Confused about partner's practices. Need advice

It's quite possible to have serious mental problems even at high levels of spiritual practice. Do you remember, for example, Christian literature, where Christ and Saints were tempted by demons, had horrifying demonic visions etc. I myself was hospitalized in a mental facility just half a year before a major breakthrough in my spiritual practice.

So the problem exists, but I don't think that a solution is about confronting such practitioner. I guess his problem relates to a state of conflict, an opposition, both inner and outer.

Inner opposition results in much tension, which causes fatigue, feeling of being in a deadlock, and "laziness". "Laziness" is actually a sign of inner disharmony, such as disalignment between logic and feelings, or between different intentions, which clash in an inner conflict.

Outer opposition is a mutual problem, because you - and virtually everyone else - aren't free from oppositions too. You want to help, but you try to move in a direction of opposing his ideas and behavior, rather than finding there deep meanings and trying to help to realize them in better ways.

If you want more help from me, please message / comment, I will try to help if I could. For now, I'll just say very briefly:

Your friend have focused on a very hard problem - of illusory oppositions, and illusions in general.

If you want to help, try to remove oppositions - any time, as well as you could.

I would advise you to get a book by Nossrat Peseschkian, The Merchant and the Parrot, and donate it to your friend. And get such book for yourself and read it. It describes how we can find useful meanings even in problematic behavior. This way we move from opposing to cooperating.

Good health to all sentient beings!

Once someone sets forth on the Buddhist path there is a great energy that surrounds such a person that starts setting them on the path for better or for worse... energies that "marry" them to the path. Those energies are basically the same as standard wedding vows... once that Bodhi seed is planted there's no way off of the path until it is accomplished.

The main problem today with Buddhism is monastics monastics monastics, not much is said in discourse about householder so much so that there was a huge debate and still is that it is impossible(extreme) for a householder to achieve the goal of Buddhahood however it is a very very very quick path to Buddhahood as it is obstacle after obstacle to if he were to see every moment his teacher he would then be able to swallow himself and become selfless in his duties to well the kamma or cause and effect that he has grown by all of the previous actions you have listed.

Problem is? You see all of those steps as steps down and he sees all of those steps as steps up... it is a prime example of inverted thinking, on who's end? I cannot say; As taking sides is not how to mediate a situation to any resolution... when each word, deed born from thought become more fuel for an already burned down house? Who is carrying and chopping the wood... everyone is by the sound of it.

Security is the most important thing for all involved in an intimate relationship between two or however many people involved with their ears to what is meant to only be seen with four eyes? To feel safe and protected, when the tongue wants to become a sword there is harm when one speaks of suffering; how is that not a direct pointing at the noble truths? Everyone is suffering in the situation by the sound of it... fortunately there is really not such thing as an extreme so extreme that the situation wont eventually unbind or let go all by itself to resolution.

When that occurs? The characteristic of Impermanence is known... impermanence is a blessing and very noble for just that reason; the dam bursts as pinning up what should flow on and on in a smooth cycle is an extreme. It is also a sign that life still exists that sentience is not lost... otherwise it would be like two statues dreaming the entire thing due to the life that went into carving them as karma and they just imagine throwing rocks at each others heads to unborn what made them statues trying to become "whole" again.

Like the dam it is easier to withstand the test of time and become sand than trying for more accumulation.

Spiritual not religious is a very common term; as religion like politics make people more crazy than sane. Passive aggressive behavior occurs within an individual in a good cop bad cop trope it manipulates feelings like a child do what a want you to do wah wah wah wah and then it will be ideal. Honestly that is everyone alive that wants something or happiness out of anyone other than oneself.

He's swearing fealty to his parents... yeah so what does he want out of them; that he and yourself were building before the move? What do you want out of him if not the suburban dream of house, white picket fence, and 2.5 children?

Parents that believe in "god" in the Christian sense expect everyone in their family to be living in the that great gated community in the sky; that social experiment already occurred in the 1950's those trying to go back to that, see it as ideal and that has been the cause or rise of what gets called: Big Brother.

Well yeah for families it is ideal a nice quiet neighborhood and all the children are around the same age to remove "bad influences" etc. etc. it's very cultist to be honest and that what gated communities are started to do typically centered around golf courses. It's what monastics do centered around a statue as well... it's what military does centered around the way of the gun as a higher power when countries get passive aggressive.

There is no higher power than Yoga it means restraint control of who? Oneself. No one else; wanna know something funny? His desire for you is mirroring in his actions... if you take good care of yourself he is saying no no no eat like a pig get fat and sassy like me the man in the mirror so I wont be threatened by other males that see you as I see you. They say men can't communicate because they can't listen; a man that can listen is the rarest thing on earth... a woman that can see what a man is saying by seeing him as a mirror? Is the second rarest thing on earth.

That's all I have to say about male female relationships... in "getting each other" you learn to read him like a mirror and hopefully he learns to listen... I've known women spending over 10 years trying to get a man any man to hear a single sentence of what they have said directly to the heart without going completely out of their mind in doing so... no I am not exaggerating see that for oneself if you haven't already.

If you have seen this? Then I have said absolutely nothing of any value; just bow to your inner self and go home.

In Buddhism there is a path called the Three Trainings. This is the first thing to understand about Buddhism: even before the Four Noble Truths! But most people do not know it and apply it. They are:

1. Morality: get your life together, be virtuous, be loving, get rid of anger issues, etc., have a livelihood, etc.
2. Concentration: to be done AFTER THE 1st TRAINING IS RELATIVELY WELL-ADDRESSED.
3. Insight: to be done after the 2nd training is somewhat established.

What is the overall idea here?

A person should be doing intensive meditation until he/she can live as a good person (with or without Buddhism). He/she should not rely on the advanced practices of Buddhism until he fixes his heart.

If this rule is not followed, then the person will escape into all sorts of fantasies and poisons for oneself and others!

I suggest you get your friend to read "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha" (it's a free ebook, google it) and ask him to really dive into the book and ask himself if he has these basic things before he goes off thinking he is Enlightened or talking to "God."

Question :01 -
No he is not enlightened or even close to it. He seems to be an angry person just making excuses to justify his behavior. Remember he might actually believe this stuff, so be careful when you try to have your little debates.

The best way to get him out of this would be to make him realize what's wrong in his own head. There is a way to do that, stop showing any offence to his ideology and provide him his needs for few days without question and afterwards ask for his teaching and guidance and say "now i feel what you seek, help me learn too". As he teach you ask very logical questions on very fair situations. You will see that he struggle with his efforts and you should not interfere.

If you feel like you do not know what to ask from him we can help, There is a Kind monk among us here in this site called "Ven. Samana Johann" and you can start a chat with him if you like and i'm sure he will help. or you could ask any of us.

Question :02 - Giving up attachments does not mean complete disregard for family and loved ones. If a person needs that kind of freedom Lord Buddha clearly asked such people to be monks. If a Buddhist stay in a household he must give the love and affection to his loved ones and Lord Buddha clearly said that.

Question :03 - Lord Buddha did not expected all beings to give up all hope and wander like zombies. letting go means understanding that everything is temporary and living with that realization. Not calling other Dumb. Tell him attachment not only exist with the things he love but also with the things he hate. And also tell him that anger is also a product of attachment and therefore in his own version of right and wrong he is an idiot too.

Question :04 - No, The reason you walk away from greed,lust is that it eventually brings discomfort.And as Buddhists believe it brings more and more lives to suffer in samsara.

Question :05 - Detachment has nothing to do with modern or old. It is simply an understanding of things being temporary. And being detached does not mean that a person should run away from society. Tell him that Kings who were way above in the path ruled kingdoms just fine without the whole drama that he is putting out.

Question :06 - Madam let me break it very simply for you as you seem to be the person that's most harmed by his actions. What you partner preach and what he pretends t be is not Buddhism.And there is no point trying to explain his wrongs to him as he is clearly wanting to lash out his decades of rage o something or someone, and he just found a way to do it and he has some strong excuses this time.

Either him or his sub-conscious knows that no one will fight back at his anger because of his condition and his belief. I even have doubts about his need to be a Buddhist. Because this might as well be another way that he found to make himself different from the rest as he seems to be very fond of that concept.

If you want to help him....

There are two ways.

• The soft way

Find some time and go together on a getaway. Not the regular, go to a monastery. If you tell us where you live we might be able to provide you with a location near your city. There learn true Buddhism together and have small discussions with monks about what you learn and other topics while he is present and make him talk in front of the monks and directly ask about his belief and their truthfulness from the monks.

• The backhand

As I see it you have taken a lot of damage from all of this and because you love and care you have not told him the true pain he has caused to you. But now might be the time to do just that. This would be nice if this discussion happens over a dinner table of a regular place that you two go to (may be where you had your first date). Tell him what you really feel and do not try to make him feel bad. Just mention what you feel and tell him that you need a little time to find some relief. Don't be afraid i'm not trying to break a pair, sometimes people take the closest people for granted and they never realize what they have until it goes away. We are doing this to give him some alone time because he must learn to tame his anger without making other collateral damage.

Last but not least I have a simple recommendation to you. There is a movie you two must watch and do not be fooled by it's cast or cover. It might look like a comedy at first but it is about the same issue that your partner has and how a man get over it. The movie is called "A Thousand Words". make sure he watch it from the beginning to the end and be there with him.

For your own safety,remember if someone clearly needs help and continue to refuse it while the condition is getting worse that is clearly not going to end well. There is a reason why people abandon ships and jump into the sea, Because until the ship can be saved you can try, but if it is clear that it is going to sink your staying will only cost your life and you will obviously go down with it.

Is this behaviour justified for a person who is on the verge of enlightenment? Meditators can seem antisocial but this person described here seems to have the wrong view on how we do certain things in Buddhism but meditators can often have the wrong view.

Does non attachment mean giving up things you love? It means giving up things one likes alot and giving up attatchent that unfortunately can often be mixed in with love.

Is attachment for idiots? Nobody calls people "idiots" with ill-will in they're hearts and are still in harmony with Buddhism. Attatchment is like when one spouse can't let the other spouse leave because they fear they might find someone else or cheat. Love is when one spouse wants they're love to be happy and therefore lets them go anywhere they want to go. I like this song that is called "If you love someone, set them free".

Is the fear of losing things you love the right reason for being non attached? Not at all. The fear of losing the things you love or the fear of losing anything is itself attatchment. Detatchment is about neither liking nor disliking things or having no partiality(if that was what was meant by "non attachment")

Does non attachment mean having a strong sense of detest for modern life like malls, the cinema etc? A meditator will try to avoid(avoid not necessarily with attatchment) worldly places like malls and cinema but to have any partiality for or against anything is attatchment. To "detest" shopping malls and cinema sounds like having partiality or attatchment against shopping malls and cinema, although I could be wrong as some advanced meditators or those rumoured to be enlightened sometimes seem to speak kind of rough about worldly things.

Does non attachment mean you have to stop talking with your friends who are different from you? No, but this often happens with beginning mediators.This doesn't necessarily mean that the meditator no longer likes or loves these friends at all. Generally, this is the meditator learning the value of conseptual truth and silence(some have called silence, "the language of God").

Then again, if the friends arent really friends then it is totally in harmony with Buddhism to end such a relationship.

Romantic love is different from love in a Buddhist context. Buddhist love is to love all beings unconditionally and to be partial to one's spouse and Mother Theresa but not partial to someone like Adolf Hitler is not unconditional love. If we can't love or have compassion for someone like Hitler then, I think its safe to say that we want to be seperate from a certain part of humanity just as Hitler wanted to be seperate from a certain part of humanity. -May you be happy

1. Is this behaviour justified for a person who is on the verge of enlightenment?

   My experience of a vaguely analogous situation was that doctors were not willing to diagnose mental illness (e.g. "depression") of someone they hadn't interviewed.

   Further experience of people having marital disagreement is that two people see things differently, remember different things, and overlook (ignore or edit out) different things from their story.

   It isn't that I don't believe you, but for these kinds of reason I want to judge neither your description of "this behaviour", nor judge the partner.

   You sound disturbed by what you're describing, if I may say that.

   My advice to anyone whose family member may be incompetent due to mental illness, is to talk with a real professional if you can: i.e. a medical doctor (family/general practice or psychiatrist), and/or a lawyer, who may be able to advise on how to proceed.

2. Does non attachment mean giving up things you love?

   Maybe not exactly. Instead I think that what Buddhism teaches about attachment is that:

   • The things you love are subject to change (they may be called impermanent): for example the person you married (and the feeling you had when you married them) isn't exactly the same now as they were before.
   • Attachment within Buddhism is defined as a type of desire, especially a desire for something that is known.
   • A fundamental problem is that known things change, and if you're attached to (if you desire) what you used to know in the past, what they used to be, rather than what they are now, then that attachment is a cause of suffering.
   • I suspect it may be a cause of ignorance also, i.e. the attachment to what it used to be interferes with perceiving it as it is actually.

    
   The italic words above are key/fundamental Buddhist technical terms.

   In other words:

   • The things you love/loved change (or even cease), whether you want them to or not.
   • Attachment to how they used to be is a cause of suffering, and prevents you from seeing them as they are now.

3. Is attachment for idiots?

   I wouldn't say that, because "idiot" sounds like a harsh word, to me.

   For example, here is a definition of 'Right Speech' -- it recommends speaking gently and affectionately rather than harshly.

   I wouldn't even call a dog a idiot (instead a dog is a sentient being, with feelings).

   There is a style of Buddhist practice in which one might speak angrily emphatically or powerfully -- see for example What is a wrathful Buddha? I think that the intention of that might be to protect. An example of that I found amusing once was some relatives, who live on a tidal estuary, talking about their children, saying:

   "Oh yes, the children would never take the boats out without permission, without telling us. They know we'd kill them!"

   I'm not sure though how much wrath is necessary and/or skillful (if indeed it ever is). It could be used as an excuse venting anger (which, typically isn't skillful) or used to protect the wrong thing (e.g. to try to dissuade someone for selfish rather than altruistic reasons). I avoid it!

   Having said all that though, about "idiot", it is true that Buddhism does recommend that it's better not be to be attached, for the reason given in item #2 above. On the other hand that doesn't mean that Buddhism is anti-everything (it's arguably not meant to be nihilistic), so being in some sense attached to being virtuous (good) might be regarded as a correct form of attachment.

   To be honest it might be worth remembering that Buddhism is also known as a doctrine of the Middle Way between extremes: i.e. an extreme attachment or an extreme detachment might each be more-or-less inappropriate, especially within a lay relationship or marriage (conversely a reason why some people become monks or nuns might be because they want a life which allows them to practice with more detachment, a different collection of social responsibilities).

4. It the fear of losing things you love the right reason for being non attached?

   Well attachment is defined/understood as being a cause of suffering and a result of ignorance (e.g. ignorance of the fact that things are impermanent). Conversely, enlightenment might be defined as a state of non-attachment, non-ignorance, and non-suffering.

   Furthermore (but this is a subject on which different schools of Buddhism may have disagreed), some people like to ask whether your wanting to become enlightened is in order to benefit yourself, or, to benefit others (or to benefit both self and others).

5. Does non attachment mean having a strong sense of detest for modern life like malls, the cinema etc?

   I suspect it might manifest that way:

   "I'm so sick of consumer society, shopping, of having to earn money in order to spend it on stuff that doesn't make me happy, I wish I could detach from that."

   Note that's backwards to the way you said it though, for what it's worth: it's not that detachment causes hatred -- it's that suffering may cause a desire for detachment (given that unskillful attachment is a cause of suffering).

1. Is this behaviour justified for a person who is on the verge of enlightenment?

From your explanations above it sounds like this person is very disturbed, not almost enlightened. You could be reading it wrong, but here I will go with the assumption that your observations are precise.

Questions 2-6

From my perspective (Mahayana), such behavior is unhealthy but rather typical for a beginner in a so-called phase of "dharma-fever". When a person has a very strong but pretty limited idea of "right" and when the real world (obviously) mismatches it most of the time, then on the basis of this attachment and this mismatch a strong sense of wrongness is generated. This sense of wrongness can get very painful and overwhelming as to make the person want to avoid any exposure to the "wrong" experiences.

What this person would need to do is to learn to give up their attachment to their idea of right, while at the same time learning to self-reflect (through mindfulness and meditation) until they see the mechanism of "attachment to should => is/should mismatch => pain" first hand.

As a (roughly) beginner practitioner, who has had a share of problems as well, I feel I can contribute. Mostly, my answer would fall in line with Andrei. Presuming this is accurate, this sounds like someone who has some large internal stress, and is possibly using "enlightenment" as a defense for his actions, rather than letting actions spring from some wisdom. This person sounds like they need to talk to someone, but is also pushing everyone away.

But I answer instead of comment to give you perhaps a beginners perspective. To speak to your questions in order:

• Is this behaviour justified for a person who is on the verge of enlightenment?

Having never been on the verge of enlightenment I can't say for sure what it's like. Most of what I hear relates to peacefulness, and this does not sound anything like peace.

• Does non attachment mean giving up things you love?

It can. Some kinds of love aren't as deep as we imagine them to be. Some things we call love are actually just selfish little habits. I would call those things attachments, the first that should go, or at least thought about so they can be understood. Letting go would be very different than pushing away. People I hold close I cannot imagine pushing away. I can imagine stepping back, looking at how I treat them, what I might be doing that's harmful or selfish, like clinging to what I like or want from that bond. That does not sound like what you are talking about though.

• Is attachment for idiots?

Erm. Attachment is human. It's what we do. Sometimes it's instinct. Sometimes it's learned. It doesn't mean someone is stupid. Maybe a better way to say it is that too much attachment can nudge people into doing the wrong things.

• It the fear of losing things you love the right reason for being non attached?

I feel most lost in this question, so maybe the better experts can say. But I would say fear is a strong motivator into doing the wrong things. And I would also say avoiding attachment purely to avoid fear or avoid that wrong thing is also the wrong thing; that's just translation into a fear of fear. I would say understanding and letting go of fear is way more important than letting go of people.

• Does non attachment mean having a strong sense of detest for modern life like malls, the cinema etc?

Another erm. I'm a bit of a hermit. I do have a strong detest for malls, and more for the endless advertising that comes with them, or occasionally shoveled into my mailbox. I think I just reject the materialism of it. Doesn't mean that I would just stay home if there was an opportunity to meet a friend. Doesn't mean I wouldn't go to a cinema if I thought there was a good story to see, or something to learn. My impulse, or detest, is actually attachment, a desire that the world isn't the way I want it to be. That shouldn't lead me to reject the world, I'm in it, aren't I? If I want (and yes, there's that word again) more of what I'd like to see in the world, I should start putting some of it out there. That's the difference, as I see it, between wrong actions and right actions. It's more complicated than that, but I'm rambling, and I think I've said it close enough.

• Does non attachment mean you have to stop talking with your friends who are different from you?

Nope. It would first mean you have to not be attached to the idea of them being who you want them to be. Seeking enlightenment isn't a way to fix everyone else. It might be a way to fix yourself, but even that's an attachment. Before anything else, and especially at my level, it's about being aware of yourself, and all the little impulses that experience has built inside you, and letting go of those. Only starting from that foundation would that depth of awareness spread outward, to your surroundings and other people. If it doesn't start that way, your conceptions, your intent, your attachments, are still in the way, and they will be all you see.

I hope this was helpful.