Quote:
Originally Posted by Frans  TheColonel, as far as I know "detachment" is the opposite of "realizing one's desires".
This is the definition of detachment according to Wikipedia: Quote: |
Detachment is a state in which a person, theoretically, overcomes his or her attachment to desire for things, people or concepts of the world and thus attains a heightened perspective.
| With that definition, it seems to me that detachment is totally incompatible with I-M (which is used by many here to get the things of their desire). |
You are confusing desire with attachment to desire. Realizing desires and attachment to desires are not the same thing. Detachment does not refer to the annihilation of wants. It refers to the separation of the self, or the identity, from the wants, fulfilled or unfulfilled, and their outcomes. You may still want things or experiences, but those desires, and more specifically the realization of those desires, ceases to be a part of your self-identification. Whether and how it happens has no impact on your self-existence.
Detachment refers equally to the identification relationship with with what you have and what you don't have (ie desires). Practice of detachment with respect to what you have can be expressed as gratitude; you separate or detach your identity from the having; you are grateful for what you have, but you don't depend on their presence for your self-existence.
In that sense, detachment is not only compatible with, but a critical aspect of LoA that the various teachers and practitioners simply describe in a different way.