[Mitsuko]

They also told us not to value head over heels romantic love because it is irrational. We instead were encouraged to view people realistically. Compassion for others was the ultimate ideal, but love with a sexual component wasn't. They also said that people aren't really physically attractive, they are actually covered in microscopic bacteria etc, and that even if they do appear attractive, this kind of beauty is only fleeting as the body will decay with age. This was to teach us to not be so irrationally attached to others physical form, to instead try and see it as it actually is.

On a side note, they also taught us about reincarnation. At one point they asked us to imagine that we have been in this endless cycle of living and dying and that this is quite a painful process. That we have inhabited all these different bodies and that they all have died and we have had to endure losing all of the people that we have loved throughout all these lives. Which is why being attached to impermanent things is painful, because inevitably you will lose them and everything in existence is impermanent.It was such an interesting perspective!

Well, if they're not physically attractive because they are animals, then neither am I. Rejoice in our connected relationship of decay! =p I understand the body's fleeting/impermanent status, and that you can experience more of a person that just their body... it seems like a weird way to explain it.

Did they explain how they came to the conclusion of reincarnation? I get the concept, I don't understand the jump from observing impermanence to inferring past/present/future lives. Why is this life not all there is, according to this philosophy?




OT: I'm trying to implement this idea, as I am coming to understand Buddhist philosophy. It could be numbing... but it isn't for negative reasons, or negative endings (like using substances to numb emotions could).
(The ultimate egalitarian perspective?): Attachment, up to a point, is a good thing. After that point, it creates an imbalance, some unease. (All emotion has the potential to become negative/destructive, rather than positive/turned constructive) You can have attachment to others, which would serve as a base for compassion (a good thing). And when I use 'others,' I mean everyone. Everyone is deserving of some compassion; no one is inherently good, or inherently evil. People have different characteristics, and they can be put in so many different contexts. (Behavioural traits can be destructive, but then you dislike the action, and not necessarily the actor).
Now, you know your partner has their flaws, but they also have good aspects. So does everyone else, as no one is fundamentally bad/good, especially when you look at their history, and their current context. They do not know another way to be [cue NF-ness wanting to make YOU be a better YOU, and help better the world]. When everyone is seen on a similar level, it is difficult to hold someone on a pedestal, as relationships do (that is, the partner is distinguished from everyone else. Maybe a component of 'us vs. them' thrown with it).
This doesn't mean you will have compatibility, but you will have an appreciation for others, and a level of acceptance.
Another aspect is global awareness, and global compassion (reducing the lines of patriotism, nationalism, etc, in favour of oneness with/for others).

I hope I explained it correctly, or clearly enough. Tis' late.

[Luke]

Well, if they're not physically attractive because they are animals, then neither am I. Rejoice in our connected relationship of decay! =p I understand the body's fleeting/impermanent status, and that you can experience more of a person that just their body... it seems like a weird way to explain it.

Did they explain how they came to the conclusion of reincarnation? I get the concept, I don't understand the jump from observing impermanence to inferring past/present/future lives. Why is this life not all there is, according to this philosophy?

The thing about people not being attractive was to do with viewing people realistically, rather than as an idealised image. From their perspective, people tend to idealise those who they are romantically attracted to. So the idea is, the body isn't really an attractive thing, we have an illusory perception of it that makes it appear attractive. If we concentrated more on the bodies imperfections, then we can gain a more realistic perspective and be less inclined to see a romanticised image of other people.

Attraction is a subjective thing, so it's perfectly possible for people to still find these imperfections attractive, but considering the lifestyle that people who subscribe to this spiritual philosophy lead, which focuses on not giving into desires and viewing reality as it is, without any embellishment created by fantasies, it makes sense to them to try and see past physical attraction.

I personally find people attractive, and it's not a perspective that I want to give up. But I can see their point of view.

They did mention theories on why they believed reincarnation was true. I think a lot of it was to do with the idea that everything has an antecedent, everything has a cause. So they believe that past lives were the causes of the present lives. Another thing they mentioned is that people appear to be born with an already developed personality, which they think is something which has developed through the experience of multiple lives. I guess it's similar to how people say that some people appear to have "old souls". Much of what they believed apparently came from direct experience gained through deep meditation.

There really is no proof that these beliefs are true, or even much evidence, and they are not something I personally subscribe to, but it was quite deep and interesting all the same.

[krentz]

The thing about people not being attractive was to do with viewing people realistically, rather than as an idealised image. From their perspective, people tend to idealise those who they are romantically attracted to. So the idea is, the body isn't really an attractive thing, we have an illusory perception of it that makes it appear attractive. If we concentrated more on the bodies imperfections, then we can gain a more realistic perspective and be less inclined to see a romanticised image of other people.

Attraction is a subjective thing, so it's perfectly possible for people to still find these imperfections attractive, but considering the lifestyle that people who subscribe to this spiritual philosophy lead, which focuses on not giving into desires and viewing reality as it is, without any embellishment created by fantasies, it makes sense to them to try and see past physical attraction.

See, this is exactly what I don't understand. What do they mean by seeing reality 'as it is'? We can only ever experience reality as we perceive it, and in that perception it must be apprehended by our human faculties. We can change and expand our perception, certaintly. But seeing as attractiveness is purely subjective, in that it only exists objectively as a subjective phenomenon, then I don't see what focusing on the bacteria and organic decay of others' flesh really accomplishes.

Certainly, by contemplating and dwelling on this point people will seem less attractive! But that is for the same reason that youthful, vibrant people generally appear more attractive - it's human nature! What would we be saying if we found micro-organisms beautiful? Also, take some of the deep sea creatures. You know, like giant squid and other similar eldritch abominations. Most people undoubtedly find their physical forms grotesque. But that is due to the same bias that we might consider kittens as cute, for example... to directly perceive reality 'as it is' without any subjective bias? It sounds nice in theory, but I don't think as a human being it is possible to attain. Although, as I have limited experience with this approach to spirituality, take my thoughts with a pinch of salt.

[Bear987]

They also said that people aren't really physically attractive, they are actually covered in microscopic bacteria

They might be covered in it, but so am I. It's something we all have in common. It seems of little use to me to hold that against particular people - on an individual basis.

and that even if they do appear attractive, this kind of beauty is only fleeting as the body will decay with age.

Oh, so the monks knew the microscopic bacteria scare tactic wouldn't work all that well - so they planned ahead. I'd like to counter with, again, stating that it seems unreasonable to me to bust balls on an individual basis for something that all humans have in common. We all get old and ugly.

I think desire and passion are important parts of life, even though they can be unhealthy.

Am I glad you said that. 'Cause I agree. Oh I would also like to add that humans would become extinct fast if we stop the lovin'.

[Bear987]

to directly perceive reality 'as it is' without any subjective bias? It sounds nice in theory, but I don't think as a human being it is possible to attain. Although, as I have limited experience with this approach to spirituality, take my thoughts with a pinch of salt.

I see it like this: trying to see past subjective perceptions like physical attraction is giving up something that makes us human beings. In other words - when trying to become one with everything, which is what meditation is all about (is it?), you have to stop being human - or more accurately: you have to forego on human properties. Dispense with whatever separates us from mineral life forms. So talking, using your eyes and having sex go out the window.

Even though, meditation can be very relaxing - because you can forget about your troubles for a while, it isn't the answer for the problems we face in life. I reckon it would be more helpful if we figure out how we can put that what makes us human to good use.

[Luke]

See, this is exactly what I don't understand. What do they mean by seeing reality 'as it is'? We can only ever experience reality as we perceive it, and in that perception it must be apprehended by our human faculties. We can change and expand our perception, certaintly. But seeing as attractiveness is purely subjective, in that it only exists objectively as a subjective phenomenon, then I don't see what focusing on the bacteria and organic decay of others' flesh really accomplishes.

Certainly, by contemplating and dwelling on this point people will seem less attractive! But that is for the same reason that youthful, vibrant people generally appear more attractive - it's human nature! What would we be saying if we found micro-organisms beautiful? Also, take some of the deep sea creatures. You know, like giant squid and other similar eldritch abominations. Most people undoubtedly find their physical forms grotesque. But that is due to the same bias that we might consider kittens as cute, for example... to directly perceive reality 'as it is' without any subjective bias? It sounds nice in theory, but I don't think as a human being it is possible to attain. Although, as I have limited experience with this approach to spirituality, take my thoughts with a pinch of salt.

I guess the idea is that when we are affected by powerful emotions such as attraction, we lose objectivity. For example, research has shown that people rate people who they see as physically attractive as being more intelligent and as having better personalities than people who they perceive as not being attractive. They even give people who they perceive as being attractive lower sentences for committing crimes than people who they perceive as being unattractive. So I think that part of their philosophy makes sense, in that emotions such as attraction can lead to us having a false perception of reality. I think I should also mention that they wouldn't want people to view others as being grotesque, because a powerful negative emotion like disgust will also lead to us losing objectivity.

I'm not sure if we can ever escape the subjectivity of our experience, but perhaps it is possible to at least get closer to a realistic perception of reality? It does seem that some perceptions we have are more accurate than others, so perhaps with training we can learn to be more realistic. Their tactic for viewing reality accurately is to treat all our perceptions as sensory stimuli and to simply experience that stimuli as sensations in the mind and body without attempting to interpret or embellish it. It's like a kind of dispassionate state of observation.

[Bago]

I am also someone who is trying to transcend duality. I think this link may explain the OP's query a little bit.
Letting Go of Judgment and Experiencing Reality | Spiritual Transformers

I used to be called "moralistic" when I was younger in my 20s, and I behaved in a way which judges and uses the typical black and white thinking too, rather than to really absorb, listen to the other person's feelings, emotions, and what they are saying etc before I react. Cos what we sometimes think we see, are what we "associate" in our minds as X already, rather than to be in the moment, and accept and acknowledge other people's energies.

I "am guessing" (I have stopped using the word "think" to describe literally that it is my own thought or judgement only), that the guy is going through a phase of where he wishes to transcend attachment, and in such a phase, he cannot be swayed by others whom he can attach and connect emotionally with. When he is out of that phase, then he can indeed always be in his true Self, and not to switch back to his ego state. (Ego=ESTJ, Self=INFP, remember?) When he can call his true self at ease as and when, then he can offer the best of himself in a relationship, and is possibly so much easier to give what he can as his own true self, which honor himself, and his partner as well.

I say this, cos it is what I am going through now, and I met an INFP guy who I thought was also going through a spiritual awakening stage and he and I kind of ended up in a co-dependency stage which I did not want. Though, I am finding ways to remove us from that state, and be in an inter-dependent stage. It is not great, cos I am really harsh and I starts shouting when I know he is manipulating me emotively rather than to read me correct, and I was the same too, I hold onto his behaviour pattern and tried to mimic that. It is not cos of a desire of us not wanting to be together, but it is like .... we do not seem to be able to tune into a single frequency to sustain us, and in this light, one or both of us will suffer emotionally.


Does that make sense? I should not speak on behalf of this guy, so really, you should respect him and honor him and maybe try to get him to explain a little bit more. Though, I do think that you seems to be "grasping" (which is a state I used to know and accept myself often, i.e. I need to know the absolute truth, but there is no absolute truth behind anything, not really)..... Knowing a version of truth sometimes gives me comfort, but it is only going to tie me down more in the future, cos I start to build up this "model" in my mind, and I will reject anything that does not fit into this model moving forward into the future.... hence co-dependencies will always be at work.

[doublexuan]

Yes Sadhana/Non-attachment is something I am actively striving for right now. And what led me to this path may seem ironic. There is a person whom I felt a deep connection with, and even though it is not possible to be together due to circumstances, I felt love for the first time, in a spiritual sense. I felt so much potential for unconditional love towards him, but I realized that it is not possible yet because my ego and expectations are limiting this potential. So I began to naturally seek the path of non-attachment, out of the love I felt for him.

Attachment is desire, and desire is expectation. If you view it this way, it is not love in its purest sense if you go into a relationship expecting something from another person.

I think non-attachment may sound cold and detached, but it is in fact quite the opposite. Buddhists meditate to achieve an unclouded mind,which is generally always cluttered with thoughts-ego-desires. When your mind becomes completely clear, your actions becomes pure without intentions. So when you love for example (I personally don't categorize love as an emotion), it is a pure love without intentions or expectations. You no longer become dependent on the other to become happy. You love because you love, you give because you give. That is all, untainted with petty thoughts.

[_Jagodei_]

Thanks everyone for your input!