Detachment

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Frans

I couldn't understand why people who said they were working on their personal development were cultivating their desires by applying I-M.

You see, when working on "personal development", many people begin by working on a piecemeal basis, focusing on very specific areas that bug them, eg "How to Lose Weight in 30 Days" or "How to Deal with Difficult Bosses" or "How to Use Microsoft Excel".

Then later they have addressed these matters and they are feeling mildly pleased with their own little achievements. They get more ambitious and then they develop a deeper interest in the underlying principles that can have wider, more general application. They move on to "How to Achieve All Your Goals" and "How to Achieve Success in Every Area of Your Life".

They will discover information like, how to define specific goals, break down them into smaller chunks, develop a plan of action, set deadlines, take action, track progress etc etc. They will apply these methods and they will achieve success. After that stage, they feel even more pleased, perhaps even a little amazed at themselves. And they get curious, and wonder if they can do even more.

Upon further investigations, they will discover little oddities like "visualisation", perhaps "self-hypnosis", and something strange called the "Recticular Activating System", or "neurolinguistic programming", perhaps "synchronicity".

By this time, their thoughts will have grown enough to attract the biggie into their lives. They have become ready. Suddenly, a synchronicity will occur. The right book will jump off the shelf, or they will stumble onto Steve Pavlina's forum, or they will hear something on the radio about Esther Hicks or "The Secret".

They will have attracted into their lives, info about the Law of Attraction.

Go and ask Steve himself. I bet this is his own path to discovering LOA.

[Antarananda]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I believe that what's being said is true. In particular, I agree with Antarananda. (I normally find myself agreeing with almost everything Antarananda says, but that's another story).

Thanks, ALG. It's a mutual feeling. I'm following your I-M experimentation progress on your blog with interest

Problem for me is that I'm not ready to pursue the path of spiritual development wholeheartedly. I think that there are different paths, but I think truly, there are very few people who can, or even try to, live every day in line with their innermost spiritual self. I'm not one of them, not yet anyway.

I'm actually in the same boat. But even the intellectual clarity and perspective helps a lot, as I'm sure you know.

Consider Maslow's hierarchy of needs. What's happening is that you can use LOA to fulfill each level of need, and when it's done, you move to the next higher level, and you use LOA there, and then you move to the next higher level, and the next higher level. Finally you are at the level of self-actualisation, when things like money, or a nice home, or respect from others etc are no longer the point.

Then you become motivated by the deeper aspects of your self. The ever-deeper aspects of your self. What that leads you to do, depends on what your deeper aspects are. Once in a while, as you operate at the level of self-actualisation, you may have what Maslow calls a peak experience.

You can think of it as briefly touching the face of God. Or a mini-enlightenment.

This is a great point! Actually, recently I've been thinking along the same lines, inspired by a teacher who is a psychiatrist who is striving to integrate the East-West schools of thought. Peak experiences are extremely valuable as a springboard to enlightenment, and complete integration of the personality leading to self-actualization is a very desirable state, of course. Maslow, in his later years, also recognized the Self-Realized state (as distinct from actualization), but did not explicitly detail how one may achieve it.

On a separate point, I believe that LOA can be a (more) direct tool in spiritual development. In fact I believe that some applications of LOA are simply meditations in themselves.


For example, in some forms of Buddhist meditation, the meditator meditates until he experiences feelings of love, compassion, kindness etc and then sustains his meditative concentration on those feelings. I feel that you could see this as a form of IM. What he is manifesting is love, compassion & kindness. He is making these attributes manifest into his reality.

(Meditation is indeed often said to have the ability to make you a kinder, more compassionate person.)

I Couldn't have said it better!

[Vicariously Yours]

Thanks, ALG. An excellent treatment on the variety of ways the LOA can be used to accomplish...well, anything we put our minds to. Including, if we so desire, spiritual enlightenment. And while I do agree with Antarananda's view that true bliss can occur only after all desires have been relinquished, I, too, am much farther down the enlightenment scale, preoccupied as I am with the more mundane aspects of life. Your post illustrates quite nicely how I can still realize considerable benefit from the LOA, exactly as it's presented by Abraham-Hicks.

And as for "detachment", until I reach the higher rungs of enlightenment and can simply let go of all of my desires, the best I can do for now is to trust--without anxiety--that those desires will be fulfilled, and to not worry about or try to control how that fulfillment will be accomplished.

Now, let's see...if I have the desire to relinquish all desires...hmmmm.

[Anagogy]

The comments about detatchment intrigued me immensely. I can't help but notice that every time I've been detatched and completely uncaring as to whether my intent is fulfilled or not, it is pretty much always fulfilled. I've noticed this so many times. In such instances, my desire is not completely gone -- I still have a preference for a certain outcome, but am also utterly content with my intent not being fulfilled.

I'm not entirely sure why this is so, but I assume it has something to do with being free from a certain "anxietousness" that often encumbers desire. For example, when most animals receive or capture something tasty, they eat it in a rush for fear that it will be taken away. When intending certain things, that we have an emotional or worried attatchment to, we normally feel that same anxiety that we won't get the object of our desire, or that it will be taken away from us. I believe this projects outwards and encumbers the enfolding reality with the manifestation of anxiety, which is rooted in fear. This results in the manifestation of lack or failure.

Also, if we overly anticipate how general goals will be fulfilled via intention, we restrict the creative flow of possibilities and oppurtunities that could aid us in the fulfillment of our desire. Obviously, this same state of anticipation wouldn't apply to a highly specific application of intent energy, like say, lifting a rock with your mind (assuming that's possible of course). But, I think, cultivating this un-attatchment to the ultimate outcome of intention manifestation is of paramount importance in mastering this ability.

Feel free to add any insights. I'm all eyes.

[Athena]

Originally Posted by Vicariously Yours

If I recall, one of the main tenets of Buddhism is that "Life is suffering." And the cause of this suffering is desire. Even if your desires are fulfilled, they inevitably give rise to more desires, which perpetuates the cycle. Hence, to eliminate suffering requires detaching from all desire. I don't think I am misunderstanding this. It is true that the enlightened Masters on this planet do not generally "run around manifesting stuff." They do not because they ostensibly do not have (or, at least, should not have) any desires. That's ANY desires. Period.

This seems diametrically opposed to the teachings of the LoA, and virtually everything proposed by the Abraham-Hicks material, all of which state that it is impossible to NOT have desires, and, in fact, it is our desires (stemming from the development of preferences, which, in turn, stem from the various contrasts and variety that exist on our plane) that are the basis for the very expansion of the All That Is. Ergo: no desires = no expansion of the Universe. Period.

It's likely someone will have a different perspective on all this, and I'd like to hear it...it might help me solve this apparent dilemma.

"Life is suffering" .... WHAT!!!??

did the Buddha say that or did someone else transcribe that?
he was just having a bad day if and when he said that


as far as I know, life is pretty blissful.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Athena

"Life is suffering" .... WHAT!!!??

did the Buddha say that or did someone else transcribe that?
he was just having a bad day if and when he said that


as far as I know, life is pretty blissful.

I'm not a Buddhist, but I believe the reason one of the tennets of Buddhism is "life is suffering" is not to say that ALL life is suffering, but to say that when you have desire that goes unfulfilled, it is suffering.

In my opinion, I think rather than seek to eliminate desire completely, we should seek to control our desires, so that we may choose them to some extent. However, on the other side of the coin, I believe if you are balanced inwardly, you will not have desires that go unfulfilled. Maybe that's what Buddhists meant, then again, maybe not.

I find the more mentally balanced I become, the more my desires reflect that. For example, if I'm at peace, I have cravings for certain types of food. And as far as I can tell from my increasing state of energy and vitality, the food that I am drawn to eat seems to improve my general well being and health.

Then again, I may just keel over tommorrow.

[Acting Like Godot]

People. Let me explain. Buddha teaches four Noble Truths.

1. Life means suffering.
2. Attachment is the origin of suffering.
3. It's possible for suffering to cease.
4. How? Follow the Eightfold Path.

In a nutshell, (1) everything is impermanent, and (2) the human mind attaches. That's why we suffer. Our minds attach to things like material possessions, physical beauty, wealth, fame, prestige, friends - and we suffer, because all these things are impermanent. That is, even if we gain them, we will lose them - but because we attach, we experience sadness, grief upon loss.

Even the self is an object of attachment. It is also a delusion, because there is no abiding self. "Self" is just an imagined concept, actually all things are connected and we are merely a part of the endless flux of the universe. Because we can't accept that, death frightens and saddens us.

However, Buddha teaches that it is possible to bring our suffering to an end. This is through the Eightfold Path. As you progress along the path, craving, desires, ignorance, delusions etc will disappear gradually.

The Eightfold Path has got to do with wisdom, ethical conduct and mental discipline.

What has this got to do with our topic? Well, the topic is detachment. Detachment is the opposite of attachment. Attachment leads to suffering. Detachment, logically, leads to the end of suffering.

Another way to look at it is - don't take anything too seriously. Everything is impermanent. You'll be dead soon anyway - or at least, this life of yours will come to an end sooner or later. So relax. Enjoy yourself. Have fun creating with your thoughts, while you're still around on this plane creating.

As Abraham-Hicks says, "Life is supposed to be fun!"

[JJH]

Nice post ALG, but I'd like to add one thing: where you have written "everything is impermanent" is this an interpretation (or opposite) of "nothing real can be threatened" ??

So, not _every_ thing is impermanent (if you consider pure-consciousness, the universe, Source Energy) things. Perhaps everything in the realm of the manifest (mind/ego) is impermanent.

[andrew]

I don't think attachment is a problem with IM.

Why? Well:

1. Attachment to the outcome implies, well, an outcome.
2. Outcome implies future result of an event.
3. Outcomes are plural, which means there are different possibilities
4. IM is thoughts of NOW, or what WILL BE in the future
5. There is no 'how' in IM, that's a process of an event, and all events have outcomes
6. So we must be able to say there are no outcomes (persay)
7. Thus, we conclude we can not be attatched, nor detached in IM because there is only one possibility of what is now.

[alexie]

this is a great thread. I think the law of attraction and the law of detachment contradict each other\

On one hand theres people who say you gotta focus on your intention and visualize it everyday , as well to anticpate and expect it come. On the the hand, you gotta detach from the outcome in order to get what you want which is quite hard to do.


If you really want somthing really bad, it is hard to stop thinking about it and to be in " dont give a dam" attitude. Does meditating and visualizing your desires everyday attachment?

What are your some of your techniques for letting go? Is it better just visualizing and meditating your desires just once and forget about it a good way to manifest things?

[starlet]

Detatchment of your desire is when you KNOW that it is yours already, you already have the inner knowledge. When you keep wanting and it is painful, you are driving it away because you are focusing on its absense, not what you actually desire. You need to let go of how it is going to come about, when it is going to come about, where it is going to come about and who will bring it about.

I'll use the example of my dream job - I know its mine, and its on its way. I'm not attatched because everytime I think about it, it almsot feels like I already have it and I'm only focusing on having it. I am not focused on when it will get here or how or any of that. The only emotions I feel about my desire are positive, which means I am detatched.

It is the negative emtions that signal attatchment, that you are attatched to the outcome.