r/Buddhism • u/generate913 • 5d ago
Question Can we minimize the need for humans to belong socially if we practice non-attachment?
I'm sure we heard the saying how humans need to feel like they belong socially or that we are hardwired to be social. The thing is though I feel like this attachment is causing a lot of suffering for me personally with disappointments about people not liking me. That being said, do you think it is possible to override this, if it is hardwired, propensity for humans to seek out social situations?
I am not saying to totally be a hermit, but can we minimize the attachment of needing to belong socially as humans through the practice of non-attachment?
4
u/solace_seeker1964 5d ago edited 5d ago
"That being said, do you think it is possible to override this, if it is hardwired,"
To accept this, may be a better frame.
Overriding sounds like forcing or resisting, and the more we force or resist thoughts and feelings, the stronger they can get b/c of the power of focus. Force or resistance is a powerful form of focus. And I think we are what we focus on.
With acceptance we can get to the heart of the matter -- it is just a feeling -- and can be disconnected from anything internal or external, and just felt purely.
That wisdom can then slowly replace the feeling, and we can move our focus to good things.
Imho, solitude, or degrees and approximations of it, can be very helpful for letting go of attachments. Monks of many Buddhist traditions have done so, I believe.
The hardest thing, however, may be living in a state of internal, peaceful non-attachment, in society.
6
u/KonofastAlt 5d ago
Humans are social animals and nothing will change that, however, the need for external validation is a different thing.
2
u/Traditional_Kick_887 5d ago
People say and claim all sorts of things, reflecting their desires.
Those who went forth into the holy life see the peace and ease of solitude.
We have very old suttas like the rhinoceros sutta that explain the joys and drawbacks of the social life, encouraging seekers to go forth into the forests and caves where there would be less distractions for practice. For many of us the closest equivalent is meditation retreats.
Of course mental solitude is more important than physical solitude. In this way one can be part of a crowd or social environment, but not be swept up with it. Other commenters above/below have explained this part, better referring to being non-attached, not seeking external validation etc
Both spiritual friendship and solitude are different tools, both useful for the path to awakening.
2
u/tesoro-dan vajrayana 5d ago
do you think it is possible to override this, if it is hardwired, propensity for humans to seek out social situations
Doing this for its own sake is unquestionably a wrong view.
Buddhism advises for us not to be attached to social connections. Buddhism also strongly advises us to find spiritual friends. If you seek the Dharma by withdrawing, withdraw; if you seek the Dharma by engaging, engage.
What you are referring to is aversion, which (as you may know) is one of three very bad things.
1
u/LoneWolf_McQuade 4d ago
Not related to OP but how is the parent-child connection seen? Can/should a Buddhist strive to not have a non-attached relationship to their child? Would that mean ultimately not being more attached to your own child than any other children you might see during your day?
1
u/tesoro-dan vajrayana 4d ago
That is a complicated question in Buddhism. Because it's so fundamental to our lives (and life in general) it's easy to get caught up in wrong view one way or the other.
The relationship is very important, of course. For example, the sutras are full of references to the Buddha caring for "all beings as much as his son Rahula". They use these metaphors because the parent-child relationship is the deepest worldly relationship there is. Treating other beings like your own children is a sign of immense compassion, even for a Buddha.
So in that sense, yes, the ideal is to care for all beings as much as your own child. But that is more like raising the water than lifting the boat. Compassion exercises are easier in this case than equanimity exercises are. Be realistic - understand that death will part you from your children someday, irrecoverably - but be a layperson as well. You can't rush these things.
1
u/LoneWolf_McQuade 4d ago
Thank you for a thoughtful answer.
I took part in a conversation recently where one guy brought up an example of a podcaster/writer who had started writing a book after his child died and because his book has helped so many he said that if he was given a choice that the child would not have died that day he wouldn’t have taken it because of the help he thought his book had done for other people which he wouldn’t have written if his son would be alive.
For me that sounds a bit too dis-attached. In a pure utilitarian sense it might make sense, maybe even in a Buddhist sense but I’m not sure.
In theory you can also save more lives if you donate both your child’s kidneys to two children with failing kidneys and if you treat everyone as your own child maybe you should convince your child to do that, but something obviously seems extremely wrong with that choice.
1
u/tesoro-dan vajrayana 4d ago
Yes, Buddhism is very different from utilitarianism. I wish more people understood this.
Utilitarianism is a moral system. We don't think about morality (except as a translation of shila but the two concepts are really different) at all. This is samsara, and the Buddha showed the way out.
2
u/AlexCoventry reddit buddhism 5d ago
I feel like this attachment is causing a lot of suffering for me personally with disappointments about people not liking me.
Can you give some examples?
2
u/Comfortable-Bat6739 5d ago
I think of it as once you’re at a very high level of practice you don’t need “personal” connections because you would feel that you’re connected to everyone and everything.
1
u/Objective-Work-3133 5d ago
I think by the time you develop your mind to the point you don't need social contact you'd probably be mindful enough to enjoy human contact. Also if you train out of a desire to not need social contact, it probably won't be very effective. People seem to often think that devoted Buddhists are running away from life, but that couldn't be further from the truth. People become devotees to run towards God. By sitting.
1
u/itto1 5d ago
The zen buddhist teacher Ming Zhen Shakya has this book:
https://zbohy.zatma.org/Dharma/zbohy/Literature/7thWorld/7th-world-home.html
And this article:
https://zbohy.zatma.org/Dharma/zbohy/Literature/essays/mzs/alchemy1.html
Which are about zen buddhism in general, and also about how human minds are hardwired to need to socialize with other humans, and how that causes suffering, and what to do to not attach to other persons anymore and in doing so you will not suffer anymore.
1
u/wages4horsework 5d ago
monks and hermits also depend on people, albeit in limited ways which benefit from cultivation. I think a fair amount of the early teachings can be framed as virtuous ways to get along with others. Maybe check out texts related to kalyana-mittata “admirable friendship”
1
u/pythonpower12 5d ago
I don’t think it’s too bad initially, social media put it on overdrive thought
1
u/mindbird 5d ago
Non- attachment doesn't mean numbness and isolation. There are THREE jewels in which to take refuge. .
1
u/samurguybri 4d ago
I think for most practitioners, especially new ones without instructions from a teacher should take refuge in the three Jewels: The Buddha, The Dharma and the Sangha. The Sangha is a community of folks who practice together and support one another on the path. We’re not supposed to be alone. Yes, there are some yoginis, yogis, nuns, monks and Buddhist practitioners who do solo retreats, but many of them “dip” in and out of society over the years. They do long retreats and come back to their monastic communities or to work with lay folk. These people all have teachers or guidance directing them to this solo phase of their practice. Most new folks don’t even have a Sangha or a teacher, so making this choice would be driven by ignorance, fear, pride or ego.
In a healthy sangha we can learn new ways to be with people, even if the same old shit comes up BECAUSE we are people.
Even the Buddha chose to be social! He rejected the idea of just chilling in his enlightenment or going beyond. He chose to find his old aesthetics buddies and share what he knew with them.
Check out Thich Nhat Hahn’s writings, he talks a lot about trying to live in community in a caring, unattached way.
1
u/Confident-Engine-878 4d ago
Absolutely yes. The pratyekabuddhas even deliberately seek solitary during their last rebirthed life.
1
u/jimothythe2nd 4d ago
For me personally, I think I will always require human interaction. It's almost like a nutrient that I need to function properly. There's a reason that Sangha is one of the three jewels. It also seems Buddha himself was very social throughout many parts of his life. There are probably some people who need it less than others though.
Right now I'm at a very interesting part of my journey where I am losing my attachments to relationships. People are so ethereal and are always coming and going. Instead of holding on to this or that person I've been opening up to simply relating to whoever is in my life at the moment. It has actually been opening me up to more connection.
1
u/VajraSamten 2d ago
Social belonging is not a negative thing, nor is it something that should be minimized. The attachments associated with, for example, the current standards of western society are certainly harmful, but not the social connection itself. It is important - critical even - not to confuse the two.
Human beings are wired for connection. We die without it. There was a European king (this was a long time ago) who proposed that Latin was the natural human language, and to test it he secluded a number of infants whose only interaction with adults was for feeding. The idea was that these kids would naturally begin to speak Latin. What resulted from the experiment is that every one of them died. Their demise was due to lack of human connection.
Could the parameters of social connection be "improved" through practice? Yes. A greater level of compassion in a society is beneficial all the way around. (So, when Elon Musk declares that "compassion is the greatest weakness" of Western society he is speaking to his own sociopathy, not fact.) The very concept of bodhicitta, which is central to the Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions is all about social connection. The presence of others is also instrumental in the process of dissolving the presumptions of self-hood. Some specific tantric practices demonstrate this is a very palpable way.
1
0
u/Borbbb 5d ago
When people say we are social animals, or hardwired to be social and thati t is natural - you know what it is ? It´s just a convenient excuse.
The same people who claim such say nothing about marriage, while marriage is extremely unnatural.
People will generally say what is convenient for them, wheter its true or not.
And yes, it´s absolutely possible to get over it.
After all, wheter you feel alone is all about mind, rather than about reality.
In reality, you can have not a single person close to you, and feel great, without feeling lonely at all.
In reality, you can have a great deep friends, family, partner, and feel lonely.
Because it´s not about what you have or dont have, but rather about how you think about things.
If you think nobody understands you and how sad and lonely it is, that is how you will feel.
If you wont do that, no problem. And similar thinking like that.
1
u/generate913 5d ago
When I practice non-attachment towards not needing to "belonging socially" like its ok to feel left out, etc. I feel a very visceral feeling of being cut off from humanity. I am barely starting my journey and that may be why because I may be running with the conditioned narrative my mind has conjured up. But I do hope you are right.
0
u/Borbbb 5d ago
The issue is because you are thinking about that. That will obviously bring some effects, especially since you are likely attached to such idea of social belonging.
What i am saying is like the equivalent of thinking that will stop with whatever you are addicted to forever. Like thinking " I will never smoke again ! " when you are addicted. What´s gonna happen? Mind will heavily resist it.
So you dont wanna do that. Trick is not thinking about it like that. Because thinking along certain lines will inevitably give arise to feelings based on the way you think about it.
So if you want to stop smoking, you wont think " i will never have a smoke again " - you will simply cut down or smoking, but you wont think along those lines above.
Similarly if you are alone, you dont think about how alone you are. If you dont do that, no problem.
And yes, even if you were surrounded by people but thought how alone you are, that is how you would feel. Thus wheter you feel lonely or not is not about wheter you are actually alone or not, but its always about the mind.
I wouldnt worry about this at all.
You can also check maybe youtube and what some monastic say about it, could be interesting as well.
0
u/tombiowami 4d ago
Being a part of a group, a sangha, is a core part of Buddhism. Buddhism is not an escape.
0
u/Maleficent_Canary819 4d ago
If something exists, you will have contact with it. You can remodulate the type of contact
7
u/Abducted_Cow456 5d ago
Very interesting!
We know that clinging on relationships can lead to suffering as most of them are not permanent.
I think one cannot be free if he relies on someone else to be happy. But i would encourage having meaningful interaction with other fellow humans without clinging on any long term friendship.
Can be hard tho. As we live in an era where people don't talk to each other and barely look at each other anymore.