Etydhv

Let's take 2 examples:

1. A Buddhist notices a crying girl. After asking it turns out that she lost her mother, and don't know where to find her


2. Alice and Bob has a complicated relationship. Bob wants to communicate with Alice, but due to her misunderstandings and prejudices, she doesn't accept his words. Helplessly, he turns to a Buddhist that is an important friend with Alice, hoping that he will help him to tell Alice that she needs to listen to Bob carefully

Would the Buddhist helps them?

• Yes, because explicit sufferings (losing mother, being unable to communicate, having prejudice) are more suffering than implicit ones (staying in the attachments)?


• No, because ultimately it's still helping them staying in the attachments, while the Buddhist goal is aiming at the ultimate freedom? Or is that because helping others also a kind of attachment?

A Buddhist notices a crying girl.
One would hope that a Buddhist, or any reasonable person for that matter, would assist a reunion.

Alice and Bob has a complicated relationship
Most everyday communication is complicated by identity view. I.e., "why won't she listen to me?"

Here again a Buddhist, or any reasonable person for that matter, could assist by asking open and non-partisan questions that promote understanding and communication. Here are some examples:

• "Bob, what is important to Alice?"


• "Bob, what is important to Bob?"


• "Bob, what does Alice expect from Bob?"


• "Does Bob always do what Alice expects?"


• "Does Bob expect Alice to always do what Bob expects?"


• etc.

This actually happens a lot as younger friends seek advice from an old fart like me on relationships. Oddly, the help always revolves around compassion and relinquishing craving. People are rarely aware of the asymmetry of their own expectations. They are unaware that they often expect what they are not willing to give. When they become aware of the inconsistency of their expectations, compassion usually unfolds into a letting go and acceptance of others.

Summarizing the teaching I received, the decision of whether to be disruptive or to stay within the worldly narrative, depends on three factors:

1. the "strength" (Dharma maturity, realization) of the buddhist giving the advice.


2. the "readiness" (the phase of life, the personal situation) of the person in trouble.


3. the potential for the two of you having a long-term kalyanamitta relationship.

If the Buddhist is not very "strong"/"realized", trying to play guru and talking about detachment is probably not going to work. So for 99.9% of Buddhists the best idea is to stick to the worldly narrative and try to help the person from within their frame of reference (find the mother, give solace etc). It is only when we are very, very advanced ourselves, very confident and very wise, is when we can try to shift their perception to see life from a different angle.

However, unless the person is in a completely desperate situation, it is unlikely to work even if you are strong. 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.

Also, when you take a person in a desperate situation like that and turn their life in different direction, you place some of your "spirit" in them (metaphorically speaking) - this is almost like donating blood. From this point on you two are in a relationship, you are responsible for the person's progress in Dharma. So don't do it unless you can take that responsibility and commit to it long-term.

Basically, just help them like a normal person, unless you can be their teacher and they are at a phase of their life when they have no other choice.

Generally speaking people are the most receptible to help they themselves ask for, and vice versa. Advice not asked for are the spam emails of life.

Reading your question I feel like you are little misled about what Buddhism is (or maybe I don't understand your question at all). So however, I will give you an answer as I understand your question.

First of all, as I know the word "attachment" is wrongly translated from the "Pali" word "Ragha".
The meaning of "ragha" can philosophically explained by using the words like greed, sensuality, desire, attachment or excitement for sensory objects, lust, sexual desire and passion. Now, because of the "ragha" when you lost something or someone you love or even when you can't have something or someone you love, you face an unbearable pain. This unbearable (or bearable) pain called in 'pali' as "dukkha".

Now, you cannot control losing things or people and not being able to having things or people you love. Nothing and no one last forever. Things decay they brake, people age they die. Even we didn't lose them when we alive, we die eventually then we lose them in the moment of our death.

In Buddhism it teaches about reincarnation, a cycle of birth, living and death (Sansara). After someone died they reborn again based on what they did in their past lives(Karma). Every living being suffer in various ways sicknesses, injuries, pain of losing loved things, does't matter rich or poor, powerful or not, every one suffer as life goes on. So, as the cycle of livese goes on the pain (dukkha) continues. So the Buddhism is all about braking this cycle of lives and ending the continuous pain (attaining nibbana). Buddhism teaches us that holding onto things/attachments (Ragha) is one of the reason this cycle goes on. To break the cycle you have to lose the 'Ragha'. The way to lose ragha is being well aware of that everything is not lasting forever and accepting the reality of world (practicing Upekha). If you truly master this 'Upekha' you wouldn't be in pain of loses. This doesn't mean that Buddhists have to leave or stop protecting their loved ones, loved things or Stop trying to achieve things, earn money and doing jobs. People need those things to be alive, to survive. Buddhism teaches to be aware of the fact that things don't last. Love people knowing that someday we lose them, use things knowing they break, they don't last, Earn money to survive not out of greed, Eat food only to be healthy not because taste good.

Now about your question, If you understand what I explained above you will realize that helping a child to find her mother is not helping her to stay in attachment. Doesn't matter you help her to find her mother or not she always will be attached to her mother, even the mother is dead. As long as the girl don't understand and not accept the concept of 'dukkha' she will always feel the pain of losing her mother, doesn't matter you didn't help the girl or not. One cannot be removed from attachment(ragha) by just being away from others. That attachment(ragha) is a state of mind, a way of seeing the world. Helping the girl doesn't make her or you any more or less 'ragha' person. It's not ultimately helping her to be in attachment it will only be helping her to survive and allow her to be with the people she loves.

Same like that helping Bob and Alice will only be helping them to communicate and understand the situation and helping them to continue with their lives.

Helping others to live or helping them to continue their lives with ease doesn't make any bad effects on your ultimate freedom (Nibbhana). However, if someone did those things with 'ragha' mind that will affect his 'nibbana'.

My vocabulary is not that good to explain things in the Buddhism. I don't know the most suitable english words and phrases to explain these things. I hope you understood and got the answer you needed.

Those who are "virtuous Buddhist", keeping precepts, observe "not to speak of what is not true" and inside of this precept, some would try to help, sometimes with silent as well and if possible, and understand them selves right, when time is proper, point toward the path of liberation, asked or not. A good instucted disciple would not give a gift that actually harms on long term.

Whether one could give the gift of release or not, depends on ones own state of liberty, right understanding and skill and foremost on Upanissaya. One is how ever not asked to help but simple able voluntary (aside of ones possible duties in a relation).

(Not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment, but for release from this wheel)

The question is based in a extremely serious & dangerous wrong understanding of Buddhism.

Buddhism has two levels of teaching: (i) moral, which includes attachment; and (ii) non-attachment (MN 117). The Buddha said his teaching of non-attachment was only for a minority of people (MN 26).

Therefore, a Buddhist would help ordinary people maintain their important social relationships. In fact, this is a duty of a monk (DN 31). The duty of a monk & of a Buddhist is not to "strip" ordinary people of their attachments & identities.

Only psychopathic gurus & their brainwashed disciples try to "strip" ordinary people of their attachments & identities.