GENIUS FORUMS

Definitions:
Attachment: Prolonged reaction to an event.

Suffering: Persistent miserable state.

Transience Hypothesis:
Triggers responsible for any mental state rise and fall quickly.


Therefore:
For a persistent miserable state one requires a mind with a prolonged reaction time.

Hence:
Attachment is the source of suffering.

For those familiar with systems theory
Attachment is analogous to having a slowly decaying impulse response and triggers are impulses. For a continuous state of suffering, one requires the impulse response to be large enough to not decay before the next impulse.

Suffering: Prolonged reaction to anything. Lingering.

Attachment: The meaning that is given to anything, that it is inherently real and inherently separate. Driven by core meaning given to self, which constructs self-related meanings. Constructs things as problems or pleasures.

Kelly Jones wrote: Suffering: Prolonged reaction to anything. Lingering.

Isn't the definition more appropriate to attachment?

Kelly Jones wrote: Attachment: The meaning that is given to anything, that it is inherently real and inherently separate. Driven by core meaning given to self, which constructs self-related meanings. Constructs things as problems or pleasures.

You are describing the mechanism rather than the definition.

My focus on attachment is on the psychological aspect. If you develop a good observation skill you will see what is the prolonged reaction I talk about means. Generally any thought involving the I has a prolonged reaction.

maestro wrote:Definitions:
Attachment: Prolonged reaction to an event.

Isn't much of our life a prolonged reacting to the event of our birth?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Isn't much of our life a prolonged reacting to the event of our birth?

Not all prolonged reactions are bad, for example if a thought comes in the mind to do a task, then the reaction is prolonged, till it is finished. When it comes to suffering prolonged affective reactions to certain triggers are especially bad.

maestro wrote:Therefore:
For a persistent miserable state one requires a mind with a prolonged reaction time.

Hence:
Attachment is the source of suffering.

Attachment is a source for suffering, not the source, or rather it is a primary contributory cause. A broken leg reqiures no attachment, except the leg's attachment to the body, but you know what I mean, and yet can be the cause of suffering. Hip degeneration, etc, many physical causes for suffering, are like this. Chemical imbalance in the brain can cause torturing voices in the head that no amount of skill at being detached can alleviate, but proper medical treatment can. This is not physical suffering as much as mental and psychological, which is compunded by the individual's resulting inability to function in or to appear normal to society; consequent societal misunderstanding is another cause of that person's suffering that is unrelated to his "reaction time."

Maestro, I take it you were referring to a specific type of suffering, the suffering which the healthy individual seems to experience and which proper mental work can somewhat alleviate. You appear to note (correctly) that attachment itself is neither good nor bad. For instance, if one is confronted by a complex problem involving a coordinated series of tasks, attachment may take the form of "attention span" and enable the person to make progress in dealing with the problem. But lack of mental discipline - often traceable to insufficient mental preparatory work, can lead to the type of attachment which causes suffering. Take that same problem: once one has paid attention sufficiently long enough to participate in tasks that lead to a solution, further attention can be counter-productive or unproductive, and result in suffering for that person which accomplishes nothing.

In fact, a prolonged reaction time and suffering-causing attachment can be mutually exclusive. A successful surgeon must be able to pay attention for long periods of time, and then swiftly detach so as to be of benefit to his next patient. Not everyone can do this. In reality, few surgeons are 100% successful at it, and most carry their work home, along with something that is self-prescibed to be washed down by something straight in a shot glass. A surgeon will not operate on a family member precisely because a prior attachment is already there and gets in the way of the temporary attachment of intense attention which the surgery requires, and which would make the necessary subsequent detachment completely impossible.

I am pointing out that "prolonged reaction time' is a relative thing. A retarded person might believe one thing, then two minutes later, having been told the exact opposite, believe that instead. He is happy either way, and offers a lower level problem-solving capability. He may, in fact, be less attached and therefore suffer less accordingly, yet one wouldn't necessarily reccomend being more like a retarded person. Rather, understanding when involvement is helpful and when it threatens to become unproductive and suffering-causing attachment should be what a healthy person strives for.

Amazing brokenhead you have hit all the right notes. Your post is a gem.

brokenhead wrote: In fact, a prolonged reaction time and suffering-causing attachment can be mutually exclusive. A successful surgeon must be able to pay attention for long periods of time, and then swiftly detach so as to be of benefit to his next patient. Not everone can do this. In reality, few surgeons are 100% successful at it, and carry their work home, along with something that is self-prescibed to be washed down by something straight in a shot glass. A surgeon will not operate on a family member precisely because a prior attachment is already there and gets in the way of the temporary attachment of intense attention which the surgery requires, and which would make the necessary subsequent detachment completely impossible.

I have been thinking on similar lines, attachment is not all bad, there are aspects where it is good, the trick is to eliminate the bad attachment, through intelligence. However undeniably it is the prime factor in the kind of suffering that Buddha talked about.

maestro wrote:Kelly:
Suffering: Prolonged reaction to anything. Lingering.

Maestro wrote: Isn't the definition more appropriate to attachment?

Well, it's a bit hard to separate the two actually. I've just happened to see that some thoughts, which I'll call attachment, are always present or prior to suffering. And that not having those thoughts means the suffering isn't there.

Kelly:
Attachment: The meaning that is given to anything, that it is inherently real and inherently separate. Driven by core meaning given to self, which constructs self-related meanings. Constructs things as problems or pleasures.

Maestro wrote: You are describing the mechanism rather than the definition.

Well, this is a very strange objection.

I don't see how one can define attachment without describing how it works. What causes suffering (attachment) really is a very mechanical thing. It is intrinsically a mechanical thing. But I suppose it wouldn't be for the person who doesn't experience it.

My focus on attachment is on the psychological aspect. If you develop a good observation skill you will see what is the prolonged reaction I talk about means. Generally any thought involving the I has a prolonged reaction.

I'd say instead that the mind that experiences egotism (attachment, thoughts constructed on the false I) will experience suffering (lingering).