Faith, Non Attachment, Identity and Martin Luther King
Humans can attach or cling to a wide range of things – from wealth and material excess to our very lives. We can cling to real goods as well as things that aren’t good for us.
Non attachment diminishes our clingy emotions – our egoistic and fundamentally fear-based attachments. It brings serenity in the face of adversity. It sets our larger passions free.
Non attachment is about experiencing our identity with something infinitely greater than ourselves. Non attachment may be understood as non-dualistic or mystical experience at a background level – minimized on the screen of our consciousness, so to speak.
In the contexts of mystical experience and non attachment, faith – all-trust, all-hope – is statement-like. We experience ourselves as so imbued or steeped in the infinitely greater than ourselves, as being so entirely part and parcel to that greater life or process, that we don’t stand outside our faith and its source to question it. We just live it. We just experience it.
Faith as experienced from the perspective of our usual human mindset of splitting the self off from greater reality to a pretty large degree is felt more as our relationship than our identity with the infinitely greater. While still very much identifying with our separate, mortal selves, we nevertheless know profound reassurance.
Here is a good illustration of non attachment, faith and the passion of a love set free. It’s a brief excerpt from the last paragraph of Dr. Martin Luther King’s speech on the night of April 3, 1968. He was assassinated the next day.
“Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now.”
Maintaining Spiritual Integrity Under Fire: Anger at God or Life vs. Detachment
Your comments to the previous thread were fantastic and really made me think about this subject in some ways that I hadn’t before. There’s enough material in your collective comments for more than one additional post on this topic; I’m going to start by trying to unravel just one thread of the discussion thread to see if we can get universal agreement on it.
Because if we can’t get universal health care, maybe we can still get that… (But probably not…)
Let’s Call It “Non Attachment” Then…
Crystal notes that the idea of detachment sounds emotionless and cold. Susie Q similarly says that she feels uncomfortable with the word:
“If being detached means I am unable to feel justifiable outrage at a wrong, if being detached means I am unable to feel passion enough to stand up for something or someone, then I believe I prefer being attached.
“I don't want to be aloof about life in order to gain inner peace. I want to be emotionally involved in living.”
Kaushik remarks that “detachment” is more accurately rendered “non-attachment,” and that it’s not detachment from compassion or from living but from the drama of the ego.
My tendency is to say OK everybody, let’s just follow Kaushik’s suggestion and call it “non-attachment” instead of “detachment” – problem solved. To me the objections have always seemed to linguistic. Why? Two reasons:
I Have Neither Met nor Become a Meditation Zombie
First, my own experience of increasing non attachment (most of it unfolded on its own but there were times when I worked at it through meditation and mindfulness practices) has, over time, made me warmer, less self conscious, more available to others and able to preserve my sense of humor under adverse conditions. Second, I’ve never heard or read of anyone becoming a cold or aloof person as a result of increasing non attachment.
Certainly some percentage of people who seek non attachment become ego-involved with it, coming to view themselves as superior to others and therefore becoming cold, aloof, condescending or otherwise obnoxious. But this is the opposite of non attachment. It’s “spiritual pride,” the “holier than thou” attitude which is a mistake that followers of any religious tradition or spiritual path can make.
On the Other Hand, There’s Job’s Wife…
Raymond to Crystal (applies to Susie Q too I think): “Like Job's wife, you are insisting on an authentic experience of life. I think, like her you would refuse to buy Job's excuse for God's ruthless action; that refusal would be a sign of integrity on your part.
“Said Job's wife, ‘Curse God and die.’ A brave woman, to say the least.”
Raymond goes on to ask whether we should each go for whatever works for us or if further consideration of the meaning of non attachment is in order.
Let’s assume that the first inclination of any of us faced with great adversity would be to try to resolve it or overcome it. If that can’t be done, the question becomes: Do some of us find integrity by remaining in grief or outrage while others find it by letting go and moving on? Different strokes for different folks?
Note that letting go and moving on does not and cannot mean forgetting that terrible adversity is terrible adversity. For example…
The Job in Me
I don’t like my pressure sores, waking up several times a night from nerve pain, my diminishing ability to stand and "walk" (shuffle forward unsteadily for very short distances), being unable to sit at all and having to work at the computer kneeling on a chair outfitted with pressure sore padding while having to use a timer to remember to get off the chair and stand up every 15 minutes to try to keep the pressures sores from worsening any faster than they already are. I don’t like watching my disease continue to progress, my spine curve more and more, inexorably spending more of each day in bed and with more of my up-time taken up by interacting with health care aides and medical issues. It’s been almost five years since I’ve been able to leave the house; I don’t like that either.
I don’t like the effects that all this has had on my family over the past sixteen years. I don’t like watching my mom become increasingly confused with the progression of what looks like Alzheimer’s. I don't like the tremendous stress that my only sibling is under.
I don’t like any of this at all and I realize that fact. I understand it. I’m fully cognizant of it. I couldn’t forget it if tried.
But I spend almost no time reminding myself of this stuff, thinking about how much I dislike it, dwelling on it – hating it or grieving it. However, in the early years of the disease, I did plenty of both.
Going through that sort of process with any major new adversity is probably inevitable for any human being – attached, non-attached, detached, semidetached… I say “probably” because I notice that with major new events I now react much less. It takes me three days to get over something that would have taken me three or four years if it had struck a decade ago.
Do we continue to grieve or hate what we can’t change, finding integrity in this, or do we move on in the sense of refocusing our attention on the possibilities that remain? Do we identify with the dimension of ourselves that lets us move on, or the dimension of ourselves that says, “This is unacceptable?"
“When the mind is transparent and pure as if reflected on the mirror-like surface of the water, there is nothing in the world that you would dislike. When it is serene as the light breeze in the sunshine, there will be no one whom you would like to forget.”
Pa-ta Shan-jen 17th century painter Translated by Chang Chung-yuan in his book Creativity and Taoism, A Study of Chinese Philosophy, Art, and Poetry.
I recently received this quotation in an email. I not only don’t dislike it; I like it, even though this post may make it sound like I don’t. I feel that I understand what it’s pointing to – at least I have my own perspective on this. However, I’ll save that for next post. Here I’ll look at how statements of this kind can present some problems.
Sciatica and Other Mystical Experiences
The idea that “there is nothing in the world that you would dislike” if you were sufficiently detached or enlightened certainly makes sense if we think about those moments when we’re actually in an altered state of consciousness – i.e., actively having a mystical or “non-dualistic” experience. In those moments one doesn’t dislike a thing.
However, you could say the same thing about any experience that completely consumes your attention. Twice I was literally floored by sciatica attacks. They were mind-eclipsing. I didn’t think at all about how much I disliked them until well afterward. Severe pain too is a non-judgmental condition…
"Brother John, Don't Forget Our Meeting After Vespers..."
Concepts like detachment and enlightenment seem to suggest not just that we can have brief experiences that are completely accepting and non judgmental, but that it’s possible to always or usually be in such a mental state.
It’s hard for me to imagine how this would be possible. Non-dualistic, judgment-free consciousness might well be experienced with greater frequency and purity if a person were to work intensively at this in a certain kind of setting– say lots of trees, little traffic, fresh air… for example, a monastery – but even here it would be surprising if the experience could go on in an uninterrupted manner for very long at an intense, “altered state of consciousness” level. And most of us not only live in environments less serene than monasteries but also have jobs (so do monks…) and other regular forms of human interaction requiring our attention to deviate from pure non-dualistic/non judgmental awareness frequently throughout the day.
The Wise Sage Avoids a Hot Stove
A pure state of mind in which "there’s nothing in the world that we dislike” as consisting of more than a transitorily recurring experience is also belied by the very undertaking of practices and a way of life for cultivating this form of consciousness. What basis for aspiring to realize this and not some other kind of mental state can there be other than strongly liking and positively evaluating detachment – and, conversely, having a distinct dislike and negative evaluation for states of mind that are antithetical to detachment?
Also, going by the things they try to avoid, mystics don’t like pebbles in their shoes, computer glitches, eating spoiled food, getting run over by motor vehicles... Their complete list of dislikes looks a lot like other people’s.
“Detach From One Another”
Many religiously and spiritually-minded people see love as the apex of spirituality and find it hard to reconcile the joy, affirmation and impassioned desire for the well being of others that they experience in love with a state of mind described in terms such as being free from all desire and aversion, likes and dislikes and completely accepting things as they are without judgment. I think the confusion here is a matter of language –how words are used and what they are taken to refer to.
The bottom line for me is that the way of increasing love and the way of increasing detachment, far from proceeding in different directions, is one and the same path. Maybe more next post…
Scotland’s Lockerbie Decision Raises Spiritual and Moral Questions
Scotland recently released the only person tried and found guilty in the blowing up of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. He’s dying of cancer, has months to live and was allowed to return to Libya. His release highlights questions around how society ought to treat criminals. If the purpose of incarceration is punishment, then clearly releasing the man was the wrong thing to do.
If the purpose is punishment, then the Scots would have done well to take advantage of the opportunity to compound the suffering of cancer with the suffering of dying thousands of miles away from family and friends who believe he's innocent. However, if the purpose of incarceration is to prevent people who we believe are dangerous from doing further harm, then this purpose was accomplished.
Punishment... revenge... justice... what are the differences? And is it just me, or does it seem like the rehabilitation piece gets short shrift?
Having Faith in Not-Ourselves: Who Might We Become If We Let Go of Self Preoccupation?
From Verse 38 of the Tao Te Ching
A truly good man is not aware of his goodness and is therefore good. A foolish man tries to be good and is therefore not good.
The master does nothing, yet he leaves nothing undone. The ordinary man is always doing things, yet many more are left to be done.
The highest virtue is to act without a sense of self. The highest kindness is to give without condition. The highest justice is to see without preference.
What’s “detachment?” What’s “enlightenment?” Who’s not in favor of constant joy – but does it exist?
Parts one and two below are abridged from a post by Avani Mehta and from our exchange of comments on her thread. Below that are some further thoughts.
Thanks, Avani, for such a thoughtful post and blog. I very much agree with the main point of Avani’s post – that the happiest and most productive mental state for getting work done is to focus on the work-process itself and not its possible future effects, particularly its effects on us.
I. Isn’t the Joy of Doing Enough? (excerpted from Avani’s post)
Shouldn’t it be enough … That you get joy from doing what you do? Why do you care to succeed … How does it matter if you fail? Doesn’t the joy of doing nullify both anyways? Why should there be a reason for what you do … Why should you get something out of it?
II. Detachment and Joy (from Avani’s comments thread)
Paul: Joy in the process of doing work that one performs from out of love for others and the wider world brings deep peace - whether it succeeds or not. Still, one does desire the success of one’s best efforts and those of others. And there is some sadness when these are defeated, although that sadness does not override peace.
Avani: I still haven’t reached there but I know a few people who can detach themselves from the outcome and do whatever’s required. I can only imagine what joy they must feel – to constantly work on what they want without worrying about what happens next or whether things will work out the way they want. I do agree that working out of love for others will bring joy and world wide deep peace.
Further Thoughts
Desire: Two Kinds
I see two very different kinds of desire that can motivate us to do work. “Worrying about what happens next or whether things will work out the way we want” – agitation of this kind comes from egoistic desire. Egoistic desire is desire that one experiences for the sake of the self as a thing apart from the rest of life, as in…
I’m doing this for me – so I won’t be “a failure,” so I can leave my “legacy,” mark, imprint. Or, for more materially-minded egos, “so I can get stuff.”
But there is another kind of desire that is truly for the sake of the well being of others and the wider world. If this second kind of desire didn’t exist, then work that entails great personal difficulty, risk, long odds for success, or that promises nothing by way of private or personal reward would rarely if ever be done. This second sort of desire comes from love and perhaps ultimately from an aspect of us that runs still deeper.
Love’s Desire and Sadness – or Compassion – and the Question of Enlightenment’s Meaning
If work attempted from out of our love’s desire for the larger world’s well being substantially fails, then I think there is necessarily an initial response of sadness upon realizing this. I can't imagine, for example, that the Dalai Lama has never felt moments of sadness as he witnesses events in Tibet. Perhaps compassion is a better word than sadness, since the feeling I refer to is fundamentally still and at rest. Because whether we succeed or fail, it’s impossible to regret our love’s best efforts. The peace and integrity that comes with making that effort absorbs sadness like tears falling into an ocean.
Yet sadness is real and it is a different thing from joy.
Even work that involves a great deal of joy also includes partial failures and times of unpleasantness. To experience ego-detachment from the outcome of one's work doesn’t mean that one exists in a perpetual state of joy.
Sometimes the concept of enlightenment is used in ways that seem to suggest that it consists of the attainment of perpetual joy; I don’t think that this can be the case.
Forgiveness… What is it? Who is it for – the wronged or the wrongdoer? Is it always possible and always desirable? How do we go about forgiving? This last question seems especially important. I’ve seen people struggle with forgiveness for years or even a lifetime.
When I was younger, I thought I’d found “the” answer on this one. But since then, I’ve recognized that forgiveness doesn’t always work the same way – not for everybody and not necessarily in the same way for the same person across his or her lifespan.
What Forgiveness Is
Defining forgiveness is relatively easy: letting go of anger toward someone who we feel harmed us. Letting go is generally a good thing to do. Typically our anger isn’t something we’re willing and able to act on. It only keeps us in turmoil while it usually has no effect on the person who did us harm, who is likely to have gotten on with his or her life feeling little to no need for our forgiveness. More often than not then, forgiveness is something we do for ourselves.
How to Forgive: One Way to Go About It
“Love does not take offense.” These words from Corinthians 1:13 resonate with my own view of what love is. Once I’d clearly distinguished my love from my egoism and made strides toward living more from out of love, my understanding of forgiveness became as follows:
Take no offense and there’s nothing to forgive.
This understanding served me well for many years. However, these were years when no substantial harm was ever done to me. The occasional unpleasant remark that came my way in day to day life – these things didn’t tend to stick with me anyway, and to the extent that they did, I could easily let them go with a mental reminder that this wasn’t the place in me from out of which I wanted to live.
The situation became much different with the onset of an illness that would never go away and render my muscles, connective tissue, nerves and bones increasingly fragile. Here the harm done to me by others would come to include physical injury – on a few occasions, injuries that were severe enough to produce major, permanent additional limitations on my ability to function in day to day life. Those incidents that were caused most deliberately - for example, as the direct result of my health insurance's denial of benefits over the objections of my doctors - were especially hard for me to deal with.
I took offense, and struggled with this for years.
What have been your experiences around forgiveness? Any thoughts on ways to go about forgiving that you’ve found especially helpful - or unhelpful - in your past or present?
The spiritual interests of my friends Jan and Lisa include women’s spirituality. So the idea of men’s spirituality has been in the back of my mind lately.
I’ve done very little reading in this area. In googling, I came up with a lot more hits for women’s spirituality than men’s. I can think of one reason that this would be the case: I’m not that good at googling. Yet there could be another…
For the most part, men have been in charge of religious institutions for a long time. I can see where women as a group would feel a desire to explore for themselves and speak up in an area where, like many others, they’ve been relegated to second class citizenship for centuries.
I do have trouble picturing how men’s and women’s spirituality would finally end up being different. My own spiritual growth has involved “softer” qualities in the sense of being open to new, powerful experiences – in fact that’s been fundamental. Following up on them, however, especially in the early going, required such “harder” qualities as self discipline and commitment.
Has your experience been similar to this or different? Do you see anything in your spirituality that might make it particularly masculine or feminine?
On the one hand, there is our love of what we love; on the other, we also have attachments to what we love. These are not the same.
When we act from out of love, we act well. But our actions often end up doing more harm than good when we act on the basis of our attachment to what we love.
No one left a comment today!
Attached Attitudes
Attached attitude, resentful: Harrumph! Grrrr…
Attached attitude, rationalizing: Yeah, but there are probably like millions of “lurkers” out there going, “Wow, this guy is just so profound… I wouldn’t know what to say…”
Attached attitude, self reproachful: I wonder if I should deep-six this post…
Detached Attitudes
Simple detachment: My blog belongs to the Universe.
Detached attitude with attitude: My blog belongs to the Universe so see if I care…
Detached attitude, mediated by Bette Midler: From a distance the world looks blue and green, and the snow-capped mountains white...
