Attachment/Detachment?

So, here for your personal enjoyment/debate...another BU HSC discussion topic:

Tonight's Topic was:

What is attachment? Is there good and bad attachment? What is detachment? And how does attachment relate to us as Hindus and members of society?
-----


I only had one sort of opinion ...which was to be detached is to have no expectations... you don't have to be inhumane to be detached...rather I think its like the opposite...that you are tapped into something bigger than yourself...tapped into the Universal Unconditional Love...

I don't know...it was just a thought...

But that's the discussion topic. Enjoy! I look forward to reading your responses!

 

attatchment is when we have something, or have an idea of something we wish we had, and if we don't get it, or are scared it will go away, we can't be happy. but if we have something, or an idea of something, and we love it, but don't think we'll be unhappy if we can't have it, that's just appreciation, which is good. if you are, like you said, tapped into the universal unconditional love, you have nothing but appreciation and it's impossible to feel attatchment. because you know everything that exists belongs equally to everyone. you can't have or not have something. it either exists, or doesn't, and just the thought of something that doesn't exists wills it into reality.

in a more everyday literal example, my most important possession is the stuffed bear my dad had that i got after he died. if my house were burning, that's what i would take, but if i couldn't get it in time, it would be okay. because the fact that it existed is enough to prove that it would still exist... and the idea is what really matters...

and if you're "tapped in" , how could you be sad for "losing" something? wouldn't that be denying god, by saying something "wrong" could possibly happen?

 

This question of attachment and non-attachment is something I've thought about on and off for some time.

IMO it is extrememly difficult to be non-attached to many things.
Firstly there's the body's needs. To be comfortable, and to be functional, definite conditions have to be fulfilled. We need enough food, warmth, clothing etc. To be unattached to such things is nearly impossible I think, unless we are ready to quit this life.
There's also the question of attachment to other people. A parent for example is necessarlly attached to their child and it's well being. To adopt a non-attached view would be cold and unfeeling.


On another level, there's the matter of attachment to forms of religion, particular god-forms etc. This isn't always a good thing, as it can lead to stasis both for the individual and society.

One danger of trying to be non-attached is that it becomes false. One tells others and oneself that one isn't attached to a certain thing, whilst really, one is, and the whole thing becomes simply a manifestation of 'attachment to non-attachment'. A game of religious one-upmanship.

We are complex beings - we have this emotional nature which seeks happiness and satisfaction. Some say they require no worldly satisfaction but get it all from above in one way or another. I think this is more or less an illusion. It may be possible to enter temporarily into a state where one feels no attachment to anything - but one has eventually to deal with the mundane realities of life, and it is also possible that such people have effectively killed off the human part of themselves.

The whole basis I think of teachings on non-attachment is a basic distrust of the energies of life. Only those who supress their desires will get a spiritual reward - that's the general line. But maybe it's actually that kind of anti-life attitude which causes the trouble in the first place.

If you believe god created humans, then why oh why give them this desire nature only to then tell them they must supress their desires? It's like giving a child a nice new toy, and then insisting they never actually play with it.

 

I see non-attachment as a natural occurence...a gradual shifting of preferences toward the spiritual.

It can't be forced...renunciation in its pure form comes when God is literally all a person can think of. At that point it's a positive state, not a negative one.

 

Surprised this thread hasn't had more replies, given the widespread teachings that exist on detachment in Hinduism and Buddhism as well as other traditions.


Anyway, here are a few of my personal thoughts and feelings about it.

True detachment is not the same thing as self-discipline, although the two are sometimes confounded. To be truly detached from something is to be completely unaffected by whatever happens in regard to that thing. So if I'm actually not attached to chocolate, for example, I won't be bothered if I never get any.

On the other hand, I might actually have quite a desire for chocolate, but through self control, force myself to shun it. In the case of chocolate, that's perhaps not too bad, even good, but in the case of other things, noteably sexual desire, it could be harmful for myself and others.

Take the catholic priesthood and other 'religious' - monks and nuns. How many are truly non-attached to sex? Not many I'd guess. So the majority of them act to control the desire - in effect to stifle and to supress it. In accord with Freud, Riech and others, I think this has led to very unwholesome effects. Regarding a natural and legitimate part of one's being as bad, or even 'sinful' or 'corrupt' is not exactly a prescription for good mental health, or a balanced system of morals etc.

In India, things get even worse. When the last Maha Kumb Mela was taking place a few years ago, I watched a series of tv documentaries where the bbc had sent a young asian reporter to cover the event. It included an interview with a young man who wanted to become a sadhu. He explained that soon, he would be going to see his guru for the purposes of having his penis broken.
He was insistent that only his guru could break his penis, and that once this was accomplished, he'd be on route to making spiritual progress.
Stupid chump! That was my first reaction, but it is actually scary that people think this way, let alone carry out this stuff. I think this young man had been 'got to' by older sadhus. Ignorant and perhaps evil.

I looked into what exactly breaking of the penis entails, and it is a rather nasty and painful type of injury which is quite uncommon. It does render the penis useless for sexual purposes.
And it gets still worse, as a small minority of sadhus go as far as self mutilation.

Anyway, my advice for what it's worth is to be honest about things like attachment to desire. There's no bonus points for pretending one doesn't have desires when one does, and I suspect very strongly, in fact I'm as sure as one can be on anything, that it is not necessary to supress natural desires in order to get on spiritually. In fact, sometimes their fulfillment can be a spiritual 'trigger'.
Of course, if a person really has no desire, or any attachment, then it's a different thing. Whether that state is a blessed one or a cursed one is a wholly subjective judgement.

As for me, I'm as attached as can be to all sorts of things.

 

Perhaps as you advance on the spiritual path...your desires melt away...as opposed to the other way around...where you shouldn't force it...but you should be aware of desires and the effects they have on your life... you know...

 

I agree with spook and nicole, it is a process of growth to become detached. Just as a child playing with her dolls at age 8 spontaneously grows out them by the time she is 18, as we grow spiritually, the things of the world lose their attraction.

Further to the truly keen intelligence (such as I dont have) simple observation will show that there is no joy in the objects of the world and detachment will be simple matter of clear thinking.

In connection with what Bill is saying - detachment is not in refusing to indulge or not indulge in things, it is not in the physical action. Detachment is a state of mind.

Once my dear friend Ram was spending time with our Gurudev. Seeing people lavish him with food and comforts of all kinds, he started thinking that the Swami's life is quite cushy.

The next day he was to drive Gurudev to his different appointments. The day began with the hosts providing a sumptuous breakfast. Ram was also at the table and ate well.

They then drove to a nearby town where Gurudev was to inaugurate a new school. The organizers provided a hearty breakfast. Gurudev sat down to eat and made Ram join him at the table. He ate well - enough to fill an empty stomach - barely 40 minutes after the first breakfast. Ram of course was bursting and struggling to finish his food.

Next they went to another ashram where Gurudev was to speak. After the lecture lunch was offered. Watching Gurudev eat, Ram was reminded of one who has been starving for days. Ram himself was quite disinclined to even look at food, but Gurudev insisted, personally putting rice and curry on his plate. Ram somehow struggled through, feeling quite sick by this point.
After the meal they returned, and, you guessed it, the host had prepared a splendid lunch for Gurude. Again they sat down to eat, again Ram was forced to join and eat a fourth solid meal in as many hours. As he struggled through it, Gurudev burst out laughing and told the bemused Ram, "This is true renunciation."
Gurudev lived through extreme conditions in his student days in Uttar kasi, with barely two thin meals a day. In the early days of the mission he often had to go hungry. Now devotees lavished him with food. Ever detached, he took whatever came, wheter too little or too much, with equanimity and joy. That is true detachment.

 

I agree it is state of mind. However, there is real detachment and false detachment. I am only tring to point out the dangers of false detachment, or forcing oneself to be detached when in fact one isn't.
As you say, it is a thing which comes with time and progress - it can't be imposed though without risks - and unfortunately, that's just what some religions try to do. ISKCON being an example. They take kids off the street and expect them to be celibate. Just like that. And clearly in many cases, they're not really able to be so.

Where I differ, is that I do think the objets of the world can give joy - albiet not eternal joy - but still, there is pleasure in life, and I don't see the necessity to avoid it in order to become spiritual. I am certainly not a supporter of any kind of ascetic attitude.
The trouble with that is that it can lead to a kind of perverse attitude of actually seeking suffering - Cf. cases like Francis of Assisi who prayed to suffer all the pains of christ before he died. Opus Dei with their leg chains and self-flaggelation, sadhus with broken penises etc...
This, IMO, is insanity.

I see it more in terms of balance.

I'm not saying we should be governed by desire, or seek to gratify every passing whim or fancy - I do think detachment, ie real detachment, has it's place. Some desires are legitimate and natural - others are not.

 

delete dup

 

I'd say it's impossible to be detached from anything if your thinking from an 'I/ego/body' awareness. Like Bill explained earlier it will just be denial which will most likely bring suffering.

Is detachment a healthy thing anyhow, if it brings about lack of compassion then I'd say no. We should learn to see the connection and oneness of all life and be attached and caring for the suffering of all.

 

I'm glad you see my point Phil. I agree that we shouldn't give up being attached to acting with love towards others. In my mind, that is the single most important thing.
Perhaps a state of complete non-attachment is equivalent to samhadi or nirvana. I mean that in the sense of a kind of out-of-the-body state.

 

I am maybe not the best to judge.
From a spiritual sense it's maybe best to detach from selfish thoughts to acquire an insight into the oneness of things.

But after that to become detached from life and it's suffering is selfish.

 

On an idealistic level, I'd fromulate one of my main goals as being the cesation of suffering, or at least it's minimalization, for as many as possible - including of course, yours truly.

I think this can only be brought about in general through a number of channels - personal 'growth spirituality', social and economic reform, scientific advance...just about anything which has a contribution to make.

 

BTW Phil...if you're not the best judge, as you say, who is? Some external person/force?

I think you probably are the best judge to decide what you think and feel on these kinds of issues, taking into account the ideas of others which one has received, but reaching your own conclusions. That's freedom isn't it?

But you don't have to reach 'conclusions' in another sense..it's more like being open to be guided by an intuitive flow of things - that is, along the lines of both the big cosmos and your own unique being.

not trying to preach here BTW, just share.

 

delete, pointless post :spam:

 

Isn't attachment obvious? we are attached to things like Hinduism right now, just like some people are attached to drinking, smoking or some are attached to watching movies.

Attachment exists in many forms... but is there a good attachment? isn't goodness in attachment itself a certain type of attachment?

In reality attachment is neither good nor bad, It is simply attachment, one who is attached to things that bring peace and happiness in one's life- God, actions that benefit him/society , create happiness in one's life.

It is also said that active detachment is also certain type of attachment, because you are trying to detach yourself, therefore you are attached to the act of detaching yourself. Therefore, there is no such thing as detachment, one has to be attached, whether one is attached to Krishna (God) and Sattvic qualities or whether he is attached to the stupidity seen everywhere else... is something that he chooses.

Exactly!

 

After that you cannot become detached from life - you discover you are life itself.

Detachment as described in Hinduism is obviously not callousness or indifference to the world. All the great mahatmas have worked for the world, to help and improve the lives of the people around.

Detachment is detachment from the action - the sense of doership. Detachment is detachment from the fruits of action and the resulting ego trip. Detachment is the attitude of a surgeon who is not overcome by emotion and fear of the patients death.
Detachment is freedom from your ego and selfishness.

It is the detached who truly help the world.

 

Detachment and atachment brlong to the ego. While the ego is present there is one or the other or both. Says Ramana, when detached from the ego, who remains to be attached or detached? In the light of atma vidya there is no second - be it in advaitin terms of the all pervading self, or in devotional terms - saarvam Krishnamayam jagat.

 

Amen, Sarvam Sri Krishnarpanamasthu.

 

Even if the ego was gone, wouldn't the body's attachments still be functioning? To things like food etc. Otherwise, how could such a being stay alive?