most any religion) as fast trackers. I tend to just amble along my life and concentrate on enjoying it on my terms. PS2 features quite prominently in those terms of late. If I find myself in a situation where I don't have a PS2 (Kayak trips ain't conducive, what with salt water, and no leccy) do I get all fidgety? Nope - that's lack of attachment for me. Lack of attachment, while still hoarding cool stuff - that's what makes me different from a monk.

...and if I die before I wake - it's been a hoot.

[LMNO]

Isn't science supposed to be limited to what's observable?"

As the nineteenth century turned, some philosophers embraced positivistic notions about knowledge that tended to discard concepts that were not rooted in some firm encounter with the commonsensical "real world."

The success of "physics without explanations" suggested that attempts to explain were fruitless, and that science should be rid of such baggage. At its worst, this movement doubted the existence of atoms because they could not be seen.

At its best, it supported Heisenberg's search for a new atomic mechanics that would depend only on features of atoms that could be seen. Some people still speak of scientific formulas as if they were no more than concise summaries of many direct observations, as opposed to statements about the behavior of abstract features of re-ality, like force and energy, that cannot be visualized.

In this view, physics is just a way of arranging experimental results systematically, and the elaborate theoretical structures are only mnemonic devices for the data ,Äì as arbitrary as the mnemonic jingles medical students recite to recall the names of the cranial nerves.

Physicists themselves, however, and especially those who work at the frontier, despite all admonitions from philosophers, seem to believe in the reality of the things their equations describe. They are encouraged in this belief by the great value it has for discovery. I once attended a symposium in which a philosopher of science asked why physicists believe nature has to obey symmetry laws. I said "Because it wins them Nobel prizes!"

[Mangrove]

Isn't science supposed to be limited to what's observable?"

As the nineteenth century turned, some philosophers embraced positivistic notions about knowledge that tended to discard concepts that were not rooted in some firm encounter with the commonsensical "real world."

The success of "physics without explanations" suggested that attempts to explain were fruitless, and that science should be rid of such baggage. At its worst, this movement doubted the existence of atoms because they could not be seen.

At its best, it supported Heisenberg's search for a new atomic mechanics that would depend only on features of atoms that could be seen. Some people still speak of scientific formulas as if they were no more than concise summaries of many direct observations, as opposed to statements about the behavior of abstract features of re-ality, like force and energy, that cannot be visualized.

In this view, physics is just a way of arranging experimental results systematically, and the elaborate theoretical structures are only mnemonic devices for the data ,Äì as arbitrary as the mnemonic jingles medical students recite to recall the names of the cranial nerves.

Physicists themselves, however, and especially those who work at the frontier, despite all admonitions from philosophers, seem to believe in the reality of the things their equations describe. They are encouraged in this belief by the great value it has for discovery. I once attended a symposium in which a philosopher of science asked why physicists believe nature has to obey symmetry laws. I said "Because it wins them Nobel prizes!"

teh mang - now totally sold on reading this book! 

[Sir Comrade Kenan]

Isn't science supposed to be limited to what's observable?"

As the nineteenth century turned, some philosophers embraced positivistic notions about knowledge that tended to discard concepts that were not rooted in some firm encounter with the commonsensical "real world."

The success of "physics without explanations" suggested that attempts to explain were fruitless, and that science should be rid of such baggage. At its worst, this movement doubted the existence of atoms because they could not be seen.

At its best, it supported Heisenberg's search for a new atomic mechanics that would depend only on features of atoms that could be seen. Some people still speak of scientific formulas as if they were no more than concise summaries of many direct observations, as opposed to statements about the behavior of abstract features of re-ality, like force and energy, that cannot be visualized.

In this view, physics is just a way of arranging experimental results systematically, and the elaborate theoretical structures are only mnemonic devices for the data ,Äì as arbitrary as the mnemonic jingles medical students recite to recall the names of the cranial nerves.

Physicists themselves, however, and especially those who work at the frontier, despite all admonitions from philosophers, seem to believe in the reality of the things their equations describe. They are encouraged in this belief by the great value it has for discovery. I once attended a symposium in which a philosopher of science asked why physicists believe nature has to obey symmetry laws. I said "Because it wins them Nobel prizes!"

1. Thats cool, I suppose.  But, labeling invisible forces is a lot different than saying an electron can be at two places at the same time and/or pop in and out of existence for no reason. Those silly quantum physicists.

2.