Spirituality and Detachment
Not that Attached to the Word…
Detachment doesn’t happen to be a word I use a lot but it may be the most convenient label to apply to the previous post’s topic. I first came across this word years ago while doing some reading on eastern religions, mostly Buddhism. In the previous post’s comments thread, there was a little confusion over the concept. I was confused by “detachment” too when I first came across it, which is probably why I tend not to use the word much.
It’s probably best to start by saying what it isn’t. Btw, I should mention that this is my own take on detachment. The reading I did in Buddhism was a long time ago, so it’s been assimilated into my own thinking.
The word sounds cold and clinical. I only speak English et la plus mal Francais, but assume something must have been lost in translation…
More Fun than it Sounds
Detachment refers to freeing ourselves from exactly the kinds of negative emotions and thoughts that are widely recognized in western psychological and religious contexts as detrimental to mental health and the life of the spirit. Letting go of our negativity liberates qualities like joy, love, appreciation of others, recognition of their needs, and distinguishing our positive strivings and desires from our compulsions and addictions.
When I think about it, what strikes me as possibly the main difference between detachment as I ran across the idea in Buddhism vs. western approaches is that Buddhism tends to be more thoroughgoing. The Eightfold Path is not only very systematic but digs deep. Anyone who Googles “Eightfold Path” should be able to get some idea of how systematic it is. The depth dimension is harder to wrap words around; for a short post, some of the words I wrote last time may be about as good as I can do.
In response to Sue in previous comments, it’s true that at least in the west, religious institutions seem to emphasize practices that promote detachment with monks more than with laity. To me, that’s unfortunate. In relation to having children, for example, detachment wouldn’t mean loving them less, but not over-identifying with them – not trying to vicariously fill one’s own unmet ego strivings through them.
And yes, as per Sue’s horse-riding analogy and Red M’s quotation, when we’re less attached to our small and narrow egotistical selves, it’s harder to be thrown off balance. We’re less reactive.
And Less Pain…
Hazzbuzz commented: “I remember coming to a point where I felt detached a long time ago but it was like a much needed break from being me and all that friction you talk about. Like seeing that… things had panned out the way they had because that's just how they are. I thought of it as a bit of a cop out afterwards but it helped me get through a bad patch.”
I do think detachment would include greater acceptance of things as they are. And I think I have an idea of what Hazzbuzz means by wondering if that’s a cop out. At one point I had similar misgivings until I realized that if there’s something bothering me that, for whatever reason, I’m not both willing and able to do something about, then hanging onto it – rehashing it in my mind – had no real-world effect except a destructive one on me. I basically decided that if it was a cop out to stop slapping myself upside the head from time to time for nothing, then it was time for me to cop out!
(Easier said than done, especially at first...)
Detachment doesn’t happen to be a word I use a lot but it may be the most convenient label to apply to the previous post’s topic. I first came across this word years ago while doing some reading on eastern religions, mostly Buddhism. In the previous post’s comments thread, there was a little confusion over the concept. I was confused by “detachment” too when I first came across it, which is probably why I tend not to use the word much.
It’s probably best to start by saying what it isn’t. Btw, I should mention that this is my own take on detachment. The reading I did in Buddhism was a long time ago, so it’s been assimilated into my own thinking.
The word sounds cold and clinical. I only speak English et la plus mal Francais, but assume something must have been lost in translation…
More Fun than it Sounds
Detachment refers to freeing ourselves from exactly the kinds of negative emotions and thoughts that are widely recognized in western psychological and religious contexts as detrimental to mental health and the life of the spirit. Letting go of our negativity liberates qualities like joy, love, appreciation of others, recognition of their needs, and distinguishing our positive strivings and desires from our compulsions and addictions.
When I think about it, what strikes me as possibly the main difference between detachment as I ran across the idea in Buddhism vs. western approaches is that Buddhism tends to be more thoroughgoing. The Eightfold Path is not only very systematic but digs deep. Anyone who Googles “Eightfold Path” should be able to get some idea of how systematic it is. The depth dimension is harder to wrap words around; for a short post, some of the words I wrote last time may be about as good as I can do.
In response to Sue in previous comments, it’s true that at least in the west, religious institutions seem to emphasize practices that promote detachment with monks more than with laity. To me, that’s unfortunate. In relation to having children, for example, detachment wouldn’t mean loving them less, but not over-identifying with them – not trying to vicariously fill one’s own unmet ego strivings through them.
And yes, as per Sue’s horse-riding analogy and Red M’s quotation, when we’re less attached to our small and narrow egotistical selves, it’s harder to be thrown off balance. We’re less reactive.
And Less Pain…
Hazzbuzz commented: “I remember coming to a point where I felt detached a long time ago but it was like a much needed break from being me and all that friction you talk about. Like seeing that… things had panned out the way they had because that's just how they are. I thought of it as a bit of a cop out afterwards but it helped me get through a bad patch.”
I do think detachment would include greater acceptance of things as they are. And I think I have an idea of what Hazzbuzz means by wondering if that’s a cop out. At one point I had similar misgivings until I realized that if there’s something bothering me that, for whatever reason, I’m not both willing and able to do something about, then hanging onto it – rehashing it in my mind – had no real-world effect except a destructive one on me. I basically decided that if it was a cop out to stop slapping myself upside the head from time to time for nothing, then it was time for me to cop out!
(Easier said than done, especially at first...)
Posted by Paul at 7:38 PM Permalink
32 Comments:
The goal then, is to get a person reattached. (velcro, sadly does not work.
Keshi.
I don't like the idea of detachment in the way it's notmally used - I think it means giving up, stuffing desire and joy, and settling for not feeling so one won't be disappointed or suffer. But I could be wrong :-)
it just depends ...
but yes its better to be detached but its human to be attached..
Basically, he says that westerners think of selves as circles with stuff both inside and outside, while easterners tend to think of selves as points with all the stuff outside.
oh! how brilliant. simple, but brilliant.
regarding detachment. i take your meaning here as not the clinical sense, but the spiritual sense. as in detachment from one's ego. sort of like stripping ourselves of the false layers to really see ourselves, or what's there.
that means letting go ... letting go of that which seizes our ego. i think this must be the path to freeing oneself from 'demons' that plague us ... sort of like letting go of all the superfluous junk so we can embrace ourselves. and so ~ its detachment, as opposed to attachment, we require.
detachment = freedom.
as for desire ... hindu philosophy teaches us that desire lies at the root of our difficulties. could this be because desire emanates from the ego? yes, IMHO. at any rate, emptying one's ego and just loving what's around us, without wanting anything more ... i see this as closely tied in with detachment. and as a path to inner peace.
indeed, easier said than done.
funny you should post this ... i spent a few hours yesterday afternoon writing along a similar vein ... its strange, and somewhat bold, perhaps ... but sort of related to spiritual detachment ... so here's the link if anyone's interested ...
Yes, Paul, that's it exactly! You nailed it. Thank you. I found these quotes describing Zen/Buddhist detachment that I thought you would like. I think they resonate. Love your profound prose "Being Here" in the previous post.
"Detachment is not indifference. It is the prerequisite for effective involvement. Often what we think is best for others is distorted by our attachment to our opinions: we want others to be happy in the way we think they should be happy. It is only when we want nothing for ourselves that we are able to see clearly into others’ needs and understand how to serve them." Mahatma Gandhi
"By detachment I mean that you must not worry whether the desired result follows from your action or not, so long as your motive is pure, your means correct." Gandhi
"To renounce things is not to give them up. It is to acknowledge that all things go away." Shunryu Suzuki Zen Master
"Non-attachment is self-mastery: it is freedom from desire for what is seen or heard." Patanjali
"Whatever feelings arise – whether pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral – abide contemplating impermanence in those feelings, contemplate fading away, relinquishment, letting go of all those feelings. Contemplating this one does not cling to anything in this world. When not clinging, there is no agitation. When not agitated one personally attains Nibbana." Buddha
I found them here, there are many more. www.
wisdomforthesoul.org/categories/detachment.html
What you wrote about detachment in relation to children is excellent.
First, I've been spelling it bhudda, and that turns out to be wrong.
Second, dang! It never occured to me to look up buddhism on the net, as it sounded almost heretical to that religion. Then again, like all religions, the guy in charge SAID not to make it a religion but rather to do as he taught them, and I believe that before he died, his followers all came to (I don't remember his real name) him and asked, "who shall fill your shoes?" and he said (in effect) "No one. Follow the practice...."
So I assumed there would be nothing on the net other than an overdone bit on the present DL.
As for a third thing to learn, I got this "cryptic" note from our mutual friend on a comment made...
"J Cosmo Newbery said...
You had best ask Paul about the Canadian parliament.
(looks to ceiling and whistles innocently) "
'Course, it may be none of my business, but, I'm as sure as anything there's a cat in my background that has transferred his curiousity to me....
Canadian Parliment?
And then, may I comment on detachment?
noun,1 the act of disconnecting (dang, sounds like a verb to me)
2 indifference to the concerns of others 3 impartiality 4a the dispatch of troops from a larger body b a small permanent unit for special duties.(now, those for sure sound of noun)
The guy was into older forms of hinduism, and shinto (?) and there were out-of-body trips made. A present day similar group would be eckankar, where the student goes out of body to a place where others will teach the path to take.
That may have been his earlier take on detachment, but, I dare suggest that we are translating a concept that may not be translatable. At least, not on an earthly basis.
None-the-less, by being "detached" from the world, one may be free of things as money (Ceasar's coins, say), relationships (as most monks stayed single, though not all), and earthly things such as a place to live (houses become the master), these would be things to become detached from in order to attain perfection.
And yet, isn't this where the ideaology fails? (rhetorical)
To be truly detached means having no thought of earth, and so doing no good for anyone. Communication would no longer be needed, instead only a bowl to collect something to eat (money...oops....or actual food...oops again as that creates an attachment.)
I can groove with the idea of leaving behind things in order to learn, but, in this day and age, to be detached means get ready for a stay in some institution somewhere or learning to grow one's own food stuffs. And even that would take about ten acres.
ok....I be gone.
I have since come to believe that it has much more to do with self-fulfillment.
As you said in your post, Paul, "In relation to having children, for example, detachment wouldn’t mean loving them less, but not over-identifying with them – not trying to vicariously fill one’s own unmet ego strivings through them."
This seems right on base to me. I think detachment is not possible until you are able to meet and understand your deepest "ego strivings." Once you can do that, you do not need to attach to people or things to meet your deepest needs.
And I love motherwintermoon's quote from Shunryu Suzuki, Zen Master. This, I think, gets to the essence of detachment.
If you are FORCING yourself to give something up, it is not detachment. But if you fulfill yourself so that the thing is no longer needed and it slips away from you, then it is detachment.
precisely so! this is the very sentiment i had in my head when i first read this post ...
As far as I can see, detachment is a way to lessen the pain of existence. Alcohol, drugs, religious practice, not caring about others or even oneself, Buddhism---these are all ways to achieve detachment or the end of mental pain.
An alternative is to embrace the inevitability of loss, worry, fear and grief: to live and love intensely and enjoy this world. Why should I escape suffering when others cannot? We are all in this together. I am but a sphisticated animal.
Someone here mentioned something about detachment as a psychiatric condition? So that would be a totally different phenomenon.
So would the clinical detachment of the psychiatrist counseling the person with the detachment disorder…
Detachment from one’s retina would be another matter…
It all depends what’s being detached from what!
IN GENERAL: INDIFFERENCE/LACK OF EMOTION - A particular semantic problem is that “detached” suggests setting aside one’s emotions. For example, good therapists, journalists, historians, and scientists, try to be detached in the sense of being as objective as possible. But detachment in a religious or spiritual context refers to outgrowing one’s petty, life-narrowing emotions. It has nothing to do with becoming less joyful, peaceful, or compassionate – just the opposite. That is, when a person does less ranting, worrying, regretting, resenting and other forms of “gnashing of teeth,” so to speak, it helps make way for the experience of our more expansive feelings and motives.
INFINITESIMAL: See Semantics above…
KESHI, thanks, I’ll check it out as soon as I can –
VISHESH: Your “it’s better to be detached but it’s human to be attached” to me suggests that detachment – or, conversely, “enlightenment” – is a direction, a process, and not anything achievable as a final static end-state.
CRYSTAL: See “Indifference/lack of emotion” above…
MATTHEW: Thanks for that link, interesting blog. I left this comment: “So people at their best are points with maps. Big maps.”
RED M: Basically I’d just say yes – my two general comments above are saying pretty much the same thing. Free will – that’s a topic in itself. In the last analysis, all I can say on that is “Who knows?” Feels like we have it but that doesn’t prove it because we can never go back in time for a do-over to see if we really could have done anything differently.
MOTHERWINTERMOON: Thanks, great quotes that I think really give good glimpses into what detachment’s about.
BONEMAN: I don’t know what it is with Buddhists and the letter “h.” It took me like two years to finally remember how to spell Thich Nhat Hanh correctly even though I’ve got him in my bibliography!
Me too – I think walking the walk’s the most important thing.
As to “Paul Martin”, you could Google me. I only have time for all this blogging since finishing out my time as prime minister. It was a good gig while it lasted… On detachment, please take a look at my two general comments at the top of this thread…
EMERGING FROM THE FIRE: That all sounds right to me and I love what you say here: “If you are FORCING yourself to give something up, it is not detachment. But if you fulfill yourself so that the thing is no longer needed and it slips away from you, then it is detachment.” I like that as much as MWM’s quotations. Might just add that at least for some people, forcing themselves is a transitional phase.
VINCENT: I’d say it’s the semantics around that particular word for the experience/concept that’s problematic and not the experience/concept itself, as per my two “General” remarks above. What you mention as an alternative does sound to me like a better alternative than alcohol, drugs, misguided religious practices, and lack of caring – but to me sounds compatible with Buddhism rather than alternative to it.
The confusion you mention can even take a turn towards being self-applied. “Is there something wrong with me?”
But, in a Taoist sense, being detached has freed me to appreciate being one with all things. I’m not being cliché either. It’s hard to hold your end of an argument when you realize you are just arguing a perspective of yourself and you follow that thought within.
Detachment is just another perspective from which to view life. Good, Bad, or (gasp)Indifferent...try Relative.
(pertaining to "detachment")
the Lord is my shepherd...
I shall not want.
hmmm. isn't that detachment?
"I shall not want" gives it some depth, eh? Not giving in to the desires that draw us away from our course, that steer us away from the goal that we need to accomplish (whatever that goal is to each person...)
or, maybe not. I do get excited about the weirdest things on occasion. I mean, well...you know. Three of ya had to point out to me about the gal benchpressing 410 being a metaphore for something entirely different....ah. Ancient history.
On top of that, as I think you're suggesting, you then get people who come at this topic from an externalized point of view - that is, they may not have had much by way of experience of it. So all they have to go by are the words usually employed, with their many misleading connotations.
In reality, I think everyone has had at least a taste of the direction of spiritual growth pointed to by words like "detachment." ("Spiritual"... another one of those terms, this one I use, but define it carefully...)
If, for example, you see your child reach across a platter of cookies to take the biggest one rather than the one that happens to be closest to him or her, there's an early lesson in "detachment" that you're providing right there.
BONEMAN: While there's practically zero genuinely historical information about Jesus - the NT is a faith document written by members of the first century church, so that the only Jesus we see has come to us pre-interpreted - I have a similar impression. That is, if I had to guess, I'd guess that Jesus knew a lot about detachment and "losing his life to find it," to cite just one of many passages that to me suggest this.
(I think if you just Google Paul Martin without the M for a middle initial you'll get lots of hits on the former Canadian prime minister...)
Viveka (meaning discernment) is a perpetually mindful, purposeful and intentional effort to distinguish between the permanent and the impermanent, the real and the unreal, the self and the un-self. (Not-self or non-Self). It is the withdrawal from unproductive, obstructive, or destructive goals and energies.
Viraaga means the absence of lust and desire. (Coveting, material obsessions, etc.) It is illusion overcome and core truth discerned. It can be described as freedom from bondage.
"Detachment" is a poor and perhaps unfortunate translation for a Zen Buddhist concept which means much more than that word defines or confines.
Not elected for chancellor or anything that grand...
Me thinks I fell for another one, as it were.
Young Newberry took me on a quick walk through the garden, eh?
I found you and your book, though, however, as far as that's concerned, I have no charge card, so, I hit my bank up for some money and later am going to the book store.
See ya!
BONEMAN: It's not available yet! But thanks for your interest, and for more on the book, you could look over the rest of this site. Once it's available that will be announced on the site too. If you want to be sure, there's a very short "contact" form on my homepage that basically asks for your email if you want to be notified when it's ready.
"Paul Martin" really was the name of the previous prime minister of Canada. Yeah, it turns out my name is about as rare as John Smith...
ADDICTION and something...( I'll ask him when I see him tomorrow)
But, we were talking about the word detachment and the concept of "the Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want (OT...23d psalm)
and he poped out that book title and we talked about how it was also the thing to "detach" from, and, near as I could tell, he was also uncomfortable using the word.
Yeah!
Put me down fer knowing when it comes out....
I only know just a very few authors who have actually published.
Still, even though he offered to lend it to me, addiction is something I can, have, and will continue to conquer.
So, I passed on the book, but, the conversation was along the giving things up course of things.
BONEMAN: It sounds like you may be suggesting addiction would be an expression of attachment. Maybe a complicated one though. If we’re talking drugs, of course there’s that physiological aspect that develops. Also, it strikes me that addiction is an attempt to escape suffering – to experience more joy or at least lessen pain – that ends up creating greater suffering in the long run.
Thanks for your interest in the book. We got your contact form, so you’ll know as soon as it’s available. It will be great to have some of you read it and know exactly where I’m coming from on a lot of things I touch on but can’t really get into in a blog format.
HAZZBUZZ: Thanks – and I have to say, simple as this idea is, that it really was brilliant for me in so far as it cast some light ahead at a time in my life that was getting pretty dark.
Remember: just because it’s there, and real, and bad, once you know about it, you don’t have to keep looking at it all or most of the time to be honest or realistic. It’s there! You know it! You got it already!
Now do some other stuff!
TO ALL – SOME BOOKS
I did almost all my reading on Buddhism in the mid eighties. There must be other good books out there by now. Still, a good book’s a good book. Here’s what I read:
Rahula, Walpola S. What the Buddha Taught. New York: Grove Press, 1959. This was
the first book I happened to pick up. Turns out the author was a major Buddhist monk
and scholar. I read enough to see I wanted to learn more about Buddhism, but I found
him pretty dense and only read here and there…
Goldstein, Joseph and Jack Kornfield. Seeking the Heart of Wisdom: The Path of Insight
Meditation. Boston: Shambhala, 1987. I was relieved to find this book. The authors are
Westerners, and a lot of the stuff I wasn’t getting in Rahula I caught onto here.
Hanh, Thich N. The Miracle of Mindfulness: A Manual on Meditation. Boston: Beacon
Press, 1975. Short, sweet, simple, profound. Not a systematic book about Buddhism but
this Vietnamese monk went on to become a major force in bringing Buddhism to the
attention of the West.
Smith, Huston. The Religions of Man. New York: Harper & Row, 1965. A chapter on
every major world religion, including Buddhism. Great overview and helps put one’s
own tradition in perspective on the world stage.
Tolle, Eckhart. The Power of Now: A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment. Novato: New
World Library, 1999. I listened to the cassette version of this book at a much later date -
my sister was reading him and loaned them to me. Tolle didn’t have nearly the impact
on me as the others but it was just because I found him so late and was already familiar
with the gist of what he has to say. He’s not Buddhist but apparently came up on his
own with a similar perspective that he expresses in clear and simple terms.
When faced with hardship and tragedies, it is often difficult for me, but always positive, to feel detached for this wordly things and remember that my God will never leave me, that there is much more to my mortal and post-mortal existence than what I am going through...
Hanh, Thich N. ~ i have not read the title you suggested here, but, i have read some of his other stuff ~ he writes well, clearly, and concisely ... but the words are loaded with wisdom ... that man has a gift. i do recommend reading him ...
too often get the sense of being in a place for too long, when the
ole noggin sticks on either of these subjects. it's not the subject, per se, but the sense of
balance, that's so elusive.
detachment's more a state of being,
rather than a goal. leaves one to wonder, "am i there, yet?"
Post a Comment