Acquaintances are Better than Friends

[Cribbage1952]

Instead of friends, it's better to have acquaintances only. It has to do with the Buddhist practice of Non-attachment.
Because suffering is caused by emotional attachment. Let's say you have a friend, and that friend either dies or abandons you. The result is that you suffer deep sorrow. And the closer the attachment was, the worse the sorrow becomes.
As you can see, it's better to have acquaintances only. Buddhist-Nonattachment.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Cribbage1952

Instead of friends, it's better to have acquaintances only. It has to do with the Buddhist practice of Non-attachment.
As you can see, it's better to have acquaintances only. Buddhist-Nonattachment.

Not necessarily, once you realise the impermanence of all things there's no difference, imo.

[Maisy]

Originally Posted by Cribbage1952

Instead of friends, it's better to have acquaintances only.

That reminds me of getting pets like a cat or a dog. Their life span is a lot shorter than most of us so one is kind of setting themselves up for a heartbreak by getting one and becoming attached and in love with it.

I think this can be a very harsh place to live, this physical earth, so to adopt an animal to care for, well one can't guarantee that animal will not suffer in various ways while under your care which is kind of traumatic to witness. That's like having kids too. You may have to watch them get or be really sick etc.

But then I think it is very spiritual to care for another. To put their needs over your own. Having children and raising them right, meeting their needs and loving and nurturing them takes a lot of not being selfish or self centered. But yes some very self centered selfish types have kids and animals, not the best environments.

I've had a lot of pets and I don't think I'd ever want to go through it again. I don't like the design of this physical planet and what exists on it. I agree with Buddhism, it really is a place designed to create suffering for living things in a lot of ways.

A lot of religious types like monks and nuns decide to not have romantic relationships. I will always remember a lecture by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. I can't remember it exactly but it was like: If you get a wife or husband then you get children. If you get children you will need to spend money for their food and shelter. To spend money you will need to get a job... and on and on it went....one of his points was a better way to be was to be free to keep your attention on "God" all day. No other responsibilities or demands. But then that's what some monks and nuns do.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Cribbage1952

Let's say you have a friend, and that friend either dies or abandons you. The result is that you suffer deep sorrow.
As you can see, it's better to have acquaintances only.

The fear of sorrow is not a wholesome motivation.

[Miss Hepburn]

@Cribbage...I would simply like to say ... not being Buddhist, but I like Buddhism...I really understand what you're saying.
I think it was brave to say it...because you prob knew you would get kick back.

[Unseeking Seeker]

I agree with sky

In spiritual practice or as adopted as a way of life in mindfulness, in my view it is not negation that is required but celebration, in a mode of embrace and release, intimate yet nonchalant like the breeze.

Why fear friendship, intimacy, closeness? Feeling ourself being breathed by God or let us say, the universe, is not each in-breath life giving and enlivening, each out-breath, ego-dissolution in surrender? Likewise, let us hold tenderly all relationships, even the casual smile to a stranger like the vibrant void that holds existence in its womb with affection and yet remains detached.

Just thoughts … great line of inquiry, Cribbage.

[Bluto]

Originally Posted by Cribbage1952

suffering is caused by emotional attachment.

Suffering offers a rich opportunity for learning, as do emotional attachments. That's what physical incarnations are all about.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Maisy

A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. I can't remember it exactly but it was like: If you get a wife or husband then you get children. If you get children you will need to spend money for their food and shelter. To spend money you will need to get a job... and on and on it went....one of his points was a better way to be was to be free to keep your attention on "God" all day.

And yet He was married for 32 years with 5 children before He decided to 'retire' from family life... I presume He thought it was a 'job' and decided to change it.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Maisy

That reminds me of getting pets like a cat or a dog. Their life span is a lot shorter than most of us so one is kind of setting themselves up for a heartbreak by getting one and becoming attached and in love with it.

And yet it is worth it because of the good memories. My dog died last year but I think about him every day, and in a good way. Perhaps getting a second pet before the older one dies helps, because then part of the memory lives on in the pet still alive.

Originally Posted by Maisy

A lot of religious types like monks and nuns decide to not have romantic relationships.

Romantic relationship are consuming and probably prevent us from doing a lot of other things we'd love to do. It's give and take, we sleep about 8 hours a day (most of us, I think/hope), and then there's work. There's no ''I can do everything I want at the same time and be great at all of it'', we may try but we end up becoming very average at everything. This is why many of the greatest minds throughout history - be they philosophers, scientists, or spiritual teachers - were single. They dedicated precious time into one practice, and achieved supernatural like focus.

Your post reminded me of this video and Buddhist channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNTY...=WordsofWisdom

I can recommend this channel, a lot of perspectives applicable to daily life.

[sky]

Is it not better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all ?