Attachment and Suffering

Lol, Hatha yoga is essentially a tantric practice itself. Modern Hinduism, temple traditions, all of it—it’s all within the tantric sphere, much like zen buddhism. In the West, people have turned it into this synonym for the "left-hand path," mostly because of those "Osho-style" authors who just need an excuse for their hedonism and drug habits 😬

It’s pretty complicated, though. It’s hard to pin down a precise definition when the entire body of tantric texts is such a mess. But you can definitely see a massive leaning toward mysticism and, more often than not, some pretty intense ritualism

Can you give me a quick rundown on what Tantra is actually about? You mentioned it’s mystified—I get the whole magic through mantras thing, but it sounds more like a vehicle to steer the mind toward a specific state, right? I know a little bit—probably less than anyone else here, so bear with my "Tantric" questions—from reading some books written specifically for Americans. That’s not necessarily a bad thing if the author actually knows their stuff.

I read somewhere that Buddhists—like how Tibetans handle remains and leave them for vultures (saw a documentary once)—will sit near a corpse to cultivate awareness of impermanence and non-attachment. It's one of those key practices to free up the mind and body... honestly, it makes total sense.

Thomas Nelson25 said:That’s just how Hinduism works—why are you even surprised by the poetic stuff? It’s the same deal with the Hebrews and the whole Messiah arrival thing. When you're dealing with an ancient religion, you have to find ways to explain things—especially when you look at all the different belief systems popping up in society. So many of them have faded away without anyone even realizing it. I actually read somewhere that even Buddhism came close to that point... honestly, the split into those two main branches probably caused a lot of that instability.
Look, there were tons of Buddhas before him—he was basically the last one standing. Now just imagine how many awakened souls are coming down the line... and who's to say they won't all be Messiahs? You can feel for people, sure, but you’ve gotta let the world spin on its own—critics call that kind of Buddhism "selfish," which is funny. Like, a Christian saint is all about sacrificing themselves for the masses, whereas a Buddhist just steps out of the way and walks their own path—kind of like a rhino, if you get what I mean. We're talking about that original, primal Buddhism here; it's got those ascetic vibes similar to Jainism and stuff. But at its core, it's all about that "Middle Way," and that's the kicker. It’s especially amplified by that fusion with Taoism and a cultural mindset that doesn't really lean into the irrational the way India does. In the case of Japan, maybe it gets a little too externalized or "turned inward," but hey, you can't deny the depth there.

Yeah, he’s even talking about how gods suffer—how they’re just as fleeting as we are. Sure, they might be "perfect" compared to us mere mortals, but they still have personalities, right? And because of that, they're stuck in the same illusion, trapped in that endless cycle of birth and death. They’re paying the price just like everyone else. Just imagine how much that hits home for people—especially for us rebels who can't help ourselves.

Some people might argue this follows the exact same playbook as Hindu traditions—you know, all that stuff about infinity and the illusion of the self. They’ll probably claim that since basically all Western Hermeticism borrowed concepts from over there, those traditions are just collectively deeper than anyone gives them credit for. You could even find similar vibes in other mythologies, like how the ancient Greeks talked about Chaos. Honestly, Greek influence actually bled into Buddhism right as it was starting to decline, creating this massive fusion that helped shape the religion we know today.

So now it looks like I’m some kind of Buddhist—maybe because of my comments, or whatever, just asking—but honestly, I'm just a sympathizer. When I was younger, I was way more into that raw, shamanic window into the world—you know, the whole journey vibe. But lately—now that I've actually started posting about this stuff—I feel like I'm slowly drifting back toward that philosophy... maybe through Zen. Anyway, have you ever read Jung? What's your take on him if you have?

Look, I'm just gonna lay it out for you right now. 😁 Honestly, I couldn't care less about tradition... like, at all. I don't really bother memorizing stuff from books—maybe a little bit here and there—but mostly I’m just looking for the esoteric side of things if it exists. I'm a hardcore minimalist, really. I'm only interested in what's happening "behind the scenes."

?

Look, what I cited in my previous post came from a Buddhist text, not a Hindu one.

You know what’s actually quite bizarre? Take the whole story regarding the Buddha's reincarnation—around 623 BCE—where "the same guy" has a son when he's 29, an event he finds deeply troubling because it's only then that he realizes everyone, without exception, is subject to birth, sickness, and death.
Does a person really need thirty years of life to reach that conclusion? Not really—it’s honestly pretty unbelievable, even considering how many centuries passed before or after the era, that someone with that level of (lack of) emotional maturity would come to such a realization. Because it was only then, at that age, that he actually began his wandering search in the style of a truth seeker (concerning suffering and all that).

I wonder, what would modern psychology make of a personality like that? I mean, given that Buddhism is treated somewhat like a psychological method in this day and age.
Anyway, I guess I'm curious about your take...

Thomas Nelson25 said:Can you give me a quick rundown on what Tantra is actually about? You mentioned it’s mystified—I get the whole magic through mantras thing, but it sounds more like a vehicle to steer the mind toward a specific state, right? I know a little bit—probably less than anyone else here, so bear with my "Tantric" questions—from reading some books written specifically for Americans. That’s not necessarily a bad thing if the author actually knows their stuff.

I read somewhere that Buddhists—like how Tibetans handle remains and leave them for vultures (saw a documentary once)—will sit near a corpse to cultivate awareness of impermanence and non-attachment. It's one of those key practices to free up the mind and body... honestly, it makes total sense.

I wouldn't say you can pin down Tantra with a simple, textbook definition. If you wanted to capture everything it encompasses, you’d probably have to look at it through a historical lens—tracing the evolution of certain spiritual trends and teachings dating back to the Middle Ages. It essentially sets itself apart from the two other major pillars of influence, namely Vedic religion and shamanic traditions. You could try to account for outside influences too, but that’s a rabbit hole that gets complicated pretty quickly.

So, does everything we’ve stripped away through these eliminations suddenly become "tantric"? That’s really more of an authorial question than anything else—we're dealing with definitions where there is zero consensus. People often frame Tantra as this rebellious force that pushes back against orthodoxy or conservative spirituality. But then you look at the facts: even the most rigid, puritanical Vaishnava sects include Tantric texts right in their core canons. It's a bit of a contradiction.

Even in the oldest scriptures, Buddhists practiced meditations centered on death and decay long before Tantra ever entered the picture. That practice of leaving remains for birds in certain high-altitude regions—where cremation or burial isn't exactly easy due to the frozen ground—is likely a pre-Buddhist tradition. Vajrayana, or Tantric Buddhism, was imported from India where those customs weren't the norm. So, I wouldn't necessarily link that specific ritual to Tantra.

On the other hand, you see these radical Hindu leftists who have this tendency to hang out at cremation sites and perform rituals involving ladders. You could probably speculate that there’s some Buddhist influence creeping in there, even if they claim to be following entirely different myths and traditions—usually sticking to Saivism or Shaktism frameworks.

It’s all one big, centuries-old melting pot, which makes drawing clear lines or definitions nearly impossible today. It’s especially tricky with traditions like Tantra. You can't really point to it as a standalone religion with a fixed set of doctrines; instead, it functions more like a subtle current that weaves through various religious groups, blending and manifesting in different ways without ever truly existing as its own independent entity.

Maria Robinson2 said:?

Look, what I cited in my previous post came from a Buddhist text, not a Hindu one.

You know what’s actually quite bizarre? Take the whole story regarding the Buddha's reincarnation—around 623 BCE—where "the same guy" has a son when he's 29, an event he finds deeply troubling because it's only then that he realizes everyone, without exception, is subject to birth, sickness, and death.
Does a person really need thirty years of life to reach that conclusion? Not really—it’s honestly pretty unbelievable, even considering how many centuries passed before or after the era, that someone with that level of (lack of) emotional maturity would come to such a realization. Because it was only then, at that age, that he actually began his wandering search in the style of a truth seeker (concerning suffering and all that).

I wonder, what would modern psychology make of a personality like that? I mean, given that Buddhism is treated somewhat like a psychological method in this day and age.
Anyway, I guess I'm curious about your take...

It doesn't just start then. Those "symbolic moments" that act as precursors to future achievements are present throughout an entire biography, starting from childhood. For instance, that state of meditative focus—which later formal Buddhism defines as the first level of jhana—is something he remembers later when he decides to sit in meditation and finally reach his goal. In these stories, it shows up in early childhood while he's just observing scenes in nature. There are plenty of other moments like that. Not to mention the much more complex stories about his previous incarnations and things like that.

Besides, we can't truly reconstruct the actual historical life of Buddha today. Even though most people agree there was a real historical figure, there are still those who express doubts (similar to the debates surrounding Jesus). But regardless of whether he was likely a historical person, it is completely impossible to separate myth from history. You might try to dig up the oldest and perhaps most credible version within a religious context through some comparative approach, but the story remains firmly within a religious framework.

It’s probably safer to view these things as symbolic messages and allegories, as seen in most hagiographies, rather than strictly literal historical facts and events.

bluemason3 said:It doesn't just start then. Those "symbolic moments" that act as precursors to future achievements are present throughout an entire biography, starting from childhood. For instance, that state of meditative focus—which later formal Buddhism defines as the first level of jhana—is something he remembers later when he decides to sit in meditation and finally reach his goal. In these stories, it shows up in early childhood while he's just observing scenes in nature. There are plenty of other moments like that. Not to mention the much more complex stories about his previous incarnations and things like that.

Besides, we can't truly reconstruct the actual historical life of Buddha today. Even though most people agree there was a real historical figure, there are still those who express doubts (similar to the debates surrounding Jesus). But regardless of whether he was likely a historical person, it is completely impossible to separate myth from history. You might try to dig up the oldest and perhaps most credible version within a religious context through some comparative approach, but the story remains firmly within a religious framework.

It’s probably safer to view these things as symbolic messages and allegories, as seen in most hagiographies, rather than strictly literal historical facts and events.

You picked up on a sharp detail there—comparing him to Jesus Christ.

I only pulled a few quotes from my book on Buddhism, but if I were to write out every comparison, it would be painfully obvious how much they try to frame Buddha through the canon. It seems like Buddhism tried to latch onto the Old and New Testaments—a rather clumsy attempt, really—specifically targeting that influence tied to the Pharisees during the early era.

It looks like modern Buddhists aren't particularly concerned with original teachings. It’s the standard story you see in just about every global religion, I suppose; what else is there to conclude?

Maria Robinson2 said:You picked up on a sharp detail there—comparing him to Jesus Christ.

I only pulled a few quotes from my book on Buddhism, but if I were to write out every comparison, it would be painfully obvious how much they try to frame Buddha through the canon. It seems like Buddhism tried to latch onto the Old and New Testaments—a rather clumsy attempt, really—specifically targeting that influence tied to the Pharisees during the early era.

It looks like modern Buddhists aren't particularly concerned with original teachings. It’s the standard story you see in just about every global religion, I suppose; what else is there to conclude?

Since Buddhism predates Christianity by centuries, and since there were established monastic traditions across the West and North (where it flourished in a sort of Greco-Buddhist blend before Islamic expansion), it’s highly debatable to suggest Christianity had more influence on Buddhism than the other way around.

As for the Pharisees, it's much easier to trace their links to the emerging Christian sect that formally opposed them, but there were plenty of similar doctrines circulating back when that school was at its peak within the same cultural environment.

Every religion presents its spirituality through its own canon. I don't quite see the issue here, whether it's regarding the specifics of Buddhism or its connection to the New Testament.

Actually, it's only in the modern era—at least in the US—that there's been a real push to uncover the historical Buddha, thanks to modern historiography and, obviously, the internet making information exchange easy.

Of course, it depends on how much an individual cares about actual history versus myth. But now, that's an option people can actually pursue. It wasn't like this before, and that goes for all religions too. Claiming the modern age is "unhistorical" misses the point; wouldn't everything prior to the birth of formal historical science have been essentially the same? 🤷

Maria Robinson2 said:?

Look, what I cited in my previous post came from a Buddhist text, not a Hindu one.

You know what’s actually quite bizarre? Take the whole story regarding the Buddha's reincarnation—around 623 BCE—where "the same guy" has a son when he's 29, an event he finds deeply troubling because it's only then that he realizes everyone, without exception, is subject to birth, sickness, and death.
Does a person really need thirty years of life to reach that conclusion? Not really—it’s honestly pretty unbelievable, even considering how many centuries passed before or after the era, that someone with that level of (lack of) emotional maturity would come to such a realization. Because it was only then, at that age, that he actually began his wandering search in the style of a truth seeker (concerning suffering and all that).

I wonder, what would modern psychology make of a personality like that? I mean, given that Buddhism is treated somewhat like a psychological method in this day and age.
Anyway, I guess I'm curious about your take...

calls them "shackles"—his wife and son... and hey, who knows, the guy was basically some ancient hippie😁

but those are the years where you actually mature and start thinking philosophically.

I'm forty and don't have a family... feels fine to me.

bluemason3 said:I wouldn't say you can pin down Tantra with a simple, textbook definition. If you wanted to capture everything it encompasses, you’d probably have to look at it through a historical lens—tracing the evolution of certain spiritual trends and teachings dating back to the Middle Ages. It essentially sets itself apart from the two other major pillars of influence, namely Vedic religion and shamanic traditions. You could try to account for outside influences too, but that’s a rabbit hole that gets complicated pretty quickly.

So, does everything we’ve stripped away through these eliminations suddenly become "tantric"? That’s really more of an authorial question than anything else—we're dealing with definitions where there is zero consensus. People often frame Tantra as this rebellious force that pushes back against orthodoxy or conservative spirituality. But then you look at the facts: even the most rigid, puritanical Vaishnava sects include Tantric texts right in their core canons. It's a bit of a contradiction.

Even in the oldest scriptures, Buddhists practiced meditations centered on death and decay long before Tantra ever entered the picture. That practice of leaving remains for birds in certain high-altitude regions—where cremation or burial isn't exactly easy due to the frozen ground—is likely a pre-Buddhist tradition. Vajrayana, or Tantric Buddhism, was imported from India where those customs weren't the norm. So, I wouldn't necessarily link that specific ritual to Tantra.

On the other hand, you see these radical Hindu leftists who have this tendency to hang out at cremation sites and perform rituals involving ladders. You could probably speculate that there’s some Buddhist influence creeping in there, even if they claim to be following entirely different myths and traditions—usually sticking to Saivism or Shaktism frameworks.

It’s all one big, centuries-old melting pot, which makes drawing clear lines or definitions nearly impossible today. It’s especially tricky with traditions like Tantra. You can't really point to it as a standalone religion with a fixed set of doctrines; instead, it functions more like a subtle current that weaves through various religious groups, blending and manifesting in different ways without ever truly existing as its own independent entity.

But then they claim knowledge is passed down from teacher to student?
What kind of knowledge would that even be if it isn't already available to us? That's what fascinates me—but I'm also a bit skeptical about it. I mean, sure, I'm totally open to the idea that there might be some deep wisdom out there that hasn't hit the internet yet...

As for the rest of your post, I've run into those ideas in books before so I didn't comment... personally, I think those techniques are pretty eye-opening, even if they seem a little dark to some people.

Thomas Nelson25 said:calls them "shackles"—his wife and son... and hey, who knows, the guy was basically some ancient hippie😁

but those are the years where you actually mature and start thinking philosophically.

I'm forty and don't have a family... feels fine to me.

So, it seems even those who didn't study him actually got the gist—aside from maybe a few lines of text. You know, the whole flower child thing and all that nonsense.

It's not for nothing they say it’s better to stay single than to get tied down only to end up viewing a spouse and kids as a weight around your neck. It’s almost as if—unfortunate as it is—it's become a common habit for people to believe in nothing at all, not even their own family unit. If that's the case, I guess the reason for all this suffering is easy enough to pinpoint: it's just the lack of respect people choose to harbor instead of actual respect.
That's probably about it. Best. 🙂

Maria Robinson2 said:So, it seems even those who didn't study him actually got the gist—aside from maybe a few lines of text. You know, the whole flower child thing and all that nonsense.

It's not for nothing they say it’s better to stay single than to get tied down only to end up viewing a spouse and kids as a weight around your neck. It’s almost as if—unfortunate as it is—it's become a common habit for people to believe in nothing at all, not even their own family unit. If that's the case, I guess the reason for all this suffering is easy enough to pinpoint: it's just the lack of respect people choose to harbor instead of actual respect.
That's probably about it. Best. 🙂

So he was a prince—meaning he felt existentially secure—and then, in that classic trope, he leaves for a few years and comes back wiser, like he's finally grasped the ultimate truth... I mean, Jesus was supposedly 33, so I guess that's just the magic age for messiahs.

When you look at reality today, just check the divorce stats and all the families struggling... honestly, it's better to be upfront and—I'll say it—realistic. (Even if some "family-oriented" types would call me immature for saying this.) Kids aren't kittens or puppies that you can just abandon; it's a massive responsibility. It requires giving up a certain amount of freedom, which is what being "tied down" actually means. It's a delicate thing because we're talking about our own genetics, or whatever... but it shouldn't be like that, and our egos end up getting projected onto our offspring.

What I see nowadays is just superficiality. Love isn't really a thing anymore—now everything is just called a "relationship," such an Americanism... plus, everyone wants to control everyone else for purely selfish reasons. There's zero sacrifice or responsibility, and those two things are literally the foundation of a family.

Yeah, asceticism, constant posting, and celibacy? Sounds like nothing more than some free-loving, drug-fueled hippies to me. 😛
They love calling Jesus a hippie, though maybe they’re actually closer to him than they realize. 😁

I hadn't really noticed that New Zealand wasn't all about "family values" either—the early Christian communities talked about it constantly (and later on, asceticism itself grew out of those Christian hermits). You’d think regulating public life only became a big deal once religion became an official state matter. That obsession with family structures within those frameworks might actually be much older than the social shifts we've seen in recent decades, but I could be wrong. Regardless, there's a lot of interpretive stretching happening to force a radical, spiritually-focused version of New Zealand into a mainstream, family-centric mold. Or perhaps there's just too much reliance on the Old Testament, which makes things even murkier since those arguments are pretty good at dismantling Christianity through selective, convenient, and sometimes poorly translated interpretations.

He didn't go back home in that sense; once he embraced that solitary (ascetic, and later monastic) lifestyle, he never returned to the "secular" world of princes.

And then there's that whole thing—everyone suddenly jumping on the Buddhism bandwagon. 😁

😁 I was being dead serious about that... honestly, hippie spirituality feels kind of questionable—it’s more like just getting high and chasing an ecstasy trip than anything else..

Think about it—asceticism, starving yourself, pushing yourself to total exhaustion... eventually you hit that state of sensory deprivation. But even after all that, Siddhartha ends up totally disappointed because it doesn't actually get him anywhere... he finally wakes up once he starts eating again..
That was his version of the "middle way"—whatever that means in Buddhist theory, which is basically just letting go of all your desires.

As for families, institutions, and legal rights... man, you can find stuff like that baked right into the Code of Hammurabi.

Justin Garcia7 said:Some people say you shouldn't get attached to anything you're afraid of losing.☕

We feel the sting when we leave a job we actually loved, when a relationship ends, or whenever we lose anyone or anything we were emotionally invested in.

Buddhism suggests that life itself is suffering because we are beings driven by desires—which cause pain—and fueled by emotions that lead to even more attachment.

So, what’s the actual lesson here?

How do we avoid getting attached to people or things? Is it even possible to remain completely detached? Maybe it all comes down to how we frame things in our minds—our perception of what we hold dear. Or should we just let logic override our feelings?

Is the "right" way to be empathetic without letting ourselves become overly emotional?

I’ve noticed something interesting about some elderly, deeply religious folks I've met—people who carry their prayer beads everywhere. They’ve outlived their own children, yet they don't seem to grieve with the overwhelming intensity a "typical" person might. It's almost as if they possess this profound sense of peace, fully aware of how fleeting life is.

But would that mean happiness and laughter are just the flip side of the coin? We know many famous comedians struggle with depression behind closed doors. Should we spend our lives in an emotional "flatline," avoiding the highs and lows? Is a state of total emotional neutrality the only way to truly grasp the Truth?

I mean, I guess some things just sort of reveal themselves to you as you go through life—at least some of them, anyway, right?

Justin Garcia7 said:Some people say you shouldn't get attached to anything you're afraid of losing.☕

We feel the sting when we leave a job we actually loved, when a relationship ends, or whenever we lose anyone or anything we were emotionally invested in.

Buddhism suggests that life itself is suffering because we are beings driven by desires—which cause pain—and fueled by emotions that lead to even more attachment.

So, what’s the actual lesson here?

How do we avoid getting attached to people or things? Is it even possible to remain completely detached? Maybe it all comes down to how we frame things in our minds—our perception of what we hold dear. Or should we just let logic override our feelings?

Is the "right" way to be empathetic without letting ourselves become overly emotional?

I’ve noticed something interesting about some elderly, deeply religious folks I've met—people who carry their prayer beads everywhere. They’ve outlived their own children, yet they don't seem to grieve with the overwhelming intensity a "typical" person might. It's almost as if they possess this profound sense of peace, fully aware of how fleeting life is.

But would that mean happiness and laughter are just the flip side of the coin? We know many famous comedians struggle with depression behind closed doors. Should we spend our lives in an emotional "flatline," avoiding the highs and lows? Is a state of total emotional neutrality the only way to truly grasp the Truth?

But if you flip the question around... I wonder, what is it that actually ties you to something, or someone, in the first place?