Is there any source saying that Buddhists can temporarily form relationship to help people?
score:1
I think of the "brahmaviharas" as the right attitude[s] to have towards other people -- which include "may you be well" (i.e. wishing them non-suffering), and kindness, as well as equanimity.
So if a child needs help, I think it's not wrong to offer it -- isn't that what anyone would do? -- even if you know that form of help is temporary.
There's a Zen story which includes that-- Is That So?
Buddhism is also willing to distinguish between "attachment" and "need" -- and IMO a young child "needs" her mother (as well as being attached) -- everyone, not even excluding monks, are allowed "requisites".
Also "non-attachment" isn't the only goal, maybe not even a primary goal. Another goal (and maybe a more immediate goal) is "non-remorse" -- i.e. don't do things you regret, and do things you don't regret -- where "regret" and "remorse" have a moral aspect, e.g. you should feel remorse over what's morally wrong.
This fits with the "brahmaviharas" too, by the way -- e.g. if "non-remorse", and possibly therefore joy, is the purpose of "skilful virtue", then "mudita" (one of the brahmaviharas) is "sympathetic joy" you might experience as a result of someone else's virtue.
But anyway I'd expect it's right to help a lost child if you can -- that's an action or intention which you needn't regret -- and, conversely, it's "choosing not to help" that might be regrettable.
Whether and how, and how much, you'd be willing to get involved in adults' relationship/attachment problems may be another matter -- pertly because it's more complicated (than e.g. "phone the police" which you might do for a lost child), and less certain that you can be not only virtuous but skilful, but also because it's less obviously a morally right thing to do.
I think I decided a while ago that it's fine if someone is enlightened -- but that I'm a bit inclined to regard it as an illness, if "enlightenment" means that they're less skilled, less competent, or more immoral than normal.
Upvote:0
Shakyumuni the original Buddha gave up his wordly goods and ventured out into the world to discover why people suffered. One was their attachments to external things, another was that the minds of people are deluded and that the Buddha nature exists in all humans...so the point of this is if you are s Buddhist or Bodisatva of course you would help people as much as possible. The practice of Buddhism is for yourself and others. Like a domino effect. We live by example and hope others will follow to eradicate most of their sufferings or to understand why we suffer.....
Upvote:1
The Buddha placed no such as inherent duties, but "if liking this, that needs to be done" and in regard of helping (sangaha) it's the same. Your merits or demerits, one might be able, one not. To maintain a health relation it's a duty. How ever, this duty resits only if no violation of precepts are secured. Hurting someone to help another is not to be done.
Rendering benefical assistence is one of the 4 Sangha-vatthus, and the highest help is fond in the Balasutta.
Others then many tell wrong, it's not so that one should not turn another toward path, convert, but the opposite, and taken for example the pay back of goodness toward parents and other supporters, the converting toward path is said to be the only way that one could pay something back, if possible.
“But anyone who rouses his unbelieving mother & father, settles & establishes them in conviction; rouses his unvirtuous mother & father, settles & establishes them in virtue; rouses his stingy mother & father, settles & establishes them in generosity; rouses his foolish mother & father, settles & establishes them in discernment: To this extent one pays & repays one’s mother & father.“
— AN 2:32
For more to develope right gratitude see: [Q&A] How to develope, learn and maintain gratitude (right view)?
(Not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment that binds here but as an exit)
Upvote:2
The following three quotes from the question are merely more annihilationist wrong views (per SN 12.17) based on the original annihilationist wrong view:
Requires the helpers involves/attaches in other people's emotional dramas.
When they are helping them, they need to have expectations on the outcomes.
My goal is not to get attached with relationships. I'm not a suitable person to help you.
The above ideas are "annihilationist" (per SN 12.17) because these views ignorantly assume a "self" exists that must non-attach from itself & from other "selves", "persons" or "beings".
When the mind is enlightened with right view, it does not think it is helping "people". It is only helping "ignorance" become wiser. Since the enlightened mind has no view of "persons" or "beings", it naturally also has no attachment when helping.
Please refer to SN 12.17 and also MN 102.
Just as a dog, tied by a leash to a post or stake, keeps running around and circling around that very post or stake; in the same way, these venerable contemplative & brahmans—through fear of self-identity, through disgust for self-identity—(nevertheless) keep running & circling around self-identity.
MN 102
Therefore, if & when "helping necessarily requires both parties forming a relationship", one party (the helped) is attached & the other party (the helper) is non-attached. In other words, the helper is free from fear & is unconcerned about whether the other party attaches to them. The helper trusts in virtue, appropriate boundaries & the Dhamma. The helper does not need to and should not physical touch the helped, let alone engage in sexual relationship. Thus, pure metta will always be harmless to both, even if the helped becomes attached. When a Virtuous One acts with pure metta, the helped will always remember & love them but this type of love is not harmful.
As Volkov wisely said elsewhere:
As my teacher explained, it's only when the person is completely abandoned by the currents of normal life, is when they get picked up by the current of Dharma.
In other words, those looking for help can even spend months in a monastery, where they may speak each day for one or two hours with a monk. But, eventually, such ordinary worldly individuals will leave the monastery when they feel better or restored (to try their luck again in the world of attached relationships).
More post
- 📝 Is Buddhism hell falsely claimed on wikipedia?
- 📝 Is divination for fun acceptable?
- 📝 Sūkarakhata sutta and the "arahants seeking benefits they already have"
- 📝 Can environmental degradation be used as a justification for the culling of an invasive alien species?
- 📝 What are the Buddhist guidelines for choosing the true Dhamma?
- 📝 What exactly did Lord Buddha say about Size of Atom?
- 📝 Need advice on how to handle my emotions
- 📝 How to complete the first Jhana?
- 📝 Psychology of 'flow'
- 📝 Real Monk vs Fake Monk
- 📝 What does MN 18's "delineate a delineation" phrase mean?
- 📝 Where does it say Siddhartha Gautama mastered all types of meditation?
- 📝 Mixing Buddhism with other religions
- 📝 Does regret help us to correct our faults?
- 📝 What is the exact difference between samatha and passadha?
- 📝 Sensual Desire and Guarding the Sense Doors
- 📝 Willpower in Buddhism
- 📝 Is it possible to "over-train" in samatha meditation?
- 📝 Beginner academic text recommendation
- 📝 What is the origin and purpose of the alms bowl used by monastics?
- 📝 Online Sangha groups
- 📝 Should we believe we have no enlightenment whatsoever?
- 📝 How to deal with post meditation frustration?
- 📝 How does one cope with despair using Buddhist practises?
- 📝 Dhammapada is not "a teaching of the Buddha himself"?
- 📝 Are Habits a Kind of Attachment?
- 📝 Neither standing nor swimming, I crossed the flood
- 📝 What kind of mental state does the meditation on four elements generate?
- 📝 Why do I have to suffer due to a thing that a person in a past life has done that I have no control over?
- 📝 What is the difference between Yogacara Buddhism and Idealism?
Source: stackoverflow.com
Search Posts
Related post
- 📝 Is there any source saying that Buddhists can temporarily form relationship to help people?
- 📝 Is there any volition or will that I can manage or control?
- 📝 Is there any extreme of physical pain that a fully enlightened person would find unpleasant on any level?
- 📝 Are there formal mechanisms in any Buddhist institutions that explicitly reconcile Buddhist principles with science?
- 📝 Are there any strict Soto Zen teachers online that I could listen to?
- 📝 Are there any websites that contain Buddhist dictionaries?
- 📝 Did the Buddha state that there is only one way, and state/imply that any other path (such as those practiced by yogis) was futile?
- 📝 What is known about enlightenment before the lifetime of the Buddha? Are there any claims that he was the first?
- 📝 How can anyone who hasn't realised the truth, claim that Mahatma Buddha or any other person in history realised God or the Truth?
- 📝 Is there any AI that teach the Dhamma?
- 📝 What is the meaning of "Nothing new will be said here, nor have I any skill in composition. Therefore I do not imagine that I can benefit others."
- 📝 Do Buddhists claim that if there was a self it could not be annihilated?
- 📝 Does any buddhist school, extant or otherwise, say that there is no svabhava what-so-ever?
- 📝 Is there any Buddhist society / group / organisation in Mumbai, India? Where we can meet similar like minded people, attend cultural events
- 📝 Does there exist a Pali Canon sutta that claims that a Bodhisattva can only be a male Brahmin or Kshatriya? If yes, is it possibly apocryphal?
- 📝 Is there any proof that Budai was an actual historical figure
- 📝 Can there be an action free from the taint of desire? If there can be, what is the nature of that action?
- 📝 Is there any way one can be a Monk without a teacher in India/Nepal?
- 📝 Is there any advice in the Buddhist scriptures that would help a leader balance a safe economy with people's concerns about sickness & death?
- 📝 I only know that I will know nothing: can that ever have any currency for Buddhists?
- 📝 Is there any historical evidence or sayings that Buddha went to America and Africa continent for some discourses or teachings
- 📝 Which Buddhists say that there are no conventionally existent wholes, and for what reasons?
- 📝 Can an Icchantika make any form of progress along the Buddhist path?
- 📝 How can there be knowledge of unconditioned phenomenon without any knower?
- 📝 Do any Buddhists say that everyone's Buddha nature repeats an infinite number of times?
- 📝 Do any of scholastic currents conclusively affirm or deny that there are any facts at all?
- 📝 Is there a source that Dalai Lama wants scientists to invent a "meditation machine"?
- 📝 If there is no soul, how can there be rebirth?
- 📝 Where is the Buddha quoted as saying do not believe anything I say until you can prove it by yourself?
- 📝 Why do Buddhists believe there is no creator?