We don't 'need' relationships

Well I must say the subtitle for this section of the forum is misleading.
Nobody 'needs' relationships.
If you read any Buddhist concepts before one of these is attachment. This grasping for things is unhealthy, an enjoyment of sense of bondage rather than freedom.

You can not only be happy without them, but it is much healthier not to cling to people closely.
If you feel like you 'need' something that intensely other than like food, water etc there is probably some unhealthy sense of attachment there.
We can still relate to people healthily, just not out of need.

Hmmm...
What about family? Sons, daughters....granted they need to live their own lives, but saying you need your children isn't necessarily unhealthy, no? I mean, you NEED to have a relationship with your children, else more often than not it leads to an unhappy life?
I mean, I agree with the concept you mention, but I feel there are exceptions. Certain things are needed for fulfillement.

Most relationships that have someone "clinging" to the other generally don't tend to work.

But of course you don't NEED a relationship. So what? That doesn't mean you can't want one and have one. People generally tend to crave human interaction and the most satisfying interaction for a lot of people is from an intimate relationship.

Castaway.
The profound and deep relationship between a man and his ... soccer ball illustrates the need for a relationship to keep one's sanity.

doge said:

Well I must say the subtitle for this section of the forum is misleading.
Nobody 'needs' relationships.
If you read any Buddhist concepts before one of these is attachment. This grasping for things is unhealthy, an enjoyment of sense of bondage rather than freedom.

Click to expand...

THANK YOU!!

Yes. I think in years past it was much more noticeable that you didn't need a relationship. But society needs relationships and pushes it on you. 

This used to be a healthy thing but I think now it is becoming a bad thing. 

When you look into buddhist teachings it becomes clear that we don't need anyone else. Though the right person might be helpful.. If only people could or would realize that they are fine all by themselves.

Sooner or later this ends up in a pro- vs. anti-natalism discussion.

Rodent said:

Sooner or later this ends up in a pro- vs. anti-natalism discussion.

Click to expand...

LOL Seriously? You mean like, should we control births, quotas for children, people shouldn't be born, etc?
How do you come to that view of it? Hardly seems consitent with Buddism, don't know that much about it, but don't they promote life, harmony and all that stuff?

(You know, I was just thinking, if it turns into that because of what you posted...it's kind of your fault lol)

It's always Rodent's fault.

But yeah, you need at least a sexual relationship to populate the earth....

Or do you? There are always turkey basters, so really, no actual sex needs to be had. So....yeah, I don't know.

TheRealCallie said:

It's always Rodent's fault. 

Click to expand...

Not true, it's usually your fault, Rodent's mostly an innocent bystander.

Richard_39 said:

TheRealCallie said:

It's always Rodent's fault. 

Click to expand...

Not true, it's usually your fault, Rodent's mostly an innocent bystander.

Click to expand...

No, it's only MY fault when people leave or argue or there's just drama in general.  Everything else is on Rodent.  :club:

No, we don't. But most of us want them.

TheRealCallie said:

Richard_39 said:

TheRealCallie said:

It's always Rodent's fault. 

Click to expand...

Not true, it's usually your fault, Rodent's mostly an innocent bystander.

Click to expand...

No, it's only MY fault when people leave or argue or there's just drama in general.  Everything else is on Rodent.  :club:

Click to expand...

.....ow.
See? That blow had nothing to do with Rodent. Though I'm holding him personally responsible for the bruises.

Richard_39 said:

Hmmm...
What about family? Sons, daughters....granted they need to live their own lives, but saying you need your children isn't necessarily unhealthy, no? I mean, you NEED to have a relationship with your children, else more often than not it leads to an unhappy life?
I mean, I agree with the concept you mention, but I feel there are exceptions. Certain things are needed for fulfillement.

Click to expand...

Children do need their parents that's true at least when younger as dependent. As they get older they may benefit from staying close as a great support system especially in our crazy world but those children that were abused greatly (unfortunately that happens) may benefit from distancing themselves from their parents. And ofc we all need to venture into the world and explore sometimes. It really depends on the circumstance. Having a positive supportive family is always good though. The parent plays a role in that.

Richard_39 said:

Rodent said:

Sooner or later this ends up in a pro- vs. anti-natalism discussion.

Click to expand...

LOL Seriously? You mean like, should we control births, quotas for children, people shouldn't be born, etc?
How do you come to that view of it? Hardly seems consitent with Buddism, don't know that much about it, but don't they promote life, harmony and all that stuff?

(You know, I was just thinking, if it turns into that because of what you posted...it's kind of your fault lol)

Click to expand...

No, it's a philosophy that says that bringing being into life is an inherently non-consensual act and therefore equals suffering - with no guarantee of being remedied by anything good. Being born = net negative. It is consistent with Buddhism insofar as it proposes that life inherently contains suffering (and only becomes positive by finding meaning or balance, for example, which is not guaranteed). This is as close as I got to understanding it from looking into it a bit recently.

I don't care about being at fault for this...I seem to have a history of being the bad guy. *cough*

Rodent said:

Richard_39 said:

Rodent said:

Sooner or later this ends up in a pro- vs. anti-natalism discussion.

Click to expand...

LOL Seriously? You mean like, should we control births, quotas for children, people shouldn't be born, etc?
How do you come to that view of it? Hardly seems consitent with Buddism, don't know that much about it, but don't they promote life, harmony and all that stuff?

(You know, I was just thinking, if it turns into that because of what you posted...it's kind of your fault lol)

Click to expand...

No, it's a philosophy that says that bringing being into life is an inherently non-consensual act and therefore equals suffering - with no guarantee of being remedied by anything good. Being born = net negative. It is consistent with Buddhism insofar as it proposes that life inherently contains suffering (and only becomes positive by finding meaning or balance, for example, which is not guaranteed). This is as close as I got to understanding it from looking into it a bit recently.

I don't care about being at fault for this...I seem to have a history of being the bad guy. *cough*

Click to expand...

Awww, I was just kidding, you're one of the good guys

I seriously did not know that, I guess I'll have to read up a bit on Buddhism to understand it better.

Richard_39 said:

Rodent said:

Richard_39 said:

Rodent said:

Sooner or later this ends up in a pro- vs. anti-natalism discussion.

Click to expand...

LOL Seriously? You mean like, should we control births, quotas for children, people shouldn't be born, etc?
How do you come to that view of it? Hardly seems consitent with Buddism, don't know that much about it, but don't they promote life, harmony and all that stuff?

(You know, I was just thinking, if it turns into that because of what you posted...it's kind of your fault lol)

Click to expand...

No, it's a philosophy that says that bringing being into life is an inherently non-consensual act and therefore equals suffering - with no guarantee of being remedied by anything good. Being born = net negative. It is consistent with Buddhism insofar as it proposes that life inherently contains suffering (and only becomes positive by finding meaning or balance, for example, which is not guaranteed). This is as close as I got to understanding it from looking into it a bit recently.

I don't care about being at fault for this...I seem to have a history of being the bad guy. *cough*

Click to expand...

Awww, I was just kidding, you're one of the good guys

I seriously did not know that, I guess I'll have to read up a bit on Buddhism to understand it better.

Click to expand...

It depends really Buddhism was more 'negative' originally perhaps but I don't think many Buddhists in the west at least claim birth is inherently negative nor positive. It is only part of a cycle of impermence.


Life is suffering means that life is inherently dissatifying and impermanent not quite as negative as it does sound, it's more about freeing yourself from attachment. There is also that stuff about the reincarnation cycle and escaping that so in that sense life is seen negatively by some.
Ofc there are different interpretations and in the west lately it buddhism has sort of shifted and its sort of different in Zen buddhism which is more focused on life and awareness. Some find that ironic.
But there is some negativity in buddhism about life and animals being animalistic spirits etc.

doge said:

Richard_39 said:

Rodent said:

No, it's a philosophy that says that bringing being into life is an inherently non-consensual act and therefore equals suffering - with no guarantee of being remedied by anything good. Being born = net negative. It is consistent with Buddhism insofar as it proposes that life inherently contains suffering (and only becomes positive by finding meaning or balance, for example, which is not guaranteed). This is as close as I got to understanding it from looking into it a bit recently.

I don't care about being at fault for this...I seem to have a history of being the bad guy. *cough*

Click to expand...

Awww, I was just kidding, you're one of the good guys

I seriously did not know that, I guess I'll have to read up a bit on Buddhism to understand it better.

Click to expand...

It depends really Buddhism was more 'negative' originally perhaps but I don't think many Buddhists in the west at least claim birth is inherently negative nor positive. It is only part of a cycle of impermence.

Life is suffering means that life is inherently dissatifying and impermanent not quite as negative as it does sound, it's more about freeing yourself from attachment. There is also that stuff about the reincarnation cycle and escaping that so in that sense life is seen negatively by some.
Ofc there are different interpretations and in the west lately it buddhism has sort of shifted and its sort of different in Zen buddhism which is more focused on life and awareness. Some find that ironic.
But there is some negativity in buddhism about life and animals being animalistic spirits etc.

Click to expand...

I wasn't saying that Buddhism makes such claims either. I said that is what anti-natalism would tell you and the "life is suffering/dissatisfying" line is where those two can be tied together, if one intends to do so. I posed this because if you intend to free yourself from attachment, how can you invest in a long-lasting (mostly monogamous) relationship that provides an environment for children (high-investment in humans) and that raises those children to proper independent adults? Which leads to the question...why would you even do that? You can view yourself as a detached individual with no stake in society and doesn't the decision to procreate inherently sacrifice your freedom anyway? And for what purpose? These are mostly rhetorical questions really, but they all can follow from the idea that we don't "need" relationships.

Rodent said:

doge said:

Richard_39 said:

Rodent said:

No, it's a philosophy that says that bringing being into life is an inherently non-consensual act and therefore equals suffering - with no guarantee of being remedied by anything good. Being born = net negative. It is consistent with Buddhism insofar as it proposes that life inherently contains suffering (and only becomes positive by finding meaning or balance, for example, which is not guaranteed). This is as close as I got to understanding it from looking into it a bit recently.

I don't care about being at fault for this...I seem to have a history of being the bad guy. *cough*

Click to expand...

Awww, I was just kidding, you're one of the good guys

I seriously did not know that, I guess I'll have to read up a bit on Buddhism to understand it better.

Click to expand...

It depends really Buddhism was more 'negative' originally perhaps but I don't think many Buddhists in the west at least claim birth is inherently negative nor positive. It is only part of a cycle of impermence.

Life is suffering means that life is inherently dissatifying and impermanent not quite as negative as it does sound, it's more about freeing yourself from attachment. There is also that stuff about the reincarnation cycle and escaping that so in that sense life is seen negatively by some.
Ofc there are different interpretations and in the west lately it buddhism has sort of shifted and its sort of different in Zen buddhism which is more focused on life and awareness. Some find that ironic.
But there is some negativity in buddhism about life and animals being animalistic spirits etc.

Click to expand...

I wasn't saying that Buddhism makes such claims either. I said that is what anti-natalism would tell you and the "life is suffering/dissatisfying" line is where those two can be tied together, if one intends to do so. I posed this because if you intend to free yourself from attachment, how can you invest in a long-lasting (mostly monogamous) relationship that provides an environment for children (high-investment in humans) and that raises those children to proper independent adults? Which leads to the question...why would you even do that? You can view yourself as a detached individual with no stake in society and doesn't the decision to procreate inherently sacrifice your freedom anyway? And for what purpose? These are mostly rhetorical questions really, but they all can follow from the idea that we don't "need" relationships.

Click to expand...

Mm yea cos it sounds more like what a gnostic would say at least they are quite against bringing people into the material world of suffering although Buddhism can be interpreted that way too, but isn't so clear cut by some other standards.
I guess child rearing is quite a burden on individuals in a couple or can be viewed so, some societies do collectively raise children or have extended family more involved etc. and life isn't so intense. Also it's not unheard of to have polygamous couples raising children idk how that works.
But yea doing so does affect individualism, where you become more defined by the family and tied to commitments, until at least the children are grown up.
I am quite against so many people having children because many people are not too qualified for parenting, doing so for selfish reasons and the world is over populated at least overall socially and environmentally, but perhaps not locally or economically arguably. But yea there is the idea of what reason there is to bring children into 'suffering'/human condition. I guess one reason is to try and give children what the previous generation missed out on, and equip them for the future. I don't think birth is inherently negative though, it can be positive. I love seeing the young lambs being born in the spring but I guess they aren't human ;P

doge said:

I am quite against so many people having children because many people are not too qualified for parenting.

Click to expand...

LOL Careful with that line of thinking.
Once long ago, I was sitting in the employee's mess at my old job talking with some people, and I suggested that parents should be given mandatory classes and be required permits before having a right to have children, to make sure they are raised properly, because they screw it up, you know?
Well, an older collegue of mine, a man very wise with which I have great admiration for, GIVES IT TO ME lol. It was almost comical and I was a bit flabbergasted, but he's chewing me out and "YOU FREAKIN' NAZI!" and rarara lol. We spoke about it latter on (where he apologized for the outburst lol) but he spoke of his concerns about regulating in that way and I understood and agreed to some measure, it can lead to Totalitarianism, or at least some forms of controls from the State. Which, you know, sounds good on paper, but considering all the WONDERFUL decisions countries make sometimes...lol.
Having had my children now though and experiencing it...I agree with it. Because I think I raised two very good daughters, but FAR from being the way social workers or others necessarily would teach you how to raise children. Important, fundamental differences which I believe would not happen at all in the system I imagined above, when I was younger. So I'd be mad at my governement (further than I already am most of the time lol).
Oh sure, it's funny NOW, but back then, I almost had a heart attack lol.

So yeah, be careful, lest you get called a Nazi by a friend one sunny afternoon while not getting it in the least.

Richard_39 said:

doge said:

I am quite against so many people having children because many people are not too qualified for parenting.

Click to expand...

LOL Careful with that line of thinking.
Once long ago, I was sitting in the employee's mess at my old job talking with some people, and I suggested that parents should be given mandatory classes and be required permits before having a right to have children, to make sure they are raised properly, because they screw it up, you know?
Well, an older collegue of mine, a man very wise with which I have great admiration for, GIVES IT TO ME lol. It was almost comical and I was a bit flabbergasted, but he's chewing me out and "YOU FREAKIN' NAZI!" and rarara lol. We spoke about it latter on (where he apologized for the outburst lol) but he spoke of his concerns about regulating in that way and I understood and agreed to some measure, it can lead to Totalitarianism, or at least some forms of controls from the State. Which, you know, sounds good on paper, but considering all the WONDERFUL decisions countries make sometimes...lol.
Having had my children now though and experiencing it...I agree with it. Because I think I raised two very good daughters, but FAR from being the way social workers or others necessarily would teach you how to raise children. Important, fundamental differences which I believe would not happen at all in the system I imagined above, when I was younger. So I'd be mad at my govYeernement (further than I already am most of the time lol).

So yeah, be careful, lest you get called a Nazi by a friend one sunny afternoon while not getting it in the least.

Click to expand...

Yea regulation can have potential to end up in shambles unless put in for a clear reason for something more simple to regulate ;p  Social issues are complex. Surprisingly no one has called me a nazi b4 lol