Question about Buddhist attachment

[LitNetIsGreat]

I have a question about a particular aspect of Buddhist thought, maybe someone could offer to answer this as it is something that I have been thinking about recently. My question is centred around the primary idea of attachment. Buddhist philosophy calls to reject attachment, as ultimately attachment is the main cause of suffering.

So for example the buying of a car creates an attachment to that car, it causes worries regarding if it was stolen, vandalised etc, on top of this the very act of purchasing this car requires money, which requires work and hence a lot of misery there for sure. So ultimately the rejection of the car (and the social pressures therein) removes the need for attachment.

This is fine and I go along with this a great deal, however what if someone felt that the pain of working and worrying was worth it for the enjoyment of driving the car? I use this as an example only after overhearing a conversation whereby someone said that they loved their sports car so much they would never sell it (I personally hate cars and don’t have one).

So where does this leave the original Buddhist thought? Is it that ultimately a Buddhist would say that real pleasure comes from internal sources and not from external ones? If we take this down to extremes then I suppose we don’t need anything above mere bread and water and basic shelter?

I would be very grateful if someone could unpick my tired, almost incoherent ramblings here for sure, thanks.

[NikolaiI]

One thing is that we are not supposed to create attachment. So if we have a car, we can improve our standards little by little. When I say standards I mean because a car is bad for the environment, it is negative in that sense, and something to be avoided.

Ideally wouldn't we be able to do completely without burning any fossil fuel? We could live and work in places we could walk to. If we had smaller cities or villages, we perhaps could eat the food we grew, without needing any other transport.

I think the best shot in Buddhism is to seek for yourself. I really encourage anyone to learn about Buddhism, about Amitabha Buddha, Avalokitesvara, Ksitigarbha bodisattva; study about their vows, their promises to remain until all beings are liberated. The sutras describe their vows, and the source of the sutras, it is all beautiful beyond belief.

Oh also Buddhism doesn't require everyone to follow the same standards. There are different requirements of laypersons and monks. Laypersons are not expected to sleep on the floor, or to not eat after twelve, and monks sometimes are. The laypersons are not following the simplicity of monastic life because in their jobs they have to deal with money, and supporting themselves or family, they also do.

[billyjack]

buddhist warnings against attachment are more of a tool than a rule. No attachments is a tool of overcorrection used to balance folks that have swayed too far into being owned by their possessions and the accumulation there of. Surely we need "external" stuff to survive and thrive but moderation is key.

[blazeofglory]

Buddhism is oftentimes misconstrued or misinterpreted in point of fact. Buddhism is for the middle path and here the question raised is all about extremity and indeed we need to strike a balance between two extreme situations, and totally being attached or detached and both states lead us to no result.