[Kliopeion]

First, I am new to Buddhism. Second, I apologize if I seem frank. I am not trying to be rude. Rather, this is the best way I know on how to phrase discussion and get back results.

The first part of the Noble Eightfold Path says that we must have right (correct) understanding.

I have been trying to understand Buddhism and have arrived at two possible conclusions.

Buddhism seems, most logically, to be a methodology of detachment. The world is suffering. Thus, to alive our suffering, we must detach from it as suffering arises from our cravings.

However, I am perplexed. Why then do some people define Buddhism as non-attachment rather than detachment? And, are not the two different goals, two different methodologies, with different destinations?

Detachment would declare this world illusion. Thus, ultimate Nirvana would be to 'rise above' this world. We must let go of both forms of craving, aversion and attachment. Only then do we no longer bind ourselves to the realms of time and space.

However, others seem to say that Buddhism is a journey to the present. That our goal is not to deny ourselves this world. But rather that we are to find 'enlightenment in the moment.' To more or less love the world and accept the world as it is, including its faults.

That a glass that in the future shows its impermanence by falling of the table and breaking. One still appreciates the glass in the moment even though we know it is not permanent.

To me, these ideas seem contradictory in both their destination and their practices. As such, what is Buddhism?

Option A:
We are to neither attach ourselves to or avert ourselves from the universe of time and space (the illusion.) Instead, we are to let it melt away and then we move on to a state of being that is beyond desire and its illusory worlds. It is when we become supremely indifferent to everything of the illusion that we truly unhook ourselves from this wheel of suffering.

Option B:
Enlightenment is in the moment and we are to learn to love things as they are where we are. Everything else is the illusion as it is just us projecting our goals (desires) onto the future.

Option A says Option B is incorrect as Option B is falling in love with the illusion.
Option B says Option A is incorrect as Option A is attaching oneself to the desire of achieving enlightenment. It is averting the world as it is and longing instead for a state of being it hopes to achieve in the future.

Which Buddhism is the real Buddhism? As many documentaries and articles I have been reading have been, in more or less words, promoting Option A and Option B separately. It seems to me one of the two perspectives has a misguided idea of Buddhism.

It seems some also phrase this as detachment vs compassion. This is still very confusing to me. As if the goal is to detach, how then do we have compassion?

Some say that the goal is not total detachment, but only detaching from desire.

Yet, this still confuses me. As the goal clearly seems to me to be the breaking of the reincarnation cycle. This is the goal because this world is seen as suffering and we must break our attachments to it so that we are not born here again after we die.

How then do we care for the world, if our goal is to leave it and never come back to it again?

Buddhavistas are those who pretty much reach enlightenment but do not go all the way. They stay back to help others find the way. Perhaps this is the perfect balance of detachment and compassion. Yet, it bars them from their own reward until all have found it too. And that could take thousands of years. Many in this world aren't even looking for Nirvana. Are we expected to wait for all of them?

This is seen as noble in some Buddhist traditions. However, is this necessary? The Buddha himself, as far as I can tell, did not do this.

The Buddha saw formalizing a teaching, a path to enlightenment, as well enough. He spent the remainder of his life teaching his teaching and creating his monastery. His disciples then continue teaching his teaching after his death. After his death, the Buddha went on to Nirvana and did not stay behind to help others get there.

I think he was wise to not deny himself his reward, and rather realize that those who also want it are those who care to learn from his teachings and fallow the path he created.

If the goal is really to detach from the world, as it appears to be; then how can compassion (beyond teaching Buddha's teaching in the time we have left in this life) really be seen as a good thing? It appears to me to be exactly what Buddhism is trying to unhook, not promote. For, if we love this world and those in it, how then are we to leave it and them?

Another way of looking at this, I was raised Christian. I had to have a gut-check recently that I won't be going to the same place my family will be after death. They will either reincarnate on Earth or on some 'heavenly' realm that is still part of time and space, still part of the illusion and of the suffering; of desire and of craving.

Many talk about freedom to fallow our own desires. Others talk about freedom to fallow the will (the desire) of the Christian God. Buddhism is different because it teaches us to have true freedom; freedom from desire.

In seeking freedom from desire, my goal is a place (state of being) without desire and without suffering. That is not where my family is trying to go. I will, if I succeed in my goal, go somewhere different than they.

How is it that I am to wait for them? Wait for them and a large chunk of the world that isn't even seeking Nirvana? Rather, they are seeking the exact opposite.

Better that I find my way to Nirvana and leave the teaching to them should they seek to find it also. I am not my brother's keeper. It is not my duty to make sure everyone fallows the path; only that I fallow it and that it is open to those who also desire the same goal.

Compassion beyond caring to keep Buddha's path open seems trivial, pointless, and contradictory to Buddha's teachings.

But what of war? What of abortion? What of death and theft?

What of it?

This world, and all within it, are impermanent. Suffering binds those who are causing it to stay here. Better they understand that sooner than later so that they can eventually turn from their cruel ways and abandon this world as well.

My interfering in the world's suffering, as far as I can tell, only achieves two things.

1: It attaches me to the world that it is my goal to detach from.
2: It shields those causing suffering from the natural karmic reaction to their own actions.

Thus

1: I am acting counterproductive and getting in the way of my own enlightenment.
2: I am enabling suffering in the world.

If I am completely off the mark, please tell me. For I would honestly like to know.

Thank you.