Goals & Non-Attachment

[hkvanx]

I am having contradictory feelings about practicing non-attachment while setting goals (personal, professional, etc). I am naturally a Type A personality who likes to plan and execute towards an goal. Naturally, I put in a lot efforts to achieve my goal.

My understanding of non-attachment is that I should not be attached to outcomes since I cannot control all the variables of life and things are impermanence. With that view, I find it hard to have motivation to even set goals or try to achieve them. Why not do the minimal in life since everything is impermanence and happiness is internal with meditation?

I feel like goals and non-attachment practice are contradictory. I put in a lot of efforts for goals because I care about achieving a specific outcome. Practicing non-attachment is telling me to not care or be attached to outcome.

What am I doing wrong?

[Queequeg]

You are a lay person. The reality is that the non-attachment you are aiming for is incompatible with your life. This is something that does not seem to get communicated properly to Buddhists in the West.

The Buddhist teachings that get transmitted here, the ones that appear so unique and compelling are actually the highest teachings that the ordinary lay person in Buddhist societies often makes only passing effort to perfect. In general, lay people are urged to cultivate faith first and foremost, practice generosity, kindness, observe the 5 precepts, and generally live a moral life, upholding the responsibilities of one's station.

As a lay person engaged in business, you are encouraged to conduct your self honestly and diligently in business, support your superiors and your subordinates in business, to support and care for your family and extended social circle, support the sangha. On occasion, you can take a retreat to cultivate non-attachment.

But trying to cultivate non-attachment while engaged in business is a recipe for disaster. You will neither be able to perfect non-attachment nor be an exemplary lay person on whom people can depend.

Be a pillar. Carry others and work to create the conditions for the Dharma to flow and for others to benefit.

[Simon E.]

We should fulfill our worldly dharmas to the best of our ability. With full commitment and total engagement. Having done that, having done our best, we should develop equanimity towards the outcomes as they effect us personally.

[hkvanx]

You are a lay person. The reality is that the non-attachment you are aiming for is incompatible with your life. This is something that does not seem to get communicated properly to Buddhists in the West.

The Buddhist teachings that get transmitted here, the ones that appear so unique and compelling are actually the highest teachings that the ordinary lay person in Buddhist societies often makes only passing effort to perfect. In general, lay people are urged to cultivate faith first and foremost, practice generosity, kindness, observe the 5 precepts, and generally live a moral life, upholding the responsibilities of one's station.

As a lay person engaged in business, you are encouraged to conduct your self honestly and diligently in business, support your superiors and your subordinates in business, to support and care for your family and extended social circle, support the sangha. On occasion, you can take a retreat to cultivate non-attachment.

But trying to cultivate non-attachment while engaged in business is a recipe for disaster. You will neither be able to perfect non-attachment nor be an exemplary lay person on whom people can depend.

Be a pillar. Carry others and work to create the conditions for the Dharma to flow and for others to benefit.

From what you explained, it sounds like the Buddhist practice in its complete form (non-attachment, nirvana, etc) can only be achieved by monks in a monastery.

What's that is true, then what is the point of practicing as a layman if you can't get to the full level?

[Queequeg]

From what you explained, it sounds like the Buddhist practice in its complete form (non-attachment, nirvana, etc) can only be achieved by monks in a monastery.

Or yogis.

There is the example of Vimalakirti...

What's that is true, then what is the point of practicing as a layman if you can't get to the full level?

LOL

Spoken like a businessman. "What's in it for me?" Talk about attachment!

How about this:

Success in your endeavors. Being surrounded by loved ones who treasure you. Being admired by friends and acquaintances.

To make progress on the path.

Only Buddha has attained "the full level" in recorded history. Even as a monk or yogi, "the full level" is out of reach in this life. (there are caveats to this, some tradition specific, but generally all agree, only one Samyaksambuddha at a time.)

In the scheme of things, and its all relative based on tradition, whether you endeavor as a lay person or a diligent and devoted monk, the likely achievement in this life is a matter of degree.

Consider asking this question again in 30 years after you have devoted your life to your endeavors and carrying out your lay Buddhist practice.

As I like to say,
Just do it.

[Könchok Thrinley]

As lay people we should immerse ourselves into dharma as much as possible without neglecting our responsibilities towards our families, partners, friends, bosses, society... etc. etc. Maybe think less about what you "should" do and think more about what you can do. Start with some reading, add a bit of meditation, try to develop love and bodhicitta and mindfulness through the day. There are many things one can do really. Yes, we have many distractions, but at the same time spending time in a monastery is not that different, just probably more formal practice and with more reminders to practice.

I really like the metaphor of a an ordinary piece of wood laying in a sandalwood forest and slowly being infused with the smell of the sandalwood. This is just like how dharma influences our mind.

[tatpurusa]

If your goal is to attain non-attachment, it is already attachment to that goal.

There are two kinds of attachment: negative and positive.
The negative one is attachment to not-doing: you avoid doing anything or set goals, because they do not fulfill the attachment to the highest goal: non attachment.
The positive one is doing things in order to reach your goals you are attached to.

So do the following:
1. avoid negative attachment by simply just doing the things necessary in order to reach those goals (renouncing to negative attachment)
2. Let go of the fruits and outcomes of your doing, just do it because it is the right thing to do, not because you want to reach an outcome. (renouncing to positive attachment)

So it means: renounce the fruit of your action, not the action itself.
This way you can have full non-attachment and fulfill your tasks in life, without becoming a monk.
You can even have full realization and be a samyak-sambuddha leading the life of a householder without becoming a monk.

[Simon E.]

[pemachophel]

hkvanx,

I have to disagree with Queequeg. Perhaps in the school of Buddhism he practices, his opinion is correct. However, according to Vajrayana Buddhism, it is absolutely possible to achieve the highest levels of Realization as a layperson. That's the whole raison d'etre for Vajrayana. King Indrabodhi wasn't willing to give up his kingdom and become a monk.

Attachment has literally nothing to do with one's station in life or what one is physically doing at any given moment. Attachment is a purely mental event.

That being said, to make real progress on the path as a layperson is not easy. To be honest, very, very few succeed. Almost always lay practitioners eventually fall prey to the allures of samsara. But truth be known, most monks and nuns also fall prey to the allures of samsara. This is called the Dharma of Gods and humans. Therefore, it's said that true Dharma practitioners are as rare as a star in daytime. That's just how hard it is.

Rather than ask what's the use of the Dharma if most practitioners fail to achieve the highest goal, maybe ask yourself how badly you need Buddhahood and what you are willing to do to achieve it. In my experience, there's nothing wrong with the path. It's just that the overwhelming majority of practitioners are not willing to do what it takes, lay or monastic.

Good luck & best wishes.

[illarraza]

In the Soka Gakkai dictionary of Buddhism, we read:

eight winds ［八風］ ( happū): Eight conditions that prevent people from advancing along the right path to enlightenment. According to The Treatise on the Stage of Buddhahood Sutra—Bandhuprabha’s work that was translated into Chinese by Hsüan-tsang—the eight winds are prosperity, decline, disgrace, honor, praise, censure, suffering, and pleasure. People are often swayed either by their attachment to prosperity, honor, praise, and pleasure (collectively known as “four favorites” or “four favorable winds”), or by their aversion to decline, disgrace, censure, and suffering (“four dislikes” or “four adverse winds”).

Nichiren says of attachments in the Opening of the Eyes:

"This sutra, which is like good medicine, dispels attachments to the five vehicles and establishes the one ultimate principle. It reproaches those in the ranks of ordinary beings and censures those in the ranks of sagehood, denies [provisional] Mahayana and refutes Hinayana. It speaks of the heavenly devils as poisonous insects and calls non-Buddhists demons. It censures those who cling to Hinayana teachings, calling them mean and impoverished, and it dismisses bodhisattvas as beginners in learning. For this reason, heavenly devils hate to listen to it, non-Buddhists find their ears offended, persons of the two vehicles are dumbfounded, and bodhisattvas flee in terror. That is why all these types of people try to make hindrances [for a practitioner of the Lotus Sutra]. The Buddha was not speaking nonsense when he declared that hatred and jealousy would abound.”

He says later on:

"The Nirvana Sutra says: “[World-Honored One, today I have learned the correct view for the first time. World-Honored One, up till today] we all have been people of mistaken views.” Miao-lo explains this by saying, “They themselves referred to the three teachings [they had practiced until that time] as mistaken views.”196 And Great Concentration and Insight says, “The Nirvana Sutra says, ‘Up till today we all have been people of mistaken views.’ ‘Mistaken’ is bad, is it not?” The Annotations on “Great Concentration and Insight” says: “‘Mistaken’ is bad. Therefore, let it be known that only the perfect teaching is good. There are two meanings involved here. First, what accords with the truth is to be accounted good, and what goes against the truth is to be accounted bad. This is the meaning from the relative viewpoint. [Second,] attachment [to this viewpoint] is bad, and transcending it is good. [This is the meaning from the absolute viewpoint.] From both the relative and absolute viewpoints, we should abandon all that is bad. To be attached to the perfect teaching is bad, and to be attached to the other [three] teachings is of course even worse.”

In order to understand this important meaning of attachments, it must be understood from the perspective of the immeasurable lifespan of the Buddha. The Buddha chooses the optimal teachings according to: The prior teachings; the capacity of the individual (and society); the world (or country); and especially the times. The Buddha is not attached to any teaching. The Buddha and Nichiren teach that this age is the age of the Lotus Sutra.

Mark

[PadmaVonSamba]

My understanding of non-attachment is that I should not be attached to outcomes since I cannot control all the variables of life and things are impermanence. With that view, I find it hard to have motivation to even set goals or try to achieve them. Why not do the minimal in life since everything is impermanence and happiness is internal with meditation?

So... in trying to resolve this problem, you have already just set another goal for yourself!


"...I should not be attached to outcomes since I cannot control all the variables of life and things are impermanence."
Here, you have actually answered your own question!
You are on the right track, but maybe add some more understanding to what you already know:
You shouldn't be attached thinking that the happy result will be permanent. It's that mistaken assumption which leads to suffering.
A simple example:
I'm hungry, my goal is to not be hungry, and my path to that is to eat a sandwich.
I know that the satisfaction is only temporary, but that's okay. That's a good goal, because it serves a purpose, and will make me happy for now.
As long as I understand that the sandwich will not last, then there's no attachment to that goal, and I'm still happy.
(attachment = thinking something is permanent )
However, If I think, "once I eat a sandwich, I will never be hungry again" that's ignorance.
It's going to lead to confusion, anger, and so on, later on when I'm hungry again.
But, that is precisely what beings do. We set goals thinking that after we reach them, we will be forever satisfied. But we aren't.
So, thinking the satisfaction from attaining those goals will be permanent rather than merely a temporary happiness
is what will lead to the experience of suffering later.

As far as the rest of the question, yeah, you can go minimal. That's basically what being a monk is.
Go for it, if it's what you really want!

Of course, you may go minimal-monk for a week and discover that you aren't really quite there yet.
Or, you may love it, shave your head and become a wandering holy man.
There are a lot of pressures to keep busy in this world.

So then, this is a good time to examine your own mind again, and you can take this to the next level.
look at the duality of busy/not busy, minimal/not minimal, goal/not goal
looking at that from the perspective of ego, who is the "me" that it seems to concern?
Instead of thinking "I should be a goal person" or "I should not be a goal person",
you look at the "I" which is the same "I" either way, goals or no goals, and then see if that "I" actually exists anywhere.
If you discover that no actual "I" can be found anywhere, then the whole thing about goals becomes a moot point.'
You can set goals but without a "me" attached to them.
Basically, turn the whole thing into a dharma practice.
.
.
.

[SteRo]

You are a lay person. The reality is that the non-attachment you are aiming for is incompatible with your life. This is something that does not seem to get communicated properly to Buddhists in the West.

The Buddhist teachings that get transmitted here, the ones that appear so unique and compelling are actually the highest teachings that the ordinary lay person in Buddhist societies often makes only passing effort to perfect. In general, lay people are urged to cultivate faith first and foremost, practice generosity, kindness, observe the 5 precepts, and generally live a moral life, upholding the responsibilities of one's station.

As a lay person engaged in business, you are encouraged to conduct your self honestly and diligently in business, support your superiors and your subordinates in business, to support and care for your family and extended social circle, support the sangha. On occasion, you can take a retreat to cultivate non-attachment.

But trying to cultivate non-attachment while engaged in business is a recipe for disaster. You will neither be able to perfect non-attachment nor be an exemplary lay person on whom people can depend.

Be a pillar. Carry others and work to create the conditions for the Dharma to flow and for others to benefit.

From what you explained, it sounds like the Buddhist practice in its complete form (non-attachment, nirvana, etc) can only be achieved by monks in a monastery.

What's that is true, then what is the point of practicing as a layman if you can't get to the full level?

Queequeg's response is to the point.

Practicing as a layman one may practice a layman's practice in complete form or a layman's practice in incomplete form. It is not appropriate to consider a renunciate's practice complete practice exclusively. There are layman's practice in complete and incomplete form and renunciate's practice in complete and incomplete form.

It is better to practice a layman's practice in complete form than to practice a renunciate's practice in incomplete form.

The fact that you find yourself leading a worldly life and striving for worldly goals has its causes. The only practice appropriate for that is a layman's practice which may be pursued with the goal to attain its complete form.

[Queequeg]

hkvanx,

I have to disagree with Queequeg. Perhaps in the school of Buddhism he practices, his opinion is correct. However, according to Vajrayana Buddhism, it is absolutely possible to achieve the highest levels of Realization as a layperson. That's the whole raison d'etre for Vajrayana. King Indrabodhi wasn't willing to give up his kingdom and become a monk.

Attachment has literally nothing to do with one's station in life or what one is physically doing at any given moment. Attachment is a purely mental event.

That being said, to make real progress on the path as a layperson is not easy. To be honest, very, very few succeed. Almost always lay practitioners eventually fall prey to the allures of samsara. But truth be known, most monks and nuns also fall prey to the allures of samsara. This is called the Dharma of Gods and humans. Therefore, it's said that true Dharma practitioners are as rare as a star in daytime. That's just how hard it is.

Rather than ask what's the use of the Dharma if most practitioners fail to achieve the highest goal, maybe ask yourself how badly you need Buddhahood and what you are willing to do to achieve it. In my experience, there's nothing wrong with the path. It's just that the overwhelming majority of practitioners are not willing to do what it takes, lay or monastic.

Good luck & best wishes.

Do you really disagree?

That being said, to make real progress on the path as a layperson is not easy. To be honest, very, very few succeed. Almost always lay practitioners eventually fall prey to the allures of samsara. But truth be known, most monks and nuns also fall prey to the allures of samsara. This is called the Dharma of Gods and humans. Therefore, it's said that true Dharma practitioners are as rare as a star in daytime. That's just how hard it is.

Emphasis added.

Just because its possible, doesn't mean its a realistic goal. Among the Buddha's direct disciples, we have the example of Vimalakirti who attained a very high degree of awakening, but he is the exception to the rule. We can always find exceptions to the rule.

Are all lay people in Tibet who have access to these teachings striving for Buddhahood now? Hardly.

The Buddha remarked:

"A householder or householder's son, hearing the Dhamma, gains conviction in the Tathagata and reflects: 'Household life is confining, a dusty path. The life gone forth is like the open air. It is not easy living at home to practice the holy life totally perfect, totally pure, like a polished shell.'"

He continues:

"What if I were to shave off my hair and beard, put on the ochre robes, and go forth from the household life into homelessness?'

"So after some time he abandons his mass of wealth, large or small; leaves his circle of relatives, large or small; shaves off his hair and beard, puts on the ochre robes, and goes forth from the household life into homelessness.

"When he has thus gone forth, he lives restrained by the rules of the monastic code, seeing danger in the slightest faults. Consummate in his virtue, he guards the doors of his senses, is possessed of mindfulness and alertness, and is content.

There's a matter of setting realistic expectations and setting someone up striving for goals that are just going to end in confusion. I'll also add, someone who understands the magnitude of the path, the difficulty of the path whether in the track of a lay person or renunciate, doesn't need to ask this question on an internet forum. They just do it.

[Simon E.]

I would argue that the very idea of the “allure of samsara” causing a downfall from Dharma, departs from the Vajrayana that I was taught. That sounds pretty much the Sutrayana to me.

[tkp67]

why argue when they both can stand as a means to an end?

[Queequeg]

I would argue that the very idea of the “allure of samsara” causing a downfall from Dharma, departs from the Vajrayana that I was taught. That sounds pretty much the Sutrayana to me.

And yet devotees of all paths seem to fall to the "allure of samsara". Oh, must all be illusions for edification purposes...

[Queequeg]

why argue when they both can stand as a means to an end?

No arguments really. Differences in views on potentials and possibilities. It's really fine to have differences of opinion and hash them out.

[tkp67]

why argue when they both can stand as a means to an end?

No arguments really. Differences in views on potentials and possibilities. It's really fine to have differences of opinion and hash them out.

It was more of a rhetorical point because it could have simply been reasonable without competitive comparison. Competitive comparison seeming to be a heavily imprinted aspect of western society. I don't think many can claim they don't suffer from it. I do and have spent most my life in opposition of that mindset.

[KeithA]

I am having contradictory feelings about practicing non-attachment while setting goals (personal, professional, etc). I am naturally a Type A personality who likes to plan and execute towards an goal. Naturally, I put in a lot efforts to achieve my goal.

My understanding of non-attachment is that I should not be attached to outcomes since I cannot control all the variables of life and things are impermanence. With that view, I find it hard to have motivation to even set goals or try to achieve them. Why not do the minimal in life since everything is impermanence and happiness is internal with meditation?

I feel like goals and non-attachment practice are contradictory. I put in a lot of efforts for goals because I care about achieving a specific outcome. Practicing non-attachment is telling me to not care or be attached to outcome.

What am I doing wrong?

For me, the guiding principle is why am I doing what I am doing? I have a family, so I try to take care of them to the best of my ability, while trying to lead an upright life. I fail at times, but that’s the goal, if you will. None of that is incompatible with practicing non-attachment, it just takes a different shape than what we might imagine.

It’s not special...just practice and see what happens.

Good luck,
Keith

[Queequeg]

It was more of a rhetorical point because it could have simply been reasonable without competitive comparison. Competitive comparison seeming to be a heavily imprinted aspect of western society. I don't think many can claim they don't suffer from it. I do and have spent most my life in opposition of that mindset.

Whatever you personally strive for, not to make a competitive comparison but, following the path you follow, you ought to know the reasons for comparing and weighing differences. Consider Relative and Ultimate Myo. Following the path you follow, you ought to know that competitive comparison can hardly be said to be a unique feature of Western culture. Debate is very much enshrined in the Buddhist path as a means of honing right view. Not all practice is shoju.