Acquaintances are Better than Friends

[sky]

Originally Posted by Bluto

Perhaps it was a facelift or botox gone wrong???

People frown for numerous reason not just through unhappiness. I personally frown when I'm in deep concentration....

[sky]

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

My friend just got a new kidney, offered her mine - her husband died after a heart transplant, her 2 little doggies died
of old age last month, last week her son, 38, was found dead in his apt...NYC. Funeral was Monday.Has the chore of cleaning out his stuff.

When I hear of incidents that you're friend is experiencing, one thing after another, I just want to hug them, gosh I feel for Her....

[JustBe]

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. . Buddhist-Nonattachment.

I think it’s much better for both yourself and others to let go of all unhealthy attachments and build relationships in this way. When we cling, we suffer, when we let go we understand how all relationships feel in this way.

[Altair]

Friendships are deeper than acquaintances. I would say one of the key differences is you can spend fulfilling free time with a friend, free of judgement, but not an acquaintance. You're more on your guard with an acquaintance, not showing your true colours.

I think friendships are fine as long as there is respect for the other's freedom. A friend who demands or expects frequent contact is not really a friend. Friends can not have contact for months or years and then, when they meet again, continue where they left. Otherwise you are imprisoning that other person. With a friend you can have a better time than with an acquaintance so I disagree with OP on that. A friendship also doesn't mean you develop a severe attachment or can't let go.

I also agree with Gem that fear of sorrow is not wholesome. Like I mentioned, I lost my dog but it would never cross my mind to say oh I should never have bonded in the first place nor would I say the sorrow would mean I'd never get a dog again. I have heard some people say such things but I find it a bit disrespectful towards all the treasured experiences. You don't delete your best playthrough!

[Miss Hepburn]

There certainly is a fine line between opening your heart to loving...and also staying detached..
since that 'thing' we love will disappear before long!
The question is not Hamlet's, 'To be or not to be'...but rather, "To love or not to love."
imo.

[Maisy]

Originally Posted by Altair

I also agree with Gem that fear of sorrow is not wholesome. Like I mentioned, I lost my dog but it would never cross my mind to say oh I should never have bonded in the first place...

I think part of it is how the words are spinned in the mind of individuals.

Like deciding to never own another pet can be called a "fear of sorrow" if one wants to spin it that way. It can also be called the wisdom of understanding what "owning" another being entails. Owning an animal. It could also come from a deep understanding of what the experience is about and entails and the possible downfalls.

Like one could say, "I will never marry a drug addict, or an alcoholic again." Then one could spin that and say that is a fear of sorrow. There is no doubt owning a domesticated animal and having it love you brings pleasure. Then it getting sick, or hit by a car, or running away etc brings suffering of various degrees. But that's normal human life. Living with pleasure and pain. One could also give up both the pleasure and pain and remain at peace which is also a type of pleasure.

I had a friend bring bed bugs into my house once after she rode a city bus. Both my indoor cats got attacked and were being "farmed" by a type of bed bug that has adapted to domesticated animals. The beg bugs ride on them and bite them and they suffer a lot. The bugs also breed like crazy and infect everything. Hide everywhere in the dwelling. Tiny things. The bites on humans are also horrendous. Took the cats to two vets and they said there was nothing they could do as not only were the bugs all over my place in places unreachable, some had hid deep down in the cats ears. I suppose one could put the cats to sleep and try to put pesticides all over them and deep into their ears and move and throw away all your furniture etc. Yea will never own another pet. Not in this world. Too much stuff exists to make them suffer. Animals in the wild have natural ways to deal with such things. Pets living in a human house is a human invention.

I have had pets all my life though. Now I would not want to clean up after an animal every day for 15 years or so. Human babies get potty trained a lot faster than that. Dogs, cats.... yea you will be picking that up everyday. For the pleasure of love and companionship I suppose. I have a couple of house plants I take care of now lol. They clean my air in return.

[Maisy]

Originally Posted by Gem

The fear of sorrow is not a wholesome motivation.

But then one can get all the "love" or contentment they need from within themselves and not be dependent on some other person or animal for that. Maybe why some monks and nuns or anyone really opt for the single life and some others give up all possessions as well. Live a simple life with few responsibilities for others. Of course this could also be done because of supreme selfishness lol. But I think it can also be done out of wisdom or understanding. One can care for and love and help others while expecting nor wanting anything back in return.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Maisy

But then one can get all the "love" or contentment they need from within themselves and not be dependent on some other person or animal for that.

Interesting point. Should be re-read carefully.

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by Maisy

But then one can get all the "love" or contentment they need from within themselves
and not be dependent on some other person or animal for that.

You got that right! But, from exp - I found out not many have ever felt that -
that there is a fountain of love inside....even me saying that here, many will think is crazy.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Maisy

But then one can get all the "love" or contentment they need from within themselves and not be dependent on some other person or animal for that. Maybe why some monks and nuns or anyone really opt for the single life

I don't know about that, but if it's true, from a human needs perspective, it's probably better to have loving relationships of different kinds, and usually, people who "opt" for a more isolated existence have hangups that impede them from having close relationships. They might aggrandise that into a spiritual superiority, but it's usually just being socially disfunctional.